• Home
• About
• Contact
• Donate
• Archives
• Links

Mexico: Failed State or Failed Policies?

By Neil Harvey

In recent months several high-level politicians in the U.S. have raised the issue of whether Mexico is on the verge of becoming a “failed state.” Indeed, it is hard to ignore the growing drug-related violence that has spread throughout the country since Felipe Calderón became president in December 2006. His decision to deploy thousands of troops and federal police against the drug cartels has led to an escalation of violence that in 2008 claimed the lives of more than 5,600 people, double the figure for 2007.

Most of the deaths occurred in Chihuahua state, with 1,633 killings registered in Ciudad Juárez alone. The frequent killings in broad daylight have led some observers to question the government’s ability to provide protection to its citizens. Some suggest that state institutions at all levels have been so deeply corrupted by drug money that the “rule of law” has been totally undermined and a weak state is in the process of being a failed state.  This line of analysis was clearly present in a recent report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command, which stated that Pakistan and Mexico are two states that are at risk of “rapid and sudden collapse”  (http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf ). Similarly, the former U.S. drug czar, Gen. (retired) Barry McCaffrey stated recently that Mexico is “on the edge of an abyss,” and “could become a narco-state.” The former Speaker of the House, Republican Newt Gingrich, told NPR reporters that there is “civil war” in Mexico, and this will become President Obama’s largest foreign policy challenge.

The problem with these analyses is that the terms “failed state” and “civil war” tend to encourage policies that would promote an expanded role for the military and security forces, both within Mexico and on the U.S. side of the border.  It may be true that Mexico will become a major foreign policy issue for Obama, but the response should not be more militarization. Instead, the focus should be on the underlying causes: demand in the U.S., the illegality of the drug trade and the associated corruption and impunity.

We should also question why it is now that the weakness of the state is being highlighted, when, for the most vulnerable groups, the Mexican state has failed to provide basic protections and rights for many years. For example, in Ciudad Juárez, the murder of hundreds of women has been possible because of the lack of serious investigation and the protection of the perpetrators. Similarly, many of the residents of Lomas del Poleo have seen their homes destroyed by the Zaragoza family’s private guards in their violent attempts to  evict them from lands which have recently become profitable real estate. The court system has time and again failed these residents, despite their legal claims to the lands they have peacefully occupied since the 1970s. The state also failed as far as indigenous peoples of Chiapas are concerned, who were first abandoned by the imposition of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, and subsequently by the government’s failure to implement accords that it had signed with the Zapatista rebels in 1996.

Describing Mexico as a failed state conveniently avoids taking responsibility for failed policies. Such a step would also require criticism of U.S. involvement in pushing NAFTA and in doing little to deal with the drug issue in U.S. (in the areas of prevention, rehabilitation and legalization), while Mexicans suffer the deadly consequences of the ‘war on drugs.’  The U.S. response should be based on the revision of policies, particularly the undue emphasis on ‘free trade,’ which subordinated everything and everyone to an economic theory and corporate agenda that are now seen as deeply flawed.

A window of opportunity for remaking U.S.-Mexican relations has opened. Three main issues need to be addressed in new and creative ways: 1) drug-related violence is a product of the failed ‘war on drugs’ policies that began in the 1970s; a debate on legalization is long overdue, as recently acknowledged by the El Paso City Council and several Mexican academics; 2) NAFTA must be renegotiated –Obama has signaled his desire to “upgrade” NAFTA, particularly its labor and environmental provisions; this is something that Calderón and his supporters have opposed, but which is vital to reducing inequality and poverty; 3) comprehensive immigration reform is back on the agenda: The mobilization of immigrant voters for Obama has created a new political force that, while internally diverse in its proposals and demands, will ensure that the new administration cannot ignore the situation of 12 million undocumented workers.

How these policy issues are decided will ultimately depend on the way in which Mexico is perceived. In this regard, we should highlight many examples of the positive and dynamic characteristics of Mexican society, despite the daily reports of narco-violence. Two relatively unreported events in the past month serve as examples of another reality in Mexico. The first was the annual celebration of the indigenous Zapatista uprising in Chiapas. This year the festivities brought together grassroots activists from throughout Mexico to share stories and lessons of their struggles for a better world. Documents from this festival can be read at http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/ (in Spanish) or heard on Radio Zapatista in English at http://www.radiozapatista.org/english.html

A second example can be found in Carlin Romero’s recent article “Another Mexico,” published in the Chronicle of Higher Education on Jan. 16, 2009. Romero contrasts media coverage of violent Mexico with the celebration of the country’s rich literary and cultural heritage at the annual International Book Fair in Guadalajara, attended by no less that 600,000 people over nine days, 60,000 of them children. Unlike the mostly commercially-oriented BookExpo in the U.S., Mexico’s book fair encourages public participation in a wide range of events that stresses educational  and cultural values.

The weakness of government institutions in Mexico cannot be ignored. There are real threats that need to be recognized, but increasing militarization is no solution. A more fruitful approach is to engage with issues that have too long been off-limits in political debate, including a serious evaluation of the “war on drugs,” NAFTA and immigration policy. All of this requires a deeper knowledge of Mexico – not only its problems, but also the strength, diversity, aspirations and struggles of its people.

Neil Harvey is Director, Center for Latin American and Border Studies, New Mexico State University. He may be contacted at nharvey@nmsu.edu

Comments