The Chilean Ana Piquer assumes the direction of Amnesty International for America in turbulent times in an always turbulent region. The organization faces difficult challenges in the defense of human rights in a continent where governments use the Army and heavy-handed policies to guarantee security, dissident voices are persecuted and where violence hits activists hard. journalists, women and people who aspire to political positions, as is the case of Mexico and its bloody electoral process. Piquer (Santiago de Chile, 49 years old) criticizes the use of the Armed Forces to protect citizen security and the measures implemented by the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, which arouse so much enthusiasm among some Latin American politicians. “If Bukele's is the model to follow, we are all in serious trouble,” she warns. Piquer, who took office in Aprilanalyzes in this interview the challenges that the continent faces in terms of the defense of human rights.
Ask. He assumes the leadership of Amnesty in America in a very complicated situation. Do you see a setback in terms of human rights in the region?
Answer. Unfortunately yes. We are in a very delicate moment, because certain narratives have been gaining strength in aspects such as security that try to justify the violations of human rights. We face governments that increasingly take measures to prevent voices that they perceive as dissidents, that do not agree with the measures they are adopting, from being silenced in different ways and this involves stigmatization, criminalization, persecution and surveillance.
Q. Is there a particular situation that worries you right now?
R. In almost all countries in the region we have alarms. All civil society organizations face very big challenges. In the case of the United States, with the upcoming electoral context; in El Salvador, with all the measures that President Bukele's regime has adopted, such as security control and repressive measures that have caused so many human rights violations. In the case of Ecuador, the progressive militarization, while in Venezuela we have been denouncing for years a constant repression against any dissident voice, which has worsened in recent months in view of future elections. We have countries that come from longer histories of repression like Nicaragua or Cuba. And then there is Argentina, where the election of President Milei has raised several alarms in terms of what the protection of human rights entails.
Q. Milei came to power with a denialist speech about the violations committed during the military dictatorship. Are you concerned about this position of the president?
R. Definitely. The denial of human rights violations leads us to the risk of not learning from those lessons and paving the way for returning to a similar story. Argentina has been a country that has had a very interesting process in terms of combating impunity, which has been able to put high-ranking officers of the Armed Forces on trial for these human rights violations, and in that sense the promotion of a Denialist discourse at this point is very harmful and, in some way, it is an attempt to go back in this entire history of fighting against impunity.
Q. Is what Argentina has advanced in terms of human rights at risk?
R. This discourse allows narratives to permeate that downplay the seriousness of what happened, deny it, make it disappear, and this makes it easier for similar acts to be committed later or measures to be adopted that may be contradictory to human rights. Historical memory, the memory of human rights violations, will always be fundamental to provide guarantees of non-repetition. Trying to erase that memory is a recipe for similar events to be repeated, and that can, of course, be a very serious setback.
Q. Mexico is a country that is going through a difficult situation of violence. There is an election underway with more than thirty candidates murdered. How do Amnesty analyze this electoral process?
R. It is not the first time that this has occurred in an electoral context, and concerns arise related to what measures are adopted to provide solutions to situations of violence, to what happens with organized crime, that are truly lasting and that put the human rights, which do not involve violating rights to guarantee security, because without human rights there can be no security either.
Q. Has the Mexican State failed to guarantee protection measures to those who aspire to public office?
R. Everything points to the fact that there have not been sufficient measures given the insecurity in which this process has developed, and especially at the local level. The Government has greatly promoted militarization as a solution to security problems, but this is also showing that these militarization processes are not giving the response that was expected. This agrees with many Mexican civil society organizations that have questioned militarization as a solution and have warned that it can lead to more human rights violations, instead of solving the problem of violence. There is still a very large debt in terms of impunity, protection measures, prevention and addressing the root of violence.
Q. What are the risks of giving so much power to the Army and the military in a country like Mexico?
R. It is a concern that does not apply only to Mexico. The Armed Forces are not trained or designed to protect citizen security, but are prepared for war and have other types of training. Governments must ensure that the people who are carrying out these functions have the necessary training and are subject to the same standards of use of force to which the police or any law enforcement official would be subject, but normally that doesn't happen like that. There is always a greater risk of human rights violations when it is the military forces that are taking on citizen security roles.
Q. Is Mexico a truncated democracy due to the level of violence suffered by the electoral process?
R. We do not make an evaluation of democratic quality, it is not part of our function, but I can say that in the context of elections, and in general in Mexico, the challenges in terms of human rights are enormous. People who are raising voices critical of the Government, defending human rights, have been under a lot of attack, and even under stigmatization, and that has contributed to reducing the space for debate and increases the risks for those voices.
Q. Violence also affects Colombia. The peace process generated a lot of hope among the population, but threats against activists continue.
R. For many years, Colombia has been the country in the world with the most murders of defenders. The Government of President Gustavo Petro, at least in the speech, points in the right direction, but in the territory what we see is that the situation has not improved, in some cases it has even worsened. Unfortunately, when it comes to defenders of the land, the environment and indigenous communities, the protection measures required are not being given.
Q. What measures should President Petro's government take to improve the situation of those who defend human rights in Colombia?
R. First it has to do with improving people's protection mechanisms. These mechanisms exist in Colombia and we know of cases of defenders whose lives have been saved, but they still have many shortcomings in terms of implementation resources. Then there is an issue that has to do with the role of prosecutors and guaranteeing that attacks on defenders do not go unpunished, because impunity is brutal.
Q. Does the Colombian justice system not fulfill its role to prevent these crimes from going unpunished?
R. We have had a very critical position towards the Prosecutor's Office. Most attacks on defenders go uninvestigated or the processes come to nothing. There is a significant shortcoming in ensuring the resources and capabilities so that investigations are carried out effectively, that the first procedures on the ground are carried out quickly, that a more consistent effort is made to reach the people responsible. This impunity is part of the reasons why the attacks continue to be repeated.
Q. You have mentioned before the controversial policies that President Nayib Bukele has implemented in El Salvador. How do you assess the situation in that country now?
R. El Salvador is currently going through a very serious human rights crisis. Under the premise of addressing the serious security problems that the country had, and that needed to be addressed, human rights are being ignored. The population cannot be forced to choose between security and rights. Today in El Salvador there are almost 80,000 people detained, there is prison overcrowding of almost 150%, we have serious complaints of torture and ill-treatment inside prison, there have already been deaths in custody and we have collected testimonies from families of people who have been unjustly detained, simply because of their appearance, because of the place where they lived, because they had tattoos. Violating human rights is not a solution to the security situation, because what you are doing is replacing gang violence with state violence.
Q. The population of El Salvador, however, supports the president's hardline policies. He has a very high assessment of his management.
R. The population of El Salvador came from a situation of very serious violence and in some way they see in this a way out that until now had not been presented to them. The problem is that this is a short-term solution, which ultimately is leading to people being imprisoned without fair trials, many of them innocent; tortured people, overcrowded prisons, entire populations in fear of being arrested just for living where they live.
Q. That model seems attractive to other Latin American politicians. Similar measures have been taken by the president of Ecuador, Daniel Noboa.
R. This narrative of a successful 'Bukele model' has been created. We have seen similar images of the treatment of prisoners in Honduras, in Ecuador, and voices in different countries that raise this as the way forward. The problem is that part of this model has to do not only with this supposed tough hand against crime, but also with co-opting the powers of the State, with eliminating all the checks and balances typical of a State of Law, concentrating power in a Government that does not admit criticism. That is what undermines human rights at their deepest foundation. If that is the model to follow, we, the entire population, are in serious problems, because dissident voices are beginning to be silenced, human rights defenders are beginning to be attacked. This can only get worse if you continue down that path.
Subscribe to the EL PAÍS Mexico newsletter and to whatsapp channel and receive all the key information on current events in this country.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Ana #Piquer #militarization #promoted #Government #Mexico #improved #security