As the agreements and decisions made between the “Three Amigos” in the highly secretive Montebello talks continue to seep through to media, one issue of major concern is the publicly announced “Plan Mexico”, so-called because of its symmetry with the infamously failed Plan Colombia. The Plan is being negotiated bilaterally between the United States and Mexico, proposing to provide between 800 million to one billion dollars in military aid to assist Mexico’s Cadlerón administration in its “War on Drugs”. The Plan is intended to combat the narco-trafficking cartels and the consequent violence which the drug trade generates in the country. According to the Washington Post (Wednesday, August 8, 2007, “U.S. Anti-Drug Aid Would Target Mexican Cartels”, Manual Roig-Franzia and Juan Forrero), in this last year alone, some 3,000 lives were claimed by the violence created by confrontations between drug cartels as well as national military and police forces in combat.

The concerns surrounding the Plan include the threat of a further militarization of the country’s deep-seated social and economic problems. Although both US and Mexican officials have clarified that Mexico prohibits US military training in the country, and this will continue, the Plan would include aid for military technology including phone-tapping, radar tracking of air shipments and aircraft to boost the Mexican military’s capacity to respond to increasingly advanced technology used by the cartels. Much attention is being focused on the major differences between Plan Colombia and the proposed Plan Mexico, those being: i) no military troops will be sent to Mexico-- the Plan is exclusively designed to send military aid; ii) the United States is committing to combat drug consumption within the domestic borders. Other important differences between the Mexico deal and the Colombian situation is that while Mexico is combating drug cartels, Colombia is ravaged by a 60 year internal armed conflict, rooted in social and economic inequalities.

These differences, however, do not change the many similarities between the proposed Plan Mexico and Plan Colombia. Nor do they alter the fact that the United States is embarking on a new path of foreign intervention in the Americas, its under-current being a strengthening of the capacity of military forces to combat the “internal enemy” and taking on policing roles in domestic security issues, as well as assuring secure environments for its foreign investment. As the Plan promotes an extension of the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI), which analysts in Mexico have dubbed a “militarization of NAFTA”, it also is feared to generate more dependence on the United States in sensitive matters of national security. As Carlos Fazio of La Jornada notes, “given the great asymmetry in relations between the United States and Mexico, the trans-nationalization and militarization of “joint efforts” imposed by Washington through pressure and blackmail mean a major cession of sovereignty by Mexico”, (Carlos Fazio, “La Sombra del ASPAN”, La Jornada, August 27, 2007).

Although exact amounts have not yet been disclosed, Rep. Henry Cueller (D-Texas) who has already proposed legislation providing more aid to Mexico is optimistic of a large sum: “I’m sure that it’s going to be hundreds of millions of dollars. If we’re going to be successful in cutting out that cancer over there, we’re going to have to invest a large amount” (interview, Washington Post, Wednesday, August 8, 2007, “U.S. Anti-Drug Aid Would Target Mexican Cartels”, Manual Roig-Franzia and Juan Forrero). It is as of yet still unclear whether the Bush administration will push for an emergency supplemental appropriation for next year’s foreign aid budget, or wait another year.

Another concern is the focus on the border. The Plan contemplates greater military presence on both sides of the border to combat traffickers bringing goods into the US. While the proposed plan suggests nothing around immigration issues, a greater militarization of the Mexico-United States border causes concern around the subsequent establishment of a military strategy to discourage immigration into the Northern country. This would put into even greater risk the lives of those Mexicans who cross the border every day, hundreds of whom die every year in the attempt.

In response, MCC and its constituency should keep various issues in mind in our analysis:
1. Militarization is an unacceptable strategy to combat any social and economic issues. While the debate concerning ways of confronting the serious problems of drug trafficking is contentious and multifaceted, MCC cannot condone any military intervention – direct or indirect – to respond to complex problems of social exclusion and economic disparity.
2. Notwithstanding the differences between Plan Colombia and the proposed Plan Mexico, Plan Colombia must be understood as an utterly failed foreign policy of the United States in their “war against drugs” and in no part should be duplicated. Rather, it should be looked upon for what it is: a military plan which has exacerbated the armed conflict in Colombia, creating more displacement and political repression in the years of its implementation and being an astronomically irresponsible waste of tax-payers’ money.
3. The under-current of assuring a secure environment for foreign investment in the country is a worrisome indication of the developing foreign policy agenda of the United States and Canada in the Americas. We should be aware that corporate North America has a significant voice in the establishment of our governments’ foreign policies and the Christian consumer should contemplate taking steps to offset the need for increased out-sourcing to developing countries where the risks of labor and human rights abuses against workers are great.
4. Plan Mexico should be debated in public spaces, with representatives of civil society from both the United States and Mexico, and not negotiated behind closed doors as NAFTA was.
5. Plan Mexico should NOT be implemented as it stands, and if implemented, should necessarily include programs for judicial reform, police training and capacity building, as well as social and economic development components to offset the attraction of the drug trade to Mexican nationals subject to unemployment and poverty.

Friends,

The time has come to act once again, in the name of our Lord, the Christ of Justice, Peace and Dignity for all. An MCC partner, JUSTAPAZ was broken into last week in a clearly politically motivated act meant to compromise the work of the organization and church partners working in human rights and peace-building, and to bring terror to the hearts of those committed to working for a just peace in Colombia. We ask that you respond faithfully and solidarity with our brothers and sisters working for hope in the midst of darkness, being salt and light in a world of confusion and fear. See the Comuniquè below and the following letters to act on behalf of the organization and the church. 

Although we may not see hope, we have faith that the war will end and justice and peace will prevail. 

Justapaz
CENTRO CRISTIANO DE JUSTICIA, PAZ Y ACCION NOVIOLENTA

Urgent Action June 14, 2007

The Christian Center for Justice, Peace and Nonviolent Action, Justapaz, which is a program of the Mennonite Church of Colombia, reports that before dawn on the 14^th of June, 2007, its office was broken into and two computers were stolen. These computers contained sensitive information on people and churches that are active in work for peace and human dignity, and on people from churches that are victims and witnesses to human rights violations. The perpetrators of this criminal act apparently entered through the roof in the rear of the building before 3 am and tore out the wiring of the alarm system, although the alarm went off. They passed by 9 other computers, telephones, a safe, etc., and removed two specific computers located at the other end of the office. They also broke into the desk of the coordinator for a program for protection of persons at risk. Eye-witnesses in the neighborhood reported that soon after the time of the break-in, police officers stopped two men carrying a computer, at the intersection of Calle 33-A and Avenida Caracas, near the office, but as of yet there is no information as to whether they are still being held or whether the police retrieved the computer. Police officers came to the office in response to the security alarm; however, the Crime Scene Investigation Unit of the Attorney General’s Office (Cuerpo Tecnico de Investigacion de la Fiscalia General de la Nacion) did not arrive until 5-1/2 hours after they were alerted. After the CSI officer examined the scene, he indicated there were no fingerprints and suggested that the responsible party had used gloves or wiped off the fingerprints, and therefore there was no point in a specialist gathering that information.

This attack occurred 12 days after the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s office, which provides international accompaniment to the Comunidad de Paz of San José de Apartado, was broken into and a computer was stolen. Similarly, in January of this year (2007), the office of the Permanent Assembly of Civil Society for Peace was broken into and one computer was taken, which contained sensitive information on participants and organizations, photographs, and documentation of their activities. This attack against Justapaz repeats a pattern of human rights violations which give evidence that the perpetrators have precise knowledge of the office and use sophisticated procedures to gain access to specific information, which in turn puts people, organizations, and churches at risk. It is significant that this is the first time that a church is subjected to this type of attack in relation to its work for peace, human rights and the safety of victims and potential witnesses to human rights violations. This violation takes place in the context of the governmental policy of ‘democratic security’, and of the reluctance of US Congress to approve the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia, in part because of doubts about the Colombian government’s human rights record.

The Christian Center for Justice, Peace and Nonviolent Action, Justapaz, which is a program of the Mennonite Church of Colombia promotes initiatives in nonviolence, conflict resolution, peace education and action, and the documentation of human rights violations suffered by churches as well as church activities for life with dignity. In carrying out its work, Justapaz supports the activities of Mennonite churches, other churches, and social and community organizations working for human rights and peace.

Justapaz and the Mennonite Church of Colombia reaffirm their commitment to nonviolence, justice and peace, which they understand as part of their calling to follow Jesus and to work for God’s vision of a society that resolves its differences nonviolently, guarantees the right to life with dignity for all, protects the victims and the general population against all armed action, and promotes solutions to the armed conflict within a framework of truth, justice, the call to repentance, reparation and reconciliation.

Requested actions:

• Call on the Colombian authorities to:
• Take all appropriate steps to identify and prosecute the persons who committed this act and those that sponsored its planning and execution.
• Take a clear stance against this crime and in support of the work of organizations and churches for human rights, peace and social initiatives, and to take all necessary steps to be in full compliance with the applicable provisions of the Colombian Constitution and of the international conventions which Colombia has signed.
• Implement appropriate measures for the full protection of freedom of worship and for the absolute respect of church sites and places of worship.
• Call on the governments of other countries to communicate with the Colombian government the aforementioned actions, and that these governments make human rights requirements a central consideration in determining assistance and/or agreements with the Colombian government.
• As churches, organizations, government officials and individuals, reaffirm the commitment to working for nonviolent solutions to the armed conflict; to giving priority attention to persons, families, churches and organizations that have been victimized; to promoting judicial processes that identify and hold fully responsible those persons that have violated or contributed to the violation of human rights, that promote the full dismantling of the structures of corruption and violence, and that contribute to processes of repentance and reparation a that lead to change and reconciliation; and to the enactment of public policies that give priority to investment in education, healthcare, housing and other areas that contribute to conditions of life with dignity for all.
• As people and communities of faith, pray for strength and clarity to stand firm in the commitment to God’s vision for a society characterized by nonviolence, peace and human dignity. Pray, also, for those responsible for this attack, that they will turn themselves in, repair the damage, and change their lives.

Send communications to:
 
In Canada:

Mr. Matthew Levin
Ambassador to Colombia
Carrera 7 #115-33 A.A.53531
Bogotá, Colombia
Fax: (57)-1-657-9912
Matthew.Levin@international.gc.ca

Peter MacKay,
Minister of Foreign Affairs
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6 8
(613) 992-6022
MacKay.S@parl.gc.ca

Ms. Christine Climenhage,
Desk Officer: Colombia, Ecuador, Caribbean, Central America and Andean
Region Division
Lester B. Pearson Building
125 Sussex Dr.
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0G2
(613) 995-1541
Christine.climenhage@international.gc.ca

Stewart Wheeler,
Counsellor (Political) Canadian Embassy, General Relations,
Fax: (57-1) 657-9910
E-mail: bogota@international.gc.ca

In the US:
Chargé d’ Affaires Milton Drucker
United States Embassy Bogotá
Calle 22D-Bis # 47-51
Bogotá, D.C.
Tel: (571) 315-0811
Fax: (571) 315-2171 / 2190
E-mail: AmbassadorB@state.gov

Jonathan D. Farrar
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Department of State
Phone: 202-647-2590 Fax: 202-647-5283
with copy to Jennie Muñoz, Program Officer, at the same numbers

Contact information for Members of the U.S. Congress can be found at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
********************************
Sample letter to the State Department (US) and Department of Foreign Affairs (Canada) and to the US and Canadian Embassies in Colombia

June 2007

Dear ________,

I am writing today to express my deep concern for the security and safety of the Justapaz staff, their regional partners, including local churches, due to an apparently politically motivated robbery in the early morning of Thursday, June 14, 2007. Justapaz is the Christian Center for Justice, Peace and Nonviolent Action and is a program of the Colombian Mennonite Church.

Just before 3am unknown assailants broke into the Justapaz office, disabled the alarm system and proceeded to steal two computers with extremely sensitive human rights information. The assailants were apparently focused on these computers with sensitive information on human rights cases and local churches working for peace as they left other items of value behind including eight other computers, a fax machine and the organization’s safe. All evidence suggests that this was a politically motivated crime. The Justapaz staff, their partners and local churches could be at increased risk due to this attack.

This attack comes in the wake of a series of similar attacks against national and international human rights organizations and suggests an alarming pattern. Less than two weeks ago the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s Bogotá office was similarly attacked, with a computer with sensitive information regarding their work with the San Jose de Apartado Peace Community stolen. In the past year similar actions were carried out against the Asamblea Permanente de la Sociedad Civil por la Paz and the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES).

Therefore, I respectfully ask you to contact the appropriate Colombian government officials, including the President, Vice-President and the Ministry of Defense, asking them to:

• Take any and all steps necessary to identify and prosecute the material and intellectual authors of these crimes.
• Take a clear and public position rejecting these crimes and for respect for organizations and churches working for human rights, peace and community organization while fully applying the constitutional guarantees regarding these groups and activities as well as those in international treaties of which Colombia is a signatory.
• Take measures to guarantee the right to religious freedom and the absolute respect for church buildings.

Sincerely,
Name
City, State
Country
*****************************************
Sample letter to members of Congress or Parliament:

June 2007

Dear ________,

I am writing today to express my deep concern for the security and safety of the JUSTAPAZ staff, their regional partners, including local churches due to an apparently politically motivated robbery in the early morning of Thursday, June 14, 2007. Justapaz is the Christian Center for Justice, Peace and Nonviolent Action and is a program of the Colombian Mennonite Church.

Just before 3 a.m. unknown assailants broke into the JUSTAPAZ office, disabled the alarm system and proceeded to steal two computers with extremely sensitive human rights information. The assailants were apparently focused on these computers with sensitive information on human rights cases and local churches working for peace as they left other items of value behind including eight other computers, a fax machine and the organization’s safe. All evidence suggests that this was a politically motivated crime. The JUSTAPAZ staff, their partners and local churches could be at increased risk due to this attack.

This attack comes in the wake of a series of similar attacks against national and international human rights organizations and suggests an alarming pattern. Less than two weeks ago the Fellowship of Reconciliation’s Bogotá office was similarly attacked, with a computer with sensitive information regarding their work with the San Jose de Apartado Peace Community stolen. In the past year similar actions were carried out against the Asamblea Permanente de la Sociedad Civil por la Paz and the Consultancy for Human Rights and Displacement (CODHES).

Therefore, I respectfully ask you to contact the Colombian Embassy and the State Department /Department of Foreign Affairs to ensure that the Colombian government:

• Take any and all steps necessary to identify and prosecute the material and intellectual authors of these crimes.
• Take a clear and public position rejecting these crimes and for respect for organizations and churches working for human rights, peace and community organization while fully applying the constitutional guarantees regarding these groups and activities as well as those in international treaties of which Colombia is a signatory.
• Take measures to guarantee the right to religious freedom and the absolute respect for church buildings.

Sincerely,
Name
City, State
Country

 Let's talk advocacy

Advocacy at MCC – What’s it all about?? 

As MCC continues to define itself organizationally, the opportunity is ideal to bring up the question of how we do advocacy and how we can do it better, as is the moment to analyze the history of the organization and how advocacy has been done in the past. As an initial invitation into this conversation, I'm presenting a few speaking points to discuss: identity, definitions and future projections. These are the 3 areas of discussion that I feel most pertinent at this moment. However, if there are other issues that folks feel strongly should be included in this discussion, I welcome suggestions. 

1. Who are we? What do we stand for?

One of the things that has continued to strike me as interesting as I learn about MCC and advocacy, is the contradiction between advocacy for self-benefit, and advocacy for the benefit of others in the Anabaptist community. After thinking that we, as a church, just weren't good at advocacy, I was pleasantly surprised that actually, we are very good at it; when the issue affects us directly. Conscription, Forced education in English, agricultural concerns - these issues have gotten us organized and protesting quickly, efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, when the issues concern brothers and sisters in far away lands, it is more challenging to get organized around the issues and respond in Christ-like ways.

 In the Mennonite Confession of Faith, Article 23, there is clear reference to the church as God's "holy nation", the word "church" actually being derived directly from the Greek word, meaning "town meeting". Church is inherently political and in our Confession of Faith we have clearly articulated that "...Christians are responsible to witness to governments not only because of their citizenship in a particular country, but also in order to reflect Christ's compassion for all people and to proclaim Christ's lordship over all human institutions."  
 We should also recognize that silence is political, and silence can also give way to complicity. In our positions of being citizens of the most powerful countries in the world, with democratically elected governments representing the voice of the people, is the voice of God's people being heard? Are we being the prophetic voice that we are called to be?  Lastly, so many of the programs that MCC runs are responding to situations created by systemic issues: poverty, war, hunger, racism. These situations will continue to exist so long as the structures are not transformed. The cycle is maintained and the situation will be slow to change. MCC has done important and excellent work in community development, relief and peace-building.  But are we touching the structures to work towards ending these situations at their roots?  

2. Definitions

 To elaborate an MCC-specific working definition of advocacy, it is important to take into consideration Biblical references to advocacy and reflections of the prophets, as much of advocacy work is finding our prophetic voice and proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom of God.Some suggestions for Biblical reference are the following:Exodus 4:11 The Lord said to him, “Who gave man his mouth? Who
makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes
him blind? Is it not I the Lord? Now go, I will help
you speak and teach you what to say” Proverbs 31:8-9 Speak up for those who cannot speak
for themselves, for the rights of all who are
destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the
rights of the poor and needy.Jeremiah 22:13-16
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,
his upper rooms by injustice, making his country
countrymen work for notion, not paying them for their
labor. He says, I will build myself a great palace
with spacious upper rooms. So hi makes large windows
in it, panels it with cedar and decorates it in red.
Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?
Did not your father have food and drink? He did what
was right and just, so all went well with him. He
defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all
went well. Is that not what it means to know me?James 2: 14-17 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. There are many definitions of advocacy, and without getting into the technicalities, I present 2 that I particularly like: A) Advocacy is the pursuit of influencing outcomes – including public policy and resource-allocation decisions within political, economic and social systems and institutions – that directly affect people’s lives.            Advocacy consists of organized efforts and actions based on the reality of “what is.” These organized actions seek to highlight critical issues that have been ignored or submerged, to influence public attitudes, and to enact and implement laws and public policies so that visions of “what should be” in a just, decent society become a reality. Human rights (Kingdom values) – political, economic, and social – is an overarching framework for these visions.             Advocacy has purposeful results: to enable social justice advocates to gain access and voice in the decision making of relevant institutions; to change the power relationships between these institutions and the people affected by their decisions, thereby changing the institutions themselves; and to result in a clear improvement in people’s lives.[1]
 B)  “[Rights-based advocacy is] an organized political process that involves the coordinated efforts of people to change policies, practices, ideas and values that perpetuate inequality, prejudice and exclusion.”-         from a review of ‘A New Weave of Power, People & Politics:  The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen participation’   I'd like to work with these two definitions, and form our own definition.  A first step may be taking the definition that Peter Dula and Alain Epp-Weaver formulated in their article on MCC and Humanitarianism in the July-Sept Peace Office Newsletter: “Advocacy, whether by MCC or Human Rights Watch, need
have little to do with ‘perpetual peace’ or even ‘a
fairer world.’ Advocacy, or better, witness, is an end
in itself. There are times when one speaks only
because on cannot remain silent, not because of any
hope that one’s words will bring about change.…When we
live among the people and make ourselves vulnerable to
them; when we are ready to share power with them, to
engage them as concrete men and women rather than
objectify them into ‘anonymous humanity,’ then it will
naturally flow that we will tell their stories and the
way their stories crisscross with the stories of
MCCers to whomever will listen from congregations to
newspaper readers to congresspersons. Such advocacy
emerges out of relationships forged over years, even
decades…”One of the key points for advocacy at MCC should be mutual transformation. It is not only about policies, or ‘perpetual peace’ as Alain and Peter point out, rather a transformation of mind and spirit towards the will of God and God’s will for the world.3. Projections for the FutureIdeally, the objective of advocacy is to change something for a better future. So, as MCC, what do we think about social and political change? What would the world look like in 50 years if it were up to MCC?  Who or what needs to change?Where does that change come from? Who should be pushing for the change?  Is it the partners at a grassroots level in "developing" countries? Or is it a local governmental change that needs to happen? Or is it an outside government that needs to change its policies?Or is our grassroots constituency in Canada and the US the motor of that change? Or is it some combination of these elements?What do we really think we're working towards? At what level do we work?
These are some initial discussion points for this convoluted and difficult, yet I believe enlightening and invigorating conversation.

[1] David Cohen, et al. Advocacy for Social Justice: A Global Action and Reflection Guide, (Bloomfield, CT: Oxfam America and Advocacy Institute, 2001) 

At the moment, while I'm getting things set up here,

please visit www.mcclatinamerica.blogspot.com to read the latest thoughts on advocacy in Latin America with MCC.

 Hasta Pronto