iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Michael Busch

GET UPDATES FROM Michael Busch
 

Changing the Drugs Debate in Mexico

Posted: 07/13/2012 10:03 am

Amidst ongoing controversy surrounding the results of last Sunday's presidential election in Mexico, the declared winner of the contest, Enrique Peña Nieto, is unambiguously organizing to take over the government come December. The election was marked by claims of fraud, irregularities, and manipulation by the major media in favor of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which ruled the country for much of the twentieth century, and sponsored Peña Nieto's run for the presidency. While all of these allegations are likely true to an extent, they ultimately fail to convince. And while the opposition continues to protest Peña Nieto's victory, the president-elect has moved on.

Peña Nieto has been assaulting American media with a public relations campaign intended to signal confidence, competence and sensitivity to American concerns with what goes on in Mexico domestically. Chief among these concerns, clearly, is the country's security failure since its transition from authoritarianism over a decade ago. In the past six years, particularly, the country has suffered from President Felipe Calderón's use of the military to go after Mexico's trafficking "kingpins." Far from achieving progress, Calderón's strategy has left the country noticeably worse off. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 45,000 to 67,000 people have been murdered since Calderón took office. Mexico's jumble of local, state and federal security agencies have been rendered useless by graft; and the power of the so-called "Mexican cartels" seems to have metastasized within and beyond Mexico's borders.

Peña Nieto has promised that his administration will not persist with the failed policies of the Calderón era, though he has remained elusive in outlining the specifics of change. Last Thursday, however, his special advisor on combating drug traffickers, former director of police in Colombia, General Oscar Naranjo, sketched out a basic plan of what the next administration intends to do. Despite facing questions about his own resistance to corruption, not to mention the allegations against his immediate subordinates, Naranjo's plan makes sense -- forget the kingpins, get control of mid-level operators responsible for the lion's share of violence, and focus on keeping local communities secure. Of course, this approach is not without its problems. But it compares quite favorably against competing ideas which generally emphasize continued, and bolstered, military action throughout the country.

The president-elect has also changed course, albeit slightly, on his position with respect to drug decriminalization. In an interview with PBS NewsHour, Peña Nieto argued that he will welcome debate on the issue of drug legalization and regulation in Mexico, a move advocates claim would deflate widening illicit profit margins, reduce cartel violence, and offer the state an additional source of tax revenue.

This rhetorical change is not insignificant. Up to now, Peña Nieto has been vague in detailing how his approach to battling the country's cartels would meaningfully depart from the strategy employed by his predecessor. President Felipe Calderon made fighting the drug war a cornerstone of his presidency, and he wasn't shy in bringing to bear the full weight of his military to secure victory. The results have not only been shocking -- tens of thousands dead and myriads more paralyzed by fear and fatigue -- but they seem to have done little to curb cartel influence. While some groups have been weakened or put out of business altogether, other syndicates have deepened their foothold domestically, expanded their power across borders and diversified their operations into other economic sectors. For his part, Peña Nieto has acknowledged that violence must be reduced, but has resisted rejecting outright calls to order the military back to the barracks.

By arguing that the issue of legalization should be on the table for debate, Peña Nieto is signaling that he's prepared to move Mexico in the direction of its regional neighbors on the issue. At April's Summit of the Americas gathering in Cartegena, Colombia, Alma Guillermoprieto writes that "for the first time the leaders at the summit openly debated--although behind closed doors -- whether the best way to stop the rolling disaster was an end to the U.S.-sponsored and -dictated war on drugs, and at least partial legalization, or regulation, of the drug trade." While the region's leaders succeeded in making their case to President Barack Obama, however, the message was swamped by the media's focus on an embarrassing sex scandal involving Obama's Secret Service detail and some hookers. Nevertheless, the takeaway from Cartegena was clear -- Latin American leaders no longer accept the American line on drug policy.

It's important to underscore that Peña Nieto won't quickly arrive at a change of heart on the question of legalization. While acknowledging that state policy has been a dramatic failure under Calderon, Peña Nieto made sure to stop short of staking out a clear position one way or the other. "I'm not saying we should legalize. But we should debate in Congress, in the hemisphere and especially the United States should participate in this broad debate."

He won't find a willing partner to the north. The Obama administration flatly rejected calls for legalization in Cartegena, and shows little willingness to even entertain the idea in theory. For one thing, there's just too much money to be made in the war on drugs. Billions of dollars each year are spent by the government on influential private contractors tasked with the day-to-day dirty work of fighting drugs. The Los Angeles Times reported last spring that the "majority of U.S. counter-narcotics contracts," some $3 billion in total, "are awarded to five companies: DynCorp, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, ITT and ARINK." And the money keeps growing. "Counter-narcotics contract spending increased 32 percent over the five-year period, from $482 million in 2005 to $635 million in 2009. DynCorp, based in Falls Church, Va., received the largest total, $1.1 billion." Politically speaking, legalization is risky and offers few short-term rewards that would be of interest to any sitting president tethered to his or her party's hopes for the future. Therefore, it falls very low on the list of presidential priorities.

But it may not matter. The violence smothering Mexican politics and society has grown untenable, the state's reaction impossible to justify. Even as American pressure continues to mount in favor of drug prohibition, other forces in the neighborhood are gathering steam, forces that reject business as usual in the war against drugs. And, after all, it's all in the timing. At the very moment when fresh ideas and the political will to animate them are at a premium, each is being offered by the regional consensus that legalization might provide relief from the crippling power of trafficking cartels, if not escape.

This piece is cross-posted from Warscapes magazine.

 

Follow Michael Busch on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelkbusch

FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 22
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
12:39 PM on 07/16/2012
Emotion is stronger than reason when it comes to legalization in the USA. At the national level, legislation would have to have the support of both the president & the majority party in the House and/or the Senate. The president would have to be in his 2nd term & be very popular among conservatives to survive politically. The last time the situation was favorable was therefore 25 years ago toward the end of the Reagan presidency. Neither Obama or Romney will be able to move forward on this. It would take a wing nut, and they're opposed to legalization in the 1st place.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rybalaw
10:11 AM on 07/16/2012
Legalization in America will first come from the State Legislatures and Governors. Since the Federal government does not have the resources to go after the small time pot dealer and is unwilling to close down the California and Colorado medical pot operations except when they are deemed to get too big, this will be like illegal immigration or the enforcement of prohibition in the 1920s (Everyone talks about it, but the Feds don't do to much about it due to lack of resources.) The problem with the Federal govt is that every federal policy has a private contractor who happens to have a lobbyist and friends in the U.S. Congress.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
11:15 PM on 07/15/2012
This is not a "war" that can ever be won by force, unless one is willing to commit genocide on one's own population.  Just about every country in the world is waking up to this fact, except the U.S. government.
12:28 PM on 07/15/2012
From my personal opinion, war on drugs should be here in the US, not in countries where people can hardly eat. If the funds stop outgoing from the US, they will certainly have no where else to export, Europe? haha, they don't play, u get caught, you are serving some serious time.

I think Mexico needs to introduce death penalty to Drug traffickers, Kidnapers and Corrupt officials, By just sitting on the chair a couple of hundredths, Im sure things will be way different. And please don't bring religion in to this, It is a fact that Death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment, but obviously Mexico has sooo much crime, and sooo little punishment. The US don't have that much crime, due that 90% of the times, if you get caught, you'll really wish u never done it.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
missouriwatcher
military veteran, veteran teacher, father, grandpa
11:17 PM on 07/15/2012
Draconian policies have been tried repeatedly in the past, and guess what?  They don't work, they never have worked, and they never will work.  Do a little historical research and see for yourself.
10:03 AM on 07/16/2012
Not in Mexico, not in today's generation. To day there is a penalty, but it is applied by drug dealers to the people. 
05:35 PM on 07/14/2012
The president elect--is in fact not. Mexico's laws do no ratify an election until a 3 part process. There is no president elect until the electoral tribunal ratifies the election which hasn't happened--and probably won't until September.
A legal challenge by candidate Lopez Obrador may surprise many with a good (and getting better) possibility of annulling the elections. The challenge is an overwhelming open-and-shut case, the only reason to doubt it, is of course a dominant history of corruption that reaches the highest levels of Mexico's institutions. This year may be different, corruption may not rule the day, especially as stories come out about the money laundering schemes to fund voter fraud in general by the PRI (Peña Nieto) party. The electoral tribunal will is already being pressured by a huge force of the population, and it won't be easy to escape one more time with electoral fraud.
http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/monexvinculadoalacompradevotosparaelpritienehistorialdelavadodedineroparaelnarco-1330961.html
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
03:43 PM on 07/14/2012
If YOU want the violence to end in Mexico then YOU stop purchasing. Take some personal responsibility. If the US weren't so juvenile and self-indulgent the Mexicans would not dying over who gets to cater to our vices.
photo
roy brophy
Dyslexic F. O. "Sorry!"
03:56 PM on 07/14/2012
You are supporting a prohibition that makes no sense. If I chose to smoke dope it is none of your business or the Government's.
12:22 PM on 07/15/2012
Yeah, but people on this country are selfish, addicts and can careless for all the blood that runs while smoking or snoring. It's sad how many countries and people die, so a few with dollars can enjoy a simple buzz... I know I'll get a bunch of replies to this comment, but hey, If I choose to look at things this way, its my choice, as much as they can choose to be addicts or not.
05:09 AM on 07/14/2012
Why no mention of PEMEX in this article? The privatization of state assets is one of Pena's surprising dovetails with America's interests. It could be argued that Pemex is the real prize for American corporations. The drug war, horrifying as it is, is a major issue, but ExMo really wants to at that oil.
photo
AlfredE69
Liberty Lovin' Tree Hugger
07:51 PM on 07/13/2012
Clearly Obama is on the wrong side of history. What makes him think his war on drugs will work when last Century's war on alcohol failed?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Arturo Ramrez
12:15 PM on 07/13/2012
Come on, if Peña Nieto really cared about reducing the violence, he could've implemented some of those politics on a local level when he was a governor, and that was certainly not the case.
12:53 PM on 07/13/2012
Thanks for the note, Arturo. I actually don't think it matters what Peña Nieto cares about one way or the other. There are other forces at work that will begin to impact his decision making (or whoever is actually calling the shots behind the scenes) when he assumes the presidency. As with any politician, I don't assume that personal preferences drive the agenda so much as a concern with maintaining power and the regional dynamics may persuade the next president that engaging in legalization debates (or at least decriminilaztion domestically) just might be the way to go. No more, no less.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Arturo Ramrez
02:09 PM on 07/13/2012
I don't think that personal stances have much to do with real world politics, either, of course. But what I meant is that his party has had little interest in legalization before, after all...it is PRI that founded the culture of political corruption that sadly infiltrates Mexico. As for decriminalization, strictly speaking, Mexico already decriminalized drug possession and use, alas the amounts allowed are ridiculously small, it is certainly a great step in the right direction. I don't know if you know this, but PAN's first president actually tried to legalize drugs under his term, but he had the political prowess of a flatworm.