Mexico

Mexico is one of the largest exporters of corn. Nevertheless, it also imports almost half of what it consumes. In a world of skyrocketing food prices, this dependency is becoming a national security problem.

In order to reduce pressure over rising food prices, President Felipe Calderón has launched an initiative that promises to improve the situation of farmers and consumers. The initiative is composed of three elements. The first element will facilitate access to basic foods produced in the international markets. The second component attempts to enhance production and productivity in the agricultural sector. Finally, the initiative will try to protect the income of poor families against inflation. In May 26th the Mexican government cut food import tariffs. This measure will immediately reduce the costs of importing corn, wheat, and rice. Additionally, the government agreed to provide a monthly cash payment to some of its poorest citizens.

These measures will reduce some of the pressure over food prices in Mexico, but only temporarily. The program launched by the Presidency does not seem to address structural problems in the Mexican country side such as migration to urban areas—or to the US for that case. The structural problems are so severe that the Minister of Agriculture has stated that Mexico will not be able to produce enough basic foods for the country’s population. Thus the importance of reducing food import tariffs.

These problems fill the Mexican headlines almost 15 years after the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force. In the early 1990s, several groups and organizations warned that Mexico would not be able to compete with its partners and that agriculture would be the economic sector most affected by trade. It seems that the Mexican country side—and with it the Mexican population—has been not only affected by trade in North America, but also by the powerful trends of a global economy. Hopefully, Mexico will also learn how to benefit from it.

While oil prices continue to rise, Mexico is debating how to maximize oil profits and modernize its aging oil industry. The oil industry, nationalized in 1938, is one of the pillars of the Mexican economy and an icon in Mexican history. In spite of this, the industry has experienced operative, technological, and financial problems that have placed Mexico, an oil-rich country, in a position of energy dependence. The state-run company, Mexican Petroleum (PEMEX), requires significant restructuring. The debate resides on how to do so.

The prelude to the debate started in early April, when President Felipe Calderón presented a bill that was considered a major reform to the Mexican oil industry. Two days after the bill was presented, opposition legislators closed the podiums in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Indeed, the initiative presented by the executive branch generated much controversy and the closure of Congress caused strong reactions that resulted in a political crisis. Nevertheless, major political actors—the presidents of the parties, leaders of opposition groups, key legislators, and high-ranking public officials—agreed to a process of deliberation through a democratic and inclusive debate.

The Senate is now hosting a series of debates that started on May 13th and that will last 71 days. During these debates, the most influential political actors in the country will present their positions to Congress—the institution in charge of actually making the necessary changes, including Constitutional reforms. They will be joined by experts, academics, and other leaders of Mexican society.

The results of the debate must be closely followed. Indeed, Mexico is one of the world’s major suppliers of oil and several countries, including the United States, might have something to gain— or lose—from any reform to the Mexican oil industry.

With the war on drugs continuing to escalate in Mexico, I feel it’s important to examine the role that the United States plays in fueling the illicit drug trade. Most of us know that the US is the world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs. The education system is geared to advertise the evils of drugs. Yet aside from education, little is done systemically to address the underlying causes.

Most glaringly is the role that American gun stores and arms dealers play in arming Mexican cartels. With it being nearly impossible for private citizens in Mexico purchase firearms, experts estimate that over 90% of the weapons used by drug cartels are bought or supplied from the United States. Out of the 100,000 gun shops in the US, over 12,000 are within 25 miles of the Mexican border. Furthermore, over $10 billion USD is estimated to enter Mexico to provide funding to buy weapons and new recruits.

President Bush’s proposed Plan Merida is a first step in anti-drug cooperation. Yet without renewing the assault weapons ban and cracking down on the black market for guns, including cross-border smuggling, any initiative will do little to diminish the system-wide causes.

The Mexican armed forces are a pillar of the war against drugs. Indeed, thousands of regular troops are patrolling several municipalities and large cities across Mexico while Special Forces make most of the arrests of high-profile drug lords. In a country plagued by corrupt police forces and heavily armed drug traffickers, the army (which also controls the air force) and the navy have become the country’s last resort in a war that has produced thousands of casualties. Unfortunately, the armed forces themselves are likely to become another victim of this war.

The Mexican army has experienced thousands of desertions in the last few years. According to an investigation of the newspaper Reforma, between 2001 and 2006, the army has lost an average of 30,000 members per year. Although the rate of desertion has decreased to 17,000 in 2007, this is still a very significant number; especially considering where these soldiers go after leaving the armed forces.

The likely cause of desertion in the armed forces is poor working conditions for the meager salaries. According to Benito Jiménez from Reforma, a regular soldier makes between $300 and $400 dollars a month. They could easily make a few more hundred dollars by joining private security companies. More alarming is when soldiers are paid much more for joining drug cartels. This makes the cartels much more deadly, for the trained soldiers are familiar with government procedures. In fact, cartels are now openly recruiting soldiers.

In addition to soldiers leaving for better-paid opportunities, the army is under close scrutiny regarding human rights violations. Although police forces are traditionally associated with violations of human rights in Mexico, the army is no beacon of virtue. Indeed, many military camps served as prisons during the Dirty War of the 1960s and 1970s that produced more than 1,500 disappearances. Even though the country’s human rights records have shown overall improvement, violations continue to occur throughout the territory.

As a result of the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the armed forces were deliberately separated from politics. Their function was limited to the protection of the country from external threats and to relief efforts during national disasters. For decades, the army enjoyed legitimacy unmatched by other Mexican institutions. Lamentably, things have changed. Senior military officers have been tainted by corruption scandals, former member of Special Forces are now bodyguards for drug bosses, and young people aspire to work for drug cartels rather than the army.

So far, nobody knows how this other war within the armed forces will end. If the situation does not improve soon, the army, and the country, will lose the war against drugs.

After exploring the recent death of Mexico’s antinarcotics chief, I decided to explore where much of the funding for Mexican drug cartels comes from. The latest killing of Edgar Millán Gómez (see my previous blog post) has now been linked to a Sinaloan drug cartel (see: NY Times article) and occurred shortly after several of its members were arrested by Millán Gómez.

I found two intriguing maps in the University of Texas at Austin’s Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection. Both are from a 2001 Drug Enforcement Agency report detailing the cultivation of illegal drugs in Mexico. The map on the top shows the cultivation of cannabis; the map on the bottom shows poppy growth.

The states with the highest cultivation rates, Sinaloa (upper-left), Guerrero (bottom left), and Michoacán (bottom left, next to Guerrero) are also the homes of Mexico’s most notorious drug cartels, such as Los Negros from Sinaloa. Michoacán is also the home of Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderón, and the sight of recent drug battles.

Thus, Mexican drug cartels produce significant quantities of marijuana and heroin, which are then shipped to the world’s largest consumer of illegal drugs – the United States. Notably, most of the cocaine in the U.S. is produced in South America (Colombia, Bolivia, Peru) and then funneled through Mexico in conjunction with local cartels.

This morning’s killing of Mexico’s Acting Chief of Federal Police, Edgar Millán Gómez, has put the emphasis back on the Bush Administration’s Plan Mérida. Millán Gómez was the highest-ranking official to be killed since President Felipe Calderón began the crackdown on Mexican drug cartels in 2007.

His death highlights the gravity of the war on drugs in Mexico. Shortly after his election, Calderón deployed 30,000 federal police to combat drug cartels. Despite this, over 2,000 Mexicans have been killed in drug-related violence. President Calderón was attending the funeral of another high-ranking police official when he learned of the death of Millán Gómez.

To aid our Southern neighbor, the Bush administration proposed Plan Mérida, a 3-year, $1.5 billion program to train, equip, and fund antinarcotics and anticorruption police and legal forces. Despite the plan’s importance and dollar amount, the Bush administration has been rather tight lipped about the details of the plan. When it was revealed last fall, Congress was shocked that few members had been consulted in negotiations and were expected to fund $500 million in the first year.

With the concurrent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is unlikely that Congress will fully approve the Administration’s request. The ranking Republican on the House Armed Services committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California) is a case in point. This morning, Hunter wrote President Bush to argue the plan paled in importance to the global war on terrorism. Similarly, Democrats argue that providing $500 million to the Mexican government is unrealistic.

Whether or not the full amount will be delivered by Congress, it is important that President Bush work with, not against, Congress to bolster anti-drug forces in Mexico. A comprehensive strategy is needed to address the drugs problem that not only affects Mexico and undermines the rule of law, but also funds gangs in the United States and destroys areas affected by illicit drug use.

On April 10th 2008, opposition legislators closed the podiums in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. This action effectively forced the remaining members of Congress to take legislative action elsewhere and prevented a fast track approval of a key energy reform that affects the most precious natural resource in Mexico: oil. Between 2001 and 2006, on average, oil revenues constituted 7.9 % of Mexico’s GDP and over 34 % of the income of the federal government.

Two days before the storming of both chambers of Congress, President Felipe Calderón presented a bill that is considered a major reform to the antiquated oil industry in Mexico. The oil industry has been controlled by the State since 1938 and is considered a pillar of Mexican sovereignty. Based on this popular belief, members of Congress from a coalition of leftist parties literally closed Congress in order to “defend the nation” from foreign interests that would take over the oil industry if the bill is approved. The legislators demanded a broad and public debate on oil reform.

Once again, the response from this sector of the Left, led by former Presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has polarized not only Mexican society, but has also weakened the Left. A strong, coherent, and broadly supported Left is needed in a country that is mainly controlled by conservative sectors of society. For instance, a private organization called “Better Society, Better Government” (Mejor Sociedad, Mejor Gobierno) launched an advertising campaign that caused national controversy by comparing López Obrador with Adolf Hitler and other infamous heads of government.

After more than two weeks of negotiations on a national debate over oil reform, the podiums were liberated on April 26th. While this sector of the Left achieved its short term objectives, once again liberal democracy in Mexico lost another battle to political polarization. Yet, the war for a moderate political system has not been lost. Future battlegrounds like the State of the Union Address in September, and national elections in 2009, will constitute some of the major tests to Mexico’s evolving democracy. Hopefully, the Left will not have weakened more political institutions by then.

In March 1st 2008, Colombian armed forces destroyed a camp of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in Ecuador. Raul Reyes, a FARC’s top commander, died in what is considered the “biggest blow” to the guerrilla group so far. The Colombian armed forces also killed 4 Mexican students and injured another one. The incident and the sole Mexican survivor Lucia Morett’s testimony, have caused tensions between Mexico and Colombia, and galvanized the public in favor and against the Colombian President Álvaro Uribe and his administration. This is indeed unprecedented.

First, although relations between Mexico and Colombia have always been close, the conflict has produced tension between them. On the one hand, the Mexican government is obliged to protect the rights of the Mexicans involved. This places more international pressure on the Colombian government to adjust its policies against guerrilla forces and improve its human rights records. On the other hand, these tensions have been fueled by statements given by the Colombian President about the relationship between the Mexican students and the FARC–they were called terrorists and criminals; and by the Colombian government’s refusal to compensate the relatives of the Mexican students. In addition, both countries have dispatched members of their police forces to investigate the circumstances surrounding the deaths and FARC operations in Mexico. In a continent where sovereignty and self-determination are pillars of foreign policy, the results of police investigations are likely to provoke more tensions.

Second, the activities of the Mexicans killed and injured in the attack have caused protests against the Colombian government and declarations in favor of its guerrilla tactics. Conservative groups in Mexico have publicly backed President Uribe and his tactics, and even presented a formal request to the General Attorney’s Office (Procuraduría General de la República) for an investigation of the possible links between Mexican students and Colombian guerrilla fighters and drug-traffickers. According to these associations, there might be a link between the FARC and violent groups in Mexico–which has been plagued by kidnappings and has experienced guerrilla-style attacks in the last few years.

Conversely, relatives of the killed students, supported by their classmates from the National University (usually associated with the Left in Mexico), have argued that Lucia Morett and her companions were only doing research in Ecuador when they were attacked while staying in the FARC camp. According to this version of the story, the Mexican students were in the wrong place at wrong time. Moreover, they accused Uribe and his administration for the murder of their relatives and friends. In late March, protestors demonstrated in front of the Colombian embassy in Mexico City and marched towards the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On March 30th, the Ministry produced a declaration confirming its commitment to protect the international rights of Mexicans. The declaration also condemned the Colombian incursion into Ecuador and requested compensation from Colombian authorities. In late April, some relatives of the students killed in the attack announced that they will visit Colombia and meet with members of the Colombian Congress.

Mexican and Colombian authorities are currently investigating the presence of the students in the FARC camp attacked in Ecuador on March 1st. While the incident has affected relations between Colombia and Mexico, it is important to note that the tensions between the administration of President Uribe and Mexican society are greater than the problems between the Colombian and Mexican governments. Indeed, governments can cooperate and negotiate, yet both are subject to domestic constituencies that demand, on the Colombian side, an end to the war at all costs; and on the Mexican side, the protection of Mexican nationals abroad–which echoes demands for the protection of Mexican immigrants to the United States–and the protection of Mexicans from kidnappings and drug-related violence within Mexico.

At the center of this conflict are human rights concerns. Both Mexico and Colombia need to learn how to carry out their national security policies without endangering the rights of innocent citizens and their visitors. By improving their human rights standards, they would also improve regional security while combating transnational guerilla activities and drug trafficking.