Monday, November 12, 2007

Columnists Debate Candidness in US-Mexico Border Issues

By Allan Wall

Is it better for the public not to know about problems on the U.S.-Mexican border?

The problem of Mexican soldiers and pseudo-soldiers aiding drug smugglers crossing the border is well-documented.  It has been admitted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and has been the subject of testimony to Congress.

The border incursions are carried out by men wearing the same uniforms, driving the same vehicles, and bearing the same weapons as the Mexican army.

And some have fired on U.S. agents.

So either there is corruption in the Mexican army, or the army can’t control its materiel stores, or it can’t control the territory – or all of the above.

Isn’t this a problem we should be concerned about?

My fellow American in Mexico, Nancy Conroy, editor of the Gringo Gazette, believes the less said about the problem the better.

In her recent article “Why Mexican and US Officials Downplay Border Incursions,” (a response to my column “Are Mexican Soldiers Involved in Border Area Crime?”), Nancy Conroy says it’s preferable not to talk about this problem.

I respectfully disagree.  As Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to Henry Lee in 1826, “There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.”

In her article, Ms. Conroy warns repeatedly that the border incursion problem (or whatever we choose to call it) should not be emphasized. She writes that “… it is more sensible to downplay these incidents ... it is pointless to emphasize the bad … it is not in the best interests of US-Mexican relations to overemphasize the border skirmishes.”

But simply pointing out a problem is not overemphasizing it.

Ironically, Ms. Conroy herself penned an earlier article exposing the construction of a Blackwater USA training camp on the U.S. side of the border (see “Blackwater Mercenaries on the USA-Mexico Border,” MexiData.info, June 25, 2007).

So why is it okay for her to write about Blackwater on the border and not okay for other writers to talk about border incursions or corruption in the Mexican military? Why are these taboo subjects?

Governments routinely downplay and conceal unpleasant realities. But should journalists, commentators and analysts do the same?

Ms. Conroy’s article also seems to imply that if Americans learn what is happening on the border they will go berserk or something.

She writes that “…it is not in anyone’s best interest to dwell on the border incursions too much, especially considering today’s raging anti-immigrant political environment. These incidents can be used to escalate hatred, which could lead to militarization of the border.”

U.S. immigration policy is a legitimate topic for American citizens to discuss, even for Americans who might disagree with Nancy Conroy.  Throwing around rhetoric like “raging anti-immigrant political environment” and “hatred” is not helpful in this context.

Nor does Ms. Conroy want criticism of the Mexican army. She writes that “Accusing the military of corruption is unnecessary and dangerous because that fans the flames of existing hatreds.”

What? Is the Mexican army another taboo subject? It’s not a taboo subject among Mexican commentators, some of whom criticize the use of the military in the drug war.

The Mexican military is considered less corrupt than the police, but there is corruption in the military. In fact, anybody who is concerned about the honor of the Mexican military should be concerned about this problem.

As for fears of the “militarization of the border,” the border is already militarized – on the Mexican side, where its army has 11 garrisons.

In 2006, previous Mexican foreign minister Ernesto Derbez boasted about Mexico having soldiers on the border, and ridiculed the National Guard armed forces on the U.S. side – who he implied were not real soldiers. (Thousands of U.S. National Guard veterans would disagree with him, and rightfully so.)

The good news though, is that there is a solution to the problems on the border. But some people aren’t going to like it.

This solution would (a) greatly reduce  border incursions; (b) reduce violence on the border; (c) reduce drug shipments; (d) reduce arms shipments to Mexico, (e) save hundreds of Mexicans who die on the border annually; and (f) put pressure on Mexican politicians to reform the domestic economy.

That solution would be for the United States to get control of its side of the border. That means putting more agents on the border, and fencing it off where necessary.

Good fences make good neighbors. 

——————————

Allan Wall, a MexiData.info columnist, recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq.  He currently resides in Mexico, where he has lived since 1991. He can be reached via e-mail at allan39@prodigy.net.mx.