Monday, February 12, 2007
The USA and Mexico:
Distinct Theatres in One War
By Patrick Corcoran
The
war on drugs is a long, meandering journey that never really seems to go anywhere. We commit a great deal of money, we take
lots of interesting side trips, but we never approach a drug-free (or even a drug-scarce) America. This endless voyage has
recently added a few meanders, but once again the long-term goal is neither clearer nor closer than it was before.
The
United States and Mexico’s anti-drug activities are essentially different theatres in the same war, so it is no surprise
that the recent developments most important to the United States have occurred in Mexico. After two years of growing drug
related violence, Felipe Calderon ascended to the Mexican presidency promising to attack the drug cartels. He made good on
his word, sending the army to recapture territory essentially lost to the cartels in Michoacan just a couple of weeks into
his term. He followed that up with further deployments around the country, breaking a long-held taboo against using the army
to solve domestic security issues.
Calderon
than broke another tradition by extraditing more than a dozen drug kingpins to the United States, including Osiel Cardenas,
who’d been busy running the Gulf Cartel from the friendly confines of a maximum-security prison.
Predictably,
the comments from the United States surrounding Calderon have bordered on ecstatic.
Mexicans,
on the other hand, are more ambivalent. Calderon earned himself a 60-percent approval rating (remarkable given that he was
inaugurated two months ago thanks to just over a third of the vote), but according to one poll from Mexico City’s El Universal, only 35 percent of Mexicans surveyed expressed support for the operations
now underway. The Mexican press, while generally supportive, has expressed worries that the government will provoke a violent
reaction from the cartels. Indeed, the brazen murder last week of seven police officers in Acapulco — a city where 7,000
federal troops are stationed — and the subsequent discovery of a note taunting the federal government suggests that
the cartels’ backlash may be beginning.
Even
if there are no violent counterattacks from the cartels, there remains a catalog of problems facing the young president. As
always, new drug gangs will surely arise to replace those dismantled. Rampant corruption among the poorly paid local police
forces will continue to hamper Calderon. A Byzantine legal system will persist in making convictions more difficult than they
should be. And rising drug use among Mexicans will mean more and more of the cartels’ business stays at home.
Calderon
deserves credit for taking back territory essentially ruled by drug cartels, but it is unlikely that any of this will reduce
the availability of drugs.
One
salutary benefit of Calderon’s posture is an improved relationship with the United States. As noted above, American
officials are now spouting sunnier language about their southern neighbor. A procession of American cabinet officials has
either visited or planned visits to Mexico, culminating in President Bush’s just-announced stopover in March.
But
this flowering of good relations is unlikely to last. American officials love to watch footage of Calderon in army fatigues
and to read about him rooting out the criminals, but their memories are rather short. They were smitten with Fox when he nabbed
a few big names early in his term, but turned critical when the arrests predictably led to cartel power struggles and the
hundreds of executions to which Mexico bore witness over the past two years.
When
discussing the violence, people like American Ambassador to Mexico Antonio Garza painted an anarchic picture of a corrupt
Mexico, without saying that the violence was a result of actions that the Americans supported. A Mexican could be forgiven
for seeing the United States as a fair-weather friend. If drug violence in Mexico gets worse, will Garza temper his remarks
with support for Calderon and acknowledgement that he was in favor of the unsuccessful drug operations? Probably not.
A
basic problem with the war on drugs is that no one knows what to do. There is no combination of steps, no Washington Consensus
— however maligned — that provides the strategy to fighting drugs. Calderon can relentlessly pursue druglords
to all ends of Mexico, but why would any of us expect this to be anything more than the latest hard jerk in an endless tug-of-war
between the government and the cartels. Regardless of changes in tactics — whether in Mexico, Colombia, or the United
States — what has always remained constant is the easy availability and low price of drugs in the United States. We
can defeat a cartel, but we cannot defeat the cartels.
Calderon
is to be lauded for not standing by twiddling his thumbs while large swaths were ruled by druglords. He has reasserted the
authority of the state, and he deserves his high approval rating. But the fact is that Mexico is likely to continue to be
confounded by drug kingpins, although perhaps kingpins with lower profiles. There is, at this point, no evidence of a sea
change in the war on drugs. Despite the rave reviews in the United States, there is reason for skepticism that Calderon’s
great splash is anything more than another meander in the same tired journey.
——————————
Patrick Corcoran, a MexiData.info guest columnist,
is a writer who resides in Torreón, Coahuila. He can be reached at corcoran25@hotmail.com.
