Drug Abuse and Traffic

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Ecuador a segunda vuelta presidencial: lo que hay que saber

      by

      En las elecciones del domingo está en juego el futuro de un país que ha sido azotado por grupos criminales que han convertido a la nación en una pieza clave en el comercio internacional de la droga.Daniel Noboa es uno de los candidatos que aspira a convertirse en el presidente de Ecuador. Aspirante de centroderecha, Noboa es el heredero de un imperio de banano a quien un electorado ansioso de cambio, en un país que sufre por la violencia y una economía en crisis, respaldó para llegar a un sorprendente segundo lugar en la primera vuelta en agosto.Noboa se enfrenta a Luisa González, una candidata de izquierda del establishment quien, en su intento por convertirse en la primera mujer elegida para la presidencia del país, les ha prometido a los votantes el regreso a un momento en el que el nivel de la violencia era bajo y el precio del petróleo, una industria clave, era alto.En las elecciones del domingo está en juego el futuro de este país latinoamericano de más de 17 millones, que una vez fue un remanso tranquilo que ha sido trastocado por grupos criminales internacionales, convirtiendo a Ecuador en un jugador clave en el comercio internacional de la droga.Grupos criminales internacionales que trabajan con pandillas locales han desatado una oleada de violencia sin precedentes que ha hecho que decenas de miles de ecuatorianos se encaminen a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, parte de una afluencia de migración que ha desbordado al gobierno de Joe Biden.Como gran parte del resto de América Latina, Ecuador recibió un fuerte golpe financiero por la pandemia del coronavirus y a muchos trabajadores les cuesta obtener suficiente dinero para mantener a sus familias.Esto es lo que debes saber sobre la votación.Guillermo Lasso, presidente saliente de Ecuador, antes de hablar en las Naciones Unidas el mes pasado. Convocó a elecciones anticipadas tras enfrentar un proceso de juicio de destitución por parte de la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Maansi Srivastava/The New York Times¿Qué hace a estas elecciones diferentes de otras?Guillermo Lasso, el presidente saliente, convocó en mayo elecciones anticipadas para evitar un juicio de destitución por acusaciones de malversación de fondo. Lasso también se ha vuelto cada vez más impopular con los votantes indignados ante la incapacidad del gobierno por detener la violencia.El asesinato del candidato presidencial Fernando Villavicencio mientras salía de un evento de campaña en agosto conmocionó a una nación que se dirigirá a las urnas de votación durante la que ha sido quizás la temporada electoral más violenta en su historia.Este año han sido asesinados cinco políticos, además de Villavicencio —quien se expresó abiertamente sobre supuestos vínculos entre el gobierno y el crimen organizado— y la semana pasada siete hombres imputados por el asesinato de Villavicencio fueron hallados muertos en prisión.Quien gane ocupará la presidencia solo durante alrededor de un año y medio. Noboa ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días y algunas encuestas lo muestran muy cercano a González.Oficiales de la policía inspeccionan productos del mar destinados a exportación en el puerto de Guayaquil, Ecuador. El país se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo de cocaína que se contrabandea a Europa.Victor Moriyama para The New York Times¿Qué está en juego en estas elecciones?Ecuador solía ser un país pacífico en comparación con sus vecinos, en particular Colombia, nación que por décadas estuvo azotada por la violencia entre unidades guerrilleras armadas, grupos paramilitares y organizaciones del narcotráfico.Todo eso cambió en los últimos años, cuando Colombia forjó un acuerdo de paz con el grupo guerrillero de izquierda más grande del país, y Ecuador empezó a ser dominado por una red del tráfico de drogas cada vez más poderosa que incluye cárteles mexicanos y pandillas albanesas.A través de sus puertos en la costa del Pacífico, Ecuador se ha convertido en un importante punto de transbordo para la cocaína que es contrabandeada a Europa. Algunas organizaciones internacionales han unido fuerzas con pandillas radicadas en prisiones en una competencia brutal por el lucrativo mercado de la droga.Las noticias presentan periódicamente decapitaciones, atentados con coches bomba, asesinatos policiales, jóvenes colgados de puentes y niños asesinados frente a sus casas o escuelas.Luisa González es la candidata del establishment de izquierda, elegida personalmente por un expresidente.Rodrigo Buendia/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images¿Quién es Luisa González?González, de 45 años, es la candidata elegida personalmente por el expresidente Rafael Correa, quien lideró el país de 2007 a 2017. González ostentó varios cargos en su gobierno antes de ser elegida a la Asamblea Nacional en 2021, una posición que mantuvo hasta que Lasso disolvió la legislatura en mayo.Su campaña ha buscado apelar a la nostalgia de los votantes por las bajas tasas de homicidios y el auge de las materias primas que sacaron a millones de la pobreza durante el gobierno de Correa. El lema de campaña de González en la primera vuelta fue “ya lo hicimos y lo volveremos a hacer”.Pero el estrecho vínculo de González con el expresidente también conlleva riesgos. El estilo autoritario de Correa y las acusaciones de corrupción dividieron profundamente el país. Correa vive en el exilio, en Bélgica, huyendo de una sentencia de cárcel por violaciones en la financiación de su campaña, y muchos ecuatorianos temen que una presidencia de González allane el camino para que Correa regrese y vuelva a postularse para la presidencia.González se ha comprometido a recurrir a las reservas del banco central para estimular la economía e incrementar el financiamiento al sistema de salud pública y las universidades públicas.“Sabemos que está con el pueblo, no con la gente rica y por eso va a mejorar las cosas para nosotros”, dijo Oswaldo Proaño, un vendedor ambulante de 40 años, en Quito, la capital, quien habló en medio de gritos y silbidos en un mitin de campaña reciente de González.“Con Luisa vamos a tener seguridad, como la teníamos en el tiempo de Rafael Correa”, dijo Luisa María Manteca, de 65 años, quien trabaja en una distribuidora de productos cosméticos en Quito. “Con él, el país marchó bien y hay que continuar por ese rumbo”.La posibilidad de que González se convierta en la primera mujer en ganar la presidencia de Ecuador también atrae a muchos votantes.“Es una persona muy humilde”, dijo Debora Espinosa, una estudiante universitaria de 19 años. “Como mujer nos entiende”.Daniel Noboa, candidato de centroderecha, ha tenido una ventaja constante en diversas encuestas desde agosto, aunque esta se ha reducido ligeramente en los últimos días.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images¿Quién es Daniel Noboa?Noboa, de 35 años, proviene de una de las familias más ricas de América Latina, conocida por la mayoría de los ecuatorianos por su imperio bananero, que tiene una de las marcas de fruta más conocidas del mundo, bananas Bonita.Pero los vastos activos de la familia Noboa son variados e incluyen fertilizantes, plásticos, cartón y el complejo de almacenamiento de contenedores más grande del país.El padre de Noboa se postuló cinco veces a la presidencia sin éxito, pero la carrera política del joven Noboa apenas se remonta a 2021, cuando fue elegido para la Asamblea Nacional de Ecuador.Noboa se ha calificado a sí mismo como el “presidente del empleo”, hasta el punto de incluir una planilla de solicitud laboral en su sitio web, y ha prometido atraer la inversión y el comercio internacional y reducir los impuestos.Pero al igual que su padre, Noboa también ha generado críticas de analistas que temen que pueda utilizar su presidencia para favorecer el cada vez mayor imperio empresarial de su familia.En un reciente evento de campaña, cientos de estudiantes universitarios hicieron fila en la ciudad costera de Guayaquil, la ciudad más poblada del país y uno de los epicentros de la violencia, donde esperaron más de una hora para ver a Noboa.Noboa se quitó el chaleco antibalas y, lenta y tranquilamente, respondió las preguntas de los estudiantes, repitiendo sus temas de debate sobre convertir a Ecuador en un mercado atractivo para la banca internacional. Fue recibido con aplausos, vítores y adolescentes corriendo para tomarse selfies con él.“He estado viendo sus entrevistas y me gustan sus propuestas en temas como la dolarización, la educación y el trabajo”, dijo Dereck Delgado, un estudiante de ingeniería eléctrica de 17 años, quien planea votar por Noboa. (La edad mínima para votar en Ecuador es 16, y es un deber obligatorio para los mayores de 18 años).Muchos votantes también apoyan a Noboa porque representa una alternativa al partido de Correa. Valeria Vásquez, de 33 años, quien administra una compañía local de productos de belleza en Guayaquil, dijo que le gustaba que Noboa “no es socialista”.Otra simpatizante de Noboa, Natasha Villegas, una estudiante universitaria de 19 años en Guayaquil, afirmó que creía que había llegado la “hora de darle la oportunidad a una persona joven”.¿Qué dicen los candidatos sobre la seguridad?Noboa y González han prometido frenar la violencia, pero ninguno de los dos ha hecho de la seguridad una parte central de sus campañas.Ambos candidatos han hablado sobre proporcionarle más dinero a la policía y desplegar las fuerzas militares para asegurar los puertos que se utilizan para el contrabando de drogas fuera del país y las prisiones, las cuales están controladas por violentas pandillas.González ha señalado los arrestos de varios líderes de pandillas criminales durante su tiempo en el gobierno de Correa como evidencia de su intención de aplicar una mano firme.Noboa ha propuesto el uso de la tecnología, como drones y sistemas de rastreo satelital, para combatir el narcotráfico, y ha sugerido la construcción de barcos prisión para aislar a los reclusos más violentos.Sin embargo, los analistas afirman que ninguno de los dos candidatos ha hecho lo suficiente para darle prioridad al combate del crimen que ha desestabilizado a Ecuador y ha convertido a la nación en uno de los países más violentos de América Latina.Thalíe Ponce colaboró con reportería desde Guayaquil; Emilia Paz y Miño y José María León Cabrera colaboraron desde Quito. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Ecuador’s Presidential Election: What to Know

      by

      A center-right businessman and a leftist candidate are vying for the presidency on Sunday at a moment when the country is facing growing insecurity fueled by international criminal groups.One candidate seeking to become Ecuador’s president is Daniel Noboa, a center-right scion of a banana empire who was lifted to a surprising second-place finish in a runoff in August by an electorate hungry for change in a country suffering from violence and an ailing economy.Mr. Noboa is facing Luisa González, a leftist establishment candidate who, in trying to become the first woman elected the country’s president, is promising voters a return to a period when violence was low and the price of oil, a key industry, was high.At stake in Sunday’s election is the future of this Latin American nation of more than 17 million, a once tranquil haven that has been upended by international criminal groups that have turned Ecuador into a key player in the global drug trade.Working with local gangs, the global cartels have unleashed a surge of violence that has sent tens of thousands of Ecuadoreans fleeing to the U.S.-Mexico border, part of a migration wave that has overwhelmed the Biden administration.Like much of the rest of Latin America, Ecuador was dealt a major financial blow by the coronavirus pandemic and many workers struggle to make enough money provide for their families.Here’s what you need to know about the vote.Guillermo Lasso, the outgoing president of Ecuador, before speaking at the United Nations last month. He called early elections as he faced an impeachment proceeding by Ecuador’s legislature.Maansi Srivastava/The New York TimesWhat makes this election different from others?The outgoing president, Guillermo Lasso, called for early elections in May as he faced impeachment proceedings against him stemming from accusations of embezzlement. Mr. Lasso had also grown increasingly unpopular with voters angry over the government’s inability to address the spiraling violence.The assassination of a presidential candidate, Fernando Villavicencio, as he left a campaign event in August was a traumatic jolt for a nation that heads to the polls during what has been perhaps the most violent electoral season in its history.Beside Mr. Villavicencio — who was outspoken about what he claimed were links between organized crime and the government — five other politicians have been killed this year. Last week, seven men accused of killing Mr. Villavicencio were found dead in prison.Whoever wins will hold the presidency for only about a year and a half. Mr. Noboa has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though it has narrowed slightly in recent days and some surveys show him neck and neck with Ms. González.Police inspecting seafood destined for export at the port of Guayaquil, Ecuador. The country has become a major transshipment point for cocaine that is smuggled to Europe.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesWhat is at stake in this election?Ecuador was once a peaceful nation compared with its neighbors, particularly Colombia, which for decades was torn by violence among armed guerrilla units, paramilitary groups and drug cartels.That all changed in recent years as Colombia forged a peace deal with the country’s largest leftist guerrilla group, and Ecuador became dominated by an increasingly powerful narco-trafficking industry that includes Mexican cartels and Albanian gangs.Through its ports on the Pacific Coast, Ecuador has become a major transshipment point for cocaine that is smuggled to Europe. International groups have joined forces with prison-based gangs in a brutal competition for the lucrative drug industry.News reports regularly feature beheadings, car bombings, police assassinations, young men hanging from bridges and children gunned down outside their homes or schools.Luisa González is a leftist establishment candidate who is the handpicked candidate of a former president. Rodrigo Buendia/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWho is Luisa González?Ms. González, 45, is the handpicked candidate of former President Rafael Correa, who led the country from 2007 to 2017. She held several positions in his government before being elected to congress in 2021, a position she held until the legislature was dissolved by Mr. Lasso in May.Her campaign has sought to appeal to voter nostalgia for the low homicide rates and commodities boom that lifted millions out of poverty during Mr. Correa’s administration. Ms. González’s campaign slogan in the first round was “we already did it and we will do it again.”But Ms. González’s close association with the former president also carries risks. Mr. Correa’s authoritarian style and accusations of corruption deeply divided the country. He is living in exile in Belgium, fleeing a prison sentence for campaign finance violations, and many Ecuadoreans fear that a González presidency would pave the way for him to return and run for office again.Ms. González has pledged to tap central bank reserves to stimulate the economy and increase financing for the public health care system and public universities.“We know she is with the people, not with the rich, and that is why she is going to improve things,” said Oswaldo Proaño, 40, a street vendor in Quito, the capital, who spoke amid shouts and whistles at a recent campaign rally for Ms. González.“With Luisa we will have security, as we had in the time of Rafael Correa,” said Luisa María Manteca, 65, who works at a cosmetics distributor in Quito. “With him, the country ran smoothly and we have to continue on that path.”The possibility that Ms. González could become the first woman to win Ecuador’s presidency also appeals to many voters. “She is a very humble person,’’ said Debora Espinosa, 19, a university student. “As a woman she understands us.”Daniel Noboa, a center-right candidate, has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though that lead has narrowed slightly in recent days.Gerardo Menoscal/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesWho is Daniel Noboa?Mr. Noboa, 35, comes from one of the richest families in Latin America, known to most Ecuadoreans for its banana empire, which features one of the world’s best known fruit brands, Bonita bananas.But the Noboa family’s vast holdings are varied and include fertilizers, plastics, cardboard and the country’s largest container storage facility.Mr. Noboa’s father ran unsuccessfully for president five times, though the younger Noboa’s political career goes back only to 2021, when he was elected to Ecuador’s Congress.He has positioned himself as “the employment president,” even including a work application form on his website, and has pledged to attract international investment and trade and cut taxes.But like his father, Mr. Noboa has also drawn criticism from analysts who fear he could use the presidency to advance the family’s sprawling business empire.At a recent campaign event, hundreds of university students lined up in the coastal city of Guayaquil, the country’s most populous city and an epicenter of the violence, waiting for more than an hour to see Mr. Noboa.Taking off his bullet-resistant vest, he slowly and calmly answered the students’ questions, repeating his talking points about making Ecuador an attractive market for international banking. He was met with applause, cheers and teenagers running to snap selfies with him.“I have been watching his interviews and I like his proposals on issues such as dollarization, education and work,” said Dereck Delgado, 17, an electrical engineering student, who plans to vote for Mr. Noboa. (The voting age in Ecuador is 16 and votingis mandatory for those 18 and older).Many voters are also drawn to him because he represents an alternative to Mr. Correa’s party. Valeria Vásquez, 33, who manages a local beauty product company in Guayaquil, said she liked that Mr. Noboa is “not a socialist.”Another Noboa supporter, Natasha Villegas, 19, a university student in Guayaquil, said she believed it was “time to give the opportunity to a young person.’’What are the candidates saying about security?Mr. Noboa and Ms. González have vowed to rein in the violence, though neither has made security a central part of their campaigns.Both candidates have talked about providing more money for the police and deploying the military to secure ports used to smuggle drugs out of the country and prisons, which are controlled by violent gangs.Ms. González has pointed to the arrests of several leaders of criminal gangs when she served in the Correa administration as evidence of her intention to apply a firm hand.Mr. Noboa has proposed the use of technology, like drones and satellite tracking systems, to stem drug trafficking, and has suggested building prison boats to isolate the most violent inmates.But analysts say the two candidates have not done enough to prioritize combating the crime that has destabilized Ecuador and turned it into one of Latin America’s most violent countries.Thalíe Ponce contributed reporting from Guayaquil; Emilia Paz y Miño and José María León Cabrera contributed from Quito. More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Is Daniel Noboa the Answer to Ecuador’s Need for Change?

      by

      For generations, the Noboa family has helped shape Ecuador, overseeing a vast economic empire, including fertilizers, plastics, cardboard, the country’s largest container storage facility and, most famously, a gargantuan banana business featuring one of the world’s most recognizable fruit brands, Bonita.One notable position has escaped them, however: the presidency. On five occasions, the head of the family conglomerate, Álvaro Noboa, has run for president and lost — in one case by two percentage points.On Sunday, the Noboas may finally get their presidency. Mr. Noboa’s son, Daniel Noboa, a 35-year-old Harvard Kennedy School graduate who has used the same campaign jingle as his father, is the leading candidate in a runoff election. His opponent is Luisa González, the handpicked candidate of former President Rafael Correa, who beat the elder Noboa in 2006.The legacy of the banana company — and Daniel Noboa’s association with it — is just one aspect of an election that centers on issues of employment and security in this country of 17 million on South America’s western coast that has been jolted by the extraordinary power gained by the drug trafficking industry in the last five years.International criminal groups working with local gangs have unleashed an unprecedented surge of violence that has sent tens of thousands of Ecuadoreans fleeing to the U.S.-Mexico border, part of a migration wave that has overwhelmed the Biden administration.Mr. Noboa rose unexpectedly from the bottom of the polls to a second-place finish in the first round of presidential elections in August, helped, experts said, by a widely lauded debate performance and the upending of the race by the shocking assassination of another candidate, Fernando Villavicencio, days before the vote.Mr. Noboa has galvanized a base of frustrated voters on the back of a campaign promising change.“He has been able to say that ‘I represent renewal in Ecuador,’” said Caroline Ávila, an Ecuadorean political analyst. “And that is why people are buying his message.”Sunday’s election pits Mr. Noboa, a center-right businessman, against Ms. González, 45, a leftist establishment candidate, at a moment of deep anxiety in a country once a relatively peaceful island in a violent region.Mr. Noboa’s opponent, Luisa González, is the handpicked candidate of former President Rafael Correa.Karen Toro/ReutersMr. Noboa, who declined several requests for an interview, has had a consistent lead in multiple polls since August, though it has narrowed slightly in recent days.He has positioned himself as “the employment president,” even including a work application form on his website, and has promised to attract international investment and trade and cut taxes.His opponent, Ms. González, has pledged to tap central bank reserves to stimulate the economy and increase financing for the public health care system and public universities.On security, both candidates have talked about providing more money for the police and deploying the military to secure ports used to smuggle drugs out of the country and prisons, which are controlled by violent gangs.Ms. González’s close association with Mr. Correa has helped elevate her political profile, but also hurt her among some voters.Her first place finish in the first round was propelled by a strong base of voters nostalgic for the low homicide rates and commodities boom that lifted millions out of poverty during Mr. Correa’s administration. Ms. González’s campaign slogan in the first round was “we already did it and we will do it again.”But building on that support is a challenge. Mr. Correa’s authoritarian style and accusations of corruption deeply divided the country. He is living in exile in Belgium, fleeing a prison sentence for campaign finance violations, and many Ecuadoreans fear that a González presidency would pave the way for him to return and run for office again.Mr. Correa’s tenure was marked by low homicide rates and a commodities boom that lifted millions out of poverty. But now he is living in exile, facing a prison term on corruption chargesDaniel Berehulak for The New York TimesDaniel Noboa is part of the third generation of his family that today operates a sprawling venture, but whose roots were in agriculture.The Noboa family’s rise to prominence and wealth began with Luis Noboa, Daniel’s grandfather, who was born into poverty in 1916, but started building his business empire in the second half of the 20th century by exporting bananas and other crops.His death in 1994 set off a bitter court battle on three continents among his wife and children for control of the business that finally ended in 2002, when a judge in London awarded Álvaro Noboa a 50 percent stake in the family’s holding company.Álvaro expanded the company internationally, while also fighting multiple legal battles over back taxes and disputed payments to shipping companies.As a politician, he described himself as a “messiah of the poor,” handing out free computers and fistfuls of dollars at his rallies, while also fending off accusations of child labor, worker mistreatment and union busting at his banana business. (He has claimed that the accusations were politically motivated.)His son, Daniel, was raised in the port city of Guayaquil, where he founded an event promotion company when he was 18, before moving to the United States to study at New York University. Afterward he became commercial director for the Noboa Corporation and earned three more degrees, including a master’s in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School.He ran successfully for Ecuador’s Congress in 2021, positioning himself as a pro-business lawmaker, until President Guillermo Lasso disbanded the legislature in May and called for early elections.Mr. Noboa, shown wearing a bullet-resistant vest, and Ms. González have vowed to rein in the violence, though neither has made security a central part of their campaign.Marcos Pin/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Noboa has promoted a more left-leaning platform, railing against the banking industry and calling for more social spending.A Harvard classmate and close friend of Mr. Noboa, Mauricio Lizcano, a senior official in Colombia, described the candidate as someone “who respects diversity and respects women, who believes in social issues” but is also “orthodox in economics and business.’’Still, Mr. Noboa has not raised social issues on the campaign trail, and his running mate, Verónica Abad, is a right-wing business coach who has spoken out against abortion, feminism and L.G.B.T.Q. rights and expressed support for Donald J. Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil’s former far-right president.Ms. Abad is “a really odd choice for someone like Noboa who’s trying to transcend this kind of left-right divide,” said Guillaume Long, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Ecuador’s former foreign minister under Mr. Correa.Despite his family pedigree, Mr. Noboa has tried to set himself apart, pointing out that he has his own business and that his personal wealth is valued at less than $1 million.While Álvaro frequently referred to Mr. Correa as a “communist devil,” his son has avoided directly attacking “correísmo.’’“I never voted for his father, but this guy has a different aura, new blood, a new way of thinking,’’ said Enrique Insua, a 63-year-old retiree in Guayaquil. “He is charismatic.”A campaign mural for Mr. Noboa in Duran, Ecuador, a municipality on the Pacific Coast that has been torn by violence. Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressBut like his father, Daniel has also drawn criticism from analysts who fear he could use the presidency to advance the family’s many businesses.“Whether in the manufacturing sector, in services or agriculture, everything is under their control in some way or another,” said Grace Jaramillo, a political science professor and expert on Ecuador at the University of British Columbia in Canada.“There’s no issue in economic policy that will not affect for the good or bad, any of their enterprises,” she added. “It’s a permanent conflict of interest.”Ecuador’s economy was ravaged by the coronavirus pandemic, and just 34 percent of Ecuadoreans have adequate employment, according to government data.Beyond the economy, the country heads to the polls during what has perhaps been the most violent electoral season in its history.Beside Mr. Villavicencio — who was outspoken about what he claimed were links between organized crime and the government — five other politicians have been killed this year. Last week, seven men accused of killing Mr. Villavicencio were found dead in prison.Soldiers on patrol in Guayaquil, Ecuador, the country’s largest city, which has also experienced drug-fueled violence.Victor Moriyama for The New York TimesMr. Lasso, the departing president, called for early elections to avoid an impeachment trial over accusations of embezzlement and widespread voter anger with the government’s inability to stem the bloodshed.With news reports regularly featuring beheadings, car bombs and police assassinations, Mr. Noboa and Ms. González have vowed to rein in the violence, though neither has made security a central part of their campaigns.Ms. González, during a presidential debate, pointed to the arrests of several leaders of criminal gangs when she served in the Correa administration.“We will have the same iron fist with those who have declared war on the Ecuadorean state,” she said.Mr. Noboa has proposed the use of technology, like drones and satellite tracking systems, to stem drug trafficking and has suggested building prison boats to isolate the most violent inmates.But analysts say the two candidates have not done enough to prioritize combating the crime that has destabilized Ecuador and turned it into one of Latin America’s most violent countries.“Neither Luisa González, nor especially Noboa seem to have much of a plan on security or to emphasize it,” said Will Freeman, a fellow in Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, a U.S. research institute. “It’s like politics is frozen in an era before all this happened.”Thalíe Ponce More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Ecuador: Noboa y González se enfrentan en segunda vuelta

      by

      Durante generaciones, la familia Noboa ha ayudado a forjar a Ecuador: controla un vasto imperio económico que incluye fertilizantes, plástico, cartón, la mayor instalación de almacenamiento de contenedores del país y, lo más conocido, un gigantesco negocio de banano con una de las marcas de fruta más reconocidas del mundo: Bonita.Sin embargo, se les ha escapado un cargo: la presidencia. En cinco ocasiones, el jefe del conglomerado familiar, Álvaro Noboa, ha sido candidato a la presidencia y ha perdido, una vez por dos puntos porcentuales.El domingo, los Noboa podrían al fin llegar a la presidencia. El hijo de Álvaro Noboa, Daniel Noboa, graduado de la Escuela de Gobierno John F. Kennedy de 35 años que ha usado el mismo jingle de campaña que su padre, es el principal candidato en la segunda vuelta electoral. Su oponente es Luisa González, la candidata elegida personalmente por el expresidente Rafael Correa, que venció al padre de Noboa en 2006.El legado de la empresa bananera —y su vínculo con Daniel Noboa— es solo uno de los aspectos de unas elecciones que se centran en cuestiones de empleo y seguridad en este país de 17 millones de habitantes en la costa occidental de Sudamérica, conmocionado por el extraordinario poder que el narcotráfico ha adquirido en los últimos cinco años.Grupos criminales internacionales que trabajan con pandillas locales han desatado una oleada de violencia sin precedentes que ha hecho que decenas de miles de ecuatorianos se encaminen a la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México, parte de una afluencia de migración que ha desbordado al gobierno de Joe Biden.Noboa surgió inesperadamente desde los últimos lugares de las encuestas para posicionarse en el segundo puesto en la primera ronda presidencial de agosto. Los expertos dicen que le favoreció una celebrada actuación en el debate, así como el vuelco que tomó la contienda cuando otro candidato, Fernando Villavicencio, fue asesinado sorpresivamente días antes de las votaciones.Noboa ha activado a una base de votantes inconformes con la promesa del cambio.“Ha sido capaz de decir: ‘Yo soy la renovación, yo la represento en Ecuador’”, dijo Caroline Ávila, una analista política ecuatoriana. Ese es el mensaje que “la gente le está comprando”, agregó.Las elecciones del domingo enfrentan a Noboa, un empresario de centroderecha, con González, de 45 años, candidata del establishment de izquierda, en un momento en que el país, otrora una isla relativamente pacífica en una región violenta, está sumido en una profunda inquietud.La oponente de Noboa, Luisa González, es la candidata elegida por el expresidente Rafael Correa.Karen Toro/ReutersNoboa, quien rechazó varios pedidos de entrevista, ha tenido la delantera de forma consistente en varias encuestas desde agosto, aunque en los últimos días la brecha entre ambos candidatos se ha cerrado.Se ha posicionado como “el presidente del empleo”, en su página web incluso ha incluido un formulario de búsqueda de empleo, y prometido atraer el comercio y la inversión extranjeros y recortar los impuestos.González, su oponente, ha prometido hacer uso de las reservas del banco central para estimular la economía y aumentar la financiación del sistema público de salud y las universidades públicas.En materia de seguridad, ambos candidatos han mencionado que brindarán más fondos a la policía y emplearán al ejército para resguardar los puertos, que se usan para el narcotráfico, y las prisiones, que están bajo el control de pandillas violentas.La cercanía de González con Correa ha ayudado a elevar su perfil político, pero también le ha perjudicado entre algunos votantes.Logró el primer lugar en la primera vuelta de las elecciones impulsada por una amplia base de votantes que añoran las bajas tasas de homicidios y un auge de los precios de las materias primas que logró sacar a millones de personas de la pobreza en el gobierno de Correa. El eslogan de campaña de González en la primera vuelta fue: “Ya lo hicimos y lo volveremos a hacer”.Pero ampliar ese apoyo es un desafío. El estilo autoritario de Correa y las acusaciones de corrupción en su contra dividieron profundamente al país. El expresidente vive exiliado en Bélgica, huyendo de una condena de prisión por violar las disposiciones de financiamiento de campaña. Muchos ecuatorianos temen que una eventual presidencia de González allane el camino para que regrese y vuelva a postularse.El mandato de Correa se caracterizó por unos bajos índices de homicidios y el auge de los precios de las materias primas, que sacó a millones de personas de la pobreza. Pero ahora vive en el exilio, sentenciado a prisión por corrupción.Daniel Berehulak para The New York TimesDaniel Noboa forma parte de la tercera generación de una familia que hoy opera un amplio negocio pero con raíces en la agricultura.La familia Noboa adquirió riqueza y prominencia gracias a Luis Noboa, abuelo de Daniel, quien nació en la pobreza en 1916 pero construyó un imperio en la segunda mitad del siglo XX a base de la exportación de banano y otros productos.Su muerte, en 1994, desató una encarnizada batalla judicial en tres continentes cuando su esposa e hijos se disputaron el control del negocio. Al final, en 2002, un juez en Londres le adjudicó a Álvaro Noboa una participación del 50 por ciento en el holding familiar.Álvaro expandió la empresa a nivel internacional y al mismo tiempo emprendió varias peleas judiciales por impuestos atrasados y litigio de pagos con empresas de transporte.En su carrera política se describió como “mesías” de los pobres y en sus mítines entregaba computadoras y puñados de dólares. Al mismo tiempo refutaba acusaciones de explotación infantil, maltrato laboral y represión sindical en su empresa bananera. (Ha dicho que las acusaciones tenían motivaciones políticas).Su hijo, Daniel, creció en la ciudad portuaria de Guayaquil, donde fundó una empresa de promoción de eventos a los 18 años. Luego se mudó a Estados Unidos para estudiar en la Universidad de Nueva York. Luego sería director comercial de la Corporación Noboa al tiempo que obtuvo otros tres grados académicos, entre ellos una maestría en administración pública de la Escuela Kennedy de Harvard.En 2021, Daniel se postuló al Congreso y ganó, al posicionarse como un legislador favorable al empresariado, hasta que en mayo el presidente Guillermo Lasso disolvió la legislatura y llamó a elecciones anticipadas.Noboa, en la foto con un chaleco antibalas, y González se han comprometido a frenar la violencia, aunque ninguno de los dos ha hecho de la seguridad una parte central de su campaña.Marcos Pin/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesNoboa ha promovido una plataforma más de izquierda y se ha pronunciado en contra de la banca y pedido más gasto social.Mauricio Lizcano, compañero y amigo cercano de Noboa, así como alto funcionario en Colombia, describió al candidato como alguien “que respeta la diversidad y respeta a las mujeres, que cree mucho en lo social”, pero también es “ortodoxo en la economía y en la empresa”.Sin embargo, Noboa no ha planteado temas sociales en campaña y Verónica Abad, su compañera de fórmula, es una coach de negocios de derecha que se ha pronunciado en contra del aborto, el feminismo y los derechos de la comunidad LGBTQ y también ha expresado apoyo por Donald Trump y Jair Bolsonaro, el expresidente ultraderechista de Brasil.Abad es “una elección bastante rara para alguien como Noboa, que está intentando ir más allá de esta división izquierda-derecha”, dijo Guillaume Long, analista sénior de política en el Centro de Investigación Económica y Política y quien se desempeñó como ministro de Relaciones Exteriores en el gobierno de Correa.A pesar de su pedigrí familiar, Noboa ha intentado diferenciarse al declarar que tiene su propio negocio y que su fortuna personal no asciende a 1 millón de dólares.Si bien Álvaro se refería con frecuencia a Correa como un “diablo comunista”, su hijo ha evitado atacar directamente al correísmo.“Por el padre nunca voté, pero este chico tiene un aura diferente, nueva sangre, nueva forma de pensar”, dijo Enrique Insua, un jubilado de 63 años en Guayaquil. “Es carismático”.Un mural de la campaña de Noboa en Durán, Ecuador, una ciudad de la costa del Pacífico afectada por la violencia.Rodrigo Abd/Associated PressPero, al igual que su padre, Daniel también ha atraído críticas de algunos analistas, que temen que pudiera usar el cargo presidencial para ayudar a las muchas empresas familiares.“Ya sea en el sector manufacturero, en los servicios o en la agricultura, de una forma u otra todo está bajo su control”, dijo Grace Jaramillo profesora de ciencia política y experta en Ecuador en la Universidad de British Columbia en Canadá.“No hay tema de política económica que no afectará, para bien o para mal, a alguna de sus empresas”, añadió. “Es un conflicto de interés permanente”.La economía del país fue muy afectada por la pandemia de coronavirus y solo el 34 por ciento de ecuatorianos tienen un empleo adecuado, según datos gubernamentales.Además del sector económico, el país se dirige a las urnas en la que tal vez sea la temporada electoral más violenta de la historia del país.Este año han sido asesinados cinco políticos, además de Villavicencio —quien se expresó abiertamente sobre supuestos vínculos entre el gobierno y el crimen organizado— y la semana pasada siete hombres imputados por el asesinato de Villavicencio fueron hallados muertos en prisión.Soldados patrullando en Guayaquil, la ciudad más grande de Ecuador, que también ha sufrido la violencia del narcotráfico.Victor Moriyama para The New York TimesLasso, el presidente saliente, convocó a elecciones anticipadas para evitar un juicio de destitución por acusaciones malversación de fondos y una indignación generalizada de los votantes ante la incapacidad del gobierno por detener la violencia.Ante un panorama informativo en el que suelen reportarse decapitaciones, coches bomba y asesinatos de policías, tanto Noboa como González han prometido frenar la violencia, aunque ninguno de los dos ha hecho de la seguridad un tema central de campaña.En un debate presidencial González mencionó el arresto de varios líderes de bandas criminales durante su tiempo en el gobierno de Correa.“La misma mano dura tendremos con quienes le han declarado la guerra al Estado ecuatoriano”, dijo.Noboa ha propuesto emplear la tecnología, como drones y sistemas de rastreo satelital, para detener al narcotráfico; sugirió buques prisión como una forma de aislar a los reos más violentos.Pero los analistas comentan que ambos candidatos han fallado al no priorizar el combate al crimen; la delincuencia ha desestabilizado a Ecuador y lo ha convertido en uno de los países más violentos de América Latina.“Ni Luisa González ni especialmente Noboa parecen tener un plan de seguridad bien definido ni la enfatizan”, dijo Will Freeman, investigador de Estudios Latinoamericanos en el Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores. “Es como si la política estuviera congelada en una época previa”.Thalíe Ponce More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump quería lanzar misiles a México. El Partido Republicano habla de enviar tropas

      by

      La idea republicana de usar la fuerza militar en México contra los cárteles de la droga comenzó como una fantasía de Donald Trump en el Despacho Oval. El expresidente busca hacerla realidad en 2025.La primera vez que Donald Trump habló en privado sobre lanzar misiles a México para destruir laboratorios de droga, por lo que recuerdan sus exasesores, fue en 2020.Y la primera vez que esos comentarios salieron a la luz pública fue cuando su segundo secretario de Defensa, Mark Esper, escribió en sus memorias que Trump se lo había planteado y le había preguntado si era posible que Estados Unidos hiciera parecer que el responsable era otro país. Esper describió la idea como algo absurdo.Sin embargo, en lugar de condenar la idea, algunos republicanos celebraron de manera pública la noticia de que Trump había querido emplear la fuerza militar contra los cárteles de la droga en territorio mexicano, y sin el consentimiento del gobierno de México. Muy pronto, la idea de Trump de una intervención militar al sur de la frontera estadounidense ha pasado de ser una fantasía del Despacho Oval a algo parecido a la doctrina del Partido Republicano.Durante la campaña presidencial y en el escenario del debate republicano en California la semana pasada, casi todos los aspirantes republicanos han defendido versiones distintas de un plan para enviar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales de EE. UU. a territorio mexicano para ejecutar o detener a miembros de los cárteles de la droga y destruir sus laboratorios y centros de distribución.En el Capitolio, un grupo de legisladores republicanos escribió una autorización robusta para el uso de la fuerza militar contra los cárteles, similares a los poderes de guerra que el Congreso le otorgó al expresidente George W. Bush antes de las invasiones de Afganistán e Irak. También han presionado para designar a los cárteles mexicanos como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras, una idea relacionada con la que coqueteó Trump como presidente, pero se retractó después de que México se opusiera de manera vehemente. Ahora, si Trump vuelve a la Casa Blanca en 2025, se ha comprometido a impulsar la designación y a desplegar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales y a las fuerzas navales para, según sus palabras, declarar la guerra a los cárteles.La proclividad del Partido Republicano de buscar una solución militar al problema de las drogas es un recordatorio de que el partido —a pesar de su viraje populista al antintervencionismo en los años de Trump y a que una facción que se opone a armar a Ucrania contra la invasión de Rusia ha crecido— todavía emplea la fuerza armada para lidiar con algunos temas complejos e inextricables. El propio Trump ha sido una especie de contradicción andante en lo que respecta al uso de la fuerza en el extranjero: por una parte, ha querido retirar la participación de Estados Unidos en el extranjero y, por otra, ha amenazado con lanzar bombas a enemigos como Irán.Los planes han indignado a las autoridades mexicanas. El presidente del país, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha denunciado las propuestas como indignantes e inaceptables. Hace más de un siglo que Estados Unidos no envía personal militar a México sin el consentimiento del gobierno mexicano.México tiene una historia amarga con la injerencia estadounidense: un gran trecho del suroeste estadounidense era parte de México antes de que Estados Unidos lo tomara por la fuerza a mediados del siglo XIX. Por lo general, México no permite al día de hoy que agentes estadounidenses armados ejecuten operaciones en su territorio, a diferencia de otros países latinoamericanos que han aceptado realizar operaciones conjuntas con la Administración para el Control de Drogas y que han invitado al gobierno estadounidense a ayudar a instruir, equipar y asistir a sus fuerzas de seguridad.Los analistas también han señalado la posibilidad de que una acción militar provoque daños económicos importantes. Los planes podrían romper la relación de Estados Unidos con México, su mayor socio comercial, y reducir otros tipos de cooperación, como la detención y extradición de delincuentes y los esfuerzos de México para disuadir a los migrantes de intentar cruzar de manera ilegal a Estados Unidos. Algunos republicanos conciben la amenaza de enviar el ejército a México como una herramienta de negociación para forzar a las autoridades mexicanas a tomar posturas más agresivas contra los cárteles.Por lo general, el derecho internacional prohíbe que un país haga uso de la fuerza militar en el territorio soberano de otra nación sin su consentimiento, salvo con el permiso del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas o en casos de legítima defensa. Pero Estados Unidos ha adoptado la postura de que puede utilizar la fuerza unilateral y legalmente en el territorio de otro país si su gobierno no es capaz o no quiere eliminar una amenaza no estatal que surja dentro de sus fronteras, como la amenaza de un grupo terrorista.Los republicanos han descrito las redes criminales mexicanas de narcotráfico como una amenaza para la seguridad nacional estadounidense, y algunos han calificado el fentanilo como un arma de destrucción masiva.Los estadounidenses gastan miles de millones de dólares al año en cocaína, heroína y otras drogas ilegales. En gran medida y durante décadas, el mercado negro generado por esa demanda ha sido abastecido por las operaciones delictivas de contrabando a lo largo de los más de 3000 kilómetros de frontera con México. Pero el auge del fentanilo —un fuerte opioide sintético de acción rápida que puede elaborarse a bajo costo a partir de sustancias químicas— ha creado una crisis. El fentanilo se ha vinculado a más de dos tercios de las casi 110.000 muertes por sobredosis en Estados Unidos el año pasado, y los legisladores de ambos partidos han estado buscando soluciones con urgencia.También ha crecido la frustración con el gobierno mexicano, cuyo presidente ha abogado por una política de “abrazos, no balazos” para lidiar con la delincuencia relacionada con las drogas, luego de que las medidas enérgicas contra los líderes de los cárteles de gobiernos anteriores derivaran en una violencia generalizada. Los cárteles, que se asemejan a organizaciones paramilitares con alta tecnología, han tomado el control de vastas zonas de México y han corrompido a muchos funcionarios gubernamentales y de las fuerzas del orden.El gobierno de Joe Biden, al igual que las gestiones anteriores de presidentes de ambos partidos, ha intentado colaborar con México para frenar el flujo de drogas y ha descartado la acción militar de manera explícita.Chris Landau, quien fue embajador de Trump en México de 2019 a 2021, consideró que la noción de usar la fuerza militar en un país fronterizo era una mala idea que solo empeoraría la situación. Advirtió que podría crear un nuevo “atolladero” y recordó las consecuencias de las intervenciones militares en Irak y Afganistán.“Entiendo la frustración”, añadió Landau. “Solo creo que un modelo de ‘tiroteo entre forajidos y autoridades’ no va a resolverlo y causará muchos más problemas”.Los orígenes en el Despacho OvalEl expresidente Donald Trump en el muro fronterizo durante una conmemoración en San Luis, Arizona, en junio de 2020. Trump tuvo varias conversaciones con asesores y otros miembros de su gestión sobre el combate a los cárteles mexicanos.Doug Mills/The New York TimesLa historia del modo en el que la idea de enviar fuerzas militares a México pasó del Despacho Oval de Trump al centro de la conversación política republicana es complicada y mucho más que una simple historia de legisladores que imitan a Trump.La propuesta de Trump de lanzar misiles contra laboratorios de drogas mexicanos no fue algo que inventara de cero. Surgió durante una reunión y un hombre en uniforme confirmó que era posible.Sin embargo, ese hombre en uniforme no pertenecía a la cadena de mando militar: era un oficial médico, una persona inusual para asesorar al presidente de Estados Unidos sobre operaciones militares en cualquier lugar.A finales de 2019 y principios de 2020, cuando la crisis del fentanilo se intensificaba, se hicieron reuniones a gran escala en el Despacho Oval en las que se abordó cómo lidiar con el problema. Algunas personas que participaron consideraron que las reuniones no servían de mucho porque los funcionarios tendían a actuar como Trump esperaba, y él actuaba para ellos.Cuando la idea de una intervención militar se planteó en una de esas reuniones, Trump se dirigió a Brett Giroir, quien estaba allí en calidad de subsecretario de Salud de EE. UU. Giroir era también almirante de cuatro estrellas en el Cuerpo Comisionado del Servicio de Salud Pública, y llevaba su uniforme de gala. Su principal argumento fue que Estados Unidos no era capaz de combatir la crisis solo con tratamiento, según una persona informada de sus comentarios.Por la forma en que Trump se enfocó en Giroir, quedaba claro que, debido a su uniforme de gala, había asumido erróneamente que pertenecía al ejército, según dos participantes en la reunión. Giroir, en su respuesta, sugirió poner “plomo al blanco”, recordaron los dos participantes. Trump no reveló lo que pensaba sobre la idea, y los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca, preocupados por ese momento, consideraron la posibilidad de pedirle a Giroir que no volviera a llevar su uniforme de gala al Despacho Oval.Giroir, en una declaración, no comentó sobre la discusión sustancial de la reunión, pero aseguró que nadie había insinuado que la acción militar por sí misma resolvería la crisis del fentanilo. También insistió en que Trump no lo había confundido con un oficial militar.“Sabía exactamente quién era yo, que estaba en el Servicio de Salud Pública y que era el responsable de opioides bajo las órdenes del secretario”, dijo Giroir. “Tuvimos diversas reuniones antes de eso”.Jason Miller, asesor principal de la campaña de 2024 de Trump, se negó a hablar de la reunión de la Oficina Oval o la discusión sobre el lanzamiento de misiles a México.Como presidente, Trump tuvo conversaciones sobre el uso de la fuerza militar en México con Brett Giroir, al centro, el subsecretario de Salud de Estados Unidos; el fiscal general, William Barr, a la izquierda; y el secretario de Defensa, Mark EsperFotografías del New York Times por Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick y Erin SchaffDurante ese mismo periodo de tiempo, a finales de 2019, el fiscal general, William P. Barr, le había propuesto a Trump la idea de utilizar la fuerza dentro de México, pero lo había vislumbrado como una política que podrían implementar en un segundo mandato, si Trump ganaba las elecciones de 2020. Pensó que la amenaza de una acción unilateral por parte de Estados Unidos daría al gobierno ventaja para presionar a los mexicanos a hacer más por su parte para reprimir a los cárteles.Barr y Trump mantuvieron varias conversaciones sobre el tema. Barr mencionó una serie de opciones de medidas enérgicas, según una persona familiarizada con las conversaciones. Pero Barr no era partidario de los misiles, según la persona, ya que le preocupaba que se pudieran alcanzar objetivos equivocados usando tales órdenes.Al menos dos veces en 2020, Trump preguntó en privado a su secretario de Defensa, Esper, sobre la posibilidad de enviar “misiles Patriot” a México para destruir los laboratorios de drogas, y si podrían culpar a otro país por ello. Los misiles Patriot no son del tipo que se emplearían en tal caso —son armas tierra-aire—, pero Trump tenía la costumbre de llamar “misiles Patriot” a todos los misiles, según dos ex altos funcionarios del gobierno. Durante una de las discusiones de 2020, Trump hizo el comentario en voz baja a Esper mientras estaban cerca del escritorio presidencial, desde donde pudo escucharlo otro funcionario del gabinete. Esper, sorprendido, rechazó la idea.De la boca de Trump a la campaña de 2024En una señal de lo políticamente poderoso que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la idea de enviar tropas a México, Nikki Haley, el gobernador Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy y Tim Scott se han apresurado a ofrecer soluciones militares a la epidemia de opioides.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesTras abandonar el cargo, Trump no dejó de hablar de atacar a los cárteles de la droga. Por el contario, convirtió la idea en una propuesta política oficial para su campaña presidencial de 2024.En enero, Trump publicó un video de propaganda titulado “El presidente Donald Trump declara la guerra a los cárteles”, en el que apoyaba explícitamente la idea de designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como al Estado Islámico en Irak y Siria, en lugar de tratarlos como organizaciones criminales transnacionales a las que hay que hacer frente con herramientas para el cumplimiento de la ley.Trump prometió “desplegar todos los activos militares necesarios, incluida la Marina de Guerra de Estados Unidos”, para imponer un embargo total a los cárteles y “designar a los principales cárteles como Organizaciones Terroristas Extranjeras”.Y se comprometió a ordenar al Pentágono “hacer un uso apropiado de las fuerzas especiales, la guerra cibernética y otras acciones abiertas y encubiertas para infligir el máximo daño a los líderes, la infraestructura y las operaciones de los cárteles”.En materia de derecho internacional, surge una pregunta crucial sobre si Estados Unidos usaría la fuerza militar dentro de México solo con el consentimiento de su gobierno o si lo haría unilateralmente sin consentimiento. Trump restó importancia a la posibilidad de una guerra con México en una entrevista reciente con Megyn Kelly, presentadora de un pódcast y antigua estrella de Fox News.Pero en una señal de lo políticamente potente que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la perspectiva de enviar tropas a México, la campaña de su principal rival, el gobernador Ron DeSantis de Florida, destacó los comentarios de Trump a Kelly y enfatizó que DeSantis ha prometido tomar medidas militares agresivas contra los cárteles.Vivek Ramaswamy ha prometido “usar nuestro ejército para aniquilar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga”. Tim Scott, senador por Carolina del Sur, ha publicado un anuncio de campaña en el que jura “desatar” al ejército estadounidense contra los cárteles. Y la exgobernadora de Carolina del Sur Nikki Haley ha dicho que cuando se trata de los cárteles de la droga, “le dices al presidente mexicano, o lo haces tú o lo hacemos nosotros”.Miller, el asesor de Trump, dijo que Trump había anunciado un “plan detallado para erradicar los cárteles de la droga y detener el flujo de drogas a nuestro país en la primera semana de enero, y es bueno ver que tantos otros ahora siguen su ejemplo”.Poner en práctica la ideaEl representante Dan Crenshaw ha propuesto una ley para autorizar ampliamente el uso de la fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles, un proyecto que más de 30 de sus compañeros republicanos han apoyado como copatrocinadores.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesLa idea ha cobrado vida propia en el Capitolio.Más de 20 republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes han firmado para copatrocinar la legislación propuesta por Dan Crenshaw, representante por Texas, para promulgar una amplia autorización para el empleo de fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles. También autorizaría la utilización de la fuerza contra cualquier organización extranjera que el presidente determine que cumple ciertos criterios, incluidas las organizaciones relacionadas con el tráfico de fentanilo.La autorización propuesta para la guerra terminaría al cabo de cinco años, a menos que el Congreso promulgara un nuevo proyecto de ley para prorrogala. Pero, por lo demás, su carácter laxo se asemeja a las amplias autorizaciones de guerra que el Congreso promulgó tras los atentados terroristas de 2001 y antes de la guerra de Irak de 2003, que se convirtieron en problemas más allá de los que los legisladores habían previsto en un principio.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur que es un aliado cercano de Trump, dijo que pensaba que un presidente podría bombardear laboratorios de fentanilo y centros de distribución en su propia autoridad constitucional como comandante en jefe, sin autorización del Congreso. Pero también argumentó que si Trump volviera a ser presidente, la mera amenaza de que podría hacer algo así podría inducir al gobierno mexicano a tomar medidas más agresivas.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur, dio una rueda de prensa en marzo sobre su propuesta de ley para designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“A medida que estos problemas no se gestionan y se hacen más grandes en alcance, las soluciones se vuelven más draconianas”, dijo. “Y una cosa sobre Trump, creo que si consigue un segundo mandato, creo que verán más cooperación por parte de México. No creo que tengamos que llegar a bombardear laboratorios, México ajustará sus políticas en función de Trump”.‘Una ofensa al pueblo de México’ El presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha acusado a los republicanos de “utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros”.Alejandro Cegarra para The New York TimesEl discurso republicano sobre atacar a los cárteles de la droga en México está rebotando por los pasillos de su gobierno. El presidente del país, el izquierdista Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha respondido con molestia y ha hecho algo inusual para un líder mundial: atacar al Partido Republicano.“Esta iniciativa de los republicanos, además de irresponsable, es una ofensa al pueblo de México, una falta de respeto a nuestra independencia, a nuestra soberanía”, dijo López Obrador a los periodistas en marzo. “Si no cambian su actitud y piensan que van a utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros, nosotros vamos a llamar a que no se vote por ese partido, por intervencionista, inhumano, hipócrita y corrupto”.Desde la perspectiva de México, Estados Unidos es el que alimenta la violencia de los cárteles, no solo porque la demanda del país crea el mercado para el narcotráfico, sino también porque Estados Unidos facilita la compra de las armas que terminan en México. Esas armas avivan la violencia armada en el país, a pesar de sus estrictas leyes de control de armas.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, máximo responsable para América del Norte de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores de México, invocó concretamente la comparación con las armas de fuego y señaló a Ramaswamy por prometer una acción militar estadounidense dentro de México.“Si está tan preocupado el señor Ramaswamy por lo que está pasando en México, pues la mejor forma en que podría ayudarnos es quitando las escopetas que le están vendiendo literalmente a cárteles mexicanos”, dijo en una entrevista.Mientras México se encamina a unas históricas elecciones presidenciales el próximo año, en las que se espera que los electores elijan entre dos candidatas, con toda probabilidad, gane quien gane tendrá que manejar las tensiones creadas por el Partido Republicano.“Deberíamos, más que amenazas, trabajar de una manera inteligente”, dijo Xóchitl Gálvez, senadora mexicana que ha sido elegida la abanderada de la oposición y ha rechazado de manera abierta la estrategia de seguridad de López Obrador, y añadió que “los abrazos han sido para los delincuentes y los balazos para los ciudadanos mexicanos”.Pero Gálvez también criticó las propuestas republicanas de invadir México y pidió una cooperación compartida y responsable. “No podemos seguir echando la culpa”, dijo.Nicholas Nehamas colaboró en este reportaje. Kitty Bennett colaboró con investigación.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal sénior de política y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte de un equipo que ganó un Premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más información de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie SavageEmiliano Rodríguez Mega es investigador-reportero del Times radicado en Ciudad de México. Cubre México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Más de Emiliano Rodríguez Mega More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Idea to Use Military Force in Mexico Became Embraced by GOP

      by

      The Republican push to use military force in Mexico against drug cartels started in the Trump White House. He has plans to make the idea a reality in 2025.The first time Donald Trump talked privately about shooting missiles into Mexico to take out drug labs, as far as his former aides can recall, was in early 2020.And the first time those comments became public was when his second defense secretary, Mark T. Esper, wrote in his memoir that Mr. Trump had raised it with him and asked if the United States could make it look as if some other country was responsible. Mr. Esper portrayed the idea as ludicrous.Yet instead of condemning the idea, some Republicans publicly welcomed word that Mr. Trump had wanted to use military force against the drug cartels on Mexican soil — and without the consent of Mexico’s government. Mr. Trump’s notion of a military intervention south of the border has swiftly evolved from an Oval Office fantasy to something approaching Republican Party doctrine.On the presidential campaign trail and on the G.O.P. debate stage in California last week, nearly every Republican candidate has been advocating versions of a plan to send U.S. Special Operations troops into Mexican territory to kill or capture drug cartel members and destroy their labs and distribution centers.On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers have drafted a broad authorization for the use of military force against cartels — echoing the war powers Congress gave former President George W. Bush before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They have also pushed for designating Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations — a related idea Mr. Trump flirted with as president but backed off after Mexico hotly objected. Now, if Mr. Trump returns to the White House in 2025, he has vowed to push for the designations and to deploy Special Operations troops and naval forces to, as he put it, declare war on the cartels.The Republican Party’s attraction to seeking a military solution to the drug problem is a reminder that the G.O.P. — despite its populist shift toward anti-interventionism in the Trump years and the growth of a faction that opposes arming Ukraine against Russia’s invasion — still reaches for armed force to address some complex and intractable problems. Mr. Trump himself has been something of a walking contradiction when it comes to the use of force abroad, alternately wanting to pull back U.S. involvement overseas and threatening to drop bombs on enemies such as Iran.The plans have angered officials in Mexico. Its president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has denounced the proposals as outrageous and unacceptable. It has been more than a century since the United States sent military personnel into Mexico without the Mexican government’s assent.Mexico has a bitter history with American interference: Much of the southwestern United States was part of Mexico before the United States took it by force in the middle of the 19th century. To this day, Mexico generally does not allow U.S. agents with guns to carry out operations on its soil, in contrast to other Latin American countries that have agreed to joint operations with the Drug Enforcement Administration and invited the American government to help train, equip and assist their own security forces.Analysts have also warned about the potential for military action to cause significant economic damage. The plans could rupture the United States’ relationship with Mexico, its largest trading partner, and curtail other types of cooperation, including the arrest and extradition of criminals and Mexico’s efforts to deter migrants from trying to cross illegally into the United States. Some Republicans view the threat of sending the military into Mexico as a negotiating tool to force Mexican officials to get aggressive with the cartels.Generally, international law forbids a country from using military force on the sovereign soil of another nation without its consent, except with the permission of the United Nations Security Council or in cases of self-defense. But the United States has taken the position that it can lawfully use force unilaterally on another nation’s territory if its government is unable or unwilling to suppress a nonstate threat emanating from it, such as a threat from a terrorist group.Republicans have described the Mexican criminal drug-trafficking networks as a national security threat, with some calling fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.Americans spend many billions of dollars a year on cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs. For decades, the black market created by that demand has been heavily supplied by criminal smuggling operations across the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But the rise of fentanyl — a powerful and fast-acting synthetic opioid that can be made cheaply from chemicals — has created a crisis. Fentanyl has been linked to more than two-thirds of the nearly 110,000 American overdose deaths last year, and lawmakers from both parties have been desperately searching for solutions.Frustration has also mounted with the Mexican government, whose president has advocated a “hugs not bullets” policy to deal with drug crime, after crackdowns on cartel leaders by previous administrations led to widespread violence. The cartels, which resemble high-tech paramilitary organizations, have seized control of large areas in Mexico and have corrupted many officials in Mexico’s government and law enforcement ranks.The Biden administration — like previous administrations of both parties — has sought to partner with Mexico to stem the flow of drugs and has explicitly ruled out military action.Chris Landau, who was Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021, said the idea of using military force in a bordering country was a bad idea that would only make things worse. He warned it could create a new “quagmire,” invoking the aftermath of military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.“I understand the frustration,” Mr. Landau added. “I just think that a ‘shootout at the O.K. Corral’ model is not going to solve it and will cause a lot more problems.”Origins in the Oval OfficeFormer President Donald Trump at the border wall during a commemoration in San Luiz, Ariz., in June 2020. Mr. Trump has had a number of conversations with aides and other members of his administration about targeting Mexican cartels.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe story of how the idea of sending military force into Mexico went from Mr. Trump’s Oval Office to the center of the Republican policy conversation is complex and much more than a simple tale of lawmakers copying Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump’s proposal to shoot missiles at Mexican drug labs was not something he concocted out of thin air. It came up during a meeting and was affirmed by a man in uniform.That man in uniform was not in the military chain of command, however: He was a medical officer and an unlikely person to be advising the president of the United States on military operations anywhere.By late 2019 and early 2020, as the fentanyl crisis was intensifying, large-scale meetings in the Oval Office addressed how to handle the problem. Some participants felt the meetings were of little use because officials tended to perform for Mr. Trump, and he would perform for them.When the idea of military intervention was brought up at one such meeting, Mr. Trump turned to Brett Giroir, who was there in his role as the U.S. assistant secretary for health. Mr. Giroir was also a four-star admiral in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, and he was wearing his dress uniform. His main point was that the United States was unable to combat the crisis with treatment alone, according to a person briefed on his comments.It was clear from the way Mr. Trump singled out Mr. Giroir that he had mistakenly thought he was in the military because of his dress uniform, according to two participants in the meeting. Mr. Giroir, in his response, suggested putting “lead to target,” the two participants recalled. Mr. Trump did not betray what he thought about the idea, and White House officials, troubled by the moment, considered asking Mr. Giroir not to wear his dress uniform to the Oval Office again.Mr. Giroir, in a statement, did not discuss the substance of the meeting, but said that no one had suggested that military action alone would solve the fentanyl crisis. He also insisted that Mr. Trump had not mistaken him for a military officer.“He knew exactly who I was, that I was in the Public Health Service, and I was the opioids lead under the Secretary,” Mr. Giroir said. “We had multiple meetings before that.”Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign, declined to address the Oval Office meeting or the discussion of sending missiles into Mexico.As president, Mr. Trump had discussions about using military force in Mexico with Brett Giroir, center, the U.S. assistant secretary for health; Attorney General William Barr, left; and the defense secretary, Mark Esper.New York Times photographs by Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick and Erin SchaffDuring that same time period in late 2019, Attorney General William P. Barr had proposed to Mr. Trump the idea of using force inside Mexico, but he envisioned it as a policy they would pursue in a second term if Mr. Trump won the 2020 election. He thought the threat of unilateral action on the part of the United States would give the administration leverage to press the Mexicans to do more on their end to suppress the cartels.Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump had a number of conversations about the issue. Mr. Barr mentioned a range of options for aggressive action, according to a person familiar with the discussions. But Mr. Barr was not advocating missiles, concerned that the wrong target might get taken out using such ordinance, the person said.At least twice during 2020, Mr. Trump privately asked his defense secretary, Mr. Esper, about the possibility of sending “Patriot missiles” into Mexico to destroy the drug labs, and whether they could blame another country for it. Patriot missiles are not the kind that would be used — they are surface-to-air weapons — but Mr. Trump had a habit of calling all missiles “Patriot missiles,” according to two former senior administration officials. During one of the 2020 discussions, Mr. Trump made the comment quietly to Mr. Esper as they stood near the Resolute Desk, within ear shot of another cabinet official. Mr. Esper, stunned, pushed back on the idea.From Trump’s Mouth to the 2024 TrailIn a sign of how politically potent the idea of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, Nikki Haley, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott have all rushed to offer military solutions to the opioid epidemic.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesAfter leaving office, Mr. Trump didn’t stop talking about attacking the drug cartels. Instead, he turned the idea into an official policy proposal for his 2024 campaign for president.In January, Mr. Trump released a policy video titled “President Donald J. Trump Declares War on Cartels,” in which he explicitly endorsed the idea of treating Mexican drug cartels like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — rather than treating them as transnational criminal organizations to be addressed using law enforcement tools.Mr. Trump promised to “deploy all necessary military assets, including the U.S. Navy” to impose a full naval embargo on the cartels and to “designate the major cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”And he pledged to order the Pentagon “to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure and operations.”As a matter of international law, a crucial question is whether the United States would use military force inside Mexico only with the consent of its government or whether it would do so unilaterally without consent. Mr. Trump downplayed the prospect of war with Mexico in a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, the podcast host and former Fox News star.But in a sign of how politically potent the prospect of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, the campaign of his chief rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, highlighted Mr. Trump’s comments to Ms. Kelly and emphasized that Mr. DeSantis has promised to take aggressive military action against the cartels.Vivek Ramaswamy has promised to “use our military to annihilate the Mexican drug cartels.” Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has released a campaign ad vowing to “unleash” the U.S. military against the cartels. And former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has said that when it comes to drug cartels, “you tell the Mexican president, either you do it or we do it.”Mr. Miller, the Trump adviser, said that Mr. Trump had announced a “detailed plan to eradicate the drug cartels and stop the flow of drugs into our country in the first week of January, and it’s good to see so many others now following his lead.”Operationalizing the IdeaRepresentative Dan Crenshaw has proposed legislation to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels, a bill more than 20 of his fellow House Republicans have backed as co-sponsors.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe idea has taken on a life of its own on Capitol Hill.More than 20 House Republicans have signed on to co-sponsor legislation proposed by Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels. It would also authorize force against any other foreign organization that the president determines meets certain criteria, including organizations related to fentanyl trafficking.The proposed authorization for a war would end after five years unless Congress enacted a new bill to extend it. But its otherwise loose nature resembles the broad war authorizations Congress enacted after the 2001 terrorist attacks and ahead of the 2003 Iraq War, both of which escalated into entanglements beyond what lawmakers originally envisioned.Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Trump, said he thought a president could bomb fentanyl labs and distribution centers on his own constitutional authority as commander in chief, without congressional authorization. But he also argued that if Mr. Trump became president again, the mere threat that he might do something like that could induce the Mexican government to take more aggressive actions.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, held a news conference in March about his proposed legislation to designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“As these problems go unmanaged and get bigger in scope, the solutions become more draconian,” he said. “And the one thing about Trump, I think if he does get a second term, I think you’ll see more cooperation by Mexico. I don’t think we’ll ever have to get to bombing labs — Mexico will adjust their policies based on Trump.”‘An Offense to the People of Mexico’President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico has accused Republicans of using “Mexico for their propaganda” and their “electoral and political purposes.”Alejandro Cegarra for The New York TimesThe Republican rhetoric about attacking drug cartels inside Mexico is ricocheting around the halls of its government. The country’s leftist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has responded furiously and taken the extraordinary step for a world leader of attacking the Republican Party.“This initiative of the Republicans, besides being irresponsible, is an offense to the people of Mexico, a lack of respect to our independence, to our sovereignty,” Mr. López Obrador told reporters in March. “If they do not change their attitude and think that they are going to use Mexico for their propaganda, their electoral and political purposes, we are going to call for not voting for this party, because it is interventionist, inhuman, hypocritical and corrupt.”From a Mexican perspective, it is the United States that is fueling the cartel violence — not only because American demand creates the market for the drug trade, but also because the United States makes it so easy to buy the firearms that end up in Mexico. Those firearms fuel gun violence in Mexico despite its tough gun-control laws.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, the top North American official in Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, specifically invoked the gun comparison as he called out Mr. Ramaswamy for promising U.S. military action inside Mexico.“If Mr. Ramaswamy is so concerned about what’s going on in Mexico, well, the best way he could help us is to take away the guns that are literally being sold to Mexican cartels,” he said in an interview.As Mexico heads to a historic presidential election next year, when voters are expected to choose between two leading candidates who are women, whoever gets elected will most likely need to handle the tensions created by the Republican Party.“Rather than threats, we should work in a smart way,” said Xóchitl Gálvez, a Mexican senator who has been chosen as the opposition’s candidate and has openly rejected Mr. López Obrador’s security strategy, adding that “the hugs have been for the criminals and the bullets for the Mexican citizens.”But Ms. Gálvez also criticized the Republican proposals to invade Mexico and called for shared and responsible cooperation. “We can’t keep blaming each other,” she said. Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans’ Promises to Combat Fentanyl Fall Flat With Some Voters

      by

      The official toxicology report states that Andrea Cahill’s son died at 19 years old from an accidental fentanyl overdose. But more than three years after Tyler Cahill’s death in his childhood bedroom, she doesn’t believe that. It was a poisoning, she says, and there is no question about whom to blame: “the cartels.”Ms. Cahill believes the governments of Mexico and China should be punished for the drug’s flow into the United States. A political independent who nearly always votes for Republicans, she wants a president with relentless focus on the issue.“It does feel like maybe nobody cares,” she said.These days, Republican presidential candidates are working to convince people like Ms. Cahill that they share her urgency.Ron DeSantis talks about fentanyl in every stump speech, vowing to send the military into Mexico to target cartels. Nikki Haley has promised to send special operations forces across the border. Chris Christie has called for better access to treatment. Former President Donald J. Trump has offered few specific solutions but has tapped into victims’ families’ hunger to be seen: He likens deaths from the drug to wartime casualties.At Wednesday night’s debate, the candidates linked the crisis to immigration and foreign policy, and hammered home the toll.“We have had more fentanyl that have killed Americans than the Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan wars combined,” Ms. Haley noted.The promises are required of any politician wanting to appear in touch with New Hampshire, a state that can make or break presidential campaigns. As fentanyl has become one of the most urgent health crises in the country — it is now a leading cause of death for people under 45 — it has ravaged the small state. Last year, opioid overdose deaths hit a four-year high, though down slightly from their peak in 2017, according to state data. Most were from fentanyl.But truly connecting with voters — persuading them that help could be on the way — is proving difficult. In dozens of interviews with people on the front lines of the fight against fentanyl, a sense of abandonment is pervasive. Many said they believed the federal government did too little to stop the epidemic from happening and that it continues to do too little to try to bring it under control.The candidates’ talk of blockades and military intervention is met with cynicism and a deep distrust that their government can find solutions.“I don’t see it getting better if it’s Trump or Biden or whoever is going to step in,” said Shayne Bernier, 30, who fought opioid addiction years ago and is now helping to open a sober-living home in downtown Manchester, N.H. For more than a year, Mr. Bernier has patrolled parks and streets routinely, giving information about a city-funded detox program.Shayne Bernier fought opioid addiction years ago and now patrols the streets and parks of Manchester, N.H. He thinks politicians’ attention to the issue will be fleeting: “They’ll talk about it for an election, and then we’ll never hear from them again.”Mr. Bernier grew up in the city and has “Live Free or Die,” the official state motto, tattooed on his left bicep. He considers himself a conservative. He neither loves nor loathes Mr. Trump, though he understands how the former president appeals to the anger and frustration that courses through his friends.“They’ll talk about it for an election, and then we’ll never hear from them again,” he said of politicians’ promises to address the crisis.Five years ago, Mr. Trump traveled to New Hampshire and remarked how “unbelievable” it was that the state had a death rate from drugs double the national average. When he promised to secure the border “to keep the damn drugs out” the audience responded by chanting: “Build that wall!”The drugs never stopped coming in. The supply only increased, with heroin entirely eclipsed by fentanyl, its cheaper and deadlier synthetic cousin. The state is less of an outlier than it once was: In one recent public opinion poll, more than a quarter of American adults ranked opioids and fentanyl as the greatest threat to public health.To some extent, Mr. DeSantis has picked up where Mr. Trump left off. He promises to shoot drug traffickers “stone cold dead,” a vow consistently met with applause. He largely casts the problem as a symptom of a porous border, giving conservatives another reason to rail against illegal immigration.Tough talk about the Southern border brings some comfort to parents like Ms. Cahill. It’s unclear how her son got the drug that killed him. A video Tyler recorded and shared with a friend that night suggests he took what he believed to be Percocet to relieve pain from a recent tattoo, she says. His father found him dead the next morning.“I had no idea how deadly it could be, how immediate — you can’t call for help,” she said. She keeps fliers in her car that warn “there is no safe experience” using street drugs.But placing the blame on illegal border crossings is misleading. A vast majority of fentanyl in the United States enters through legal ports of entry, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. Typically, U.S. citizens driving across the border smuggle in the drugs, stuffing them into trailers, trunks or vehicle linings. Keith Howard, who runs Hope for New Hampshire Recovery, a peer-support community group in Manchester, grimaces when he hears candidates talk about a border crackdown as a viable solution. Mental health support, well-paying jobs and long-term treatment programs are even more important, he said.“There is a need to escape from life for a lot of people right now,” Mr. Howard said. “The sense of alienation people have is much, much deeper than it was 10 or even five years ago.”Nikki Haley has promised to do more to target China’s funneling of chemicals used to create fentanyl.Chris Christie says politicians haven’t been honest with voters about solutions.When Mr. Christie, a former governor of New Jersey, visited Hope for New Hampshire Recovery earlier this year, he notably did not mention the border. He served as the chair for Mr. Trump’s special commission to combat the opioid crisis, but many of the recommendations in the 138-page report that the commission issued in 2017 went nowhere. Mr. Christie blamed the pandemic, but he also said the Trump administration did not focus enough on crafting specific policies and programs.Since then, he said, the crisis has worsened, and politicians haven’t been straight with voters about solutions.“It’s dishonest to lead people to believe that you can enforce your way out of this problem,” he said in an interview, adding that he would support sending National Guard troops to legal ports of entry to help Border Patrol agents intercept drugs. At the same time, he added: “I don’t want to fool the American people into thinking that if I send National Guard to the Southern border, that will solve the problem.” President Biden has focused on both expanding enforcement and improving treatment. In March, the Food and Drug Administration approved over-the-counter sales of Narcan, a nasal spray that reverses opioid overdoses. Mr. Biden has called for closer inspection of cargo and stronger penalties for those caught trafficking drugs. Recently, he criticized the Republican-controlled Congress for risking a federal shutdown, which would prevent billions allocated to the D.E.A., Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol to address the crisis.Victoria Sullivan considers Mr. Biden’s approach a failure. A former Republican state lawmaker in New Hampshire and political talk show host, Ms. Sullivan this year helped open a sober-living home for men in recovery.Ms. Sullivan calls her role “government cleanup,” as she tries to fill gaps left by local agencies. She is convinced the city’s drug policies are too permissive and drawing people from around the region to Manchester’s streets. (Roughly a quarter of people who are homeless in Manchester report that they are from the city.)Some advocates argue that Manchester’s permissive policies have drawn people from around the region to the city’s streets.Ms. Sullivan says the problem requires more aggressive interventions, accessible medical treatment, strong families and religious institutions. Her solutions hit at a contradiction in many Republicans’ views about the drug crisis: She is unabashed about her conservative, small government views, but she argues that agencies need to spend more money on rehabilitation programs.“The government has just failed at every level,” Ms. Sullivan said. “They encourage dependence but don’t do anything near enough to get anyone on their feet on their own.”Ms. Sullivan has voted for Mr. Trump in the past and still supports him. But she also been impressed by Ms. Haley, a former ambassador to the United Nations, who earlier this year hosted a discussion at Freedom House, the sober-living home Ms. Sullivan helped create. There, Ms. Haley promised to do more to target China’s funneling of chemicals used to create fentanyl brought into the United States.Victoria Sullivan, a former Republican state lawmaker in New Hampshire and political talk show host, said she wanted the government to spend more money on rehabilitation programs.Patrick Burns, 35, grew up in rural Maine, where he began pilfering his mother prescription opioids as a teenager. At 17, he enlisted in the Army and served for several years in Afghanistan.When he returned in 2013, nearly everyone he grew up with was battling an addiction of some kind. He moved to Manchester partly to be closer to a larger Veterans Affairs Medical Center, thinking he could get more help there. Instead, he ran into one bureaucratic hurdle after another and said he found fentanyl all around him.“We’re just a bunch of people who have been discarded,” said Patrick Burns, an Army veteran who struggled to get help with his addiction.Mr. Burns voted for Mr. Trump once before and could imagine doing so again. What he finds harder to imagine, he said, is that the government that sent him to war can find a way out of the morass he sees in Manchester.“People just don’t have a clue — it’s become such a problem,” Mr. Burns said. “Now rather than address it, they just kind of ignore it. They try to mitigate the effects, but there are not pre-emptive strikes at all. We’re just a bunch of people who have been discarded.”Ms. Cahill has tried to ensure that Tyler is remembered. She allowed his photograph to be displayed in the Washington headquarters of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and attended a rally at the state capitol earlier this year to raise awareness.That day, she stood with another mother in Concord, N.H., to pass out Narcan to anyone who walked by. When she offered it to two teenage boys, their father stepped in to intervene. “No thanks; they’re good kids,” she remembered him telling her, before shuffling them away.Ms. Cahill was taken aback.“That’s not the point,” she said, recalling the incident. “Tyler was a good kid. This stuff is out there whether we want to acknowledge it or not.”Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      President Biden Keeps Hunter Close Despite the Political Peril

      by

      The possibility of a federal indictment of Hunter Biden stunned the president. Yet the bond between him and his only surviving son is ironclad.Earlier this summer, President Biden was feeling hopeful.His son Hunter’s lawyers had struck a plea deal with federal prosecutors on tax and gun charges, and it seemed to the president that the long legal ordeal would finally be over.But when the agreement collapsed in late July, Mr. Biden, whose upbeat public image often belies a more mercurial temperament, was stunned.He plunged into sadness and frustration, according to several people close to him who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve their relationships with the Biden family. Since then, his tone in conversations about Hunter has been tinged with a resignation that was not there before, his confidants say.Now, as the Justice Department plans to indict Hunter Biden on a gun charge in coming weeks, White House advisers are preparing for many more months of Republican attacks and the prospect of a criminal trial in the middle of the 2024 presidential campaign.Republicans have cast Hunter’s troubles as a stew of nepotism and corruption, which the Biden administration denies. But there is no doubt that Hunter’s case is a drain, politically and emotionally, on his father and those who wish to see him re-elected.The saga reflects the painful dynamics of the first family, shaped by intense ambition and deep loss, along with anger and guilt. It is the story of two very different if much-loved sons, and of a father holding tight to the one still with him.This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen people close to the Biden family who declined to speak on the record out of concern about jeopardizing their relationships with the Bidens, along with writings from Biden family members.People who know both men say their bond is singular in its intensity. But even allies of President Biden, who prides himself on his political and human instincts, say he has at times been too deferential to his younger son, appearing unwilling to tell him no, despite Hunter’s problems and his long trail of bad decisions.And that has created unexpected political peril for the president.The Family BusinessMr. Biden with his sons Hunter, left, and Beau in the early 1970s. The two boys were close growing up.via Associated PressHunter was born on Feb. 4, 1970 — a year and a day after his older brother, Beau.The two boys were close growing up. Beau was seen as the future of the Biden political brand — the one who should be running for president, his father has said. President Biden has described Beau as “me, but without all the downsides.”Beau was a natural leader, a student athlete and Ivy League-educated lawyer who rose to become the most popular political figure in Delaware. As President Barack Obama described him, Beau was “someone who charmed you, and disarmed you, and put you at ease.’’Hunter grew up intelligent and artistic, sharing his father’s loquacious personality. After graduating from Georgetown University, he served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps in Portland, Ore., where he worked at a food bank in a church basement and volunteered at a socialization center for disabled people. He met a fellow volunteer, Kathleen Buhle, in the summer of 1992. Within months she was pregnant, and in July 1993 the two married. Hunter later graduated from Yale Law School.By the early 2000s, living in Delaware with his wife and three young daughters, Hunter had begun drinking heavily at dinner, he has said, at parties and after work at Oldaker, Biden & Belair, a law and lobbying firm where he was a partner.He moved away from lobbying around the time his father became vice president, after the Obama administration issued restrictions on lobbyists working with the government. But his later ventures drew scrutiny as well. In 2014 he joined the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that was under investigation for corruption, as Mr. Biden, then the vice president, was overseeing White House policy toward Ukraine.When Hunter was discharged from the Navy Reserve in 2014 because of cocaine use, Mr. Biden’s email to his family about the news coverage was succinct. “Good as it could be,” he wrote. “Time to move on. Love Dad.”As his father and brother showed a talent for public service, Hunter envisioned himself as the financier supporting the family business of politics.For a time, it was work that made him proud, because it made him feel needed.“I had more money in the bank than any Biden in six generations,” he wrote in “Beautiful Things,” his 2021 memoir, noting that when his lobbying career was steady in the late 1990s, he helped pay off his brother’s student loans, enrolled his three daughters in private school and covered the mortgage on a house where he and Beau were living.Decades later, though, he was known to complain about the responsibility. A person close to Hunter said those complaints were exaggerated, expressed at a time when Hunter was feeling bruised.Tragedy and substance abuse have stalked the Biden family for generations. Hunter was not quite 3 years old when his mother and baby sister were killed in a car accident that left him and Beau seriously injured and in a hospital for months. Beau died of brain cancer in 2015, at age 46. After that, Hunter descended further into alcoholism and a devastating addiction to crack cocaine.Mr. Biden with Hunter, left, and other members of their family at a memorial service for Beau Biden in Dover, Del., in 2015.Patrick Semansky/Associated PressPresident Biden’s father had bouts of drinking, according to people who knew him, and one of his brothers, Frank, has struggled with alcoholism. Mr. Biden’s daughter, Ashley, has sought treatment for addiction. On the campaign trail in 2008, when Mr. Biden was a candidate for vice president, he offered a blunt explanation for his own decision not to drink: “There are enough alcoholics in my family.”As his problems with addiction worsened in recent years, Hunter’s life unraveled. His marriage to Ms. Buhle ended in 2017, and he had a romantic relationship with his brother’s widow, Hallie, that set off tabloid headlines and more family angst.At times the elder Mr. Biden has seemed at a loss to respond, and worried about pushing Hunter away. At his son’s behest, Mr. Biden released a statement in support of the relationship between Hunter and Hallie. When that relationship ended soon after, Hunter cycled in and out of rehabilitation facilities and tried experimental therapies including ketamine and “the gland secretions of the Sonoran Desert toad,” according to his memoir. He was often not able to stay sober for more than a couple of weeks at a time.Hunter has a fourth child, Navy Joan Roberts, who was conceived during an encounter in 2017 he says he does not remember. Hunter has said he does not have a relationship with the child. President Biden did not acknowledge the girl, who was born in Arkansas, until July, and only after Hunter gave him the OK, according to a person close to the president.Mr. Biden’s devotion to his son means that he has long followed Hunter’s lead. At one point, after a family intervention over Hunter’s drug use, a distraught Mr. Biden approached his son in the driveway of Mr. Biden’s home in Delaware.“I don’t know what else to do,” Mr. Biden cried out. “Tell me what to do.’”Hunter has said he finally got sober after meeting his second wife, Melissa Cohen, in 2019.A Father, Not a PoliticianPresident Biden tries to keep his son close.When Hunter accompanied the president on a trip to Ireland in the spring, he traveled on Air Force One and slept on a cot in his father’s hotel room. When Hunter flies to Washington from his home in Malibu, he stays at the White House, sometimes for weeks at a time. When he is on the West Coast, his father calls him nearly every day, sometimes more than once.Hunter shares his father’s tendency toward effusiveness and intensity in interactions with people he loves, according to people who know both of them. They also share a quick temper.“I’m like his security blanket,” Hunter told The New Yorker in 2019. “I don’t tell the staff what to do. I’m not there giving directions or orders. I shake everybody’s hands. And then I tell him to close his eyes on the bus. I can say things to him that nobody else can.”Allies of the president have deep respect for the bond, but have privately criticized Mr. Biden’s apparent inability to say no when Hunter sought to pull him into his business dealings. Some allies of the president say his loyalty to his son — inviting him to state dinners, flying with him aboard Marine One and standing on the White House balcony with him — has resulted in wholly avoidable political distractions.Hunter Biden is often seen at presidential events with his family, like watching the Fourth of July fireworks at the White House.Haiyun Jiang for The New York TimesNo hard evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden personally participated in or profited from the business deals or used his office to benefit his son’s partners while he was vice president. And Mr. Biden’s advisers have pointed to legal experts who argue that the tax and gun charges against the president’s son are rarely prosecuted.Still, Hunter Biden’s business dealings have raised concerns because testimony and reports have indicated that he traded on the family name to generate lucrative deals. Devon Archer, Hunter’s former business partner, told congressional investigators that Hunter used “the illusion of access to his father” to win over potential partners.Mr. Archer said that Mr. Biden had been in the presence of business associates of his son’s who were apparently seeking connections and influence inside the United States government.But Mr. Archer’s testimony fell short of Republican hopes of a smoking gun to prove the president’s involvement in his son’s efforts to drum up business overseas. The elder Mr. Biden would occasionally stop by a dinner or a hotel for a brief handshake, Mr. Archer said, or engage in a few pleasantries over the phone.Although many observers see the investigation as a darkening shadow over the presidency, President Biden and his son do not dwell on it in their daily phone calls.They do talk politics occasionally; Hunter is an informal adviser who has helped his father brainstorm speeches. But mostly, the president shares updates from the rest of the family and simply asks how his son is doing, people familiar with the calls say.Anger in CaliforniaHunter Biden’s life in California is a world away from his father’s in Washington.He lives with his wife and their toddler son, who is named for Beau, in a rental home high above the Pacific Ocean. It is a place that feels impossibly idyllic — except for signs that warn of wildfires that could burn the fragile paradise to the ground.Most mornings, he sits in his home and paints, putting oils and acrylics to canvas in a ritual that he says helps keep him sober. Then he drives, Secret Service agents in tow, to the nearby house of Kevin Morris, a Hollywood lawyer who has become a financial and emotional lifeline since the two met at a fund-raiser for the Biden campaign in 2019.Hunter Biden painting in his California studio in 2019. He says painting keeps him sober.Elizabeth Weinberg for The New York TimesThat year, Hunter told The New Yorker he was making about $4,000 a month. He had moved to California, in his telling, to “disappear” as his father was running for the presidency. His new wife was pregnant. He had chosen to live in one of the most expensive areas of the country, and he was struggling to stay afloat. Mr. Morris, who made his fortune brokering entertainment deals and representing celebrities including Matthew McConaughey, saw an opportunity to help. He has lent Hunter millions to pay back taxes and support his family, according to people who know about the arrangement.Friends of the family fear for Hunter’s well-being out in California because he is a recovering addict who is under pressure. He has said that his new career as a painter is a form of survival, keeping him “away from people and places where I shouldn’t be.”Despite the concerns, people closer to Hunter say he is determined and resilient. But they also describe him as angry and spoiling for a fight.These days, under the watchful eye of a drone that Mr. Morris uses to scan for photographers and intruders, he and the president’s son huddle together in anger and isolation, assessing the day’s damage. The collapse of a plea deal. A special counsel investigation. A looming indictment. A likely trial.Every day, on and on, there is a new crisis.President Biden only occasionally makes the trip out West to raise money or deliver remarks on his policy agenda. His political ethos is rooted more in middle-class Scranton, Pa., than in the wealth that surrounds his son’s home in the hills of Malibu.There is tension between Mr. Biden’s allies, who favor a cautious approach in Hunter’s legal proceedings, and Mr. Morris, who prefers a more aggressive approach.That tension reached a boiling point last winter, when Mr. Morris pushed to remove Joshua A. Levy, an attorney recommended by Bob Bauer, the president’s personal attorney, from Hunter’s legal team.Kevin Morris, a Malibu-based entertainment lawyer, has funded Hunter Biden’s legal team and is said to have a brotherly bond with the president’s son.Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty ImagesAfter Mr. Levy resigned, Mr. Morris replaced him with Abbe Lowell, one of Washington’s best-known scandal lawyers, who has a reputation for bare-knuckle tactics. (He had also recently represented Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former President Donald J. Trump.) For now, the strategic command center is at Mr. Morris’s dining room table in Malibu, not in Washington.Mr. Biden does not believe that Republican attacks on his son will hurt him with voters as he runs for re-election in 2024, and there is data to suggest that is largely true, at least for now. A June poll by Reuters and Ipsos found that 58 percent of Americans would not factor Hunter Biden into their decision in the presidential race.The White House declined to comment for this article, as did Hunter Biden and his attorneys.“Joe Biden’s been around politics all his life,” said the Democratic strategist David Axelrod, who noted that Mr. Biden’s decisions about Hunter were not made by advisers or consultants. “This is about him and how he feels and his relationship with his son.”Mr. Biden told MSNBC in May that his son had done nothing wrong.“I trust him,” he said. “I have faith in him.”Last month, when asked by reporters at Camp David about the special counsel investigation into his son, Mr. Biden’s response was terse.“That’s up to the Justice Department,” Mr. Biden said, “and that’s all I have to say.”Mr. Biden then left Camp David and rode aboard Air Force One to Lake Tahoe for vacation. Hunter joined him there.That time, the president’s son flew commercial. More