Mexico

Mexico City’s Police Chief, Joel Ortega, resigned today under pressure from the city’s mayor, Marcelo Ebrard, to reconstruct the police force.  Ortega’s firing is a direct result of a botched police operation to catch underage drinking at a nightclub, which prompted a stampede that killed 12 people in late June (see story).  Mexico D.F.’s human rights commission recently released a report that concluded the tragedy occurred from bad planning and excessive use of police force, implicating Ortega.

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…

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.

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.