# data[].attributes.headline
Post #4(October 23): In Mexico, avocados bring income — and threats from cartels

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #4(October 23): In Mexico, avocados bring income — and threats from cartels

# data[].attributes.body
In the state of Michoacan, Mexico, a large portion of the world’s avocado production can be found. The boom in avocado consumption(fueled by the U.S.), is bringing many out of poverty. With the rise in income, comes the danger of drug cartels. These cartels were the main money makers of the region before the boom of avocado production. Many of the farmers of these avocados are exposed to their crops being destroyed, taken by force, or even their lives being taken. All of this due to money and greed by cartels due to their monopolization of the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Small-scale avocado growers armed with AR-15 rifles take turns manning a vigilante checkpoint to guard against thieves and drug cartel extortionists in this town in Michoacan state, the heartland of world production of the fruit locals call "green gold."

The region's avocado boom, fueled by soaring U.S. consumption, has raised parts of western Mexico out of poverty in just 10 years. But the scent of money has drawn gangs and hyper-violent cartels that have hung bodies from bridges and cowed police forces, and the rising violence is threatening the newfound prosperity. A recent U.S. warning that it might withdraw orchard inspectors sent a shiver through the $2.4-billion-a-year export industry.

Some growers are taking up arms. At the checkpoint in San Juan Parangaricutiro, the vigilantes are calm but attentive. They say their crop is worth fighting for.

"If it wasn't for avocados, I would have to leave to find work, maybe go to the United States or somewhere else," said one of guards, Pedro de la Guante, whose small avocado orchard earns him far more than he would get from any other legal - or illegal - crop.

Luis, another guard who asked that his last name not be used out of fear of reprisals, lists the problems that came to the town with the avocado boom: extortion, kidnappings, cartels and avocado theft. "That is why we are here: We don't want any of that."

While Mexican avocado growers have for years lived in fear of assaults and shakedowns, the situation went international in mid-August when a U.S. Department of Agriculture team of inspectors was "directly threatened" in Ziracuaretiro, a town just east of Uruapan in Michoacan. Though the agency didn't specify what happened, local authorities say a gang robbed the truck the inspectors were traveling in at gunpoint.

"For future situations that result in a security breach, or demonstrate an imminent physical threat to the well-being of APHIS personnel, we will immediately suspend program activities," the USDA wrote in a letter, referring to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Such a move could block shipments and devastate the industry that supplies U.S. consumers hungry for guacamole and avocado toast. It was only in 1997 that the U.S. lifted a ban on Mexican avocados that had been in place since 1914 to prevent a range of weevils, scabs and pests from entering U.S. orchards.

The Michoacan-based Avocado Growers and Packers Assn. published the warning letter from the USDA - an unusual move that some in Uruapan interpreted as a gesture aimed at making criminals aware that they risk killing off the state's biggest money-making industry if U.S. inspectors stop approving exports. Neither the avocado association nor the USDA responded to requests for comment.

The police chief in a town in western Mexico's avocado belt describes what life is like living with the Viagras cartel. The chief asked that his name not be used. The Viagras are so thoroughly present that he doesn't venture into Uruapan without a phalanx of armed bodyguards. The Michoacan-based cartel derives its unusual name from their founders' habit of combing so much gel into their hair that it stands up on end.

"They've done everything - extortions, protection payments. They've flown drones over us," said the chief. "They come in and want to set up [drug] laboratories in the orchards."

But the Viagras are now also the hunted. The vicious Jalisco New Generation cartel is trying to move into Michoacan on several fronts. In August, the cartel hung nine bodies from an overpass in Uruapan, and left 10 more corpses hacked up or dumped by the road. On the overpass they hung a banner saying: "Be a Patriot, Kill a Viagra."

Farther south, in the hotter, lime-growing region of Michoacan, Jalisco cartel gunmen ambushed and killed 13 state police officers in mid-October. The attack so terrified police that when they went to collect the dead officers' burned vehicles, they worked so hastily that they left behind a crushed, charred, bullet-perforated skull.

Cartels, police and vigilantes alike are spooked by the Jalisco cartel onslaught.

In the cattle-ranching town of Tepalcatepec, which lies on the border with Jalisco state, heavily armed vigilantes - apparently in the employ of a local gang - mount a 24-hour guard in a sniper post atop a hill guarding against incursions by the Jalisco cartel. One vigilante with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder, who refused to give his name, came down from the hilltop to scare away a news photographer. "Clear out of here! Don't you know you have a .50-caliber [rifle] aimed at your head?"

As in much of Michoacan, the violence is largely hidden by a wave of apparent prosperity brought by fruit: Miles of chain-link fencing enclose seemingly endless groves of avocado trees with limbs hanging heavy with the harvest. New packing plants seemingly go up overnight.

But Hipolito Mora, who founded the state's civilian armed self-defense movement in 2013, said appearances are deceptive. The new fruit-packing plants had already been robbed at gunpoint three times in one week by thieves who apparently knew exactly when they would have cash on hand to pay farmers.

"If the business owners were to close their plants, the region's economy would come crashing down," said Mora, who is also a lime grower.

Mexico supplies about 43% of the world's avocado exports, almost all from Michoacan. The USDA has a near-permanent delegation of inspectors posted in Mexico.

A few weeks after the incident with the USDA inspectors, an avocado orchard manager and a worker were kidnapped at gunpoint in Ziracuaretiro, allegedly by municipal police. Seven officers are under investigation in the case, and the Ziracuaretiro police department was essentially disbanded.

Today, heavily armed state police patrol Ziracuaretiro, and Mayor Jose Rodriguez Baca is worried. He has seven town policemen in jail, illegal loggers felling pine trees in his township and a potential economic crisis on his hands.

"This has everyone worried," Rodriguez Baca said of the U.S. warning and violence in his town. "If they close the door on us in the United States, everything would come crashing down."

His township shows the shortcomings of state and federal anti-crime strategies, in which police, the army and National Guard often come into troubled towns, make a show of force for a few weeks and then leave. State police had been assigned to patrol Ziracuaretiro earlier this year, before the U.S. inspectors were assaulted, but were withdrawn in July to attend another hot spot.

Avocado growers are feeling scared, alone and caught in the middle.

Carlos Martinez is a third-generation avocado grower whose 6-acre grove in Ziracuaretiro can produce as much as 50 tons of avocados in a good year, worth about $100,000.

"It is a question of crime, and that affects us as third parties, and our customers," Martinez said. "We just wake up each morning hoping it doesn't happen to us."

Martinez hasn't had any shipments of avocados stolen yet - a common complaint in Michoacan - but he said thieves often steal avocados from the orchards. He, like most growers, had to put up chain-link fences and hire a guard. But it is the fear of kidnapping or the phone call demanding protection payments that worry him most.

"I don't answer phone calls from numbers I don't know," Martinez said.

In San Juan Parangaricutiro, De la Guante is an example of how avocados have lifted many in Michoacan out of poverty.

He was an itinerant farmworker before he planted avocados on 2.4 acres of sandy land 11 years ago. That relatively small plot now yields as much as 10 tons of avocados. This year he was lucky to sell in August, when prices were high, at $2 a kilogram. That means De la Guante earned at least $15,000 this year.

Adriana Villicaña, a professor at Univa Catholic University in Uruapan, said the avocado boom has lifted thousands out of poverty.

"There are a lot of women working at packing plants, and a majority of them describe themselves as single mothers or single," Villicaña said.

However, the rising tide hasn't lifted all boats. The region's 15,000 or so avocado pickers earn an attractive wage for the region, but the job is seasonal and the physical demands of climbing trees with long poles to get the avocados mean few can work beyond age 45.

Villicaña, who also sits on the Uruapan citizen's safety advisory board, says the region's crime problem will be worse if the avocado industry collapses.

"If there were no avocados, where are they going to work?" Villicaña asked. "The most likely thing is that they would hire themselves out to work for the criminals."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Mexico, avocados bring income - and threats from cartels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Small-scale avocado growers armed with AR-15 rifles take turns manning a vigilante checkpoint to guard against thieves and drug cartel extortionists in this town in Michoacan state, the heartland of world production of the fruit locals call "green gold." The region's avocado boom, fueled by soaring U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #3(October 23): E.U. leaders consider delaying Brexit, with the end of January as the likeliest date

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #3(October 23): E.U. leaders consider delaying Brexit, with the end of January as the likeliest date

# data[].attributes.body
Great Britain’s withdrawal from the EU(the withdrawal known as Brexit), is now being led by the new prime minister, Boris Johnson. The transitional/negotiating period, where Britain is attempting a negotiation on trade and transition from being dependent to independent, is growing larger and larger. Britain is asking for more time from the EU through extension periods, due to members of Parliament vetoing proposed plans. The effect of Britain’s departure from the EU will be significant. Economics inside the country, as well as trade outside the country will be greatly affected by this cutting of ties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BRUSSELS - The timetable of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union was in limbo on Wednesday, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson waiting on E.U. leaders to decide whether and how long to delay his country's departure from the bloc.

Europeans had been waiting to see how far Johnson's Brexit deal could proceed in Parliament before they decided whether to delay the day of the split, which is scheduled for Oct. 31. But with parliamentary votes on Tuesday forcing Johnson to give lawmakers more time to scrutinize the terms of Britain's departure, the control of the timing reverts to Brussels.

The likeliest outcome is for E.U. leaders to delay the departure until Jan. 31, the day requested by Johnson in an unsigned letter he sent under protest on Saturday. British lawmakers forced him to ask for a delay rather than to lead Britain out of the European Union in October without any deal in place to buffer the way.

"I'm recommending the EU27 accept the UK request for an extension," European Council President Donald Tusk tweeted Wednesday, saying he had spoken to Johnson by phone to explain his reasoning. Under the likeliest terms of an extension, Britain could leave earlier than the end of January if it approves the withdrawal deal before that and says it wants to go.

But it was not fully resolved whether E.U. leaders would go along with Tusk. France, in particular, has been deeply skeptical about repeated delays to the departure, with President Emmanuel Macron questioning whether the bloc's being flexible takes too much pressure off British lawmakers to act.

What is happening in Brexit? The defeat of Boris Johnson's timetable and what happens next.

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar, who has been an important voice in the Brexit discussions, said Wednesday that he would support the deadline extension to Jan. 31.

Johnson has floated the idea of holding a general election, but it remains unclear how that would fit into a Brexit delay, and for now, E.U. leaders aren't showing much interest in factoring that into their decision.

E.U. ambassadors will meet later Wednesday for a preliminary discussion about the delay request, and they will take further action on Friday. If the remaining 27 E.U. countries are comfortable with putting off Brexit until the end of January, they could agree to it on Friday without further discussion. If not, E.U. leaders would have to discuss it in person, probably on Monday.

"We need clarity on the next steps and a political clarification to stop the toxic uncertainty that is hurting European citizens, millions of families and businesses," French E.U. affairs minister Amélie de Montchalin told the French Parliament on Tuesday. "An extension is requested: What for? With what justifications? We know that time alone will not bring the solution, but a political decision. We cannot extend this situation indefinitely."

But there was widespread expectation that a delay of some sort would be granted and that Britain will not crash out of the bloc next week.

Some British lawmakers told Johnson on Wednesday to get over it.

"Will my right honorable friend get over his disappointment and accept that October 31 is now Halloween and it is devoid of any symbolic or political content and will fade away into historical memory very rapidly," said Kenneth Clarke, a longtime Conservative lawmaker and senior member of the House of Commons.

There was little progress in London on Wednesday, as Johnson met with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn but failed to agree on a timetable to move the Brexit bill forward.

"Jeremy Corbyn reiterated Labour's offer to the prime minister to agree [to] a reasonable timetable to debate, scrutinise and amend the withdrawal agreement bill, and restated that Labour will support a general election when the threat of a no-deal crash-out is off the table," a Labour Party spokeswoman said in a statement.

Booth reported from London. Quentin Ariès in Brussels contributed to this report.

In or out? Labour Party remains tortuously conflicted over Brexit and leader Jeremy Corbyn.

The 'rebel alliance' teamed up to thwart Boris Johnson's plans. Can it stay united to steer Brexit?

Today's coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
E.U. leaders consider delaying Brexit, with the end of January as the likeliest date

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BRUSSELS - The timetable of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union was in limbo on Wednesday, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson waiting on E.U. leaders to decide whether and how long to delay his country's departure from the bloc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #2(October 22): US set to impose tariffs on $7.5bn of EU exports in Airbus row

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #2(October 22): US set to impose tariffs on $7.5bn of EU exports in Airbus row

# data[].attributes.body
The United States and the EU have been in a battle for fifteen years over subsidies that were given illegally to Airbus and their rival Boeing. The ruling made by the World Trade Organization, would mean that items ranging from aircrafts to food and clothing, would fall under tariffs within the EU. The article discusses the issue of an “us versus them” perspective and third part involvement in the form of the WTO. The WTO has backed the United States on what tariffs it can impose on the EU. The EU is now attempting to retaliate with tariffs as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US has been given the go-ahead to impose tariffs on $7.5bn (£6.1bn) of goods it imports from the EU.

It is the latest chapter in a 15-year battle between the US and the EU over illegal subsidies for planemakers Airbus and rival Boeing.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling will mean tariffs on EU goods ranging from aircraft to cheese, olives and jumpers from 18 October.

Brussels has threatened to retaliate similarly against US goods.

What happens next?

US trade officials said the tariffs would be set at a 10% rate on aircraft and 25% on agricultural and other items.

They have published a list of all the items that will be subject to the additional tariffs, most of which will apply to imports from France, Germany, Spain and the UK.

The US said it had the authority to increase the tariffs "at any time" or change the products affected.

Meanwhile, the two sides are waiting for the WTO to decide on what tariffs the EU can impose against the US in retaliation for US state aid given to Boeing. That ruling is expected next year.

The European Commission, which has proposed tariffs on $20bn (£15bn) of US goods, said it hopes to reach a settlement.

"But if the US decides to impose WTO authorised countermeasures, it will be pushing the EU into a situation where we will have no other option than do the same," the European Commission said.

How did this row start?

The US first filed the case in 2004, arguing that cheap European loans for Airbus amounted to illegal state subsidies.

The WTO decided in favour of the US, which subsequently complained that the EU and certain member countries were not in compliance with the decision, prompting years of further wrangling.

The US had sought to impose tariffs on about $11bn in goods. Though the WTO cut that figure to $7.5bn, Wednesday's decision still marks the largest penalty of its kind in the organisation's history.

The WTO's dispute settlement body must formally adopt the ruling but is not expected to overturn the decision.

Could there be a settlement?

US trade officials said the EU's settlement offer came years too late and did not resolve US concerns about ongoing subsidies. Imposing tariffs is intended to produce a better proposal, they added.

"For years, Europe has been providing massive subsidies to Airbus that have seriously injured the US aerospace industry and our workers.

"Finally, after 15 years of litigation, the WTO has confirmed that the United States is entitled to impose countermeasures in response to the EU's illegal subsidies," said US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

He said the US expected to "enter into negotiations with the European Union aimed at resolving this issue in a way that will benefit American workers."

But governments across the EU, including the UK, called for the dispute to be resolved without the new tax.

"Resorting to tariffs is not in the interests of the UK, EU or US," the UK said. "We are working closely with the US, EU and European partners to support a negotiated settlement to the Airbus and Boeing disputes".

Bruno Le Maire, France's finance minister, said the country was "ready to respond firmly with our European partners".

"A friendly resolution to the Boeing/Airbus dispute is the best solution, and all the more so given that Europe could impose sanctions on the US next year," he said.

Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel said: "A decision has been made based on international law through which Airbus will be affected unfortunately and we will see how the Americans will react".

How does this relate to Donald Trump's trade fights?

These tariffs are separate to US President Donald Trump's ongoing trade disputes with countries around the world.

Those were sparked in March 2018 when his administration announced tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium imported into the US.

It prompted the EU to impose €2.8bn (£2.4bn) of duties on US goods such as bourbon whiskey, motorcycles and orange juice last June.

Mr Trump is also considering raising import duties on European cars.

Is there an economic impact?

While the Boeing-Airbus fight pre-dates Mr Trump, another wave of tariffs adds to concerns about global trade, which has slowed significantly amid the many disputes.

On Wednesday, Airbus chief executive Guillaume Faury warned that hitting aircraft with the import duties would disrupt the industry, raise costs and hurt the broader economy - including in the US.

Close to 40% of Airbus's aircraft-related procurement comes from US aerospace suppliers, which it said it supports 275,000 American jobs in 40 states.

"Airbus is therefore hopeful that the US and the EU will agree to find a negotiated solution before creating serious damage to the aviation industry as well as to trade relations and the global economy," Mr Faury said.

BBC economics correspondent Andrew Walker said tensions in global trade had already risen since President Trump took office.

"It's worth remembering that the International Monetary Fund and others see trade conflict as one of the biggest risks to the global economic outlook," he added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US set to impose tariffs on $7.5bn of EU exports

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US has been given the go-ahead to impose tariffs on $7.5bn (£6.1bn) of goods it imports from the EU. It is the latest chapter in a 15-year battle between the US and the EU over illegal subsidies for planemakers Airbus and rival Boeing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Post #1(October 21): Which Countries Do Best — And Worst — At Keeping Big Tobacco Out Of Politics

# data[].attributes.subject
Post #1(October 21): Which Countries Do Best — And Worst — At Keeping Big Tobacco Out Of Politics

# data[].attributes.body
Countries around the world have incredibly strict policies when it comes to the topic of smoking. There is also particular consensus when it comes to influence and interference of cigarette companies upon anti-smoking policies. The article highlights laws on marketing of smoking products. This article can be used along with the film and book,  No Logo(by Naomi Klein). No Logo discusses advertisements and how we are being constantly monitored for marketable behavior and in turn, marketed to. This news article brings into question how smoking can be advertised(if at all), within these countries with strict smoking policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Uganda explicitly bars government officials from accepting gifts of any kind from cigarette-makers. French and British officials must publicly announce any encounters with representatives of the industry. Thailand and the Philippines won't even let officials take a meeting except under the narrowest of circumstances.

These are some of the measures deployed by countries around the world to limit influence over their anti-smoking policies, according to the first-ever Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index.

Produced by the global advocacy group Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products, or STOP, the index ranks 33 countries on a measure that is often overlooked yet crucial, says the report's author, Mary Assunta.

Of the 33 countries, the ones with the least interference are:

Those with the most interference are:

1. Japan
2. Jordan
3. Bangladesh
4. Lebanon
5. Indonesia

The United States ranks No. 8 for most interference.

Assunta notes that prior global rankings on the tobacco issue have tended to focus on anti-smoking measures - such as taxing cigarettes and limiting advertising by cigarette companies - and then compare the degree to which those policies have actually curbed smoking.

But before any of that can happen, she says, "countries need to block off any attempt at interference from the industry. They should not be distracted by the arguments the tobacco industry would present to them." It's not a coincidence, she adds, that "if you look at countries with good tobacco control measures that are seeing a drop-off in the prevalence of tobacco use, you will find that they allow very little interference from the industry. It's the protection that governments need to ensure they are free to act for the best of the public."

Indeed, just over a decade ago, more than 120 nations pledged to strengthen those kinds of protections as part of a global treaty on tobacco control. The report's assessment of their progress is not encouraging. True, there are instructive examples of anti-smoking measures taken by top-ranked nations. But overall, "implementation is moving at a glacial pace," says Assunta, a partner of STOP and head of research at the Bangkok-based Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control, which tracks compliance with the treaty.

In Japan, the country that came in dead last in the index, Assunta says, the biggest problem is that the government owns about one-third of the global company Japan Tobacco - maker and seller of major brands such as Winston and Camel.

"This means that the Japanese government takes a direct interest in ensuring the success of the tobacco business," says Assunta. Among the results: "To this day, tobacco advertising has not been banned in Japan, and pictorial warnings are not required on cigarette packs. In fact, the government even provides subsidies to eating establishments to establish smoking rooms inside buildings."

Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have a related problem - a "revolving door" culture in which senior officials frequently leave government jobs to join tobacco companies, says Assunta. And even when there isn't an explicit link between the industry and the agencies responsible for regulating them, there's often a philosophical alignment, especially when it comes to officials in government agencies that promote trade and economic growth, such as finance ministries.

Officials in those agencies are therefore more susceptible to arguments that the tobacco industry tends to make - for instance that taxing cigarettes will hurt tobacco farmers or just lead to smuggling. This, in turn, sets up a clash with officials in health agencies that have a strong interest in reducing smoking. "And the reality," says Assunta, "is that business or economics usually trumps health in many countries."

An important way to counter this, she says, is to dramatically reduce the contact that cigarette-makers can have with officials - even interactions that can seem innocuous. For instance, one way the tobacco industry gets face time with key officials in many countries' finance ministries is to present them with "awards" for promoting corporate responsibility.

The Philippines is particularly adept at heading off such tactics. "The Philippines civil service commission has said they will only interact with the tobacco industry under three circumstances: for control, for regulation and for supervision," says Assunta: "So no attending social functions or attending awards ceremonies or going on 'research trips.' " Thailand and Uganda have enshrined similar provisions into law.

Of course, such laws affect only bureaucrats. Limiting the tobacco industry's ability to lobby elected officials is just as crucial, says Assunta. In this area, Canada and the U.S. are two of the standouts. Advocates for campaign finance reform often note the many side doors through which money can enter politics in the United States. But at least, says Assunta, the U.S. requires candidates to list direct donations. "There are very few countries that actually require disclosure," she says. "I think it's logical that any business that is making political contributions will one day call upon the official to return the favor."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Which Countries Do Best - And Worst - At Keeping Big Tobacco Out Of Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uganda explicitly bars government officials from accepting gifts of any kind from cigarette-makers. French and British officials must publicly announce any encounters with representatives of the industry. Thailand and the Philippines won't even let officials take a meeting except under the narrowest of circumstances.