As a member of the audience for the panel discussion on challenges facing the US and Mexico, I really enjoyed the discussion on the drug war and its implications for public policy. Moderated by Harvard Law School Professor Phillip Heymann, there was plenty of discussion about the implications of sustained violence and drug trafficking from what Angela Kocherga, US-Mexico Bureau Chief for Belo TV, described as “whole families being wiped out” to the more than 36,000 deaths as reported by Al Jazeera.
According to the panelists, the problem stems from turf wars by drug cartels fighting over the most lucrative smuggling routes into the US and coveted markets in Mexico. This has since snowballed into corruption of the police force, extortion of local businesses, and a decline in Mexico’s civil society. However, what was lacking in the discussion was a clear model of what role the U.S. should play in alleviating these problems. It is clear that although Mexico has increased troops at the federal level and have implemented measures to root out corruption, a preventative strategy by the US is needed to alleviate the problem by funding alternative development programs and rejuvenating public places in northern Mexico.
Currently the DEA, or Drug Enforcement Agency, has largely been reactive in its policy of following money from illicit deals in its attempts to parole more than 230 US cities that have ties to Mexican drug cartels according to the 2007 CRS Report to Congress. In fact, the harms to the DEA’s current policy are two-fold: suppressing the supply of narcotics forces price pressures to increase on the drug being sold (and thus increasing the motivation behind going into the illegal drug industry in the first place) as well as fueling drug use in Mexico. Esteban Ramirez Alvarez, the president of the Sinaloan Federation of Rehabilitation Centers, explains that because President Calderon has increased border security to hinder smuggling, cartels are increasingly promoting drug use at home.
Drug cartels are becoming more reliant on youth to serve as border agents, hitmen, and carriers because of their low punishments (up to 5 years in prison), ease in recruiting, and low profile (less suspicious when crossing the border). One story, as reported by the Dallas Morning News, truly exemplifies the horrors occurring in northern Mexico today:
Wanderley Neri is 16, a middle-school dropout, sometimes drug abuser and an ex-convict. Not yet a man but hardly a boy, he is burdened with regret.
“I can’t turn back time,” he says quietly, sheltered by the shadows of the Mexico City housing project where he lives. “My goal now is to be OK.”
Neri is one of thousands of Mexican youths who have gotten caught up in drug-related crime – and increasingly, organized crime – as Mexico’s war against criminal organizations rages on. He was busted at 15 on theft and drug-related charges and spent six months in a youth jail “with pure killers and rapists,” he says.
He cringes when asked about his time there, presses his lips together and just shakes his head.
Rather than pretending that the US can control the rise of drugs into the US, we should focus on preventative measures by increasing funding for local youth programs. Dr. Alejandro Poire, the Mexican Secretary of the National Security Council and Cabinet, pointed out that efforts to these ends are being implemented through a rejuvenation of public spaces such as parks and through social programs to engage the youth of Mexico especially with escuelas seguras, or safe schools. The US should further support these measures because only by targeting the youth of Mexico and returning a semblance of stability in Mexico’s civil society can the influence of drug cartels decrease.
Another program that would alleviate the crux of the problem is that of alternative development programs, the most notable of which is the Andean Counterdrug Initiative. This initiative funds poor farmers who are lured into producing illicit goods to harvest other crops. The US should encourage Mexico in its efforts of decreasing the incentive to supply narcotics. Although this approach creates a moral hazard problem in which farmers may grow narcotics just to be bought off, in 2004, the White House reported that coca production decreased by 30,000 hectares as a direct result of the funding of alternative production.
In addition to these preventative measures, the US should increase funding support and funding for Mexican rehabilitation sites as well as job placement centers. Mexico’s defragmented drug rehabilitation sites are currently a targets for drug cartels to not only kill suspected rival gang members trying to wean off meth, but also sites of recruitment for drug runners and assassins. State regulations must be changed in order to allow for voluntary admissions into the rehabilitation center as well as better quality housing and food.
In fact, McClatchy Newspaper reports that:
Teenage users of crystal methamphetamine, a highly addictive stimulant, “become easy prey for the organized criminal groups,” Ramirez said.
Some end up in drug treatment centers after gunning down opponents or crossing rivals, he said.
“If one of them comes into a center, and has a debt pending, that’s when the danger begins that a gang will want to come and take action,” he said.
Although the forum was a great starting point for discussion about the troubles that lay ahead for Mexico and the US, statistics such as 3,111 deaths in Ciudad Juarez can become obsolete if the US and Mexico partner up to increase urban youth rejuvenation programs, alternative crop development funding, and increase oversight and standards for rehabilitation clinics in Mexico. Current efforts by the DEA are fruitless unless coupled by Mexican efforts to internally control the supply of narcotics and increase confidence in law enforcement agents.
