Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

January 14th, 2009

Tags

, , , , ,

Comments

25 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Mexico: Decline & Fall

Each individual has what is called an ‘official future’ they imagine. It is essentially a compilation of assumptions usually based on extending current trends into the future in a linear way. That means assuming the US Dollar will remain the world’s reserve currency because it is now, or that Russia and the US will always be adversaries, that China will rise, or that the West will always be dominant politically and culturally. These assumptions are dangerous because they create a bias that blinds regular citizens, analysts and policy makers to alternatives and to key indicators of change. Another tendency is to focus on individual trends or events and fail to use enough creativity or imagination to put them together and investigate the synergy of various developments or a confluence of events. As the 9/11 commission famously showed us, the pieces of the puzzle were already there, adequate information existed to predict and prevent 9/11, yet it did not happen.

One part of Americans’ ‘official future’ is that Mexico will continue to be a stable semi-functional state. However, the last several years have underscored growing trends that point towards a very different future. Americans are used to thinking about failed states and anarchy in regions like Africa or Central Asia, but not directly on their border. After all, a state can be repressive, poor and underdeveloped (see all of Latin America and the Caribbean) yet not be a failed state. To be clear, at its present course, Mexico is in real danger of becoming a failed narco-state. While US and Colombian efforts have payed off and Columbia has improved dramatically over the last decade, Mexico has worsened. Instability has worsened, violence increased, state institutions undermined and corrupted and a population hemorrhage northward. Several possible scenarios could play out for Mexico but let me focus on the most likely negative one.

Republic of Mexico City:

Years of drug violence combined with the worldwide depression push more Mexicans into illegal activity, some directly involved with narcotics and others only tangentially so. Unemployment and underemployment remain rife leading to further corruption, weak institutions and a shrinking tax base. More territory is ceded to criminal organizations while a hollow government presence remains in its northern and southern border areas. Over time, the central government’s control does not extend much further than the area surrounding Mexico City.

Violence, the global depression and increasingly instability, extortion and crime lead to increased illegal immigration to neighboring countries, especially the United States, and a further decline of Mexico’s economy. American and foreign investment dries up. Violence and organized crime also increases along America’s southern border as drug wars and related crime spill into the US. Illegal immigration into the United States becomes a major security issue as some border crossings close permanently and others frequently. The controversial border fence becomes a reality as boatloads of Mexicans begin washing up in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.

Conclusion

I could paint this scenario out in further detail but the general idea is clear to readers of this blog. The main point is that Mexico is sliding from a poor neighbor with good food and beaches and occasional crime to a hell hole like Haiti or narco-state like Colombia was. The increased political swing to the left in Latin America also does not bode well and a further collapse of Mexico could lead either to a slow motion collapse into a failed state or possible military takeover. Mexico has been overlooked for a long time and if that does not change, Americans may face the day when they take all-inclusive vacations to a friendly Colombia while the State Dept. warns against all travel to Mexico.

Comments to this entry

Machiavelli's Cat
January 14, 2009
8:23 pm
Interesting comparison between Mexico and Colombia. I would argue that two very different patterns took place / are taking place - Colombia's insurgency turned to drugs to fuel its political fight, where as in Mexico, the drug cartels are increasingly turning to politics to protect their markets. Consider the corruption in Mexico, arguably the most distressing part of the equation, and the allegations that a main contender for the Presidency was widely believed by many Mexicans to have very close ties to drug trafficking organizations.....
Stanley Davis
January 14, 2009
8:51 pm
Sadly, and as correctly pointed out by Mexican leaders, the Mexican narcowars, and their attendant negative externalities, are funded by US drug consumers. That giant sucking sound to the South is Mexican economic, political, and social stability going right up the noses of American coke heads. And the problem is going to be solved by simply warehousing in the penn every two-bit pusher. Comprehensive, judicially-mandated treatment programs will be necessary. But because we Americans love overly simplified harsh justice rather than effective, but expensive, systemic approaches, we'll continue to drive the collapse of Mexico and then complain when Mexicans escape to the US.
The Fate Of Cities « Hidden Unities
January 14, 2009
9:59 pm
[...] Fate Of Cities Chirol @ Coming Anarchy proposes a very different future for Mexico than the one commonly held. He imagines a “Republic of Mexico City” due to [...]
ElamBend
January 15, 2009
12:11 am
the collapse of Mexico would be a [Mexican] state by state event. The problems happen at foci of money (Monterrey), power (Mex City), or transport (the northern border).
Thus, while TJ and Juarez exist as ultra-violent hell holes; some states in the interior have escaped the worst of the violence.
The history of Mexico has been one of constant break-up and reformation, anarchy at the edges, and power from the center. In many ways, the Spanish just installed themselves at the head of an already existent empire.

NAFTA has done much in the way of development for Mexico, but it has also served to weaken the traditional power center. Twenty years ago the power of the north was nothing, now it challenges the power of the center. The already tenuous control of the periphery is now challenged by the money of the narcotraficantes, and as the economy gets worse the power of their money will be magnified.

Also, to keep in mind, Mexico is a geographically large country of some 100+ million (with nearly at fifth of that living in the metro area of Mexico City). It's road and rail system is not always great. (There is no paved road to the Baja Peninsula).

At what threshold must a US president get involved? Beyond fighting drug trafficking, what can the US do to prevent this? I'm not sure.
Joe Jones
January 15, 2009
2:08 am
I found it kind of funny that you start by attacking the practice of "assumptions based on extending current trends into the future in a linear way," and then do exactly that for the rest of your post. I don't think that official futures are a bad thing as a conceptual aid, as long as the person doing the soothsaying allows a very wide margin of error for all the externalities (say, 9/11) that might force a revision of the forecast.
My initial reaction is that the US government would tolerate very little degradation in the Mexican situation before taking drastic action, whether through covert ops or through full-scale defensive measures like a wall (which incidentally sounds like a great example of the sort of huge infrastructure projects Obama is currently pushing).
Economically, Lou Dobbs and his followers would probably love to see a complete breakdown of the Mexican legal system so they have more ammunition to blast the American manufacturers who moved down there. Of course, even if the manufacturers come back to the US with their factories, those factories will probably be staffed by the same people who were working the factories in Mexico.
Incidentally, this is all part of the reason why I live on an island.
Chirol
January 15, 2009
2:32 am
Machiavelli's Cat: You make a good point. I didn't mean to say the two situations were exactly the same, but merely use Colombia as a country that had been 'The Republic of Bogota' and has come back.

Stanley Davis: Sure the US is a large consumer of drugs but I treat that as a given, not something we can or will change. I agree though that reforming our drug policy would help.

Joe Jones: I fail to see how I do the same thing. I sketch the official future and then note there are several ways in which Mexico's future may turn, but wanted to pick the most probable of the negative scenarios. It's not a prediction but rather a possible future that we need to think about so that policy makers can better consider current policies and be watching for indicators of where Mexico is headed.
Eddie
January 15, 2009
3:05 am
Why not a constellation of city-states and small regions, all nominally declaring fealty to the Mexican government (perhaps for the remaining international aid and US assistance) but cutting deals left and right to protect their interests in the short to mid-term?
ElamBend
January 15, 2009
3:20 am
Or even existing federal polities switching fealty to another center.
Just An Australian
January 15, 2009
3:38 am
> The increased political swing to the left in Latin America also does not bode well

uh? Why does it not bode well, but even more, how is this related to Mexico? (err, don't you have a swing to the left in USA right now?)
YT
January 15, 2009
7:16 am
JJ : Off - topic. Can't seem to log on to your blog. Why's that?
Curzon
January 15, 2009
8:08 am
I would draw everyone's attention to this map I posted on this site 18 months ago:
http://cominganarchy.com/2007/06/03/mexico-drug-cartel-map/
Oliver
January 15, 2009
12:27 pm
It seems to me that Mexico in that case would declare drugs legal and destroy the incentive for the cartels to go for political power.
Yes, that would cause a strong US reaction, but better that than civil war.
Carl
January 15, 2009
2:59 pm
I agree with Stanley Davis. The most effective way for the US to combat narco-corruption and violence in Mexico is to completely revise our judicial and societal strategies for dealing with drug addiction in America. As long as such a large market for illegal drugs in the States exists, there will be violence and instability in many countries along the supply route. It's time to drastically switch tactics in the war on drugs, because not only is it painfully obvious that we are badly losing, but it is ridiculously irresponsible for our societal addiction to be undermining the livelihood of people outside our borders. Legalize, heavily tax, and severely regulate drugs, coupled with a pro-active rehabilitation industry, would do wonders for our economy and go along way to get more in tune with reality. The hypocritical moralists will learn to cope.
Chirol
January 15, 2009
3:53 pm
Carl: Your comment portrays Mexico's ongoing drug problems as America's fault. I think that's completely incorrect. As for legalizing and regulating drugs, I agree that is the best way forward but if you heavily tax and regulate them, the incentive to purchase them illegally remains and hence accomplishes nothing.
Carl
January 15, 2009
4:51 pm
How is Mexico's cartel problem not in part America's fault? If there was a lack of demand Stateside for cocaine, the cartels would not have anywhere near the current amount of money, influence, or organization they have amassed thus far. Take the American market out of the game and the cartels have alot less to play with, no? If I completely off-base, please point me in a direction that can prove to me otherwise.

Moreover, incentive to purchase illegally would dramatically decrease with legalization IF and ONLY IF there was a simultaneous sea change in the societal, political, educational, and judicial methods and attitudes our country has when it comes to drug use.
Chirol
January 15, 2009
7:01 pm
My point is simply that the fact that there is a demand in America for narcotics does not make us responsible for Mexico's drug problems and all its implications. There will always be a demand for drugs in every country and Americans are not the only consumer of Latin American drugs.
Toni
January 15, 2009
8:02 pm
I believe you've missed an essential element with the collapse of Mexico. That is the lack of free market, it is my understanding that Mexican capital is in the hands of 5 families. Electronic communication(phone,internet,cell) had no comptetition. That is one example. This is why the drug cartels are so influential, the way to make money. If Mexico deregulated their industry capital markets could open to more than just 5 families. I think illegal aliens in the US has enabled Mexico with the funds sent from the US to Mexico being the 3rd highest source of revenue for the country. With the US economy in turmoil that revenue is shrinking.
Oliver
January 15, 2009
8:16 pm
Various economic and geological factors (oil) point to a rocky future for Mexico. But drugs by themselves are not a cause of crime and, worse, for crime to corrupt the state. This happens because drugs are illegal.
Personal Official Futures
January 15, 2009
8:19 pm
[...] to the same news I posted on yesterday, the pseudonymous Chirol at Coming Anarchy observed; Each individual has what is called an ‘official future’ they imagine. It is essentially a [...]
Benjamin Walthrop
January 16, 2009
12:56 am
While the "mainstream story" which you equate with "official story" is that Mexico will continue to be relatively stable, the "sheep dogs" of this country are still at work. The potential collapse of Mexico has in fact made it into the "official story" as evidenced by:

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11444354

U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible

EL PASO - Mexico is one of two countries that "bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse," according to a report by the U.S. Joint Forces Command on worldwide security threats.
The command's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report, which contains projections of global threats and potential next wars, puts Pakistan on the same level as Mexico. "In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.

The entire Joint Operating Environment 2008 can be found at this link:

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf

This is a very good read (with lots of info-porn) for the officianados at CA, and I hope you enjoy it.

V/R,



"The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels.

How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."
The U.S. Joint Forces Command, based in Norfolk, Va., is one of the Defense Departments combat commands that includes members of the different military service branches, active and reserves, as well as civilian and contract employees. One of its key roles is to help transform the U.S. military's capabilities.

In the foreword, Marine Gen. J.N. Mattis, the USJFC commander, said "Predictions about the future are always risky ... Regardless, if we do not try to forecast the future, there is no doubt that we will be caught off guard as we strive to protect this experiment in democracy that we call America."

The report is one in a serious focusing on Mexico's internal security problems, mostly stemming from drug violence and drug corruption. In recent weeks, the Department of Homeland Security and former U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey issued similar alerts about Mexico.

Despite such reports, El Pasoan Veronica Callaghan, a border business leader, said she keeps running into people in the region who "are in denial about what is happening in Mexico."

Last week, Mexican President Felipe Calderon instructed his embassy and consular officials to promote a positive image of Mexico.

The U.S. military report, which also analyzed economic situations in other countries, also noted that China has increased its influence in places where oil fields are present
Benjamin Walthrop
January 16, 2009
1:00 am
Chirol,

Sorry for hammering you on the "offical story" bit of my response. I failed to follow the link you provided in your orignal article. Mea Culupa. The link for the JOE 2008 really is a good read http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf so I hope you accept my humble apology.

V/R,
Julián Ortega Martínez
January 17, 2009
2:02 am
Basically, Mexico is going through what we went through in Colombia 15 or 20 years ago with the drug cartels from Medellín and Cali. Even Mexico has turned to Colombian security services for help to deal with this issue.

One of the differences is that Mexico doesn't have an insurgency which can turn to drugs, not like in Colombia, where guerrillas, paramilitaries, and drug cartels have co-existed since the late 70s (late 80s would be more accurate). As recently as 2003, many drug lords "became" "paramilitaries" during the demobilization process with Álvaro Uribe I (I'm referring to his first term) in order to get benefits.

And there's another point which could be discussed. In Colombia, some members of the drug cartels (the Ochoa family from Medellín, for example) already belonged to the local elites, or somehow managed to "infiltrate" them. It is said that drug cartels "helped" to "elect" Presidents since the 1990s (remember Ernesto Samper's [1994-1998] alleged links with the Cali Cartel [8,000 process, he was acquitted by the Congress, but most Colombians still believe in Samper's guilt]; or even the "uncomfortable" fact that the fact José Obdulio Gaviria Vélez, cousin of Pablo Escobar, is Uribe's main adviser and "ideologue"; also the alleged "pressures" by paramilitaries [involved in drug dealing] to elect Uribe in 2002 or their links with politicians from the ruling coalition, which are under investigation ['parapolitics' scandal]). I don't know exactly how is it in Mexico, so it would be kind of interesting to compare.
Thomas Jackson
January 17, 2009
6:01 am
There is little that ties Mexico together. Historically it is just a patchwork of differing regions with little in common. Not even language, in some areas native languages are more common than Spanish. Even the population is a hodgepodge of a European elite, mixed race middle class, and vast Indian underclass. A Mexican breakup is doubtful but that interlopers will not take advantage to install a Fidel friendly regime is more than a possibility.

The horrible economic consditions could result in a civil war like Mexico's last one that managed to kill about 20% of its population. If another war breaks out I doubt it will not be as bloddy as the last but in addition the US will see 20-25 million Mexicans flood our southern border.
Mitchell
January 18, 2009
2:19 pm
I'm a U.S. citizen currently living in Mexico so I certainly find this an interesting and feasible sounding supposition. From here I followed a link to the Mexico Drug Cartel Map also posted on this site and from there the like to the Stratfor website. It was there I found a video of the founder talking about his latest book. He's got a whole other take on Mexico's future. Actually it's a longer view and I suppose what you proposed in this post could be part of that grander picture. I definitely recommend watching the video and the book I'm sure would be an interesting read.
Sonagi
January 24, 2009
12:03 am
One weak link in this scenario of Mexico's future is the expectation that illegal immigration to the US will increase. I live and work in a city that has experienced exponential growth in its Hispanic population, mostly Mexican immigrants and their children. Rising unemployment has hit these families hard, starting a trend of reverse migration in which either some or all members of a family return to Mexico. Most families aren't willing to give up their American dream yet, but if the recession deepens, the trickle may increase to a stream of returnees who can survive much longer on their savings in Mexico than in the US.