Category: Latin America

El panorama de seguridad en México para 2025 ante la llegada del presidente Trump

1/19/2025

Esta entrada de blog forma parte de una serie serie que analiza una serie de cuestiones en 2025 relacionadas con el uso de armas, el comercio de armas y la asistencia en materia de seguridad, y a menudo ofrece recomendaciones.

Carlos Rodrigo Peña Vega

(version in English)

Al hablar de democracia, 2024 fue un año preponderante y decisivo. 74 países (más el Parlamento Europeo) tuvieron elecciones en las que más de 1,600 millones de personas participaron a nivel mundial. Si bien cada uno de estos procesos tienen una importancia particular, ninguno de ellos será tan decisivo para el escenario internacional de 2025 como la reelección de Donald Trump en Estados Unidos.

La victoria de Trump en noviembre fue vista como positiva para algunos, sin embargo, para la mayoría era algo que se temía, incluida la recientemente electa presidenta de México, Claudia Sheinbaum. Su enfoque, desde el inicio de su campaña política a principios de 2024, ha sido darle continuidad al anterior gobierno del presidente López Obrador y temas como la seguridad y el narcotráfico, dos de los más relevantes para los votantes de Trump, no han sido la excepción.

El 22 de diciembre, Trump dijo que el día uno de su administración nombraría a los cárteles de droga como organizaciones terroristas, sumándose así al aumento en los aranceles como amenazas que ha lanzado contra México. Sheinbaum respondió mencionando que está dispuesta a cooperar con su gobierno, pero que el país nunca se “subordinaría”. Desde que inició su gobierno se han llevado a cabo con éxito alrededor de 12 operativos antidroga de alto perfil, incluyendo el decomiso de casi una tonelada de fentanilo en Sinaloa, el más grande en la historia de México, y que ocurrió 10 días después de los llamados de Trump a aumentar los aranceles. Se espera que la frecuencia de estos operativos aumente durante el año, en parte debido a la presión estadounidense.

Desde un punto de vista narrativo, es probable que Sheinbaum trate de mantener la opinión pública enfocada en estas operaciones, a la par de la importancia de la cooperación bilateral para atender no solo la producción de fentanilo en el país pero también la crisis de consumo en Estados Unidos. El respeto a la soberanía de México también será un elemento clave de la narrativa oficial.

Adicionalmente, el tema del contrabando desde la frontera norte también será recurrente en los medios mexicanos, considerando que el gobierno se encuentra actualmente en un proceso legal en contra de distintas empresas estadounidenses de distribución de armas por facilitar su acceso a organizaciones criminales. El 9 de enero, durante su conferencia matutina, Sheinbaum se expresó de manera favorable sobre un reciente reporte del Departamento de Justicia de Estados Unidos que reconoce la situación, argumentando que 74% de las armas confiscadas por autoridades mexicanas han sido introducidas al país desde Estados Unidos. Sheinbaum también reconoció que este reporte podrá ser de utilidad para futuras negociaciones.

La política migratoria, intrínsecamente relacionada con la seguridad nacional de ambos países, también cambiará drásticamente en 2025. En México diversas oficinas gubernamentales, incluyendo el Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM), sufrieron un recorte de presupuesto en comparación con el año pasado, en línea con los principios de austeridad de Sheinbaum. Mientras que la llegada de Trump previsiblemente influenciará a las autoridades mexicanas a incrementar las deportaciones y detenciones a migrantes, el reto está en el hecho de que los recursos disponibles para una gestión adecuada de las rutas migratorias se verá reducido.

No obstante, la respuesta del gobierno a esta disyuntiva podría estar en las Fuerzas Armadas. Desde los primeros años de la administración de López Obrador, el presupuesto asignado al Ejército, la Fuerza Aérea, la Marina y la Guardia Nacional ha incrementado de manera continua en comparación con otras instituciones. Para este año su presupuesto fue reducido en un 36%, sin embargo, distintas reformas legislativas de los últimos años les han dado cada vez más facultades. En los siguientes meses (y años) es probable que veamos tareas que antes pertenecían a otras instancias ser asignadas a estas instituciones.

Mientras que la presencia de las Fuerzas Armadas es necesaria para preservar la seguridad nacional, también es cierto que han habido diversos incidentes relacionados con el uso excesivo de la fuerza y otros abusos de derechos humanos en contra de distintos grupos vulnerables (incluyendo migrantes) que las involucran, siendo uno de los más recientes el asesinato de tres personas, incluyendo una niña de ocho años, en Nuevo Laredo el 11 de octubre del año pasado. Se espera que el número de este tipo de incidentes aumente.

Por otro lado, uno de los ejes del gobierno actual (aunque su principal función sea publicitaria) es mostrarse a sí mismo como el más humanista y progresista en la historia, lo cual puede directamente contradecirse con esta ampliación de tareas que las fuerzas armadas tendrán. También se espera más presión por parte de organizaciones de la sociedad civil.

Mientras que la administración pasada de Donald Trump nos dio cierta noción de cómo podría ser su segundo periodo, la realidad es que la incertidumbre es la característica más exacta con la que podemos describir nuestros tiempos, no solo en ambos países pero también a nivel global. Hasta ahora, la retórica de Trump hacia México (y hacia otros socios también) ha sido bastante confrontativa y Sheinbaum tendrá que maniobrar el periodo 2025-2029 de manera hábil y cuidadosa, a la par de dirigir un escenario político, económico y social interno cada vez más complejo.

Gestionar el problema del narcotráfico es una tarea desafiante y delicada y, desde una perspectiva realista, ni la política hostil de Trump ni la popularidad de Sheinbaum lo resolverán. El populismo es muy próspero hoy en día y, para ambos países, hay un largo camino que se puede complicar fácilmente por ideas que en la teoría parecen buenas pero que en la práctica pueden no funcionar, a expensas tanto del pueblo estadounidense como del mexicano.

Carlos Rodrigo Peña Vega es Licenciado en Relaciones Internacionales con especialidad en Gobierno y Transformación Pública, por el Tecnológico de Monterrey.

La inclusión en el programa de expertos y expertas emergentes del Foro sobre Comercio de Armas y la publicación de estos artículos no implican el acuerdo ni la aprobación de las opiniones de otros. Las opiniones expresadas son las del autor de cada artículo.

0 Comments

Autonomous Weapons Systems in the Hands of Crime: A Nearby Threat in Latin America with Gendered Implications

1/16/2025

0 Comments

This blog post is one in a series looking at an array of issues in 2025 related to weapons use, the arms trade and security assistance, often offering recommendations.

Gisela Luján Andrade

(In lieu of a standard blog post, the author has crafted an article that presents reflections, research, and analysis based on two recent presentations... the introduction begins as follows:)

The growing interest of organized crime in the military use of emerging technologies, including autonomous technology and artificial intelligence (AI), raises alarms about the tangible perils of their application and development in Latin America, making us realize that we are no longer dealing with a scenario far removed from our reality.

The primary purpose of this article is to contribute to discussions in the region regarding the risks associated with the proliferation of 'low-end' autonomous weapons systems (AWS) to non-state armed actors, particularly organized crime, which constitute one of the main threats to human security in the region. Additionally, this analysis adopts a human rights and gender approach, emphasizing how the likely use of these systems by organized crime exacerbates the structural discrimination and violence already faced by women and other marginalized groups. Finally, this article calls for urgent action toward the regulation of AWS as a matter of global justice and equity.

Read the full article/post in this pdf

Gisela Luján Andrade is Founder, Perú por el Desarme.

Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade expert list and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).

0 Comments

The 2025 security landscape in Mexico amid the arrival of President Trump

1/16/2025

1 Comment

This blog post is one in a series looking at an array of issues in 2025 related to weapons use, the arms trade and security assistance, often offering recommendations.

Carlos Rodrigo Peña Vega

(Versión en español. English updated January 19, 2025.)

2024 was a remarkable year when talking about democracy. 74 countries (plus the European Parliament) held elections with more than 1.6 billion people going to the ballots worldwide. While all of these processes have their own particular importance, none of them will be that defining for the 2025 global scenario as the reelection of Donald Trump in the United States.

Trump’s victory in November was seen as a hope for some but dreaded by most, including the recently elected president of Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum. Sheinbaum’s approach, from the beginning of her political campaign in early 2024, has been focused on giving a certain continuity to the previous government of president López Obrador, and topics like security and drug-trafficking, two of the most relevant for Trump’s voters, have not been the exception.

On December 22nd, president Trump said that he would name drug cartels as terrorist organizations on day one of his administration, joining his calls for higher tariffs he had previously threatened. Sheinbaum responded that she was willing to cooperate with his government, but that the country would never “subordinate” [to Trump]. Since Sheinbaum took office on October 1st, around 12 high-profile successful anti-drug operations have been held, including the siege of almost one ton of fentanyl in Sinaloa, the biggest in Mexico’s history, which also happened to occur about 10 days after Trump’s tariff threats. It is expected that this rate will only increase during 2025, substantially due to Trump’s pressure.

From a narrative perspective, Sheinbaum will likely try to keep the public opinion focused on these security operations, side to side with the importance of bilateral cooperation to attend not only the production of fentanyl in the country but also the consumption crisis in the U. S. The respect to Mexico’s sovereignty will also be a key element of the government’s narrative.

In addition, the issue of arms trafficking coming from the U. S. into Mexico will likely be recurring in the Mexican media, considering that the government is currently involved in a legal process against several American arms distribution companies for facilitating their access to criminal organizations. On January 9th, during her daily morning conference, Sheinbaum talked about her favorable views on a recent Justice Department report that acknowledges the issue, saying that 74% of the confiscated weapons by the Mexican government come from the northern side of the border. She stated that this report will be a helpful leverage for future negotiations.

Immigration policies, intrinsically related to national security and of both countries, will drastically change in 2025 as well. In Mexico, several government divisions, including the National Institute of Migration (INM), suffered a budget cut in comparison with last year, in line with Sheinbaum’s austerity principles. While Trump’s arrival will expectedly influence the Mexican authorities to increase deportations and migrant detentions, the challenge will lay in the fact that the available resources for the proper management of the migration routes will get reduced.

Nevertheless, the government’s answer to this issue may lay in the military. Since the first years of López Obrador’s administration, the budget assigned towards the army, the navy and the National Guard steadily increased compared to other government offices. For this year, their budget was cut by around 36%, however, different legislation reforms in recent years have granted them more and more faculties. In the coming months (and years) we will likely see more tasks assigned to these three institutions that previously were performed by others.

While the involvement of the military is necessary for preserving national security, there also have been several incidents of excessive use of violence and other human rights abuses towards different vulnerable groups (including migrants) that involved them, particularly the National Guard, one of the latest being the assassination of three people, including an eight year old child, in Nuevo Laredo on October 11th. This number is expected to increase.

On the other hand, one of the bases of the current government (but mostly a political marketing element) is to show themselves as the most humanistic and progressive in history, which may be contradictory with this broader range of tasks the military will get. More pressure from civil society organizations is likely to increase as well.

While the 2017-2021 administration of Donald Trump gave us a rather wide glance of what his second period may be, the truth is that uncertainty is the most accurate word to describe the current times, not only in both countries but also globally. So far, Trump’s rhetoric towards Mexico (and towards other partners as well) has been very confrontative and Sheinbaum will have to cleverly and carefully maneuver a highly unpredictable 2025-2029 term while managing an increasingly complex political, economic and social internal landscape. Managing the drug crisis is a delicate and challenging issue and, from a realistic perspective, neither Trump's hostile politics nor Sheinbaum’s political marketing will solve it. Populism is thriving in current times and, for both countries, there is a long path that may be easily clouded by big ideas that may not work when put into practice, at the expense of both American and Mexican people.

Carlos Rodrigo Peña Vega has a B. A. in International Relations with a minor degree in Government and Public Transformation from Tecnológico de Monterrey.

Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade emerging expert program (Spanish program) and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).

1 Comment

Lack of control over civilian weapons in Brazil: recent shootings should raise alarm

11/21/2024

0 Comments

Gabrielli Thomaz

disponível em português

On Wednesday, October 23, a 45-year-old man, identified as Edson Fernando Crippa, killed four people and injured eight others in Novo Hamburgo, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Among the dead are the shooter's father and brother, as well as two military police officers. Edson held his family members hostage at home, and the police negotiations lasted about nine hours. Among the survivors are a municipal guard, five military police officers, as well as the shooter's mother and sister-in-law. Edson was killed by the police during the exchange of gunfire.

The attack occurred after the shooter reacted to the police approach during the investigation of a report of abuse of an elderly couple who, according to reports, were being held in private confinement and prevented from leaving their home. According to information from a local radio station, the shooter has four registered weapons under his name, including two pistols, a rifle, and a shotgun.

What happened in Novo Hamburgo brings to the forefront the risks of living with gun owners. A study from Stanford University in the United States, published in 2022 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, showed that people living with handgun owners died by homicide at twice the rate of their neighbors in gun-free homes.

The debate on civilian weapons has for years been led by far-right politicians in Brazil. With the slogan "It's not about guns, it's about freedom," the pro-gun discourse has gained strength, and as explained in the report "What does the National Congress say about civilian weapons?", authored by Terine Husek, research manager at the Fogo Cruzado Institute, since 2015 pro-gun speeches have dominated the plenary sessions of the Federal Congress.

After a series of measures signed during the government of former President Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022) to facilitate the possession of weapons, the number of restricted-use weapons in the hands of civilians in Brazil increased. A survey conducted by the lawyer and manager of the Instituto Sou da Paz, Bruno Langeani, showed that the number of firearms in circulation in the Collector, Sports Shooter, and Hunter (CAC) category in Brazil is already higher than the total number of weapons of the Military Police institution. These are weapons that, when they reach the streets, are stolen, diverted, and end up in the hands of organized crime, as shown by a survey conducted by the newspaper O Globo, which explained that between January and October 2023, Brazil recorded 1,259 occurrences of weapons that were stolen, robbed, or lost, which would be an average of 126 per month or four per day.

In Brazil, CAC is the term used for “Collector, Sports Shooter, or Hunter.'”To practice any of these categories, one must obtain a CAC certificate by presenting a series of documents required by the Army, such as identity, background check certificate, and proof of lawful occupation. However, during the first months of former president Jair Bolsonaro's government, the decrees he signed allowed shooters to purchase up to 60 weapons, and hunters could purchase up to 30 weapons, without authorization from the Army or any security force. The number of ammunition that could be purchased also increased to 2,000 rounds for restricted use (weapons for exclusive use by the Armed Forces, public security institutions, and qualified individuals and legal entities, duly authorized by the Army Command), and 5,000 for permitted use.

In 2019, the number of weapons in the hands of civilians was approximately 1.9 million, in 2022, the last year of the Bolsonaro government, this number increased to 4.4 million. In 2023, the current president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, revoked part of the rules that facilitated access to weapons and ammunition. Among the measures are the suspension of new registrations of weapons by hunters, shooters, and collectors (CACs) and by individuals (who are civilians without a CAC license, but who have permission to have a weapon at home, such as for personal security); reduction of the limits for purchasing permitted-use weapons and ammunition; suspension of new registrations of shooting clubs and schools; suspension of granting new registrations for CACs; and the creation of a working group to propose new regulations for the Disarmament Statute. Despite the measures taken by Lula in the first year of his term, the number of weapons in the hands of civilians grew again in 2023, and the 18th edition of the Brazilian Public Security Yearbook showed that Brazil recorded 4.8 million officially registered firearms.

The rules revoked by Lula have been discussed again this year in the Federal Senate plenary with the legislative decree project (PDL) 206/2024, which, among other modifications, includes the elimination of the requirement for shooting clubs to be at a minimum distance of 1 kilometer from schools.(Shooting clubs are places that offer facilities for shooting training and competitions, as well as training programs for beginners. The weapons and ammunition used inside shooting clubs can be owned by members, or provided by the club.)

The level of safety in shooting clubs has been discussed again after a 4-year-old boy was hit in the head by a firearm shot in Herval d'Oeste, in Santa Catarina, Brazil. The child was playing on a farm located near a shooting club. The accident occurred a week before the Novo Hamburgo shooter case.

What these two cases have in common, besides the proximity of the dates, is that they show how the relaxation of control norms has left the population vulnerable. The number of shooting clubs jumped 1,400% during the four years of Jair Bolsonaro's government, going from 151 clubs in 2019 to 2,038 in 2022. In addition, the number firearms registered by CACs grew by 665%, rising from 117,467 in 2018 to 783,385 in 2022.

The consequence of the irresponsibility of the weapon access policy, in addition to these tragic episodes, has been reflected for years in the percentage of violent deaths in the country. The most recent edition of the Violence Atlas shows that in 2022, 72.4% of the total homicides in the country were committed with firearms, which corresponds to 15.7 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. In some states, the numbers are even more alarming, with Bahia having a rate of 37.2 and Amapá 33.0.

This scenario points more than ever to the importance of having serious and strict policies on access to weapons and ammunition. In the National Congress, the discourse of those who defend gun control in Brazil has lost strength. It is necessary to resume the discussion so that cases like the one in Novo Hamburgo, Santa Catarina, and many other Brazilian states no longer happen.

Gabrielli Thomaz is a journalist, Press Advisor at the Fogo Cruzado Institute, and a member of the Emerging Expert program at the Forum on the Arms Trade.

Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade emerging expert program and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).

0 Comments

Event Guide and Resources - Accountability for Gun Violence: What’s Next In Mexico’s Case Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers? (February 29, 2024)

3/5/2024

0 Comments

On February 29, 2024, the Forum on the Arms Trade and the Asser Institute for International and European Law co-organized an event focused on lawsuits filed by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors that have important implications not only for armed violence in the United States and Mexico, but also for European and other manufacturers who produce weapons in the U.S.
.
Video of the event is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDluRxQxXFA&t=351s

A guide to the recording, and suggested resources are below:

6:12 Welcome and event framing - León Castellanos-Jankiewicz, Senior Researcher, Asser Institute for International and European Law, The Hague

“Appeals Court Revives Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gunmakers,” New York Times, January 22, 2024. See also Transnational Litigation Blog, January 24, 2024, and Just Security, April 4, 2023.
"El Blindaje de las Armerías Europeas," El País, July 31, 2023. In English: "The armor of the European arms industry."

11:35 Importance for Mexico – Fadia Ibrahim, Director of International Litigation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mexico

Why Mexico is taking legal action… High profile events in El Paso and in Mexico, and daily gun violence. Cases in Massachusetts and Arizona. Also Inter American Commission on Human Rights (request, update).
Why suing in the United States, and actions of gun industry.

23:57 Impact of U.S. Gun Policy on Mexico - Carlos Pérez Ricart, Professor of International Relations, Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE, Mexico)

The relaxation of restraint on guns in the United States, particularly via termination of assault weapons ban in 2004 and enaction of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005, had a disastrous effect in Mexico.
Lawsuit needs to be part of a broader strategy in Mexico (see next intervention).

31:24 Transition to discussion about recent decisions and implications on future legal action

34:00 Understanding the cases, their status, and next steps - Jonathan Lowy, Founder and President, Global Action on Gun Violence and co-counsel for Mexico on cases discussed in event

Global Action on Gun Violence Work in Mexico - documents and other resources, including amicus briefs, on the two cases
Fundamental claim is negligence by manufacturers and distributors, and explanation why special protection under PLCAA should not apply here (under predicate exception). Defendants seeking review by Supreme Court, but believes Supreme Court will not choose to take it up. Some additional issues to take up at district court, after which discovery could take place.

43:28 Possibilities in International and U.S. Law - Leila Nadya Sadat, James Carr Professor of International Criminal Law, Washington University and Fellow, Schell Center for Human Rights, Yale Law School

Initially took steps at the Inter American Commission on Human Rights.
Recognizes that connection between migration and flow of weapons is not made often enough.
Cases are strong on facts and the harm. Latest decision is conservative and may not draw attention of Supreme Court.
Supreme Court and other actions on guns, including Rahimi case and others.

54:30 International Implications including in Europe, León Castellanos-Jankiewicz

European companies manufacturing on U.S. soil to skirt European laws, for example.

Reaction Round

56:35 Fadia Ibrahim

Importance the Mexico case proves exception to perceived PLCAA immunity and expects positive outcome.

57:47 Carlos Pérez Ricart

Mexico needs data, to build a central firearms authority (such as ATF in the U.S.), focus on most vulnerable groups (particularly those already harmed), make a central topic in relationship with U.S. including calling for background checks in neighbor states and border infrastructure, and create binational effort to deal with technology advances (3D printers, etc).
Violence in Mexico is beyond the United States but within control of the United States. Mexico itself must have a better policies too.

1:03:00 Jonathan Lowy

Crisis on both sides of the border, would not happen without this gun pipeline.

1:04:32 Leila Nadya Sadat

Has been a huge shift in political dialogue… no longer solely about Second Amendment but rather that is about the guns (as a vector).

1:07:03 Beginning of Q&A

1:07:33 What is your take on the attempt of some US politicians to consider drug traffickers as terrorists? What are the impacts of this attempt on the lawsuits?

1:08:24 Carlos Pérez Ricart replies that always hear this around time of election, and it’s a political issue, and less about a real response. Not believe will impact the cases.
1:09:44 Fadia Ibrahim asks would that mean that the gun industry is helping terrorist groups?

1:10:32 Is the case a game changer? What makes the Mexico case different?

1:10:51 Jonathan Lowy replies is important because federal appeals court is upholding claims against gun manufacturers as not protected under PLCAA. Also new that a country is bringing suit. Scope of the problem is massive and if addressed would have huge impact.

1:13:17 Do you see this case having broader legal implications for weapons/arms companies exporting to countries/regimes violating international humanitarian law or engage in systematic human rights abuses?

1:14:04 Leila Nadya Sadat says the Mexico case is beautifully simplistic and difficult to replicate in U.S. courts. But, international courts do communicate with each other. Notices Netherlands case on F-35, and there are international treaties involved that would be good to get the U.S. to join (such as the Arms Trade Treaty). [Note: see January event as well]

1:16:00 Possibility of other countries filing lawsuit

1:16:12 Jonathan Lowy replies that if Mexico cases continues to succeed it could greatly reduce the flow of weapons in the region without other countries bringing suit because it could change practices and accountability of gun industry.

This event was co-organized by the Forum on the Arms Trade and the Asser Institute for International and European Law. The Forum and the Institute provide a platform for expert views but do not themselves take positions.

0 Comments

Free Carrying of Firearms: A Dangerous New Trend in the Argentine Presidential Campaign

10/3/2023

0 Comments

Julián Alfie

Emerging Expert Voices (leer la versión original en español)

This post is part of a special series of Looking Ahead blog contributions by members of the Forum's Emerging Expert programs.

For the first time in Argentine history, the free carrying of firearms has become a topic of debate in a presidential election campaign. Why is this happening in one of the countries with the lowest homicide rates in Latin America and internationally recognized for its disarmament program? Does the citizenry desire firearms or security?

Insecurity has been one of the most concerning issues for Argentine society for over 20 years. During that same period, public policies regarding the control of firearms and disarmament have experienced unprecedented development in our country. The understanding that firearms are not a source of security but rather a factor that jeopardizes it has, for the first time, become a central topic of discussion on the electoral agenda.

"I am definitely in favor of the free carrying of firearms," said former deputy Javier Milei in 2022, who is now a presidential candidate and emerged as the most voted for candidate in the primary elections. However, this eccentric outsider, a follower of Trump and Bolsonaro, is not the only member of his party who publicly expressed such views. His vice-presidential candidate admitted to being a firearm user and stated that ownership is a "right" for "law-abiding citizens who want to defend themselves." While the controversy surrounding these statements led these candidates to downplay their remarks, the electoral platform presented by the candidate at the beginning of his presidential campaign proposed, regarding firearm ownership, the "deregulation of the legal market and the protection of its legitimate and responsible use by citizens."

"Whoever wants to be armed, can be armed."

Milei is not the first Argentine politician to raise this debate. Five years ago, the then Minister of Security and current presidential candidate for the other major opposition front, Patricia Bullrich, had said in an informal interview outside a restaurant, "Whoever wants to be armed, can be armed; whoever doesn't want to be armed, shouldn't be armed. Argentina is a free country." While her complete statement added that she and her party preferred that people not be armed, controversy quickly erupted. For the first time, the absolute political consensus regarding the need to restrict access to firearms was called into question.

Beyond their ambivalences, two of the three main presidential candidates in Argentina have expressed support for free carrying. Can it be inferred that Argentine society has changed its view on firearms? The answer is not so simple. However, there are signs that the public's demand for security does not translate into support for free carrying.

Argentina is not a heavily armed country. Its rate of 7.4 firearms per 100,000 civilians is, according to the Small Arms Survey, lower than most countries in the region. A recent nationwide survey conducted in May 2023 reflected that 77% of respondents were against "the free carrying of firearms." The society's participation in the disarmament program allowed for the removal of over 200,000 firearms from circulation between 2007 and 2022. Due to the results achieved in its early years, this program was internationally recognized as a model policy in 2013.

The laws on firearm restriction passed in the National Congress in recent years also reflect this consensus, with virtually unanimous votes in favor of firearm control and disarmament. However, the last extension of the disarmament program, voted on in 2021, already sounded an alarm: while 93% of deputies voted in favor, votes against the renewal of the program were recorded for the first time, even though it had been extended seven times before.

An initial conclusion from this data, pending the final results of the presidential elections, is that Argentine society remains predominantly opposed to firearms. However, it can also be inferred that, like in other countries, the threshold of rejection of pro-arms rhetoric may have decreased, even if only relatively, in recent years. It is true that voting for a presidential candidate does not necessarily mean support for all of their proposals, but it probably does indicate a tolerance for most of them.

If this hypothesis is correct, it is necessary to pay attention to this symptom. While Argentina has a well-established social, institutional, and cultural tradition of restricting the circulation of firearms, recent experiences in other Latin American countries demonstrate how easily such controls can be undermined.

What's Happening with Firearms in Argentina?

Argentina currently has around 1,000,000 legally registered firearm users, although most of them are in a situation of illegality due to expired authorizations. Additionally, it is estimated that, including unregistered firearms, the total number of firearms could be three to four times the 1,700,000 recorded in official records.

Between 2011 and 2019, an average of 8 people per day died in Argentina as a result of firearm use. One out of every two intentional homicides in Argentina is committed with a firearm. In 2021, 76% of intentional homicides in Argentina were recorded without the involvement of other crimes.

Firearms are also used for gender-based violence. In general, women and gender-diverse individuals do not possess firearms (as 97% of registered users are males), but they disproportionately suffer the consequences: 1 out of every 4 femicides is committed with a firearm.

Since 2015, Argentina has a model law at the regional level that created and regulates the National Agency for Controlled Materials, responsible not only for the registration and control of the legal firearms market but also for "developing policies aimed at reducing the circulation of firearms in civil society and preventing the effects of armed violence" (Law 27,192). Among other functions, this agency is responsible for implementing the mentioned National Voluntary Firearm Surrender Plan. The creation of the agency was a significant advancement in this regard, although the law is still not fully implemented, as the agency lacks sufficient budgetary resources to carry out all the actions it is responsible for.

The Risks of Free Carrying

Various studies confirm that an increased presence of firearms in society, far from reducing crime (as stated by Milei himself), contributes to an increase in violence, crime, and deaths. Conversely, control policies are associated with a reduction in these problems. The case of the United States, the country with the highest civilian firearm ownership in the world (120 firearms per 100 people), is illustrative. Its homicide rate was 7.5 times higher than the rate in other high-income countries, which is often attributed to its firearm homicide rate, which is nearly 25 times higher. From mass shootings, some of them in schools, to a higher number of suicides and femicides, the effects of the free circulation of firearms have been widely verified in other countries.

Insecurity is undoubtedly a central problem for Argentine society. Even though its homicide rate is relatively low compared to other Latin American countries, the LAPOP survey reflects that it is one of the three countries in the region with the highest number of respondents reporting being victims of crime in 2021. Crime has been a top concern for Argentine citizens for years.

However, there is no serious indication that the demand for more security implies a desire among the citizenry to carry firearms. Discussions about the role of the state, primarily focused on economic policy, cannot be linearly transferred to security policies. Even those sectors with a more reductionist view of the size of the state have historically been in favor of recognizing the state's role in monopolizing the use of force.

Therefore, whoever assumes office in December will have a dual responsibility. On one hand, they must develop effective security policies to reduce crime rates and the perception of insecurity. On the other hand, they must ensure the validity and extension of firearm restriction policies in the face of voices seeking to downplay the significant risks of loosening firearm regulations.

Society is not asking for firearms; it is asking for security. And the data demonstrates that more firearms equate to less security.

Julián Alfie is Deputy Executive Director of the Institute of Comparative Studies in Criminal and Social Sciences (INECIP), based in Argentina.

Inclusion on the Forum on the Arms Trade emerging expert program and the publication of these posts does not indicate agreement with or endorsement of the opinions of others. The opinions expressed are the views of each post's author(s).

0 Comments

Libre portación de armas: una peligrosa novedad en la campaña presidencial de Argentina

10/3/2023

0 Comments

Julián Alfie

Voces de Expertos y Expertas Emergentes (see English translation)

Esta publicación forma parte de una serie especial de contribuciones al blog "Mirando hacia el Futuro" realizadas por miembros de los programas de Expertos y Expertas Emergentes del Foro.

Por primera vez en la historia argentina, la libre portación de armas de fuego ha sido tema de debate en una campaña electoral presidencial. ¿Por qué sucede esto en uno de los países con menor tasa de homicidios de América Latina y premiado internacionalmente por su programa de desarme? ¿La ciudadanía quiere armas o seguridad?

La inseguridad es, desde hace más de 20 años, uno de los temas que más preocupa a la sociedad argentina. En ese mismo lapso, las políticas públicas de control de armas de fuego y desarme tuvieron un inédito desarrollo en nuestro país. La comprensión de que las armas no son una fuente de seguridad, sino un factor que la pone en riesgo aparece, por primera vez, como un eje de discusión en la agenda electoral.

“Estoy a favor de la libre portación de armas, definitivamente”, dijo en 2022 el entonces diputado Javier Milei, hoy candidato presidencial, que resultó el más votado en las elecciones primarias. Pero este excéntrico outsider, seguidor de Trump y Bolsonaro, no es el único integrante de su partido que se expresó públicamente en ese sentido. Su candidata a vicepresidenta admitió ser usuaria de armas y opinó que la tenencia es un “derecho” para “el ciudadano de bien que se quiera defender”. Si bien la polémica que desataron esas declaraciones llevaron a esos candidatos a relativizar sus dichos, lo cierto es que la plataforma electoral presentada por el candidato al comienzo de su campaña presidencial planteaba, sobre la tenencia de armas de fuego, la “desregulación del mercado legal y proteger su uso legítimo y responsable por parte de la ciudadanía”.

“El que quiera andar armado, que ande armado”

Milei no es el primer político argentino en plantear este debate. 5 años atrás, la entonces Ministra de Seguridad y actual candidata a presidenta por el otro gran frente opositor –Patricia Bullrich- había dicho, en una entrevista informal a la salida de un restaurante, que “el que quiera estar armado, que ande armado; el que no quiera estar armado, que no ande armado. La Argentina es un país libre”. Si bien su frase completa añadía que ella y su espacio preferían que la gente no estuviera armada, la polémica no tardó en estallar. Por primera vez se ponía en duda el absoluto consenso político respecto a la necesidad de restringir el acceso a las armas de fuego.

Más allá de sus ambivalencias, dos de los tres principales candidatos a ocupar la Presidencia de Argentina tuvieron expresiones favorables a la libre portación. ¿Puede inferirse que la sociedad argentina cambió su mirada sobre las armas? La respuesta no es tan sencilla. Sin embargo, existen señales de que el reclamo de la ciudadanía por seguridad no se traduce en un apoyo a la libre portación.

Argentina no es un país armado. Su tasa de 7.4 armas de fuego en manos de civiles cada 100 habitantes se encuentra, según Small Arms Survey, por debajo de la mayoría de los países de la región. Una reciente encuesta realizada en mayo de 2023 a nivel nacional reflejó que el 77% de las personas encuestadas se mostró en contra de “la libre portación de armas de fuego”. La participación de la sociedad en el plan de desarme permitió quitar de circulación más de 200.000 armas de fuego entre 2007 y 2022. Por los resultados alcanzados durante sus primeros años, en 2013 ese programa fue premiado a nivel internacional como una política modelo.

Las leyes sobre restricción de armas de fuego aprobadas en el Congreso de la Nación en los últimos años también reflejan ese consenso, con votaciones afirmativas al control de armas y el desarme prácticamente unánimes. Sin embargo, la última prórroga del plan de desarme, votada en 2021, ya había dado una señal de alerta: si bien el 93% de los diputados votó a favor, por primera vez se registraron votos en contra de la renovación de ese programa, que ya había sido prorrogado en 7 oportunidades anteriormente.

Una conclusión inicial de estos datos, a la espera del resultado definitivo de las elecciones presidenciales, es que la sociedad argentina sigue siendo mayoritariamente contraria a las armas de fuego. Pero también es posible inferir que, al igual que en otros países, el umbral de rechazo a los discursos armamentistas puede haber disminuido, aunque sea relativamente, en los últimos años. Es cierto que el voto a un candidato a presidente no significa un apoyo a todas sus propuestas; pero probablemente sí indique, aunque sea, una tolerancia a la mayoría de ellas.

Si la hipótesis es cierta, es necesario prestarle atención a este síntoma. Si bien Argentina cuenta con una tradición social, institucional y cultural consolidadamente restrictiva de la circulación de las armas de fuego, recientes experiencias en otros países latinoamericanos demuestran la facilidad con la que esos controles pueden socavarse.

¿Qué pasa con las armas en Argentina?

Argentina actualmente tiene alrededor de 1.000.000 de usuarios de armas de fuego legalmente registrados, aunque la mayoría de ellos se encuentra en una situación de ilegalidad por tener su autorización vencida. Además, se estima que, incluyendo las armas de fuego no registradas, el número total de armas podría triplicar o cuadruplicar a las 1.7000.000 que constan en los registros oficiales.

Entre 2011 y 2019, en Argentina murieron en promedio 8 personas por día por la utilización de armas de fuego. Uno de cada dos homicidios dolosos en Argentina es producido con un arma de fuego. El 76% de los homicidios dolosos producidos en Argentina en 2021 se registraron sin concurrencia de otros delitos.

Las armas de fuego también son utilizadas para el ejercicio de violencias por motivos de género. En general, las mujeres y disidencias sexogenéricas no poseen armas de fuego (ya que el 97% de los usuarios registrados son varones), pero sí sufren desproporcionadamente sus consecuencias: 1 de cada 4 femicidios es cometido con armas de fuego.

Desde 2015, Argentina cuenta con una Ley modelo a nivel regional, que creó y regula la Agencia Nacional de Materiales Controlados, que tiene a su cargo no sólo el registro y control del mercado legal de armas, sino también “el desarrollo de políticas tendientes a reducir el circulante de armas en la sociedad civil y prevenir los efectos de la violencia armada” (Ley 27.192). Entre otras funciones, esa Agencia tiene a su cargo la implementación del mencionado Plan Nacional de Entrega Voluntaria de Armas de Fuego. La creación de la Agencia fue un enorme avance en la materia, aunque lo cierto es que la ley sigue sin implementarse en su totalidad, ya que el organismo sigue sin contar con los recursos presupuestarios suficientes para implementar todas las acciones que tiene a su cargo.

Los riesgos de la libre portación

Diversos estudios confirman que la mayor presencia de armas de fuego en una sociedad, lejos de disminuir el delito (como afirmó el propio Milei), contribuyen al aumento de la violencia, el delito y las muertes. Y, a la inversa, las políticas de control se relacionan con una reducción de esos problemas. El caso de EEUU, el país con más armas de fuego en manos de civiles del mundo (120 armas por cada 100 personas), es paradigmático. Su tasa de homicidios fue 7.5 veces mayor a la tasa de otros países de altos ingresos, lo cual suele atribuirse a su tasa de homicidios con armas de fuego, que es casi 25 veces mayor. Desde matanzas masivas, algunas de ellas en escuelas, hasta un mayor número de suicidios y femicidios, los efectos de la libre circulación de armas de fuego han sido ampliamente verificados en otros países.

La inseguridad es, sin lugar a duda, un problema central para la sociedad argentina. Aun cuando su tasa de homicidios sea relativamente baja en relación a otros países de América Latina, la encuesta realizada por LAPOP refleja que es uno de los tres países de la región con mayor cantidad de encuestados que reportan haber sido víctimas de la delincuencia en 2021. La delincuencia se ubica dese hace años en el podio de preocupaciones de la ciudadanía argentina.

Sin embargo, no existen indicios serios de que el reclamo por más seguridad signifique que la ciudadanía quiera portar armas. Las discusiones sobre cuál debe ser el rol del Estado, principalmente centradas en la política económica, no pueden trasladarse linealmente a las políticas de seguridad. Incluso aquellos sectores con una visión más reduccionista del tamaño estatal han sido históricamente favorables a reconocerle el rol de monopolizar el uso de la fuerza.

Por lo tanto, quien asuma el gobierno en diciembre tendrá una doble responsabilidad. Por un lado, desarrollar políticas de seguridad eficaces, que permitan reducir los índices de criminalidad y la percepción de inseguridad. Y, por el otro, garantizar la vigencia y la extensión de las políticas de restricción de las armas de fuego, ante la aparición de voces que buscan relativizar los enormes riesgos de liberar las armas.

La sociedad no pide armas, pide seguridad. Y los datos demuestran que más armas implica menos seguridad.

Julián Alfie es Subdirector Ejecutivo del Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales y Sociales (INECIP).

La inclusión en el programa de Expertos y Expertas Emergentes del Foro sobre el Comercio de Armas y la publicación de estas publicaciones no indican acuerdo ni respaldo de las opiniones de otros. Las opiniones expresadas representan las vistas de los autor(es) de cada publicación.

0 Comments

Understanding Firearms Trafficking to Mexico and Central America - resources

4/6/2022

3 Comments

On March 24, 2022, a number of experts shared resources in a closed meeting on firearms trafficking to Mexico and Central America, building in part off of recent publications by the Government Accountability Office, including Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Disrupt Gun Smuggling into Mexico Would Benefit from Additional Data and Analysis and Firearms Trafficking: More Information is Needed to Inform U.S. Efforts in Central America. The information presented brought to the conversation additional data as well as recommendations for possible U.S. Congressional action.

The slides of those briefings are below and named experts can be contacted directly.

John Lindsay-Poland- Us Firearms Exports to Mexico & Central America
Susan Waltz- Firearms Trafficking to Central America: Inspecting the data for Guatemala and considerations for Congressional action
Eugenio Weigend Vargas- Beyond our Borders: U.S. Guns Contribute to Violent Crime Abroad

Inclusion of these resources does not indicate endorsement or agreement with others. The Forum on the Arms Trade does not take positions, but does share resources by its listed experts and others, as part of its goal to provide resources for strengthening public efforts to address the humanitarian, economic and other implications of arms transfers, security assistance, and weapons use.

3 Comments

Event Recap: Legal Approaches to Reduce Gun Violence -- Mexican and U.S. Strategies, August 18, 2021

8/30/2021

2 Comments

Video of event available at https://youtu.be/cg3WshmbtfI?t=124

This recap should not be quoted directly and does not fully describe the nuances of comments made. Please listen to video for direct quotations. The Forum thanks Lauren Speiser for the notes and initial draft of this recap. Panelists are not responsible for the summaries provided here. This event was hosted by the Network to Prevent Gun Violence in the Americas, the Forum on the Arms Trade, the Giffords Law Center, and Global Exchange

Panelists

Ioan Grillo (website) - journalist and author, including of Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels -- recent Foreign Policy argument "Why Mexico Is Right to Sue U.S. Gun Companies," and NBC news interview
Steve Shadowen (website) - Founding Partner, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP -- legal complaint (link)
Kristen Rand (website) - slides (pdf), Violence Policy resources on gun industry regulation (link)
John Lindsay Poland (website) - Coordinator, Project to Stop US Arms to Mexico -- proposed legal sale discussed (link), Stop US Arms to Mexico press release "Mexico vs. Gun Companies",

Welcome and Opening Remarks: John Lindsay-Poland described Mexican gun violence as an “unprecedented and growing humanitarian crisis.” (link) He then spoke about the Mexican government’s unprecedented lawsuit (filed August 4th) against 11 US gun manufacturers and distributors, who allege that those companies are responsible for much of the violence occurring in Mexico. Lindsay-Poland briefly introduced the panelists and provided descriptions of their recent work.

Panel: Each panelist gave an overview of their unique expertise regarding the legalities and challenges in current U.S.-Mexico gun relations.

Ioan Grillo (link) spoke of gun violence in Mexico since the early 2000s as growing “from... crime story... to what seemed like an armed conflict.” Grillo explained that gun violence has a massive impact in Mexico, describing the intensity of the violence. Grillo used anecdotal evidence of how a now-imprisoned gun trafficker would drive to Dallas gun shows and buy 12 AR-15 rifles with no identification. Grillo urged for change, saying that buying guns is not a question of challenging 2nd Amendment rights. His suggested recommendations include universal background checks in the U.S., and regulations targeting ghost guns and straw buyers. Grillo finds the lawsuit to be a powerful move by the Mexican government.

Steve Shadowen (link) speaking on his own behalf, briefly began by indicating that there is little controversy with “respect to the facts.” The lawsuit alleges that the gun manufacturers’ policies are insufficient in preventing U.S. guns from entering Mexico in large numbers, thus materially contributing to the damage suffered in Mexico. On the legal theory, Shadowen explained the nuance of tort law, which is the law governing negligence and recovery of damage for negligence, which secures the balance between the economic interests of the gun manufacturers and those who are harmed with those products. Shadowen expressed that tort law as applicable in Mexican jurisdiction can be applied to U.S. gun manufacturers because they are knowingly selling products that cause harm to the people and economy of Mexico. Shadowen explains that, in international law, this is not a controversial principle. Shadowen briefly outlined the nuance of Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), explaining that the Mexican government intends to prove in this case that the PLCAA does not apply when the injury occurs outside the US.

Kristen Rand (link) presented on the marketing strategies of U.S. gun manufacturers, specifically addressing the militaristic imagery and language used in their advertisements. Rand used examples of advertisement from a variety of manufacturers and weapons to support her argument that manufacturers explicitly target Mexican and U.S. buyers looking to build what are in essence their own armies (slides). Rand noted the challenges of firearms and ammunition being the only consumer products that are exempt from federal health and safety regulations, and that PLCAA bars some types of civil liability.

Moderator Lindsay-Poland (link) spoke briefly about U.S. government-licensed legal exports to Mexico and the lack of transparency surrounding the final destination of U.S.-made guns, including those to be sold to the Mexican Navy under a new sale proposed in July (link), which has been accused of torturing detainees and committing other forms of inhumane treatment.

Q&A:

Grillo (link) explained how the link to guns and violence in Mexico had fallen off the table for about a decade after Fast and Furious and that the lawsuit is a “solid strategy,” noting that in the lawsuit he sees two “big deals”:
- First, he believes the judicial process has led in the past to big changes through law where politics has failed, drawing parallels to tobacco and pharma lawsuits.
- Second, the lawsuit has put the issue in the news. Grillo believes there are concrete changes that can be made.

Shadowen (link) dove further into the legalities of the Mexican lawsuit, comparing it to actions in the late 1990s and early 2000s by local governments related to gun violence, as well as the opioid litigation in the U.S. today, with hopes that Mexico can prove a causal chain similar to those used in opioid lawsuits. His main point was, when one knowingly sends their products to another jurisdiction that causes harm in a systematic way, they are responsible. He also briefly discussed the capabilities, and in a broad way, what manufacturers could do to avoid the harm caused. The lawsuit alleges that it is a relatively small number of gun traffickers that are responsible for the majority of these guns sales to Mexico. It’s the absence of U.S. tort law being applied that has allowed this situation to develop.

Rand (link) noted that the strategy of marketing guns with militarized images is especially relevant to Mexico and the Caribbean, with U.S. manufacturers knowing what's going on and being culpable. Lindsay-Poland added that the weapons are used in essence to build armies as a way to contest territory, gaining legal and illegal control over economic activities.

Lindsay-Poland spoke (link) on legal exports, including why Sig Sauer may not be in the lawsuit, as well as possible needed legislative and policy changes. He highlighted the need for end-use controls, also recommending the return of all firearms export oversight from the Commerce Department’s Commerce Control List to the State Department’s U.S. Munitions List.

Rand (link) suggests activists get involved with local and national groups, and recommends that the U.S. pass a universal background check. She also emphasizes the need for further regulations on ghost guns and pistol braces.

Grillo (link) suggests strengthening measures on private sellers, straw buyers, theft, and ghost guns. He says that they must all be confronted or as one is addressed another will become more prevalent. Grillo similarly recommends universal background checks, passing a federal firearm trafficking law, increasing recommended sentences, extended background checks, and further legislation. He also suggested joint actions by other Central and South American governments with Mexico would be interesting to explore.

Lindsay-Poland (link) noted that checks on legal firearms exports often occur after export, not before license, that a very small percentage are checked, and that those checked are not often held accountable for human rights abuses. He further recommends identifying end users and committing to controls for excluding end users implicated in human rights abuses. He also said that key knowledge gaps include the circumstances around where and how firearms were distributed and recovered.

Shadowen (link) discussed possible paths of the suit and predicts it could last 3-4 years, or even longer.

Final comments:

Rand (link) spoke about her excitement about the new lawsuit, and the need for gun industry accountability.

Grillo (link) emphasized that gun violence is not normal -- it's not a natural force -- and that simply saying other countries might provide weapons if the U.S. didn't is not credible nor a reason for inaction.

Shadowen (link) spoke about the effect of violence on families and his frustration about the acceptance of such unbelievable harm. “We will do everything we can within the confines of a lawsuit..." to create change.

Lindsay-Poland (link) commented how the lawsuit was important to helping everyone see that lives of Mexican individuals are as important as all lives, including those in the U.S.

Additional resources:

The Daily (podcast) from the New York Times, "Why Mexico is Suing U.S. Gunmakers," August 24, 2021.
William S. Dodge and Ingrid Wuerth, "Mexico v. Smith & Wesson: Does US Immunity for Gun Manufacturers Apply Extraterritorially?" Just Security, August 19, 2021.
Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, legal advisor to Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Washington Post op-ed, August 14, 2021
Center for American Progress: "Frequently Asked Questions About Gun Industry Immunity"
Esther Sanchez-Gomez, litigation attorney at Giffords Law Center, "Mexico, drowning in American guns, is suing gun manufacturers," Daily Journal, August 11, 2021
Ghost guns
- proposed rule change, public comment period now closed
- new lawsuit filed in San Francisco, see San Francisco Chronicle, August 18, 2021
Research on exports to Mexico
- "Invisible Weapons, Indelible Pain: The Urgent Necessity for Transparency in the U.S. and Mexican Gun Trade," Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights, Stop US Arms to Mexico,Center for Ecumenical Studies., July 2021
- "Deadly Trade: How European and Israeli Arms Exports are Accelerating Violence in Mexico," Global Exchange (US), Vredesactie (Belgium), OPAL (Italy), Agir pour la Paix (Belgium), American Friends Service Committee (Israel), Ohne Rüstung Leben (Germany), NESEHNUTÍ (Czech Republic), Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, and the Centro de Estudios Ecuménicos (Mexico), see p. 25 for more on Sig Sauer, December 2020
- "Fact Sheet on Sig Sauer Arms Exports to Mexico," Stop US Arms to Mexico, last updated 2018
U.S. export licensing of assault weapons - see Forum on the Arms Trade resource page on USML changes

2 Comments

In 2019, Latin American Defense Industries Will Strive to Continue Replacing Out-of-Region Imports

1/9/2019

2 Comments

This is the seventh blog post in a series looking at an array of issues in 2019 related to weapons use, the arms trade and security assistance, at times offering recommendations.

W. Alejandro Sanchez

Two important developments occurred in Latin America in the final months of 2018: in late November, Mexico commissioned its new long-range patrol vessel (Patrulla Oceánica de Largo Alcance: POLA) ARM Reformador (POLA-101); while in mid-December, Brazil launched its new submarine, the diesel-electric Riachuelo (S-40). What makes these two ceremonies even more significant is that both platforms were overwhelmingly manufactured domestically.

Out of all Latin American nations, SIPRI’s “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2017” fact sheet (released in March 2018) only lists Brazil as a major exporter of military equipment; coming in as the world’s 24th largest. While it is not expected that other Latin American countries will be added to that list soon, the region’s defense industries have demonstrated their ambition to learn and apply what they have learned; and they are doing so very quickly for both domestic production and international trade—trends that should continue in coming years.

Recent National Developments

Latin American shipyards have been particularly busy in the past year. For example, Brazil launched its new submarine, named Riachuelo, and it is constructing three additional Scorpène-class diesel-electronic platforms with French assistance. The PROSUB (Programa de Desenvolvimiento de Submarinos) program is a partnership between Brazil’s Itaguaí Construções Navais and Naval Group (former DCNS), following an agreement between Brasilia and Paris. The infamous nuclear-powered submarine, which Brasilia has attempted to manufacture since the 1970s, remains unclear as construction continues to be delayed.

Meanwhile, Mexico’s state run-shipyard ASTIMAR and Damen Shipyards constructed Reformador, with most of the assembly taking place in ASTIMAR’s facilities. The Reformador is the first of an order of eight POLAs, according to the ASTIMAR-Damen contract, but the future of the program will ultimately be decided by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who recently came to power. It is also worth noting that along with Reformador, the offshore patrol vessel ARM Jalisco (PO-167), was also commissioned. The latter is the seventh Oaxaca-class vessel constructed by ASTIMAR, demonstrating that the shipyard can construct a variety of platforms.

As for other nations, Peru commissioned its new landing platform dock, BAP Pisco (AMP-156), in June 2018, and construction is already underway for its sister ship, BAP Paita. The manufacturer of both vessels is the Peruvian state-run shipyard Servicios Industriales de la Marina (SIMA), which is also constructing a variety of riverine vessels for the Peruvian army. Meanwhile, earlier last year the Chilean shipyard ASMAR commenced the construction of a new ice-breaker for the Chilean Navy.

Not only shipyards had a busy 2018. In Argentina, the aircraft manufacturer FAdeA (Fábrica de Aviones Argentinos) has completed the construction and test flights of three IA-63 Pampa III advanced jet trainer aircraft destined for the Argentine Air Force. This is a major development as the Pampa program had stalled for several years. Meanwhile, Brazil’s planemaker Embraer may be purchased by Boeing, which would constitute a major merger; while another Brazilian company, Helibras, a subsidiary of Airbus, continues to deliver H225M helicopters to the Brazilian armed forces.

Trade Within and to Other Regions

Latin American defense industries are not solely constructing platforms for domestic use, they are exporting them as well. Colombia’s COTECMAR signed an agreement with the government of Honduras in late October for the construction of two naval interceptors. This agreement builds upon relations between Bogota and Tegucigalpa as COTECMAR has already delivered a multipurpose support vessel, named Gracias a Dios, to the Honduran navy. Meanwhile, Embraer continues to sell its Tucano aircraft to a variety of clients. Similarly, the Peruvian state-run company SEMAN is actively looking for potential clients for its KT-1P trainer aircraft, which were manufactured in partnership with South Korea’s KAI.

Without a doubt, Latin American governments will continue importing military equipment from extra-regional suppliers as they can provide highly sophisticated hardware. Nevertheless, the point here is that Latin American governments and armed forces want to also produce their own equipment, hence future weapons sales will continue to include “Know How” clauses, so that Latin American defense industries can learn how to manufacture more complex equipment themselves. The close relationship between Mexico and Damen is an example of this type of partnerships as the POLA is based on Damen’s Sigma Frigate 10514 model.

As a final point, the fact that Colombia’s COTECMAR has secured an additional contract to sell interceptor craft to Honduras highlights one important aspect of the ever-evolving arms trade. While extra-regional suppliers certainly offer more sophisticated equipment, countries with limited defense budgets may choose to acquire cheaper but reliable equipment from suppliers that are geographically closer, or with which they enjoy close diplomatic relations.

Analysts that monitor the global arms trade should pay special attention to South-to-South weapons contracts, particularly as certain Latin American defense industries learn how to manufacture more advanced equipment.

Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses on geopolitical, military and cyber security issues in the Western Hemisphere. Follow him on Twitter: @W_Alex_Sanchez.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.

2 Comments

<<Previous

El panorama de seguridad en México para 2025 ante la llegada del presidente Trump

Autonomous Weapons Systems in the Hands of Crime: A Nearby Threat in Latin America with Gendered Implications

The 2025 security landscape in Mexico amid the arrival of President Trump

Lack of control over civilian weapons in Brazil: recent shootings should raise alarm

Event Guide and Resources - Accountability for Gun Violence: What’s Next In Mexico’s Case Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers? (February 29, 2024)

Free Carrying of Firearms: A Dangerous New Trend in the Argentine Presidential Campaign

Libre portación de armas: una peligrosa novedad en la campaña presidencial de Argentina

Understanding Firearms Trafficking to Mexico and Central America - resources

Event Recap: Legal Approaches to Reduce Gun Violence -- Mexican and U.S. Strategies, August 18, 2021

In 2019, Latin American Defense Industries Will Strive to Continue Replacing Out-of-Region Imports

About

Archives

Pdf's

Categories