« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Mexico: Failure or Opportunity?

After all, a serious crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate in a Hudson Institute/RedState sponsored “New Media Forum” with John Walters, who served as President Bush’s “drug czar” from 2001-09.  As we all know, the escalating drug war in Mexico threatens to violently destabilize the nation and so create a serious problem for the neighboring United States.  The crisis appears intractable–indeed there are some in the US who have speculated that Mexico is on the brink of being a “failed state.”  The Obama administration response appears to be one of manning the ramparts rather than attempting to find a solution.  You might expect Mr. Walters to consequently offer a grim prognosis.  The surprising thing is that he did no such thing–he sounded a note of optimism and described the current situation in Mexico as an opportunity for, rather than a threat to, the United States.
Our discussion was wide-ranging, and included topics such as the potential involvement of foreign governments in supplying or training the drug gangs that threaten to overrun Mexico (Mr. Walters thinks this is possibly a factor in the violence but was cautious about pointing fingers) to the legalization of drugs, which he opposes.  Mr. Walters also discussed the much celebrated but generally misunderstood Plan Colombia, which, he argued, has succeeded largely because of the courageous and decisive action of President Uribe and the aggressive strengthening of the Colombian internal security forces.

While these are all interesting topics, for me the eye opener of the call was Mr. Walters’ optimism about the current situation in Mexico.  As he pointed out, the United States has a rare partner in Felipe Calderon who is looking to the US rather than to other regional powers to partner with him in battling rampant gang violence.

Mr. Calderon came to office in a squeaker of an election in 2006, but his narrow margin of victory has not led him to govern in a timid, conciliatory fashion.  He has confronted the drug gangs and the violence we see today is their push back against his aggressive policies.  Mr. Walters sees in President Calderon the kind of ally we found in Mr. Uribe–and so a potential partner in resolving the current crisis and moving forward with a mutually productive alliance that will contribute to the security and prosperity of both nations.

Mr. Walters also discussed some of the ways the US could assist Mexico short of flooding the country with American troops.  For example, the US can assist with the prosecution of extradited drug criminals, thus removing bad actors and reducing the strain on the weak and frequently-compromised Mexican judicial system.  As Mr. Walters discussed, the willingness of the Calderon administration to cede this responsibility to the United States and to freely share information indicates Mexico’s interest in strengthening ties with the US.

Critics might point out that the United States has not had much success in finding serious partners in previous Mexican presidents.  It is true that there were high hopes for the relationship between former Presidents George Bush and Vincente Fox that were not realized.  The charismatic and handsome Mr. Fox, who might have played the President of Mexico on TV if he did not actually hold the office, did provide some assistance to the US but he never emerged as the sort of partner that is needed to combat the violence that is spilling onto both sides of the US-Mexican border.  Mr. Calderon appears to be made of sterner stuff.  He resents the implication that his nation is failed, or “ungovernable,” and asks the US to work with him to solve the problem rather than to offer handouts or put up a wall between the two countries.

So what is the new American President to do?  After all, this is an administration that has vowed never to let a serious crisis go to waste, and it seems that in the Mexican crisis there is a rare opportunity to make substantial progress for US interests in Latin America.  Unfortunately the opportunity may be slipping through our fingers.  Today we have the disturbing news that the Obama administration is continuing a pattern of protectionism by restricting trade with Mexico–a move that is in violation of NAFTA and which will have unfortunate consequences for Mr. Calderon, who needs both the economic support provided by free trade with the US and to bolster the image of US-Mexican cooperation so that his citizens will support his pro-US policies.  Mexico has responded by slapping tariffs on 90 US imports.

While the Obama administration says it is taking a strong stand in support of Mr. Calderon, its early actions appear to be ones that undermine, rather than strengthen, this critical relationship.  Hopefully Secretary Clinton’s timely visit to the region later this month will reverse the disintegrating trend of US-Mexican relations.  Mr. Walters pointed out that President Calderon has only one six-year term in office, and there are no guarantees that his successor will offer a similar opportunity.  The clock, as he said, is ticking.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • NeoKong

    Are the drug cartels selling their drugs to Mexicans or Americans here on our side of the border?
    Stopping the free flow of drugs and criminals over into our country might be a logical first step into securing the national security of both countries.
    It seems to me that these cartels survive on their ability to travel back and forth to the U.S. and operate their syndicates here.
    The wave of drug violence and kidnappings in border states is an absolute disgrace and a perfect example of how no one is watching the border effectively.
    The human trafficking is also big business on the border.Some of those border crossers pay up to ten grand to get shipped over the border and many of them become victims of crime from those they paid to bring them here.
    Job one.Secure the damn border.It’s such a no-brainer.

    If a person were to receive daily briefings on the violence down in Mexico they would think they are reading about Iraq.The massive gun battles,the beheadings and executions and the thousands of soldiers that patrol the streets daily seem very similar.The only difference would be that it’s probably safer in Iraq.

  • briefsynopsis

    In viewing the relationship for the “Two Americas” that we have in the US right now, my barometer is our relationship with Mexico.
    On one side of the isle, we have elected officials who employ the War on drugs, war on poverty etc. to enable free men to enjoy and thrive, on the other side of the isle we have officials who use those same vassals to subjugate and usurp power for omnipotent governance.
    If we are to ever again shift focus and assist with the spread of democracy and freedom we are going to have to first force a national dialog on what our goals as a Nation are or rather should be,..
    Does the left in this country stands for anything! They can tell you what they are not for, and how all things could have been done much better, or why or lofty goals failed, but can anyone of them tell you what they would freely give or sacrifice for those same ends?
    Until we sort out our own house, (perhaps by asking our friends and family that voted for “hope and change” the simple question of “Based on What?” thusly forcing them to identify what their well ingrained talking point is based on, or where the proof of statement originates!), than and only than can we engage in a war on anything other than our freedoms and the relationships of our closest neighbors and allies.
    Until such time, watch the southern border, all we need to know will manifest from that area first.

    Great article!

    • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

      A prosperous Mexico is not in their best interest. Mexican citizens pouring across the border to the food stamp line (and then the voting booth) IS in their best interest. A chaotic Mexico *almost* elected a socialist, if not a devout Marxist, in 2006. And we all know what they say, “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

      By the way, how is it that our neighbors to the South suffer from so much violence? Guns are illegal in Mexico. Just wondering’….

    • techsan

      I think the left does stand for lots of things….abortion on demand (Obama’s entire philosophy), quashing of religious freedom (what pastors can/can’t say in the pulpit in the name of tolerance), limitations free speech (“fairness doctrine”), not holding people accountable for their choices (welfare), etc. Unfortuately, what they are “for” are things which chip away at traditional family values…traditional values which were built into the documents and traditions of this country’s founding.

      And about a national dialog…I think it happens a little each time a Senate or House member stands up and says “no” to the lefty legislation. Too bad the “dialog” is presented by much of the MSM as a pummelling of the person who spoke up. Still, people are “getting it” slowly. The best remedy, say “no, and here’s my proposal”…repeat daily.

      • briefsynopsis

        but your examples are still not things they are “for” are they?
        Abortion; somewhere around 80+% of the country agrees that advanced medical technology should and must be used. (so the dialog should shift to be “at what point should any medical procedure be used as a form of abortion, and under what conditions?” The left wants no discussion.
        Religious freedom and free speech; I will lump these two together with the remark that anything having to do with the Judeo/Christian value system (not Beliefs, but Values), the left is fervently against.
        Fairness Doctrine; only applies to anything the vocal few find to be against their individually perceived notion/concept of utopia. (remember Truth to Power? Power Sharing? and Inclusiveness? they only deem these to apply when the left is struggling to hobble those in power.)
        Traditional family values should mean loving your family fully, and accepting them as they are, while continually striving to encourage self reliance and value production. (regardless of their race creed or sexual orientation!)
        Gay, lesbian, Bisexual or Heterosexual are divisive groupings designed to carve up the electorate and pit them against one another.

        Truth #1 is that there is no such thing as a just master!
        (and more and more no such thing as a just application of law)

        If we as a nation cannot start moving toward our problems, we will surely create more and more strain on ourselves, our resources, our allies, and our neighbors!

        • techsan

          and I do agree….what if I stretched this one further?

          Is it fair to say that much of the liberal agenda can be boiled down to a selfish view of the world. It’s me-first. If I bump that up against your points, I can fit that view around each of them. The “just master” you note is “me”.

          Whereas, a conservative viewpoint, based on Values of “a [benevolent and loving] creator”and the Golden Rule introduces an accountability that challenges a me-first world view.

          So..perhaps what the left is *for*…is….”me”.

          • briefsynopsis

            was creating an environment where each individual could paint their own little Barackatopia, Bizzaro-World- Seinfeldish, stand for nothing less than everything.
            Kinda fits the Value Usurpers Credo.

  • http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com Darvin_Dowdy

    …simply read this convoluted garbage that A. Elephant writes here. As if it is “our” responsibility to solve Mexico’s problem? Pure BS coming from a classic Transnational Progressive. Obviously Mr. A.Elephant doesn’t have to live down here along the border where truly suffer from effects of wide open border. Just in the last week or so we’ve had one of our Houston Police officers shot in the face by an illegal. We had a case of tuberculosis in a local high school where an illegal brought it in now parents are wondering if their child is contaminated. These types of stories are typical in the daily news cycles here in Texas.
    It all comes down to the Rule of Law vs. Selective Enforcement. Bush 43 with his disgusting habit of pandering opted for selective enforcement which translated into zero enforcement. A free for all. Barely controlled chaos. And here we have 8%+ unemployment and Mr. A. Elephant wants to turn over millions of trucking jobs to low-paid Mexican drivers?

    Is this some game to see how politically stupid we can be?? This is nothing less than war upon the Middle Class and Ronald Reagan would not have condoned it. In fact he would have vigorously fought this strong Transnationalist trend within the GOP.

    Mexico needs to solve its own problems and until they do, we should build the fence, seal the border. And if Obama ends up doing what we, Repubs should have done, its not going to be good for us, a self destructive GOP, come 2010. Darvin Dowdy

    • http://jeffemanuel.net Jeff Emanuel

      Mind control, NAU, Gold Standard, and JOOOOOS!!!

      Make sure you have your tin foil ready and your hat-folding instructions within reach, fellow Citizen!

      • http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com Darvin_Dowdy

        …compartmentalize things that they can’t really argue against or deal with. When confronted with such they simply place that is some convenient cubby hole and pretend it doesn’t exist. So cowardly. This is the state of “our” Conservative Movement these days. Sad. Very sad…. DD

        • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

          …and gratuitous name-calling. Apologize. Now.

          • http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com Darvin_Dowdy

            …Mr. Emanuel will also apologize to me for his insult. I am not a Ron Paul supporter. I do not wear a tin foil hat. Lets be fair here, Mr. Lane. How can you say that it is unprovoked? DD

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Last chance.

          • http://streetlevel.blogtownhall.com Darvin_Dowdy

            …I’m simply not understanding this. Need clarification. howdy99@comcast.net thanks.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            I have nothing to say to people who accuse Contributors of not being loyal Americans.

            Blam.

    • JustLeaveMeAlone

      The reason Mexico is “our” problem is that they are our neighbor, and their problems spill over into our country, just as our problems affect Mexico.

      Apparently you live in Houston too, because you reference last week’s police officer shooting. This is Exhibit A in why we have to do something about Mexico. I live downtown, and I don’t want to have to wear body armor to go to the grocery store; do you?

      Do we really want a lawless nation on our southern border? Do we want one vulnerable to political forces from El Salvador or Venezuela? Where is your compassion for the folks there who want the same freedom and opportunity you enjoy?

      Like it or not, we share not only a border, but this part of the world and yes, even this state (Texas) and nation with those brown-skinned Spanish-speaking people. Many of them were here before we were. We can’t just herd them to the Rio Grande and build our version of the Berlin Wall to keep them out., It hasn’t worked, and it won’t work.

      Time to stop looking longingly at what you wish for and deal with reality.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    With the rest of the world, the economy in Mexico has taken a dramatic turn downward. The Peso has lost about 31% over the past six months and inflation is above 6% and increasing. Crime is way up, especially violent crime along the border area. Foreign companies such as Honda are cutting their workforce. Overall, Mexico?s economy is much less resilient then ours and difficult times lay ahead.

    Mr. Obama?s proclivity to start a trade war as protectionist payback for his union friends will complicate the situation further. It will also have a dramatic affect on our Southwestern US state exports. People tend to forget that Mexico is one of our biggest export markets and cross-border trucking has been a factor since about 1994.

    That said; Calderon has been a good friend of the US. However, the issue with Mexican relations has always been sustainability and consistency. So I would provide some caution to Mr. Walters?s optimism. The drug gangs are powerful adversaries and will only stop when their business interests are consistently and forcefully hurt. That tactic by Calderon would no doubt be courageous, but also potentially politically suicidal in Mexico?s corrupt government structure. Certainly, the fact that Mexico?s President has substantial power (a colleague of mine once called it the elected six year anarchy) works to Calderon?s favor. But at some point he needs to work with an ineffective legislature which is both a source of corruption and bound to local interests that holistically hurt the country (sounds familiar).

    Calderon must harness the power of Mexican industry, bring more efficiency and stabilize the economy. Concurrently, he must also crush the drug gangs and bring a safer environment to Mexico?s citizens. That seems to be a rather tall order, but not out of reach. If he can achieve some magnitude if these factors, I would agree with Mr. Walters. Otherwise, I suspect we will at best return to the organized, partitioned chaos that is Mexico.

    • Achance

      The whole country runs like a strip joint where you have to pay to work. The Patron makes a deal to provide the labor for some enterprise then provides his clients to the enterprise. The Patron gets all the money then dispenses a pittance to those who do the work. Mexican laborers are literally owned by their Patrons. Some fundamental labor law reform would dramatically improve Mexico’s general standard of living as under the current system you have the very rich Patrons and everybody else is dirt poor. If American unions are looking for something to do, they could go forth to organize south of The Border. ‘Course, the Federalis might not be as nice to them as American cops are.