Mexico’s drug trafficking violence gets U.S. attention

Almost overnight, Mexico has jumped  to the top of the U.S. diplomatic agenda – at least momentarily overshadowing Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is visiting Mexico this week, paving the way for a scheduled visit next month by President Obama. 

It appears that part of the attention comes from a heightened awareness of the cross-border threat of drug-related violence.  The rhetoric got especially charged in recent months as Spring Breakers were warned to avoid Mexico (The ATF, in an odd move for an agency whose role seems mismatched for such statements, warned students to avoid Mexico – and then later softened their stance).  The U.S. Joint Forces Command, meanwhile, identified Mexico as one of the two most critical states in danger of failing due to the havoc created by the region’s drug cartels. 

To be sure, the violence appears to have taken a particularly savage turn over the past few years. Missing in some of these assessments, however,  is that the backlash comes from the Mexican government’s own success in attacking the country’s drug cartels over the past eight years. Dismantling long-standing drug trafficking organizations, unfortunately, creates instability . Drug trafficking was a major problem during the 1990s but it may not have attracted this much attention because the drug groups operated with comparatively minimal meddling from the government. This created a false sense of order.

With so much attention on the violence in Mexico lately (I can’t seem to turn on the radio or read a news media source without hearing about it), Mexican authorities have lashed back. In recent weeks, they have pointed out that  the U.S. demand for drugs is fueling the drug trade. They have accused  the U.S. of not doing enough to curb the flow of firearms south of the border into the hands of drug traffickers. Mexican president Felipe Calderon also suggested that the U.S. do a better job of attacking drug corruption in its own agencies.

Things have gotten testy, and the visits by U.S. diplomats are clearly meant to soothe the bickering and focus on the cross-border collaboration efforts. Whether this actually translates to a reduction in the violence is unclear, especially when we consider the unabated demand for drugs in the United States. Instead, stability may be more dependent on the ability of Mexican drug groups to re-negotiate their roles in a way that gives us all the illusion that the underlying problem has been fixed. 

Read a story here in The New York Times, about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitting that the U.S. shares a responsibility in Mexico’s problems. Here’s another one by The Washington Post.

Here is an essay by Mexican scholar Enrique Krauze who argues that Mexico is not a “failed state” at risk of “imminent collapse.” 

Here is a story in The San Diego Union-Tribune about how Mexican drug trafficking groups get their guns from the U.S.

Blog essay by Anna Cearley, former border reporter

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

5 responses to “Mexico’s drug trafficking violence gets U.S. attention

  1. James McPherson

    Anna, considering your interest in immigration/border issues I thought you might know the Dan Seals song “Bordertown,” and that you may not have known that Seals died of cancer today.

    Here’s a YouTube video of the song:

  2. Good post Anna. I think as long as Felipe Calderon is setting his sights on the drug trafficking issue there will be instability. The drug industry has been successful in the past because presidents have let them slide by without much trouble. Calderon knew how difficult it would be when he launched this campaign and so far he has stuck to his guns and I have a lot of respect for him. Hopefully, the thousands of deaths will not go in vein but the younger generation will see that getting involved in drugs is not as promising as it once was.

  3. Thanks for the link, James. I wasn’t aware of Seals’ death or that song. It has a pretty sound, though I can’t quite figure out what side of the immigration issue Dan Seals is invoking in that song…what’s your take on it?

  4. James McPherson

    Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I took the song (and the video, especially with the Statue of Liberty imagery at the end) as a story about a federal employee routinely and unthinkingly “doing his duty” while turning back people in search of better lives–until he had an awakening when he was forced to see one of the immigrants as a real person.

    I think (and again I might be wrong, especially since I never heard or read anything Seals said about the topic), that as a native of West Texas, he knew the issue was very complicated–especially if people considered that there were real people on both sides of the issue. Thanks.

  5. Interesting song. At first glance, it looked to me like it could be appropriated by either side of the issue by using imagery that validates this or that side of the issue. . . but that’s what makes it so fascinating. Your interpretation makes sense to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s