As if combating vicious narco-syndicates were not a sufficiently formidable challenge, the Mexican government has assigned such additional roles to the Army and Navy as overseeing customs agents, serving as state and municipal security chiefs, taking charge of prisons, protecting airports, safeguarding migrants, functioning as firefighters, preventing drug trafficking around schools, establishing recreational programs for children, and standing guard 24-hours a day over boxes of ballots cast in recent elections. This expansion of duties has sparked the accusation that Mexico is being "militarized." A creative outreach program includes parades and other ceremonial extravaganzas, pilots encourage adults and children to hop into the seat of a helicopter; other wide-eyed youngsters grasp the controls of anti-aircraft weapons; admiring onlookers are invited to shake hands and have photos taken with nationally prominent military athletes; in Veracruz and other ports, residents are given tours of ships...

In the absence of honest, professional civilian law-enforcement agencies, President Felipe Calderón assigned the military the lead role in his nation's version of the "War on Drugs" that he launched in 2006. While the armed forces have spearheaded the capture and/or death of several dozen cartel capos, the conflict has taken its toll on the organizations in terms of deaths, corruption, desertions, and charges by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) of hundreds of human rights violations. The nation's Supreme Court has taken the first step in requiring that officers and enlistees accused of crimes against civilians stand trial in civil courts rather than hermetic military tribunals. As if combating vicious narco-syndicates were not a sufficiently formidable challenge, the government has assigned such additional roles to the Army and Navy as overseeing customs agents, serving as state and municipal security chiefs, taking charge of prisons, protecting airports, safeguarding migrants, functioning as firefighters, preventing drug trafficking around schools, establishing recreational programs for children, and standing guard 24-hours a day over boxes of ballots cast in recent elections. Meanwhile, because of their discipline, training, and skill with firearms, security firms are snapping up men and women who have retired from active duty. The sharp expansion of the armed forces' duties has sparked the accusation that Mexico is being "militarized." Contributing to this assertion is the Defense Ministry's robust, expensive public relations campaign both to offset criticism of civilians killed in what the Pentagon would label "collateral damage" and to increase contacts between average citizens and military personnel, who often constituted a separate caste. The author examines the ever wider involvement of the armed forces in Mexican life by addressing the question: "Is Mexican society being 'militarized'?"If the answer is "yes," what will be the probable impact on relations between the United States and its southern neighbor?

This anthology serves as a fundamental guide to PSYOP philosophy, concepts, principles, issues, and thought for both those new to, and those experienced in, the PSYOP field and PSYOP applications. It clarifies the value of PSYOP as a cost-effective weapon and incorporates it as a psychological instrument of U.S. military and political power, especially given our present budgetary constraints. Presents diverse articles that portray the value of the planned use of human actions to influence perceptions, public opinion, attitudes, and behaviors so that PSYOP victories can be achieved in war and in peace.

Freedom in the World, the Freedom House flagship survey whose findings have been published annually since 1972, is the standard-setting comparative assessment of global political rights and civil liberties. The survey ratings and narrative reports on 194 countries and 14 territories are used by policymakers, the media, international corporations, civic activists, and human rights defenders to monitor trends in democracy and track improvements and setbacks in freedom worldwide. The Freedom in the World political rights and civil liberties ratings are determined through a multi-layered process of research and evaluation by a team of regional analysts and eminent scholars. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information, including foreign and domestic news reports, academic studies, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region, in conducting their research. The methodology of the survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and these standards are applied to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or level of economic development.

Human Rights And Comparative Foreign Policy Is The First Book In English To Examine The Place Of Human Rights In The Foreign Policies Of A Wide Range Of States During Contemporary Times. The Book Is Also Unique In Utilizing A Common Framework Of Analysis For All 10 Of The Country Or Regional Studies Covered. This Framework Treats Foreign Policy As The Result Of A Two -Level Game In Which Both Domestic And Foreign Factors Have To Be Considered. Leading Experts From Around The World Analyze Both Liberal Democratic And Other Foreign Policies On Human Rights. A General Introduction And A Systematic Conclusion Add To The Coherence Of The Project. The Authors Note The Increasing Attention Given To Human Rights Issues In Contemporary Foreign Policy. At The Same Time, They Argue That Most States, Including Liberal Democratic States That Identify With Human Rights, Are Reluctant Most Of The Time To Elevate Human Rights Concerns To A Level Equal To That Of Traditional Security And Economic Concerns. When States Do Seek To Integrate Human Rights With These And Other Concerns, The Result Is Usually Great Inconsistency In Patterns Of Foreign Policy. The Book Further Argues That Different States Bring Different Emphases To Their Human Rights Diplomacy, Because Of Such Factors As National Political Culture And Perceived National Interests. In The Last Analysis States Can Be Compared Along Two Dimensions Pertaining To Human Rights: Extent To Which They Are Oriented Toward An International Rather Than National Conception Of Rights; And Extent To Which They Are Oriented Toward International Rather Than National Action To Protect Human Rights.