United States and Mexico's Collaboration Against Mexican Drug Cartels - Essay Example

United States and Mexico's Collaboration against Mexican Drug Cartels For the better part of the past seven years, Mexico and the United States have been forced to shelve their historical differences on security matters and forge an alliance against the numerous drug cartels operating in Mexico. The organization whose influence spans across both sides of the international borders has been responsible for the killings of thousands, more so in Mexico. Furthermore, they have momentously contributed to the problem of Organized crime and other drug-related social challenges, most important of which are drug trafficking and the subsequent addition and degeneration of the lives of individuals and societies that are affected (Shirk 3). The main role of U.S. has been the supply of funding and intelligence to the Mexican authorities that supports their domestic efforts in fighting the cartels. However, there have emerged cracks in this co-operation since it is becoming apparent that the two nations have divergent objectives in the fight (Stewart). While the Mexican government would like to eliminate or at least control the scourge at home, the U.S. government is more concerned with protecting her borders. In addition, some of the moves made in the U.S. such as the decriminalization of Marijuana are calling to question their commitment to the war and the extent to which they are willing to help fight the scourge. This paper will examine the efforts of these two neighboring States to combat jointly the drug cartels, with emphasis on the role of the U.S. in the partnership as well as how its actions weigh in on the fight. The U.S. drug strategy for Mexico is grounded on three principles, which are co-operation, containment and willingness to take the responsibility for the problem (Walser 5). The co-operation between the two countries received a major shot in the arm when the former president Bush and Colaedron signed the Merida initiative that designated over $1, 4 billion dollars into Mexico and other South American nations. The idea behind these funding was with the mandate to destroy the grip of organized crime in the regions (O'Neil 64). In the recent past, the U.S has sent thousands of military personnel in Mexico to aid in training laws law enforcement agencies, they have also deployed drones to collect intelligence about the drugs crimes run-on sentence. In addition, over $3 billion is used in patrolling the U.S border to reduce the incidences of drugs being illegally brought into the United States. The border patrol agents have been doubled in number and provided with an array of sophisticated tools to be deployed in securing the U.S. border. Despite criticism, it is apparent that the joint operations between the two nations have been fruitful in many ways. It is estimated that most of the high profile killings and arrests by the Mexican government were a result of bilateral cooperation. Like his predecessor, it is worth noting that president Obama has continued to work with the Mexican government as evinced by efforts to gather more intelligence by helping set up patrols in Mexico. Through this platform, the capacity for Mexican law enforcement agencies to make arrests, collect and disseminate data has been bolstered. In addition, the DEA has been working to recruit and train foreign officers to impart some of the American skills and experience in the war against Mexican cartels. Nonetheless, despite such observations, the involvement and contribution of the U.S in the drug problem is much more complex than simply providing funds and intelligence. United States has a deeper and more domestic role as one of the main consumers of the drugs produced and trafficked through Mexico (Payan 867). In addition to consumption, many of the weapons used in the drug-related violence and murders have been found to have originated from the United States. For example, in 2009, over 2000 weapons were sold to known members of drug cartels in an effort to track the leaders. However, 1400 of these were lost, and most of them turned up in crime scenes such near the Mexican borders. Due to the high levels of corruption and infiltration into law enforcement agencies by the cartels, the present arrangements allow the U.S. to require that Mexican agents submit to polygraph tests among other vetting procedure. The Mexican agents were to do all these before they are allowed access to sensitive drug-related intelligence (Stewart). This includes a number of undercover agents and the content of security briefing as well as the data collected through drones and satellite surveillance. Under the Obama administration, Mexican military officers have been recruited into the U.S. northern command and the Joint Task force in the Key West. Furthermore, the Mexican military has also received additional training and invitations to take part in US counter-narcotic training and pilot programs. While the corporation levels appear to be improving, it is worth noting that they are subject to change especially due to new political climates since political relations between the two nations determine a substantial aspect of the fight. In addition, despite the illusion of action on paper, many of the recommendations take too long to be implemented owing to the excessive bureaucracy (Andreas 15). For example in December 2009, it was reported that only 3% of the promised funds under Merida had been delivered to the Mexican government. The long lead-time needed for the leasing of aircraft vehicles and other expensive high tech gadgets for use in the drugs war is invariably resulting in a slowdown of the deployment process. Apart from the bureaucracy, there have been disputes in congress on whether or not the meridian money should be sent to Mexico with some lobbies. It is claimed that it only serves to escalate conflict and human right abuses in Mexico both by criminals and law enforcement officers. Since the start of the 20th century there have been numerous attempts to counter the illegal cross-border activities ranging from smuggling illegal mining human trafficking to ensure that the impacts of such activities is restrained to the Mexican side (Kellner and Francesco 29). The U.S border patrol was instituted in 1924 with the intention of securing the border borders and although there seems to have been a virtually consistent flow of persons and good across the border, they have significantly been successful in at least limiting some of the activities (Heyman 621). The U.S. government believes that it can contain the drug problem to a reasonable degree and to this end, it has continued to modify border security policy. U.S. is doing this by making minor revisions and advisements in some of the laws and policies put up under the Bush administration. In April 2009, under Alan Bersin, over $400 million of economic stimulus funds was directed to law enforcement activities in the southern border. This was part of an approach by the office of the national drug control policy and DHS to stem the inflow of illegal drugs and profits of the same into the United States. Further, it committed the Obama administration to enhancing of intelligent capabilities as well as improving the control in ports whether, aerial, land or marine through which drugs were known to enter. However, while the Obama administration appears to have largely upheld the previous government's commitment to enhance border protection, certain projects have continued to be derailed by technical difficulties and political wrangling in congress. For example, distribution of stimulus money to the completion of border security enhancement has resulted in widespread politicking. Some observers claim the funds seem to be directed towards feeding congressional appetites rather than being a response to assessed need. Blaming America has been proposed as a key strategy in the drug war since it places emphasis on the relation between the demand for drugs in the US, gun laws, economic openness and a variety of other American factors that contribute to the problem (Walser 12). The Obama administration took a bold step by formally accepting co-responsibility for the drug crisis; this was articulated in a markedly forceful manner by the U.S. secretary of state Hilary Clinton. She said during a trip to Mexico "Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs," the Secretary announced, "fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police, of soldiers and civilians" (Walser 12). While these assertions that were followed by claim from both sides that the U.S. is responsible for over 90% of the guns in the drug trade cannot be substantiated. There is little doubt that it has contributed a great deal to the problem (Dube, Oeindrila and Omar 399). In 2010, the U.S. government appeared to pursue a pragmatic and incremental strategy by enforcing existing U.S. laws to facilitate effective inspections, which would target gun law violation on its soil. In addition, the attempts to identify and disrupt weapons smuggling across the border received a major boost with almost 3000 U.S. agents assigned to it. However, it is worth noting that these efforts have not been as successful as anticipated although there has been a defiant increased in the number of guns seized in the last four years. Nevertheless, more attention to be given to the presentation of gun recovery statistics since these are often vague and can be misleading about the success of failure of joint efforts. Joint efforts are being supplemented by e-Trace, which is a U.S. government initiative that allows its allies to identify firearms online as long as they have been registered and recorded online. This way, they can be used to track the cartel members who use them to commit crimes as well as tracing them back to the source. The program can be accessed in most of the U.S. consulates in Mexico in Spanish and through it, hundreds of gun sellers who knowingly break laws have been prosecuted although convictions have proven hard to get. While not seeking to undermine the commitment of the Obama administration to the anti-drug war, the claim that demand is the cause of the problem not a particularly substantive one. In as much as the president may want to set the tone for the country by asking citizens to reject illegal drugs, this is not really the role of the federal government. Reducing the demand for illegal drugs is traditionally a job for the state governments, religious organizations schools and other social organs. Therefore, by making the federal government appears culpable for the problem the state essentially accept responsibility for a job it is not chartered to do. In addition, the decriminalization of drugs has posed a grave policy and legal challenge to the joint war on drugs between the U.S. and Mexico in recent past. The U.S. is seen as deliberately sabotaging the ongoing efforts. American lawmakers have buckled to public pressure and legalized marijuana in several states, which is seen as nothing short of betrayal by their Mexican neighbors. Cannabis is a critical component of the cartels' business, and it is approximated to account for over 60% of the illicit drug proceeds. While agreeing that decriminalization of marijuana would result in fewer arrests in the United States, policymakers have analyzed the move claiming that it is a gateway drug. Therefore, by reducing the number of people who will be arrested the U.S. is only solving a short-term problem while encouraging a long-term one. People who consume marijuana are more likely to demand harder drugs after some time, and this will fuel the need for imported drugs in posterity going against the pledges of the U.S. government to reduce demand. In addition, it makes no sense for U.S. law enforcing officers to be risking their lives against Mexican cartels selling marijuana while the same is being legally distributed back home. In addition, the Mexican government has come to depend on their American neighbors to help them stem the vise but actions such as legalization of substances only serve to encourage their consumption. More drugs will be put in the hands of users and indirectly increasing the size of Mexico's export market. Recommendations and conclusion The fight against drug trafficking has proven to be a very protracted one and so far, despite the commitment and the investments in terms of manpower and resources drugs are still a dominant vise (Shirk 6). The two governments need to bolster their co-operation take decisive action. U.S. being the more influential of the two should implement a more integrated approach by combining its efforts against drugs on the Caribbean, Mexico and Centra American regions rather than treating each as a separate front. Both countries should strive to fulfill the commitments of the Merida agreement to the letter and the U..S. congress should work on reducing the bureaucracy that is stalling the implementation. The two nations also need to build a cross-border anti-drug coalition involving the civil societies, government agencies and even private citizen to press for reform. Whether approached from a domestic or foreign policy viewpoint, there can be no easy way solving the drug problem since there are myriad of factors involved that neither side can fully grasp or control. In addition to labor and resources, it is important that both nations implement policy that does not jeopardize the joint effort and/or give an edge to the cartels. While admitting there are challenges and risks for both sides, it is incumbent upon the U.S. and Mexico to pool resources and explore all possible avenues. Otherwise, the threat of drug trafficking violence, corruption and anarchy will gradually spill over to the U.S. side further debilitating its efforts to lend assistance. Works Cited Andreas, Peter. Border games: policing the US-Mexico divide. New York: Cornell University Press. 2012. Print. Clements, Kenneth W. Economics and marijuana: consumption, pricing and legalisaion. Cambridge University Press, 2009. Print. Dube, Arindrajit, Oeindrila Dube, and Omar García-Ponce. "Cross-Border spillover: US Gun laws and violence in Mexico." American Political Science Review 107.03 (2013): 397-417. Heyman, Josiah McC. "Why interdiction? immigration control at the United States‐Mexico Border." Regional Studies 33.7 (1999): 619-630. Kellner, Tomas, and Francesco Pipitone. "Inside México's drug war." World policy journal 27.1 (2010): 29-37. O'Neil, Shannon. "The real war in Mexico: how democracy can defeat the drug cartels." Foreign Affairs (2009): 63-77. Payan, Tony. "The drug war and the US-Mexico border: the state of affairs."South Atlantic Quarterly 105.4 (2006): 863-880. Shirk, David A. The drug war in Mexico: confronting a shared threat. No. 60. Council on Foreign Relations, 2011. Print. Stewart, Scott. U.S.-Mexico Cooperation Against Cartels Remains Strong. Forbes. 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2014 Walser, Ray. "US strategy against Mexican drug cartels: flawed and uncertain." Backgrounder 2047 (2010): 1-15. Read More