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.

John McCain’s visit to Mexico in July 2nd and 3rd came as a surprise. The media in Mexico and the United States only reported McCain’s travel plans to Colombia and Mexico just a few days before the trip was to take place. During the trip to Mexico, McCain met with captains of industry, politicians, diplomats, and even visited the Basilica de Guadalupe in Mexico City. The visit to the Basilica produced some sarcastic comments in the media, as McCain is not Catholic and the Basilica is one of the most important Catholic temples of one of the most conservative countries on the planet. Regardless of the visit to the temple, the visit to the country does suggest that McCain wants to “build alliances” in Mexico as soon as possible. If the right alliances are built with the right groups, McCain will get some extra votes in the United States and, if elected President, will get some support in his policies towards Mexico.

However, it seems that McCain is not building the right alliances in Mexico when it comes to immigration. McCain’s position on border security caused more controversy than his visit to the Catholic temple because he suggested that it was necessary to secure the border between Mexico and the United States before attempting immigration reform. This realistic, yet unpopular position—at least in Mexico and some liberal circles in the United States—was particularly highlighted by the media. This is only normal, as there are more than 8 millions Mexicans living—legally or illegally—in the United States.

Overall, McCain’s visit to Mexico was surprising. However, it was a good surprise, as the trip suggests that Mexico is more important in his platform than previously announced. Although Barack Obama has addressed the issue of Mexico before, he has not suggested that Mexico is in his itinerary. Although a visit to Mexico can only bring limited votes—which is what matters in an election—there is nothing wrong with paying a visit to one the most important allies of the United States in the Americas.

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.

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.

Barack Obama’s official position—at least according to his campaign website—is limited to promoting further economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration. This is a reductionist position on one of the most important financial and political relationships in the world. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Obama does not have a more detailed platform in regard to US-Mexico relations. It is just that this platform is not on Obama’s website. This is unfortunate, as the website is the most obvious place to find about Obama’s position in regard to Mexico.

In February 2008, Obama proposed to “repair the relationship with Mexico”. This renovation is divided in three main issues: immigration, drug trafficking, and NAFTA. Obama’s proposals in these areas are more politically correct than innovative, but at least there is an acknowledgement that US-Mexico relations need to be renovated in order to solve common problems. John McCain’s proposal is limited to “building alliances in Mexico” in order to secure the border and solve the immigration problem in the US.

Obama’s campaign is far from being over. Hopefully, by the time his campaign has come to an end, he will have a clear, detailed, innovative, and realistic policy towards Mexico. If he wins the Presidency, such a platform will be a good starting point in the renovation of relations between the US and Mexico.

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.

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.