Mexico, chief casualty of America's 'war on drugs'

With the death toll ever rising, it's high time the US stopped sponsoring a bloody, unwinnable conflict with the drugs cartels.
Mexican police guard a US embassy vehicle after it came under fire from gunmen on Highway 57 between Mexico City and Monterrey, on 15 February 2011. A US immigration and customs enforcement agent was killed and another wounded in the attack. Photograph: AP Photo/Teodoro Blanco Vazquez

John Ackerman

Tuesday's brutal attack on two US law enforcement agents in Mexico has led to the normal sabre-rattling. Representative Michael McCaul of Texas has called it a "game-changer" and a "wake-up call" to the "war on our nation's doorstep". Last week, James Westphal, undersecretary of the Army, had already spoken of an "armed insurgency" in Mexico, and the possibility of sending "armed and fighting" troops across the border to prevent a "takeover of government". Secretary Janet Napolitano continually speaks of the "war" south of the border. James Clapper, national intelligence director, recently announced that Mexico has been promoted to being a top national security threat.

Mexico has, indeed, reached a tipping point. But an escalation of the present military strategy will only make the situation worse. The best response to recent events is to end the war and proceed towards disarmament, instead of aggravating the conflict. Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, has declared the end of the metaphorical "war on drugs" within US borders. The time has come also to bring a stop to the very real war on the drug cartels south of the border.

The central problem with the military strategy is that it does not distinguish between violent and non-violent criminals, or serious and less harmful crimes. As Kerlikowske has pointed out, the Mexican cartels are not "insurgents" or "terrorists", but "multivalent criminal organisations", which have diversified into a wide variety of activities including kidnapping, extortion, piracy, human trafficking, money-laundering and government corruption, as well as the transportation and sale of illegal drugs.

Of all of these crimes, by far the least harmful for social and economic development is the transportation of drugs. Although drug consumption is clearly damaging, simply transporting illegal substances does not, in itself, create violence, economic crisis or human suffering. And even the harm of drug consumption pales in comparison to the effects of kidnappings, beheadings and human trafficking, especially when the consumption involves marijuana, sales of which make up two thirds of the profits of the Mexican cartels.

Nevertheless, due to pressure from the US government, the Mexican authorities have been forced to concentrate their scarce law enforcement resources on pursuing the least harmful crimes. This strategy has had the obvious consequence of pushing the criminals towards more dangerous and violent activities. The result: a stratospheric increase in violence, with over 35,000 assassinations in the past four years, 15,000 during 2010 alone. The problem in Mexico is, therefore, not a lack of firepower or support for the "war on drugs", but the very strategy of "war" itself.

The real priority should be on punishing violent crimes, not the transportation of drugs. By turning the typical strategy on its head, Mexico would slowly start to separate the violent, dangerous criminals from those drug traffickers who are in the business principally for the money. Although this might not bring down the prices of illegal drugs on the streets of US cities, it would help end the violence, which today is paramount and may at some point spill over to the US.

This proposal should not be confused with either legalisation or negotiation approaches. Increased liberalisation of marijuana consumption would reduce the urgency of controlling transportation routes, but this strategy is by no means dependent on the legalisation of drug use. And this idea in no way implies a pact with the cartels, in the style of the past authoritarian Mexican governments. On the contrary, the proposal is to increase, not reduce, the pressure on the most serious criminals.

Such a change in strategy would immediately receive vigorous applause from the Mexican people. A growing number of Mexicans have come to the conclusion that peace and prosperity are more important than stopping the flow of drugs towards eager consumers in the United States. A broad new citizen movement has even emerged, rallying around the cry of: "No more blood!" Movement leaders agree that the drug cartels need to be controlled – but in a way that does not destroy the very fabric of society. It makes no sense to win the war, if it leaves the country in shambles.

It is time for the Obama administration to listen to the Mexican people and not only to his military advisers. The roots of the problem obviously lie in the lack of regulation of the sale of assault weapons and in the high drug consumption in the US: 90% of weapons confiscated from Mexican cartels come from the US. But if it is not politically feasible to attend to these issues, the Obama administration can at least change the emphasis of its policy towards Mexico. The central objective should be the reduction of violence and the establishment of the rule of law. Without this, everything else is doomed to fail.

Iran Had a Democracy Before We Took It Away

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig.

AlterNet.

Iranians do not need or want us to teach them about liberty and representative government. It is we who need to be taught.

Iranians do not need or want us to teach them about liberty and representative government. They have long embodied this struggle. It is we who need to be taught. It was Washington that orchestrated the 1953 coup to topple Iran’s democratically elected government, the first in the Middle East, and install the compliant shah in power. It was Washington that forced Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, a man who cared as much for his country as he did for the rule of law and democracy, to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. We gave to the Iranian people the corrupt regime of the shah and his savage secret police and the primitive clerics that rose out of the swamp of the dictator’s Iran. Iranians know they once had a democracy until we took it away.
The fundamental problem in the Middle East is not a degenerate and corrupt Islam. The fundamental problem is a degenerate and corrupt Christendom. We have not brought freedom and democracy and enlightenment to the Muslim world. We have brought the opposite. We have used the iron fist of the American military to implant our oil companies in Iraq, occupy Afghanistan and ensure that the region is submissive and cowed. We have supported a government in Israel that has carried out egregious war crimes in Lebanon and Gaza and is daily stealing ever greater portions of Palestinian land. We have established a network of military bases, some the size of small cities, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Kuwait, and we have secured basing rights in the Gulf states of Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. We have expanded our military operations to Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Egypt, Algeria and Yemen. And no one naively believes, except perhaps us, that we have any intention of leaving.
We are the biggest problem in the Middle East. We have through our cruelty and violence created and legitimized the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads and the Osama bin Ladens. The longer we lurch around the region dropping iron fragmentation bombs and seizing Muslim land the more these monsters, reflections of our own distorted image, will proliferate. The theologian Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, “Perhaps the most significant moral characteristic of a nation is its hypocrisy.” But our hypocrisy no longer fools anyone but ourselves. It will ensure our imperial and economic collapse.
The history of modern Iran is the history of a people battling tyranny. These tyrants were almost always propped up and funded by foreign powers. This suppression and distortion of legitimate democratic movements over the decades resulted in the 1979 revolution that brought the Iranian clerics to power, unleashing another tragic cycle of Iranian resistance.
“The central story of Iran over the last 200 years has been national humiliation at the hands of foreign powers who have subjugated and looted the country,” Stephen Kinzer, the author of “All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror,” told me. “For a long time the perpetrators were the British and Russians. Beginning in 1953, the United States began taking over that role. In that year, the American and British secret services overthrew an elected government, wiped away Iranian democracy, and set the country on the path to dictatorship.”
“Then, in the 1980s, the U.S. sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, providing him with military equipment and intelligence that helped make it possible for his army to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians,” Kinzer said. “Given this history, the moral credibility of the U.S. to pose as a promoter of democracy in Iran is close to nil.
Especially ludicrous is the sight of people in Washington calling for intervention on behalf of democracy in Iran when just last year they were calling for the bombing of Iran. If they had had their way then, many of the brave protesters on the streets of Tehran today—the ones they hold up as heroes of democracy—would be dead now.”
Washington has never recovered from the loss of Iran—something our intelligence services never saw coming. The overthrow of the shah, the humiliation of the embassy hostages, the laborious piecing together of tiny shreds of paper from classified embassy documents to expose America’s venal role in thwarting democratic movements in Iran and the region, allowed the outside world to see the dark heart of the American empire. Washington has demonized Iran ever since, painting it as an irrational and barbaric country filled with primitive, religious zealots. But Iranians, as these street protests illustrate, have proved in recent years far more courageous in the defense of democracy than most Americans.
Where were we when our election was stolen from us in 2000 by Republican operatives and a Supreme Court that overturned all legal precedent to anoint George W. Bush president? Did tens of thousands of us fill the squares of our major cities and denounce the fraud? Did we mobilize day after day to restore transparency and accountability to our election process? Did we fight back with the same courage and tenacity as the citizens of Iran? Did Al Gore defy the power elite and, as opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has done, demand a recount at the risk of being killed?
President Obama retreated in his Cairo speech into our spectacular moral nihilism, suggesting that our crimes matched the crimes of Iran, that there is, in his words, “a tumultuous history between us.” He went on: “In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians.” It all, he seemed to say, balances out.
I am no friend of the Iranian regime, which helped create and arm Hezbollah, is certainly meddling in Iraq, has persecuted human rights activists, gays, women and religious and ethnic minorities, embraces racism and intolerance and uses its power to deny popular will. But I do not remember Iran orchestrating a coup in the United States to replace an elected government with a brutal dictator who for decades persecuted, assassinated and imprisoned democracy activists. I do not remember Iran arming and funding a neighboring state to wage war against our country. Iran never shot down one of our passenger jets as did the USS Vincennes—caustically nicknamed Robocruiser by the crews of other American vessels—when in June 1988 it fired missiles at an Airbus filled with Iranian civilians, killing everyone on board. Iran is not sponsoring terrorism within the United States, as our intelligence services currently do in Iran. The attacks on Iranian soil include suicide bombings, kidnappings, beheadings, sabotage and “targeted assassinations” of government officials, scientists and other Iranian leaders. What would we do if the situation was reversed? How would we react if Iran carried out these policies against us?
We are, and have long been, the primary engine for radicalism in the Middle East. The greatest favor we can do for democracy activists in Iran, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf and the dictatorships that dot North Africa, is withdraw our troops from the region and begin to speak to Iranians and the rest of the Muslim world in the civilized language of diplomacy, respect and mutual interests. The longer we cling to the doomed doctrine of permanent war the more we give credibility to the extremists who need, indeed yearn for, an enemy that speaks in their crude slogans of nationalist cant and violence. The louder the Israelis and their idiot allies in Washington call for the bombing of Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions, the happier are the bankrupt clerics who are ordering the beating and murder of demonstrators. We may laugh when crowds supporting Ahmadinejad call us “the Great Satan,” but there is a very palpable reality that has informed the terrible algebra of their hatred.
Our intoxication with our military prowess blinds us to all possibilities of hope and mutual cooperation. It was Mohammed Khatami, the president of Iran from 1997 to 2005—perhaps the only honorable Middle East leader of our time—whose refusal to countenance violence by his own supporters led to the demise of his lofty “civil society” at the hands of more ruthless, less scrupulous opponents. It was Khatami who proclaimed that “the death of even one Jew is a crime.” And we sputtered back to this great and civilized man the primitive slogans of all deformed militarists. We were captive, as all bigots are, to our demons, and could not hear any sound but our own shouting. It is time to banish these demons. It is time to stand not with the helmeted goons who beat protesters, not with those in the Pentagon who make endless wars, but with the unarmed demonstrators in Iran who daily show us what we must become.
The fight of the Iranian people is our fight. And, perhaps for the first time, we can match our actions to our ideals. We have no right under post-Nuremberg laws to occupy Iraq or Afghanistan. These occupations are defined by these statutes as criminal “wars of aggression.” They are war crimes. We have no right to use force, including the state-sponsored terrorism we unleash on Iran, to turn the Middle East into a private gas station for our large oil companies. We have no right to empower Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestine, a flagrant violation of international law. The resistance you see in Iran will not end until Iranians, and all those burdened with repression in the Middle East, free themselves from the tyranny that comes from within and without. Let us, for once, be on the side of those who share our democratic ideals.

Concern Grows in the U.S. That the Drug War Is Destablizing Mexico

By Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle.

AlterNet

45,000 Mexican military personnel have been dispatched to centers of drug violence across the country to stamp out the growing violence.

Concern about a potential failed state -- not Pakistan, not Somalia, but California's neighbor Mexico - is mounting in Washington as an all-out war involving 45,000 Mexican military personnel fails to quell rising drug violence that is spilling from such Mexican cities as Tijuana into the United States.
An estimated 6,290 drug-related murders occurred in Mexico last year, six times the standard definition of a civil war, said Vanda Felbab-Brown, a leading scholar on the issue at the Brookings Institution.
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, described beheadings of Mexican mayors and police chiefs and said Mexican drug gangs have infiltrated the cannabis fields on both public and private lands in Northern California. He said Mexican villagers are kidnapped and smuggled into the northern coastal forests to grow pot, leaving environmental wreckage in their wake.
He said a timber company employee had been held at gunpoint by a Mexican gang, and he worried that hikers could be threatened. There also have been gang confrontations with firefighters.
"This isn't your '60s hippie growing a little pot on the back 40 to get through winter," Thompson said.
Two House committees will hold hearings today, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has scheduled a Senate hearing for Tuesday to determine how to respond. Ideas range from building a stronger border fence to decriminalizing marijuana.
Mexico "is in the paradoxical situation where the more it intervenes against the drug cartels, the more it destabilizes the drug market, which is the reason it's so violent," said Felbab-Brown. "Drug markets are normally not this violent. This is an aberration. The analogy is Colombia in the 1980s and early 1990s."
Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands (San Bernardino County), told the Associated Press this week that the violence in Mexico is "a lot more important, in my own judgment, than Afghanistan at this moment."
Mexico and Pakistan
The U.S. Joint Forces Command called Mexico and Pakistan the world's two most critical states in danger of failing. While cautioning that Mexico has not reached Pakistan's level of instability, it reported that Mexico's "government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels."
The State Department issued a travel warning in February based on rising violence and kidnappings, especially along the border. It said innocent bystanders have been killed in attacks across the country.
Many, not least the Mexican government itself, take strong issue with labeling Mexico anything close to a failed state, though they acknowledge that the violence is serious and spreading.
"I'm in the heart of Mexico City as we speak, and the buses are full of people, the metros are running, the shops are open and people are walking freely," said George Grayson, a Mexico scholar at the College of William and Mary. "I don't see anything that looks like a failed state."
He said, however, that some areas have been overrun by drug cartels, including Ciudad Juarez across the border from El Paso, Texas, and municipalities in the states of Michoacan and Guerrero.
Others contend that Mexico is in danger of becoming a "narco state" where drug cartels control large parts of the country and the government cannot perform its most essential task, ensuring the safety of its citizens.
"There are different forms of weakening," said Felbab-Brown. Rather than a collapse of the government, she said, "I am more worried that you will have internal pressures within the elite and from the larger society for accommodations with the cartels."
Police corruption remains rampant in Mexico, and she warned that the government could retreat to what she called the "corporatist" model of the 1960s and 1970s, when police regulated and protected drug traffickers.
She said what worries her even more is that the government can neither defeat nor accommodate the drug cartels, and so "simply retreats, gives up territory." In that scenario, she said, state presence in parts of the country would be limited, and the government "abdicates its responsibility to be the sole purveyor of coercive force. That is very consistent with the historic trend in many Latin American countries."
Unlike past battles over immigration, Mexico's current problems are blamed increasingly on the United States: its enormous demand for illegal drugs and its availability of military-style weapons, including bazookas and grenade launchers, that are smuggled to Mexico and used to match or overwhelm the Mexican military.
Mexico also let the drug problem fester for decades, tolerating police corruption. Once established, police corruption is difficult to eradicate; matters have only grown worse with the rise in the drug trade. Well-funded gangs make offers of a "bullet or a bribe" and kill the few who choose the former, along with their relatives.
Drugs and assassinations
Grayson said the notorious Los Zetas group has diversified into assassinations and has begun to target army officers.
Retired army Gen. Mauro Enrique Tello was found tortured and shot last month near the popular spring-break resort town of Cancun. Tello had been hired to clean up the Cancun police force, whose chief has been arrested in connection with the murder.
The former presidents of Brazil, Colombia and Mexico recently called the nearly 40-year U.S. "war on drugs," begun in the Nixon administration, not only a failure but a threat to civil society in Latin America.
"My personal view is, it's us who is more responsible than Mexico," said Sidney Weintraub, a leading Latin American scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "We're providing profits of about $25 billion to the drug cartels. That's a lot of money."
About 40 percent of the drug sales are marijuana, he said. "We imprison more people for marijuana than any other drug. What we have to do is change our policy and decriminalize marijuana. I don't think we can do much unless we cut back on the money. As long as they have all that money, Mexico is in a largely hopeless situation."
Weapons from U.S.
Moreover, Weintraub said, more than 90 percent of the weapons smuggled into Mexico "are sold by our gun dealers to people they know are sending the guns to Mexico. Against this array of money, violence, ability to bribe, being able to outgun the military on any occasion, it's hard for them to do anything. ... Our policy has to change."
There is almost no chance that either Congress or the Obama administration will decriminalize marijuana any time soon. Former President George W. Bush, at a meeting with Mexican President Felipe Calderon in Merida, Mexico, in March 2007, promised $1.4 billion over three years to provide technology and training to Mexico. The first $197 million was allocated last year, but many describe the sum as a pittance next to drug revenue and say it has focused mainly on high-tech gadgets such as surveillance planes that are helpful but no solution.
Some say strengthening the border is a priority, but the cartels have even resorted to using submarines to evade land barriers.