Introduction: In Search of a Sustainable Refuge

Introduction: In Search of a Sustainable Refuge Argument/Historiographical Intervention: “This book examines U.S. responses to environmental disruptions in Central America and the Caribbean since 1995 to see what lessons might be learned for shaping humanitarian and immigration policies in an era of accelerating climate change. The environmental disasters discussed in this book cannot be attributed conclusively to anthropogenic climate change; compiled data and observable patterns may be suggestive of a correlation between human activity and a specific disaster but not conclusive.6 The case studies were chosen for what they reveal about climate shocks, the internal and cross-border migration that follows, and the lack of legal protections for those displaced by environmental drivers and forced to migrate. They offer a view into some of the humanitarian challenges of the present and the future.” (13) “As a historian of the United States, I focus largely (but not exclusively) on U.S. humanitarian and immigration policies in response to these disasters, but the case studies illustrate the necessity and potential for responding to disasters, climate change, and climate-driven migration multilaterally, since our collective future requires collaboration.” (13) “Consequently, while most people displaced by disasters around the world have thus far remained in their own countries, Central America has seen among the highest rates of cross-border migration” (14) More Argument/Historiographical Intervention: “Drawing on legislative and governmental records, the reports and studies of nongovernmental agencies, and newspapers, photographs, and interviews, I have tried to write a history that examines disasters in the Caribbean and Central America—and the migration that followed—from the perspective not just of the policy makers and aid workers who responded to the crises but also of those who experienced the upheaval on the ground. I examine the policies that exacerbated these so-called natural disasters, shaped domestic and international responses, and changed societies in their wake. The challenges faced by these five countries and territories are in many ways illustrative of the challenges faced by other countries of the Western Hemisphere.” (14) “There is general consensus that nations must offer humanitarian relief to populations affected by suddenonset disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes and, if necessary, assist with the temporary or permanent relocation and resettlement of those left homeless. There is no consensus, however, on how to respond to slower-onset disasters such as drought and water shortages or policy-driven disasters such as deforestation, acidifying oceans, and toxic waste. These policy-driven disasters, produced by governmental, military, and industry actors, are what Rob Nixon has called a “slow violence”: “a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all [and is] underrepresented in strategic planning as well as in human memory.” (14) “Those displaced by natural disasters and climate change are often called “climate refugees,” but most are not refugees under legal definitions of the term. ” (15) “There are no guidelines for responding to populations whose countries will disappear altogether, however. The architects of the UN’s 1954 Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons never imagined that territories might physically disappear because of climate change. Statelessness was defined as the denial of nationality through the operation of law rather than through the physical disappearance of land.38 The UNHCR protects stateless persons, but it is still unclear at what point citizens of small island states, for example, who are particularly threatened by rising sea levels, might be considered permanently stateless” (17) “Since the establishment of the immigration restriction regime in the late nineteenth century, the bureaucratic tracks for admission to the United States have prioritized those seeking economic advancement, family reunification, or political safe haven. Those who enter the United States as immigrants and temporary workers are generally viewed as economically driven, while refugees and asylum-seekers are said to be politically driven. These distinct tracks fail to recognize that, more often than not, migration is multicausal, produced by a wide and complex range of intersecting drivers that often make it impossible to pinpoint a sole cause for migrating.” (18) “Despite the small numbers admitted, the “natural calamity” provision was not without controversy. Some legislators said that it was inappropriate to offer permanent resettlement to people who were only temporarily displaced; instead, they argued, the United States should focus on providing material, technical, and other forms of humanitarian assistance to help countries rebuild after disasters. Other legislators took issue with the natural calamity provision because they said it allowed the United States to drain hard-hit countries of their most highly skilled citizens when they were most needed at home.47 When policy makers introduced an early version of the bill that became the 1980 Refugee Act, they initially retained the natural calamity provision, but Congress subsequently eliminated it from the final law.” (19) TPS - Temporary Protected Status “Despite the small numbers admitted, the “natural calamity” provision was not without controversy. Some legislators said that it was inappropriate to offer permanent resettlement to people who were only temporarily displaced; instead, they argued, the United States should focus on providing material, technical, and other forms of humanitarian assistance to help countries rebuild after disasters. Other legislators took issue with the natural calamity provision because they said it allowed the United States to drain hard-hit countries of their most highly skilled citizens when they were most needed at home.47 When policy makers introduced an early version of the bill that became the 1980 Refugee Act, they initially retained the natural calamity provision, but Congress subsequently eliminated it from the final law.” (21) “Chapter 1 examines the particular vulnerabilities and challenges faced by small island states in the Caribbean in the postcolonial world by examining disasters in the British territory of Montserrat. From 1995 to 2010, a series of volcanic eruptions left over half of Montserrat uninhabitable, destroying homes and traditional livelihoods and driving an estimated two-thirds of Montserratians into exile, to neighboring islands such as Antigua-Barbuda, St. Kitts-Nevis, and Guadeloupe but also farther away to the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States. Paradoxically, a risk assessment conducted a decade earlier had determined that a volcano posed only a 1 percent risk to the population every century. Although they were residents of a “dependent territory” in the powerful British Commonwealth, the 11,000 Montserratians struggled to receive the humanitarian relief and the post-disaster economic assistance they required to survive and rebuild. The crisis made evident the lack of planning, sustainable development, and culturally sensitive remediation in this territory made vulnerable by its geographic features, but it also illustrated Montserratians’ social, economic, and political vulnerability, ruled by dual governments that often worked at cross-purposes. The humanitarian crisis, dubbed the “worst colonial crisis since the Falklands war,” contributed to the restructuring of Montserrat’s status within the British Commonwealth, and this allowed many exiles to establish permanent residency in the UK (and, theoretically, offered Montserratians a permanent homeland should their island become uninhabitable in the future). Those who sought refuge in the United States became the first foreign nationals to become eligible for TPS for environmental reasons, but as the chapter will show, the status created new forms of vulnerability that demonstrated that TPS is an inadequate response for addressing environmental or climate-driven migration.” (22) “ Chapter 2 explores how U.S. foreign policy interests have shaped responses to disasters and disasterdriven migration by examining Hurricane Mitch’s impacts on Honduras and Nicaragua in 1998. At this writing, Mitch is the deadliest hurricane in Central American history, and Honduras and Nicaragua were the two countries that experienced the highest casualties and greatest physical devastation. Hurricane Mitch struck a comparatively small geographic area in the Western Hemisphere, but its impacts were felt across the region. In the first three months after the storm, the United States spent $300 million on rescue and relief operations, and billions more over the next few years, not just out of humanitarian concern but because aid and reconstruction served foreign policy objectives: humanitarian aid would protect the fragile peace secured in the early 1990s, after decades of wars in the region. The United States’ involvement in Central America had deep roots, and this complicated history shaped U.S. responses to Hurricane Mitch and to those displaced by this disaster. In the two decades that followed, neoliberal economic development policies designed to assist Central America’s recovery produced slower-onset disasters that have also threatened lives and livelihoods, displacing even more Central Americans from their homes. Back-to-back political and environmental disasters in these so-called post-conflict societies have made full recovery and resilience difficult and have reinvigorated migration.” (23) “ Chapter 3 looks at a very different case study: the back-to-back hurricanes of 2017 that devastated the American territories of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. As citizens of one of the richest and most powerful nations of the hemisphere, Virgin Islanders and Puerto Ricans did not require TPS or any other immigration status to receive safe haven. Theirs was a form of internal migration: they could migrate freely to, and remain indefinitely in, the continental United States without passports, visas, or the payment of exorbitant administrative fees. In the wake of these hurricanes, tens of thousands made use of these privileges and migrated to Florida, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and other states, following routes established by other Virgin Islanders and Puerto Ricans since the nineteenth century.” (24) Chapter 2: Disaster Relief as Foreign Policy When Poverty, Conflict, and Catastrophe Collide → Hurricane Mitch in 1998 “The disaster made evident the poor city planning, inferior building construction, and unsustainable agricultural, forestry, and ranching practices in many parts of Central America. It also made obvious the deep-rooted inequality there, since it was the rural and urban poor—especially women, children, the elderly, and Indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples—who were disproportionately killed or uprooted from their homes, lands, and livelihoods. The communities of the poor, built with inferior materials on riverbanks, lakeshores, hillsides, and mountain slopes, were especially vulnerable to the flooding and landslides” (54) “When First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Central America a few weeks after the hurricane, a Nicaraguan woman approached her to say that the hurricane “was worse than both the war and the earthquake that [had] leveled Managua.” When Clinton expressed surprise, the woman explained that during the 1972 earthquake and the Contra war, “certain parts of the country were left untouched and life could go on somewhat normally.” Hurricane Mitch, on the other hand, had affected the entire country. There was no place to which citizens could escape. Nicaragua needed more than just short-term humanitarian relief; it needed long-term reconstruction.” (56) “Despite the region’s susceptibility to hurricanes and other natural disasters, regional governments were not prepared to deal with the crisis, in part because of their poverty but also because they were postconflict societies still dealing with the fallout of decades-long war. On November 2, overwhelmed by the “corpses everywhere,” President Carlos Flores Facussé made an emotional appeal for international assistance: “We have before us a panorama of death, desolation and ruin throughout the national territory.”45 Some later accused the Flores administration of inflating the casualties to secure international aid (and by December, Honduran figures were adjusted), but the devastation was staggering nonetheless.46 As Leopoldo Frade, the Episcopal bishop of Honduras, told friends in Miami, “Honduras has disappeared.” The only way Americans could fathom this degree of ruin, he said, was to imagine every single U.S. state in shambles at the same time.47” (58) “In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, President Flores Facussé declared a national state of emergency in his country, imposed a two-week curfew, suspended civil liberties, and ordered the armed forces to occupy key areas to prevent looting.” (58) “At the time of the hurricane, various international NGOs, including agencies of the United Nations, had an operational presence in Tegucigalpa, and these created an emergency coordinating group to work with people on the ground to assess damages, collect information, and mobilize personnel and other resources for relief and rescue operations. The United Nations channeled over $12 million in emergency assistance” (59) Role of NGOs like Porter’s Benevolent Empire “These compelling rationales for assistance sidestepped the fact that the United States had a particular obligation to the region. Central America’s obstacles to recovery were due, in part, to the wars of the previous decades, which had exacerbated inequality and corruption and weakened political institutions and civil society organizations. ” (60) “U.S. civilian and military personnel, including members of USAID’s Disaster Assistance Response Team, arrived in Central America shortly after the worst of the storm had passed. There they partnered with local nongovernmental organizations and international relief workers to deliver aid to the communities left isolated by the storm. Relief efforts for the entire region were coordinated out of the Soto Cano military base in Honduras, fifty miles outside the capital and home to a regional task force of the U.S. Southern Command” (61) “While aid to other countries in Latin America was important, it was Central America that the Clinton administration most worried about. “Central America’s full recovery from the storms is clearly in the U.S. national interest,” said one White House memo: “Over the past decade, the region has made tremendous strides toward settling conflicts, strengthening democracy, promoting human rights, opening economies, and alleviating poverty. The economic destruction and dislocation caused by the hurricane threatens to undermine these achievements. Disaster assistance to our Central American partners will ensure that their transformation continues.” (63) “U.S.-funded initiatives to “restore and relaunch” Nicaragua and Honduras were based on three guiding principles: decentralization, accountability, and environmental security.” (66) “At a meeting at the National Palace of Culture, President Clinton also apologized for the CIA’s role in exacerbating the brutal thirty-six-year civil war in Guatemala that killed over 200,000 (over 80 percent of them Indigenous peoples). The apology came on the heels of the publication two weeks earlier of the findings of Guatemala’s independent Commission for Historical Clarification” (68) “For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression of the kind described in the report was wrong,” said the president, “and the United States must not repeat that mistake.”99 Unfortunately, subsequent administrations did not learn from that mistake. Perhaps most ironically, given the tone and content of Bill Clinton’s speech, is that in 2009, former First Lady —and now secretary of state—Hillary Clinton gave tacit support to the coup that drove from office Manuel Zelaya, the democratically elected and progressive president of Honduras.” (68) “For many Central Americans, then, internal and cross-border migration has been a means of coping with disaster, and migration will only increase as climate change accelerates. Changes in the hydrologic cycle are forecast to produce more storms, flooding, and drought, affecting not only the urban and coastal areas where most of Central America’s population lives but also the region’s rich agricultural zones.198 The impacts of these natural disasters will worsen because of the ongoing deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution that has resulted from poor urban and regional planning and because of the unregulated exploitation of natural resources.” (84) “Instead of blocking the migration of workers, nations in the region could expand the number of visas to allow migrants to work legally in other countries and send remittances to their families and communities back home. In the United States, Temporary Protected Status has served that purpose, but it is an imperfect response to environmental displacement, benefiting only those who are already in the United States. It was designed as a temporary humanitarian response to a onetime event such as an earthquake or hurricane from which nations would eventually recover, allowing their nationals to safely return home. But, as this chapter has demonstrated, some TPS holders might never be able to return home. At what point should they be placed on a pathway to full membership in U.S. society? And how will the United States respond to future environmental migrants who seek opportunities to work in the United States and to send remittances to their homelands but find their entrance blocked?” (87) Conclusion: Moving Forward Natural Disasters May Be Inevitable; Good US Policy is Not “Projections of the number of people expected to migrate worldwide in response to accelerating climate change are sobering, ranging from 100 million to 1 billion people by 2050.13 Estimates vary because, as Kathleen Newland has noted, no allowance is made for adaptation to changes or for the ability of governments and a few other major actors to influence migration patterns. A concerted international response to climate change could have dramatic results: as a World Bank study noted, with the mitigation of climate change, migration could be reduced as much as 80 percent by 2050” (128) “This book discussed the particular challenges that countries of the Western Hemisphere face when addressing accelerated climate change. Montserrat, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico represent the geographic vulnerability of small island states in the Caribbean that experience hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and rising sea levels; but the case studies also illustrate how their political vulnerability as territorial outposts of larger powers limits the resources available to them, especially during times of crisis. Though they are citizens of these larger powers by virtue of territorial birthright, the rights and privileges that should accompany citizenship are called into question during disasters; they have not qualified for the same assistance, benefits, and protections as “stateside” citizens. It is not surprising that in the wake of disasters, residents of these and other territories have called for a redefinition of their political status.” (130) “The Central American case study in this book highlighted the difficulties of adapting to climate change when countries experience back-to-back political and environmental disasters that make full recovery and resilience difficult, if not impossible. Nicaragua and Honduras (and El Salvador and Guatemala) were called “post-conflict societies” because democratic elections and accords signed in the 1990s created possibilities for peace, but in the decades that followed, other upheavals came at a rapid clip, making economic growth and political stability elusive. On the environmental front, the isthmus routinely faced hurricanes on two coasts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, drought, and crop disease that affected agricultural production, landownership, and control over natural resources, as well as access to safe housing, water, and health care. On the political front, these countries experienced upheaval caused by a variety of state and non-state actors. Together with the high levels of indebtedness, these conditions destabilized economies, made it difficult for families and local communities to thrive, and invigorated a large-scale internal and cross-border migration through Central and North America. These migrants have found their entry blocked. Their experiences navigating immigration bureaucracies in the region are a harbinger of challenges to come.” (131) “Natural disasters may be impossible to prevent, but the effects of climate change can be mitigated; and because much of the devastation that occurs in the wake of natural disasters is the result of shortsighted policies, their impacts can also be minimized with strategic planning, sustainable practices, and responsible, accountable, and transparent governance. Addressing climate change is a domestic challenge but also an international responsibility. In working together, nations can effectively respond to this challenge. But will policy makers heed their scientists and exercise the political will to make a difference?” (134)