Mexico

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.

Today’s front page of BBC World News Online contains an excellent article summing up the complexity of Mexico’s drug war.  The reporters went into cartel-controlled territory to expose the topics that Alejandro and I have been covering: 1) the flow of US arms to Mexican cartels 2) the resulting violence of public officials and drug lords 3) the increasing efforts of cartels to recruit and find increasingly more unique ways to smuggle drugs and 4) the cooperation between Mexican and American authorities.  It’s an outstanding five minute read.

With corn prices rising due in part to global climate changes, flooding, and droughts, the question arises: should Mexico use genetically modified seeds to improve crop yields, particularly corn?  If a seed species were available that was drought and pest resistant, should it be used?  The fact of the matter is that such a miracle seed is available from none other than agricultural behemoth Monsanto.

Even now Mexico has postponed the debate on genetically modified foods.  Surely the issue will arise as its population struggles to cope with rising food prices and its agricultural sector is presented with lucrative export opportunities.  The country is well-positioned to take advantage of export opportunities to the American market.  NAFTA provides the coveted duty-free access of goods into the United States, and vastly simplifies the regulations of agricultural goods.

At the same time, expanding the domestic food supply would lower prices for basic foodstuffs.  If such a simple solution as using better seeds were available, why wouldn’t it be taken?  First are costs for small-scale farmers.  The large Mexican agricultural firms can certainly afford to improve yields using GM seeds.  However, the average small-scale farmer in Mexico has little or no access to credit and/or technical expertise.  Thus, even the option of GM seeds is out of the reach of many. 

 Nevertheless, cultural barriers may present the strongest obstacle to GM use.  With Mexico, along with the rest of Mesoamerica, being the originator of maize thousands of years before Christ, resistance to changing a national staple can be great, particularly when change comes at the helm of a major U.S. corporation.  Concerns about GM transfer to non-target species and species monoculture are also very real.

Despite these concerns, GM seeds are catching on.  Crucially, their use can reduce the risk-prone and cyclical nature of farming.  GM seeds bring a huge increase in crop yields , greatly lowering the relative increase in their cost.  As a result of NAFTA, Mexican farmers face especially stiff competition from farmers in the United States, in part due to massive U.S. government subsidies.  Using GM seeds would be a significant step to level the playing field, and requires little additional technical know-how, training, or capital investment beyond the purchase of seeds.

Thus, it is only a matter of time before a national debate is faced by Mexico.  Crop prices will continue to increase in the near and medium-term and the search for and debate over affordable alternatives will not be far behind.

For further reading (in Spanish): http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/specials/newsid_6317000/6317903.stm

Today corn prices hit an all-time high of $7 a bushel. How does this affect Mexico, which gave the world its native maize after European contact? The answer is two-fold: 1) this represents a hardship for the majority of Mexicans while 2) higher prices present an opportunity for large agricultural exports.

As a staple crop for the vast majority of Mexicans, rising corn prices threaten minimal livelihoods. The 75% year-over-year increase in corn prices directly reduces purchasing power and also diverts higher percentages of incomes toward foodstuffs and away from other economic activities.

With Mexico as the world’s fourth-largest maize exporter, this should represent an opportunity for major agricultural exporters. The Mexican Agriculture Secretary, Alberto Cárdenas Jiménez, explained at the beginning of 2007 that agriculture and maize production were one of the greatest beneficiaries of government intervention. However, Professor Roberto Escalante at la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, la UNAM, explains the stratification of investment as favoring large producers, which are few in number compared to the bulk of Mexican farms that are under five hectares. In the aggregate, these large producers receive 75% of around $5 million in subsidies annually, whereas small producers receive 25% of this amount. The subsidies are directed to the most efficient farms in the states of Jalisco, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua. Few funds reach the poorest farmers Oaxaca and Chiapas, which struggle to compete without technical and credit assistance, land reform, etc.

Paradoxically, Mexico sends much of its more diverse white maize to higher-paying markets for export, whereas much of the uniform yellow corn is imported from the United States. Mexico producers approximately 20 million tons annually, a tenth of the quantity produced by the U.S. each year, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization.

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.