CFR Conference Call: Obama’s Trip to Latin America
My colleague Julia Sweig and I share our thoughts about Obama’s upcoming trip to Latin America in a CFR conference call, which can be accessed here.
Justice in Mexico
Behind bars inside a prison in Mexico City (Stringer/Courtesy Reuters).
CFR just released a very thoughtful report by David A. Shirk, “The Drug War in Mexico: Confronting a Shared Threat,” that explores the Mexican government’s capacity to fight organized crime. In it he argues that the U.S. should help Mexico address crime and corruption by focusing on building its judicial and law enforcement institutions. It can be accessed here.
A vivid take on the challenges Mexico’s justice system faces is presented in the extraordinary and award-winning documentary “Presunto Culpable” (Presumed Guilty). It tells the story of Antonio Zúñiga, who in 2005 was sentenced to twenty years in prison for a murder he did not commit, and two young attorneys turned filmakers, Layda Negrete and Roberto Hernández, who attempt to exonerate him. They bring a camera into the courtroom to expose the injustices, corruption and contradictions of a judicial system that presumes suspects guilty until proven innocent.
The film tells the other side of the story to Mexico’s 95% impunity rate: once charged, the court system stacks the deck to keep defendants locked up. Many never even see a judge or their arrest warrant, much less have access to a decent attorney.
While briefly pulled from cinemas due to a judge’s temporary injunction, a higher court overturned the ban last week on the grounds that it is in the public interest for it to be shown. Already the highest selling documentary in Mexico’s cinema history, it continues (at least for now) in theaters throughout the country. Presumed Guilty can be viewed on PBS until March 31, here.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Obama’s Trip to Latin America
A shaman performs a ritual in front of a photograph of President Barack Obama in Lima (Mariana Bazo/Courtesy Reuters).
Between March 19 and 23, President Obama will take his first foreign trip this year – and his first ever to South America. He will kick it off in Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro, then head to Santiago, and finish up in San Salvador. The trip’s goal, as announced in his State of the Union address, is to “forge new alliances across the Americas.” Alongside the obvious meetings between presidents, in the works are business roundtables, a visit to one of Rio’s favelas, an Egyptian style speech to “all Latin Americans” in Santiago, and educational activities for his daughters, who, along with the First Lady, will accompany him.
Why these three nations?
Brazil is the obvious choice. It has grown into an economic and diplomatic powerhouse, weighing in on world issues from financial reform to climate change. Under Lula, it flexed its muscle at times to the discomfort of the United States – on nuclear proliferation and Middle East politics, U.S. bases in the region, and the Honduran standoff. With newly installed President Dilma Rousseff’s openness to deepening U.S.-Brazil ties, there are high hopes on both sides that the trip will open a new chapter in the relations between the two largest economies of the Americas.
On the table will be trade and investment, particularly on clean energy and Brazil’s infrastructure needs in the lead up to the World Cup and the Olympics games. Also up for discussion will be China and its currency, as companies in both countries struggle to compete with Chinese imports and investments.
The other two nations are less obvious stops. Important as nations with which the United States maintains strong friendly ties, they are also examples of pragmatic and progressive governments from across the ideological spectrum. Chile’s Sebastián Piñera is leading one of the region’s most prosperous and stable nations from the center-right– the first elected conservative leader since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship. Obama’s visit will put the finishing touches on a nuclear pact, and the two leaders will work on clean energy and intellectual property issues (in particular the steps to get Chile off the U.S. priority watch list for failing to protect IP rights). Both leaders are keen to discuss innovation and entrepreneurship – part of their domestic political platforms.
El Salvador’s Mauricio Funes rules from the other side of the spectrum. A reformed revolutionary, he is the United States’ strongest partner today in Central America. The presidents will focus on security– Funes presented a $900 million plan to Hillary Clinton last fall, which would quadruple U.S. commitments under the Merida Initiative to Central America – as well as issues of economic cooperation and poverty reduction. The future of the 2.5 million Salvadorans (roughly one of every four) living in the United States will also be on the table, as Funes hopes to replace the Temporary Protected Status under which most live with a path to permanent residency.
What is also interesting is who is not on the list. The President, First Lady, and family will not be stopping in Buenos Aires, Argentina; a decision said to upset President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. Behind the scenes, many feel that the old aphorism once attributed to Brazil is perhaps now more applicable to Argentina, that it is “not a serious country.” Also not on the itinerary is Colombia, in part because Obama has no good news to bring his counterpart on the long-delayed free trade agreement.
Though timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the Alliance for Progress, nothing so grandiose will be in the works. Nevertheless, as the heads of state meet and talk about an array of issues, Obama has the opportunity to make a significant change. In addition to the usual bilateral and regional topics, it is important that Obama bring Latin America into his thinking about global challenges. This shift, though subtle, would be the start of a real transformation in U.S.-Latin America relations.
Published in conjunction with Latin America’s Moment at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Calderón’s Visit to Washington
I published the following CFR expert brief on the U.S.-Mexico summit this week.
The surprise announcement of President Felipe Calderón’s trip to Washington is a chance to right a teetering relationship. On March 2-3, the Mexican president will meet with U.S. President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and members of the U.S. business community. This trip could prove an important turning point in U.S.-Mexico relations. It will, assuredly, be a defining test of Calderón’s statesmanship.
U.S.-Mexico relations have hit a rough patch. The February 15 attack on two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents raised the stakes for the U.S. government in Mexico’s drug war. Agents Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila were driving to Mexico City from Monterrey when drug cartel gunmen intercepted, then fired upon their armored SUV. Zapata died and Avila was wounded. Though the details remain unclear–whether it was a carjacking gone wrong, a case of mistaken identity, or a calculated hit–the idea that drug traffickers would target U.S. officials sent chills through the U.S. embassy and beyond. And the attack lays bare the security challenges Mexico faces in securing even the country’s main thoroughfares.
As U.S. officials worked through the ramifications of Zapata’s death, longer-standing simmering grievances within Mexico’s government boiled over. Behind the scenes, many experts and officials recognized the serious damage done to U.S.-Mexico relations by by WikiLeaks’ revelations late last year. Secret cables signed by current Ambassador Carlos Pascual on December 17, 2009, and Deputy Chief of Mission John Feeley on January 29, 2010, in particular presented unfiltered assessments of the strengths and weaknesses of the Mexican government’s security efforts, pointing to a hidebound Mexican army, infighting between Mexico’s various security institutions, and worries about corruption and human rights abuses. While in line with the views of numerous independent analysts–as well as many security officials in their more candid moments–the leaks have embarrassed the Calderón government, and provided fodder for rival politicians as the Mexican electoral arena heats up for 2011 gubernatorial races and the 2012 presidential contest.
In a wide-ranging and sensational interview in El Universal, one of Mexico’s leading newspapers, on February 22, Calderón vented his anger. He accused the U.S. diplomats of “laying it on thick,” distorting and exaggerating their analyses for ulterior motives. He went further, saying the lack of coordination and rivalry was not on the Mexican but the U.S. side, between ICE, Drug Enforcement Agency, and Central Intelligence Agency. The vitriol was so strong that U.S. Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano formally responded the next day, asserting that not only did U.S. agencies work well together, they did so closely with their Mexican counterparts.
Historically, it is remarkable that the two countries have gotten along this well for so long. For decades, the bilateral relationship has had fits and starts–beginning with expansive promises from new presidents, ending with bitter divisions. Domestic politics were often behind the fracture, as Mexico’s ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) painted the United States as the great imperialist to justify its excesses and heavy political hand, and U.S. administrations changed course at the first hint of domestic opposition. Just as often personal differences, and real and perceived affronts, sank once promising bilateral ties.
Calderón’s upcoming visit has the potential to break this counterproductive historical cycle, principally by getting the two countries’ conversation back on track. That will require strong leadership from Calderón himself. Can he rise above personal grievances and his not unjustified frustrations with the United States to become the rare Mexican president who succeeds during his term in moving the bilateral relationship forward?
This trip will test U.S. policy and commitment to Mexico. The now often repeated rhetoric of co-responsibility and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s heartfelt words of “being a fan” of Calderón are fine, but the United States has to go beyond these niceties. Calderón is right to ask for more–U.S. demand for drugs remains unchanged, illegal guns and illegal gains flow south unabated. Estimates range widely, but tens of thousands of guns and tens of billions of dollars flow south each year. Though the Obama administration recently tried to boost the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’s ability to track gun sales (specifically multiple assault rifles–AK-47s, AR-15s, and the like), it was struck down by the new Republican-dominated Congress. Boehner will have to square his vocal support for Mexico and the Merida Initiative with his reflexive heeding of the National Rifle Association’s demands.
There is a real possibility that U.S.-Mexico relations could fall into a downward spiral. That would be dire for both nations. Much more than security cooperation hangs in the balance. Mexico is the second largest U.S. export market, the largest source of U.S.-bound migrants, the ancestral home of over thirty million Mexican Americans, and an important partner in multilateral negotiations ranging from world financial markets to climate change. With economies, societies, and communities indelibly intertwined, whether it likes it or not, the United States’ future is tied to Mexico’s.
Testimony: Next Steps for the Mérida Initiative
On May 27th, in light of President Obama’s announcement to dispatch 1,200 more National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, I testified at a joint hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism and the Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere on “U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation: Next Steps for the Mérida Initiative.”
The two panels also featured testimonies by Roberta S. Jacobson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs at the Department of State; Mariko Silver, Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of International Affairs at DHS; Alonzo R. Pena, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at DHS; Allen Gina, Acting Assistant Commissioner, Office of Intelligence and Operations Coordination, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at DHS; Bill McDonald, a rancher in Cochise County in Arizona; and John D. Negroponte, Vice Chairman of McLarty Associates.
My testimony is available here and a video of the hearing can be viewed here.
What to Expect from Calderón’s Visit
I was interviewed on PBS NewsHour on the issues that will surface on the presidents’ agenda, including immigration, climate change, and trade.
NewsHour: What is President Calderon looking to get out of this trip?
There are two major things that are on agenda.
One is security. There’s been a buildup of cooperation over the last three years, and he is coming to reaffirm that cooperation, and to get explicit support in that area. The second issue is the issue of immigration and this is particularly in light of what we’ve seen in Arizona. This is really for his domestic audience at home. Mexicans are very upset and as he goes into big gubernatorial elections this July, he needs to take a firm stand on immigration when talking with President Obama to appease that sentiment. Obviously, that is difficult within the United States political context that we see very clearly.
The other two issues that will be put on the agenda are climate change — in the lead-up to the UNFCCC (U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change) Cancun summit, and economic issues such as the trucking dispute.
What is President Obama hoping to get out of it?
President Obama is hoping to get a reaffirmation of what has been a quite close relationship over the year. Obama has met with Calderon several times. They talked as a president-elect, Obama went to Mexico in April and August of last year, they’ve met on sidelines of multilateral meetings, and a whole host of Cabinet and high-ranking officials have gone to Mexico City. Furthermore, first lady Michelle Obama’s first solo trip was to Mexico.
Can you spell out some of the legitimacy issues that are affecting Calderon?
The legitimacy questions are really on Calderon’s agenda. Security is the signature issue of his presidency. What we’ve seen so far is a militarized approach to the cartels, alongside the build-up of a federal police force. But violence has just increased, so today there is a waning of public support for the way the war on narcotrafficking has been conducted. To strengthen the legitimacy of the continued fight, the Calderon government — along with the U.S. government — has begun moving away from the military focus to take out high-value targets, to an approach that encompasses a much broader spectrum of issues. They are talking about a 21st century border that incorporates more technology and can weed out good trade from bad trade, and about building resilient communities, which really means getting at socioeconomic factors that contribute to youths going into the drug trade.
And how have such new initiatives been received?
The idea of these initiatives has been received quite well. But they are quite new, and it is not clear how they will be implemented. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton led a delegation to Mexico in March, to affirm these new directions, but most of the programs are still on the drawing board. Calderon is now more than halfway through his term. His political ability to move security cooperation in this new direction is uncertain. Even if it is implemented, these new party issues — changing the way the border works is a long-term and cooperative process with the United States and others to change the underlying institutions and structures — is going to be very important. There is not going to be a turnaround over night.
What does Calderon need from the United States as far as security?
The governments have already been working together on the Merida Initiative for the last three years, providing equipment and some training to Mexico. The Obama administration has already laid out, with the Calderon government, a new direction for future funding. These new programs will be much less focused on the military, expanding to focus on the border and on building communities. During these last few years, we’ve also seen a real increase in cooperation and intelligence sharing, back in forth between agencies as well. Calderon is coming for legitimization of the approach being taken to make sure that is really solidified in the U.S., in Congress, and not just with Obama. He wants to make sure that the U.S. is on board for the long haul.
Are trade issues also on the table?
Trade issues will come up. Particularly there’s been a contentious issue about trucking, this was part of the NAFTA treaty signed in 1993, and a U.S. pilot program under President George H.W. Bush allowed pre-screened trucks to come across the borders, but it was canceled last year. Both sides want an agreement, and Mexico wants a path forward to allowing drivers into the U.S. Some states would like a resolution as well. This will be an issue that is talked about. The Obama administration says a resolution will be coming very, very soon. What it is, though, remains to be seen.
The Message from Calderón in the U.S.
I was interviewed by the Editor of CFR.org on President Calderón’s visit to Washington.
On his state visit to Washington May 19-20, Mexican President Felipe Calderón will call attention to his country’s new hard line against escalating drug-gang violence that has triggered cross-border concerns. But the issue of immigration could generate heat because of the new Arizona law on illegal immigrants and the controversy it has aroused within both Mexico and the United States. While Calderón is likely to address immigration reform in his May 20 speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, his focus will be on U.S. backing for his aggressive approach to dealing with drug gangs. He wants explicit U.S. support for his programs, even as these are beginning to shift (with U.S. assistance) toward a more comprehensive approach toward the problems of narco-violence.
President Felipe Calderón has condemned Arizona’s new crackdown on illegal immigrants and said it has damaged bilateral relations. Is this likely to figure heavily in his address to Congress on May 20?
President Calderón almost has to mention the Arizona law in his address to Congress; it is a critical issue not just for bilateral relations with the United States but within Mexico’s domestic politics. Mexico is heading into gubernatorial and other elections in July, in many towns and in states along the border, so a strong message back to Mexico is crucial for the president and his party.
At the same time that Calderón is appealing to his home audience with a tough message about the Arizona law, he has to be careful about the signals he sends within the United States. Immigration reform is seen solely as a domestic issue in the United States–and a heavily politicized one at that. Too strong a statement by Calderón could backfire, hurting the possibilities of comprehensive immigration reform.
He is also expected to appeal in that address for cooperation in combating Mexico’s cartels. Discuss the gravity of the cartel-related violence, which some have called “narco-terror.”
Violence has continued increasing in Mexico over the last three years, even as the Calderón government has brought out some forty thousand troops and increased the size of the federal police force (responsible for crimes such as drug trafficking). Drug-related murders reached nearly four thousand during the first four months of 2010, making them the bloodiest yet during Calderón’s term. Fighting the drug cartels has been the signature issue of Calderón’s government, but one where the tide of public opinion is now turning against him. Calderón comes to Washington asking for recognition for the militarized path he has chosen. He wants explicit U.S. support for his programs, even as these are beginning to shift (with U.S. assistance) toward a more comprehensive approach toward the problems of narco-violence.
How would you rate progress in the Merida Initiative?
The Merida Initiative represents a real advancement in U.S.-Mexico security cooperation. It has provided funds–some $1.3 billion over three years–to Mexico as well as substantial cooperation and coordination in the fight against drug trafficking organizations that span borders.
In recent months, the Obama administration, along with Calderón’s team, has revamped Merida. After two years of funding heavily weighted toward military and police equipment, future U.S. security cooperation will focus much more on law enforcement and judicial institution-building, as well as begin to address the underlying socioeconomic factors that lead many of Mexico’s youth into illicit trades. This is a substantial shift, but one that is essential for Mexico to strengthen its rule of law and, in the long term, reduce today’s levels of violence and crime.
In addition to helping with arms flows across the border, can Washington be of help in reforming Mexico’s police, often cited as a central problem in counternarcotics?
Washington has already been working with Mexico on helping reform its police force, starting with the recently formed federal police. The United States has provided funds for equipment, as well as for training of the thirty thousand-plus strong (and growing) force. The next phase of Merida will increase this type of assistance, extending beyond the federal level to reach state and even some municipal forces.
Mexico is also concerned with U.S.-imposed limits on Mexican trucking on U.S. highways, a dispute which last year led to retaliatory Mexican tariffs against U.S. goods. Is there likely to be progress on that issue during his visit to Washington?
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray La Hood has repeatedly said that a new proposal on trucking that would bring the United States in line with its NAFTA obligations is in the works and will be released “very soon.” It is possible that there will be some progress made in time for Calderón’s visit, as it is important not just to Mexico but to many U.S. states whose exports have been hurt by the retaliatory tariffs.
It is important that the U.S. and Mexico make progress not only on trucking, but also that they begin to build a more competitive North America. Mexico is the second-largest destination for U.S. exports today, and it is a growing market. If the United States hopes to boost its own economic growth through exports (as President Obama promised to do in his State of the Union address), Mexico will be a crucial market and participant in that growth. Facilitating cross-border commerce by lowering transportation costs will be essential for both economies to grow.
What would be a signal that this visit from Calderón was successful?
If the outcome of Calderón’s time in DC reinforces ongoing U.S.-Mexico cooperation across many areas–including security, trade, economic growth, climate change–and avoids getting bogged down in contentious debates surrounding immigration, then this trip will be a success for President Calderón.
Prospects for U.S.-Mexico Relations
On May 14th I was a panelist at a Woodrow Wilson Center Mexico Institute event that examined President Calderón’s state visit to Washington. We discussed Mexico’s recovery from the economic crisis, challenges facing political and judicial reforms, and prospects for U.S.-Mexico relations.
A C-SPAN video of the event can be seen here.
Mexico-U.S. Relations: What’s Next?
This article appeared in the spring issue of the Americas Quarterly. It can be accessed in full here.
Open any Mexican newspaper today and the drug carnage is front and center. In the last three years, narco-related murders surpassed 18,000, nearly 8,000 of these occurred in 2009 alone. The macabre nature of the violence ratcheted up too, featuring heads rolling across an Acapulco disco floor, a “stewmaker” admitting to dissolving some 300 bodies in acid and a dead man’s face stitched onto a soccer ball. The drug cartels openly taunt the authorities and each other, hanging narcomantas, or banners, over major thoroughfares boasting about their latest kills and threatening future violence if not left alone. Both the number of the attacks and their brazenness—particularly in states such as Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Michoacán—are unprecedented.
Yet crime-related violence in Mexico is not new. Mexico has always been a supplier of illegal markets in the United States, from alcohol in the prohibition era, heroin during World War II, marijuana throughout the 1960s, and in recent decades, a variety of drugs including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and methamphetamines. As illicit businesses without access to formal contracts and courts, disputes and “mergers and acquisitions” have traditionally been settled with blood on the streets.
What has changed in recent decades is the scale of Mexico’s narcotics operations. U.S. demand has grown and diversified, and Mexico has increasingly become the primary supplier. While in 1990, 50 percent of U.S.-bound cocaine came through Mexico, today the figure is 90 percent.
It’s also important to note that the power base of the hemisphere’s drug trade has shifted from Colombia to Mexico. After four decades and billions of dollars, the U.S. “war on drugs” has pushed the epicenter of these illegal criminal networks closer to the U.S. border. The sheer amount of money that has accompanied this fundamental shift to transportation and smuggling just south of the U.S. border has upped the stakes. More resources have transformed the cartels into increasingly sophisticated organizations—with more professional enforcement arms.
Mexico’s democratization throughout the 1990s, which upset the long-standing collusion between some members of the ruling Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) and particular favored drug traffickers, has been another contributing factor. The PRI’s eroding political monopoly brought in new actors, undermined old deals, and opened up the illicit sector to those previously kept out in the cold. The combination of more lucrative opportunities, heightened competition and changes to the political game created dramatic uncertainty in the market, escalating the bloodshed. Legacies of the PRI’s 70-year rule—in particular the political manipulation of law enforcement and judicial branches, which limited professionalization and enabled widespread corruption—further aggravated the situation, leaving the new government with only weak tools to counter increasingly aggressive crime networks…
Welcome Move on Mexico’s Drug Wars
I published this brief on CFR’s First Take. 
On their high octane visit to Mexico City yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and senior administration officials formally announced changes in U.S.-Mexico security cooperation that had been in the works for months. The U.S. delegation–including chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and top officials from the DEA, Justice Department, border security, and other agencies–met with their Mexican counterparts to officially unveil a “new stage” in bilateral cooperation.
Merida 2.0
The new program will build on the Merida Initiative, a Bush administration policy passed in 2008 that allocated $1.4 billion over three years to fight organized crime and violence across Mexico and Central America. The joint strategy will expand beyond the previous military focus on dismantling drug trafficking organizations and reforming law enforcement institutions to incorporate initiatives to improve border surveillance and to address social and economic factors that underpin the violence. These new strategic priorities will increase vigilance of vehicles going south (not just north), while also moving much of the vigilance away from the actual border through programs to certify cargo at plants. It also means that U.S.-Mexico cooperation will now include local-level operations, providing technical and financial support to local police community-based initiatives alike.
The starkest shift is in how funding will be spent: While over half of the allocated Merida funds has gone to military equipment and training, most of the requested $330 million for the program’s 2011 budget will be targeted to Mexico’s judicial reforms and programs on good governance.
Expect Bumps in the Road
Military to military cooperation will continue to be an important part of the relationship. This makes many uneasy in Mexico, and it is always an easy target for politicians looking to rile up nationalist sentiment. From the U.S. side, worries will continue regarding rising allegations of human rights abuses by the military and others, and the chicken and egg problem of dealing with the weak existing institutions (that permit, for instance, human rights abuses) while simultaneously trying to transform and strengthen them.
Another potential sticking point is the U.S. recalcitrance to address the demand that drives the illegal drug market. As Secretary Clinton made clear in her curt negative response to a question of decriminalization or legalization of drugs at the press conference following the announcement, this subject remains a political non-starter in Washington. More room exists to address the flows of money and guns south, though here, too, powerful U.S. lobbies limit the extent of U.S. actions.
Despite these potential pitfalls, this new strategy to combat drug trafficking and limit today’s extreme violence is welcome. A military solution to a police and judicial problem was never going to change things over the long term.
Yet while attaining these ultimate goals is now more feasible with the broader focus, the chosen path is also much more ambitious. Attempting to address the complex nature of the drug trade and organized crime in Mexico is not easy. Many of the problems undermining current bilateral efforts–incompetence and corruption in Mexico’s police and court system, the lack of legal economic opportunities for Mexico’s youth, limited and uneven access to education, and underfunding in public health and other community programs–are difficult to change.
The results of this more comprehensive approach will only appear in the longer term. It is the next generation of young people that will benefit from better schools, better jobs, and from prevention programs for at-risk youth. Realistically, it will also take a generation to transform Mexico’s police and courts, creating systems where impunity is the exception not the rule.
The question remaining is whether, as the murders pile up daily along the border and elsewhere in Mexico, politicians in both countries will have the patience to see this strategy through. If they do, there is a chance ten years from now that things will be better in Mexico. If they don’t, both countries will be fighting the same drug war in a decade.