Latin America & the US: Eugene Hasenfus & the Iran-Contra Scandal; Historic US Interventions; Juan Orlando Hernandez Pardoned; History of the War on Drugs

Latin America Correspondent Jon Bonfiglio in conversation with journalist Julia Tilton from The Daily Yonder, the US's only national news organization for rural people and places.  

Transcript

Jon Bonfiglio: 0:00

Hi everyone and welcome back to Latin America Correspondent with me, Jon Bonfiglio. And as today as usual on these episodes, which focus on the US and uh Latin America relationship, I am joined by journalist Julia Tilton from the Daily Yonder, the US's only national newspaper for rural people and places. Hello, Julia.

Julia Tilton: 0:19

Hi, Jon. How are you?

Jon Bonfiglio: 0:20

I'm good, thank you. Uh Julia, I wanted to start today with the uh death of Eugene Hassenfus. Strange name, uh maybe a little unknown. He died at his home in the US at aged 84 this week. Uh yeah, his name doesn't spring off the page, but uh his cargo plane, which was running guns to Nicaragua in 1986 to arm the contras, was shot down over the country, uh, setting off what would become known as the Iran Contra Affair. The Iran Contra Affair, for those unfamiliar with it, was a political scandal in the United States centered on arms trafficking to Iran uh in the 80s during the Reagan administration. The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sales to fund the Contras and anti-Sandinista rebel group in Nicaragua. These secret weapons um transactions and other activities uh were either prohibited by the US Congress or violated the stated public policy of the government. The administration of President Ronald Reagan feared that the presence of uh Marxist-oriented Sandinista government would uh offer a launch pad for the spread of communist insurgency elsewhere in Central America. Well, at least, Julia, that sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. Uh am I right?

Julia Tilton: 1:38

Well, it's hard to tell uh with what's happening in Venezuela, um, but certainly a newsworthy item this week. Um anytime someone gets an obituary in the New York Times, which was the case with Eugene, um, it's worth taking note.

Jon Bonfiglio: 1:54

Yeah, it is. And it's um it's actually one of those things which these days isn't really spoken about that much. But at the time, it was huge. There was a whole debate about what Reagan knew and didn't know and who he was selling down uh the river, which again has had echoes this past week with uh what Pete Heggseth knew and what he ordered or didn't order. It massively surprised me today. Uh obviously we're talking about the boat strikes, but and in particular there's been this sort of contention uh over the course of the last few days as to the the double tap strike and the illegality um of it, even within within wartime. But it sort of surprised me to learn today that actually the the two survivors were clinging to the vessel for a whole hour before that vessel was bombed again, which gives something of the lie to Hegfeth's um declaration that the reason why they were struck again was because it was all part of a fog of war. There was definitely a lag of time. It wasn't just like it was an instinctive reaction.

Julia Tilton: 2:54

Right. And I I think this uh sort of story continues to unravel for Pete Hegfest. There's been just a flurry of headlines this week. Um and so it will be interesting. I should have mentioned at the top, I'm I'm actually here in Washington, DC. Um it's a snowy and cold day, and and certainly the sort of talk of the town um is how long the the Trump administration will um sort of rally behind Pete Hegsef and the actions of the Pentagon before sort of starting to part ways and maybe trying to save fake save faith. Um I know that there are members of Congress that are starting to question um Hegsef's decision-making abilities. Um, and yeah, to your point, the fog of war comment emerging as again evidence that the Trump administration and HegSeth as an extension of the Trump administration romanticizing um these actions in the Caribbean and sort of how long that goes on and how long they'll continue to romanticize it, I think remains to be seen.

Jon Bonfiglio: 4:02

But I think both you and I are in a good place to comment because um we don't work in air-conditioned rooms. So that seems to be that that qualifies us uh for commentary. Um I I think the what's surprised one of the things that surprised me most about the the story this week is how almost for the first time there's been a bipartisan reaction to what took place. It seems that even Republicans now sort of recognize that is something uh beyond the sort of the dubious legal justification that is continually being offered, that even if you take it on the administration's own terms, the fact that this is almost certainly uh a um a war crime seems to have even uh uh elicited a response from from them. The only thing which a lot of commentators have been mentioning in the last few weeks is how uh what's taking place in Venezuela actually needs to memories of other instances, historical instances in uh in Latin America. One of those, of course, was the memories of the Panama invasion in in 1988, relevant, um comparable, because at the time the US indicted uh General Noriega for drug smuggling, the leader of Panama, just before they invaded, just as they have with with Maduro. So there's almost a sort of direct correlation there. Although actually a potentially a better comparison might be Guatemala in 1954 when the US brought down a democratically elected president, Acobo Aragon. Um, the operation at the time PB success was ordered by Eisenhower to extinguish a um what was perceived to be a communist threat, and it involved uh the CIA all over again using a CIA funder's disinformation and sabotage campaign to convince Guatemalan military officials that they were on the brink of being attacked by a powerful liberation army and should have abandoned Arabenz to avoid devastating US retribution. Seems to me that there's a pretty direct link between that incident in 1954 in Guatemala and Venezuela today, with the sort of the standoff and the huge um US um flotilla that is off the coast of Venezuela. Has there been any shift in the US as regards in the last few days as regards the perception uh on what Trump is likely to do, if anything?

Julia Tilton: 6:15

Yeah, I I think the gifts back into the discussion actually about Congress and this piece about war crimes, and and something that Congress tends to bristle at is sort of this notion that the president can can take unilateral action um abroad. And my take on this is that Congress is starting to pay attention because if we were to get into a military situation in Venezuela, for example, um, Congress would need to declare an act of war. Um this is played out over US history multiple times. Um and so I agree with the analysis that um it's probably unlikely that we will see sort of boots on the ground in Venezuela that that just seems like uh sort of counter to Trump's uh best interests, given that his base, um his MAGA base uh doesn't want to see any more forever wars, doesn't want to see um US soldiers going abroad and and fighting um in in sort of uh person-to-person combat. Um but again, Trump is unpredictable. Um, and perhaps that's why this continues um to be this back and forth. What is he gonna do next? What is he gonna do next? Um, but my take is that I I just would be incredibly surprised if we see um the sort of buildup of of military um in the Caribbean actually going to Venezuela rather than like a surgical airstrike, um, something of that nature.

Jon Bonfiglio: 7:51

Yeah, it seems to me as well that a lot of the commentary, a lot of the media coverage of it has been really blind. Like I feel I feel that where the media is at its weakest is when it only looks at individual stories. Okay, so Trump says this or the administration says this, so the US uh the the the um uh the the massive aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford goes goes off the coast of Venezuela. And you they the sort of the the analysis is only only sees what's taking place and and sort of puts the two energy together and comes up with five because it seemed to me that well, we obviously we've discussed this on this um on this uh podcast a number of times, but it seemed to me from the very beginning that actually it what was taking place wasn't going to add up to to boots on the ground. It's also interesting what you say about the whole at-war thing, because the administration consistently says, although they've changed their minds on justification uh a number of times recently, but the administration consistently says that it's at war, but of course Congress has to vote on war, and then there's been complaints about the fact that, well, this is an unsanctioned by Congress war, but then the administration turns around and says, Oh, but we're we're not really at war, it's not really a serious war. It's it's really difficult to keep keep up with, and the sort of the the um the sort of the moving justification or absence of justification on these things, but to be honest, by now it would have brought down any other administration, but this administration seems to just get away with it, which is um unique. Um maybe we can move on to the release of um ex-Hungerian president Juan Orlando Hernandez, Julia, uh convicted and sentenced a couple of years ago to 45 years in the USA for drug-related offenses. Uh any thoughts you'd like to contribute to that decision?

Julia Tilton: 9:31

Yeah, so it it's interesting. I I found um an article in Mother Jones, a US publication um by Kira Butler, um, who had an interesting take on on uh Trump's uh Trump's pardon of the former Honduran president that I I hadn't seen anywhere else. Um but her take on the situation um is that to understand Trump's actions this week, we need to follow the tech bros. The reasoning that Butler outlines is that Hernandez is a supporter of something called a freedom city, which Trump mentioned a couple of times on the campaign trail. Um it's called Prospera, it's a special economic zone that was founded in Honduras by a number of American uh tech titans, including Peter Keel and Mark Anderson, who are both friends and fans of the Trump family, which suggests that Trump moves here are um all in an effort to please his campaign donors and supporters here in the US.

Jon Bonfiglio: 10:42

Yeah, interesting. Yeah, I mean it also does go continue down the line of what we've been arguing for weeks now, which actually the fact that uh these the Trump positions visa the Latin America are actually predominantly economic and about sort of financial market, well, not financial markets, economic possibilities and extractivism in in the region. Also, I think it's such a strong counterpoint, releasing uh a man who was um uh sentenced to 45 years in prison for drugs-related offenses, offences. When you when you sort of counterbalance that with a can of con ongoing uh really viol violent rhetoric about stopping the poison and killing anybody who involves themselves in the drug trade, and then suddenly it's anti-drugs except when someone is on your on your side. And Juan Orlando Hernandez has been very um, he's definitely doffed the cap, he's definitely arrived on bended knee, and he's been very publicly, politically grateful to Donald Trump for what um what took place. Also interesting, I've done over the last week or so, I've been doing some special features on Honduras, the election results of which we still don't know after a week. Uh, but it's also interesting that um Juan Orlando Hernandez, when he was recognized in Trump's first term having won the election of 2017, uh he'd amended the constitution in exactly the same way as Manuel Telea wanted to amend it in 2009, where there was a coup attempt that removed De Laya uh from power. So again, uh same offense, different political spectrums, different results. And Julia, just to end up today, I just thought, given this sort of overwhelming uh narrative and discourse around drugs that we've got at the moment, that it was worth us uh looking at the history of the war on drugs and its and its effects. And it goes back to the first president to mention it with Nixon in 1971, uh more than 50 years ago. He declared drug abuse public enemy number one, and he announced what would soon be known as the country's war on drugs. Um, has it been effective, do you think?

Julia Tilton: 12:51

Yeah, what a question. Um, no, in a short answer, um there's an analysis from the Center for American Progress that essentially finds that after decades of increased policing and um military-like crackdowns, uh, the US is left with record overdose drug deaths, something we've talked about before in this uh podcast. Um, some of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Um, and then again, according to Center for American Progress, more than one trillion US dollars spent with very little measurable impact on reduced availability of drugs or demand. Um, none of that really seems to have shifted. Um, I think important when we're talking about the war on drugs in the US to talk about the motive, the true motivations behind this uh campaign, which was launched, of course, by Nixon, but but continued by um this the subsequent administrations, really up until the Obama administration. Um the the logic was uh sort of revealed um in back in 2016 um when a Nixon aide, John Ehrlichman, um, made now infamous comment to a reporter that at the time the Nixon administration was dealing with um protests against the Vietnam War from a sort of progressive left, um, and then uh black Americans. And so really the idea with the war on drugs um was instead of criminalizing race or dissent, um, it associated the hippies with marijuana and black communities with heroin and then heavily criminalized both. Um there's uh again now infamous recording of of Ehrlichman um saying, did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did. Um perhaps the most um effective in terms of uh uh completing Nixon's goals uh in the war on drugs was the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Um, after the passage of that law, some statistics here, the rate of imprisonment of Black Americans jumped fivefold from 50 in every 100,000 to 250 in every 100,000. Um part of this was that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was designed to discriminate against black communities who possessed the less expensive crap cocaine and then basically turned the other shoulder at white communities who possessed the more expensive powdered cocaine. Arrests during the war on drugs helped drive the US prison population to, again, one of the highest in the world, from about 300,000 in the early 1970s to more than 2 million four decades later. And that's that number actually might be higher now, um, according to federal data. Um, a day, black people account for more than one in four drug arrests in the United States, though they constitute less than 15% of the national population. And as of 2010, again, this this is a probably a little bit outdated, but as of 2010, they were 3.7 times more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana possession, which um brings us into how the conversation has shifted over the last decade and a half as states have started to legalize the possession and use of marijuana. Um, at the state level, it's still uh illegal at the federal level. Um, but but again, um black people are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possession of marijuana. Um, so clear discrimination there. Um, meanwhile, again, as we talked about before on this podcast, the opioid crisis has ballooned, um, driven by the prescription of painkillers that include opioids. Um, and the research has come a long way. It's it's basically proven that punitive measures that were enforced under the war on drugs don't do anything to curb addiction. So that's a long-minuted way of answering your question that in the last five decades the war on drugs um has not uh necessarily curbed drug use or addiction in the United States.

Jon Bonfiglio: 17:16

And from a Latin America perspective, one of the reactions I always get when discussing with people the war on drugs is that um there's this disconnect between the fact that um the the sort of the the punishments or the um or the policy making is almost always external towards Latin America. Uh but actually Latin America a pretty strong Latin American perspective is um sort of shrugs its shoulders and wonders why the US actually doesn't get its own house in order in terms of the consumption uh perspective of that. Uh Julia, obviously you're in Washington, DC. Uh I'm I'm sorry to assume that you weren't at the World Cup uh draw, but no doubt you will have heard by now that um uh the second biggest peace prize on earth, after the Nobel Peace Prize, the FIFA Peace Prize, was awarded today to your uh to your president.

Julia Tilton: 18:12

Well, what a uh what a surprise. I'm of course saying this um with much sarcasm, I think we've discussed before uh the motivation behind awarding this Peace Prize to appease our president here in the United States and uh sort of assuage uh any wrinkle out any potential uh disturbances before the World Cup begins in 2026.

Jon Bonfiglio: 18:41

Yeah, look, if you're going out to dinner tonight in in Washington and you happen to be dining at the same restaurant as Gianni in Sancino, can you just give him a strong kick in the shin from me, please? And then just pass him a note and say that if he's gonna support an autocrat, at least can he make his uh his ceremonies and his draws uh a little bit shorter. Three hours is a little excessive. I think that supporting an autocrat and having a three hour ceremony is definitely way too much for most people to stand. So maybe just choose one or the other.

Julia Tilton: 19:12

Yeah, that's uh that's pretty brut that's pretty brutal. Well, I'll try my best if I see the end.

Jon Bonfiglio: 19:18

Yeah, it's um it's probably not gonna be in the vegetarian restaurant, I don't think. Um all right, Julia. Thanks as ever for your time uh this week and look forward to to speaking about all of the craziness in seven whole days.

Julia Tilton: 19:31

Thanks, John.