Mexico

On July 18th, the Mexican Navy intercepted a mini submarine that was transporting more than 5 tons of cocaine. This is a significant operation that highlights the ability of Mexican armed forces to combat drug trafficking by air, land, and sea. Bilateral cooperation between the United States and Mexico contributed to the capture of the submarine. Given the current context, it is important to ask whether foreign assistance in the form provided by the Mérida Initiative or Plan Colombia actually reduce drug trafficking.

Answering such a question is not an easy task. Indeed, there are methodological issues that do not allow to test whether military assistance provided by one country (or countries) to another actually reduce drug trafficking. A large transfer of resources to combat drugs is public information. Drug cartels can observe this transfer. Having observed the transfer, they can modify their activities accordingly. However, this modification is not observable—although intelligence agencies should be able to observe these activities. Cartels can improve their efforts and become even more difficult to catch (they become better drug traffickers); or they can reduce their efforts, thus giving the impression that the aid is working (they play a low profile). This last event is a response to the transfer, not a response to the actual implementation of the funds provided by the transfer.

But high office is run by politicians and not by researchers. Indeed, it is always good to show the photos of a submarine being taken over by Special Forces. We can expect observing more dramatic seizures of drugs under a new bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. The question is whether those seizures will be masking other types of illegal operations that make use of even more fantastic ways of transporting drugs across countries.

The complaints this week from the Mexican Congress about being spied on by the nation’s intelligence agency (CISEN) provide an interesting find.  Although CISEN’s Director, Guillermo Valdes, came under fire from the allegations, his findings allege that drug money is threatening the country’s institutions, along with the strong possibility that drug money was directly involved in some of the national Congress’s campaigns.

It seems that some municipalities are governed by criminal organizations. According to the Attorney General’s Office, drug cartels control 80 municipalities. However, Mexico has more than 2,500 municipalities and controlling 80 of them is far from controlling the entire country. In spite of this, a qualitative interpretation of these events would suggest that things are just not right in Mexico, especially since cartels are said to behave as a form of a government that collects taxes and provides some public goods. The cartels also profit from the sexual exploitation of persons, according to the report.

It is not surprising to learn that drug cartels present a clear and present danger to Mexican democratic institutions. This was recently declared by Guillermo Valdés, head of Mexican intelligence. Unfortunately, the current fight against drugs has not improved the situation. During the last year, the country has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of drug-related casualties. In addition, the federal government has overexposed the military to a force it was not prepared to fight. This explains the need to minimize the involvement of the armed forces and increase the budget to recruit more regular police forces.

The question is whether the new impulse in the fight against drugs in Mexico will start having an impact before the situation becomes unmanageable and drug cartels control more municipalities in the country.

The June 30 signing by President Bush of House Resolution 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, not only includes the Merida Initative to help Mexico crack down on drug cartels, it also funds wide-ranging American policies of which Latin America forms part of the global war on terror (see the President’s remarks here).  To the dismay of Congress, the Merida Initiative was largely negotiated without their consultation, and passed onto the appropriations bill.  Significantly, its passage represents an important compromise between Congress and the President.  First and foremost, it provides funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without timetables or other restrictive conditions.  Secondly, it expands educational benefits from the GI Bill, as demanded by Democrats, and also includes $2.7 billion for natural disaster relief. It also represents somewhat mended fences between the Executive and Legislative branches.

In perspective, the $465 million to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America pales in comparison to the massive spending in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Nevertheless, it represents an important step forward in bilateral and multilateral relations between the US, Mexico, and Central America.  All parties have signed a free trade agreement, which has now led to a security agreement against illegal drugs.  The passage also represents a balancing act between Mexico and the United States.  Both parties weighed the desire to protect human rights against concerns of sovereignty and efficacy.  Its passage is a great step forward, and ideally will reduce the influence of illegal drugs cartels and, if not more importantly, bring Latin America into America’s foreign policy spotlight.  Perhaps the next step will be immigration reform…

On June 30th, President Bush signed into law the Merida Initiative. The initiative is part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, and provides $465 million dollars for the war against drugs in Mexico and Central America. Mexico will receive $400 million dollars.

The Senate passed the controversial bill on June 27th. The original bill had produced strong reactions in Mexico because it required the fulfillment of conditions that were considered unilateral and against Mexico’s sovereignty. In addition, the administration of President Bush criticized Congress for jeopardizing a necessary initiative that would certainly contribute in the War against Drugs in both Mexico and the United States.

Having reached a deadlock, it seems that the inter-parliamentary session between members of the US and Mexican Congresses in early June contributed to the progress of the bill. After the usual exchange of comments between the US Congress and the Mexican and the American governments, the bill was modified and finally approved by everyone. The Bush administration finally got it passed in both chambers, which represents a victory for the administration; and the Mexican authorities stated that the new initiative does not infringe Mexico’s sovereignty and even represents a new bilateral relationship.

This is not the first time that the US government has contributed with large amount of resources to the fight against drugs in Latin America. Although Plan Colombia—conceived in the late 1990s—did contribute to the war on drugs in that country, it was also correlated with instability in the region and human rights abuses. The situation in Mexico is not as volatile as it was in Colombia, but it is beginning to get there. Hopefully, the initiative will stop this process.

On June 18th, the Swiss government announced that it would hand over approximately $74 million dollars to the Mexican government. This is just part of the assets that the Swiss Government confiscated from Raul Salinas de Gortari, brother of Carlos Salinas de Gortari, former President of Mexico. The remaining part of the assets would be returned to other claimants.

In 1994, Mario Ruiz Massieu, a Deputy Attorney General investigating the murder of his brother, resigned to his position during a famous press conference in which he said that “the demons are out there”. With this phrase he informally accused high ranking officials of interfering with his investigation. One of those high ranking officials was Raul Salinas de Gortari, who was later found guilty of planning the assassination of Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu, former governor of Guerrero, Secretary General of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), and former brother-in-law. Raul Salinas was imprisoned in 1995 and released 10 years later due to insufficient evidence of his participation in the assassination. However, he was also charged with corruption and illicit enrichment after the Swiss government found that millions of dollars linked to him could be traced to drug cartels.

On the basis of Swiss and Mexican investigations, it was demonstrated that at least $74 million dollars were linked to criminal activities. These assets are being returned to the victims of the crime. The Swiss government assumes these victims are the people of Mexico. I am sure that the Mexican government will be happy to be the representative of these victims. Hopefully, the government is now free of all those “demons” that were out there in the mid 1990s.

Mexico City’s International Airport is a good representative of the current trends in the fight against drugs in Mexico. Indeed, the airport is a window to the escalating conflict that involves the federal government and its allies—including the US government—as well as drug trafficking organizations that dare to smuggle thousands of cocaine doses through the gates of one of the most important airports in the world.

Any passenger arriving to the new international terminal is likely to see dozens of heavily armed federal agents guarding the hangars of the Attorney General’s Office or the Federal Police. A few years ago it was difficult to see any agents at all. The presence of such a number of agents has been caused by recent seizures of large quantities of drugs at the airport, as well as by the dangerous nature of the organizations that smuggle them into Mexico and the United States. In June 19th and June 20th, the Federal Police seized 58 kilos of cocaine. This is equivalent to more than 116,000 doses of cocaine. This is a small seizure compared to the ton of cocaine intercepted at the airport in February of 2007.

The change in the confiscation rate of drugs at the airport reflects the bloody struggle between the Mexican government and the powerful drug cartels. In addition to the large seizures of narcotics, the federal government has been decommissioning not only dozens of agents whose loyalty has been compromised, but also private security contractors that contributed to the protection of the airport. It has been suggested that these actions resulted in the murder of the head of the federal police in early May.

In an airport that witnesses the movement of more than 25 millions of passengers per year, it is difficult to intercept all the drugs that are smuggled through its gates. Yet, if it is possible to prevent terrorist attacks in larger airports, it is fact possible to deter criminal organizations from smuggling such quantities of narcotics. However, the fight against drugs is not only about capabilities, but also about the political will of the authorities to carry out actions that effectively reduce corruption and decrease trafficking.

The Merida Initiative would provide $950 million dollars in two years to Mexican law enforcement agencies to support their efforts against resourceful and elusive criminal organizations. The Mexican government needs the aid and the executive branch in the US is willing to provide it. But the US Congress would only grant the funds conditional on the improvement of human rights in Mexico. At these crossroads, the positions of these actors are not precisely original.

First, key members of the US Congress—like Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont and member of the Senate’s Committee on Appropriations—believe that Mexican law enforcement agencies are not trustworthy and that tax dollars should not produce further corruption and human rights abuses. This is not the first time the US Congress conditions the use of tax dollars abroad and definitively not the first time the Mexican government is accused of corruption and human rights violations.

Second, high ranking Mexican officials like Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mourino, as well as members of the political parties, have argued that the conditions established by the US Congress for the provision of the funds are not only unilateral, but also represent interference and even infringe national sovereignty. This is not only an old argument that could have been presented by a 19th century Mexican minister of foreign affairs, but also represents a myopic perspective that does not seem to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with improving human rights in the country.

Third, the White House, right in between the US Congress and the Mexican government, has argued that conditioning aid to Mexico is counterproductive and that the funds are vital in the War Against Drugs both in the US and Mexico.

These three actors seem to agree on the fact that American support is important and necessary since the demand of drugs and the flow of arms from the US have fueled the conflict in Mexico. They also coincide on the structural inability of Mexican institutions to fight the drug cartels. However, this is not enough to guarantee the approval of the bill and the provision of the funds. Indeed, the US Congress, the White House, and the Mexican government need to find a middle ground that keeps constituents pleased with the efforts of the officials and lawmakers that represent them, while making sure that they engage in true bilateral cooperation to solve a multinational problem like drug trafficking and consumption.

Drug-related murders in Mexico have soared in the last two months. Municipal, state, and federal police officers have died in clashes against heavily armed commandos or have been assassinated on the orders of drug bosses. It has been argued that this rise in violence is a signal of the Mexican government’s progress in the War Against Drugs. The argument is that cartels, while retreating, have launched a series of desperate attacks on police forces. This “measure of progress” has been complemented by some dramatic drug and cash seizures.

These events have contributed to the recent advance of the Merida Initiative in the US Congress—both the Senate and the House have approved bills that include aid to Mexico, although they still have to agree on a single bill. But is Mexico receiving aid because its forces are doing really well and need further support to win the battle with the cartels or is the country doing so badly that it needs urgent assistance before it loses the War on Drugs? Carrying out the world’s largest cash seizure has definitively contributed to victory over drugs, but losing the chief of federal police has not, specially since this highlights the government’s inability to protect its main strategists and operatives against drug cartels.

The fact is that Mexico needs help to curve ubiquitous violence across the country and strengthen, professionalize, and protect the law enforcement agencies leading the War on Drugs. Indeed, not only are police officers resigning but also asking for asylum in the US. Furthermore, the country’s general population is now affected by drug consumption and fear caused by cartel members roaming through rural towns close to the trafficking routes.

In short, in a multi-front war against drug trafficking and consumption, the Mexican government’s efforts seem to be mixed. In order to recover the confidence of the population and the aid of foreign actors like the US Congress, the Mexican government must reach higher standards, particularly when it comes to the status of the police forces and their members.

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.