US - MEXICO DRUG WARS
WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?
In my daily quest to review all things Mexico, I came upon this article.
https://www.crisisgroup.org/latin-america-caribbean/mexico/time-end-lethal-limbo-us-mexican-drug-wars
It has been my experience DC is surrounded by shadowy "Groups", most focused on working into national programs/policies/strategies. Now, before I go much further, I admit, I don't know this group. When I read their background, I more clearly understood the theme of this article. It deals with the overall stability of Mexico and how it might impact the US, so, if you know me, you understand why I took an interest. So, here I go. Let me take a stab at what this group is suggesting be done to solve the crisis that we both agree is becoming.....Mexico. By the way. This is not a hatchet job. Several points I will go over, I happen to agree with. Here is how I will do this. The words in italic are taking directly from the article. My comments will come after each area of interest. In the end, it's a very well written article.
Yet that campaign featured no meaningful discussion about how Mexico’s stubborn rates of lethal conflict are in reality a U.S.-Mexican co-production, fuelled by the very tactics that the U.S. has exported to fight the “war on drugs”. Nor, to date, has the 2020 presidential contest between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden.
"Fulled by the very tactics that the US has exported to fight the 'war on drugs". That is a statement I have some level of agreement with. Has US policy towards Mexico's "issues" been flawed? Yes, and that's been true for over 100 years. Here is the problem. The constant struggle should be, just how much "guidance/support" does the US have the right to give Mexico? Is there a history between the two nations? Yes. Is that history all good? No. Is there a level of, " Don't tell us what we should be doing" in Mexico? If you have ever worked with those battling the violence in Mexico, you know the answer. I'm always looking for the underlying theme of, " It's our fault". Should we be supportive of our geographic neighbors? How could we not be? Should we understand the "history" that had taken place between the two nations? I would hope we do. My point is this, although the US has played its relationship with Mexico badly, in the end, the responsibility to keep the people of Mexico safe belongs to the Mexican government. Short answer. Don't look for the," It's your fault we are like this" approach. Mexico's government must take ownership of failure. Blame...there is enough to go around for everyone.
Having a neighbor affected by conflict and instability entails major consequences for the U.S, with the biggest being Mexico’s growing displacement crisis. In 2020 Mexican nationals have replaced Central Americans as the largest group apprehended while aiming to cross into the U.S.
Is the stability of Mexico a potential crisis for the US? Absolutely. A failed, think Serbia / Albania / event in Mexico would lead to a border crisis that would make what is currently taking place look like a flash mob. Would the flow of Mexican Nationals slow if Mexico was stable? Yes. Here is the problem, my opinion. Mexico City has never wanted those who may rise up against the corrupt government to stay in Mexico. Think of the flow of migration from Mexico in terms of letting steam off the pressure cooker. " You think things are bad for you hear...leave". Think I'm wrong? My knowledge of this concept exceeds simple interviews and drinks at dinner. Until Mexico City truly wants it's poor to stay home, the concept of immigration/mass migration will not go away.
Washington and Mexico City can try to manage the flow of people by locking the border down even more tightly, but that is hardly an acceptable solution from a humanitarian perspective
Here we go. The politically charged issue of "border security". In the end, what is the primary responsibility of both the US and the Mexcian government? The Security of its people. In a perfect world, the US would strive to help Mexico's government solve all of its problems; unemployment, social injustice, security etc....etc. Here is the problem. As a CIA briefer once said, " You need to plan for our failure". Yes, from a humanistic standpoint, trapping people inside a faltering environment is wrong, but in a world where over 3 BILLION people are in a daily struggle, what is the limit to letting more people into the lifeboat called The United States? At what point does the US government place priority on its own society's security? My answer, from the beginning. I understand the "Humanitarian" aspect, but the US can only do so much, and no one does more than the US does.
Recurrent threats by President Trump and other high-level U.S. government officials to sanction Mexico economically if it does not “demonstrate its commitment to dismantle the cartels” push Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to further increase the country’s dependence on the armed forces in public security matters, in spite of campaign promises to do just the opposite.
I fully recognize the power of economic pressure. I also understand that AMLO's stance of, "Hugs not bullets", was ill-timed. Was his progressive, passivist approach appealing to the Mexican people? Yes, it's why he was elected. The problem was one he should have understood. The concept of starting from a position the cartels wound not accept, without making them believe AMLO's choice was the best option they would receive, well, it only insured the concept's failure. You cannot simply walk away from a battlefield and expect to issue, "terms!" In addition, let me come back to a point I just made. There is only one reason the US would issue "threats" to Mexico. Who is ultimately responsible for the failures taking place? If the Justice system is broken, if the concept of law enforcement is ineffective, and finally, if the nation's political leaders are corrupt, who is to blame? The US? That's an excuse the people of Mexico do not accept. Threats come after others can no longer accept the failed processes of those tasked with leadership.
Compounding the problem is pervasive impunity. Fewer than one in ten murders get resolved in the justice system – and the line between state officials and the criminals they are supposed to rein in is not only thin but occasionally non-existent.
As I stated earlier, this editorial has many statements I totally agree with. This is one of them. I was one criticism of this comment. I would change the word, "occasionally", too, "often." Perhaps, I would say, "all too often." Finally, with all the talk of Justice Reforms for Mexico, one fact stands in the way. The corrupt political leaders who are tasked with making these reforms take place will do everything in their power to keep them from having an impact on the criminals who pay for their inaction. It seems even AMLO's brother falls into this category.
With their predatory “fiefdoms” spreading out over Mexico, groups use territorial control as a means of squeezing revenue out of whatever commodity is locally available, chiefly through extortion. The expansion of their business portfolio into licit commodities and crops increases the criminals’ power over people and politics – and bolsters their ability to fend off crackdowns.
This one is easy. The author is spot on! This reality also completely destroys the ageless argument of, "If we would just legalize these drugs, the violence would go away." The systemic corruption in Mexico may have once been based on the illegal drug trade, but the owners of that trade have adapted. Like any good business model, they have come to realize the value of diversification of industry. Here is another issue that is often not factored into the argument. The lost revenue from this diversification movement is offset by the profit margins that pay government leaders, at all levels, to look the other way. As the international business world continues to label Mexico as a bad place to invest, the people taking the payoff money simply talk a good battle, and then do nothing. What part of Mexico's "real" financial balance is based upon corruption? Can Mexico's banking system survive a true stoppage of illegal activity?
Michoacán is emblematic. This state was dominated by a single criminal organization until, in 2014, the federal government sent in its troops. With help from other illegal armed groups, the army succeeded in breaking up the once-dominant organization, arresting one of its top leaders, and killing the other.
I pulled this statement out for one reason. It addresses, indirectly, the issue of Autodefensas. Without going into too much detail, I will state I was deeply involved in the "observations" of these Self-Defense Forces. Why did I pay attention to them? It was and still is, in my opinion the formation of these groups provided the US with a measurable indicator of Mexico's stability. Jose Manuel Mireles; the man that I, at one time, believed could have been the next Pancho Villa. Sound crazy? You have no idea. I will tell you this. There was a moment in time when the Government of Mexico feared the Autodefensas movement more than feared the damage of the cartels. That's a story for another day. By the way, Mexico City tried to kill the good Doctor, more than once. Now? Well now, he works for AMLO? Oh..... how the worm turns.
In 2006, there were six criminal conglomerates fighting it out in a handful of regions. In 2019, the number reached 198, according to a Crisis Group analysis of online citizen journalists’ websites called “narco-blogs”.
Do I believe there are 198 groups in Mexico that have the capability to impact governmental operations? No. When I hear someone address the issue of, chopping off the head of the snake, it gives me flashbacks to the disastrous decisions made in Iraq and Lybia. So, this is a point I do agree with the Author. The DC leadership that jumped on board with the same mindset that gave us the disaster of destroying the Bath Party in Iraq, well, they let someone apply, "one size fits all," mentality. Taking out the heads of major cartels did not lead to 198 functional smaller cartels, but it did lead to lost unity of effort. Mexico's ability to focus on a few major cartels was more than challenging, but when small subsets began to pop up, all expectations of progress were lost. The cartel network is still run by major groups, CJNG, etc.. The smaller operations are nothing more than proxies of the major groups and should not be counted as real players. Are they violent? Yes. Are they independent? No.
Officials will thus need to understand not just the armed groups that are fighting but also the politicians and business people who are aligned with them and the resources they are all fighting over.
I agreed with this approach, with one caveat. The very "Officials" the Author is speaking of are the ones that are part of the problem. My point? Again, the issue of corruption is systemic. Finding enough of these, " officials", who are willing to take on the majority of the nation's leadership, that's the challenge. By the way. That level of corruption is not limited to just Mexico.
Mexico’s government also has to invest more, with the support of the U.S. and other international partners, in social and economic programs that can divert vulnerable young people who might be drawn into the armed groups. Likewise, it should step up efforts to provide youngsters with ways out of armed groups through demobilization programs.
This statement is right out of the AMLO playbook. Options. Giving the youth of Mexico options sounds good in a briefing or a campaign, but in reality, that's a different story. Here is my point. If an international investment is a key to solving Mexico's problems than the path AMLO is taking is counterproductive. As long as international investment firms warn of Mexico's stance towards private business, the author's vision for solving the problems of Mexico cannot take place. Mexico can't have a leader who is anti-private business and then ask for "International partners" to help solve the nation's problems. Now, given AMLO's stance towards CELAC, perhaps the "International Parters" he is looking for are not from Western nations? Is Beijing Mexico's problem solver? I bet not.
Concentrating resources and efforts on regional intervention plans that have been devised on the basis of a close study of local conflict dynamics would be a better way to make progress, even if the gains appear on the surface more limited.
" Local conflict dynamics?" I'm sorry, but this gives me the impression of an academic response to a violent, complex social status, all taking place in a nation infected with corruption. Again, regional intervention only takes place, truly takes place, in Mexico City. It's the last line of defense, and the Hinterlands of Mexico, everywhere outside of Mexico City, are on their own. Sound a little dramatic? Well, I'm sorry, but to many in Mexico attempting to save the nation, it's an opinion I heard over and over again. The bottom line; Mexico has to have a strong foundation, a clean foundation to start from. Without that, this concept of localized impact is doomed to failure. In short, Mexico is a dam with so many leaks, local plugging simply won't work.
They might also be deployed to deter brazen criminal aggression against those local populations whose data show to be most vulnerable to displacement and other abuses.
Okay, here comes a topic near and dear to my heart. Unless Mexico has an untarnished military and civilian law enforcement network, it is impossible to get the overall corruption under control. Who does a patriotic military leader turn to for support? What is the level of true trust in Mexico? Time and time again, I come to the same conclusion. Mexico is a far more complex crisis than most people realize. I remember the day the message came across. SEDENA was being sent into the streets of Mexico. They were going to carry out the duties of law enforcement. The Mexican military was a force completely unprepared to assume such a mission was going to be the lifeline of Mexico. The concept failed, and some of us knew it would from day one.
The U.S. government, in championing, designing, financing, and in effect, imposing the war on drugs on its neighbor, hoped it could purge the country of the corrosive social, political and economic impact of the narcotics trade and bring greater stability to the region.
Is part of this statement accurate? Yes. Is it the US's fault Mexico is teetering on disaster? No, at least not initially. If the US simply walked away from the war on drugs, would the corruption and violence in Mexico go away? No. Is the concept of a bad plan worse than no plan? Usually, yes! Is the real issue the US doesn't really care about, or is it a matter of bad planning? From day one, I have advocated for a new, strategic vision for the Americas. It's the endstate of my pending book, " The War of the Americas". Mexico is leaning towards failure, and that failure would be a crisis for the US, unlike anything DC has faced in decades. I fully understand the desire for non-aggression groups to provide governments "options", but in the end, the issue that consumes Mexico is more complex than even this group comprehends. Let me say something I use to get in a lot of trouble for. I'm growing more and more concerned, Mexico is heading for another revolution. AMLO's impact on that threat is something that needs to be studied carefully.
