Three weeks ago, Reynosa, Mexico–just across the Rio Grande from McAllen, Texas–exploded in violence. The Zetas and the Gulf cartels, once allies, began what may become a fight to the death. The turf war over a lucrative passageway to the United States reportedly claimed over one hundred lives, though no official headcount is available, as observers bemoan the lack of official presence–the local government as well as the army.
But what happened some eight hundred miles to the west on Saturday in Ciudad Juarez, when three U.S. consulate workers–two of them U.S. citizens–were killed in their cars in broad daylight wasn’t likely masterminded by drug cartel leaders. Such assassinations would be bad for cross-border business. Instead, this first case of serious violence against U.S. citizens in the “war on narcotraffickers” waged by President Felipe Calderon’s administration was probably committed by one of Ciudad Juarez’s gangs. Initial intelligence points to the Aztecas, a local gang of hitmen who have worked with “La Linea,” the enforcement arm of the Juarez cartel, which was also implicated in the January 31 massacre of sixteen youths at a birthday party.
In places like Ciudad Juarez, the prevalent depiction of a battle between highly organized and disciplined drug cartels is misleading. Instead, these “organizations” are sprawling networks full of freelancers who might work one day for a cartel, the next on their own or with a local gang. Some of the violence of recent years is between street toughs and gangs, often resolving local turf wars. This growing problem, while fueled by the money and guns associated with the drug trade, is distinct from the presence of multinational criminal drug-trafficking organizations.
Ciudad Juarez today presents a bleak picture. City infrastructure and manpower are overwhelmed; the dominant maquila factories offer only low-wage labor; and over 40 percent of the city’s youths are neither in school nor lawfully employed. Exclusion from the hope of joining Mexico’s developing middle class along with weak control mechanisms mean disaffected youth coalesce around an alternative source of social “status”–urban gangs.
In the aftermath of the shooting, President Obama vowed to continue to work with the Calderon government “to break the power of the drug trafficking organizations that operate in Mexico and far too often target and kill the innocent.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed to “ensure that the perpetrators . . . are brought to justice,” reasserting that “this is a responsibility we must shoulder together, particularly in border communities where strong bonds of history, culture, and common interest bind the Mexican and the American people closely together.”
The United States should support Mexico during this moment–as the events of the past few weeks and this weekend show how closely tied Mexico’s stability and safety are to our own. Yes, weapons and equipment are needed for Mexico’s police forces–particularly at the local level where beat cops often patrol without bulletproof vests and in rundown squad cars. Many are even required to buy their own bullets.
But it is not just more gun power that Mexico needs. Instead, it is a functioning police and court system, a better and more open education system, and programs for early intervention, and professional development for at-risk youth. Partnerships between the United States and a wide range of agencies and stake holders at Mexico’s federal, state, and, most importantly, local levels will be vital for the coordination and pooling of resources and expertise.
This broader challenge of reknitting Mexico’s social fabric in places such as Ciudad Juarez is what Mexico struggles most with today. In light of the weekend violence, the United States should prioritize efforts that will assist Mexico in pushing through the changes that will actually matter, changing today’s violent dynamic for the long term.
Last night Chris Sabatini from the Council of the Americas and I joined Martin Savidge on WorldFocus to discuss the Obama administration’s policy toward Latin America. The conversation focused on natural resources, relations with Cuba, Venezuela and the war on drugs.
Philip Caputo paints a grim picture of Mexico’s current war on drugs in which appears in the December 2009 issue of The Atlantic. His pessimism reflects more than just skyrocketing murders in places such as Ciudad Juarez, or the seeming inability of the local police forces and courts to get to the bottom of these crimes. His chief concern revolves around Mexico’s military.
Caputo suggests that the military is in cahoots with the drug cartels today, much as they were in the past. Laying out what he can piece together from the few wary interviewees willing to speak to him, he depicts an independent military dismissive of human rights in the best case, and a military turned cartel in the worst. With both the Calderon and the U.S. government pinning their hopes in the war on drugs on this military, either scenario is bad news.
However corrupt the military is today, there is a fundamental difference from the earlier parallels he poses, and these differences matter for Mexico’s future. In the 1980s the secretary of defense was found to be working with no less than three drug cartels, and in the 1990s Mexico’s “drug czar” was discovered to be on the payroll of the Juarez cartel. But these incidences were part of a larger systematic relationship between drug traffickers and the long-standing ruling political party, the PRI. The military’s past drug ties can’t be seen in isolation from an organized system of control and enrichment constructed by the PRI that also encompassed the police, courts, and politicians.
Today, it isn’t that corruption has ended. But it is no longer as centralized and coordinated as in the past. Democratization opened up not just the political system to different political parties, but also the illicit economy – effectively ending the unwritten contracts that existed for years between the PRI and particular drug traffickers.
What this means is that corruption in the military today is more autonomous than in the past – not linked to a larger system, not controlled or checked by any political party, and perhaps not coming from the top of the chain of command. For some, this may be even worse news – well armed forces with no master. But, this shift may also mean that it is now much more possible to attack corruption – whether in the military or other parts of the government. With each pocket today no longer part of the larger functioning of an authoritarian system, a focused combination of vetting, training, prosecution, and long-term institution building could yield results. Mexico’s corruption remains a very difficult, but no longer insurmountable problem. And the current democratic political dynamic – forcing politicians to appeal to voters – may increase the chances that the Mexican government goes down a different road.
This better outcome is by no means guaranteed. It will take an incredible amount of work and resources over a long period of time. But the underlying dynamics today are quite different, and they provide Mexico – and the United States –an opportunity so that in ten years another journalist will not be writing a similar “Fall of Mexico” story.
In May 2009 I participated in a workshop entitled “American Foreign Policy: Regional Perspectives” sponsored by the William B. Ruger Chair of National Security Economics at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. With a new administration in office, the meeting aimed to formulate and recommend new directions for American policy for each of the major regions of the world.
The monograph from the meeting was released today and is available online at:
http://www.usnwc.edu/academics/courses/nsdm/documents/Ruger09_WEB.pdfAlong with my own views on U.S.-Latin America relations, you can find writings from Peter Hakim, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, and Amb. Paul D. Taylor, Senior Strategic Researcher at the Naval War College. Assuming Arturo Valenzuela will in fact be confirmed now that Congress is back in session, he will be soon facing the many issues we discussed – public security, sustainable energy, economic advancement, and hemispheric migration among others.
For those of you who may prefer to read in Spanish, my Foreign Affairs article on Mexico has been translated and appears in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs Latinoamerica, which you can find here.
Steep economic decline, rising public insecurity, and the resurgence of swine flu threaten North America today. As U.S. President Barack Obama and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper head to Guadalajara, Mexico to meet with President Felipe Calderon, the agenda looks quite difficult. Add to this the equivocal support within the U.S. government for free trade, and the outlook for this summit looks grim. Yet now more than ever we need to appreciate the real lessons of NAFTA, and focus on our own neighborhood. All three countries will benefit from working together rather than moving apart.
Often maligned in all three countries, NAFTA has, on balance, benefited the region. By creating one of the largest trading blocks in the world, this trade agreement not only tripled regional trade and generated an estimated 40 million new jobs during its first fifteen years, but also helped spur similar agreements world wide. Even as economic recession frightens North American citizens, it is precisely the growth of free trade that will be the basis for economic recovery in all three countries. All efforts should be made to support its progress, resolve underlying disputes, and limit the barriers to economic integration.
Security too is a growing concern for all three North American leaders. While bloodshed so far has been concentrated in Mexico, Canadian and American citizens have also been caught up in the violence and the reach of organized crime and drug networks is apparent throughout the region. President Calderon has made a commitment to radically reduce the power of the drug cartels, but no unilateral solution is possible. The Guadalajara summit provides an opportunity to think creatively about cooperative action to address Mexico’s current challenge. Canada, as well as its NGOs , academic, and corporate communities , has a significant history of supporting democratization processes, fighting crime and corruption, and building institutions in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Lessons learned there could be helpful in dealing with similar issues on a much larger scale in its North American partnerships.
The most vivid recent example of the indelible ties between the North American nations – and the real benefits gained from close cooperation – occurred this last April with the discovery of the H1N1 virus. The spread of this flu respected no boundaries. Luckily, the response too crossed borders. With the initial cases found in Mexico, Canadian scientists first cracked the genetic makeup of the virus. As the virus spread, Canada and the United States sent epidemiologists to Mexico, who worked side by side investigating and controlling the outbreak. The three nations continue to share all data on the virus and its development in an unprecedented manner, and should use this moment to prepare together for the possible return of H1N1 this fall.
Joint programs and collaborative action to address climate change, environmental degradation, and renewable energy initiatives will make faster and deeper progress than individual activity in these areas. Mexico and the US announced in April a bilateral framework on clean energy and climate change. In July Canada announced that it will match US restrictions on greenhouse emissions. Just as NAFTA served as a catalyst for other extensive trade agreements, the US, Canada and Mexico should set the standard for regional cooperation on the global issues of climate change, cooperation in developing renewable energy technologies, and controlling carbon emissions.
Perhaps as important as the substance of trilateral relations going forward is the process. North American summits have suffered in recent years from the perception of exclusivity. As President Obama has done in other realms, it is time to open the process to a broad array of citizens, non-governmental organizations, labor unions, and private sector organizations. The recent Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago gave a strong voice and platform to these groups, as many leaders and their ministers attended a wide variety of events and discussions on regional initiatives with presentations from aboriginal groups, a youth forum, and a regional business forum in addition to the formal plenary summit sessions. A more inclusive process would provide both a broader set of ideas and solutions, as well as greater support for summit outcomes.
As the three leaders head to their summit, they face significant tasks. Yet this is a time to take on the many challenging issues ahead, addressing issues concerning the environment, labor, and energy, and expanding on issues of most pressing concern to all three countries – economic recovery and security most importantly. The intertwining of peoples, businesses, and communities has brought these populations together; it is time the governments caught up. This Trilateral Summit presents an ideal opportunity to start this process.
Co-Authored with Jennifer A. Jeffs, Acting President of the Canadian International Council, and Senior Fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation
I wrote the following for a CFR “expert brief” which originally appeared here.
Brazen assassinations, kidnappings, and political intimidation by drug lords conjure up images of Colombia in the early 1990s. Yet today, it is Mexico that is being engulfed by escalating violence. In 2007, drug related killings topped 2,250; in 2008 they reached nearly 6,000. Drug cartels are adopting guerrilla-style tactics – sending heavily-armed paramilitary battalions to attack police stations, ambush military brigades, and assassinate high-level security officials, political officials, and journalists. They also are adopting innovative public relations strategies to encourage recruits and intimidate their enemies and the population in general: hanging narcomantas–drug banners–in public places, placing videos on YouTube depicting gruesome murders, and more recently staging street protests against the military’s presence in some of Mexico’s largest cities and most violent regions.
Mexico’s drug business has changed significantly since the 1980s. Previously primarily middlemen, Mexican drug cartels now produce, transport, and distribute drugs. Every year over 500 metric tons of cocaine, 15,500 metric tons of marijuana, 18 metric tons of heroin, and a still unknown amount of methamphetamines make their way through Mexico into the United States. These cartels also supply Mexico’s growing domestic market for illegal substances, and their networks have become increasingly sophisticated. U.S. and Mexican interdiction efforts in the last two decades weeded out mom-and-pop operations, leading drug trafficking organizations to professionalize their operations and add former Mexican military officials, some of them U.S.-trained commandos, to their payrolls. They also diversified their business structures, adding new products (such as meth) and moving into U.S.-based distribution and production.
[ Read More ]
After taking a 3 plus month maternity hiatus, I am back and will be posting regularly again.
To kick things off, here is a link to a new Independent Task Force report from the Council on Foreign Relations, titled U.S.-Latin America Relations: A New Direction for a New Reality. The Council brought together 19 individuals of various interest and expertise under the chairmanship of Charlene Barshefsky and General James T. Hill. As director of the project, I can attest to the long hours of intense and at times spirited discussion among its members.
The group decided that U.S. policy should focus on four critical areas: poverty and inequality, public security, migration, and energy integration. The main recommendations are the following:
Poverty and Inequality:
- U.S. should expand targeted assistance for poverty alleviation and institution building by fully funding the Millennium Challenge Account and developing new initiatives to reach the poor regions of the larger middle income countries. These programs should reflect the priorities of Latin American governments and also involve restructuring and integrating the programs of various U.S. government bureaucracies and multilateral institutions.
- Alongside aid, the United States should approve pending free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama and extend trade preferences to Bolivia and Ecuador to encourage productive relations with these complex countries.
Public Security:
- The United States should assist Latin American countries in strengthening their law enforcement and judicial systems. Only through strong institutions can criminal networks and drug traffickers be controlled in the long term. The United States should also focus more on the demand side of the drug equation, working closely with other large drug consuming nations, specifically those in the European Union.
Migration:
- Push through a comprehensive reform in 2009. This must deal with border security, employer responsibility, some sort of regularization of the 12 million unauthorized workers here today, and a flexible guest worker program to deal with future labor demands.
Energy Security:
- The United States should provide FDI incentives to help build energy infrastructure i the region. It should also sponsor regional and subregional working groups to forward best practices.
Finally, the task force touches briefly on 4 bilateral relations. It recommends deepening U.S. relations with Brazil to promote global trade negotiations and manage energy demands; strengthening cooperation with Mexico to stop narcotics trafficking, increase U.S. investment in energy production, and reform immigration policies; using multilateral institutions to address foreign and domestic policies of Venezuela; and opening informal and formal channels of communication with Cuba, with the eventual goal of lifting the embargo.
As the primaries proceed, little attention had been paid to Latin America. Given the de facto integration of the Hemisphere through migration, trade, and other links, it is high time that U.S. foreign policy focus more attention on Latin America.
In this interview I lay out four main areas the next administration should focus on to reframe and redirect policy toward the region. These include: energy, public security, migration, and poverty and inequality. It is a tall order, but any progress on these fronts would be welcome after the recent years of neglect.
