Happy Vacation. I hope you all are enjoying your holiday break and time away from school. Just to let you know I will be checking my email over vacation in case anybody has any questions regarding the Book Review.
In this blog I would like to see you discuss what Mexico needs to do to in order to defeat the Drug Cartels. Is this a losing battle or can the Mexican government get this under control and promote great democratic opportunities for it's people?
Happy New Year!!!
Mr. Pratt
9 comments:
Three factors account for the rise of Mexican drug cartels: corruption, weak law enforcement, and US demand for illegal drugs. If these things are the cause, then by removing them the effect can be canceled.
However, all of this must be done simultaneously.
The main goal of the Calderon administration is to 'establish the rule of law by confronting organized crime and corruption' (pg 4) and Calderon has relied on the military, one of the few reliable institutions in Mexico.
Calderon's efforts have contributed to the destabilization of the cartels. A result of this has been an increase in drug-related homicides, 90% of which involve cartel members killing each other. As the government denies the cartels access to areas that they formerly had control over, the cartels have begun to fight each other.
Calderon's success can be continued if the US gets involved, and a clear goal is set. Mexico's drug cartels can be defeated only if they are attacked from within and outside the country. This is not just a Mexican problem. The US shares a 2000 mile border with Mexico, and many of the drugs that Mexican cartels traffic end up in the US. In addition, many of the weapons that drug cartels use come from the US.
A clear goal must be defined in order to defeat the cartels; you cannot win effectively unless you know what you are trying to achieve. Bonner compares Mexico to Columbia, citing that the objective was to destroy the cartels and nothing more. One way that this can be done is a 'divide and conquer' strategy that also worked in Columbia.
Key authority figures must be removed. Once these 'kingpins' have been isolated from the cartel, the cartel will collapse.
Law enforcement and judicial institutions must also be reformed to protect judges, prosecutors, and witnesses, and the police force must be improved.
All of these strategies are taken directly from Columbia and involve stamping out corruption and strengthening law enforcement. Mexico already has a roadmap. It is making these strategies happen that is the hard part. If Mexico can learn from Columbia, the drug cartels will be defeated and rule of law and public safety can be restored.
Cecile,
Great examinations of the major problems Mexico is dealing with pertaining to the drug cartels and democracy. You identify three important factors that are causing Mexico to struggle in it's attempt to modernize and/or create a stronger democracy. Interesting how you mention that there needs to be a role for the United States to play, but that the US is not that eager to get involved in the Mexican drug wars. I agree establishing a strongly enforced rule of law is the first necessary step that needs to be taken. Question is, can they effectively do this while dealing with the other issues at the same time??
I agree with both Cecile and Bonner in that Mexico can defeat the drug cartels but it will be extremely difficult because the problem encompasses every aspect of Mexican life. The drug cartels have a hold on the government, the neighborhoods, the state, police forces, and judiciaries. When Bonner talks about the military being the most reliable Mexican institution, it is not because it is free of corruption, it is just "The country's least corrupt government institution" (4). Eliminating corruption from all these institutions and reforming them is not an easy task and although the people are frustrated and sick of the drug cartel life, corruption is part of their political culture and how the government has always accomplished things.
This is one of the reasons I don't think Colombia's strategy can be applied directly to Mexico's problem. Their political cultures and the resources they have available are different. The author seems as if she is trying to take the success in Colombia and apply it to all cartel problems, similar to us trying to force democracy on everyone. The situations, resources, and political culture are different in both countries and Mexico can use Colombia's strategy but it will also have to develop on its own. One factor that is different comparing Mexico and Colombia is that Colombia's democracy has been established for years where Mexico struggles from an authoritarian history. Colombia only had to reform one national police force, Mexico has to reform two federal, 32 state, and 1,500 municipal police agencies. Although Colombia's cartels may have been more powerful they had the government foundation to tackle the problem. Mexico does not and will have to develop the foundation and reform their system while they take down the drug cartels simultaneously.
Mexico can succeed but the battle may be very different from Colombia's. They will have to find their own solutions in addition to those from Colombia's war with the drug cartels. And they will have to stabilize and reform their whole government structure at the same time. It won't be an easy battle.
Agreeing with Cecile, Melissa, and Bonner, Mexico has dug themselves into a pretty deep hole thats not going to be easy to get out of. The drug cartels have control over almost every aspect of Mexican's life, and more importantly their influence is embedded in the government. Although the party change in 2000 made them a little less comfortable, widespread corruption and bribery of officials is not uncommon. Then again, when given the choice between letting the drug lords do what they want or keeping your family alive, what would you choose? As Bonner says, Mexico will never have a chance of moving forward in development or democracy untill it gets rid of the grip these criminal organizations have over everything.
Bonner states that Mexico needs to involve outside countries, set a clear goal, come up with a strategy/rely on a proven one, understand the military can't do everything, and most importantly reform and strengthen the judicial and law enformcement institutions. I agree with this because the rule of law plays an enormous role in Mexico today, because there really isn't one.
Agreeing with Melissa, I also don't think that the comparisons with Columbia should be so heavily relied on. They are two entirely different countries, during different times. Just because the two countries have a similar drug problem doesn't mean that what worked in Columbia will also work in Mexico.
Another interesting point was U.S involvement. It seems that the U.S is a big contributer to a problem, because a majority of the drugs are being sold to us! That's certainly not helping anything. Bonner was cleary ademant that the U.S needs to get involved, and if it doesn't Mexico will not have a good chance of breaking the control of the cartels. But I think the U.S should do more to help in their own country, with prevention and treatment programs like suggested. U.S should suppy some assistance to Mexico, yes, but it shouldn't be a main factor relied on to defeat the cartels.
Melissa,
Good discussion and comparison regarding the problems that existed in Colombia vs. the problems in Mexico. I agree with you that one of the major obstacles that prevents Mexico from following Colombia's lead is the differences in history and political culture. It seems as though Mexico can look to Colombia for some ideas, but will probably haveto find their own path/solution.
Rachel,
You make some great points about the modernization and democratization of Mexico being handicapped by the drug cartels. It seems, as you say - "the grip of criminal organization" is preventing the rule of law from coming into it's proper place/role in Mexican democracy. Thus without any real rule of law being enforced, not much else can happen to promote peace, justice, and democracy. An interesting story came out this week stating that most of the weapons Mexican drug cartels use are illegally imported into Mexico from the United States. Clearly this is big business and money has a tendency to impact human decision making.
Bonner is comparing Colombia to Mexico, but as Rachel and Melissa stated, they are not the same country. Bonner tries to make the drug cartel problem in Mexico seem less severe by stating how much worse it was in Colombia in the 1990’s. Statistically speaking it may have been worse, but the problem in Mexico is not one that can easily “rid itself of the cartels” (8). I also disagree with Bonner when he states that the Mexican drug problem is “not out of control” (4),any situation that results in kidnappings or murders, certainly is out of control. A lot of reform and rebuilding is going to have to take place in order for Mexico to be a stable democratic country. Fresh starts are not easy and unfortunately, I am not quite as optimistic as Bonner.
Once the former “transporters” (2) for the Colombian cartels started to be paid in drugs, they decided to create their own cartel organizations and began to smuggle the drugs into the US. Bonner claims that one major reason why the cartel problem is so large in Mexico, is because of the United State’s demand for it. Obviously this is true, there is no supply without a demand, but I do not believe better “education and treatment programs” in the US are really going to do much to solve this problem. You can tell people not to do something 1,000 times, but some of them are still going to do it.
The foundation of Mexico’s problems is the lack of money then leading to corruption. Officers and other government officials are not being paid enough and some have chosen to take bribes in order to have a “stable” income. The officials that refuse to take the bribes are “intimidated” (6) by threats to kill them or their families. Mexico is going to have to rebuild it’s entire law enforcement department hiring better educated people and paying them a larger salary (7).
A major difference between Mexico and Colombia is that Mexico is a federal republic with a history of one-party rule, Colombia had been one of the first democracies in Latin America. Mexico has a lot more government to clean than Colombia did.
Eventually, I believe that Mexico will be able to beat the drug cartels. I do not believe in a “tacit deal” (and most others do not as well), but I do believe in the kingpin strategy. As Bonner said eliminating the key lieutenants and their potential successors is a “death knell” for the cartels (6). Calderon has made many attempts to fix this problem, and even if the drug-related homicide rate has risen, it “unfortunate[ly] is a sign of progress”, meaning the cartels are getting nervous and are feeling the restrictions on them (4). With the help of the US and the Mexican military, the cartels will be defeated. I do not think it will be done in the remainder of Calderon’s term. but maybe within the next President’s.
I think that it's apparent that Mexico has some problems. But unlike McKenna, I don't think it's that bad. Calderon is working on destabilizing the cartels and he's definitely making an impact. The homicide rate is up,because there is fighting between the cartels. The author says that very few of the murders are actually innocent bystanders (4). Also, most of the homicides are contained with 6 of Mexico's 32 states. The citizens are not fond of their government, but they see that with a democracy, there is actual progress being made with the cartels.
Disagreeing with Melissa, Rachel, and McKenna, I don't think the author is forcing the comparison between Mexico and Colombia. Most of the techniques that were used in Colombia, would help in Mexico. Colombia may have a longstanding system of democracy, but remember that Colombia had a huge problem with corruption as well. On page 5, Bonner mentions that "Those who could not be bribed were intimidated." But I also understand that Mexico has a much more complicated system of government than Colombia and the situation cannot be treated the exact same way.
What I actually think is really funny about the drug problem in Mexico and it's affect on the United States is that we basically created this problem. By helping to shut down the flow of cocaine through Florida and the Bahamas, it forced Colombia to look for a new trafficking route. Where did they go? Mexico. The establishment of these new routes, led to the formation of strong, drug cartels.
So I think that the United States is responsible to keep working on the drug cartel problem in Mexico. Bonner said that a multinational strategy helped fix Colombia. We should be doing even more in Mexico, because we share a border with them. What happens in Mexico directly affects the United States. We must help them establish strong, unocrrupt police forces and stop relying so much on the military.
Mexico can achieve full democracy, it's possible. They just need help.
Emily, you and I have totally different opinions about this. (and thank you sooooo much for the reminder, I owe you)
McKenna, I agree that the lack of government funding is a massive problem. Without money, corruption spreads like wildfire.
Drug Cartels have been able to flourish in Mexico because there has never been a strong central government in Mexico. When there has been a strong central government it has been run by criminals that have incorporated illegal activities into to the government’s structure. When a patron-client system such as the one Mexico has is so deeply imbedded into Mexico’s political culture, it makes it extremely difficult to find the source of the problem. When there is so much corruption in the government you can never get rid of the current drug issues. Even if you get rid of the cartels, others will emerge and take up where the others left off. In all the biggest issue is dealing with their own government. Narcopolitics are not the only result of corruption, if they cannot fix the problems they have from within, it will be impossible to deal with any other problems.
I believe the only way Mexico could ever get rid of the corruption is if other countries came in and could at least control the cartels while the government found somewhere to start.
Overall, I do not believe that Mexico will be able to ever fully abolish the drug cartels unless the people of Mexico call for an end to corruption and for the end of terror. Until the people expect anything of the government, the government will not change and the drug cartels will continue to run Mexico.
Cecile hits it on the nail, and if the government can start, however the problem is to find a starting point, Mexican government can only sit on a pile of messes and only wish that something could be done so they could stabilize their country. To throw off the Cartels a risky, yet strategic strategy would be to legalize drugs, and cartels could possibly weaken, if their products are being sold by government. Leaving space to attack corruption in themselves, being government, and advance on the trafficking problem. Also a point that Cecile makes that I'm dubious about is, "divide and conquer" may have worked in Columbia but, the chances anything so simple could work in Mexico at this point is uncertain. The "kingpins" in Mexico have too much power in government. It has been said in class that if a Putin figure could emerge out of the cross hairs so that they can kick the cartels out of government, legalizing it for a time so that the leader could maintain a stable enough force to apply a backbone for Mexico. The amount of issues Mexico has to deal with, is outrageous and will be hard to comply with but the ideas and preparations that can be set up like legalizing some things so that other situations can be targeted more throughly. As Rachael mentioned, Mexico is sunk deep into a hole, and climbing out of that is going to be a really rough time. with the right leaders, and right movements these sparks of action can spark a revolution towards the democracy that Mexico has a chance of becoming.
Post a Comment