2/26/09

Yesterday, the Obama administration signaled growing concern on both sides of the border with the havoc being wreaked by Mexican drug cartels. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced new measures and testified before Congress that the issue demands the “utmost attention.”  Attorney General Eric Holder put it even more starkly:  “They are a national security threat…We simply can't afford to let down our guard.”

An epidemic of violence related to the drug trade has sparked a worsening crisis in Mexico.  There were over 5,600 murders tied to narcotics last year, and each week brings greater evidence of corruption, intimidation, and violence, reaching the highest levels of the Mexican government.  With over 90% of America’s cocaine traveling through Mexico, and with the U.S. supplying roughly 90% of the guns used in drug violence in Mexico, there is strong evidence that the problem extends to both sides of the border.  On top of the murderous effects of the drug trade, Mexico also faces challenges related to immigration, and the global economic crisis.  

Despite the fact that Mexico’s problems are bound tightly with matters in the U.S., efforts over the past eight years to make Mexico a strategic priority have been insufficient.  On narcotics, while President Bush did ramp up anti-drug assistance through the Merida initiative, he failed to address domestic contributors to the drug problem, and myopically focused on federal institutions within Mexico, leaving aside state and local actors.  On a symbolic level, the Bush administration’s Mexico policy hinged largely on immigration, as it pursued a strategy that resulted in nothing but a 500 mile stretch of fence, which falls short of Mexican or American interests.  

Relations with Mexico must have higher priority in the Obama administration. The first order of business is greater cooperation to reduce the threat posed by the drug cartels.  This requires the U.S. to do a better job of preventing money and guns from going south, reduce its own domestic drug demand, and help the Mexican Government build up its own security and judicial institutions.  The U.S. must also work to develop a comprehensive relationship with our neighbor to the south by looking for opportunities for cooperation on the economy, border infrastructure, the environment and education.

Wave of drug-related violence threatens vulnerable Mexican state. For the last several years, Mexico has suffered more and more from violent criminality related to its potent narcotics industry.  A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal gave a startling assessment, reporting that “Mexico is waging a do-or-die battle with the world's most powerful drug cartels.  According to Latin America expert and Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Shannon O’Neil, “[d]rug-related violence is spreading throughout Mexico” with 5,600 deaths in 2008, resulting from a group of drug cartels – the three most prominent being the Sinaloa Cartel, the Gulf Cartel and the Tijuana Cartel - that are undermining the state through corruption, infiltration, intimidation and violence. President Felipe Calderon’s government has prioritized combating drug traffickers by sending deploying 45,000 troops and 5,000 federal police to deal with the problem, and recently, observers in the U.S. have taken substantial notice as well, warning of dire consequences if action is not taken.  In an independent assessment for West Point, Ret. Gen. Barry McCaffrey wrote that Mexico could “become a narco-state in the coming decade,” and former CIA director Michael V. Hayden placed Mexico with Iran as equally-significant challenges for the Obama administration.  Drug violence can spill over across the border, evidenced by “a wave of kidnappings, shootings and home invasions in Arizona.” The seriousness of the situation is compounded by deep economic uncertainty, both in Mexico and the U.S.  The Mexican economy contracted 1.6% in the last quart of 2008, with unemployment reaching “the highest level in eight years.”  For the first time since 2006, the Mexican Central Bank cut interest rates, and there is general concern that economic instability in the U.S. will drag Mexico along with it. [WSJ, 2/21/09. Shannon O’Neil, CFR, 1/12/09. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, 12/08. NY Times, 2/24/09. LA Times, 1/25/09. USJFC, 2008. CFR, 11/20/08. Financial Times, 2/21/09. NY Times, 12/29/08. The Economist, 1/22/09]

Despite multiple shared concerns, Bush administration failed to make Mexico a foreign policy priority.  U.S. relations with Mexico are of fundamental importance.  Mexico, the 12th largest economy in the world, is America’s third largest trading partner.  It is also the 3th largest source of US oil imports and maintains large natural gas reserves, which are exported to the U.S in significant quantities.  The U.S. is also responsible for close to 50% of all foreign direct investment in Mexico.   90% of the cocaine entering the U.S. comes through Mexico, and 90% of the firearms that fuel drug-related violence in Mexico come from the U.S.  More than 16 million Mexicans are estimated to reside in the U.S.  Despite all this, and despite President George W. Bush’s promise to “look South, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment,” the U.S. – Mexico relationship has been on the back-burner for the last eight years.  For Mexicans, the erection of a 670 mile border fence under the Bush administration has come to symbolize U.S. shortcomings in this area.  Neither did the Bush administration succeed in revising NAFTA, the successful trade agreement brokered by the Clinton administration.  And while Bush deserves credit for expanding counternarcotics cooperation and assistance, he did not take corresponding steps to address America’s own drug dependence, which strengthens the cartels in Mexico. [Brookings Report, 11/24/08. Center for American Progress, 03/07. Gen. Barry McCaffrey, 12/08.  U.S. Department of State, 2008. William Hoover, ATF, 2/07/08. President Bush, 8/25/00. Center for American Progress, 3/07. CFR, 11/20/08. Economist, 1/13/09]

U.S. must partner with Mexico to address narcotics-fueled instability rooted in dynamics on both sides of the border.  Mexico’s violent struggle against the drug cartels amounts to a serious national security concern, but more than that, it is manifestation of a drug problem for which both Mexico and the U.S. share responsibility.  A first step toward addressing this problem “involves the United States getting its own house in order,” and “[e]nforcing U.S. gun laws and inspecting traffic on the border going south -- not just north -- would help reduce the tools of violence in Mexico,” notes Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Shannon O’Neil.  In fact, there are currently 6,600 licensed weapons dealers along the U.S.-Mexico border but the ATF has only 200 agents to monitor them.  A concrete step to address the problem of arms flows would be for the U.S. to ratify the Inter-American Convention against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and other Related Material, or CIFTA.  According to experts Johanna Mendelson Forman (CSIS) and Peter DeShazo (Americas Program), CIFTA ratification would increase U.S. opportunities for “cooperation among members of the Organization of American States (OAS) to control illegal weapons,” and “would send a strong signal to Mexico and to other countries in the region that the U.S. is determined to be a reliable partner in efforts to promote the security and well-being of all citizens in the Americas.” The U.S. can also take steps to interdict the billions in drug money smuggled across the border, following a model along the lines of the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center, designed to hamper terrorist financiers. In addition, the U.S. should consult with the Mexican government, not only to help build law enforcement capacity, but to assist in “efforts to strengthen Mexico’s judicial and law enforcement institutions,” by “providing training and information sharing” on judicial reform and police reform.  The U.S. must take concrete steps to adjust its own drug policies to reduce domestic demand.  A study by the RAND Corporation has found that addiction treatment is more than five times more effective than traditional methods of drug enforcement alone;  as O’Neil suggests, “prevention and treatment can lower the drug profits that buy guns, corrupt law enforcement agents, and undermine the Mexican government.” [CFR, 2/24/09. The Wilson Center, 1/09. RAND, 2005. NY Times, 2/26/09]

But the two countries must also move beyond a limited focus on drugs and immigration and develop a comprehensive and cooperative relationship.  According to a recent task-force report by the Wilson Center, “[t]he Obama administration and the incoming Congress have the opportunity to raise the level of attention given to Mexico and to pursue a strategic partnership based on consultation and cooperation around issues of shared national interest.”  To accomplish this, the U.S. must widen its focus beyond the urgent crisis posed by narcotics and security.  There are a number of items that should be part of this revamped agenda.  For one, the U.S. can move to check cross-border “economic instability during the downturn. by maintaining constant contact with the Mexican government, and keeping a line of credit from the Federal Reserve open for Mexico during the current economic crisis.”  The U.S. should also use funds from the stimulus package to upgrade border infrastructure, a move with obvious trade and job-creation advantages.  More broadly it should link the relatively discrete issue of trade with broader efforts to boost Mexican development, through such initiatives as a bi-national task-force “to augment development cooperation over time for targeted purposes,” naming special representatives from all three NAFTA countries to work on compliance issues, and increasing expenditures on educational and cultural exchanges.  The Obama administration can also take advantage of its shared commitment with the Calderon government to fight global warming by promoting dialogue and initiatives within the hemisphere. [The Wilson Center, 1/09]

What We’re Reading

About two-thirds of Americans support President Obama’s troop increase in Afghanistan.

The financial crisis and falling oil revenues threaten Iraq’s ability to pay for services, which may cause rebuilding in Iraq to slow.

Tibetans boycott celebration of the lunar New Year to remember those killed in violent protests against the Chinese last spring.

India files charges against the lone surviving Mumbai gunman, a Pakistani national.

The Syrian ambassador to the United States was invited to meet with a top U.S. State Department official, possibly signaling a warming of relations with Syria.

New leaks indicate that Obama’s Iraq withdrawal plan may not begin drawdown until after the December parliamentary elections.

Fatah and Hamas begin reconciliation talks in Egypt.

George Mitchell to meet with Israeli Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu.

U.S. develops plans to thwart roadside bombings in Afghanistan.

CIA Director Leon Panetta says the CIA’s Pakistan campaign is working.

China rejects a U.S. human rights report as interfering.

A United Nations-sponsored war crimes court found three former rebel commanders in the Sierra Leone guilty of crimes against humanity.

Six high-ranking Serbs will hear verdicts on charges of war crimes today.

According to a study of Muslim public opinion from the Project on International Policy Attitudes, Muslims overwhelmingly oppose al Qaeda’s tactic of attacking American civilians but also overwhelmingly oppose the U.S. military presence in Muslim countries.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times looks at the use and misuse of the word “terrorism.”

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger looks at challenges for the Obama administration’s strategy in Afghanistan, and urges determination.

Jameel Jaffer wants the Obama administration to release Bush administration Office of Legal Council memos.

Rosa Brooks looks at the case of Binyam Mohammed.