The Mexican National Elections are coming June 2, 2024. This is usually not-news for us in the USA but this year, things are a little different. Two issues:
From Vox, citing Rolling Stone, Politico, and Semafor, each reporting that all declared republican candidates for president have endorsed treating Mexico’s drug cartels as terrorist organizations. Given the news and streaming shows, like Narcos, this feels like an understandable proposition. The implications, in the article are pointed out and the details as raised by various politicians are notably ridiculous (“We could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the drug labs, quietly….No one would know it was us…..”), or wieghty—using the war on ISIS as the example of how to get it done—that war an ocean away with many collaborative nations helping with that goal in mind—and as the idea is out there without clear plans ie no blueprint so far, what to make of this? The argument favoring this approach: The Mexican Government is not in control of its country or possibly, actively collaborates with drug cartels. The Mexican Government is by this thinking, absolutely corrupt. The failure of the Mexican Government to control cartel activities poses a threat to the United States and as such requires our unilateral action. Stretching things, the immigrants coming across our Southern Border serve as cover for the drug trade and represent a conscious strategy serving the interests of either the cartels, the Mexican Government, or both. And so on……
We fought armed “religious cartels” in Afghanistan as well as drug Cartels in Latin America since the Reagan administration. None of these ended well for us nor did the religious movement or drug problems go away. Why would this be different? What harm to our nation could come from actually using this approach?
Because we have the technology, lobbing missiles at sites vetted by satellite or other intelligence is lazy, inefficient, and hazardous to non- combatants, as we have found in other parts of the world. The definitive approach would be with boots on the ground as was the case with ISIS. Is an invasion of Mexico to defeat cartels remotely possible? Invasion has been done before by the US but largely, after the very effective war in 1846, when we annexed half of Mexico’s territories, it has not gone our way.
Given our collective history, there is reason to think the Mexican government and Mexican people would actively resist this strategy. We would make active enemies out of people who are not currently our enemies. The current president of Mexico, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador: “they have the arrogance to say that if we don’t fight crime in Mexico, they’re going to pass an initiative in Congress so the armed forces of the US intervene in our territory….We won’t allow it. And not only are we not going to allow it, we’re denouncing it.”
Mexico does have a gun problem, associated with cartels who have lots of money to spend. The Mexican government has asked the US to curtail arms shipments to Mexico—(control the Southern border!), if you will. Imagine if the Mexican government, in self defense, unilaterally voted policy to take down arms manufacturers in the United States because like Fentanyl deaths in the US, these arms cause great harm to Mexican society. And targeting? I think it is way easier to target Colt Industry Factories than that of Fentanyl labs…….
The long view towards improving strategies to curtail these problems is needed and during a presidential election, when things are mostly seen in black and white, we won’t see much of that. When you vote, be careful what you wish for !
2) My newsfeeds have been posting alarming messages regarding the 60 Minutes Interview with the president of Mexico, AMLO or Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Fox News and the Daily Wire—both conservative news sources—laid out dystopian headlines: “Obrador will unleash the floodgates of illegal aliens” or “Obrador demands Twenty Billion dollars to restrict immigration….”
I watched the interview. Despite loving much about Mexico, I am a very much the foreigner to its culture and norms. I could follow most of the discussion in Spanish and took notes. I have some observations regarding the headlines above.
Obrador is an exiting president. The Mexican constitution wisely allows one term in office for six years (consider the change this would make to our coming presidential election!). The presidential elections come this Spring. Anything he says should be taken with his exit in mind. We don’t know how the next president is going to act or if their opinions are in line with his.
Obrador reminded me of President Clinton. He has a notably personable presence and easy flow of speech in the interview. He was candid and frank in his responses to questions intended to put him on the spot. His record it would seem is like Clinton’s, economically “conservative” while “pandering” to the working classes with social and economic supports. He has positive polling at 60% level. The Mexican economy is doing well. Watching him, it is easy to see why this is true.
Our history in the US is very very different than that which has occurred in Mexico. What should be take for granted or assume when asking a question or hearing a response? We commonly speak of the power held by cartels, corruption they have brought to that government and make assumptions. Do we not have a similar problem? Instead of drug cartels, we have, “legitimate" billion dollar companies that corrupt and influence our government. If a foreign power criticized our norm, how would you respond?
In the 60 minutes interview, he makes the case that Mexico’s “drug problem” —ie amongst its citizens—is minuscule compared to that of the USA and as such, the “War on Drugs” ultimately is a problem for the USA to solve. The notion that his country should take on the costs and social dislocation such an overt effort (going to war with the cartels to prevent the flow of drugs into the US) would cause at the behest of American Senators or President is not one we would respond to well were the roles reversed. Bernie Saunders would go to war with American Big Business, but his view is clearly the minority one.
Specific to the question about immigration raised by Fox and The Daily Wire: he pointed out that a call from Biden did lead to increased vigilance on his Southern Border through which non Mexican immigrants typically come. He noted: a 50% reduction occurred when we tightened up on the border and sought help from home countries of immigrants—and he noted that this was a short-term and not a long-term solution. In addition, they deported at increased rates. He notes he is willing to continue with this approach but regards this as futile—he wants the root causes addressed (and this is where the $20 Billion dollar figure arises). This relief would help the US primarily and Mexico secondarily. He identifies four countries in distress and from whom a large bulk of immigrants arise. He is clearly sympathetic to what motivates these immigrants and notes that if this money is invested, the need to immigrate would drop (AND it would serve a humanitarian purpose which is in part why our own immigration laws consider asylum requests in the first place). My read on his intent: “You don’t need and I don’t want to be your ‘wall’ in the South of Mexico to be successful. You need to help take the heat down in the societies in trouble.” The US has social scientist who have agreed to this in principle long before the interview.
And why do we still isolate Cuba again? Pride? the Lobbying on behalf of those who lost 70 years ago?
コメント