Centroamérica / Violence

Feminist Collective Pushes Back Against Violence in Honduras


Thursday, February 27, 2020
Vienna Herrera

Andrea Nuila Hermannsdorfer. Photo: Martín Cálix.
Andrea Nuila Hermannsdorfer. Photo: Martín Cálix.
Honduran women are no strangers to the organized crime and drug trafficking practices that govern the country. They are involved in their dynamics as objects of desire and as indispensable labor forces, helping these activities expand and remain afloat by assuming all household duties, thus allowing the 'narco' — the practices surrounding the production and trafficking of illegal drugs — to function and sustain the dynamics of gender-based violence that arise within organized crime.

This present analysis by the feminist collective Luchemos (Let’s Fight), was made after Antonio 'Tony' Hernández, the brother of the current president of Honduras, was convicted for conspiring to import cocaine into the United States, as well as three other crimes.

The characters involved in drug trafficking on the national stage include civil servants, politicians, and former police officers — currently, personalities from all three categories are facing criminal charges in the United States. In a statement during Hernández’s trial, Assistant United States Attorney Emil Bove revealed that 'as of 2010, the president of Honduras has deployed military forces to the border with Guatemala with the purpose of protecting drug trafficking activities,'' as well as making use of military bases, patrols, and radars to safeguard drug shipments.

The link between military forces and drug trafficking activities was questioned throughout the trial, even though a month prior president Hernández had approved, by way of an executive decree, the Program for the Agricultural Development of Honduras, which is to be administered by the Armed Forces. With the program, the role of the military would be not only to ensure public safety, as the president himself determined when he militarised police forces, but also to run food security.

The agricultural development program is set to receive a budget of four billion lempiras ($103 million US dollars), distributed between 2019 and 2025. Several social sectors see this as a measure to further strengthen the militarization of the country. After the Luchemos collective gained access to the program’s agricultural plans, they denounced the program for focusing mainly on the departments where there is a higher level of territorial conflicts over extractive projects and in areas that lie in well-known drug trafficking routes.

Contracorriente’s Vienna Herrera spoke with Andrea Nuila, a member of the feminist collective Luchemos, about territorial conflicts and drug trafficking practices, and how these conflicts compound violence against women. The interview has been lightly edited in translation.

Banner from feminist organizations against the militarization of the country, in front of the Presidential Palace, Tegucigalpa, November 1, 2019. Phooto: Martín Cálix.
Banner from feminist organizations against the militarization of the country, in front of the Presidential Palace, Tegucigalpa, November 1, 2019. Phooto: Martín Cálix.
Vienna Herrera: How do you see the overall state of violence against women in Honduras?
Andrea Nuila: The number of femicides has risen and domestic and intra-familial violence is a permanent fact that has in no way decreased. I would argue that these issues persist because they have to do with structural conditions that go beyond the grasp of superficial public politics, which just pretend to answer to the issues of violence and sexism. In reality, they don’t answer to the actual experiences that most women are facing. We’re interested in understanding how a generalized state of violence, which naturally forms part of the production and trafficking of drugs in this country is related to the life of women.

According to the analyses you’ve made as a collective, what correlation do you find between drug trafficking and violence against women?
Our Mexican counterparts, who have had more time to analyse from a conceptual standpoint what is happening and how drug trafficking affects women, apply various categories to their analyses — they’re not looking to assign moral values to the roles played by women, but rather to understand how women fit in this system.

On one hand, they speak of women as an inherent component in the mechanisms of drug production. Much in the same way as in any other area of the economy, women assume the lesser paid jobs, the most dangerous jobs, and their work is of course highly sexualized. Their work is directly linked to gender roles, given that they are conditioned to utilize their bodies in certain ways in order to ensure that the production and accumulation of narco activities continues to function. In more conservative terms: the narco uses women’s bodies to accumulate capital.

On the other hand, we can look at women as victims of violence: victims of human trafficking, and victims of an environment where any resolution is dealt through with the use of weapons. Generally, all this points to women being in a position of vulnerability, given that they can also be utilized as prizes to be won.

These studies were interesting in order to further understand what’s happening in our own country, where activities take place in a sort of underworld from which we can gather little to no information.

What analysis has been drawn with regards to the way in which drug traffickers refer to women?
During the trial of Tony Hernández, the newspapers and TV analysts all presented a male viewpoint. Any analysis they presented was always from a man’s perspective, attentive only to their politics and driven by a male-oriented focus, which we could argue is where both the problem and the solutions can be found. We, from Luchemos, form part of the opposition and feel a sense of alarm when we see that proposed solutions do not consider the feminist agenda as a viable contribution.

Throughout the trial, the only reference made with regards to how drug trafficking affects women was made by the accused, Tony Hernández himself. This reference didn’t even take place during the court sessions, but rather in the DEA interrogation video that went viral, in which Tony Hernández alludes to women being present at parties, referring to them as 'the things, the accessories' — in this way we became mere accessories, not only within the above-described scene, but also within the general discussion on the subject of narco practices. We have since committed ourselves to making sure our perspectives form a part of the discussion once again.

In terms of social movements, do you think that the topic of women’s rights forms part of a secondary agenda?
Yes, I do think that seeing our issues relegated to a secondary position has always formed part of the feminist struggle in general, not only in Honduras. When it comes to organizations that have a mix of male and female actors, it’s a challenge for women to obtain leadership positions, for women to participate in the elaboration of political strategies, and for women to be at the forefront of these organizations. It’s difficult for a number of reasons, and even more difficult for women to challenge the double standards that exist within society and within the institutions or organisations that rely on institutional power. How can a woman become a political representative? She must first fight against sexism within her own party. Otherwise, when she fights against the larger social structures in her country, she can be attacked or exposed to attacks not just for her political convictions, but also for the way she looks and what she does in her private life.

What would be a possible solution to combat such practices?
We need to understand that this is a real challenge embedded within complicated social relationships, but we don’t think that the solution is to opt for exile from political engagement, but rather to keep fighting from within, engaging within all organizations in order to combat and counter these stereotypes and to rethink new ways of engaging politically. The idea is not just to break the dichotomy within feminism, which posits us as the enemies of our male counterparts when it comes to setting our agenda, but rather to transform the agenda completely — it’s not about small additions that include a gendered perspective, but about transforming the entire political agenda.

The analyses you’ve made indicate higher levels of violence against women in the time period in which Los Cachiros [the illegal drug trafficking organization that ran most drug smuggling in Honduras, and collaborated with high-level officials, until 2015] had their strongest involvement in violent activities. How does this relate to what you’re seeing now?
We found it interesting to note that the time period in which narco activities were being consolidated in support of the candidacy of Juan Orlando was also the moment in which there was a significant rise in the number of femicides. The question is, how can you measure, with any certainty, the correlation between growing levels of femicides and narco activities? It’s difficult, which is why we need to look at the general context. For us, it’s more than evident that in places where there is a growth in violence followed by a growth in femicides, there also turns out to be a rise in drug-related territorial struggles.

These findings represent only a small part, however, of what we would have been able to uncover if the state was in any way interested in digging deeper, or if we had the resources or the access to do so.

Andrea Nuila Hermannsdorfer, speaking with Contra Corriente. Photo: Martín Cálix.
Andrea Nuila Hermannsdorfer, speaking with Contra Corriente. Photo: Martín Cálix.

What correlation do you find between the agricultural program and the places in the country with the highest level of extractive projects? According to your studies and the information you’ve obtained, what are the main points of focus within the program?
We obtained information about the departments where preparations for the program are being made — not because there are public documents available where we can access this information, but simply because we had access to an official plan, provided by people who are participating in its formulation.

We noticed that Choluteca, a place where Model Cities are proposed to be implemented, is also one of the places where the militarisation of agri-food production is being prioritized. It would be strange to consider that the military is heading to Colon to initiate trainings with peasant organizations without also considering that underneath all this activity they may also exert some sort of control over these organizations [or promote] any political objectives, strategies and dynamics they may have. The whole thing is highly suspicious.

You also mentioned that comes with a message of instrumentalization towards the role of women in order to justify the agricultural plan. What is the reality of the women who are involved in agricultural activities, according to your knowledge, and in what areas should the state turn its focus?
With regards to the struggles that peasant women have undertaken in the country, it is my understanding that CREDIMUJER was approved five years ago and still hasn’t been executed. However, the State’s Joint Staff has been granted four billion lempiras in order to take over the administration of agriculture and resolve the land disputes. Tell me, what role do women play in this space? What interests do the military have in the territories where these women engage in agricultural production?

The basis of the executive decree for the establishment of the agricultural plan included the strengthening of public plans and politics inclined to safeguard gender equity and food sovereignty in the countryside. I find this interesting, since the women who are working in territories of conflict suffer a type of gender-based violence that’s different from the violence faced by men, especially when the perpetrators of that violence are the military members themselves.

Those of us who became involved, following the coup d’état, in the investigation of these cases learned that many of the women who were attacked by the military were also raped, or experienced having objects inserted into their vaginas. There are members of the military who were tried for these actions. I daresay that these women do not feel any safer with the presence of the military in these areas, and I also don’t think that they need men with guns around in order to carry out tasks of agricultural production or to run their projects. What they need is for the state to assume responsibility and to deliver the funds that they promised, as well as meet the demands of the peasant movements: access to lands, redistribution of resources, and the provision of adequate compensation for all the work that women do, which is neither recognized nor valued.

It would be ideal to think that instead of using the military as a way to channel funds, we could come up with a way in which they would, instead, safeguard the lives of women who work in the fields but who have no direct access to credit or land titles, but who every day rise at 4 a.m. to head to the fields or to work in the home, doing all the necessary domestic work that enables their children to work the lands. But, of course, this is not seen as a priority.

What does greater militarization mean for women?
Personally, I think it represents power or control. I don’t think that women have a good relationship with the Armed Forces in this country — our very own history points to this, and I don’t see how the military can serve as an emancipatory tool to better our conditions.

logo-undefined
Support Independent Journalism in Central America
For the price of a coffee per month, help fund independent Central American journalism that monitors the powerful, exposes wrongdoing, and explains the most complex social phenomena, with the goal of building a better-informed public square.
Support Central American journalism.Cancel anytime.

Edificio Centro Colón, 5to Piso, Oficina 5-7, San José, Costa Rica.
El Faro is supported by:
logo_footer
logo_footer
logo_footer
logo_footer
logo_footer
FUNDACIÓN PERIÓDICA (San José, Costa Rica). All rights reserved. Copyright © 1998 - 2023. Founded on April 25, 1998.