There’s no doubt that military power has a great presence on the international stage and is often utilized in times of turmoil. Even with countries that are in close proximity to each other, such as the United States and Mexico, the military can be used as a tool in maintaining a relatively steady equilibrium of peace in that area. On the whole, the relationship between the United States and Mexico is stable; however, there have recently been violent uprisings on the border between the two countries not only because of illegal immigration issues, but now due in part to increased drug trafficking and drug wars.
U.S. relations directly with Mexico are currently centered on finding a reasonable solution to secure the borders; this has been a festering problem for both nations. Illegal immigration has been a hotly debated topic in the last decade, but lately, attention has turned to controlling the drug trafficking/wars on the border, which have left both nations with a new, serious crime wave on their hands. Mexico has always been part of an area that has supplied and trafficked drugs to the United States. Today, the people making these illegal transactions possible, power-hungry drug cartels, are taking over the border. With this comes a spree of some of the most dangerous, organized crime the nations have ever encountered surrounding their borders. And in regards to the U.S., this represents the greatest organized crime threat to the nation at the moment (Hidalgo).
Major violence with the cartels began in 2006 and has continued to heighten until today. More than 22,700 have died in drug cartel related violence in Mexico, some of the deaths constituting American lives (Shear). Amid the gunfire, tensions have risen between the two nations as their plans regarding working together to fix this problem has brought waves of scrutiny. To many, especially the Mexicans, the rising accounts of violence such as drug-related murders on the borders are proof that existing government strategy of containment is failing. Military initiatives on the part of Mexico have not been strongly supported, as they have been heavily criticized for operating their missions without a clear focus and too much of a sense of freedom, even though “more than half of the 37 most wanted crime bosses announced last year have been captured or killed” (Hidalgo). Seeing that supposedly superior American officials have aided in training some of Mexico’s corrupt military/police forces, the United States military sector, numerous international organizations, and human rights activist’s frustration in the realm of getting the situation with drug cartels on the border under control. These two countries being thrust into the spotlight like this is essentially a test to see how well they deal with this illegal activity on home territory. In light of this, I believe more international organizational support, such as relief given by Amnesty International, would be beneficial in solving this conflict; the opinions of such organizations matter greatly in situations similar to these. These organizations act as a response team, reacting to the actions of the actors in conflict. Their support becomes largely based on what they approve and/or disapprove of. The question is though, would this type of increased support bring the conflict in this area to an end quicker? Essentially, the way the states showcase how well they deal with internal issues guarantee what and how much support the nations end up receiving from NGOs, activist groups, etc. Through this, the theory of liberal institutionalism is displayed.
The Catholic Church and the military are the two most respected institutions of Mexico; the people are disappointed with actions of the military regarding the regulation of drug trafficking/wars (Hanson). All in all, increased and continued cooperation from the United States is seen as necessary to curtail drug related violence. While both nations are attempting to combat all of this, an influx of money troops are being sent to the area. The borders between these two countries are struggling due to the drug activity. If this issue were to be fixed soon, the government and the people in these areas would obviously be more at peace with each other, being a stabilized unit.
Due to the prominence of the criminal organizations that spilt over from Mexico the United States, one of the crucial pledges taken in order to finally put the major violence to rest, introduced by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, is called the Merida Initiative. This displays the United States’ commitment to partner with governments in Mexico and in other parts of Central America to target criminal organizations whose activities have wreaked havoc near the border. In 2010 alone, $450 million dollars was requested from Congress to put toward this initiative. Through this program, things like inspection equipment and community action programs to promote anti-gang activities are being introduced to Mexico and other Latin American countries alike (“The Merida Initiative”). These measures I think are vital in securing the nations borders and preventing any more drug trafficking/wars in this region. This is a shared responsibility between Mexico and the United States in order to stop such violence. The product of the Merida Initiative is that, “By working collaboratively with Mexico, Central America, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti we confront this regional threat with a regional solution, and undermine the ability of criminal organizations to adapt their behaviors and evade justice” (“The Merida Initiative”).
Representing liberal institutionalism, this it is a signal that if the United States and Latin American countries take part in this initiative, they can be a stronger and more cohesive as a whole in the fight against organized drug related crime; with everyone “buying in” to this initiative, this geographical region of the world can hypothetically be greater than the sum of its parts. The Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs acts as a base institution to coordinate the actions of the fight against the drug trafficking and drug wars that are taking place with increased violence. Sending reinforcements in terms of troops might be a short-term fix, but in the long run, more subtle measures are encoded in the Merida Initiative. However, is this enough of a collective security measure to stabilize the region? Would it create a more solid governmental mechanism of two nations in order to successfully fight of the drug crimes? To fight this organized crime by continuing to test the waters of this particular rejuvenated policy might serve the nations well at the moment, but is this really the best plan to ultimately calm this issue? Or will the counties resort to more military force, disregarding the more liberal approach to the matter? Either way, vagueness in what measures would serve the region best needs to be resolved. The violence between the Mexico and U.S. border halts for no one with out a course of action.
Shear, Michael D., and Spencer S. Hsu. "President Obama to Send More National Guard Troops to U.S.-Mexico Border." The Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 May 2010. Web. 02 Oct. 2011.
“The Merida Initiative.” The U.S. State Department. The U.S. State Department, 23 June 2009. Web. 01 Oct. 2001.
Hanson, Stephanie. “Mexico’s Drug War.” Council of Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, 20 Nov. 2008. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
Hidalgo, Oscar. “Mexican Drug Trafficking.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 03 Aug. 2011. Web. 01 Aug. 2011.
Courtney, in the New York Times on October 3rd, there was an article eerily similar to your blog post entitled, “Crossing Over, and Over” by Damien Cave. The main idea of the article was that Mexican illegal immigrants deported from the United States attempt to return to the U.S. to be reunited with their work as well as their families, and to escape the increasing drug-related violence in Mexico.
ReplyDeleteThe quote from the article that I think most connects to your article is, “‘Our societies are so deeply connected,’” Ms. Meissner said, referring primarily to the United States and Mexico, the main source of illegal immigrants. ‘And that is not reflected at all in policy’” (Cave). Doris Meissner, a United States’ immigration official in the mid-1990s, argues that the US and Mexico are intertwined due to the flow of immigrants, but US policy does not account for this relationship.
Because US policy tends to ignore the un-ignorable, that immigration is going to persist so it may be better to accept it than punish it, I agree with you Courtney, that an overarching institution is necessary to solve the problem. An organization such as, Amnesty International or the Merida Initiative needs to get involved. These organizations must be the presence that pushes the idea that Mexican immigrants (illegal or not) “‘are people with fundamental ties to the United States, not where they came from’” (Cave). If a higher institution can help US policy makers see immigration as a form of interdependence and trade, and that both countries must rely on each other because of this dynamic, then the liberal theory of peace-promotes-trade may indeed make for better relations and positive policy between the US and Mexican immigrants.
Article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/world/americas/mexican-immigrants-repeatedly-brave-risks-to-resume-lives-in-united-states.html?_r=2&hp
Courtney, I thought your article was quite interesting. You brought up a lot of good points and facts about the ongoing drug crisis in Mexico.I noticed you suggested that NGOs like Amnesty International should be involved in Mexico. But I am just curious as what they would do? I know that you stated that the Merida Initiative would work with the GOs, NGOs, and the community to start programs and measures to curb violence, but I see NGOs would just end up as more targets for the cartels. I believe just due to the shear violence the cartels use, that nothing effective can be done until at least some of cartel's ability to inflict terror is compromised. Which brings up my second point, in an act of collective security, how would you feel about US military intervention in Mexico under provision set forth my our various counter-terrorism and "war on terror" laws"? The US military is much better equipped than the Mexican army and free of cartel corruption, and if put to work correctly could really crack down the combat effectiveness of the major cartels. I believe if invited my the Mexican government, joint military action would be a great start to stable peace between the US and Mexico.
ReplyDeleteI think using more nonmilitary based tactics would down the road be beneficial for the United States, in terms of solidifying our relationship with Mexico, before embarking on any more missions that incorporate troops. If the Merida Initiative's objectives were to be implemented more, I think it would at least it would prove to be a start point combatting this issue from the standpoint of a less forceful approach. While troops might be necessary to further reduce the presence of drug lords, etc, at first, this policy would overall act as a bond to further unite the countries of North/Latin American through this particular violent issue. In my opinion, at least the U.S. is willing to try and use the tactics laid out in this initiative instead of just doing the "bare minimum" by just sending troops to the border. This is a step toward not only trying to clear up the violence on the border, but also stabilizing a collective security force in the region. As Hannah stated, another institution would be a great benefactor toward solving this issue, as they might step up the pressure to finally put this issue to rest through other means besides the use of the military,
ReplyDeleteBringing an organization like Amnesty International, independent from the government, would serve as an outside force for things such as: 1) possibly supporting the the brining in of UN peacekeeping forces from the area (rather than simply more U.S troops) and 2) raising support of the suffering in the region, making people more aware overall of the issue to create a stronger community to fight against the violence. These efforts might temporarily serve to derail cartel actions.
This issue definitely might fall under the category of terrorism, but overall more militaristic tactics might be overbearing on the part of the U.S. Trying more policy based maneuvers would provide a different angle to "attack" the cartels from, in addition to the troops already stationed there.