28,000 reasons (more or less) there is no war in Mexico
I really saw no point in commenting the state rubbed out eliminatination neutralization of Ignacio Coronel –the most recent of an endless stream of “indespensible men” in the Mexican narcotics trade to fill a cemetery plot… and, as easily replaced as any other indepensible man.
As usual, “Nacho’s” execution without trial (in a state without a death penalty)was followed by the obligatory nonsense about how this was a huge victory for the “drug war”… even though — “in the short term” it would mean more violence and murder by the non-state actors. The assumption that disrupting the leadership of the cartels will weaken the cartels as lower-echelon figures fight among themselves for control of their organizations — and the state stays out of it — may have some validity. That is not a “war”, but a state policy of targeted executions, which we are told is not really “war”, coupled with omitting to provide basic state services (like not getting bumped off) to a certain segment of the population.
The policy — or the results of the policy — account for somewhere around 28,000 deaths since the start of the Calderón Administration’s actions… whatever name we give it. The exact number seems to be in contention, although — as über-number-cruncher Diego Valle discovers — the trends are more important than the exact numbers. As military action increases, so do the deaths, which cannot be attributed to any “war” in which the Mexican state is an actor, but to fighting among gangsters, or to gangsterism in general.
Or, rather, gangsterism in specific locales. Chris Hawley, at USA Today, in one of the few U.S. based even-handed mass media reports on the situation, writes:
… a closer look at the latest official statistics indicates that much of Mexico has modest murder rates. The horrific violence that is jacking up the national death toll is largely in nine of Mexico’s 31 states.
Despite a wave of killings in these states, the murder rate in 2009 was still lower than it was a decade before, long before the Mexican government began a crackdown against the cartels.
“If you look at history, today we have fewer murders, both in raw numbers and rates,” said Mario Arroyo, a researcher with the Citizens’ Institute for Crime Studies, a Mexico City think tank.
The statistics show that the most deadly violence is happening in northern Mexico close to the U.S. border where smuggling occurs, and in the states where marijuana and heroin are produced. Also:
• The state with the lowest murder rate is Yucatán, the Gulf of Mexico state known for its beaches and Mayan ruins. Its murder rate of 2 per 100,000 was comparable to Wyoming and Montana.
• Washington, D.C.’s murder rate is nearly quadruple that of the Mexican capital, Mexico City. Washington’s murder rate was 31.4 per 100,000 people in 2008; Mexico City’s rate in 2009 was 8.
In other words, hardly an all-out “war”, but rather rampaging violence along the frontier, coupled with feuds among producers in other regions. About these murders, Ganchoblog says:
Much of these murders were basically street gangs fighting over turf rather than multi-national gangs with the power to threaten the state, a distinction that organized crime obfuscates. That’s not to lessen the significance of the 28,000; indeed, it is in some ways more worrying, because reducing the drivers of violence isn’t merely a matter of taking down two or five gangs, but rather hundreds, as well as addressing the broader social climate that gives rise to them.
For a variety of reasons — historical and otherwise — the Mexican state has always had trouble projecting its legitimacy along the U.S. border. In the sense that the state has opted for a military occupation (which has been relatively harmful) in place of the more traditional means of creating a sense of security, has meant that people in the borderlands have been largely left to their own devises. Edgardo Buscaglia is not the only one to have compared the borderlands to Sicily — where the absence of a legitimate state left citizens to be preyed on (or join in preying on their fellow citizens) for centuries.
In Sicily, it took centuries for the Mafias to evolve. In the borderlands, unintentionally, a hothouse atmosphere allowed their growth in a matter of decades.
Of course, the borderlands have a history of lawlessness, exacerbated by U.S. demands for the benefits of criminal — or other less desirable enterprises, without having to absorb the costs of production.
To a large extent, the Mexican state tolerated the border’s use by criminals and undesirables since the 18th century, but at the same time was able to project its legitimacy — that is, the local police chief might be crooked, and the state legislature a joke, but the borderlands were seen by the Federal Government as an integral part of Mexico. And, even if it required bribery, allegience to the state was maintained.
Under NAFTA, the border became a “free trade zone” — economically in, but not of, Mexico. Coupled with the State’s neo-liberal policies, which lessened dependence on a central authority for survival, and left people more or less at the mercy of the “market” (which, in the borderlands, meant the United States market), while at the same time, it was in the U.S. interest NOT to “off-shore” its own institutional controls south of the border — for example, moving unionized U.S. plants to Mexico without moving the union and discouraging Mexican unions from operating in those plants.
Throw into the mix that the borderlands — again for economic reasons — went through a massive demographic shift because of NAFTA. Cities like Juarez and Tijuana and Nuevo Laredo have more than their share of “displaced persons” and a relatively rootless, younger population than other Mexican communities: an industrial age frontier society, the frontier being a post-industrial United States.
The people on the frontier should have been (and were) the great beneficiary of NAFTA, but also its victims. Although the economic and social short-comings of NAFTA and “free trade” were clear to some, the signs were ignored by the Federal Administration, and gave the mafias an opening.
While military control has been one method of providing state institutions in difficult regions (again, something not unheard of on the Mexican frontier), in itself, militarization does not imply a state of war.
We have smugglers, we have gun runners, we have mafiosi, we have — perhaps — death squads, we have feuds up in the hills, and we have militarization on the borders. What we do not have is a war.
mexfiles.net 
Great analysis. Keep up this need work.
There are so many “babosadas” in this post where do we start?
As far as “Nacho’s” being executed let’s not forget he was armed and killed a soldier when he was captured. Did you forget Sr. “Nacho” ordered the torture and execution of the other choir boys who kidnapped his son. Do you think any drug lord is not always armed
At one point in time the majority of cocaine from Columbia was shipped directly and indirectly from Colombia by boats into the U.S. As the shipping lanes were closed more of the drugs from South America was shipped through Mexico which started Mexico role as a major plyer in the drug trafficking.
Next came Colombia deminshing role as drug producer, this lead to Mexico becoming a major producer of drugs.
Couple the above factors (and others) with Mexico has a long history of corruption and you have the Mexico of today.
Calderon “war” on drugs is only a small portion of problem Mexico has today.
The ever changing alliances among the drug cartels who are fighting for the drug routes and political power is the single major factor for the drug violence we see today.
I suggest you read more about the broken allainces beween the Tijuana cartel and Sinaloa cartel and learn a little something about the start of the drug “war”.
The violence we see today in Mexico was a long time coming, blaming Calderon is just plain estupido.
This is an extremely important post. It says beautifully what I was trying to point out in comments to a previous post on crime rates in Mexico. I hope some people will be able to read it with clear heads and open minds and will LEARN from it. I wish people in the news and the Administation would come here or send people here to spend time in such a way that they could learn about the REST of Mexico aside from the drug wars, that is about most of Mexico.
Or not drug wars: narco- and frontera violence.
Richard, 20 people were killed in Mazatlan where you live in the past four days from the “drug war”.Of course people don’t want to come to Mexico – i.e. the touristas – regardless if the area has no bloodshed going on.
People are aware of the carnage going on in other states of Mexico, wow, what a fun vacation, let’s just block out completely the slaughter and convince ourselves that everything is OK. How weird is that? I mean, that’s what Americans have been doing for ages, blocking out the realities of social injustices here while they sip on Pina Coladas and stay in swanky hotels.
I’d like to see everyone stop trying to convince each other that it’s not that bad, or it’s worse than we think, and come up with some practical solutions rather than sweeping this under the table.
http://www.frontera.info/EdicionEnLinea/Notas/Nacional/05082010/461955.aspx
2o within the Municipio de Mazatlán, which is a bigger geographical area than some U.S. states, and includes not just the port city, but a big chunk of the sierra… not unexpected given the recent…er… executive openings within the local export biz. Not that it doesn’t affect tourism, or it’s being swept under the rug, but that the way of thinking about it — and the solution proposed by the Federal Administration — may not be the best.
OK, but what? What solution(s)?
NPR is doing a five part series on how the “drug war” is affecting Mexico on a whole – now, they are kind of a day late and a dollar short, only saying there have been 25K deaths, and a rehash of some events which we are aware of.
What is spooky though is the latest Stratfor Report on Ciudad Juarez, (yes I know abut the conservatism of Stratfor)and the thinking is – there is a possibility for escaltion to the possible use of IED’s.
Now, if that happens, what next?
Calderon made statements yesterday that “cartels” actually control parts of the country, although he didn’t say which parts, and they are actually collecting taxes. If this is true or not, I don’t know.
How any society can flourish under these conditions is difficult to imagine, it (the “drug war”) affects everyone. Whole pages of history and culture in Mexico are being superceded by current events and if the current events are not somehow resolved – no one is going to care about any of the culture or history, does that make sense?
Following the conquest, the Mexican population fell by something between 75 and 90 percent, and during the Revolution by about 6.5 percent. The loss of life from the current gangster mayhem is less than 0.025 percent.
Not to make light of the appalling situation now, but a country that’s been through several foreign invasions, the loss of half its territory and several very bloody internal wars is not about to lose its culture or history.
I like that….the part about not losing our culture and history, because no matter what; I believe that we will overcome this mess. Great report Richard.
Calderon made statements yesterday that “cartels” actually control parts of the country, although he didn’t say which parts, and they are actually collecting taxes. If this is true or not, I don’t know.
**************************
If collecting taxes means extorting business owners, than yes the cartels do collect “taxes”
Speaking of collecting taxes.
http://lapolaka.com/2010/08/05/heroes-llegan-al-rescate/
Ask any of the honest businessmen left in Puerto Peñasco, who collects the their taxes?? The answer should not surprise anyone, the cartels control it there.