By Pablo Jofré Leal on January 2, 2021
What drives millions of human beings to travel long distances, cross mountains, ford rivers, stretches of jungle, walk in the humid heat, endure torrential rain, leave their homes, their family, the social environment in which they live, to seek new horizons?
Is it just the search for better life prospects? Is it merely economic incentives? According to data provided by the International Organization for Migration (IOM), an entity dependent on the United Nations (UN), with projected data up to December 2020, the number of people living in a country other than the one in which they were born has increased significantly: 285 million – 60 million more than in 2010. International migrants now comprise 3.5% of the world’s population, up from 2.8% in 2000 and 2.3% in 1980.
It is both obvious and paradoxical that, in the framework of the process called globalization, what we perceived was that this process could be an effective catalyst for expanding relations between peoples. To open the borders between states, thereby breaking down bureaucratic, political, economic and cultural barriers. An idea that allowed us to see a free flow of human beings as never before in the history of humanity. However, the harsh reality showed that such optimism was excessive: the only thing that has that freedom in this third five-year period of the 21st century is financial capital. They move without restriction. They travel from country to country without asking permission, without showing passports and without considering what color of skin, what race, ideology or religion they have. There are no walls to stop them.
Migration and its many causes
When the question regarding the causes that motivate people to migrate refers to the inhabitants of the Central American region, which is the specific focus of this article’s concern, the causes are multiple and are usually the field of economic, sociological and political studies. However, despite the analyses, diagnoses and policies that have been carried out, in order to try to change this situation of bleeding out of the population, which is generally the youngest population in Central America, it is still a reality and will continue to be so, as long as the structural reasons that allow this emigration continue. I am referring to the fact that these are non-industrialized countries, dependent and producers of raw materials, generally mono-producers. With little capacity for innovation, dependent on technology. Subjected to governments that are in turn dominated by governments and transnational corporations. With a political caste that has no impact on the progress of their countries, with very little political and economic sovereignty.
The majority of Central American migrants, whose priority destination is the United States, come from what has been called the Northern Triangle of Central America (TNC): Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, countries that mostly provide the mass of migrants who try to enter US territory through Central America and Mexico. Of the 35 million international migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean, 17 million come from Central America, whose main north is the United States, with Mexico as their main transit territory.
In documents prepared by international organizations, which we have reported on this site, such as the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) through the titled Migration Atlas, it is stated that “The massive irregular migration is a direct consequence of food insecurity, climate crises, the erosion of the social fabric and the lack of economic opportunities in the villages and rural territories of these countries” as Kostas Stamoulis, Assistant Director General of the Economic and Social Development Department of the FAO, pointed out at the launch of Atlas
The Executive Secretary of ECLAC, Alicia Bárcenas, pointed out that “77% of rural inhabitants in Guatemala are poor, and poverty in Honduras affects 82% of rural inhabitants; in El Salvador that figure is 50%. These figures, which under the framework of the global Coronavirus pandemic, undoubtedly tend to worsen the situation. Bárcenas’ argument is supported by studies such as “Development and migration: challenges and opportunities in the countries of northern Central America”, which point out that an important finding for the policy field is the predominantly rural nature and the importance of agriculture in all migration patterns (intraregional, cross-border and to the United States) from the NCA countries. Thus, it is stated that migration is not homogeneous in the national territory of each country, but tends to be greater in rural areas and less so in urban areas. Migration is a political issue, in which the migrant must be considered as a subject of public policies and participate in the decisions that concern him/her, and not only as an object of policies that grant him/her concessions.
Emmanuel Abuelafia points out in his study “US immigration policy and its impact on the Northern Triangle of Central America” that the migratory flow from these countries to the United States is very significant, reaching a stock of 3 million citizens of these countries who live, mostly in an irregular manner, in the United States. This number of migrants represents 23% of the population of El Salvador, 8% of the population of Honduras and 6% of the population of Guatemala. Each year, more than 300,000 citizens of these countries begin their journey north with varying degrees of success. The dependence of TNC economies on remittance flows is substantial. These remittances represent more than 10% of the GDP of these countries.”
The causes and consequences of this migratory phenomenon take on enormous relevance, not only from the political, social and economic point of view in their countries of origin, but also the effect generated by the anti-migration policies emanating from Washington, which seek to prevent the arrival of this mass of human beings, using the dissuasive factor in countries like Mexico or Guatemala through what is known as the “Safe Third Country” policy, which corresponds to a policy of blackmail established by the fading Donald Trump government on the TNC governments as well as Mexico, which in the case of the latter was forced, even to mobilize troops to the south of its territory, to prevent the transit of migrants, who by the thousands formed columns heading north.
It is clear and has been described in official documents and in media reports that “A safe third country must ensure the right of asylum seekers to social, medical, educational and employment services. The term safe third country arises from the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees stipulated by the UN and currently seeks to be implemented by the United States with Guatemala and Mexico in their proposed migration agreement.
The objective of the so-called “Safe Third Country” is less humanitarian than that described in the convention, it is simply to relieve the United States of its responsibility under international law to deal with asylum requests and to transfer it to a third country, which is usually the one from which many people come or spend most of their time in search of better life opportunities. This December El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, began to apply the migration agreement known as the Asylum Cooperation Agreement (ACA), which was signed in September 2019 with Washington and makes El Salvador-one of the most insecure and violent countries in Central America-a potential destination for refugees in need of protection. An agreement that represents a major step backwards in terms of the protection of people who leave their countries and seek either protection or development opportunities, without the possibility of even submitting an application as has been denounced by human rights organizations.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced last Tuesday that the United States and El Salvador have concluded the PCA agreements that determine the fact that “those migrants who seek asylum or similar humanitarian protection at the U.S. border will be transferred to El Salvador. The PCA has also been signed with Honduras and Guatemala but has not been implemented. They were signed under the threat of the United States suspending all development aid, which represents financial assistance whose figures usually support the meagre coffers of these countries. This is coupled with the classic US pressure to tax the exports of those who do not submit to the policies which they usually demand to be implemented. In Mexico’s case the threat was to increase tariffs, particularly in the border area where trade is an unavoidable economic factor.
Source: Rebelion, translation Resumen Latinoamericano, North America bureau