Militarizing the Border
Secretary of State Clinton's recent visit to Mexico was a significant one, primarily because she spoke candidly. The increasing violence at the border and spilling into the US is caused by drug traffickers, and both countries are at fault for the the escalation. She frankly pointed to the failure of the "War on Drugs" waged by this country for decades and to the insatiable market for the illegal drugs in this country which makes it lucrative enough for the drug gangsters to take risks that have resulted in the deadly surge.
So far the Obama administration has resisted the call issued by likes of CNN's resident xenophobe Lou Dobbs to send military troops to the border, but DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano recently implied that the option is still under consideration. That should worry residents of both countries who live near or on the border, and obviously does. An editorial from Mexico's La Jornada makes that clear.
Militarization of points along the border by the Mexican government and police reinforcement ordered by U.S. authorities across the Rio Grande are not necessarily correct steps in the fight against drug traffic, representing, instead, bilateral, ambiguous security. After all, the border between the two countries is only one realm of organized criminal activity, a place to gather and express in particularly violent ways the symptoms of a process of social and institutional decomposition much greater than the space on either side of the border, itself. The passage of drugs, arms, and criminals over the common border is, in effect, the culmination of processes that gestate and develop over time, processes that require attention from both governments in geographic areas far from their common boundary, with spheres of action much broader than police and military.
With these considerations in mind, it can be said that the deployment of a sizable number of security forces to the region does not, in itself, constitute a blow to the power of drug cartels or their logistic and financial structure; instead, it exposes these troops - civilians and military, and Mexicans and U.S. citizens - to infiltration and bribery by criminal groups.
Furthermore, governments of both countries do not seem to be aware that measures being discussed involve undesirable risks for the population along the border - the proliferation of annoyances and outrages – already occurring in Mexico. A consequence is the risk of feeding popular animosity against government troops. Moreover, history indicates that circumstances, such as the one under discussion, tend to multiply border incidents, violations of territorial integrity, and violations of the sovereignty of countries. It would be particularly disastrous if the actions announced yesterday not only fail to end drug traffic, but give rise to conflicts between elements of the Mexican Army and U.S. security agencies.
In summary, measures announced yesterday by Washington, as well as the satisfaction expressed by the Mexican government, have put in place a flawed security strategy - shared, though it is - to focus on fighting superficial expressions of the complex and deep-rooted problem of drug trafficking. If the goal is eradication of the base of [drug trafficking] and other crimes, then the governments of Calderón and Obama should not focus on police and military pursuit, which so far have proved inefficient. Instead, they should address the social, economic, and institutional factors that foster these crimes; undertake effective policies to combat addictions, in order to reduce the demand for illicit drugs; combat the corruption eroding the institutional structure of both countries and, in Mexico, develop and apply a coherent strategy to fight misery, to alleviate poverty, and to reduce lacerating social inequality.
Like most of the problems inherited by President Obama, this one has no easy fix. Sending in the Marines, however, is only going to complicate the matter. Sharing intelligence by the two countries is a good start, but the US is going to have to make some tough social and political decisions that bear on domestic policy if even that is going to have an impact.
First of all, an overhaul of the laws concerning drugs is long overdue. The Obama Justice Department has already indicated that it will no longer consider busting medical marijuana outlets a priority. At this point, the administration should go further, and revise the laws on drug possession and use. Drug addiction should not be treated as a crime but as an illness, and our laws should reflect that and money should be appropriated for sensible research into and treatment of that illness. If we can reduce the demand of what is deemed contraband, the bad guys lose their power and their incentive.
That, I admit, is going to take some education and some time. There are, however, some things that this country could be doing in the meantime. One of the top priorities should be to come down with heavy, hobnailed boots on those US gun dealers who are cheerfully selling the drug gangsters the heavy weaponry which is being used to wreak havoc on both sides of the border, including cities located some distance from that border. Tighter gun laws and heavier penalties for those who funnel weapons to the gangsters are needed. A "well-armed militia" is one thing. A well-armed gang of thugs pushing the hard stuff is something else entirely.
Finally, since this administration has adopted a lot of the lingo from the last one in disappointing ways, such as issuing "benchmarks" to such nations as Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe it could also develop some benchmarks for the Mexican government when it comes to aid. Rooting out corrupt police, soldiers, and office holders should be a goal of both countries, but the aid right now is flowing in only one direction. Make it clear to the Mexican government that they have step up as well, and not just when it comes to combating drugs.
That would be a nice change.
So far the Obama administration has resisted the call issued by likes of CNN's resident xenophobe Lou Dobbs to send military troops to the border, but DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano recently implied that the option is still under consideration. That should worry residents of both countries who live near or on the border, and obviously does. An editorial from Mexico's La Jornada makes that clear.
Militarization of points along the border by the Mexican government and police reinforcement ordered by U.S. authorities across the Rio Grande are not necessarily correct steps in the fight against drug traffic, representing, instead, bilateral, ambiguous security. After all, the border between the two countries is only one realm of organized criminal activity, a place to gather and express in particularly violent ways the symptoms of a process of social and institutional decomposition much greater than the space on either side of the border, itself. The passage of drugs, arms, and criminals over the common border is, in effect, the culmination of processes that gestate and develop over time, processes that require attention from both governments in geographic areas far from their common boundary, with spheres of action much broader than police and military.
With these considerations in mind, it can be said that the deployment of a sizable number of security forces to the region does not, in itself, constitute a blow to the power of drug cartels or their logistic and financial structure; instead, it exposes these troops - civilians and military, and Mexicans and U.S. citizens - to infiltration and bribery by criminal groups.
Furthermore, governments of both countries do not seem to be aware that measures being discussed involve undesirable risks for the population along the border - the proliferation of annoyances and outrages – already occurring in Mexico. A consequence is the risk of feeding popular animosity against government troops. Moreover, history indicates that circumstances, such as the one under discussion, tend to multiply border incidents, violations of territorial integrity, and violations of the sovereignty of countries. It would be particularly disastrous if the actions announced yesterday not only fail to end drug traffic, but give rise to conflicts between elements of the Mexican Army and U.S. security agencies.
In summary, measures announced yesterday by Washington, as well as the satisfaction expressed by the Mexican government, have put in place a flawed security strategy - shared, though it is - to focus on fighting superficial expressions of the complex and deep-rooted problem of drug trafficking. If the goal is eradication of the base of [drug trafficking] and other crimes, then the governments of Calderón and Obama should not focus on police and military pursuit, which so far have proved inefficient. Instead, they should address the social, economic, and institutional factors that foster these crimes; undertake effective policies to combat addictions, in order to reduce the demand for illicit drugs; combat the corruption eroding the institutional structure of both countries and, in Mexico, develop and apply a coherent strategy to fight misery, to alleviate poverty, and to reduce lacerating social inequality.
Like most of the problems inherited by President Obama, this one has no easy fix. Sending in the Marines, however, is only going to complicate the matter. Sharing intelligence by the two countries is a good start, but the US is going to have to make some tough social and political decisions that bear on domestic policy if even that is going to have an impact.
First of all, an overhaul of the laws concerning drugs is long overdue. The Obama Justice Department has already indicated that it will no longer consider busting medical marijuana outlets a priority. At this point, the administration should go further, and revise the laws on drug possession and use. Drug addiction should not be treated as a crime but as an illness, and our laws should reflect that and money should be appropriated for sensible research into and treatment of that illness. If we can reduce the demand of what is deemed contraband, the bad guys lose their power and their incentive.
That, I admit, is going to take some education and some time. There are, however, some things that this country could be doing in the meantime. One of the top priorities should be to come down with heavy, hobnailed boots on those US gun dealers who are cheerfully selling the drug gangsters the heavy weaponry which is being used to wreak havoc on both sides of the border, including cities located some distance from that border. Tighter gun laws and heavier penalties for those who funnel weapons to the gangsters are needed. A "well-armed militia" is one thing. A well-armed gang of thugs pushing the hard stuff is something else entirely.
Finally, since this administration has adopted a lot of the lingo from the last one in disappointing ways, such as issuing "benchmarks" to such nations as Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe it could also develop some benchmarks for the Mexican government when it comes to aid. Rooting out corrupt police, soldiers, and office holders should be a goal of both countries, but the aid right now is flowing in only one direction. Make it clear to the Mexican government that they have step up as well, and not just when it comes to combating drugs.
That would be a nice change.
posted by Diane at 3:36 PM
1 Comments:
"It would be particularly disastrous if the actions announced yesterday not only fail to end drug traffic, but give rise to conflicts between elements of the Mexican Army and U.S. security agencies. "
The Mexican army and police forces are welcome to take on the US military any time they like. It will be their utter destruction.
"Instead, they should address the social, economic, and institutional factors that foster these crimes; undertake effective policies to combat addictions, in order to reduce the demand for illicit drugs; combat the corruption eroding the institutional structure of both countries and, in Mexico, develop and apply a coherent strategy to fight misery, to alleviate poverty, and to reduce lacerating social inequality."
It is not our job to fix Mexico.
The jig is up; much like the banking industry and the big three auto makers, the average US citizen is tired of Mexico's wealth transfer from the US. Look for combat hardened Army and Marine units on the border soon, and look for a drop in Mexican GDP.
Post a Comment
<< Home