TEHRAN(Basirat): An American political scientist said a
huge influx of immigrants to America is the legacy of US military and political
support for dictators in Central America.
"The flow of immigrants from Central America is the legacy of US support
(military, economic, political) for right-wing dictators and their families,
under the label of supporting stability and anti-communism (counterinsurgency
policy),” Beau Grosscup, California State University Professor Emeritus of
Political Science, told the Tasnim News Agency in an interview.
Following is the full text of the interview:
Tasnim: On June 23, the United Nations issued a damning condemnation of US
President Donald Trump's policy that saw migrant children separated from their
parents at the border, suggesting it "may amount to torture". What’s your take
on this?
Grosscup: There is no doubt that, given the US Bush-era definition of
torture, the Trump Administration will reject this charge, since the US
operational definition requires 'specific intent' and 'serious jeopardy, serious
impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or
part.' Of course, the UN operates under the international definition. With
National Security Advisor John Bolton, who has no use for the UN, expect the
Trump Administration to pay no attention to this claim. Yet, the UN is making
this claim due to the possibility the children will suffer 'developmental
damage' as a result of the separation from their family members.
Tasnim: A number of rights groups have questioned Trump's order, mostly for
offering few details on how to deal with the more than 2,300 children detained
by the US government since the "zero tolerance" policy was enacted by the
president's administration in mid-April. What do you think about the zero
tolerance policy?
Grosscup: The Trump Administration claims that they are only following
the law and thus have no choice but Zero Tolerance, meaning there is no
'flexibility' or discretion in its application. But the Zero Tolerance is a
policy and every policy has a range of applications (using discretion). The
Trump Administration has chosen to apply the policy in the strictest sense
because, as they have been very clear about, they believe it helps with their
political agenda in three ways. (1) to discourage families from fleeing their
countries and coming to the US. (2), to sustain the image of being 'tough' on
immigration and border security/terrorism, (3) signal to their base and wavering
Republicans as to the need to get out the vote in the November elections in
order to keep the Republican control of Congress.
Tasnim: The UN condemnation comes just days after the United States withdrew
its membership from the Human Rights Council, saying that the council is against
Israel. What do you think about the move by the US?
Grosscup: This was a political decision, again centered in John Bolton's
(and other Neo-conservatives) disdain for the UN, in particular, the General
Assembly, Security Council and Human Rights Council's longstanding efforts to
hold Israel accountable for its occupation policy. The more immediate reason has
to do with current US desire for 'regime change' in Iran and Venezuela, which is
why, in announcing the US withdrawal, Ambassador Haley pointedly mentioned both
countries as the greatest violators of human rights. Thus, the withdrawal is
another step in the US desire to develop a foreign policy unrestrained by
international institutional policy (condemnation), while furthering the effort
to 'isolate' Iran and Venezuela as pariah states worthy of US unilateral action
supported by an 'ad hoc' coalition.
Tasnim: The vast majority of immigrants arriving in the US and facing
potential separation are coming from turbulent countries like Guatemala, El
Salvador, and Honduras. In those countries, high violent crime rates and
difficult economic conditions have forced families to leave, migrating north to
the US and elsewhere. What’s your perspective on this?
Grosscup: The flow of immigrants from Central America is the legacy of US
support (military, economic, political) for right-wing dictators and their
families, under the label of supporting stability and anti-communism
(counterinsurgency policy). The economic developmental side of that policy has
long been abandoned in favor of the military side (eradication of the 'disease'
of communism/terrorism). Aided by the 'reform packages' of the International
Monetary Fund and international banks, this US 'aid' approach has brought
inequality of wealth and income (riches to the powerful few and mass poverty to
the poor), high unemployment, high crime against the poor and political/economic
impotency for the vast majority of citizens. In short, they have no choice but
to flee or die, especially to a country where they are actively recruited by
corporate America. The current high number of Honduran refugees reflects the US
support for the recent fraudulent election and the US support for another
Honduran dictatorship with all of the obvious results noted above, especially
those seeking political asylum.
Source: Tasnim