America to the rescue. . . I mean blackmail.

I salute the Mexican government for being brave enough to publicly reconsider a ridiculous policy. I only wish the US Congress had the prerequisite cojones.

Mexico’s Congress opened a three-day debate Monday on the merits of legalizing marijuana for personal use, a policy backed by three former Latin American presidents who warned that a crackdown on drug cartels is not working. Although President Felipe Calderon has opposed the idea, the unprecedented forum shows legalizing marijuana is gaining support in Mexico amid brutal drug violence.

Such a measure would be sure to strain relations with the United States at a time when the two countries are stepping up cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking. The congressional debate — open to academics, experts and government officials — ends a day before President Barack Obama arrives in Mexico for talks on the drug war.

Sadly, even if Mexico does come out in favor of legalization, the US will likely blackmail it with a cutoff of various funds to prevent such a move, the same way they violate the sovereignty of their own states. Nevertheless, Mexico would be in a good position to defy the US as even with the legalization of marijuana, it would be a tough sell domestically for the US to cut off aid to Mexico at a time when drug violence is all over the news.

Joaquin Guzman, “El Chapo,” head of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, has been recognized by Forbes as one of this years new billionaires.

El Chapo (Shorty) narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by a rival cartel in 1993. A few weeks later he was nabbed by officials in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico where he began a twenty year sentence for bribery and criminal association. In January of 2001, shortly before he was to be extradited to the US, he (bit of irony here) bribed prison guards and escaped via the prison laundry.

Crime has certainly paid for Shorty but I doubt he’s rubbing elbows with his fellow billionaires on some swank golf course. He’s got a $5 million DEA bounty on his head and has made Interpol’s short list. Forbes, last year, put him second behind Osama bin Laden on their top ten most wanted fugitives list. He’s reported to have undergone plastic surgery (sadly, not the deadly sort previous Mexican drug lords have suffered) to alter his appearance, changes cell phones on a daily basis and travels in a subterranean fashion via tunnels whenever possible.

Last week Chirol posted on the ability of Mexico’s drug cartels to literally send local governments packing. This past week has brought more alarming news, specifically on the political and potential military strength of the cartels. On Tuesday the Washington Times reported that Mexico’s federal government has been infiltrated by cartels and that the two largest Mexican cartels are merging to combat government efforts to mitigate them. Together they maintain enough “foot soldiers” to rival Mexico’s own army.

The U.S. Defense Department thinks Mexico’s two most deadly drug cartels together have fielded more than 100,000 foot soldiers – an army that rivals Mexico’s armed forces and threatens to turn the country into a narco-state.

Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, paid a “keep your chin up” visit to Mexico on Saturday and promised US military partnership in Mexico’s growing civil war during his address to Mexico’s Naval War College.

“We are capable countries,” Mullen said at the war college. “This is not a threat we can’t beat. We can, working together, defeat it.”

There is, however, growing criticism that American and international drug policies are, in large part, responsible for destabilizing not only Mexico but other Latin American countries. This past February three former Latin American leaders criticized America’s War on Drugs, calling it a failed policy and lamenting the destabilizing effect it’s had on their own countries. The Economist ran a recent report likening the international drug trade to a “Global Al Capone,” a reference to America’s failed Prohibition act.

Clearly the answer to Mexico and the rest of Latin America’s narcotics woes is beyond tossing money, guns and boots on the ground at. It’s a matter of rethinking what are obviously dysfunctional policies both in the US and internationally. As the Economist report suggests, politician’s need to stop pushing a wholly ineffective utopian policy and settle for the “least bad” policy, legalisation.

Yes this will result in negative consequences to states that follow this course as they deal with the social fall out of increased addiction rates and drug related medical issues. That’s why it’s a “least bad” policy. I agree with Thomas Barnett, that this can be better dealt with as a medical issue than it is currently being dealt with as a criminal issue.

From the El Paso Times, my new favorite source for reading about the decline and fall of Mexico:

Police are investigating threats against Juárez Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz, who moved his family to El Paso for safety, El Paso police Detective Carlos Carrillo said Monday. “We received information that the Juárez mayor lives in El Paso, and that possibly they were going to come to El Paso to get him,” Carrillo said. “He has not asked us for our help, but it’s our duty to protect any resident of our city who may be under threat.”

It is worrying enough that drug cartels are targeting government officials, but it would seem they can now run local governments out of town, literally. Equally concerning is that, in this case, the mayor fled to the US potentially bringing his problems with him. Will we see Mexican mayors governing from Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California in the future? Will governors of border states govern from Mexico City? The fall of Mexico continues.

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.

Most Americans know that it was the Zimmermann Telegram, sent by Germany to Mexico at the height of World War I, that brought US into the war in Europe. Frustrated with blatant US support of Britain, Germany solicited Mexico to invade the southern United States and offered aid and assistance. However, the telegram was intercepted and decoded by British intelligence and passed to the US, which provided the sufficient casus belli for war.

What few people know is that the Mexican response was, on its face, carefully considered. The country was then undergoing a constitutional crisis shepparded by President Venustiano Carranza, who assigned the military with a feasibility study of a takeover of lost territories of Texas, Arizon, and New Mexico. The study concluded that the plan as proposed by Germany was neither possible nor desirable for the following reasons:

• + Attempting to re-take the former territories would mean certain war with the United States.

• + No matter how “generous” it was, Germany’s “financial support” would be worthless as the United States was the only sizeable arms manufacturer in the Americas.

• + Even if Germany was to supply arms, the British Royal Navy controlled the Atlantic sea lanes, unless if absolute submarine warfare truly was successful in destroying the British fleet, which Mexico doubted.

• + Even if Mexico had the military means to re-take the territory it would have had severe difficulty pacifying the large English-speaking population.

Mexico accordingly provided an offical rejection to the offer by Germany—two weeks after the US declared war on Germany.

Also, I find it interesting that the decoded text of the telegram referred to possible involvement by Japan:

… we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and make peace together. We shall give generous financial support, and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona… suggest that the President, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence with this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Japan and ourselves.

Reading the text of the telegram was the first I heard of the Japan connection. Interesting to note that the possibility of war between the US and Japan, and peace/alliance between Germany and Japan, was openly discussed at this early year of 1917.

Inspired by Warfare 2050, image from Stratfor: