The Migrant Caravan

A political tactic in the lead to elections

The notion of a group of migrants walking their way from Central America north to Mexico, and the United States is true. However, this is not necessarily a new phenomenon. For decades, people from Central America have been migrating north to the United States in search of security and prosperity. Questions remain regarding the nature of their origin and the reasons for their travelling, and why, if this has been going on for decades, is so important now.

First, their origins. The current caravan of migrants began in Honduras, a nation that has been experiencing turmoil since a coup d’état in 2009, but more on this below. What, most recently, began as a collection of approximately 160 people from a town in western Honduras, had grown through October to include more than 4 000 people, though numbers are estimated to be lower, as some migrants are becoming disillusioned with the trek or they find other opportunities. Due to the unofficial nature of the caravan, the numbers are hard to make out and are difficult to maintain as they move from town to town and across the national borders of Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico. Some outlets have reported that the numbers have swelled with the rise of media awareness of the caravan, no doubt buoyed by the breathless alarmist pre-election warnings of President Trump.

Hondurans have been moving out of their home country since 2009, when the nation underwent a coup d’état which deposed democratically elected President Manuel Zalaya. Zelaya, largely seen as a progressive and reformist politician, oversaw modest economic reforms in Honduras and was charged with violating the constitution of Honduras by calling for a referendum over the constitution (the nature of the change is somewhat contested). Instead, the Supreme Court of Honduras issued a secret warrant for his arrest and had the army jail the president. The interim president, previously the head of the Honduran Congress, Roberto Micheletti exiled Manuel Zelaya. A new and widely derided election was held, electing a right-wing president, Pepe Lobo Sosa, who would take office and usher in waves of pro-business policy amid crackdowns of protests by community, union, and grassroots organizers. 

Between 2009 and 2015, 118 people were murdered and Honduras became the most dangerous country for environmental activists, according to Global Witness. Since 2009, 30 LGBTQ people have been murdered a year, compared to two a year from 1994 to 2008. The breakdown of a competent government has also seen the growth and expansion of organized crime and led to Honduras becoming the most violent country outside of a war zone in the world since the removal of Zelaya. 

Trends of poverty reduction and increasing prosperity also quickly reversed following the coup; poverty rising 13.2%, extreme poverty 26%, and unemployment rising from 6% to 14% between 2008 and 2012.

Zelaya has been allowed to return to Honduras, but some observers have pointed to the fact that during his exile, his attempts to garner international recognition of his ousting as a military coup were frustrated by then Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton. Secretary Clinton supported the military coup by refusing to acknowledge the ousting of Zelaya as a coup. Clinton is also known to have worked behind the scenes to expedite a new election without the participation of ousted President Zelaya, as found in a leaked correspondence between Secretary Clinton and US Embassies internationally. As in many cases of political and economic upheaval in Central and South America, American foreign policy has played a role.

The migrant caravan itself became a news item largely due to Fox News reporting of it on October 15, which was then retweeted by President Donald Trump, who, for a myriad of reasons, believed it would bolster support for his border wall. President Trump has made many claims about the migrant caravans, many outright lies as fact checked by a number of sources, not the least of which is that the caravan is populated by terrorists from the Middle East and members of ISIS. 

It has also been pointed out that the mass-coverage of the migrant caravan has corresponded with the midterm elections on November 6, and with the midterms completed, the coverage and Trump remarking on it have fallen off, revealing it to have been a political tactic in the lead to elections.

The Logic & Danger of Trump’s latest Political Move

U.S. President threatens to pull out of Cold War nuclear treaty

President Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty last month, on October 20. The president has decided to abandon the treaty due to purported violations by Russia, the second signatory to the bilateral agreement. While a withdrawal from the treaty may seem logical to counter the reported nuclear development by Russia, Trump’s decision may put global security at risk.

The INF treaty was signed in 1987, between former presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. It eliminated Soviet and American short and intermediate range land-based nuclear and conventional missiles in Europe, essentially eliminating an entire category of nuclear weapons. Along with other treaties like the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, the INF treaty helped bring an end to the arms race between the two countries and signalled the end of the Cold War.

The very reason why Trump wants to scrap the INF is similar to the reason why it was signed in the first place – the threat of nuclear strikes in Europe. Trump has accused Russia of violating the treaty by developing a ground-launched nuclear system that could reach continental Europe without much warning. Similarly, in 1987, the INF treaty was signed after the Soviets deployed short-range ballistic missiles that could target NATO alliance members with little notice. In a sense, Trump’s decision to pull out of the treaty is a logical move to confront, once again, a perceived threat of a Russian nuclear presence in Europe.

Beyond expanded ground-based launch systems, Trump’s move to withdraw from the treaty may have been spurred by Russia’s increasing interest in upgrading their nuclear arsenal. Earlier this year, Putin announced the development of two new nuclear delivery systems, one of which is a hypersonic system that could evade existing missile defense systems. Since Russia seems to be expanding its nuclear capabilities, although its claims have not been verified yet, it is only rational for Trump to turn towards the time-tested nuclear deterrent.  

Withdrawing from the INF treaty could have other benefits for the United States, such as signing new treaties between Russia, China, and other emerging nuclear powers that regulate what types of nuclear weapons are acceptable. One of Trump’s reasons for scrapping the treaty is to attempt to coerce China into signing a similar agreement, since it too has been expanding its nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately, the suggestion of a multilateral nuclear treaty may be a fool’s errand; China has condemned Trump’s decision to unilaterally leave the INF treaty, which does not bode well for the chances of a treaty between the United States and China.

Critics of Trump’s announcement to leave the INF treaty say that his actions could lead to another arms race and further destabilization in international politics. Gorbachev himself wrote, “The United States has in effect taken the initiative in destroying the entire system of international treaties and accords that served as the underlying foundation for peace and security following World War II.” in his op-ed piece about Trump’s decision in the New York Times. Scrapping one nuclear treaty could lead down the slippery slope that sees the abandonment of multiple nuclear weapons control treaties, and the beginning of a renewed nuclear arms race.

There have also been mixed reactions from allies of the United States after Trump’s announcement. Britain’s defense minister Gavin Williamson voiced his support for the United States’ withdrawal from the INF treaty. 

On the other hand, Germany, France, the EU have expressed concerns about an arms race and the implications for NATO. While Trump seems to be reacting to emerging security threats, he may leave the INF treaty with little support from the majority of his allies, as they try to stabilize power shifts in global politics without resorting to deterrence through mutually assured destruction.

Overall, Trump’s decision to potentially withdraw the United States from the INF treaty should come as no surprise given his track record of treaty withdrawals and coercive behaviour during his time in office. 

Regardless of outcome, it is imperative that the president carefully weigh the risk of emerging nuclear powers and Russia’s aggression against the global costs of resuming nuclear arms races before formally tearing up the INF treaty.

Politics as Usual

In the wake of yet another school shooting in the United States, is gun control around the corner?

On February 14, Nikolas Cruz walked onto the grounds of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida and opened fire. The school shooting only lasted a few minutes, leaving 17 people dead, others injured, and the rest of the school to be evacuated room by room. It has been declared one of the deadliest school shootings since 2012 in the United States, and there have already been more school shooting incidents since.

The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is being hailed as different. This time, the survivors have themselves started a protest movement to prevent more school shootings. Already, they’ve protested at Florida’s capital Tallahassee, taken to social media with the hashtag #NeverAgain and have even caused some retailers to boycott the NRA. But is it going to be enough to get gun reform or to topple the NRA?

President Trump has already stated he might change the age for buying a gun up to 21, address mental health issues and prohibit the sales of bump stocks. But he also has received significant funding from the NRA and has the generally pro-gun Republican party to contend with. Furthermore, the president’s word isn’t incredibly reliable these days given he could tweet a curveball policy change on gun laws at 2am if he felt like it.

There is however hope that companies boycotting the NRA or refusing to sell guns at their stores will help put some pressure on gun reform laws. While corporations like Walmart do have sway if they change the age required to buy guns in store, airlines like Delta are already facing the consequences of boycotting the NRA by losing tax exemptions in Georgia. Not to mention boycotting the NRA and refusing to sell guns doesn’t get rid of the guns already purchased and won’t be very effective unless most companies are following suit.

Some of the alternative solutions seem to be promising as well, like having more mental health support. While mental health issues do play a role in some school shootings, it is one factor among many that causes these tragedies. Notably, mental health issues are often used as the scapegoat justifying why white males are school shooters, while in turn people of colour and other minorities are immediately labelled terrorists or criminals instead.

Arming teachers isn’t really a viable solution either. It’s not just a matter of getting firearm training; it’s a matter of potentially having to shoot your own student and making schools more like prisons than places of instruction. It also asks teachers and administrators to take on another role in an education system where some schools have barely enough funding to keep the buildings from falling down. Not to mention giving teachers guns seems like an underhanded way to make double the profits from gun sales – by selling to the teachers and potential school shooters.

What about implementing stricter gun laws, more extensive background checks or requiring firearm education before you can purchase one? Unfortunately, the NRA stills holds a considerable amount of lobbying power in the United States, especially at a time of great political cleavages. There is a ray of hope that in the upcoming midterm elections, more Democrats will be elected and that they can push through stricter gun control laws.

Gun control in the United States remains a complex issue with many proposed solutions that will take years to implement, on any political level. But now, politicians will have to contend with younger generations savvy with social media, with access to information and that grew up in fear of their school being the next victim of a school shooting. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting and subsequent protests are a tipping point to have these young voices push politicians to act and could inspire change.

So, to the outstanding young Americans protesting to get gun reform, there’s a long road ahead. Despite that, know that you have already brought about change in your actions. One day, Washington might realize that it is inexcusable to support a system that threatens the lives of youth trying to get an education.

---