fbpx

COMMENTS ON THE NATIONAL PEACE AND SECURITY PLAN OF 2018 – 2024.

We thank Dr. Elena Azaola Garrido for allowing Riesgos Políticos, SC, to publish the presentation she gave at the event entitled “Five Opinions on the AMLO National Peace and Security Plan,” held within the framework of the Seminar on Peace and Violence of the Colegio de México, on November 27, 2018. 

 

COMMENTS ON THE NATIONAL PLAN OF PEACE AND SECURITY 2018 – 2024. [one]

Elena Azaola [two]

 

  • I thank the Seminary very much for the valuable opportunity it gives us all to be here today. Thank you very much, Sergio.

 

  • During the last week we have witnessed an intense debate about the security policy proposed by the next government. Broadly speaking, the positions are divided into two large groups: those who consider that it is a model that militarizes and legalizes the intervention of the military in tasks of public security, which is unacceptable, and that of those who consider that, in spite of the participation of the military and that they will have the operational command of the National Guard, the conduction of security will be of a civil nature given that the Executive will maintain the supreme command. In my opinion, both groups have some reason and I will try to explain why using the image of what I characterize as a “hybrid” or “transgenic” security model.

 

  • According to the dictionary, “transgenic is an adjective that is used to designate all those living beings that have been born with their genetically altered information”. It is also, according to another definition, “an organism that has been genetically modified incorporating genes from others that develop a special function”.[3]

 

  • I use this analogy to emphasize that I think the proposed security model is a bold experiment that combines the participation and even the leading role of the armed forces in the construction of a peace process and the implementation of transitional justice mechanisms. That is why we call him transgenic or genetically altered model.

 

  • To begin with, the name assigned to the new “Secretariat for Security and Citizen Protection” reflects the desire to place itself in an advanced position, one that believes that security has as its primary function the protection of life, rights and the assets of citizens, as opposed to the traditional denomination of “Public Security”, which historically concentrated its mission in protecting order assuming that the permanence and interests of the government in turn were the only way to guarantee it. In this sense, having opted for the new denomination could mean distancing itself from that notion and placing itself on the side of a security characteristic of a democratic regime. The truth, it must be said,is that we had been slow to adopt this approach in comparison with other Latin American countries that have been applying different models of “citizen security” for more than a decade. However, what does the fact that this new Secretariat decides to cede its powers, its budget, the force it has and the command of the operations to the Secretary of Defense tell us? This is what establishes the second transitory of the Law Initiative to create the National Guard that empowers the Executive to issue the necessary provisions so that the functions foreseen in the Law of the Federal Police are gradually assumed by the National Guard and can be carried out by the National Guard. the transfer of corresponding human, material and financial resources.What does the fact that this new Secretariat decides to assign its powers, its budget, the force it has and the command of the operations to the Secretary of Defense tell us? This is what establishes the second transitory of the Law Initiative to create the National Guard that empowers the Executive to issue the necessary provisions so that the functions foreseen in the Law of the Federal Police are gradually assumed by the National Guard and can be carried out by the National Guard. the transfer of corresponding human, material and financial resources.What does the fact that this new Secretariat decides to assign its powers, its budget, the force it has and the command of the operations to the Secretary of Defense tell us? This is what establishes the second transitory of the Law Initiative to create the National Guard that empowers the Executive to issue the necessary provisions so that the functions foreseen in the Law of the Federal Police are gradually assumed by the National Guard and can be carried out by the National Guard. the transfer of corresponding human, material and financial resources.the force that counts and the command of the operatives to the Secretary of Defense? This is what establishes the second transitory of the Law Initiative to create the National Guard that empowers the Executive to issue the necessary provisions so that the functions foreseen in the Law of the Federal Police are gradually assumed by the National Guard and can be carried out by the National Guard. the transfer of corresponding human, material and financial resources.the force that counts and the command of the operatives to the Secretary of Defense? This is what establishes the second transitory of the Law Initiative to create the National Guard that empowers the Executive to issue the necessary provisions so that the functions foreseen in the Law of the Federal Police are gradually assumed by the National Guard and can be carried out by the National Guard. the transfer of corresponding human, material and financial resources.

 

  • Another big problem is the scheme proposed by the next government to implement security policies in the entities, placing the state coordinators of the federal government at the head and subjecting them to the state authorities, which has generated great discontent and dissatisfaction. between the governors. “This disdain,” said a group of governors, “is unacceptable to us, because it not only jeopardizes these objectives, but it is inconceivable a fundamental solution to the problem of insecurity and crime in the country, without the effective concurrence of governments.” state. “[4] This anticipates possible conflicts in the implementation of the security model, although we can not fail to note that the concurrence mentioned by the governors is the same that so many times the current government claimed them without having achieved greater results.

 

  • On the other hand, it must be said that today in our country there is a good amount of data, official figures and diagnoses that the National Plan ignores or, at least, does not mention. For example, if one analyzes the reports that the National Commission of Human Rights gives annually, we can state that, from 2006 to date, the members of the Armed Forces have been identified as responsible for 70% of the cases of enforced disappearance, torture and extrajudicial executions. In addition, the Secretary General of the World Organization Against Torture recently said: “Torture is a predictable risk and there is evidence of this everywhere. How many more cases of torture are required for the lesson to be learned?”[5] In this regard, the Plan only says that “no one will be tortured, disappeared or killed by a State security corps”. However, it does not say how it will eradicate these practices that are part of the daily routine and the DNA of the institutions of security and law enforcement, as shown, for example, by the recent survey carried out by INEGI in prisons in which it points that 57% of the persons deprived of their liberty provided detailed information on how they were tortured, mainly at the time of their arrest.

 

  • Faced with this, it is true that the Plan states that the National Guard, which may collaborate as an auxiliary to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, will not be able to take detainees to military installations and that, should any element commit crimes classified as crimes, it will have to be judged by civil authorities. However, as of the ruling on the Radilla Case, this provision is already in force without this having had a greater effect in that the cases of torture had been effectively investigated and punished and that this practice had been eradicated. It also points out the Plan that, to the elements assigned to this new corporation, will be taught, among others, human rights courses and protocols on the legitimate use of force,what has also been done for more than a decade with the results that we all know.

 

  • As to how the National Guard will be integrated, what has been announced is that about 36 thousand military police, 10 thousand naval police and 37 thousand federal police will be incorporated into it. To them will be added 50 thousand elements that it is proposed to recruit and train in a span of three years. This proposal announces uncertain results for several reasons. First, because the military and naval police are little different from the military and sailors who have participated in operations in recent years, with the regrettable results we all know. Second, because it is not clear why, if there are doubts about the performance of the Federal Police, it is proposed to incorporate it into the National Guard. And, third, as regards the 50 thousand new elements that it is planned to recruit,The magnitude of the challenges and costs of a rigorous selection, recruitment, training and certification process such as those required to ensure the success of this new corporation do not seem to have been gauged. Nor does it seem clear that the functions and training required by the military and police are different and that it is not advisable to improvise, hurry or take lightly the training of those who will have the safety of citizens in their hands.rush or take lightly the training of those who will have in their hands the safety of citizens.rush or take lightly the training of those who will have in their hands the safety of citizens.

 

  • It should be noted, on the other hand, that no one has put into question until now the good intentions of the Plan and that they have not generated debate, perhaps because they arouse greater sympathy. I am referring to the points related to: eradicating corruption; guarantee employment, education, health and well-being; respect and promote human rights; recover and dignify the prisons and modify the policy regarding the fight against drugs. These proposals seem to point to a concept, appropriate from my point of view, in which security is much more than the fight against organized crime, as they seem unfortunately conceived the two previous six years. In contrast, it is clear that the new government understands that security requires greater and better coordination and harmony with social policies,economic and cultural factors in order to achieve their objectives. However, achieving each of the goals mentioned, imposes major challenges that the Plan does not contemplate since it only states the purposes, but is not concerned with developing the strategies or the concrete actions required to achieve them, nor does it mention of the diagnoses and the evidences on which these proposals are based. The goals are, of course, worthy of attention, but the means are not clear nor are the indicators required to measure progress and evaluate the results. It is thereforebut it does not deal with developing the strategies or the concrete actions required to achieve them, nor does it mention the diagnoses and the evidence on which these proposals are based. The goals are, of course, worthy of attention, but the means are not clear nor are the indicators required to measure progress and evaluate the results. It is thereforebut it does not deal with developing the strategies or the concrete actions required to achieve them, nor does it mention the diagnoses and the evidence on which these proposals are based. The goals are, of course, worthy of attention, but the means are not clear nor are the indicators required to measure progress and evaluate the results. It is thereforethat , while we can all agree with good wishes and with the need to modify the security policies of recent years, there will surely be more disagreements regarding the ” hows “: that is, what is required to achieve each one of them. the proposed goals.

 

  • I mention other purposes that the Plan refers to and that seem right to me: to attack the causes that are at the root of the spiral of violence and not only its consequences; deal with white collar crimes; broaden the sovereignty of individuals and collectivities; to move from a vengeful authority to a just one; dignify prisons and promote social reintegration programs. However, again, the ” hows ” are absent.

 

  • With regard to the proposal to undertake a process of building peace and “adopting models of transitional justice that guarantee the rights of victims,” ​​we can not help asking: how to make this process compatible with that of the extension of the powers and the granting of the operational command of the National Guard to the Armed Forces? How to make one purpose compatible with the other when, as the national and international human rights organizations have insistently pointed out, the participation of these forces in security tasks during the last few years has not managed to reduce insecurity or violence and Yes, on the other hand, have human rights violations multiplied?[6] Could it be that the new victims that might come to produce this policy in the hands of a militarized National Guard are planned to be channeled to the office next door, that is, to the one that will be in charge of the truth commissions and mechanisms of transitional justice?

 

  • In short, the challenge is: how to put together the pieces of this hybrid or transgenic model, which is made up of organisms whose DNA seems incompatible: some inclined toward the continuity of war, while others advocated to build peace?… I refuse to speculate on what the result of this proposal may be. However, and to conclude, I can not stop celebrating the intention to change and share the dreams and hopes that we will achieve a more just, more egalitarian and less violent society in which respect for life and society prevails. dignity of all.

 

[1] Comments presented at the session of the Seminar on Peace and Violence of El Colegio de México on November 27, 2018.

[2] Anthropologist and psychoanalyst, researcher at CIESAS, eazaola@ciesas.edu.mx

[3] Encyclopedic Dictionary Vox 1, 2009 Larousse Editorial, SL

[4] An open letter to Mr. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, signed by twelve governors and published in El Universal, November 22, 2018: A9.

[5] “With the military there is a risk of torture”, Reforma, November 19, p.  6

[6] Positioning of the Advisory Council of the CNDH on the National Plan for Peace and Security 2018-2024, El Universal, November 23, 2018: A15.

Follow by Email
Twitter
Visit Us
Follow Me
LinkedIn
Share

Leave a Reply