However, WHO officials are warning that the pandemic will hit poor countries especially hard. At the United Nations meeting in New York later this week, those officials plan to ask wealthy countries to contribute to a special fund for the developing world.

Michael Novacek, the provost of science at the American Museum of Natural History, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the dangers and the production and distribution of vaccines.

In China, a massive campaign to vaccinate people against swine flu began in Beijing on Monday. It is thought to be the first nation to begin inoculating its population against the H1N1 virus.

China has been among the world’s leaders in developing a swine flu vaccine, with no fewer than five Chinese drug makers involved in the effort. Chinese officials hope to vaccine 65 million people by the end of the year — about five percent of that country’s population.

In Mexico, officials are predicting as many as five million cases of swine flu this winter, with some 2,000 deaths. Earlier this year, Mexico was ground zero for the pandemic, but was able to bring it under control by shutting schools and businesses for several weeks.

This time, Mexican officials are promising such closures will be more focused; just recently, some 1,400 schools in one northern city in Mexico were closed after a reported outbreak.

Swine flu has hit South America hard. Brazil is now reporting some 900 deaths due to the pandemic, more than any other country in the world. According to the World Health organization, there are now nearly 300,000 case of swine flu worldwide, with nearly 3,500 deaths.

Is Mexico taking the right approach in ending the prosecution of people caught with small amounts of marijuana and other drugs? Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

John Walsh, a senior associate on drug policy for the Washington Office on Latin America, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the new law, U.S. concerns and the larger drug war in Mexico.

Read what a Worldfocus contributing blogger had to say: In Mexico, drug legalization is a mixed bag.

The Mexican government has decriminalized small amounts of drugs. A person may now carry up to five grams of marijuana without penalty.

In Mexico, a new law has been passed to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of narcotics including marijuana, cocaine, heroin, LSD and crystal meth. Instead of serving jail time, those found with drugs at or under the legal limit will be referred to drug treatment programs.

Sean Goforth of “Foreign Policy Blogs” examines the pros and cons of Mexico’s new law.

The decriminalization of drug use in Mexico is bound to have unintended consequences. Beginning last Friday, possession of small amounts of drugs, including cocaine, heroine, LSD, marijuana and meth, is permitted. Such wholesale legalization is crude, but may prove beneficial to the Mexican economy.

Having up to four joints on you (the legal limit is five grams) isn’t going to have a societal impact. Prosecutions for possession were already non-existent in Mexico. Studies commissioned under the tenure of Gen. Barry McCaffrey, President Clinton’s “Drug Czar”, concluded that marijuana is not a “gateway” drug. It is widely believed not to be addictive, and it is not known to induce violent behavior.

If anything, this law will undercut corruption among local police, as they will no longer be able to hassle those with a joint in order to get a bribe. Still, marijuana is one thing, but should Mexico have legalized cocaine? Crystal meth? Heroine? LSD?

I for one don’t think so. Little good can come of legalizing such powerful and addictive drugs. Drug-related violence may well increase, even if cartel violence decreases, as the desperation of addiction grows in Mexico’s cities and towns.

Portugal decriminalized drug use in 2001 in order to focus on rehabilitation. Mexico, unlike Portugal, does not currently have the facilities to treat a potential surge in drug addiction. The cartels, for their part, will continue to target America as the destination of their product. So if low-level violence and/or addiction-related deaths increase in Mexico, poorly crafted legislation will be to blame.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user splifr under a Creative Commons license.

Read Worldfocus blogger Peter Eisner’s take on the meeting: Hollow words as Obama praises Mexico’s war on drugs

One of the biggest problems the federal government in Mexico is confronting in its war on drugs is police corruption. This week, in the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, officials ordered the municipal police not to sit in parked patrol cars observing traffic because they suspect those police are actually spying for the drug cartels.

Andres Martinez, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the Americas summit, the drug war and the U.S. commitment to Mexico.

President Barack Obama with his Mexican and Canadian counterparts at a trilateral meeting in Guadalajara on Monday. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

I’ve had some telling glimpses over the years of how politics and diplomacy really work. There was the time years ago when I sat in a U.S. ambassador’s office in Bolivia and listened to him brazenly giving orders to the country’s interior minister.

Or when I watched how an American official tried to cajole the president of Honduras into a military dispute with Nicaragua.

And the time when I was told that a top U.S. official was traveling to Mexico City to observe Mexico’s drug interdiction program.

“What drug interdiction program?” a confused Mexican government spokesman asked me. I had gotten advance warning of the visit. “We don’t have a drug interdiction program.”

Five minutes later, the same Mexican spokesman called me back and said — without a trace of irony — that I was invited to attend a meeting between U.S. and Mexican officials who would be discussing Mexico’s “drug interdiction program.” It had somehow materialized.

Those anecdotes are the product of the last century, but I was reminded this week that things haven’t changed much.

The U.S. government arrogantly figures that the governments of other countries can meet the imposed values that the United States expects. One can respect the people of Mexico and honor that country’s heritage and sense of pride, but still say: The Mexican government is over-gunned by drug dealers and will not be able to stop the violence and out-of-bounds profits earned by the narcotics trade.

For some sense of the absurdity of the fight, have a look at the New York Times story about Mexican prisons, headlined: War Without Borders: Mexico’s Drug Traffickers Continue Trade in Prison

The cycle of violence and death waxes and wanes, but the reality hasn’t changed for decades; there is too much money in drug dealing to stop the industry. Drug cartels practically own the Mexican prisons where they are held. Plagued by corruption, drug producing nations have been unable over the years to control the production and flow of illegal narcotics.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon won praise from President Obama this week during the annual North American summit in Mexico:

We will work to make sure Mexico has the support it needs to dismantle and defeat the cartels.  And the United States will also meet its responsibilities by continuing our efforts to reduce the demand for drugs and continuing to strengthening the security of our shared border — not only to protect the American people, but to stem the illegal southbound flow of American guns and cash that helps fuel this extraordinary violence.

I have to say that the words are mighty, but if history is a guide the U.S. Congress will do little if anything to halt the sale of guns southward. And the United States has not shown signs of augmenting Mexican security efforts to the degree needed. International money laundering of drug trafficking  appears beyond control. I’d love to end up being surprised that I’m wrong.

A must-read to see the depths of the problem is an extensive report in the Washington Post by my old colleagues Steve Fainaru and Bill Booth.

This paragraph sums it up:

Beyond the reach of the U.S. and Mexican governments in their fight against drug traffickers is an intimate, complex world of communal violence and crippled institutions. At the center of the drug war is Michoacan, a rugged, rural state in the southwest where all forms of traditional authority — city hall, the military, police and even the Catholic Church — have been unable to protect the people against the assassinations, kidnappings and extortions associated with the narcotics trade.

The United States has acknowledged the obvious many times: that U.S. consumption of drugs is a driving part of the problem of the international narcotics trade. But no politician in the United States will seriously consider drug decriminalization, or broad social programs and education that will change the formula of drug consumption, or laws that — heaven forfend — would curtail gun sales.

The promises are all words, and nothing changes.

- Peter Eisner

Issues on the agenda included trade, the H1N1 flu pandemic and the battle against illegal drugs.

Shannon O’Neil, a fellow in Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the summit and the biggest challenges ahead for the U.S.-Mexico relationship.

Police search bags for drugs and weapons in Mexico.

PUERTO LAS OLLAS, Mexico — The Mexican army has carried out forced disappearances, acts of torture and illegal raids in pursuit of drug traffickers, according to documents and interviews with victims, their families, political leaders and human rights monitors.

This was the lead last week in the Washington Post, in a well-reported piece by Steve Fainaru and Bill Booth. Over the last quarter century, it’s been amazing and shocking to see how U.S. policy and world condemnation have always focused elsewhere in dealing with stories about drug trafficking and the impunity with which it takes place.

The first Bush administration invaded Panama (for something like the 14th time in history) in 1989, supposedly to staunch the disease of drug trafficking through that country. The second Bush administration paid billions to Colombia from 2001-2009 to fight a drug war that looked a lot like a license for corruption and human rights abuses among security forces.

And yet, all the while, Mexican drug trafficking has trundled along, with organized crime corrupting generals and privates, police chiefs and mayors — or killing them if they didn’t play ball. Mexican officials have never been able to control the trafficking and the crime surrounding it. But they do launch military campaigns that don’t resolve the long-term problem — and people die in the crossfire. We’re in a long-lasting crescendo now — some U.S. officials have said the Mexican government is in a dire situation akin to the failed state status of Pakistan.

We’re not allowed to say that though — Mexican officials don’t want to hear it, and U.S. officials don’t want to push the issue too far ahead toward the front burner.

The reality and the danger are evident.

Early in her tenure, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged that the United States shares responsibility. She said this on a visit this spring to Mexico:

We know very well that the drug traffickers are motivated by the demand for illegal drugs in the United States, that they are armed by the transport of weapons from the United States to Mexico; and therefore, we see this as a responsibility to assist the Mexican government and the Mexican people in defeating an enemy that is committing violence and disruption that is very harmful and which is something that all people of conscience should attempt to defeat.

The State Department is now preparing to issue a report on Mexican efforts to police drug crime, and accountability in meeting accepted norms on human rights. Human rights organizations, such as the Washington Office on Latin America [WOLA], are calling on Congress to recognize the questions surrounding Mexico’s pursuit of the drug war before releasing further funding that supplies aid to the Mexican army and police.

Reacting to the Washington Post story, WOLA said this:

The growing number of military abuses is illustrated by amount of complaints received by Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission (CNDH). During the first six months of 2009 the CNDH received over 2,000 complaints against the army, a dramatic increase from the 1,231 registered for all of 2008.

What role will the United States play in recognizing the dire situation — and who will deal credibly with the problems surrounding drug dealing and the accompanying violence?

- Peter Eisner

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Prometeo Lucero under a Creative Commons license.

Many Iranians feel disenfranchised by the results from last Friday’s election.

One day about 27 years ago, I was riding on the campaign bus with Miguel de la Madrid, the shoo-in candidate as next president of Mexico. His party, PRI — the Institutional Revolutionary Party — controlled the country from the end of the Mexican revolution until the year 2000.

De la Madrid was more interested in watching a soccer match – piped onto the bus via satellite–than in talking to a foreign correspondent. His victory, unlike the game, was a foregone conclusion. He looked up at me every once in a while when I asked a question. It was hard to get him to focus, but at one point I asked, ”Do you expect to win by a wide margin?”

He turned to me from the screen and with a smirk said that he expected to win “about 71.3 percent” of the vote. He then returned to the soccer match.

The election was held about a month later — what a surprise, he guessed down to the decimal point!

The boilerplate in our news stories back then used to say something like “The Institutional Revolutionary Party has monopolized Mexican politics since 1929.” Code words for the obvious: They were rigging the elections.

This of course is an echo of what’s happening in Iran these days, where the members of another revolutionary party look like they’re trying to rig the elections too.

In the case of Mexico, they used to say that the government could get away with the fraud because people were afraid of a return to the bloodshed they suffered during their revolution. More than one million people died in the Mexican revolution. The PRI, to its credit, peacefully accepted electoral defeat in 2000 and now is in the opposition.

Where is the tipping point when people in any country — fundamentalist, socialist, conservative, liberal, red state, blue state — won’t accept the results of a fraudulent election? The balance involves fighting for freedom and democracy on the one hand, while knowing that uncertainty, even violence lie ahead on the road to get there.

-Peter Eisner

Find our complete coverage of the Iranian elections at Voices of Iran.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user ehsan khakbaz under a Creative Commons license.

Deborah Bonello is a multimedia journalist based in Mexico City who works for The Los Angeles Times. She blogs at Mexico Reporter, where she writes about attending a survival training session. 

Training Day 

My breath is tearing out of my lungs and my leg muscles are screaming for a reprieve. I just scaled a 60-degree hill coated in thorny brambles and poisonous plants whilst being pounded by rain. In the dark. I thought it couldn’t get any worse, but it did. Later that night, my fellow journalists and I were kidnapped by masked guerillas who jumped onto our bus.

Our only comfort? That none of this was real. But it could have been, which is the point of the survival course 18 journalists who live and work in Mexico attended last week in Toluca, just outside of Mexico City.

During the five day survival program, the journalists dodged tear gas and Army tanks and learned how to survive in the wilderness. The psychological stresses were addressed, too; they learned strategies for dealing with emotions.

In Mexico these days, that may be the most important lesson of all.

“Once in Apatzingan a cameraman and I were taken,” says Miguel Garcia Tinoco, a 40-year-old journalist and owner of the Notivideo video news website based in Michoacan.

“They took us to talk with a drug-trafficking boss on a street in Apatzingan, and they wanted to make us write what they wanted, what they wanted to communicate.”

This group of traffickers gained infamy three years ago when they tossed the severed heads of six enemies onto the dance floor of a nightclub.

“They wanted us to publish an explanation of why they’d murdered those six people. What we told them was that we couldn’t make a decision in terms of what we published or didn’t publish in the newspaper - that it was up to the editor. And in the end my editor decided not to publish anything at all.”

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Mexico’s Social Democrats Party has a strong online presence.

As the confirmed number of H1N1 flu cases worldwide surpasses 2,000, Mexico is returning to normal as businesses and schools reopen. 

But as a Worldfocus contributing blogger writes, the epidemic may have a lasting impact on internal Mexican politics, as the country approaches congressional elections in July.

With the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in control of Mexico’s Congress, President Felipe Calderón may try to use his handling of the flu crisis to promote his National Action Party (PAN). 

At the height of the H1N1 outbreak, with public gatherings banned, many politicians turned to the Web, using Twitter, Facebook and other social networking tools to spread their message. 

Richard Grabman is an American author living in Mexico. He writes at “The Mex Files“ blog to explore how “flu-fallout” will impact the country’s political scene. 

Viral campaigning in a time of viruses

The official campaign season for the 2009 elections started last Sunday, and there has been concern that the Calderon Administration is using the “sanitary contingency” to control either control the opposition parties ability to reach the voters, or to surpress voter turnout — which would presumably benefit PAN.

PAN Party Chair German Martinez had floated the suggestion of delaying the election, but found little support for such an obvious ploy.  Most parties agreed to certain “temporary” restrictions — supposedly voluntary — that limit candidate meetings to small gatherings between 10 A.M. and 3 P.M. (which basically means workers wouldn’t be attending) and limiting campaigning to a media campaign.

While election and media laws require the television and radio broadcasters to run campaign material during prime time for all the parties, and even the minor parties are given equal access, it does limit the effectiveness of some campaigning, which has always been more hands-on in Mexico.

BUT… There are no restrictions on Internet advertising.

The Social Democrats (SD), a very small party and always in danger of losing their registration, seems to be “winning” the on-line campaign.  At least it’s SD advertising which pops up most regularly on my screen when I look at a site with random advertising.  The SD ads push a “progressive” social agenda (drug legalization, abortion rights, gay and lesbian equality) and pays less attention to economic policy, perhaps appealing for the geek vote — which may be enough to keep their party registration.

[...] I expect more “flu-fallout” will emerge in the next few days as the campaigns get more heated.  And, I expect that the broad support for the Calderon administration’s proactive approach to the flu will somewhat limit the expected fall in PAN support, but it may not all be to the advantage of PRI… though with a stronger left, the Administration will be forced to make more concessions to the left in legislative iniatives.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Ask an expert your questions on the H1N1 flu virus.

Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, discusses how quickly the H1N1 virus is spreading, how world governments have responded to the crisis and the potential for a vaccine. 

Eric Klinenberg, a professor at New York University and author of “Fighting for air: The battle to control America’s media,” discusses how U.S. and foreign media have fared in terms of covering the H1N1 outbreak. 

Asia has suffered through a series of health crises in recent years — most recently the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003. Simon Tay, the chairman of the Singapore Institute of International Affairs and member of the Asia Society, discusses how the crisis is playing out in Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam and China and looks at which countries are best prepared to deal with the H1N1 outbreak.

Of course, no country has been affected by the H1NI outbreak so deeply as Mexico. Mexico has also suffered a great deal of economic damage, and it has concerns about how other countries are reacting to the epidemic. Christopher Sabatini, the senior policy director of the Council of the Americas, discusses economic damage from the flu, complaints that Mexicans are being discriminated against and how Mexico’s southern neighbors view its handling of the crisis.

Stephen Morse, a professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, discusses how he sees the H1N1 flu epidemic playing out over the next few months in Mexico, the U.S. and the world. 

Below, Professor Morse answers viewer questions. Thank you for your submissions.  

Q&A:

William in New York asks: How do people become infected with the swine flu? Is it airborne, is it
contact with a person or an object an infected person has touched, or both?

Professor Morse: Probably mostly airborne. The swine flu is exactly like the regular flu we’re all familiar with in its physical properties and transmission.

It’s hard to believe, but after all these years of studying –- and experiencing — the flu, we still aren’t absolutely sure about all the mechanisms of transmission. But we can make some good estimates. I suspect that most infections are probably airborne, especially when people cough or sneeze nearby. Contact or inanimate objects are probably much less important as ways to become infected, although it’s still an open question and may account for some cases.

Because of the airborne spread, cover your coughs and sneezes (and if you can, throw away the tissue and wash your hands afterwards), and if possible stay at least several feet away from people who are coughing or sneezing. Because of the possibility of contact transmission, we also recommend good “hand hygiene” –- washing your hands (or using a hand sanitizer) regularly. We’re not sure whether or not handwashing makes a big difference with flu transmission, but it has clearly been shown to prevent many other infections and is a good simple precaution.

James in Michigan asks: The virus has three different strains of D.N.A — human, avian and pig. Can it jump from species to species, if the virus is compatible with the species? If so, shouldn’t we be concerned about that?

Professor Morse: Influenza viruses are exchanging genes all the time, often without our noticing until disease occurs. Influenza Type A — the one we usually are referring to — has its genome divided into eight segments of RNA (you can think of them as “mini-chromosomes”). The segments make it easier for the influenza viruses to exchange genes, a process we call reassortment. This is the process that usually gives us new pandemic strains. The widest variety of influenza viruses live in waterfowl, such as wild ducks or geese, and the novel gene in a pandemic usually ultimately comes from this source. However, humans are generally very resistant to infection by these avian (bird) influenza viruses. Pigs may be more easily infected and serve as a sort of “mixing vessel,” because they can also get infected with flu viruses from mammals, including pigs and humans. When two influenza viruses infect the same host (individual), they produce new descendants that may swap gene segments at random as they’re being produced, resulting in many different combinations. Some of them, as a result, just happen to have the right combination of genes to infect other species (like humans) that the parent viruses couldn’t infect.

This particular  ”triple reassortant” we’ve been hearing about as the ancestor of this virus was first identified over 10 years ago, in U.S. pigs, and has been in swine for at least the last decade.

Lynda in Texas asks: Will the pneumonia shot help with a secondary infection from H1N1?

Professor Morse: Yes. This shot protects against a type of bacterial pneumonia that used to be a major secondary infection, and a common cause of death in those elderly who had serious medical conditions. This vaccine prevents “pneumococcal pneumonia”, caused by a particular species of bacteria that is very common in the human population and has been a real killer in the past. So it will help. However, there are other causes of secondary infection that are not covered by the vaccine, so call your doctor if you get the flu and don’t start improving in a few days, or if you think you might have a secondary infection.

Spirit in New York asks: How concerned should I be about traveling on the subway, bus or train to another state? Is public transportation safe?

Professor Morse: No reason to worry at this time. There isn’t much risk from public transportation within the U.S., and that’s not likely to change until the flu becomes much more widespread. As of now, the virus is simply not widespread enough and there are not enough cases to make public transportation a major concern for infection. Public transportation, in general, is probably about the same risk as most places where people gather for similar periods of time.

Gerald in Connecticut asks: Our daughter is scheduled to leave for Mexico this Saturday on her honeymoon. Would you recommend she not go?

Professor Morse: This is really a personal choice, and I can empathize with her dilemma.

The CDC (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention) recommends avoiding all non-essential travel to Mexico if possible. Additional information and the latest updates are on the CDC Web site. 

The risk is probably very small, but the newlyweds may well enjoy their honeymoon more if they aren’t distracted by the concerns about catching the flu. If your they do decide to go, they should check on their transportation arrangements. Many U.S. airlines are still flying to Mexico, but with reduced schedules because there are fewer passengers. Most airlines appear willing to give refunds or cfredits for those who want to delay the trip.

Aside from Mexico, travel restrictions to other places are generally not warranted at this time. There is a natural tendency to want to close borders or limit travel everywhere when these disease reports come up, but restrictions are often too late, after the disease has already spread into the country. By then, travel restrictions are usually too late to really prevent spread.

Nathan in California asks: Is it possible there will be an increased spread of the H1N1 virus later this year during flu season?

Professor Morse: Yes, it is possible, although truthfully we don’t know what it will do. Flu is notoriously hard to predict, so those of us who work with the virus have a healthy respect for its variety and unpredictability. The possibility of the virus coming back in another wave (possibly even causing more severe disease) later in the year is one possible scenario. But this is unpredictable, and that’s why it’s very important for epidemiologists and public health people to watch influenza activity carefully and be prepared to act appropriately if something happens. Keep watching the media for new developments.

Vernell in Texas asks: What can be done to prepare in advance of a possible return of the
disease in the fall?

Professor Morse: First, stay well informed in case there’s a major change or sudden development in the flu situation. If the situation is unusual, there may be special recommendations.

Otherwise, basically prepare the way you usually do for the flu. The hygiene measures we’re recommending — basics such as “respiratory etiquette” (covering coughs and sneezes), regular handwashing, staying away as much as possible from people sick with the flu, and staying home if you think you have the flu — will apply whatever happens. Call your doctor or health department information line immediately if you’re having difficulty breathing, feeling a lot sicker than you think you’d normally be with the flu, or if you start getting worse instead of better. You may want to have some extra supplies of food and other basics at home in case you have to stay in for a while.

A vaccine may be available by next fall, and you should seriously consider whether you want to take it. Your doctor can help with this decision.

Many people ask about antivirals, like “Tamiflu”. In general, these drugs can be lifesaving in severe cases if we give them fairly early in the course of disease (within the first 48 hours), but have relatively little benefit in mild or moderate flu (which will get better without medication). We don’t encourage these drugs for mild cases, because we’re concerned that wide use might cause more rapid development of viral resistance to the drug.

Wishing you good health!

Disclaimer: Stephen Morse provides information and informed opinion, not medical advice.

People in Mexico often hire a “pollero,” or people smuggler, to take them to the U.S.

Over the years, immigrant smuggling has evolved into a large and sophisticated industry.

Sacha Feinman is a journalist with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. He describes how people in Mexico go about hiring a “pollero,” or people smuggler, as border controls have tightened. 

Nogales, Sonora

Their stories are infinite in variety. Jose Arturo Romero got separated from his group and was left to fend for himself in the middle of the desert, picked up by the Border Patrol after four days of what had seemed like aimless wandering. It was his third attempt, and he had yet to make it the 60 miles to Tucson. Dehydration and the near-death experience be damned; he was ready to try again. Jorge Flores had been successful in his one and only crossing 22 years earlier. More than two decades later, an entire life came undone in Raleigh, North Carolina when he ran a red light and was found to be driving without a license. Some are trying to get to their families in New York or Chicago, believing that opportunity awaits if they can just complete the journey. Others have no one to call on and no idea what to expect once they finish moving.

The stories vary save in a single detail; each narrator hired a “pollero”, or guide, to bring them across the border and safely install them in the U.S.

These days, human smuggling to the U.S. is a big business, one that has undergone a profound transformation over the last 10-15 years. What were once “mom and pop” enterprises only found on the U.S/Mexico border have been replaced by far more sophisticated brokers who now interact with the country’s deadly narcotraffickers.

The hiring of a pollero represents a remarkable moment in a migrant’s journey. Life savings, not to mention lives themselves, are given over to a total stranger. And there is no criteria by which one might judge which guide is trustworthy and which is trouble.

“It’s luck, picking a pollero. Luck and faith in God,” advises Melvin Castañeda, a 34 year old migrant from the state of Sinaloa. “There are a few little things that can help. Never pick a young guide, for example. Older guides have been around longer and know better how to get around. And they don’t walk as fast. But luck; that is really all you have.”

“The border crossing is more dangerous today than ever before,” says Enrique Enriquez, the local coordinator of the governmental agency Grupo Beta. Working to provide medical attention and travel advice for would-be crossers, the organization’s members are in a unique position to testify on the dangers facing migrants looking to smuggle themselves across the U.S./Mexico border.

According to Enriquez, increased security measures by the U.S. Border Patrol has resulted in an equal but opposite reaction on the Mexican side. While U.S. authorities have militarized the border in an attempt to bring order to the region and stem the flow of undocumented workers in to the U.S., their actions have made the journey more dangerous for migrants.

To read more, see the original post. 

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user scazon under a Creative Commons license.

Meanwhile in Mexico, where commerce has dropped severely because of limits on public gatherings, President Felipe Calderon told the nation that only essential businesses — such as supermarkets, hospitals and pharmacies — should stay open.

Michael Novacek, the provost of science at the American Museum of Natural History, joins Martin Savidge to discuss why swine flu is so lethal and the scientific community’s attempts to fight the virus.

‘Swine’ flu has the pork industry worried.

The World Health Organization said on Thursday that it will stop using the the term “swine flu,” claiming the term was misleading consumers and causing some countries to slaughter pigs needlessly. The WHO will call the virus by its technical name, H1N1 influenza A.

As countries around the world debate over what to call “swine flu,” Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge writes about the influenza name game.

A couple of days ago when the flu story was really beginning to move, I remember seeing a report from Israel on the wires about how many Jews wanted the name of the outbreak changed because it was offensive to their faith. Muslims, as well, wanted a different name for the same reason. I thought that was rather amusing and potentially confusing.

Then I read yesterday that the U.S. government wanted to make a name change as well — but it had nothing to do with faith; rather, the economy. Specifically, the negative impact “swine” flu was having on the pork industry. Pork farmers fear the market could take a dive, perhaps with good reason.

Even though scientists have said there is no way to catch the flu by eating pork chops or any other pork products, a number of nations have moved to ban the importation of pork from the U.S. and Mexico. They include the Philippines, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Ecuador.

In Jordan they are shutting down pig farms, while Egypt has ordered every pig in the country destroyed — some 300,000 of them. In the newsroom, we were struck that Muslim countries like Egypt and Jordan would even have pigs as livestock. As our associate producer Mohammad al-Kassim pointed out, it’s for their Christian residents, who have no religious problem with ham or bacon.

So what name should replace “swine,” since it is so problematic? The U.S. suggests referring to the flu as H1N1, its scientific name. Thailand says it will start calling the disease the “Mexican flu” — a name Israel liked as well — but not one that Mexico is likely to like.

In Europe, Androulla Vassiliou, the European commissioner for health, said that the commission would refer to the disease as “novel flu.” I don’t quite get that name. Is it because this is said to be a totally new flu?

The WHO continues to refer to the virus as swine influenza. Meanwhile, the World Organization for Animal Health, which handles veterinary issues around the world, issued a statement suggesting that the new disease should be labeled “North American influenza,” in keeping with a long medical tradition of naming influenza pandemics for the regions where they were first identified, e.g. the Spanish flu of 1918 to 1919, the Asian flu of 1957 to 1958 and the Hong Kong flu of 1967 to 1968.

So what name would you call it?

It’s worth noting that this is another story, like the economic meltdown, which shows how we are all globally connected. And like the recession, the only way to combat the problem is by working together. No one is immune — regardless of where you live or what language you speak.

- Martin Savidge

Photo courtesy of Flickr user The Pug Father under a Creative Commons license.

More than 90 cases of the disease have now been reported throughout the United States, and the first U.S. death attributed to swine flu was reported. Of course, Mexico is where the disease started — or so it seems — and where it continues to do the most harm. At least 150 people there have died from the disease. 

Laurie Garrett, a senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the origin of the flu. She also discusses various government responses to the flu, including discouraging public gatherings in Mexico, slaughtering pigs in Egypt and shutting down pig farms in Jordan.

The number of people thought to have died from the disease reached 152 — all of them in Mexico, where the outbreak began.

Beyond Mexico, the United States and five other countries were dealing with confirmed cases of the flu. The United States is now reporting at least 68 confirmed cases; Canada is reporting six, and a few cases are confirmed in the United Kingdom, Spain, Israel and New Zealand. Suspected cases have been reported all the way from South America to Asia.

Many more countries were taking steps they hope will keep it away, tightening borders and immigration controls as the swine flu epidemic spread. Cuba suspended flights to Mexico, and countries including the United States, Canada and France warned their citizens to avoid nonessential travel to Mexico. Russia, Hong Kong and Taiwan all said they would quarantine any ailing visitors who come from countries where the disease has been discovered.

Martin Blaser, a former president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the current chairman of the Department of Medicine at the New York University School of Medicine, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how governments are responding to the outbreak and how widespread this strain of flu is.

View a map detailing the spread of the swine flu:

The World Health Organization has said the deadly flu has “pandemic potential.” Governments the world over are racing to find and contain pockets of swine flu. The European Union is advising against unnecessary travel to the U.S. and Mexico.

Dr. Andrew Garrett, the director of planning and response at Columbia University’s National Center for Disaster Preparedness and the Mailman School of Public Health, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the threat posed by swine flu, how the disease spread from Mexico and how long it might be before it is brought under control.

.

Daniel Hernandez, a writer based in Mexico City, describes the atmosphere in the city, noting that many are wary of the government: 

The metro is still operating but with hardly its normal level of weekend traffic. Public gathering spaces are closed or nearly empty — that includes art openings (most of them), museums, movie theaters, and soccer matches. Unbelievably, schools will be closed until “at least” May 6, the health secretary has announced, raising the fear factor considerably.

That’s at least 10 total weekdays of no classes for more than 6 million students at all levels. To put things in perspective, the last time classes were shuttered for days on end was during the apocalyptic Mexico City earthquake of 1985.

[...]On Saturday, while the top brass at the WHO convened an emergency meeting in Geneva, soldiers in Mexico City were passing out face-masks at traffic stops, metro stations, and plazas. A militar in fatigues handed me a mask upon entering metro Bellas Artes, but it fell apart before I could even get on a train. On board, passengers eyed one another suspiciously and made every effort to avoid contact with strangers.

Now, this is the sort of atmosphere some of us have most feared, health worries aside: An already heavy-handed federal government in Mexico issued an ominous decree on Saturday, saying it reserves the right to hold and quarantine anyone, enter and search any public or private establishment, and more or less do whatever it deems necessary to stop the virus from spreading.

Which makes you wonder if this is really Mexico’s “worst nightmare.”

Deborah Bonello in Mexico points out that there are economic costs to the outbreak: 

I was out shooting all day in downtown Mexico City Sunday, trying to get a sense of how the swine flu outbreak is affecting local businesses.

It’s bad. With schools closed, as well as cinemas, theaters and museums, sales for some vendors have dropped by as much as 70%. And it doesn’t look like things are going to get better anytime soon. The usual Monday morning traffic crawl was nowhere to be seen this morning, and I arrived at my office door to door in less than 20 minutes.

About half the people walking around on the streets are using masks, around half are risking it.

Blogger “mattliving” in Canada — where there are at least six confirmed cases of swine flu — criticizes the government response to the outbreak: 

Why are governments around the world waiting for this to get out of hand?

I personally know of persons in my workplace here in Canada that have recently returned from Mexico. Why haven’t governments contacted everyone who may have traveled in or out of Mexico in the last few weeks and get them tested.

Isn’t this scenario one of the biggest excuses from governments for tracking of travellers, RFID passports, etc.?

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Eneas under a Creative Commons license.

President Alan Garcia of Peru. Peru’s GDP expanded by 9.8 percent last year — faster than China’s — but has slowed significantly.

The Latin American economy is expected to contract 1.5 percent this year as countries face losses from declining exports, tourism and remittances.

But while Iceland was called “the first political casualty of the global credit crisis” after its prime minister resigned, blogger Thiago de Aragão writes that in most Latin American countries, people seem to separate politics from their pocketbooks.

Thiago is the Latin American senior research associate at the Foreign Policy Center in London and he writes at Latin American Politican Analysis.

Latin America: Politics and Economics divided

Politically speaking, the impact of the international economic crisis is expected to be extremely relative in Latin America. Contrary to what happens elsewhere in the world, here political and economic issues are easily sifted apart. [...]

There are odd situations, such as Peru. Here, in spite of the economy’s best performance ever (which may change or plunge because of the crisis), president Alan Garcia faces one of the worst cases of popularity evaluation across the whole region. In Peru we now witness an overt cleavage between economy and politics that hadn’t been seen in Latin America for a while. The thriving economy has taken the Peruvians to unprecedented wealth levels, yet their president isn’t seem as someone capable of inspiring political and institutional stability.

In Brazil things are somewhat different. Both low-income and low-middle-class populations are now entirely catered for by the country’s economy. Since these ranks of Brazil’s population have subscribed to the notion that “politicians are all the same, they all cheat”, there is nothing to be worried about if the economy is in good shape. It isn’t that president Lula’s administration isn’t a reasonable one, but significant political advancements that are yet to be made (the political, tax and labor reforms) hardly affect the vast majority of the country’s population. This vast majority of people is quite content only to be able to plan ahead the purchase of, say, a household appliance in the beginning of the year, knowing exactly how many installments they will have to pay by December.

The Brazilian upper classes are the ones that care about political issues, specially those that affect them directly, i.e. the battles for the end of the CPMF, lower excise tax for cars etc. Issues such as education, health and crime rate are lost in the political limbo. The upper classes in Brazil can afford private schools, health insurance and safe neighborhoods. Because the low-income population is living their best economic moment ever, coupled to the fact that they lack political organization to demand improvements in such critical areas, things more or less are kept going by way of compromise.

Colombia, however, is a clear example of both political and economic advancement. The country’s economy is growing steadily, foreign direct investments increase year by year, industry leaders are constantly attracted by the country’s infra-structure modernization programs. Furthermore, there has been tremendous advancement in regard to Colombia’s worst political nightmare: the FARC. Nowhere has a government managed to reap good economic and political fruits and appraisals because of good seeds sown. However, it is important to acknowledge the mounting risk that this success can be adversely affected if the Colombian president attempts at running for a third term in office.

Except for countries drowning in social issues, such as Bolivia, in Latin America economic issues have an overriding role as far as a country’s stability is concerned. In Brazil, economic issues go hand in hand with everything else for the low-income population. Because for this part of the population, “if economy is right, then everything else is right, too.” In Peru we witness a dissension in opinion, in that “economy is well regardless of the president”, whereas Colombia as a whole, or at large, in any case, including the upper classes, perceives that both economy and politics are going very well.

To read more, see the original post.

The views expressed by contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Presidencia de la República del Ecuador under a Creative Commons license.

Police corruption is one problem facing Mexico. Photo: Megan Thompson

U.S. President Barack Obama is scheduled to venture to Mexico on Thursday for talks with President Felipe Calderon. Officials from the Obama administration say the president will work to curb the flow of U.S.-made firearms to Mexican drug traffickers.

Worldfocus editorial consultant Peter Eisner writes to argue that unless political leaders are willing to commit to real change and take the resulting flak, it will be impossible to alleviate Mexico’s drug problem. See more on our coverage of Mexico’s Drug War.

When President Obama meets with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Mexico on Thursday, how many people will be thinking about the history of efforts by the two countries to deal with drug trafficking? Anyone who does will have to be listed as a skeptic about possibilities for real change.

Mexico has been stuck in the middle of modern drug trade ever since the rise of the Colombian cocaine and marijuana cartels more than three decades ago. But the United States preferred to look elsewhere. The Reagan administration declared a war on drugs and spent billions of dollars on eradicating crops in Colombia and Peru; the first President Bush invaded Panama, and imprisoned Manuel Antonio Noriega claiming he was a drug dealer. The United States also helped hunt down and kill Pablo Escobar, and even blamed Fidel Castro and Raul Castro for the drug trade. Cynicism abounded and little, if anything, was accomplished.

All the while, the Mexican narco industry was thriving and growing, and no one came up with the key to change the reality –- drug dealing and the associated violence in Mexico operates with impunity. The Mexican drug business is successful because of corruption, weak justice and police structures in Mexico, and because of the driving market right across the border.

Consider this report from the Washington Office on Latin America, prepared in the leadup to Obama’s one-day trip:

The ability to identify, prosecute, and punish drug traffickers is a key element in containing the drug trade. There were over 10,000 drug-related killings in Mexico in the past three years. As staggering as these numbers are, it is noteworthy that the majority of these murders may never be solved. The Mexican Citizen Institute for Research on Insecurity (INCESI) found that initial investigations are begun for only 13 percent of the reported crimes and in only 5 percent of these crimes are the alleged perpetrator brought before a judge. (1) The same institute estimates that of every 100 investigations, only 4 cases result in sentencing the person responsible.

What are the real prospects for change? Well, the American president is stymied by mistrust from the Mexican side –- where officials and the public always feel the United States is trying to bigfoot Mexican government policy. And at home, there’s no possibility on the horizon of ever decriminalizing drugs to puncture the market.

Meanwhile, what American politician would ever get away with curbing the sale of guns, which Mexican traffickers can easily haul in and use in their murderous business? Without meaningful change brought on by officials who see the reality and are willing to take the political flak, there isn’t much room for optimism.

- Peter Eisner