Mexico v. AfPak

TW: I would put this one in the food for thought category, not to be taken too literally but interesting nevertheless.

From Economist:
"THERE is this third-world country that's both a major producer and transition zone for drugs, that has a long, difficult-to-control border through rough, arid terrain where populations that share a common language and ethnicity on either side seem to transition freely, where the police are so lawless and ineffectual that the government has to replace them with regular army troops, where local government is so corrupt and so enmeshed with the warlords who control the drug trade that some people are talking about devolution to failed-state status, and where open gun battles raging on a near-daily basis between army troops, drug warlords, and civilians have killed thousands of people so far this year; and it’s not Afghanistan.

Over 1,800 people have been killed in drug-related violence this year in the city of Ciudad Juarez alone, right across the border from El Paso, the Guardian reports. Local newspapers call the situation "criminal anarchy"; a government human rights investigator who recently fled to El Paso to escape death threats suspects many of the executions represent "social cleansing" by the Army, murdering drug addicts, street kids, and other vulnerable targets. For Mexico as a whole, there have been roughly 9,000 drug-related murders so far this year. One political scientist points to the 120,000 soldiers who deserted from the Mexican army between 2000-6, saying many have "joined the enemy"...

So, what should America do? Should we deploy troops to northern Mexico, employing an extensive counterinsurgency strategy to hunt down drug gangs and protect local populations, and send thousands of aid workers to establish jobs programmes and reduce corruption in the Mexican government? Most Americans would treat such a proposal as absurd. And rightly so. The job of suppressing drug gangs and reasserting the legitimacy of the state in Mexico is a task that will be carried out by the Mexican state, and America can only play a limited role in assisting that, particularly given the long and touchy history of American interference in Mexican affairs.

And yet for some reason we believe that American policy is capable of accomplishing things in Pakistan and Afghanistan that we would never dream it could do in Mexico, even though Mexico is right next door. Nobody in America is under the illusion that some policy shift by America is going to solve all of Mexico's problems on any timeframe, let alone one of a few years. We have a healthy recognition that problems like the drug trade and the gun trade, the unhealthy interdependence of America's desire for cheap labour and Mexico's low levels of economic development, and the shaky legitimacy and effectiveness of local Mexican governance in many places are long-term, intractable problems. We recognise this because Mexico is right next door. The place feels real to us; it's not some kind of abstraction we can remake in our optimistic fantasies. It would be encouraging if the Obama administration adopted a similarly realistic attitude towards its aims in Afghanistan."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/10/nation_building.cfm

Yes We Can a Trade We Can Believe In

TW: I have to say I like the deal, I would have sought a carve out of Austin and definitely Lance Armstrong but otherwise a good trade. Will miss some friends but they can always visit (assuming they have proper documentation).

From Bill Wolfrum's blog:
"...Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon agreed to a blockbuster trade that will send the U.S. state of Texas to Mexico in exchange for the vacation hot-spot of Cancún, the famed Mexican soccer club Cruz Azul, and top-ranked female golfer Lorena Ochoa.“This trade was hard to make, but we felt it was something we had to do to strengthen the nation,” said Obama at a hastily arranged press conference. “Texas did a lot for this country over the years, and the fans won’t forget it. Texas will always have a place in our hearts, and we wish them well as they embark on their new Mexican adventure.”

Obama Administration officials said that the President felt a change had to be made when Texas Republicans - let by Governor Rick Perry - began clamoring for secession. Facing an April 29th trading deadline, pulled the trigger on the deal when Calderon relented and agreed to include Ochoa, the LPGA’s No. 1 golfer, in the trade.

“With Lorena Ochoa, the U.S. is not just getting a fine golfer, but a fine human being,” said Obama. “She’ll be a fantastic addition to our Solheim Cup team.”

While Cruz Azul has struggled on the pitch this season, the team is the most decorated in Mexican history. Obama said he believed the acquisition will give U.S. soccer the boost it’s been needing since David Beckham fled the country for Italy.

Still, the main piece of the puzzle was Cancún, the well-known vacation spot and popular spring break destination. Obama quickly made it clear that Cancún would be getting a starting position in his administration’s new economic recovery program.

...“Well, it’s a business, we understand that,” said Perry. “We were pretty sure that the Texas Constitution stated we could secede, but we didn’t know we could be traded.”

...Administration officials concurred, saying that construction of a laser-armed force field will be built around the Texas border, which would instantly kill any Texans that tried to enter the United States.

Calderon wouldn’t commit to his nation’s plans for Texas, saying it was dependent on how the state would affect the nation’s chemistry and whether Texans were willing to commit to being good Mexicans. Calderon refused to comment on the fast-spreading rumors that a deal was already in the works that would send Texas to Nicaragua in exchange for an undisclosed amount of coffee and beef, along with sections of Managua to be named later.

Perry said the state would need some time to regroup, and bristled at the idea of the so-called “Death Fence” that would soon surround the state.

“We really need to evaluate our career’s direction at this point,. But this fence is ridiculous. We’re good Americ … Mexica …. Oh, I don’t know!” said Perry before storming off in tears..."
http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2009/04/23/breaking-barack-obama-trades-texas-to-mexico-for-cancun-cruz-azul-and-lorena-ochoa/

Is the Mexico Story Overblown

TW: A local publication in El Paso provides a different perspective on the border "crisis". They begrudge the hype by which national media and certain interest groups apply the story. No doubt they have a point (national media lives on hype). Certainly local media can have their own biases as well though. It is in their economic interest to downplay the violence lest investors and tourists go elsewhere. Their themes focus on a desire not to have troops patrolling their streets and for folks to understand the complex dynamics of a border economy rather than the simplistic characterizations framed by outsiders.

I would rely more on lcoal views than say, Lou Dobbs. I never watch Dobbs but we overheard his venom while at an airport recently, he is a bloviator of ignorance. Bill O'Reilly may be more constructive than Dobbs.

From Texas Monthly:
"...it’s the twisted perception created by border-warrior politicians and national news media, and foisted on Juarez’s relatively peaceful sister city. For El Pasoans and residents of nearby border towns, it might all be a mere oddity—maybe even worth a chuckle—if it didn’t mean the construction of 18-foot border walls, blustery talk about National Guard troop surges, and new resources for the disastrous war on drugs. While “troop surge,” “border wall,” and “drug war” might sound irresistibly sexy to politicians and pundits, it’s border residents who have to live with the fences and tanks and consequences.

The truth differs wildly from the perception. Certainly, El Paso’s symbiotic relationship with Juarez has been disrupted by the explosion of drug violence south of the border, which began to tick up in January 2008. But it’s not the kind of disruption brought to you by CNN, Fox, and the rest of the media pack.

The real impact of the ongoing tragedy in Juarez is felt by El Pasoans in more indirect and personal ways. While the brutality across the river has not caused a wave of kidnappings and murders in El Paso, folks do feel its effects every day. Families are divided. El Pasoans can no longer visit their friends, relatives, doctors or dentists in Juarez. Businesses on both sides suffer. The stories are legion: The high-school student who can’t visit her beloved, 105-year-old grandmother because her parents don’t want to risk her safety. The young Juarez woman who worries that her El Paso friends and relatives won’t be able to attend her wedding. And the many families mourning loved ones lost on the other side of the Rio Grande.

...Consider this gem from former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, now a consultant for ABC News, commenting on Juarez: “There is in fact an insurgency on both sides of the American-Mexican border, and it’s stepped up a lot in the last several years because the Bush administration ignored it and put its focus on Iraq.”

...According to the FBI, more than 1,600 people were killed by cartel violence in Juarez in 2008. El Paso, a city of 755,000, recorded just 18 murders last year. Laredo had 11; Brownsville and McAllen had three and nine, respectively. By comparison, Washington, D.C., with a population smaller than El Paso’s, had 186 homicides in 2008.

...The violence is not “spilling over the border” into the U.S. No, every time you say that, whether you mean to or not, you’re conjuring up images of crazed Mexicans crossing the border to burn Columbus, and you have it backwards. It spilled over from the U.S. into Mexico and Latin America long ago. ... [F]or the past 20 years, we’ve been slowly turning the border into a militarized zone, so let’s not say there isn’t violence associated with both sides of the drug trade and the Drug War. We could say that we’re now sharing the violence to a higher degree, an important distinction from the simple-minded terminology of “spilling over.”

...Negron cops to his own role in whipping up the frenzy. In January he penned an article for Texas Monthly called “Baghdad, Mexico,” comparing the carnage in Juarez to the insurgent violence in Iraq. He wishes he hadn’t made the comparison, he says, because it helped fan the blaze of overheated news coverage.

...It’s not that border mayors like Cook and Cortez aren’t deeply concerned. Even before the violence began to spike in Juarez last year, they had been asking Congress for more checkpoints to search for guns and cash heading south, and for more customs officials at U.S. ports of entry to stop drugs heading north.

...Tired of living under virtual house arrest, mayors, county judges and business leaders formed the Texas Border Coalition in 2006, the first year of Operation Jump Start. The coalition has tried ever since to educate state and federal policymakers about what U.S. border towns are really experiencing and what they really need. They’ve spent a lot of time pleading their case in Washington. It’s been uphill all the way.

The coalition fought the 18-foot steel wall through their communities.

...Now the coalition is trying to fend off calls for another National Guard “surge” along the border. It’s not easy, with fear-mongering about drug violence, spillover, and terror threats again reaching fever pitch.

...One problem, Cook says, is that Washington politicians and national media “don’t know how Mexico positively impacts our region”—including the billions in legal trade across the border. “Typically what happens in Washington is that they listen to you, and it sounds like you are getting through to them. Then you leave, and they do whatever it is they planned to do anyway.”

...The same disconnect between reality and perception, O’Rourke says, has derailed meaningful debate about immigration reform. “For the past two years, we’ve been told that Mexicans are smuggling terrorists, taking our jobs, and selling us drugs, and that we are being invaded,” O’Rourke says. “And it worked. It totally freaked people out, and they reacted emotionally to an issue that I think could be solved rationally.”

...He won’t stop trying. O’Rourke wants to organize a national conference in El Paso on U.S. drug policy. “We are ground zero in the drug war—this is it,” O’Rourke says. “We are disproportionately affected by any U.S. policy that deals with Mexico, whether it’s immigration or, in this case, drug policy. We should be the ones framing this and informing the policymakers at the national level—not Lou Dobbs or people in D.C. or other parts of the country. Because the reality is that Mexico scares them, the border scares them, and military interdiction seems to make perfect sense to them.”

...Local reporters and officials occasionally have a chance to give a national audience a window into what’s actually happening. But the story they have to tell is complicated and nuanced. It can’t compete, in the American imagination, with daily tirades from the likes of CNN’s Dobbs and Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. Dobbs has been especially avid and persistent in calling for armed troops on the border. In a recent newscast, he had this advice for President Barack Obama: “Bring home the troops from Okinawa, Afghanistan, Iraq ... and bring them here to secure our border and stop the flow of illegal immigrants, drugs and terrorists.”

...Still, Negron tries to look at the bright side. “At least CNN sent Anderson Cooper to El Paso,” he says, “and not Lou Dobbs.”
http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=3014

Drug Legalization: The Libertarian View

TW: I have pounded the table on this, here is a libertarian economist making some of the same points we have previously expressed.

From Jeff Miron via CNN:
"...The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead.

Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question.

The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons.

Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically.

Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling.

Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers.

...Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers.

Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits.

The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others.


...It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

Obamanomics: He Needs To Step Up On Free Trade

TW: The left-wing is soft on free-trade. Obama must fight them. Congress has now inserted several amendments into recent legislation which are protectionist. Protectionism in a normal environment is troubling, in the current environment where international cooperation is crucial if an even worse economic crisis is to be averted, it is absolutely toxic. Obama pandered on the issue during the primaries then tacked back to the center subsequently. Lets hope he more than tacks in coming weeks.

From Economist:
"...a provision inserted into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill signed into law by Mr Obama has scrapped a pilot programme that allowed a small number of Mexican trucking companies to carry cargoes north of the border—as NAFTA requires.

Mexico’s response was swift. On March 18th it imposed tariffs of up to 45% on 90 American agricultural and industrial imports, ranging from strawberries and wine to cordless telephones. The list was carefully chosen to avoid pushing up prices of staples in Mexico while hitting goods that are important exports for a range of American states. That way, it could have maximum political effect north of the border.

Since NAFTA was signed in 1992, trade between Mexico and the United States has boomed. But the issue of road transport has turned into a political battle. Around two-thirds of cross-border trade goes by road. Transport companies from each country were supposed to be able to operate freely in the others by 2000. The Teamsters union, whose members include American truck drivers, has fought a long and largely successful rearguard action against this provision. It argues that Mexican trucks are unsafe and polluting and their drivers insufficiently trained.

An American court rejected these arguments. So did a NAFTA dispute-settlement panel, which ruled in 2001 that the United States was violating the agreement and gave Mexico the right to impose retaliatory tariffs. Mexico chose not to do so, to give the United States a chance to honour its commitment. The Bush administration tried, but was thwarted when Congress approved a measure setting 22 new safety standards for Mexican trucks.

...The Teamsters’ safety argument looks spurious. Mexican transport firms have invested in new trucks and trained their drivers to meet the safety requirements under the pilot scheme. A study commissioned by America’s Department of Transportation, which tracked Mexican trucks operating north of the border in the first year of the programme, found that these trucks clocked up far fewer safety violations than their American counterparts.

The Teamsters’ victory means that most Mexican goods going north will continue to have to be unloaded at the border, reloaded for the short hop across it, then loaded again onto an American truck...No such restrictions apply to Canadian lorries..."
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13331117

The U.S.: Armorer For the Cartels

TW: We tend to get pretty uptight when a story about say an insurgent in Iraq is found with Iranian sourced weaponry. Unfortunately we are developing a quite effective export trade of our own- arming drug cartels in Mexico. Due to the proliferation of all sorts of guns and the relative ease by which they can be purchased we have developed a thriving trade with the cartels south of the border. We use their drugs and arm them to fight with each other over the spoils, makes one proud to be an American.

From Int'l Herald Tribune:
"...Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.

...The gun laws in the United States allow the sale of multiple military-style rifles to American citizens without reporting the sales to the government, and the Mexicans search relatively few cars and trucks coming into the country.

What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers - more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their homes - makes policing them a tall order. The ATF now has about 200 agents assigned to the task.

Smugglers routinely enlist Americans with clean criminal records to buy two or three rifles at a time, often from different shops, then transport them across the border in cars and trucks, hiding them in door panels or under the hood, law enforcement officials here said. Some of the smuggled weapons are also bought from private individuals at gun shows, and the law requires no notification of the authorities in those cases.

...ATF officials estimate that 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico came from dealers north of the border"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/26/america/border.php

Mexican Unrest

TW: 250 people have been murdered in Juarez City (across the river from El Paso) this month. There are 1.6 MM folks in Juarez City, there are 2.8MM within Chicago's city limits. Imagine if an equivalent nearly 500 folks had been murdered in Chicago this month (there were 510 in 2008 total which was up from 450 in '07). The vast majority of the murders are drug related.

The Mexican federal government does not control the drug lords. Corruption is rife throughout federal, state and local governments. To think that our own governments are not also riddled with corruption related to the drug trade would be naive.

From Tom Rick's blog:
"The most interesting news story of the day is that the governor of Texas wants to deploy 1,000 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. I am not sure where this situation is going, but it is the kind of thing that can come out of left field and upset all our plans for our ongoing wars elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the Mexican government also says it is sending troops to the border area, apparently to re-take parts of the city of Juarez, where, according to Reuters, more than 250 people have been killed in drug violence this month. "We aren't going to give up an inch of the city," vowed Interior Minister Fernando Gomez Mont. Kind of reminds me of the recent comments of the Pakistani government about Swat. The difference, of course, is that Swat is near Afghanistan, while Juarez is across the river from the west Texas town of El Paso.

...There is a weird analogy between Pakistan and Mexico. In both places, American addictions -- to oil and to drugs -- have helped fund those who are destabilizing those countries. The Pakistan connection is generally less direct -- I am thinking of Saudi Arabian funding of extremists."