Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Mexico – the forgotten neighbour

Given the perilous state of the Iraq conflict and the worsening situation in Afghanistan, the Obama administration might be excused for taking less notice of the drug wars in Mexico. But the continuing conflict below the southern border has the potential to undermine America’s regional security, compromise its immigration policy and increase domestic crime and drug related violence.

The emergence of a major drug war in America’s neighbour has been largely unnoticed. The wars in the Middle East had dominated the Bush administration’s foreign policy. Besides Mexico falls within a policy gap – is it domestic and regional? And it was only recently that proper statements were made by senior administration officials. Now Hilary Clinton has drawn parallels with the Colombian narco wars during the 1980s.


The similarity between the Colombian drug wars of the 1980s and 1990s and the Mexican cartel wars is strong. Then two cartels – Medillin and Cali – waged a long war against the state, local officials and anyone else who was in the way. The situation was arguably far worse with powerful narco-paramilitaries attacking state institutions, intimidating or killing police and government officials, and often allied with insurgent groups like Farc, controlling large areas of the country. The over used term ‘failed state’ certainly applied to Colombia in the 1980s as no sector of society escaped cocaine related violence. The Colombian cartels also established distribution networks through Central America, the Caribbean and in the United States itself.

Most of these Colombian conditions apply now to Mexico. Local officials and police are largely compromised by corruption or face threats of violence. In a slight comparison to Colombia, the Mexican violence is more focused on inter-cartel battles. But the Mexican state is still under threat, the cartels have attacked government officials and are now facing a full square conflict with the army. But narco-terrorism is not as prominent as it was in Colombia. The cartels have looked to establish regional control though: replacing trade routes once managed by the Colombians and expanding to American cities and even to Europe and West Africa.

The Colombian war was undoubtedly violent: caused by a combination deep rooted political tensions, an unprecedented increase in wealth for the traffickers and social inequality that fed general criminality. The Mexican war has these characteristics. But other factors have brought on the conflict since 2006 and made it especially violent. The fact that all other supply routes for drugs (especially cocaine) have been sealed means that the US-Mexican border is a concentrated point for traffickers to supply the north. The Caribbean-Miami route was restricted by US agencies from the late 1980s. This has increased the profits for north Mexican cartels but also raised the stakes. With such lucrative rewards, the cartels have resorted to greater violence to ensure their share.

Another cause of such extreme violence has been the ease with which guns, especially automatic weapons, cross the border. The figures are disputed by organizations like the National Rifle Association, but supply of weapons is certainly a factor in inflaming the violence. This has included military grade hardware such as RPG launchers, explosives and even tanks. Desertion from the Mexican army has played a role, in particular the former special forces soldiers who formed the notorious Los Zetas, now one of the most feared and violent groups.

Some argue that the war is a war of choice, initiated by Frederick Calderon following his 2006 election. His decision to send troops into the northern towns certainly coincided with the violence, but the problems of Mexico have been in gestation for a long time. A spike in violence would have been inevitable and as most of the violence has been intra-cartel, it would suggest that the military are another player in the conflict not a lead protagonist.

The one constant in the war is the American consumer. The continuous demand for drugs, not just cocaine and marijuana but also metamphetamine and heroin, has fuelled the criminality. The critics of the war on drugs argue that successive governments have failed to grasp this elementary fact. Decriminalisation would starve the traffickers of their lifeblood. How the actual supply end would remain free of criminality is unclear. The traffickers are linked to the process at every level – how would it be possible to bring these individuals onside. A criticism of decriminalisation is that criminals would still act as criminals – operating in other black markets. In areas of Latin America where poverty is deep, the causes of drug related criminality may well exist.

No comments: