María Consuelo Porras, Guatemala’s Attorney General Person of the Year in Organised Crime and Corruption

The Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) annually bestows the award ‘Person of the Year in Organised Crime and Corruption’ on those who have done most to bolster corruption and the political collusion that accompanies it. OCCRP is one of the few outlets equipped to investigate these key enablers of corruption. 

Since 2012, they have bestowed this annual award on those who’ve done the most to bolster corruption and the political collusion that accompanies it. In the past, this dubious honour has been given to colourful despots, but this year, their panel of judges voted for a dry bureaucrat who has eviscerated the rule of law in Guatemala.

Why Porras Won: Guatemala’s attorney general made international headlines earlier this year when she oversaw efforts to prevent president elect Bernardo Arévalo from assuming office, including suspending his political party and raiding the election commission.

People tend to think of failed states as being solely run by authoritarian strongmen. But today’s autocrats are often careful to not disavow democracy. Instead, they undermine its framework, including elections, the judiciary, and state institutions. Key to that strategy are people like Porras — bureaucrats who corrupt the democratic process while maintaining the illusion of normality.

Other Guatemalan corruption

(There is no shortage of it.) We are grateful to the OCCRP for their regular bulletins on crime and corruption around the world which give us a source of information normally hidden from public view in the Central American countries. Specific credit is given by the OCCRP as:

Credit: James O’Brien/OCCRP

by Jonny Wrate (OCCRP) and Bill Barreto (No Ficción)

15 December 2023

OCCRP website: https://www.occrp.org


Central American Development Bank’s Role in Guatemala’s Odebrecht Scandal

An investigation by prosecutors — including testimony from a former minister at the centre of several corruption scandals — indicates a loan from the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) may have been a key part of the Brazilian construction company’s bribery scheme.

Key findings

  • A former Guatemalan minister told anti-impunity prosecutors that he was aware bribes were offered to a CABEI director to get help securing favorable conditions for a loan to Odebrecht.
  • The former minister has since claimed that he never made a statement to prosecutors and that his testimony had been fabricated to generate conflict, but Guatemala’s anti-impunity authorities — and three sources close to the Odebrecht case — confirmed that the former minister did in fact give the testimony.
  • Reporters could not find documentary evidence that the bribe described by the minister was ever made. But an investigation by anti-impunity authorities in Guatemala found that money from CABEI’s loan to Odebrecht was allegedly used to pay bribes to the former minister and two other politicians.
  • CABEI included a clause dictating that the Guatemalan government must hire Odebrecht when it first approved the loan, then later agreed to multiple changes that added millions of dollars to the contract.
  • The minister also claimed that CABEI gave preferential treatment to a Guatemalan construction company in a related loan.

The Odebrecht corruption case has been a fixture of headlines for years in Guatemala, where the scandal-plagued Brazilian construction company was forced to repay over $17 million to the government after admitting that it bribed officials to gain a lucrative contract to renovate a major highway.

But another player in the case has largely escaped public scrutiny: the highway’s major financier, the Central American Bank for Economic Integration, or CABEI.

The bank provided the key loan to Odebrecht that allowed the project to move forward, agreeing in 2011 to lend almost $120 million to finance the longest section of Central American Highway 2, which would link El Salvador to Mexico.

Along the way, it overrode its own procurement rules to insert a clause in its loan agreement mandating that Odebrecht must receive the contract to build the highway, without the normal bidding process. Later, Odebrecht paid out millions in bribes directly from the money CABEI disbursed, according to an investigation by a UN-backed anti-corruption commission.

“Much of the corrupt diversion of funds from [CABEI’s] loans continues to be unaddressed due to the opaque and secretive policies that the bank applies to civil society groups and justice institutions that seek to know their final destination,” said Manfredo Marroquín, the president of Transparency International’s Guatemalan chapter, Acción Ciudada

The Guatemalan minister accused of personally receiving the largest chunk of the bribe money, Alejandro Jorge Sinibaldi Aparicio, turned himself in in 2020 after four years on the run. He then made an explosive statement to prosecutors that also accused a CABEI official of conspiring with Odebrecht to make sure the highway contract would be favorable to the company.

Credit: James O’Brien/OCCRP

by Jonny Wrate (OCCRP) and Bill Barreto (No Ficción)

15 December 2023

 

Honduran government faces US and corporate backlash

Readers of The Violence of Development updates must by now be used to the acronyms ICSID and ISDS after many years of following the case of Pacific Rim / Oceana Gold and the struggle against metal mining in El Salvador. For those who aren’t familiar with the sets of initials, they stand for:

ICSID: International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes – this is a branch of the World Bank, established to adjudicate between companies and governments when commercial and financial disputes arise between them.

ISDS: Investor-State Dispute Settlement.

 

After the change of government in Honduras from one that was run by organised crime and which invited transnational corporations to rape and exploit its natural and human resources to one that is relatively progressive in its attempts to make ‘development’ benefit Honduran communities, it was entirely predictable that the new government would soon find itself facing ISDS judgements from the ICSID.

In a NACLA Report, Karen Spring of the Honduras Solidarity Network (HSN) has written an account, titled as above, detailing and explaining what such settlement hearings and judgements mean for the now not-so-new Honduran government of Xiomara Castro. We are grateful to Karen for her permission to reproduce her account here in The Violence of Development website. The original article can be found at: https://www.hondurasnow.org/article-published-in-nacla-winter-2023/

 

By Karen Spring

As President Xiomara Castro’s administration works to mitigate the fallout of the post-coup years, transnational companies are lining up to sue the state for lost profits.

Seven men, all dressed in suits, gathered at an undisclosed location in Honduras, sitting around a table covered in a white tablecloth and decorated with small glass vases holding yellow flowers. At the head of the table sat Roy Perrin, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa, and to his right sat investor Erick Brimen, the CEO of a project known as ZEDE Próspera. A social media post about the meeting on X from the U.S. Embassy referenced the “investment climate” and “legal guarantees” for investors.

In reality, the men were meeting to discuss one of the most controversial projects advanced in Honduras under previous administrations, including those headed by former president and accused drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernández (JOH).

The meeting took place on September 29, 2022, just 13 days after three U.S. companies involved in ZEDE Próspera notified the Honduran government that they would seek international arbitration under the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR).

 

‘International arbitration’ before a World Bank controlled Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)

A few months later, in December 2022, the three companies filed a $10.8 billion case against the Honduran state. Like other trade agreements, CAFTA-DR allows investors to sue states for monetary damages stemming from government decisions that could negatively affect corporate investments. The arbitration suit is based on claims that President Xiomara Castro’s decision to overturn the laws that gave birth to the Economic Development and Employment Zones (ZEDEs) allegedly threatened or eliminated ZEDE Próspera’s ability to return a profit.

And while ZEDE Próspera’s visit to the U.S. Embassy in Tegucigalpa would not per se impact the arbitration suit, the ZEDE investors were looking for ways to bolster their case and credibility. Given the U.S. Embassy’s powerful influence in Honduras and its growing critique of Castro’s policies in the name of defending the pro-business status quo, the Embassy was one of the most strategic places for them to seek support.

 

Minor Reforms and Increasing Opposition

After more than a year and a half in office, Castro, the first woman president of Honduras, is confronting an increasingly well-organised national and foreign challenge to her government’s power and political platform.

In the first year of her administration, the U.S. Embassy vocally showed its disapproval for initiatives that sought to undo the worst excesses of the governments that ruled the country following the 2009 coup.

As opposition grows, the government has been weakened and undermined by what President Castro has called “the eternal enemies of democracy and a few rotten allies.” Although Castro has made no specific reference to the role of the U.S. Embassy in these efforts, inside Honduras there is little doubt that Washington supports opponents of the democratically elected government and continues to help fund elements of the growing national opposition.

For instance, USAID has maintained support to the tune of $1 million per year for the vocal public-private National Anti-Corruption Council (CNA), which Castro’s government has called “an accomplice that remained silent” in the face of corruption during the post-coup years.

Despite the U.S. government’s stated commitment to addressing the root causes of migration, on the ground in Honduras its policies continue to oppose even the smallest reforms that threaten the economic interests of foreign companies and wealthy individuals.

In 2022, Washington publicly criticized President Castro’s new Energy Law, formally called the Special Law to Guarantee Electricity as a Common Good for National Security and as an Economic and Social Human Right. The U.S. ambassador to Honduras, Laura Dogu, and the U.S. State Department claimed that the law creates uncertainty by impacting foreign investment and eliminates private trade in energy.

According to Grahame Russell, director of the U.S.- and Canada-based human rights organisation Rights Action, U.S. opposition to the Castro administration is similar to that faced by other progressive governments in Latin America. “All governments, including Castro’s, make mistakes,” he said. “But no one can doubt the little wiggle room that the Castro administration and their proposed policies have before the wealthy elite and their allies, the U.S. and Canadian governments, try to stop and undermine them.”

While the United States worries about how the Energy Law affects investment, the Honduran government argues that the legislation is beneficial for Honduras’s poor majority. The law, which entered into force in May 2022, seeks to renegotiate energy generation contracts, expecting to save the Honduran state an estimated $23.5 million while providing energy subsidies to approximately 1 million Honduran households.

The renegotiation of contracts is much-needed— the state currently pays an exorbitant price per kilowatt to private energy generation companies. Most contracts were granted and signed when accused drug trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez (“JOH”) was in office as president or head of the National Congress. Extensive corruption and illegal procedures surround at least a dozen of these contracts, according to Honduran organisations like COPINH (Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organisations of Honduras) and the Centre for Studies for Democracy (CESPAD).

Importantly, some of the major problems associated with the projects include human rights abuses and the companies’ failure to consult local communities affected by dam and solar energy initiatives. In short, the contracts have unloaded the increased cost of energy on poor Honduran consumers.

 

Corporate Collusion with a Narco-Mafia State 

After the investors behind ZEDE Próspera presented their $10.8 billion case (almost two-thirds of Honduras’s annual budget), several other foreign companies followed suit. As of early October 2023, eight other companies had submitted claims against the state of Honduras. That number does not include threats from others to present claims in the future or the few cases that had been filed against Honduras prior to Castro’s inauguration.

The impact of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms sends a strong and chilling message. In the case of Honduras, between the United States’ strong messaging about President Castro’s policies impacting the “investment climate,” and a slew of ISDS claims filed against the state, the message is clear. If the government makes changes to the pro-business, narco-dictatorship’s policies, the global political and economic structures will seek compensation, working with all the tools at their disposal to limit the administration’s ability to make reforms.

 

From ‘odious debts’ to ‘odious investments’

In other words, by undoing odious investments—to borrow the term ‘odious loans’ from the debt justice movement—political leaders will be subject to political backlash, international shaming, and large fines. Alternatives will not be permitted.

According to Jen Moore, associate fellow with the Global Economy Program at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), ISDS are neocolonial and extractivist at their core, and undermine national sovereignty of both governments and peoples’ local struggles.

“[ISDS cases] are part of the architecture of impunity with which transnational corporations, mostly from the Global North, seek to profit wildly and maintain their control over the natural commons and the economy, especially in the Global South,” she said.

The mere threat of having to make a million- or billion-dollar payout to law firms or corporations is just one component. The cases are a significant impediment for territorial defence struggles and the sort of changes that Hondurans envision for the future of their communities and country, added Moore.

As of early October 2023, the pending ISDS claims against Honduras are related to real estate, energy generation projects, highway and airport construction, finance, and last but certainly not least, ZEDEs. Although information surrounding all cases—as listed on the World Bank Group’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)—is limited, at least seven of the nine cases presented in the last year are linked to corruption claims and/or serious social and human rights conflicts in various parts of the country.

One such case involves solar energy projects based in southern Honduras. Three Norwegian entities—Scatec, a renewable energy company; Nor-fund, a state-owned development finance fund; and its partner KLP Norfund Investments, the largest pension fund in Norway—filed two separate ISDS claims against Honduras in 2023. The cases likely were presented after a failed attempt to renegotiate the energy contract under the new Energy Law. The three actors are involved in large solar energy projects in southern Honduras that have been linked to drug trafficking, murder, and criminalization of local land defenders.

One such solar project, Los Prados, has faced opposition since 2016. Since then, nearby communities arguing that they were not adequately consulted and that the solar farms affect their water and food supply have met criminalization. In April 2019, eight community leaders who were summoned by police as witnesses were arrested and accused of duress and damages (they were later released). In addition, at least one community leader active in the movement, Reynaldo Reyes Moreno, was murdered in November 2018. Honduran authorities at the time suggested that Moreno’s murder was unrelated to his opposition to the solar projects, but his community believes otherwise. No thorough investigation of his murder has been conducted.

The project involved improving an existing highway and installing toll roads in at least two places. Local residents in the cities of El Progreso and La Lima maintained a permanent protest camp at the site of one toll booth, and in 2017, all the toll booths were burned down during protests sparked by electoral fraud and the unconstitutional re-election of President JOH. After arguing that they were not properly consulted, local citizens and business owners refused to pay the tolls to use the road, which they argued was constructed with public funds prior to the concession.

Community leaders at the forefront of opposing projects subject to ISDS claims question why foreign companies that make deals with governments involved in illicit, criminal activities have the moral and political grounds to make multimillion-dollar claims for lost profits.

According to Miriam Miranda, the coordinator of the Black Fraternal Organisation of Honduras (OFRANEH), investors take advantage of institutional weakness derived in part from the infiltration of criminal interest in state institutions.

“International capital has no shame in investing and supporting a president involved in drug trafficking,” she said. “Foreign companies validated the narco-state and took advantage of the institutional weaknesses that provide a great opportunity to invest, avoid paying taxes, and have all the privileges they want.”

Miranda survived an assassination attempt in her home on September 19, 2023.

 

International Tribunals Enforce Dirty Deals

Debt justice movements use the term ‘odious debt’ to describe illegitimate debt incurred without the people’s consent, often by despotic regimes. The concept argues that debt incurred by a dictatorship should be seen as personal debt of that government, not of the state itself.

This idea, though typically used to describe debt and not necessarily contracts with foreign companies suing under ISDS, should be applied to Honduras, particularly in light of the billions of dollars of claims against the country.

Foreign companies that shook hands with JOH’s government should not be entitled to compensation that hinders future development and burdens Honduras and Honduran communities.

Although the Castro administration has not explicitly announced its position around all the ISDS claims against Honduras, the Presidential Commission in Defence of Sovereignty and Territory, formed in April 2023, announced in a press conference that Honduras would not participate in the international tribunal process related to ZEDE Próspera’s claim.

In a statement delivered by Minister of Finance Rixi Moncada, the Commission said: “[The claimants] view the [ZEDE Próspera] litigation as an opportunity to join [state] looting through false arbitration…In admitting this controversial arbitration, the ICSID as an international body is being negligent to national [Honduran] legislation from 1988…that requires companies to exhaust national remedies before seeking international arbitration.” Moncada insisted that companies involved in corruption would lose their cases.

Although the press conference only addressed the issue of ZEDEs, Honduras has, in at least one other case, refused to engage in international arbitration by virtue of not appointing an arbitrator. Although to date no official announcement has been made, this suggests that Honduras could decide not to participate in any of the arbitration processes.

President Castro’s administration has quickly learned the difficulties of proposing reforms that even remotely threaten national and foreign economic interests. The U.S. government, despite its rhetoric about supporting democratically elected governments, including Castro’s, has assisted in undermining many of her administration’s most ambitious reforms that simply attempt to roll back some of the post-coup policies.

Internationally, the ISDS claims against the state attempt to further deadlock Castro’s proposed changes and prop up the claims of foreign companies, many of which got involved with odious investments during JOH’s narco-dictatorship.

With about two and a half years remaining of her mandate, Castro faces an ongoing struggle to resist opposition to her proposals, while pushing to follow through on the policies her administration has pledged to champion.


Karen Spring is the co-coordinator of the Honduras Solidarity Network (HSN) and a PhD student at the University of Ottawa.

Karen Spring: karen@hondurasnow.org
https://www.hondurasnow.org/uscanadaontrial/

Emergencies in children’s homes in both Guatemala and Honduras

We include a summary here of the recent problems faced by the organisation Casa Alianza in Honduras and Guatemala. Casa Alianza is a non-governmental organisation that defends and protects street children in several capital cities in Latin America, among them Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, and Guatemala City, the capital of Guatemala. In both cases the organisation has centres which serve as places of refuge for the children and as medical and learning centres too. More background details about the two centres run by Casa Alianza can be found at the following websites:

In March 2024, the Casa Alianza centre in Guatemala City had to evacuate all its resident girls and staff when there was a leak of highly toxic, illegal agrochemicals next to their building. The alert came when girls and staff suddenly experienced symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, eye irritation, throat irritation and numbing of their tongues, among others.

At the time, there were 50 girls and eight babies (six toddlers and two newborns) who were affected. Two of the girls were pregnant, one of whom was only 12 years old, a survivor of abuse. Although two of the babies and a 15 year old girl were hospitalised, the rest spent the following nights in a facility run by the National Youth Council of Guatemala.

One month earlier in February 2024, in Tegucigalpa, a major fire erupted one block from the primary youth residence of Casa Alianza. Staff of the centre quickly moved all 70 children and youth into a church to pass the night. They evacuated with nothing but the clothes on their backs and slippers on their feet.

The following day, they spent the day in a park while the team of staff worked to arrange temporary housing at a nearby retreat, where they remained until it was safe to return to the Casa Alianza Centre.


Sources:

  • Compass Children’s Charity, 17 March 2024, ‘Urgent Appeal – La Alianza, Guatemala: Emergency Evacuation’
  • Alicia Caraballo, Linkedin Post, 11 February 2024.
  • Also refer to the websites listed above.

Semi-submersible drug carrier intercepted off Costa Rica

A semi-submersible boat, of the design shown in the two photographs, was intercepted by agents of the Costa Rican Coast Guard and Frontier Police off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica with almost two tons of cocaine. A similar vessel with just under one ton of drugs was intercepted in July, also off the country’s Pacific coast.

Thirty packages were found aboard containing 1,200 kilograms of cocaine. In one report, two Colombians and one Ecuadorian are stated as detained; another gives two Ecuadorians. They are said to have attempted to sink their vessel but were thwarted in the attempt. The boat was powered by two 75 horsepower outboard motors and was about 12 meters long.

The use of semi-submersibles, often called narco-submarines, is now an increasingly common means of transporting illegal drugs used by international drug trafficking rings. They are generally thought to be difficult to detect.

Semi-submersibles are often towed by fishing boats which make detection difficult. The boats can detach the semi-submersibles when or if coast guard or law enforcement agents appear. Another developing problem is the remote control of such vessels. Again, this makes it difficult to intercept the traffickers even if the semi-submersible can be impounded.

Semi-submersible with two 75 HP outboard motors, 12 meters in length. (Photo: The Costa Rica Star)

 

(Photo by Handout / Ministerio de Seguridad Pública / AFP)

Trying to head off a coup in Honduras

Comment by Martin Mowforth

November 2024

Early in 2024, the President of Honduras warned of a potential coup d’état in her country. President Xiomara Castro is relatively progressive, although some would describe her as ‘mildly progressive’. Regardless of these descriptive labels, she represents a turn towards a search for justice for ordinary people in Honduras and a challenge, however mild, to the prevailing and domineering ideology of neoliberalism which during the last three Honduran administrations became synonymous with gangsterism and corruption.

A September 13 report by Wyatt Reed in The Grayzone states that the Honduran government has complained against the US for trying to spark a coup d’état in their country. The media outlet Insight Crime, which is funded by the US State Department, had released an eleven year-old video implying that President Xiomara Castro’s brother-in-law had dealings with men who later turned out to be drug traffickers. This led to public accusations that Castro was sitting down with drug dealers. It is thought that the US released this questionable evidence in anger at President Castro’s willingness to sit down with the Venezuelan government despite the severe and internationally illegal sanctions called by the US against the Venezuelan administration.

In turn, President Castro withdrew the extradition treaty between Honduras and the US government and drew the public’s attention to US propaganda efforts to bring down her government. Referring to threats made by the US Ambassador accusing the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces and the former Secretary of Defence of being drug traffickers, President Castro said: “I ratify that the peace and internal security of the Republic are at risk. … The same dark internal and external forces of 2009 [the year of the coup against former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya], with the complicity of the national and international media collaboration, are reorganising in our country to carry out a new coup d’état that the people must repel!”

Wyatt Reed, 13 September 2024, ‘Us govt-backed media, activists behind attack on Honduran government’, The Grayzone

Reparations for victims of the US-led 1989 invasion of Panama

Rights Action

December 16, 2024

Rights Action is a US and Canadian non-governmental organisation that supports the struggles of grassroots and Indigenous communities in Central America, especially those in Guatemala and Honduras. It lobbies on their behalf and exposes the violent roles of the US and Canadian governments in bolstering the domineering and violent neocolonial behaviour of North American transnational corporations that extract the resources of  Central American communities with no regard for the local societies, traditions or environments affected by their companies’ operations.

www.rightsaction.org

 

Letter from Panama’s ‘Little Hiroshima’, by Belén Fernandez

https://mailchi.mp/rightsaction/letter-from-panamas-little-hiroshima

U.S. owes reparations to survivors of 1989 “just cause” invasion of Panama

This week, Rights Action will share articles remembering the December 20, 1989 U.S. “just cause” invasion of Panama and slaughter of perhaps thousands of civilians.

Connecting the dots: As the U.S.-led west continues to support and legitimize Israel’s ethnic cleansing genocide in Palestine, and expansionist aggression in neighboring countries, it is never too late to keep on telling truth about and demanding justice and reparations for victims of previous U.S.-led imperialist invasions and aggressions.

 

******* 

Letter from Panama’s ‘Little Hiroshima’

I paid a visit to El Chorrillo almost exactly 34 years after the US turned it into a ‘Little Hiroshima’ for a ‘Just Cause’.

By Belén Fernández, Al Jazeera, 24 Jan 2024

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/1/24/letter-from-panamas-little-hiroshima

Once upon a time, the United States was good buddies with a fellow named Manuel Noriega, a longstanding CIA asset and the dictator of Panama in the 1980s.

Then one day, Noriega outlived his usefulness as an imperial lackey and needed to be sent packing. And so with a straight face, the gringos accused him of the unpardonable offence of drug trafficking and undertook to overthrow him in 1989.

This was funny; after all, since at least 1972 the US had known about – and intermittently benefitted from – Noriega’s links to the drug trade. Furthermore, the US president spearheading the dictator’s removal was none other than George H W Bush, the very same George H W Bush who as director of the CIA in 1976 had ensured Noriega’s preservation on the agency payroll.

Anyway, boundless hypocrisy has always been America’s strong point. And it was once again on full display in the selection of the name for the unilateral US military operation to bring “democracy” to Panama by killing a bunch of Panamanian civilians, pulverising the impoverished Panama City neighbourhood of El Chorrillo to the extent that local ambulance drivers began to call it “Little Hiroshima”, and hauling Noriega off to Miami.

Following some heavy contemplation, the preliminary title “Operation Blue Spoon” was changed to “Operation Just Cause”. The late Colin Powell, who was then serving as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained in his 1995 autobiography, A Soldier’s Way, that he preferred the “inspirational ring” of the revised title – and the fact that “even our severest critics would have to utter ‘Just Cause’ while denouncing us”.

Plus, Powell reasoned, Blue Spoon was just “hardly a rousing call to arms… You do not risk people’s lives for Blue Spoons”.

Of course, the change in labelling was irrelevant to the civilian inhabitants of El Chorrillo – the site of Panama City’s central military barracks – who bore the lethal brunt of the ensuing “just cause”. Then again, it wasn’t their lives that Powell was concerned about risking. Just after midnight on December 20, 1989, the neighbourhood was jolted awake by the fanatical show of US firepower that would quickly earn it the moniker “Little Hiroshima”.

As US General Marc Cisneros, one of the operation’s commanders, admitted in 1999 on the 10th anniversary of the invasion, the military’s approach was probably a bit overzealous: “We made it look like we were battling Goliath… We have all these new gadgets, laser-guided missiles and stealth fighters, and we are just dying to use that stuff.”

Almost exactly 34 years after the fun with gadgets, on this past New Year’s Eve, I paid a visit to El Chorrillo, taking an Uber down the hill from a friend’s house in the Quarry Heights area of the Panamanian capital – the US military’s former command centre in the Panama Canal Zone. My plan to wander around and photograph El Chorrillo’s assortment of anti-American graffiti was thwarted when the female Uber driver, citing concerns for my safety, insisted on delivering me into the care of two policemen standing on a street corner.

Too young to have experienced the 1989 invasion, they proved chatty albeit not so confident in their own crime-fighting prowess: “Sometimes we’re standing here and people are getting robbed in the supermarket next door.”

One of the cops escorted me down the street to view the diminutive statue of a crouching human, a monument to those killed during Just Cause. Estimates of Panamanian civilian deaths during the operation range from a few hundred to many thousands, depending on whether you ask the United States or human rights organisations.

To politely extricate myself from the company of the two policemen, I asked whether they knew anyone who might want to talk to me about the invasion. As a matter of fact, they said, there was an older man named Hector who lived nearby and was the only resident of El Chorrillo to have 24-hour police protection on account of four gang attempts on his life. Hector knew all about 1989.

A few phone calls were made and I was handed off to a different set of police, who waited with me in front of Hector’s dilapidated apartment block. A young boy shot at all of us with a triceratops-shaped toy pistol, and a group of giggling young girls asked me the English words for “knife”, “dirty teeth” and “Santana” – the last name of one of the cops.

Then it was into Hector’s cramped kitchen, where preemptive New Year’s fireworks outside provided a fitting soundtrack to the subject at hand. Seventy-seven years old and in possession of a certain joie de vivre that is perhaps inaccessible to those of us who have not survived four assassination attempts, Hector unearthed a tattered 33-year-old newspaper – published on the first anniversary of Just Cause – and encouraged me to peruse the photographs of corpses and mass graves.

As it turned out, Hector had not been present during the invasion, having been expelled from Panama for political reasons some months earlier. He returned to the country in February 1990, shortly after Just Cause had been brought to its swift and triumphant close, and became a leader in the fight to prevent Panama’s new “democratic” powers that be from appropriating El Chorrillo for their own lucrative ends.

In Hector’s words, the mentality of the new opportunists was: “Let’s get the chorrilleros out of there since the gringos already burned everything.”

And burn they had, the fire spreading easily as most of the houses were made of wood. Many, incidentally, had decades previously housed the workers who built the Panama Canal – another crowning achievement in the United States’ lengthy history of imperial exploitation. While then-US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney would claim that Just Cause had “been the most surgical military operation of its size ever conducted”, you can’t really have a surgical Hiroshima.

Fishing a pamphlet by Panamanian sociologist Olmedo Beluche out of the clutter on his kitchen table, Hector set about reading to me from the section on aircraft and armaments used in Just Cause that were then deployed on a massive scale in the first Persian Gulf war: F-117 stealth bombers, Blackhawk helicopters, Apache and Cobra helicopters, 2,000-pound bombs, Hellfire missiles, and so on.

Indeed, as historian Greg Grandin has emphasised, the road to Baghdad “ran through Panama City”, with Just Cause marking the start of an “age of preemptive unilateralism, using ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ as both justifications for war and a branding opportunity”.

In 2018, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ruled that the United States should “provide full reparation for the human rights violations” committed during Operation Just Cause, “including both the material and moral dimensions”. You can guess how that’s panning out.

As I made my way back to Quarry Heights on New Year’s Eve, I passed a memorial to Martyrs’ Day – a reference not to the martyrs of El Chorrillo but rather to the martyrs of January 9, 1964. On this day, US forces in the Canal Zone killed at least 21 Panamanians during riots in the aftermath of an attempt by Panamanian students to raise Panama’s flag next to the US one.

Sixty years on from Martyrs’ Day, the US still hasn’t managed to kick its habit of killing people – including indirectly in the Gaza Strip, a “little Hiroshima” if there ever was one. Forget “moral dimensions”; the US operates in a strictly iniquitous one.

(The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance. Belén Fernández is the author of Inside Siglo XXI: Locked Up in Mexico’s Largest Immigration Center (OR Books, 2022), Checkpoint Zipolite: Quarantine in a Small Place (OR Books, 2021), Exile: Rejecting America and Finding the World (OR Books, 2019), Martyrs Never Die: Travels through South Lebanon (Warscapes, 2016), and The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work (Verso, 2011). She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine, and has written for the New York Times, the London Review of Books blog, Current Affairs, and Middle East Eye, among numerous other publications.)

 

Early warning signals of yet another U.S. administration preparing yet another intervention in Honduras

We are grateful to Rights Action for so much of their reporting which is generally uncovered elsewhere, and is especially absent from the UK. Their March 10th report covers the external pressures exerted on Honduras by US corporations and the US political establishment.

Below:

  • Article: “Trumpists Agitating To Coup Honduras
  • Link to “The Corporate Assault on Honduras” report on global companies and investors using “free trade” arbitration mechanisms to extort governments
  • Links to other relevant background material.

*******

Trumpists Agitating To Coup Honduras

By Nate Bear, Mar 05, 2025

https://www.donotpanic.news/p/the-trumpists-agitating-to-coup-honduras

Prospera, a Peter Thiel-backed crypto ‘city’ running unregulated medical experiments on a Honduran island may very well be the spark for a US coup against Honduras this November. Prospera, if you haven’t come across it before, is a libertarian mini-state which is funded by crypto investors and tech oligarchs including Thiel and DOGE recruiter Marc Andreessen.

Operating outside of Honduran law and run by a small council of venture capitalists and crypto libertarians who set their own laws and regulations, Prospera is under threat from the president of Honduras, Xiomara Castro, who wants to strip it of its special legal status. Castro says that Prospera is an affront to Honduran sovereignty and should never have been given the go-ahead in the first place, a go-ahead granted by a right-wing businessman who became president after Castro’s husband was ousted in a military coup backed by the US. After Castro won power back from the right in 2021, she made it a priority to rein in what William Gibson might call an outlaw city.

The tech oligarchs behind Prospera fought back at Castro’s attempts to shut them down and are suing Honduras for billions of dollars. The fight has made headlines in recent months, not least because the damages Prospera is seeking could conceivably bankrupt the country. Almost no attention, however, has been paid to how this fight is turning Prospera into a cause célèbre for influential Trumpists who have begun calling on this American outpost to be defended against Castro’s socialist government.

One prominent Trumpist to latch onto Prospera as a symbol of everything right about American capitalism and adventurism and everything wrong about Latin American socialism is Roger Stone, a 50-year confidante of Trump and his political hitman.

In a blog post titled ‘How President Trump Can Crush Socialism and Save a Freedom City in Honduras’, and written with all the fluency of a neurolinked gibbon, Stone says that the future of Prospera has ‘major implications for US policy and the future of freedom throughout the world.’

He goes on to say that
‘Trump has quite a bit of leverage at his disposal to upend Castro’s fledgling regime’ and that ‘Honduras could be liberated and Castro’s regime upended without firing a single shot or deploying a single troop.’

To achieve this he says Trump should pardon the disgraced former president, Juan Orlando Hernández, colloquially known as JOH, who is in prison in the US indicted on drug trafficking charges, and back him in the November elections.

Another high profile Trump ally to position the fight for Prospera as being in America’s interests, is Erik Prince, the former CIA assassin and founder of US state department mercenary contractor Blackwater. In a November tweet Prince said that the threats faced by Prospera should be ‘intolerable for the Trump administration’ because of the strategic importance of Honduras and the fact Prospera is trying to ‘bring civilisation’ to Honduras.

(Charter/network/free cities as an effort to reclaim an imaginary of western civilisation is a common theme among tech-crypto libertarians).

If Erik Prince, a man with a history or robbing and looting impoverished states, has you, an impoverished state in his sights, that’s an ominous sign.

Prince’s post was retweeted by the great and good of Prospera including Niklas Anzinger. Anzinger runs Infinita City, the arm of Prospera focused on extending the human lifespan and running unregulated medical experiments to this end. (If you’ve watched the Netflix documentary about Bryan Johnson, the tech billionaire who wants to live forever, and who I wrote about here following his rough brush with covid, you might remember he visited Prospera to get injected with a novel gene therapy not available anywhere else in the world).

Anyway, Anzinger has tweeted a couple of times about the upcoming elections in Honduras. He responded to Stone’s January blog post about ousting Castro by saying ‘we’re working on it!’, and just the other day tweeted ‘we expect the next elections in Nov 2025 to lead to a friendly administration that affirms our rights.’

Adding to the sense that something is being cooked up was the founder of Prospera, Erick Brimen, thanking Prince for his intervention and saying he was excited for some of Prince’s “magic” to come in 2025.

Weird. Maybe these are just things you say. But maybe not.

Another group to have visited Prospera in recent weeks are Republicans for National renewal, a MAGA-aligned group founded by Mark Ivanyo, a former staffer in Trump’s first term Department of Justice. They touted Prospera as ‘similar to President Trump’s proposed Freedom Cities’ and also took aim at Castro, saying Prospera was ‘a bastion of pro-Americanism, economic freedom & Bitcoin acceptance in socialist Honduras.’

Prospera was also visited last week by Cremieux, an anonymous twitter account regularly retweeted by Elon Musk (and likely run by more than one white crypto-libertarian type) that helps set the libertarian discourse.

Given these links, it’s inconceivable that Trump hasn’t heard about Prospera and the threats to its existence. Marco Rubio, a man aggressively hostile to anything that looks or smells like socialism in Latin America, almost certainly has as well. It was telling that he didn’t bother visiting Honduras on his recent trip to Latin America, his first outside the US.

Prospera is just one of a number of crypto-based, parallel institution states-within-states that tech oligarchs are trying to establish around the world. With Trump having embraced crypto libertarians as his ticket back to power, we should expect him to defend and advance their interests, not least because of their potential, as in the case of Prospera, to be the tip of the imperial spear in the developing world.

The combination of Rubio as head of the state department and Prospera libertarians in the White House is extraordinarily dangerous for Honduras. The US has always had strategic incentives to see left-wing candidates defeated in Latin America, but now it has very personal incentives as well.

Marc Andreessen, who has been hanging out with Trump and recruiting for DOGE, and his co-investor Thiel are both heavily invested not just financially in Prospera through their VC fund Promonos, but ideologically in the concept of parallel states-within-states. For them to see Prospera fall would be a double hit.

For developing countries like Honduras, Prospera demonstrates the dangers of allowing libertarian American capital the freedom to establish shadow legal entities within your territory. They might provide a few low-paid service industry jobs, but if they turn on you, they’ll threaten to bankrupt you. Or coup you. Or both.

Then there are the moral questions that arise from allowing billionaires to operate zones of exit outside regulatory oversight.

Biohacking and longevity experiments are a central component of Prospera, and regular articles on longevity research now pop up in traditional media, normalising the field. But longevity researchers often appear dangerously enamoured with eugenics.

For example, a presentation this week at Prospera by a professor from George Mason university said that selecting embryos for IQ might soon be possible and could boost global innovation by hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is an outrageous, preposterous statement that rests on two fallacies: IQ exists as a measurable metric (it doesn’t) and creating economic growth (by optimising humans) should be the singular goal of humanity. This is essentially an argument for eugenics-powered capitalism.

These people are monsters and the dangers of allowing them ever-expanding control of our institutions are obvious.

There is also a massive irony at the heart of Prospera.

The network state ideal is motivated in large part by the bird-brained desire to exit the political and establish zones of pure apolitical capitalist freedom outside of neoliberal bureaucracies.

Yet in Prospera, these crypto coiners have found themselves at the centre of political intrigue and have had to resort to suing Honduras through the investor-state dispute settlement, a little-known but central component of global capitalism’s neoliberal bureaucracy.

That feeling when you’re forced to turn to neoliberalism’s bureaucracy to save yourself from neoliberalism’s bureaucracy eh?

Which really tells us everything you need to know. Crypto libertarians are the neoliberals they pretend to reject. Plain old capitalists, modern-day colonisers trying, like every coloniser before them, to bend the world to their will.

The outcome in Honduras will go some way to determining whether they succeed.

Please share and re-post this information

 

+++

 

Further background

Corporate assault on Honduras

Honduras Solidarity Network, February 18, 2025

Honduras faces an unprecedented legal siege: 15 multimillion-dollar lawsuits by transnational corporations seeking to impose their will over the country’s sovereign decisions. The video “The Corporate Assault on Honduras” (produced by TerraJusta, Transnational Institute, Honduras Solidarity Network and Institute for Policy Studies) reveals how international arbitration mechanisms are being used to blackmail the country and block policies in favour of its people.

https://mailchi.mp/rightsaction/never-ending-us-government-corporate-interventions-in-the-americas

 

“No country in Latin America has remained free from the shadow hanging over them.

The shadow of the United States. The shadow of the Monroe Doctrine.”

The Silent Invasion of Panama? Trump Said that the US Would Reclaim the Panama Canal

By Timothy Alexander Guzman

April 16, 2025

We are very grateful to Timothy Guzman for his permission for us to reproduce his article here. His  Silent Crow News can be found at: https:// https://silentcrownews.com/   Emphases (bold and italics, as in the original.

In early April, Defense News reported that the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was going to Panama to speak to its leadership and discuss the situation with the Panama Canal concerning China,

 

“Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will travel to Panama next week, the second senior U.S. official to visit the country in as many months, as President Donald Trump says America is “reclaiming” the country’s eponymous canal.”

US aggression in Panama is following a blueprint to reclaim its “backyard” since China is winning influence and trade among Latin American nations. This is an insult to Panama, in fact, it’s an imperialist move that signifies that the Trump regime does not respect the sovereignty of the Panamanian people. This brings back the horrible memories of the US invasion of Panama on December 20, 1989 that resulted in hundreds, some estimates say, thousands of people dead.

“While there, Hegseth will meet with the country’s president, José Raul Mulino, and attend a meeting of regional chiefs of defense. He will also visit military sites and the Panama Canal itself.”

This is alarming not only to Panama, but to other Latin American nations on Washington’s list for regime change including Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.

The report said that:

“In a statement Friday, Pentagon Press Secretary Sean Parnell wrote the meetings “will drive ongoing efforts to strengthen our partnerships with Panama and other Central American nations toward our shared vision for a peaceful and secure Western Hemisphere.”

The mainstream media including Trump’s cheerleaders, Fox news and Newsmax, has been rather silent about these developments. According to Defense News,

“The U.S. has a small military presence in Panama, though the Pentagon has reportedly been planning options to increase that number, in line with the president’s goal to take control of the canal. America is currently participating in a military exercise inside the country.“ He continued, “To further enhance our national security, my administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal, and we’ve already started doing it,” Trump said in a March address to Congress.

Panama’s President José Raul Mulino originally rejected Trump’s claims, but it seems that somehow he was intimidated,

In a post on the social app X after Trump’s speech, Mulino said ownership of the canal wasn’t being transferred and that he and Rubio didn’t discuss the topic.” Mulino said, “I reject, on behalf of Panama and all Panamanians, this new affront to the truth and to our dignity as a nation.”

The US Department of Defense highlighted what Hegseth had said at the press conference: “The era of capitulating to coercion by the communist Chinese is over.” He continued, “[China’s] growing and adversarial control of strategic land and critical infrastructure in this hemisphere cannot and will not stand.”

 

Trump Now Threatening Panama. His “Neo-Monroeism” Might Set Americas Ablaze

Hegseth had announced the “expanded partnership” with Panamanian Public Security Minister Frank Abrego. Hegseth said that: “The Panama Canal is key terrain that must be secured by Panama, with America, and not China.”

In other words, the US is now in control of the Panama Canal because there was never a “partnership.” The US treats Panama as a puppet state under the banner of democracy.

Now it seems that President Mulino has reversed his stance.  Le Monde ‘Panama deal allows US to deploy troops to canal, but no permanent bases’ reported that US troops would be occupying, not building new bases:

US troops will be able to deploy a string of bases along the Panama Canal under a joint deal seen by AFP on Thursday, April 10, a major concession to President Donald Trump as he seeks to reestablish influence over the vital waterway. The agreement, signed by top security officials from both countries, allows US military personnel to deploy to Panama-controlled facilities for training, exercises and “other activities”.

“Other activities” means that the CIA will be using those occupied bases in Panama to conduct regime change operations in Latin America.  Mulino did warn that Trump’s idea to have US-owned bases in Panama would ignite mass protests:

Mulino was on Thursday in Peru, where he revealed that the United States had asked to have its own bases. Mulino said he had told visiting Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth that US bases, allowed under an earlier draft, would be “unacceptable.” He warned Hegseth: “Do you want to create a mess, what we’ve put in place here would set the country on fire.

In a Memorandum of Understanding, Hegseth and Abrego supposedly acknowledged that Panama “won” concessions, but who in their right mind would trust the US President and his neocon regime?

In the watered-down “Memorandum of Understanding,” signed by Hegseth and Panama’s security chief Frank Abrego on Wednesday, Panama won its own concessions. The United States recognized Panama’s sovereignty – not a given following Trump’s refusal to rule out an invasion – and Panama will retain control over any installations. Panama will also have to agree to any deployments. But given Trump’s willingness to rip up or rewrite trade deals, treaties and agreements, that might offer little succour to worried Panamanians.

In an important note, Le Monde mentioned how Trump allowed BlackRock, a deep state corporate entity to buy two ports for $19 billion which angered Beijing. The ports’ parent company CK Hutchison announced last month a deal to offload 43 ports in 23 countries – including its two on the Panama Canal – to a consortium led by US asset manager BlackRock for $19 billion in cash. A furious Beijing has since announced an antitrust review of the deal

However, Panama’s opposition describes what is happening as a ‘Camouflaged Invasion’ as reported by The Guardian: Panamanian opposition politicians have accused the US of launching a “camouflaged invasion” of the country, amid simmering discontent over the government’s handling of the diplomatic crisis.

After a three-day visit by the US defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump appeared to confirm that US military personnel had been deployed to the Central American country on Thursday, telling reporters: “We’ve moved a lot of troops to Panama

Washington is clearly trying to reoccupy Panama under the radar which will not sit well with most Panamanians: “Hegseth said that the US would increase its military presence at three former US bases in the country to “secure the Panama canal from Chinese influence.”

Since 1999, the US military exited Panama under the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty that handed over the canal to Panamanian authorities, “Under the canal’s neutrality treaty, no foreign power can “maintain military forces, defense sites and military installations within its national territory”, and the US comments have prompted outrage in Panama.”

Ricardo Lombana, the leader of the opposition Other Way Movement said that “This is a camouflaged invasion” and that it’s “an invasion without firing a shot, but with a cudgel and threats.”

This is the case: the US has invaded Panama without media attention. The Trump regime is following in the footsteps of the former US President, William McKinley the imperialist who led the effort to get the US into a war with Spain in what is known as the Spanish–American War.  McKinley expanded US territories with the annexation of Hawaii and led to the forced colonization of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines and American Samoa.

The Panamanian people will reject this imperialist move by the Trump Whitehouse. I also agree with Panama’s President, José Raul Mulino, in what he originally said about the US having their own bases would “set the country on fire.”  But having US military personal in already existing military bases can also set Panama on fire. Either way, it’s a bad situation for Panama; protests are guaranteed, and the world is watching closely.


Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published.

 

US deportees arriving in Panama and Costa Rica

By Martin Mowforth

From ENCA Newsletter No. 93

March 2025

On 12 February, three US military planes arrived in Panama carrying 299 shackled deportees from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. A few days later a plane carrying 135 US deportees arrived in Costa Rica.

Along with Guatemala, Panama and Costa Rica had agreed with the US Trump Administration, following a visit by the US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to receive deported migrants who are not citizens of their own country. These recipient countries have agreed to ‘repatriate’ deported migrants. All three countries, however, are reportedly ill-equipped to cope with such an influx of vulnerable people. A half of those arriving in Costa Rica were children and included babies in arms and two of the women are pregnant.

After five hours in the flight to Costa Rica, they were immediately transferred to buses for an eight-hour journey to reach the Temporary Attention Centre of Migrants (CATEM by its Spanish initials) located in the Puntarenas region in the south of the country. The ombudsman who was present at the arrival and transfer claimed that many of the deportees cried out for help, especially in trying to let their families know their whereabouts, and others were clearly in some form of distress.

In Panama they were stripped of their passports and cellphones and forbidden to speak with lawyers or journalists. They were guarded by police and locked in a hotel in Panama City before being transferred to a temporary camp in the jungle. Almost 100 of the deportees who had not consented to their deportation were driven to a camp described in a Guardian article as like “a concentration camp”.

Panamanian political scientist Rodrigo Noriega from the University of Panama called this process of deportation “a legal catastrophe” and declared that it “violates international human rights treaties”. Costa Rican social researcher Carlos Sandoval explained that the United States is transferring the slow repatriation process to third countries. The US should administer deportation but has sought Central American countries to manage the process. Panama and Costa Rica say that the US assumes the total cost of the operation and that the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) will participate in the process.

Costa Rican president Chaves said that “the United States is treating us very well.” Two Costa Rican deputies, however, were sanctioned by Washington for opposing the president’s decision to reject Chinese technology. President Chaves also explained that “We’re helping our powerful economic brother in the north, because if (the US) imposes a tax on our export zones, we’re screwed.”

Sources:

  • Mat Youkee, 19.02.25, ‘Police search for woman who escaped Panama hotel where US deportees are being held’, London, The Guardian.
  • NACLA Update, February 2025.
  • Daniela Muñoz Solano, 21.02.25, ‘Derechos humanos de migrantes deportados por Estados Unidos se violaron en Costa Rica, señala Defensoría’, San José, Semanario Universidad.
  • Tico Times, 21.02.25, ‘How Central America Turned Into US Deportation Centers’, AFP via Tico Times.
  • Reuters, 19.02.25, ‘Costa Rica could hold US deporteesfor up to six weeks, president says’, Reuters.

El Salvador’s Controversial Offer: Housing U.S. Criminals in Its Mega-Prison

By Doug Specht

Published by The SAIS Review of International Affairs.

 

El Salvador’s ‘maverick[1] president, Nayib Bukele, has proposed a unique agreement with the United States, offering to house American criminals and deportees[2] in its notorious mega-prison, Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (Terrorism Confinement Center, abbreviated CECOT). This unprecedented deal, put forward by Bukele, aims to accommodate U.S. deportees regardless of their nationality, including violent American offenders and gang members. However, this agreement raises significant legal, ethical, and humanitarian concerns, with critics arguing that the condition of El Salvador’s prisons and U.S. law make this project a non-starter.

The Deal

At the core of this agreement is El Salvador’s willingness to accept deportees from the United States, regardless of their nationality. This provision extends beyond typical deportation arrangements, as it includes the accommodation of violent American offenders, including U.S. citizens and legal residents currently in U.S. custody. Furthermore, the agreement specifically targets gang members, with El Salvador agreeing to accept for deportation any illegal immigrant in the United States who is a criminal of any nationality, explicitly mentioning members of notorious gangs[3] such as MS-13 and Tren de Aragua.

This proposal comes at a time when El Salvador already maintains the world’s highest incarceration rate, with over 110,000 people imprisoned as of early 2024[4], following a high-profile and ethically dubious crackdown on gangs. These incarceration rates and the question of human rights abuses have brought condemnation from the international community, and many will be concerned at the prospect of more prisoners being imported to already crowded prisons. For President Bukele, though, this not only helps his well-managed strongman image but also has significant financial incentives. El Salvador will charge the United States a fee for housing these prisoners, which Bukele has described as “relatively low for the U.S. but significant for us, making our entire prison system sustainable”. This financial arrangement introduces a new dynamic to international criminal justice cooperation, potentially setting a precedent for similar agreements in the future.

Bukele is also likely considering other benefits to this offering to accommodate U.S. deportees and criminals. Beyond the economic benefits, this deal could elevate El Salvador’s profile on the global stage, potentially granting Bukele increased international recognition – although this may not all be positive. Furthermore, the agreement aligns with Bukele’s tough-on-crime stance, which has garnered substantial domestic support[5] among Salvadorans.

The Trump administration’s positive reception[6] of this offer reflects its own policy priorities. The deal supports the administration’s efforts to accelerate deportations and deter illegal immigration while simultaneously offering a potential solution to the U.S.’s own overcrowded prison system. Additionally, this agreement could strengthen ties with El Salvador, as the Central American nation positions itself as a valuable partner to the Trump administration, it is likely to lead to increased diplomatic influence and potentially more favourable treatment in other areas of bilateral relations. Conversely, this agreement may be seen by other nations in the region as a continuation of U.S. interference and interventionism[7], unsettling their relationships with El Salvador and potentially disrupting the dynamics in Central America.

While distinct from the El Salvador agreement, recent developments regarding the use of Guantanamo Bay for migrant[8] detention provide an interesting parallel. The Trump administration has expressed intentions to expand Guantanamo’s capacity to hold up to 30,000 migrants. The U.S. has begun transporting migrants to Guantanamo, with the first flight intending to take members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. However, these actions have faced legal challenges, with a federal judge blocking[9] the transfer of three Venezuelan immigrants to Guantanamo. Instead, these persons were deported to Venezuela, highlighting the complex legal landscape surrounding such measures, and how such policies could heighten tensions between nations.

Political and Legal Implications

The proposed agreement presents a complex web of political and legal implications. This arrangement challenges established norms in international criminal justice and immigration policy, raising questions about its feasibility and potential consequences. The legality of deporting U.S. citizens to serve sentences in foreign prisons is uncertain and likely to face rigorous legal scrutiny. The agreement also raises significant humanitarian questions with human rights organizations expressing grave concerns about El Salvador’s prison conditions and the potential for rights violations under this arrangement. Moreover, the implementation of this deal could have far-reaching effects on international relations and migration policies in the region.

The proposed arrangement represents a significant shift in U.S. immigration and criminal justice policies. It could set a precedent for outsourcing incarceration by transferring U.S. prisoners to foreign countries. The agreement also expands options for deporting individuals, including those from countries reluctant to accept deportees. Moreover, it could pave the way for similar arrangements with other Central American nations, fundamentally altering the landscape of regional cooperation on criminal justice and immigration matters.

However, the proposed deal faces substantial legal challenges[10]. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the constitutional impossibility of deporting U.S. citizens[11], making this aspect of the agreement a moot point at present. The transfer of prisoners to a foreign country also raises serious due process concerns, questioning prisoners’ legal rights and access to fair treatment. Furthermore, the proposal may violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, given the reported conditions in Salvadoran prisons.

From an international law perspective, the agreement could contravene various statutes regarding migrant rights and prisoner treatment. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules[12]) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[13] set standards that this agreement may violate, particularly concerning the treatment of prisoners and the right to due process.

The CECOT Mega-Prison and Public Concern

President Bukele’s proposal to house those deported in El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a mega-prison facility opened in 2023[14] with a capacity of 40,000 inmates, exacerbates the legal and political ramifications of this deal. Using CECOT for this purpose raises questions about prison conditions and potential human rights implications. CECOT has become a focal point of international scrutiny since its inauguration in. The facility, a cornerstone of President Nayib Bukele’s aggressive anti-gang strategy[15], has ignited a heated debate about the balance between security measures and human rights in the criminal justice system.

CECOT’s sheer scale is unprecedented in Latin America. The prison complex comprises eight expansive pavilions, each containing cells that house between 65 to 70 prisoners. The facility’s architecture and operational protocols prioritise security and isolation over rehabilitation, reflecting a punitive approach to incarceration. Cells are windowless, furnished only with bare metal bunks devoid of mattresses. Sanitary facilities are woefully inadequate, with each cell equipped with just two sinks and two toilets for dozens of inmates, offering no privacy. The extreme confinement regime exacerbates the harsh conditions, where prisoners are restricted to their cells for 23.5 hours daily, with a mere 30-minute allowance for exercise in a windowless corridor. Surveillance is omnipresent, with CCTV cameras and armed guards monitoring from elevated positions, creating an atmosphere of constant observation and control.

When compared to international standards, CECOT’s conditions fall significantly short of accepted norms for the humane treatment of prisoners. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners are routinely contravened[16] within CECOT’s walls. The lack of basic amenities such as mattresses, adequate sanitation, and recreational facilities stands in stark contrast to these international guidelines. Moreover, the extreme isolation and absence of rehabilitation programs directly contradict global standards that emphasise the importance of preparing inmates for reintegration into society.

Human rights organisations and legal experts have been unequivocal in their condemnation of CECOT and the broader implications of El Salvador’s incarceration policies. Amnesty International has characterised the situation in El Salvador as a “human rights crisis,”[17] pointing to widespread arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, and allegations of torture. Human Rights Watch has documented extensive human rights violations[18] during El Salvador’s state of emergency, with particular concern for conditions in facilities like CECOT. The gravity of the situation is further underscored by the assessment of Miguel Sarre, a former member of the UN Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, who described CECOT as a “concrete and steel pit[19] designed to “dispose of people without formally applying the death penalty”. Such stark criticisms from respected international observers highlight the severity of the human rights concerns surrounding CECOT.

The establishment and operation of CECOT have had a profound impact on El Salvador’s international reputation. While some international figures, notably U.S. President Donald Trump, have praised Bukele’s hardline approach to crime, the broader international community views CECOT as emblematic of human rights abuses. The facility has drawn intense scrutiny from international bodies such as the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, placing El Salvador under a global spotlight[20]. This attention has sparked wider debates about the appropriate balance between security measures and human rights protections in Latin America and beyond.

Broader Implications

This agreement between El Salvador and the United States to house deportees and American criminals in Salvadoran prisons represents a significant departure from traditional approaches to international criminal justice and migration management. While having some parallels with the previous Trump administration’s controversial “safe third country” agreements, known as Asylum Cooperative Agreements (ACAs)[21], with Guatemala, Honduras, as well as El Salvador, this new agreement goes much further. The 2019 ACAs allowed the U.S. to send asylum seekers to these countries if they had travelled through them on their way to the U.S., obliging them to seek asylum there first. At the time Guatemala was the only country to implement the agreement[22], with a limited number of migrants – reportedly around 700 – being sent there.

Even in these more targeted agreements critics argued that these countries were not equipped to handle large numbers of asylum seekers and were not safe. The Biden administration suspended and withdrew[23] from these agreements in February 2021, effectively ending the policy. With Trump returning to the White House, his new and more far-reaching arrangement with Bukele has the potential to reshape future agreements on asylum and deportation, as well as diplomatic relations, particularly within the Americas, and its implications extend far beyond the borders of the two countries involved.

This agreement sets a controversial precedent for migration policies that could significantly influence future international arrangements. Expanding the concept of “safe third country[24] agreements may encourage other nations to offer similar arrangements, potentially leading to a shift in global migration policies. Developed countries might increasingly seek to outsource their immigration challenges to less developed nations – The United Kingdom’s attempts to deport migrants to Rwanda[25] for example – fundamentally altering the landscape of international migration governance. Future agreements could potentially include provisions for housing deportees or criminals from other countries, representing a significant evolution in how nations manage cross-border population movements.

The potential ripple effects of this agreement on U.S.-Central American relations are substantial and multifaceted. The deal may alter regional power dynamics as El Salvador could gain increased influence due to its closer ties with the United States. This could pressure other Central American countries to offer similar concessions to maintain favourable relations with the U.S., potentially leading to a reconfiguration of alliances and partnerships within the region. The economic implications of the deal are equally significant. The financial compensation El Salvador receives for housing prisoners could influence its economic policies and development strategies. This might also prompt other Central American countries to seek similar economic opportunities through unconventional agreements with the U.S., potentially leading to a new form of economic dependency in the region centred around migration and criminal justice outsourcing.

The agreement is likely to reshape security dynamics across Central America. It could lead to increased U.S. involvement in El Salvador’s security apparatus, potentially extending to other countries in the region. While this might result in a more integrated approach to combating transnational crime and gang activity across Central America, it could also raise concerns about sovereignty and U.S. influence in the region’s internal affairs. The U.S. track record of intervention in the region[26] has seldom benefited local inhabitants and has typically been motivated by strategic interests rather than humanitarian concerns. For example, supporting the military regime in El Salvador or the Contra rebels in Nicaragua during the 1980s, the overthrow of President Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala, the backing of convicted leaders like Juan Orland Hernandez in Honduras, or the invasion of Panama in 1989, have sought to benefit the U.S., but have all brought instability, economic hardship and increased migration, violence and corruption to the local population.

Conversely, the human rights issues raised by this agreement could increase tensions between U.S., El Salvador, and human rights advocates, potentially straining diplomatic relations in the region. International human rights organisations may increase their scrutiny of U.S. and Central American countries’ justice systems and prison conditions. The deal is very likely to bring about increased monitoring of El Salvador’s prison system, particularly the CECOT mega-prison – potentially a good thing for those housed there. The additional scrutiny that this deal brings to prisons in the region though, may create tensions with countries such as Guatemala[27] where efforts are made to keep their own overcrowded prisons out of the spotlight. The agreement may also lead to greater scrutiny of U.S. immigration policies and deportation procedures. This heightened attention from legal experts, civil rights groups, and international organizations is likely to frustrate the Trump administration and may well lead to the U.S. pulling out of further global humanitarian and migration agreements[28] in an attempt to avoid such attention.

The El Salvador-U.S. agreement represents a significant shift in approaches to migration and criminal justice on an international scale. Its broader implications could reshape diplomatic relations, particularly in the Americas, and potentially usher in a new era of transnational agreements that challenge traditional notions of national sovereignty and international cooperation. The deal also faces substantial legal and ethical challenges that also reach well beyond the region. As this unprecedented deal unfolds, its success or failure will likely influence future policy decisions and diplomatic negotiations far beyond the immediate context of El Salvador and the United States. The international community will be closely watching the implementation and consequences of this agreement, as it may set the stage for a new paradigm in global governance of migration and criminal justice.


Reference

[1] Specht, D. (2019). El Salvador: Young maverick Bukele wins presidential election, but country’s future remains uncertain. The Conversation. Available from: https://theconversation.com/el-salvador-young-maverick-bukele-wins-presidential-election-but-countrys-future-remains-uncertain-111775

[2] Associated Press (2025) Rubio says El Salvador will house deportees from U.S., including Americas, NPR [Online] Available from: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/04/g-s1-46352/rubio-el-salvador-deportees-americans

[3] Strickler, L., Ainsley, J., and Martinez, D. (2025) U.S. designates Mexican cartels, Tren de Aragua and others as foreign terrorist organisations. NBC News [Online] Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-designates-cartels-terrorist-organizations-rcna192826

[4] World Prison Brief. (n.d.). El Salvador. Prison Studies.

[5] Meakem, A. (2024). Can anything stop El Salvador’s Bitcoin Loving, Backsliding Leader? Foreign Policy [online] Available from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/01/02/el-salvador-elections-bukele-bitcoin-crime-gang-policy/

[6] Taylor, L. (2025) US officials receptive to El Salvador’s offer to house American prisoners. SAN [online] Available from: https://san.com/cc/us-officials-receptive-to-el-salvadors-offer-to-house-american-prisoners/

[7] Batz, G. (2021) U.S. Policy Toward Central America continues legacy of displacement. NACLA [Online] Available from: https://nacla.org/news/2021/04/28/us-policy-central-america-migration-displacement

[8] Marquez, A. (2025) 122 years of US imperialism in Guantanamo: From torture to migrant detention. Geopolitical Economy [online] Available from: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/02/10/us-imperialism-guantanamo-torture-migrant-detention/

[9] Woodward, A. (2025) Judge blocks Trump from sending Venezuelan immigrants to Guantanamo. Independent [Online] Available from: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-guantanamo-prison-immigration-b2695532.html

[10] Kingston, S. K., and Haworth, J. (2025) Trump says he’d deport US citizens convicted of crimes ‘in a heartbeat’ if legal. ABC News [online] Available from: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/marco-rubio-el-salvadors-president-agrees-house-us/story?id=118433524

[11] Lyttle v. United States, 867 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (2012) https://case.law/caselaw/?reporter=f-supp-2d&volume=867&case=1256-01

[12] United Nations. (n.d.). Nelson Mandela Rules.

[13] United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

[14] Radio YSKL. (2023). Presentan el Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo: La nueva megacárcel [Presenting the Terrorism Confinement Center: The new mega-prison]. Available from: https://radioyskl.com/2023/01/31/presentan-el-centro-de-confinamiento-del-terrorismo-la-nueva-megacarcel/

[15] Rubio, J., and Casique, A. (2024). The burgeoning regional appeal of mano dura crime-fighting strategies. Center for Strategic and International Studies. [online] Available from: https://www.csis.org/analysis/burgeoning-regional-appeal-mano-dura-crime-fighting-strategies

[16] Amnesty International. (2024). Behind the veil of popularity: Repression and Regression of Human Rights in El Salvador.

[17] Amnesty International. (2024). Behind the veil of popularity: Repression and Regression of Human Rights in El Salvador.

[18] Human Rights Watch. (2022, December 7). “We can arrest anyone we want”: Widespread human rights violations under El Salvador’s “state of exception”. [online] Available from: https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/12/07/we-can-arrest-anyone-we-want/widespread-human-rights-violations-under-el

[19] Ventas, L. (2024). Coming face to face with inmates in El Salvadors mega-jail. BBC News [Online] available from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68244963

[20] Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. (2024, July 25). IACHR expresses concern over the persistence of the state of emergency and its impact on human rights in El Salvador. [online] Available from: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/jsForm/?File=/en/iachr/media_center/preleases/2024/207.asp

[21] Committee on Foreign Relations. (2021). Cruelty, coercion, and legal contortions: The Trump administration’s unsafe asylum cooperative agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador (S. PRT. 117-13). U.S. Government Publishing Office. [Online] Available from: https://www.congress.gov/117/cprt/SPRT44788/CPRT-117SPRT44788.pdf

[22] Reichlin-Melnick, A. (2021)Biden Administration Ends ‘Safe Third Country’ Agreements. Immigration Impact [Online] Available from: https://immigrationimpact.com/2021/02/08/safe-third-country-agreement-biden/

[23] Ruwitch, J. (2021) Biden Moves to End Trump-Era Asylum Agreements with Central America. NPR [Online] Available from: https://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/964907437/biden-moves-to-end-trump-era-asylum-agreements-with-central-american-countries

[24] Gil-Bazo, M. (2015) The safe third country concept in international agreements on refuges protection. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 33/1, 42–77.

[25] Walsh, P. W. (2024) Q&A: The UK’s former policy to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. The Migration Observatory {online] Available from: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/qa-the-uks-policy-to-send-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda/

[26] Blum, W. (2004) Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War Two. Zed Books

[27] Prison Insider. (n.d.). Prisons in Guatemala. [Online] Available from https://www.prison-insider.com/countryprofile/prisonsinguatemala

[28] Messerly, M. (2025) US to again withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council, stop UNRWA funding. Politico [Online] Available from: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/03/us-withdraw-un-human-rights-council-trump-00202100

You couldn’t make it up – I – the case of Rodrigo Rosenberg

This is a slightly fuller text version of Box 9.2 (p. 173) in the book. In particular this website version provides more information about the sources that may be consulted for further information about the subject.

It was a murder that spawned a macabre YouTube sensation and threatened to topple Guatemala’s government. Hitmen shot dead Rodrigo Rosenberg, a lawyer, in Guatemala City soon after he recorded a sombre video blaming his imminent assassination on President Colom.

Rosenberg was thought to be in a suicidal state, following the assassination of his close friends Khalil Musa and his daughter Marjorie Musa, the recent death of his mother and separation from his wife and children. He had been investigating the deaths of the Musas and had been romantically involved with Marjorie Musa.

An investigation by the UN International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) involved 300 officials and analysed more than 100,000 telephone calls and many videos, CCTV recordings, photographs and documents. Rosenberg had contracted his cousins Francisco José Valdés Paíz and José Estuardo Valdés Paíz to hire a hitman to carry out the murder of a supposed extortionist who was blackmailing Rosenberg. The identity of the target was allegedly unknown to the Valdés Paíz brothers, but they are now seen as the masterminds of the murder and are currently avoiding arrest. The machinations involved in the scheme would be of great fascination to dramatists, conspiracy theorists and fantasists, but are far too complex to be detailed here.

Ultimately the hit was carried out by a group led by Willian Gilberto Santos Divas, a former member of the police. Rosenberg was shot three times in the head, once in the neck and once in the back. In September 2009, nine suspects, including members of the police and military, were arrested for the murder.

The CICIG investigation concluded that the lawyer, in a state of depression over personal problems and angry with the government, sacrificed his own life in an elaborate sting. Rosenberg made the video knowing that two days later assassins he had hired would ambush him near his home. He apparently hoped the video would render him a martyr.

The Head of CICIG, Carlos Castresana, said they had found no evidence to link the President to Rosenberg’s death.


Sources:
CICIG (2010) ‘Caso Rosenberg: Resultados de la Investigación’, Guatemala City, United Nations CICIG, 12 January 2010.
Rory Carroll (2009) ‘Lawyer in YouTube murder plot video hired his own assassins – UN’, The Guardian, London, 14 January 2010.
Danilo Valladares (2009) ‘Guatemala: Police, Military arrested for lawyer’s murder’, IPS, 14 September 2009.
Julie Chappell (UK Ambassador to Guatemala) (2010) ‘The Rosenberg Assassination and Justice in Guatemala’, UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 13 January 2010.
Moon Travel Guide (2010) ‘Rosenberg planned his own execution, UN commission says’, 14 January 2010: www.moon.com/blogs/guatemala/ (accessed 24.01.10).
Gilberto López (2010) ‘La frase lapidaria, ……’, Semanario Universidad, www.semanario.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/mainmenu-mundo/ (accessed 10.01.10).
Martin Barillas (2010) ‘Guatemala: murdered lawyer planned his own death’, Spero News, 12 January 2010, www.speroforum.com/a/25412/ (accessed 24.01.10).
Central American Politics (2010) ‘Rosenberg orchestrated his own murder?’, 12 January 2010, http://centralamericanpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/01/ (accessed 24.01.10).

Costa Rica: land of natural wonders and threats to those who defend them

This is an extended version of Box 9.3 which appears in the book (page 182).

A small selection of the threats suffered by Costa Rican environmentalists follows:

1989 – the death in suspicious circumstances of the indigenous Antonio Zúñiga, who opposed illegal hunting in the Ujarrás Indigenous Reserve.

1992 – the death from shooting of Oscar Quirós, a leader in the fight against deforestation in Sarapiquí.

1994 – the death in a fire, whose cause was never satisfactorily explained, of Oscar Fallas, Jaime Bustamente and María del Mar Cordero, leaders of the Costa Rican Ecologists Association (AECO) who had run a strong campaign against the Stone Forestal company, then a subsidiary of Stone Container, a US company.

1995 – the death of David Maradiaga, a poet, ecologist and leader of AECO, after a mysterious disappearance for three weeks.

1995 – simultaneous house fires of the homes of Wilfredo Rojas (a geologist) and Elizabeth González, both professional members of the Campaign Against the Landfill Dump in Cordel de Mora.

1990s – constant threats received by members of the country’s ecological movement after denouncing environmental damage; cases include Ana Cristina Rossi (writer), Patricia Sánchez (journalist) and León González (forestry engineer).

1999 – repression and arrest of ecologists on a peaceful march to demand a moratorium on deforestation in the Osa Peninsula.

2005 – Didier Leitón Valverde – see Box 2.1 (page 35) in the book.

2007 – the lawsuit intervening against a programme on the University of Costa Rica Channel 15 made by ecologists Marielena Fournier and Fredy Pacheco.

2000s – intimidation against Alcides Parajeles, a campesino who opposes illegal hunting and felling in the Osa Peninsula; threats include the destruction of his stock fencing and firearms pointed at his family.

2008 – threats to the residents of the Perla de Guácimo as a result of their complaints against the contamination of their water by pineapple cultivation.

2009 – Aquiles Rivera – see Box 2.1 (page 35) in the book.

Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, other Costa Ricans who have been the subject of threats and intimidation as a result of their defence of the environment and rights include: Carlos Arguedas, Abel Sánchez, Marco Tulio Araya, Orlando Barrantes, Marta Blanco, Era Verde, Cristino Lázaro, Yamileth Astorga, Marielena Fournier, Fredy Pacheco, Ronald Vargas and Santos Coronado – amongst others.