Truth to power, from those in power

(Today’s Jornada)

It’s not that Mexico is a “failed state” (a meaningless term to begin with, and one that could be easily applied to a lot of places, including Janet Napolitano’s own Arizona), but that the Calderon administration’s “hard hand” has not worked… therefore… the United States government wants to throw money and resources at the Calderon Administration to continue a failed policy.

…la secretaria de Seguridad Interior estadunidense, Janet Napolitano, aseveró que la lucha contra el narcotráfico pone en riesgo existencial el gobierno del presidente mexicano. Sin embargo, horas más tarde la funcionaria declaró que México no se ha convertido en un narcoestado.

“United States “internal security” Secretary, Janet Napolitano swore that the fight against narcotics trafficking poses  an “existential risk” for the government of the Mexican president.  However, hours later, the bureaucrat stated that Mexico has not been converted into a “narco-state.”

In other words, as Mex Files and others have been saying, the “war on drugs” is not necessarily good for Mexico, and it’s not Mexico that’s in danger of “failing” (whatever that means), but one particular, pro-U.S., pro-corporate administration … that was only elected with 20% of the overall vote (34 percent if you don’t count those who didn’t “vote” Zapatista by abstaining).

I don’t think it’s necessarily wrong that the Obama Administration backs the Calderon one… Juarez said governments should stay out of each other’s internal affairs, and Mexican diplomacy has always been founded on the idea of accepting whatever government another nation has as the legitimate one.  That the United States (or at least the Bush Administration and the Republican Party) did interfere in Mexico’s 2006 Presidential election is a matter of some — but not much — dispute.  And, the legitimacy of the Calderon Administration is also a matter of dispute in Mexico.

However, to confuse the Administration with the country is a mistake.  Yes, I know I moved to Mexico in large part because I considered the Bush Administration illegitimate (and — not that I’m psychic or anything — had a feeling that the U.S. was cruisin’ for a bruisin’ economically and likely to get itself into a war with somebody), but that never made me think the U.S. was on the verge of collapsing as a nation.  Cut down to size, perhaps, and likely to experience waves of violence and domestic terrorism (which it still could as the downturn beomes more pronounced) but hardly likely to break up, or “fail” whatever that means.

Administrations fail, and make bad decisions.  I think the “war against some drug dealers” has been a mistake, but we’re stuck with it for now.  I think the Calderon Administration could have made better economic and social choices (and that the alternative proposals from the other candidate might have — in the long run — been better), but that doesn’t mean life is coming to a grinding halt, or anything else.  It means there’s problems, like in any country.

And, I’m not convinced that the U.S., having outsourced its failed drug policy to Mexico, is really going to accomplish anything by following the same policy.  But, neither country — as a country — is likely to “fail”.

So, to prop up the Calderon Administration, the U.S. response… as the Bolivian site, El Gaviero puts it, is a statement by the Secretary of State admitting the same old, same old doesn’t work, so they’ll do more of the same:

Clinton fesses up to the Mexicans and says the “‘insatiable’ appetite in the United States for illegal drugs is to blame for much of the violence ripping through Mexico,” according to Reuters. And then she promises more guns: “Washington plans to ramp up border security with a $184 million program to add 360 security agents to border posts and step up searches for smuggled drugs, guns and cash.” Great. How about ending this disastrous war on drugs, for f’s sake?