Copyright 1988-2005
USF Center
for the Pacific Rim
The Occasional Paper Series of the USF Center for the Pacific Rim :: www.pacificrim.usfca.edu

Pacific Rim Report No. 38, June 2005
Terrorism’s Pacific Gateway
by Patrick Lloyd Hatcher


Patrick Lloyd Hatcher is Kiriyama Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at the University of San Francisco Center for the Pacific Rim. A military historian by profession, Hatcher taught in both the history and political science departments at the University of California at Berkeley prior to his retirement. One of Cal’s most sought after guest speakers, he was honored with the MacArthur Award from the Institute of International Studies at Cal in 1987 and was the recipient of the UC Berkeley Instructor of the Year Award in 1988.

Currently at work on his fourth book, America’s Korean Odyssey, Hatcher is also the author of North Atlantic Civilization at War (M.E. Sharpe, 1999), Economic Earthquakes (Berkeley, 1994) and Suicide of an Elite: American Internationalists in Vietnam (Stanford, 1990) as well as numerous articles and other writings. He helped narrate the film “Napoleon and Wellington” and is often seen on television in the Bay Area as a national security specialist.

Patrick Hatcher received his Ph.D. in history from the University of California at Berkeley. Prior to embarking on an academic career, he had risen to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army. From 1996 to 1999 Hatcher served as a judge for the Kiriyama Pacific Rim Book Prize, in 1999 he chaired the panel of nonfiction judges, and in 2003 he chaired the fiction panel. He has taught at other Bay Area institutions, including St. Mary’s College, UC Davis, and Golden Gate University.

Hatcher has led educational tours for the Library of Congress, the Art Institute of Chicago, the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the University of California Alumni Association’s Bear Treks travel program. In 1981 the American government awarded him the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, and in 1991 the French government awarded him the Palmes Academiques.

We gratefully acknowledge The Kiriyama Chair in Pacific Rim Studies for the support that has made possible the publication of this issue of Pacific Rim Report.

The national security establishment in Washington D.C. commands high salaries for writing worst-case scenarios. What follows are worrisome scenarios from an academic perspective, mapped out with distance from the center and time for reflection.

September 11, 2001 changed many things within the United States, including the definition of national security. Initially the Bush Administration’s key players failed to understand what specialists in the security field such as Richard Clarke had tried to tell them.1 After al-Qaeda successfully aimed passenger aircraft at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the message got through. The first steps Washington took involved securing America’s airports and aviation assets so that Osama bin Laden’s agents could not use them again, at least not as easily, as they had done on 9/11. A crucial question, however, must be asked: if terrorists were to strike a second time, would they try to repeat a ‘success’ when the ‘enemy’ would already know their modus operandi? Within a month of 9/11 bin Laden made the October 1 cover of Time magazine, which gave him and his organization publicity usually granted only to rock stars. Obviously the man and his key subordinates were not stupid.2

Since Mullah Mohammed Omar’s Taliban government in Kabul offered bin Laden refuge, America responded by going to war against Afghanistan. While the assertive Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld took most of the credit in this phase of the war on terror, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, the first Secretary of Homeland Security, had fewer photo opportunities as he coordinated the Customs Service, the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard, among other bits and pieces stripped from 40 agencies that previously shared antiterrorism responsibilities. In realigning bureaucratic duties, Ridge’s staff discovered that products and people flowed at will into the United States from Canada and Mexico. Their numbers were staggering. The borders were not only porous; in most places they were wide-open. Mass tourism and the North American Free Trade Agreement had made the continent a gigantic emporium. Millions of people and billions in profits could easily hide a few terrorists or their weapons—or both.

For Washington politicians Mexico presented the most vexing of the two border problems. Since his election in 2000 as Mexico’s president Vincente Fox has won the support of many American admirers. But the question of immigration made relations difficult, especially for Congressional representatives from the American Southwest. While Canada’s border with the United States exceeded in length Mexico’s, Mexico’s own southern border acted as a conduit for Central and South American border-crossers in a way that Canada’s border did not. People and products could transit Mexico to arrive at the permeable southern frontier of the United States. Of greatest concern has been the fact that most immigrants, tourists, and goods crossed from Mexico to the United States by car, truck, train, and ship, or on foot, but not by aircraft. Therefore monitoring airports would not be as effective as it might be with respect to air traffic from overseas. Surely terrorists know this. But how might they take advantage of this soft underbelly of homeland security? Perhaps illegal drugs, legal trade, and illegal and legal immigration offer dangerous opportunities.

Illegal Drugs
The illegal drug industry makes money—lots of money. In 1995 one United Nations specialist estimated that the global retail value of illicit drug trafficking exceeded international trade in oil and was second only to the international weapons trade. His estimated figure ranged from $100 billion to $300 billion annually, but these accounts were less than transparent and audits were non-existent. By the 1990s expenditures on illicit drugs in the U.S. exceeded the gross domestic product of 88 countries.3 Americans continue to smoke, snort, or syringe-in enormous amounts of narcotics, which are often designer drugs desired by the glitterati. With President Fox’s crackdown on the Mexican drug business, security specialists fear drug lords might, for a price, accommodate an offer from a terrorist group to move men and material to ‘El Norte’. Avarice knows no limits and when profits get squeezed in one area, other avenues sometimes open.4

A dangerous impasse has caused worry in some quarters about Fox’s safety. With the president moving to clamp down on facilities such as the La Palma maximum-security federal prison that drug-baron-inmates rule like fiefdoms, he might be agitating the same types of pit vipers whom Robert Kennedy agitated when he cracked down on American gangsters. Mexican capos do not like domestic or foreign interference; their revenge sends an all-encompassing message. On February 6, 2005 The Los Angeles Times shocked Americans in reporting that Los Piños, the Mexican White House, discovered that a mole had penetrated Fox’s inner sanctum and fed information about Fox’s travel plans to an unnamed drug trafficking organization. Three days later persons unknown exploded a car bomb in Madrid, injuring over 40 people outside a convention center that was about to be visited by the Spanish king and the Mexican president. Madrid feared Basque terrorists; Mexico City feared narco-thugs.5

Drug cartels have the means to wreak international havoc with their high-tech computers and communications technology that went global in the 1990s. Fax machines, cellular telephones, and “encryption techniques that would make the German enigma machine of World War II look like child’s play” give them the same capabilities that legitimate corporations wield.6 As global players they also own miniature air fleets because aviation is the best way to move lightweight, high, value-added products to market. The recent film Maria Full of Grace illustrates how young women, trapped in the Columbian cocaine trade as mules, ingest small bags of white powder in Bogotá and excrete them after flying to New Jersey’s Newark International Airport.

One doesn’t need intestine-carriers or a legitimate airline. Cartels have their own aircraft and well-trained operatives, a fact that the Central Intelligence Agency knows only too well. In a tragic case, CIA agents working with Peruvian officials on an anti-drug campaign known as Air Bridge Denial tried to identify aircraft that were being used to move raw product to refineries. The Peruvian Air Force had permission, if necessary, to shoot down such aircraft. In 2001 CIA officials in Lima misidentified a civilian plane, which resulted in its destruction by Peruvian fighters.7 An American missionary, Veronica Bowers, and her seven-month-old daughter, Charity, died in the crash.

Lima’s cocaine industry, the second largest in the world, is now vertically integrated. In former times, single-engine planes ferried semi-processed coca paste to refineries in Columbia. Today they refine it at home. Mexican drug groups demanded finished products. For a payoff Peru’s former spy chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, offered a helping hand. He now resides in jail. Much of the refined Peruvian product heads straight to Mexico or Spain in ships, concealed among Peru’s booming exports which are legal. Shippers know how to fool inspectors with original designs. One such attempt failed in November 2004 when monitors found 700 kilos of cocaine stuffed inside frozen giant squid. Other hiding places include planks of wood, carrots, guano, and votive candles.8

Once the cocaine arrives in northern Mexico many avenues are open for its final passage to U.S. cities. Small aircraft fly ‘under the radar’ at 100 feet above the surface to make out-of-the-way drops, landing and taking off from unimproved strips. Could the cargo include a terrorist or two, or simply their weapons? Or could other frozen squid possibly contain weapon parts? To prevent this kind of infiltration the US Congress passed and the president signed legislation to ‘beef up’ the Border Patrol. But the Congress did not fund, nor did the president request, money to make this a reality. The border remains what Washington calls unfunded legislation, which they hope that near-bankrupt states such as California will somehow ‘pick up’ in their tattered budgets. And terrorists know this; they, too, read the newspapers.

Intelligence indicates that Mexico does play a role in al-Qaeda’s plans. Sharif al-Massr, an Egyptian citizen captured last fall on Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan, told interrogators of “al-Qaeda’s interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico.”9 He further stated that al-Qaeda has considered smuggling nuclear material to Mexico where operatives would carry the material into the U.S. Once briefed on this, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge made a lightning visit to Mexico City in November 2004. Weeks prior to this development, U.S. and Mexican intelligence officers conferred about statements made by several other al-Qaeda detainees which indicated the potential use of Mexico as a staging area “to acquire end-stage chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material.”10 One should not assume that terrorists would overlook the homegrown expertise of Mexican drug kingpins in moving product and people into the United States. A marriage of convenience between them would be a natural, and it need not start in Mexico.

In the 1990s the four largest Mexican smuggling syndicates became equal partners with Columbians in the supply route to the western United States. If drugs could move along this route, for the right price terrorists could as well. Numerous places suggest themselves for base operations. The ‘southern crescent’ of the Andes—Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia —are “broken nations, with imminent political crises and other significant problems in need of urgent attention.”11 As these areas drift toward chaos, they present a hiding place for operatives of terrorist organizations. An even closer Latin local, Honduras, beckons with its high crime rate and poverty. It would make an attractive hideaway in which to train outsiders to disguise themselves as Latin Americans: in dress, language, and customs. According to one of his captured lieutenants, Iraq-based, Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi has talked about hitting “soft targets” in the U.S, which includes “movie theatres, restaurants and schools.” To accomplish this objective al Zarqawi suggests that “if an individual has enough money, he can bribe his way into the U.S. specifically by obtaining a “visa to Honduras” and then traveling to the southern U.S. border.12 What does al-Zarqawi know about Honduras and, beyond the motive of cash, why might some Hondurans assist al-Zarqawi’s operatives?

The Honduran reaction to President Bush’s nomination of Ambassador John Negroponte on February 17, 2005 as the first Director of National Intelligence was bitter. Leo Valladeres, a law professor in Honduras, wrote the 1993 Honduran government’s Human Rights Report, which concluded that 184 suspected Honduran leftists had disappeared in the custody of a U.S.-trained Honduran army unit, the notorious Battalion 3-16. These disappearances occurred in the first half of the 1980s; Negroponte served as U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. Among his duties Negroponte orchestrated aid to the U.S.-backed Contras in their attempt to overthrow Nicaragua’s left-wing Sandinista government. Bertha Oliva, coordinator of the Committee for Relatives of the Disappeared, considers the appointment an “outrage” given that Negroponte ignored human rights abuses by Contra rebels and their Honduran hosts.13 Negroponte’s notoriety reached as far as Scandinavia where, in 2004, the Norwegian filmmaker Eriling Borgen made a documentary, The Ambassador, which highlights Negroponte’s involvement in many of the events that tore Central America apart in the 1980s.

Neither Honduras nor Nicaragua has fully recovered from the Carter and Reagan Administrations’ interventions in their internal struggles. Hispanic America suffered from Washington’s Cold War policies when American officials, usually suspicious in cases where Latin Americans championed social justice, misjudged these local activists and labeled them as communists and thus people who needed to be denied power. The C.I.A. made this its mission civilisatrice. Chalmers Johnson describes how these covert operations later boomeranged to harm American interests.14 Enough Central American victims survive who might, for revenge or rewards, assist terrorists moving north after their training. Once outfitted, Costa Rica has the best forgers of birth certificates, drivers’ licenses, and green cards. They are there for the buying. And no one has yet reported that al-Qaeda has filed for bankruptcy. All these connections could easily be orchestrated by drug cartels that have new allies in the violent gangs inside the U.S.
Called ‘organizations of the socially excluded’, the National Youth Gang Center lists 21,500 gangs with 731,500 members within the U.S. in 2002. California prisons house five dangerous racially and ethnically divided gangs: the Mexican mafia or LaEME, Nuestra Familia, the Black Guerrilla Family, the Aryan Brotherhood, and the Nazi Low Riders. Inmates quickly learn that, like Mexican prisons, honchos inside more than police outside control their ‘joint’. These gang enforcers have community connections for continuing business while they serve their sentences.15 The FBI now has a national gang strategy including a $10 million National Gang Intelligence Center. U.S. interest is high because violent gangs are increasingly linking up and going international, helped by the internet. One targeted gang, Mara Salvatrucha, a network of ghetto thugs and former paramilitary guerrillas, surfaced among the children of Salvadoran refugees in Los Angeles. It now has a stronghold in northern Virginia and in Central America! Gangs account for a large share of drug-related crime in the U.S. A Chicago police spokesman said gangs now are “more violent than the Mafia ever was”, and reports have members of the Mara Salvatgrucha gang meeting al-Qaeda members in El Salvador.16 Drug lords, gang members, and terrorist operatives make for human nitroglycerine.

Legal Trade
The Pacific Coast has replaced its Atlantic twin as the new front door to the Americas for many outsiders. That western ocean gateway now busies itself with receiving vessels of all sizes and ages ranging from super container ships to suspect tramp steamers. This possible seaborne danger has grown so worrisome that an international Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) has emerged. While American-inspired, it was the Japanese who launched the PSI. East Asia’s bustling ports and shipping lanes probably hide some deadly cargoes. It makes sense to interdict these ships in Asian waters before they cross to Pacific Rim ports in the Americas. Last year Tokyo gathered representatives from South Korea and 10 countries of Southeast Asia to examine this anti-proliferation effort. The group will convene again this year. On October 26, 2004 Japan staged operation Team Samurai in order to back up its rhetoric with naval power. Nine coastguard and naval ships from Japan, Australia, France, and the United States assembled in Sagami Bay southwest of Tokyo. Two test vessels flying the skull and crossbones played the role of miscreant shippers of forbidden cargos. The others tracked and boarded the ‘suspects’ on the open seas, which would have been considered an act of war prior to 9/11.17

North Korea condemned the exercise as an “ultimate war action”. However, support for such a naval shift has grown ever since a similar maneuver off Australia’s Queensland coast twelve months ago. Backing came from Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Singapore, and Russia. But will these naval activists run roughshod over international law? The world had already witnessed the Bush Administration rendering the Geneva Convention a meaningless mumbo jumbo.18 This time Allies insisted on approval from the United Nations, and a chastised America wisely followed their lead. Early in 2004 the Security Council passed resolution 1540, which requires all members to enforce domestic controls to prevent illicit trafficking in weapons material and delivery systems. PSI rules offer more assurances; boarding will take place in territorial waters only after the government involved consents and, on the high seas, interdiction can occur only with flag-country approval. The United States has already signed consent agreements with Liberia, the Marshall Islands, and most importantly, Panama: the three states whose flags fly over many of the world’s ships. This trio of agreements added to those from PSI allies represent over 50 percent of the dead-weight tonnage in global commercial shipping.19 The fact that Japan should volunteer to place its Naval Self Defense Forces, the second largest in the Pacific Region, next to the American 7th Fleet, in joint peace sea-keeping duties illustrates a new mood in Tokyo and a chance to mix what Joseph Nye called “the Soft Power of Japan” with some hardware.20

Intelligence indicates that terrorists themselves might strike at sea. Naval powers have never eradicated piracy at sea. The number of of pirate attacks on ships has tripled in the past decade, which is the highest level reached in modern times. Updated with speedboats equipped with satellite phones and global poisoning systems, today’s pirates arm themselves with automatic weapons, antitank missiles, and grenades. Swashbuckling has gone modern. Most disturbingly, pirates and terrorists have found each other, and maritime terrorists have an agenda beyond money, namely a political ideology to carry out regime change. Attacks are now concentrated in Southeast Asia (42% of them took place in Indonesian and Malayan waters in 2003), and a lack of clandestine coastal hiding places in the Americas seemingly keeps them at bay.21 This situation, however, could change.
In addition to shipping from and to Asia at America’s West Coast ports many ships carry goods to the other Pacific Rim states in the Western Hemisphere. Hispanic America’s important new seafaring partner is the People’s Republic of China.22 Latin American exports to China have soared from $10 billion in 2002 to $22 billion in 2004, while imports have increased from $10 billion in 2002 to $18 billion in 2004. The economies of China and Latin America mesh. China, with capital to invest, desires natural resources which it lacks but which Latin America possesses in abundance. Latin American governments want capital investments. Having propped up Fidel Castro’s Cuba with cheap oil—a slap at Bush’s Cuban embargo—Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez went to Beijing in December 2004 to discuss with President Hu Jintao an oil deal. Hu had already made Sino-Latin solidarity a key to his development plans as indicated by his spectacular state visits to Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Early rewards from Hu’s trip came as China approved these cone countries as official tourist destinations. Not to be outflanked, Peruvian tour guides at Inca sites started brushing up on their Chinese.23

“Many Latin American countries are well positioned to supply the Chinese market with agricultural products, processed food and drink,” according to the Inter-American Development Bank. On average, and in spite of some exceptions, “Latin America is a clear trade winner from Chinese global integration,” according to the Spanish mega-bank BBVA. This is a two-way exchange with $1.4 billion flowing into Latin America from China last year.24 No wonder the Spanish expression cuento chino—literally a Chinese story—means a fairy tale or a fantasy. With an immense influx of men and material into Latin America, surely a few terrorists cold make it through this trade/tourist bonanza. Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva wants access to Pacific ports so badly that his government has offered to pay $420 million of the $892 million cost of paving a hard surface road from the Brazilian-Peruvian border to Peru’s Pacific ports, a distance that will consist of 440 miles of asphalt. When this project is completed in 2006, Sao Paulo will have a highway short cut to Lima. Both Presidents Lulu and Alejandro Toledo of Peru envision mutual gains from this cooperation in China trade.25

We should not forget that China classifies some individuals within its minority peoples as possible terrorists. In this category Beijing gives special emphasis to the Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang Province in its Far West. Having exploited these non-Han people for decades, Beijing itself now sees terrorists lurking in many oasis towns.26 Some day the citizens of these outposts might become China’s self-fulfilling prophecy. At present Beijing leaders label dissent as terror, and this misnomer confuses the West, which is so traumatized and fear-ridden that its leaders focus mainly on the money to be made in the China trade rather than those Chinese policies that might add to the stock of world terrorists. Yet there is money to be made in trade with China. In the flow of capital that results terrorists are likely to find a way to move their money.

Even Caribbean islands seek deliverance via Beijing. Formerly pro-Taiwan as long as generous aid came from Taipei, some of these islands see defection to the PRC as a means to receive more aid. In March 2004 Dominica switched its recognition to Beijing, with the result that an aid package of $122 million arrived. Now Grenada’s Prime Minister Keith Mitchell wants to rebuild after the destruction rained down on his island by Hurricane Ivan in 2004. (Nutmeg exports, the agricultural mainstay, will fall to only 10% of what they registered in 2003.) Mitchell finds himself on a short time-schedule as he wants to host matches for the 2007 cricket world cup in a new stadium because the old one is a mere shell since Hurricane Hugo bashed the island. Unhappy with Taiwan’s promised funds, Mitchell left unexpectedly for Beijing in December 2004.27 The PRC might have bought another ally, and some terrorists might be practicing cricket.

The December 22, 2002 story of Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber on American Airlines Flight #63 from Paris to Miami, illustrates how the son of Jamaican immigrants to Britain can find religious fanaticism in British jails, train with al-Qaeda, and try to fly back towards Latin America wearing a sophisticated shoe-bomb. (Many Latin Americans think of Miami as a Hispanic city since many middle-class Latin Americans vacation and shop there on a regular basis.) As an Anglo-Jamaican convert to Islam Reid joined the fastest-growing religion in Western Europe. The number of British Muslims might be as high as 2.5 million, and the number of French Muslims as high as 4 million. Districts in their respective capitals often look, smell, and sound like a Londonistan or Parisistan. Building U.S. military bases in Central Asia will not capture terrorists living throughout Europe, but it will likely help recruit more individuals who will, as a consequence, make the trek to the West.28

In many ways the Islamic diaspora to Western Europe mirrors the Hispanic diaspora to the United States—a vast movement of innocent people looking for a way out of poverty. Increased job creation within Latin America would alleviate the loss of their best and brightest citizens who now often seek work elsewhere, usually in the United States. The brain drain to El Norte is often overlooked in immigration figures. Latin American leaders hope that an increase in trans-Pacific trade offers an opportunity not only to retain, but also to attract, talent. Nevertheless, as things currently stand, a few terrorists could play havoc within these major diasporic labor migrations.

The Asia connection has not gone unnoticed in Mexico City, where a government team working with specialists from the public and private sectors focused on Japan. As a member of that working group Professor Melba Flack of the University of Guadalajara saw the opportunities inherent in a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) for Mexico. Tokyo also saw the advantages and went so far as to remove their longstanding objections to having an FTA cover agricultural products in one of their FTAs.29 Since both sides signed the FTA bilateral trade has increased. Security specialists are not interested in the amount of trade, however, but in the routing of shipments. Mexico has few developed ports along its Pacific coast, which means that much of the trade goes north to California where it can be off-loaded from trains and placed on ships at either the ports of Long Beach or Los Angeles. (The Port of Long Beach moved 4.6 million containers in 2003.) These shipping gateways offer untold opportunities for terrorists. To unblock the backlog at the California ports, Hutchinson Port Holdings, part of the Hong Kong conglomerate Cheung Kong Group, has announced plans to invest $1.2 billion in the Port of Ensenada, Mexico so that that port can handle 1.5 million containers per year, up from the current 100,000. Dredging started in 2004 and this Chinese engineering group expects that huge fifth-generation container ships will load and unload cargoes at Ensenada.

Now that Japan and Mexico have agreed to a FTA, Mexico has targeted South Korea as a trading partner. In September1996 South Korean President Kim Young-sam signaled Seoul’s economic interest in Latin America by visiting Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and Peru, which marked the first such visit by a Korean Head of State. In November 2004 another state visit occurred when President Roh Moo-hyun visited Latin America. Kwak Jae-Sung, Professor of Latin American Studies at Kyung Hee University, found that Latin America “became one of Korea’s most beneficial trade partners in the 1990s.”30 In 2005 Mexico wants a larger portion of this trade. South Korea and Northeast Asia in general can provide the markets for Mexico’s agricultural products. One sign of Northeast Asian interest in Latin markets is the number of students from that area now studying Spanish at the University of Guadalajara in its Department of Pacific Studies. The upturn in continent-wide trade also has politicos in California taking keen notice of the state’s special relationship with its southern neighbor through history, immigration, and cultural affinities.

Intra-commodity trade between Mexico and California astounds the observer. In 1999 Mexico rose from its position as the third largest destination for California exports to first place. By 2002 the economic integration of California and Mexico grew to $13,781 billion in California exports and $20,308 billion in imports. A vast amount of this exchange consisted of machinery, vehicles, optical tools, medical instruments, and electric machines. Overall U.S. trade figures reflect the same growth and mix. Between 1994, when NAFTA was implemented, and 2003, U.S. domestic exports to Mexico rose by 69%, and U.S. imports for consumption from Mexico rose by 182 percent. Mexico took and kept the lead. Many goods sail between border towns with U.S. components going south and Mexican finished goods coming north. The above figures do not account for all trade as production sharing between the U.S. and Mexico can happen duty-free because NAFTA does not require producers to “use the production-sharing tariff classifications.” In 2002 57percent of all U.S. exports to Mexico, or $60.9 billion, related to production sharing.31 Currently in its second decade, NAFTA qualifies as a trading bonanza, especially for Mexico. Movement toward further regional integration has slowed, mainly due to immigration problems in states from Texas to California.32

Texas outperforms California in its connectiveness to Mexico. Laredo and Nuevo Laredo are sister cities linked by a bridge across the Rio Grande. More people and products move through the two Laredos than any other inland port in the hemisphere. Cartels come with commerce, thus we find that the replacement for the Gulf Cartel is now a mini-cartel, a gang of former Special Forces officers known as the Zetas. Their exploits brought them and their 28-year-old leader Heriberto Lazcano, a former elite airborne soldier, a two-page color spread in Time magazine. This ‘cancer’ has spread with American officials warning, “Mexican drug traffickers with false identification have taken up residence on the United States side of the border”.33 Traffickers on the U.S. side of the border could also traffic in terror.

Illegal & Legal Immigration
California and Texas do not tell the whole immigration story. The fastest growing Hispanic community in the United States is in North Carolina! Carlos Medina, typical of these new Carolinians, arrived 10 years ago from Nicaragua via Miami. And contrary to popular belief that Hispanic immigrants are youths, Medina was 45 years old when he moved. Contrary to stereotypes, many immigrants such as Medina either were, or quickly became, middle class, and a few of them earned substantial fortunes. And quite a few contradict another notion in that they are businesswomen. In the five-year period that ended in 2002 the number of businesses owned by Latinas grew by 39 percent nationwide to an estimated 470,344. That compares to nine percent for other businesses in the same period. Arizona became a Mecca for Latinas in business where Latina-owned companies grew by 58 percent in the same five-year period and generated $726 million in sales from 1997 to 2002, up 10.6 percent with more breaking the $1 million mark each year.34 Such success acts as a magnet for other immigrants, some of whom could be terrorists using capitalism’s conduit along the Pacific Rim of the Americas. Today’s terrorists have money and open bank accounts, and they invest and pay with cash.35

The success of Hispanics in Arizona has come at a cost. The issue of illegal immigrants has ignited a backlash there. The state government in Phoenix has passed legislation to deny public services to illegal immigrants. In November 2004 Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, a ballot initiative that critics consider mean-spirited and divisive. Professor Wayne Cornelius of the University of California at San Diego suggests that “the concerns fuelling the debate in Arizona are the same in California with Proposition 187.”36 California voters passed Proposition 187, a polarizing initiative, only to watch the courts strike it down. However, the two states differ: Arizona’s foreign-born population is smaller than California’s—1 in 8, or almost 750,000 as compared to 1 in 4, or 9 million in California. But Arizona’s total population includes 44 percent undocumented immigrants while California counts only 26 percent as undocumented. Meanwhile, Arizona’s Latino population has almost doubled in the last decade, rising from 700,000 to 1.3 million. And Arizona’s remote, rugged terrain along the Sonora-Arizona border has become the crossing point of choice. In 2004 the Border Patrol arrested more illegal immigrants there than they arrested in Texas, New Mexico, and California combined.37

On March 30, 2005 the Department of Homeland Security announced that it would increase the number of patrol agents in Arizona. Commentators saw this as an attempt to co-opt civilian volunteers with the so-called Minuteman Project to take over the 370-mile Arizona-Mexico border. Critics have called these new Minutemen a do-it-yourself border patrol. Others prefer to call them vigilantes. T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council Union says “Things are so out of control we have no idea who’s crossing our borders.”38 An estimated 2,400 agents patrol the Arizona border—almost a quarter of the 10,000 assigned to the entire southern U.S. border. In February 2005 former Homeland Security Deputy Secretary James Loy told Congress that “recent intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda leaders are likely to enter the country through the Mexico border and believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons.”39

Not everyone in the Western Hemisphere wants to move to the United States to work and make money. Quite a few already have jobs and money at home and in some cases, billions of pesos. Alfonso Roma, the Mexican tycoon, founded California-based Seminis as part of his Savia group. Seminis is the world leader in vegetable seeds with $2.35 billion in sales in 2004, a figure that is 24 percent over the preceding year. Such a cash flow ‘cow’ stands out; Monsanto has made an offer to buy it.40 Cash flows in the opposite direction when Mexican migrants—people Vincente Fox has called “heroes”—send money home. These remittances amounted to $16 billion in 2004, a sum greater than that which Mexico’s booming tourist industry brings in. A large slice of the remittances comes from farm workers who put the muscle behind California’s $27.8 billion agricultural sector in 2004. From 1942 to 1964 Mexican farm workers came under the bracero program for guest workers. Once its authorization lapsed in 1964, some workers found employment in Mexico’s Maquiladora Economy, a string of border industries feeding on the U.S. market. The less fortunate remained as undocumented migrants, which constitute an ever-growing part of California’s economy and an attractive avenue for slipping in terror operatives. In 2004 the number of illegal immigrants deported from the U.S. rose to 157, 281, marking a 45 percent increase since 2001. Of that figure 71 percent of deportees returned to Mexico.41

Dr. Howard Shatz of the Public Policy Institute of California and Professor Luis Felipe Lopez-Calva of the Universidad de las Americas-Puebla have documented that in 2003 at least 80 Mexican companies owned at least 88 subsidiaries throughout California. In 2001 Mexican parent companies owned 163 affiliates in the U.S. and these affiliates owned other companies adding up to 458 firms.42 European Union members like Germany make it even more complex. Volkswagen produces its New Beetles in Mexico for the NAFTA market. Such autos arrive in the U.S. monthly by train; their trunks are available to smuggle men and material. Nevertheless, even with valuable foreign direct investment such as Volkswagen, Seminis, and 458 other Mexican firms within a struggling U.S. economy, things Mexican breed paranoia. In northern California alone the San Francisco City and County Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and the South Bay Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Silicon Valley try to counter this negative image.

The hero to immigration paranoids in the Pacific Basin heads the Australian government. Prime Minister John Howard has used the fear factor over immigration to hold onto power. He faced imminent defeat in the 2001 election when a boatload of desperate Afghans appearing offshore helped save his political career. Howard forbade them entry and had them shoved off; he claimed that, in a time of terror, the nation’s borders must be protected. Howard’s xenophobic immigration policy meant that Australia ditched the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. Apparently Canberra officials decided to regard that convention as another ‘quaint’ arrangement from the past.43 Anglo-American-Aussie angst over refugees has increased since 9/11; President Bush calls Howard his ‘sheriff down under’.

The intellectual guru for this type of nativism is Harvard professor Samuel Huntington, who targets Mexican immigration, which he claims will result in “the demographic reconquista of areas Americans took from Mexico by force in the 1830s and 1840s” and that Mexican “immigrants may try to reconnect Southwestern states to Mexico”.44 One critic suggested that these claims are not only incendiary, but that they have little basis in fact. The fact that Latin American immigrants often worship at a Roman Catholic Mass and might turn America into a bilingual, and hence divided, nation drives another thorn into Huntington’s Boston-Anglo-Protestant hide. Huntington is correct on one measure: Mexicans are the largest immigrant group inside the U.S., and, as they assimilate, they will play an increasingly important role in mainstream American life. And hiding among them might be a terrorist cell. If a few Boston Irish could protect IRA money-raising terrorists in their midst, why not a disgruntled and troubled Houston Hispanic? (According to a Census Bureau report in 2005 there are 41.3 million Hispanics in the United States, or one out of every seven people within the country.)

The Miami Herald has tried valiantly to focus fairly on immigration issues. The editors noted with approval President Bush’s remarks in Chile in November 2004. Speaking with Mexico’s President Fox, also at the Chilean summit, Bush reportedly said, “We’d much rather have security guards chasing down terrorists or drug runners or drug smugglers than people coming to work…One way to make sure the border is secure is to have reasonable immigration policies.” The editors noted that the key to making this happen “will be President Bush’s willingness to take on the anti-immigration extremists in his own party.”45 To date the White House has not tangled with Representative James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis, who helps torpedo reform by inserting poison pill provisions on immigration. Another naysayer, Representative Thomas Tancredo, a Colorado Republican, said he would again vote no on Bush’s plan, revived from last year’s defeat, to grant three-year work visas for immigrants to fill jobs Americans do not want. This visa plan would allow security forces to distinguish the mainly innocent migrant workers from those infiltrating to terrorize Americans on their home ground.

In early November 2004 Mexico City hosted Secretary of State Colin Powell for the United States-Mexico Binational Commission meetings. President Vincente Fox made clear at these meetings that his top agenda item was to gain legal status for the estimated four million undocumented Mexicans who work in the United States. This mass of ‘paperless’ people could play into the hands of international terrorists organizations. However, all that Powell and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge could do was voice satisfaction with Mexico’s cooperation in protecting its U.S. frontier from drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists.46 But this is to ignore the four million undocumented Mexicans inside the United States, plus the millions of other Hispanics here without visas or green cards. Who knows anything about them? Among multiple millions could there be, as the Bush administration likes to say, “a few bad apples”?

The tragedies associated with illegal border crossings into the U.S., combined with the unfair treatment legal Mexican and native-born American Hispanics receive, disgraces America. As Mexicans see it, they keep the U.S. economy afloat with cheap and reliable workers. They question what would happen if they all went back to Mexico. A poplar film satirized this premise. A Day Without Mexicans imagines California’s Mexican maids, nannies, gardeners, and home-repair workers downing tools for a day to watch employers suffer nervous breakdowns trying to fill the many gaps in their day on during the workers day off. Another surprise came when Californians learned that some of these Mexicans were Chinese. Mexicali, 120 miles east of San Diego, lies across the Colorado River from Calexico, California. Since 1900 Mexicali has served as a stopping-off-home for illegal Chinese immigrants to the U.S. Today it is home to 35,000 people of Chinese descent, and that number will increase, with each immigrant paying from $30,000 to $50,000 to human smugglers.47

Some observers have little sympathy with the Mexican government, pointing out that it publishes a guide for infiltration of its northern neighbor. This guide recommends that a citizen should emigrate legally. However, the publication goes on to lay “out guidelines for the best and safest ways to cross into the U.S. illegally, suggesting for instance that would be immigrants walk during times of low heat, add salt to water to avoid dehydration, cross rivers only in light clothing, and so on.” According to American critics of this guide, “Illegal immigration allows the Mexican elite to reduce social and political unrest without reforming Mexico’s economy by exporting the unemployed.”48 This may be one reason along with the humanitarian motive. Mexican officials know they can not stop this exodus of poverty, thereby hoping the publication will mean less desiccated corpses lining the paths headed north.

Mexican immigration carries the onus, but a Pacific Rim archipelago has as many expatriates, immigrants, and historical ties to the U.S. as does Mexico. The Philippines, a former American dependency and prior to that a Spanish colony like much of Hispanic America, has a sizeable overseas Filipino community in the U.S. In California alone Filipinas make up a large percentage of hospital workers, and towns in the San Francisco Bay Area like San Bruno are home to big Filipino communities. Recent arrivals often find low-wage jobs in hotel and restaurant work. Given the shortage of employment opportunities in the Philippines at the present time, poor Filipinos seek work abroad, and their remittances home help their families survive. In 2004 Filipinos workers overseas sent $8 billion home, roughly nine percent of the nation’s national income.49 In fact, Southeast Asia is awash in legal and illegal workers. Estimates of Indonesians working illegally in Malaysia range as high as one million. In 2004 Thailand gave illegal workers an incentive to turn themselves in for a year’s leave to stay. According to Bangkok, 1.2 million Burmese, Cambodians, and Laotians signed.50

In the last few decades the oil-rich emirates, sheikdoms, and kingdoms of the Persian Gulf have recruited thousands of Filipinos for domestic service and other labor-intensive jobs in the Gulf region, which has incubated a new generation of terrorists since the invasion of Iraq. If this were not worrisome enough, Manila is fighting its own homegrown war on terrorists, a variant of Islamic radicals radicalized by what they perceive has been their long-term minority abasement. On February 14, 2005 bombings occurred in three Philippine cities. Nine people died and more than 100 others were wounded. The terrorist group, Abu Sayyaf, claimed responsibility for the blasts, all of which occurred within an hour of each other. A bus bomb that destroyed three buses during rush hour rocked Manila’s financial district, Makati. Three bus passengers died and 40 were wounded. In the south a bicycle with sidecar exploded in the city of General Santos and killed five people and wounded dozens. Following those two blasts, many casualties resulted when a bomb went off in a Davao City bus terminal.

The citizens of Davao City have experienced terror before. In April 2003 dozens of victims, including an American missionary, died in explosions at the Davao wharf and airport. Sulu province has its own separatist group, the Moro National Liberation Front. Hostilities in Sulu, which is 500 miles south of Manila, have left 70 people dead and more than 13,000 displaced from their homes. Aside from Abu Sayyaf, two Muslim separatist groups have fought since the 1970s for an independent Islamic state on the Philippine island of Mindanao.51

With tens of thousands of Filipinos coming and going to the Persian Gulf and similar numbers coming and going to the United States, the Philippines could easily be a way station to terror in America. With the U.S. military back in the Philippines helping President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s military fight her internal war, do American advisors-in-uniform not resemble the enemy to Filipinos in the south who want an Islamic state? And could they not transfer their hatred for Manila to Washington? If they did so, it would not be difficult for them to cross the Pacific. Crossing this ocean pond, the largest on the globe, presents few difficulties for determined Filipinos. They form the crews of most of the ships flying Flags of Convenience (FOC). The International Transport Workers Federation counts 20,906 ships flying FOC, mostly from Panama, where a third of the crews of Panamanian-flagged ships are Filipinos. According to Philippines Today this amounts to a total of 50, 651 Philippine crewmembers as of February 2005. Filipinos also comprise 13 percent of the crews of Liberian flagged vessels, 11 percent of Cypriot flagged ships, 8 percent of those under Malta’s flag, and again eight percent of the crews of ships flying the flag of the Bahamas. The Philippine diaspora has resulted in small communities of Filipinos throughout the Americas—South, Central, and North. These locales are havens for good people who are poor; people who might be manipulated by operatives with very destructive motives.

Tempting Terror Targets
From wherever these terrorists finally arrive in the U.S., surprisingly many targets would remain unsecured in the American homeland. Former Republican governor of New Jersey, Christie Whitman, whom President Bush later appointed to head the Environmental Protection Agency, has published It’s My Party Too in which she indicts chemical-industry lobbyist and congressional Republicans for gutting her and Tom Riggs’ plans. They had hoped to require 15,000 high-risk chemical plants to take what she calls “reasonable steps” to address vulnerabilities and report their compliance to the EPA. As of July 2005 there are still no federal regulations that require chemical facilities to gird against possible attacks. In January 2005 a derailed train car in South Carolina released noxious chlorine gas and killed nine innocent people in a nearby town with toxic fumes and injuring 250 more; 5,000 people were forced to evacuate. The Kuehne Chemical Company of New Jersey told the government that one of its railroad tank cars could produce a chlorine cloud that “would be immediately dangerous to both life and health for a distance exceeding fourteen miles. The FBI has called the nexus of the New Jersey Turnpike, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, and Newark’s Liberty International Airport the “most vulnerable two miles in the country to a chemical-plant attack.”52 All this appears in the newspapers for terrorists to read.

On January 26, 2005 California’s Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the attorney generals from six other states warned the federal government of catastrophic destruction that would result from a terrorist attack against nuclear power plants located in their states. In a joint report to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, they pointed out that the U.S. has over 100 active and retired nuclear power plants which contain tons of highly radioactive fuel, waste, and equipment. Some of these facilities are near dense population concentrations. California leaders worry about two in particular, Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo and San Onofre in San Diego County. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of the 9/11 attacks and a visitor to California prior to 9/11, had nuclear power plants on his list. Lockyear and peers do not think the federal government has done enough to protect nuclear power sites.53 Perhaps terrorists entertain similar thoughts.

While a nuclear power plant is not a weapon of mass destruction, it is a weapon of moderate destruction capable of killing tens of thousand instead of hundreds of thousands. To reinforce the opinion of the state attorney generals, a classified report issued by nuclear experts convened by the National Academy of Sciences challenged the decion of federal agents to allow commercial nuclear facilities to store large quantities of radioactive spent fuel in pools of water. The report “concluded that the government does not fully understand the risks that a terrorist attack could pose to the pools.”54

When he stepped down as the head of Health and Human Services in 2005, Tommy Thompson warned the nation of another danger, namely its food supply. He said that he worried “every single night” about a possible terror attack on the food supply. At present 12 federal agencies share responsibilities for food safety in the U.S. Senator Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has sponsored legislation to centralize these overlapping regulatory agencies into one super agency.55 At present, however, the responsibilities remain diffuse and confusing, except perhaps to terrorists.

Many food staples in American markets are imported from the southern neighbors of the United States. Winter in the Northern Hemisphere is summer in the Southern Hemisphere. Agri-businesses in Latin America have learned the profitability of flying fruits and vegetables to wintry northeastern cities in the U.S. The growing seasons are cyclical with the south complementing the north. Even California, the food basket of the nation, imports Mexican asparagus in January. New Zealand spring lamb, Chilean seedless grapes, Central American bananas, and Columbian mountain coffee: these are only a few of the desirable food items that fill American supermarkets and delis. It is reasonable to suspect that they could someday carry with them a biological agent meant to panic the population. Bioterrorism has entered the security vocabulary. Recall, for example, the wave of anthrax attacks in fall 2001 that claimed five lives and shut down the capitol building in Washington.56 Instead of arriving in an envelope through the U.S. postal system, perhaps the next time anthrax could arrive on or in the food Americans eat. CIA specialists believe the future holds dark biological components as they reported in a late 2003 report, The Darker Bio-weapons Future.

If not the food we eat, then what about the fuel we burn? California has a tough time finding fuel supplies to meet projected needs. ChevronTexaco has one answer, namely a natural gas facility off the Mexican/California coast, eight miles from Tijuana. In January 2005 the Mexican government gave a green light for the construction of this liquefied natural gas terminal. Natural gas can be chilled to minus 259 degrees Fahrenheit, which causes it to condense into a clear liquid that takes up little space and can be loaded onto ships for long-distance transport. If the liquid leaks or spills, it quickly turns into a vapor cloud that can just as quickly ignite. Just such an ‘accident’ happened last year in Algeria, killing twenty-seven people and wrecking havoc at the site. Algeria hosts its own local terror apparatus. Greenpeace disapproves of the ChevronTexaco plan for its own ecological reason, but their leadership has also stated “that the facility could make a tempting target for terrorists.”57

The north end of San Francisco Bay harbors the critical Point Richmond petroleum pipeline pier where tankers pump their black gold ashore. Gigantic refineries in Richmond, backed up against the pier area, and other refineries as far away as Martinez gulp down the product. Minor leaks and accidents here have plagued this region’s densely packed population for years and have sent many people to hospitals. Imagine major explosions followed by fire and dense smoke and then think back to when Saddam Hussein ordered his retreating troops to set fire to the oil facilities of Kuwait in the first Gulf War: that was ecological terror of enormous magnitude.

The most horrific scenario remains a nuclear attack. The San Francisco Chronicle enlivened this debate by publishing full-page illustrations in color of what San Francisco would look like the minute following a nuclear explosion. Orange and yellow flickered around a red fireball mushrooming up above the remaining cinder-rubble that had once been called ‘Baghdad by the Bay’.58 Specialists think that to transport a nuclear device to any Pacific gateway, such as San Francisco, would require shipping it into the target area. In view of this concern, it becomes vitally important to secure ports. Headlines in the San Francisco Chronicle warn that the “Ports just keep getting busier: West Coast expects the volume of cargo to double by 2020.”59 Obviously, ports are the high-value targets which terrorists value highly.

With the exception of NAFTA trade 95 percent of all international commerce enters the U.S. through one of its 360 public or private ports. But nearly 80 percent of that trade moves though only 10 ports, with the largest loads passing through Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York, and Oakland. Note that three of the four are California ports involved in Pacific Ocean shipping. But in terms George Orwell would understand, while all ports are equal, some are more equal than others, at least in the U.S. Congress. To the horror of auditors, on a per capita basis Wyoming has received four times more port-antiterrorism money than New York has received. Port security money has also gone to ritzy resorts such as Martha’s Vineyard and St. Croix in the Virgin Islands. Even Arkansas demanded money for six ports. As early as 2003, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., predicted that with nearly half the port trade going though her home state, “there is an almost 1-in-2 chance that any radiological explosive or dirty bomb sent to the U.S. in a ship container would pass through California.” Feinstein’s explosive remarks did not change Congress’ business-as-usual funding schedule. A few changes have helped. On April 26, 2005, Oakland’s port became the nation’s first seaport to automatically scan all imported cargo containers for radioactive material as it leaves the terminal by truck.60

Do ports face danger from the deep, i.e., from frogmen? Three years ago Dutch officials investigated a terrorist-recruiting ring and discovered a scuba suspect, which led them to a Tunisian diving instructor with a connection to radical groups. The instructor attracted suspected Islamic militant students from around the Netherlands. In March 2005 a captured militant from al-Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines claimed he and other jihadis “took diving lessons to prepare for a seaborne attack.”61 These reports read like Tom Clancy plots; his novel Hunt for Red October had married fact to fiction. When and where these possible frog-terrorists surface, they apparently will have no problem buying a gun or two. World headlines recently screamed that the U.S. still lacks a safe system for gun purchases. The Financial Times of Britain trumpeted: “US laws fail to stop terror suspects from buying guns.”62

To make matters worse, nuclear material continues to be lost in America by Americans. Halliburton, the Texas giant contractor-of-choice at the Pentagon, lost a nuclear shipment and did not report the loss for months until the misplaced freight showed up in a Boston post office. The radioactive material went missing in October 2004 and was not reported lost until February 2005.The Americium, en route from Russia to Houston, seemed to disappear when it reached the U.S. Tracers showed that the radioactive substance, used in oil well exploration, traveled through Amsterdam to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport on October 9. Apparently freight company dispatchers sent it to their Newark, New Jersey warehouse where someone inadvertently placed a Boston label on it.63

Recently the Washington Post devoted a four-page section of its National Weekly Edition to the multifaceted aspects of terrorism. Their editors tapped numerous sources within and outside government and concluded that the immediate future is not as threatening as some reports indicate. From their perspective, irrespective of aspirations by terrorists, nuclear weapons remain difficult to fabricate and biological weapons require unforgiving specifications.64 Professor Graham Allison, for example, remains unconvinced of this assessment as he indicates in his book Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. Others share Allison’s pessimism. Stephen Flynn, Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes: “The transportation, energy, information, financial, chemical, food, and logistical networks that underpin U.S. economic power and the American way of life offer the United States’ enemies a rich menu of irresistible targets.” Flynn believes that most of these targets “remain virtually unprotected.”65

Worsening Scenarios
It is unlikely that all the various terrorist scenarios projected in this paper would happen simultaneously, and several incidents would probably not occur together. But could just one of them simply sneak by? That remains probable and likely. Should Americans panic? Certainly not. Should they give away even more of their hard-earned civil liberties? Quite the opposite: they should take back what the current Alien and Sedition (Patriot) Act has taken away since its implementation.66 In recalling former American leaders President Bush sometimes refers to Franklin Roosevelt, and he is right to do so. In an earlier time of trouble, FDR warned Americans that all they had to fear was fear itself. This was true then, but is truer now. Some short-range defenses need mending, and long-range strategy needs a complete overhaul. Clearly the breeding ground for global terror remains poverty. Jeffrey Sachs proposes a reasonable cure for western stinginess in his The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time.67 In the arena of defense policy, unilateralism has failed America. Better that we should admit we need help from others, and then try to win back those states that have been alienated by malignant willfulness.

Timing remains everything. Terror-marketers marked their time leading up to 9/11, and they have strategic patience. When, and if, they are ready to attack again, their new pathway might be key places along the Pacific Coast of the Americas. Here drugs, trade, and immigration give clandestine agents a chance to move undetected until, of course, they strike.

ENDNOTES
1. National Security Council Archives, Memorandum for Condoleezza Rice, from Richard A Clarke, Subject: Presidential Policy Initiative/ Review—the Al-Qida Network, January 25, 2001. Scott Shane, “01 Memo to Rice Warned of Queda and Offered Plan’, The New York Times, February 12, 2005, p 1. [Return to Text]
2. “Target: Bin Laden”, Time, October 1, 2001, pp 14-84. [Return to Text]
3. LaMond Tullis, Unintended Consequences: Illegal Drugs & Drug Policies in Nine Countries, (Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Reinner Publishers, 1995) p 2. [Return to Text]
4. Patrick Lloyd Hatcher, “The Unwinnable War on the Drug Trade”, ORBIS: a Journal of World Affairs, Fall 1997, pp 653-660. [Return to Text]
5. Chris Kraul, “Mexico says it found drug traffickers’ spy on president’s staff”, Los Angeles Times, February 6, 2005, A13. “Spain and the Basques: Independence days”, The Economist, February 12, 2005, pp 69-70. [Return to Text]
6. Ibid. p 16. [Return to Text]
7. Douglas Jehl & David Johnston, “U.S. Drops Criminal Investigation of C.I.A. Antidrug Effort in Peru”, The New York Times, February 6, 2005, p 1. [Return to Text]
8. “Drugs in Latin America: Battles won, a war still lost”, The Economist, February 12, 2005, pp 35-36. [Return to Text]
9. Adam Zagorin & Syed Talat Hussain, “Bordering on Nukes”, Time, November 22, 2004, p 19. [Return to Text]
10. Ibid. [Return to Text]
11. Michael Shifter, “Breakdown in the Andes”, Foreign Affairs, September-October, 2004, pp 126-138. [Return to Text
12. Adam Zagorin, Timothy J. Burger and Brian Bennett, “Watch the Border”, Time, March 21, 2005, p 15. [Return to Text]
13. Michael A. Fletcher & Walter Pincus, “Bush picks intelligence chief”, Washington Post, February 18, 2005; Lisa J. Adams, “Negroponte ignored rights abuses in Central America, activists say”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 18, 2005, p A10-11. [Return to Text]
14. Chalmers Johnson, Blowback: The Costs & Consequences of American Empire (New York, Metropolitan Books, 2000) pp 28-29. [Return to Text]
15. Bill Wallace, “Five inmate gangs dominate California’s prison system”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 24, 2005, p 12. [Return to Text]
16. “Gangs: Going Global” The Economist, February 26, 2005, p 29. [Return to Text]
17. “Counter-proliferation in Asia: No place to hide, maybe” The Economist, October 30, 2004, pp 47-48. [Return to Text]
18. Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York, New York Review Books, 2004). [Return to Text]
19. “Counter-proliferation in Asia”, The Economist, pp 47-48. [Return to Text]
20. Watanabe Akio, “Security in the New Age of War”, Gaiko Forum: Japanese Perspectives on Foreign Affairs, Fall 2004, pp 3-12. Also see Joseph Nye, “The Soft Power of Japan”, Gaiko Forum, Summer 2004. [Return to Text]
21. Gal Luft & Anne Korin, “Terrorism Goes to Sea”, Foreign Affairs, November/ December 2004, pp 61-71. [Return to Text]
22. Richard Lapper, “Increase of trade reveals Beijing’s growing profile in Latin America”, Financial Times, March 9, 2005, p 6. [Return to Text]
23. “China and Latin America: Magic, or realism”, The Economist, January 1, 2005, pp 25-26. [Return to Text]
24. Richard Lapper, “Latin America dances to the China beat”, Financial Times, November 11, 2004, p 3. [Return to Text]
25. “Peru and Brazil: Short cut to China”, The Economist, March 26, 2005, p 40. [Return to Text]
26. Joshua Kurlantzick, “The Unsettled West: China’s Long War in Xinjiang”, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2004, pp 136-143. [Return to Text]
27. “Grenada: Any port in a storm”, The Economist, January 1, 2005, p 26. [Return to Text]
28. Patrick Lloyd Hatcher, “U.S. Base-mania in Central Asia” JPRI Critique Vol IX, No. 3, April 2002. [Return to Text]
29. Watanabe Yorizumi, “Japan’s FTA Strategy and the Japan-Mexico EPA”, Gaiko Forum, Summer 2004. [Return to Text]
30. Kwak Jae-Sung, “Galvanizing Inter-Pacific Relations: Korea’s Role in Asia-Latin America Cooperation” East Asian Review, Winter 2004, pp 63-80. [Return to Text]
31. Howard J. Shatz & Luis Felipe Lopez-Calva, The Emerging Integration of the California-Mexico Economies (San Francisco, Public Policy Institute of California, 2004) pp 38-39, 51. [Return to Text]
32. Robert A. Pastor, “North America’s Second Decade, Foreign Affairs, January/ February 2004, pp 124-135. [Return to Text]
33. Ginger Thompson, “Sleepy Mexican Border Towns Awake to Drug violence”, The New York Times, January 23, 2005, p 3.Tim Padgett, “The Killers Next Door: Brutal new drug gangs are terrorizing the U.S.-Mexican border”, Time, April 18, 2005, pp 140-141. [Return to Text]
34. Yvette Armendaritz, “Latinas a new force in business”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 13, 2005, p E1. [Return to Text]
35. Eric Lichtblau, “U.S. Seeks Access to Bank Records to Deter Terror”, The New York Times, April 10, 2005, p 1. [Return to Text]
36. Tyche Hendricks, “Issue of illegals roiling Arizona: New law denies public services to such immigrants”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 28, 2005, p 1. [Return to Text]
37. Ibid. [Return to Text]
38. Lara Jakes Jordan, “U.S. to add 500 agents along vulnerable Arizona border”, San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 2005, p A5. [Return to Text]
39. Ibid. [Return to Text]
40. “Monsanto: Lord of the Seeds”, The Economist, January 29, 2005, pp 60-61. [Return to Text]
41. “Dreaming of the other side of the wire”, The Economist, March 12, 2005, pp 27-29. [Return to Text]
42. Shatz & Lopez-Calva, The Emerging Integration of the California-Mexico Economies, pp 79-80. [Return to Text]
43. “Immigration policy: Howard’s way”, The Economist, January 29, 2005, p 55. [Return to Text]
44. Alan Wolfe, “Native Son: Samuel Huntington Defends the Homeland”, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004, pp120-126. “Identity and immigration: The End of America”, The Economist, June 12, 2004, p 82. Samuel Huntington, Who Are We: The Challenge to America’s National Identity (New York, Simon & Schuster, 2004). Pauline Jelinek, “Record number of Hispanics in Census”, San Francisco Chronicle, June 9, 2005, p A5. [Return to Text]
45. Editorials, “For Better Economy, Border Security, President Should Push for Immigration Reform”, Miami Herald, International Edition (Mexico), November 27, 2004, p 9A. [Return to Text]
46. Richard Boudreaux, “Immigration Bush Priority, Powell says”, Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2004, p 1. [Return to Text]
47. Elliot Spagat, “Terrorist hoax exposes little-known Chinese smuggling route”, The Asian Reporter, February 15, 2005, p 8. [Return to Text]
48. John O’Sullivan, “Bush’s Unwelcome Welcome Mat”, National Review, January 31, 2005, pp 17-18. [Return to Text]
49. “An amnesty of sorts for illegals”, The Economist, March 5, 2005, p44. [Return to Text]
50. Ibid. [Return to Text]
51. Carlos H. Conde, “3 bombings kill 9 in the Philippines”, The New York Times, February 15, 2005, p A12; “3 Philippine Soldiers Die”, The New York Times, February 20, p 6. [Return to Text]
52. Alexander Lane, “Whitman: GOP Foiled Security Efforts”, The Star Ledger, January 28, 2005, p 1. [Return to Text]
53. Keay Davidson, “Greater security of nuclear plants urged”, San Francisco Chronicle, January 26, 2005, p B1. [Return to Text]
54. Shankar Vedantam, “Nuclear fuel storage method questioned”, San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 2005, p A3. [Return to Text]
55. Larry Margasak, “Report offers U.S. food-safety model” San Francisco Chronicle, February 22, 2005, p A4. [Return to Text]
56. Ceci Connolly, “$6 billion sought to fight bio-terrorism”. Washington Post, February 5, 2002, p A13. [Return to Text]
57. David R. Baker, “ChevronTexaco terminal OKd” San Francisco Chronicle, January 7, 2005, p C3. [Return to Text]
58. Charles Burress, “Unthinkable? An attack on an American city by terrorists armed with a small nuclear device is an even bet within a decade, some experts say,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 21, 2004, p B1. Time magazine reignited their debate with a nine-page report. Bruce Crumley, “Are These Towers Safe? Why America’s nuclear power plants are still so vulnerable,” Time, June 20, 2005, pp 34-48. [Return to Text]
59. George Raine, “Ports just keep getting busier: West Coast expects volume of cargo to double by 2020”, San Francisco Chronicle, March 6, 2005, p E1. [Return to Text]
60. Eric Lipton, “Audit Faults U.S. for Its Spending on Port Defense,” The New York Times, February 20, 2005, p 1; “Finding Nukes: Muon-assured defense. Using cosmic rays to spot nuclear weapons,” The Economist, February 26, 2005; Jim Herron Zamora, “Oakland: First U.S. port to check radiation. Every container arriving from overseas is tested,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 27, 2005, p B5. [Return to Text]
61. Mark Hosenball, “Terror: Danger From the Deep”, Newsweek, March 28, 2005, p 4. [Return to Text]
62. Edward Alden, “US laws fail to stop terror suspects from buying guns, Financial Times, March 9, 2005, p4. Eric Lichtblau, “Terror suspects finding it easy to buy guns in U.S., International Herald Tribune, March 9, 2005, p 2. [Return to Text]
63. Lolita C. Baldor, “Halliburton loses nuclear shipment”, San Francisco Chronicle, February 11, 2005, p A16. [Return to Text]
64. Dafna Linzer, “Could They Pull It Off? Atomic weapons capabilities may elude al Qaeda terrorists, experts say”, The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, January 10-16, 2005, pp 6-7: John Mintz, “Technical Hurdles Limit the Likelihood of Bioterror”, The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, January 10-16, 2005, pp 8-9. [Return to Text]
65. Stephen E. Flynn, “The Neglected Home Front”, Foreign Affairs, September/ October 2004, pp 20-33. [Return to Text]
66. “Revising the Patriot Act”, The New York Times, April 10, 2005, p WK11. [Return to Text]
67. Jeffrey D. Sachs, The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time (New York, Penguin/Allen Lane, 2004). Jeffrey D. Sachs, “The Development Challenge”, Foreign Affairs, March/April, 2005, pp 78-90. [Return to Text]

The University of San Francisco - Educating minds and hearts to change the world - since 1855