Mexican police patrol after a shooting. Ramon Sotomayor/AP
Since the 28,000 figure came out, experts and journalists have been filling in the blanks in Mexico's narco-narrative. What I gather is that, when Mexico was under one party rule, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) controlled everything, from business to government and even drug smuggling, which is nothing new. The state even told the cartels where they could and couldn't operate and, to some extent, what they were allowed to do as long as the authorities ta turned a blind eye. The PRI lost power in 2000, and the state was no longer calling the shots as the cartels grew. Then, in 2006, Calderon declared war on the cartels, turning Mexico into a free for all.
As I've mentioned, since then, an estimated 28,000 people have died. What's more, the violence shows no sign of slowing , and will likely grow even more brutal. Gangs are using grenades, weapons better suited for terror than mob-style hits, more than ever and Juarez recently saw it's first car bomb. Just as the cartels promised, another exploded on Friday outside of Tamaulipas State's security headquarters. The violence has affected business to a greater extent than we've covered. Aside from factories in crime-ridden neighborhoods, tourism in Acapulco has suffered, a major source of revenue, with the U.S. State Department issuing a travel warning for Mexico. More surprisingly, the oil industry, crucial for the Mexican economy, is also hurting. According to one executive, "There are places where we cannot go, where it is not safe for our workers to go, so for now those projects are on hold." In a turn of events that John Robb would recognize, it looks like the drug traffickers are inserting themselves wherever the state loses control.
And that might be the whole point. In a speech on Wednesday, President Calderon said that drugs are no longer the main money maker for the cartels, who now tax the towns that they control. "This has become an activity that defies the government, and even seeks to replace the government. They are trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms, and are even trying to impose their own laws." In other words, as we have said elsewhere, Mexico looks like a hollow state with super-empowered non-state actors taking over. Think Dudus in Jamaica, the FARC during its heyday in Colombia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, etc. This does not bode well, but, speaking of Colombia, the Brookings Institution and others have an idea: based on Plan Colombia, local officials are attempting to increase welfare, reintegrate gangsters and, to borrow again from John Robb's terminology, build resilient communities. In Mexico's most violent city, Ciudad Juarez, "microcredit, jobs, parks, and new educational facilities" are being implemented to boost security through welfare.
We will see how well plan works this year, but I have a few doubts. Clearly, someone must take control instead of the gangs, and focusing on the community level makes more sense than relying on Mexico's still corrupt and clumsy central government. Yet President Uribe in Colombia made sure to increase security before development, and had an effective stick to match Plan Colombia's carrot. In Mexico, despite the rhetoric and occasional high profile arrests or busts, the government is losing. I doubt it can even match the social welfare, control, and income provided by the cartels, especially farther from it's base. Also, Plan Colombia had a rather pointless crop eradication focus, which still resulted in a greater cocaine flow out of Colombia during its success. Mexico and the U.S. still seem to focus too much on prohibition, and not enough on disrupting the networks through effective Human Network Operations. Hopefully, I'm wrong and Mexico sees the same improvement as Colombia, but, as some pundits have already predicted, it's likely that it will first have to deal with the worst elements of "Colombianization" like narco-terrorism and the further deterioration of the rule of law.
By Alex Olesker
Recent Comments