Analysis: Has Calderon signalled a shift in his Drug War Policy?

Image via Wikipedia

It may seem so.

As pressure mounts on President Felipe Calderon to contain the escalating crisis, it seems his Government has shifted direction in the way it views its military campaign. According to CNN, Mexican authorities have declared that its campaign against the cartels is not a war, but merely a complex strategy in order to take down organised crime, and that the intention of the campaign is to strengthen institutions, its own law and reduce the crime rate.

They have gone even further, and have proposed changes to the Mexican National Security Law – established in 2005 and passed in 2009 – which critics say will pave a path to a police state, allowing Military and Police Forces to use force deemed necessary to combat internal threats to national security that would not be held accountable for, in turn increasing the potential risk of criminalising protesters, and human rights activists. Critics say that the changes are too broad, and significantly increase the potential for human rights abuse, particularly with the Military who have already been condemned by multiple human rights organisations since President Calderon began the military campaign against the cartels in 2006.

In particular, Sylvia Longmire compares the proposed changes of the NSL to the United States Patriot Act, which alone has taken many concessions, due to lawsuits and criticism that the Act went too far. Like the Patriotic Act that was rushed through after 9/11, Longmire says the NSL gives greater powers to Law Enforcement Agencies, for intelligence-gathering purposes, and reduces restrictions on what Law Enforcement Agencies can deem a viable threat which reflect the concerns of many Mexicans, who fear that these changes currently being rushed through Congress will take away basic civil rights.

What’s happened within the Calderon Administration?

For one thing, someone in the hierarchy has decided they were running at a loss, and something had to give. Look at all the things that the Mexican Government hails as its successes of its ‘comprehensive policy’; you have the drug busts – almost 50 tons of Marijuana was discovered in November while in October 134 tons were confiscated which lead to the massacre at the Drug Re-habitation clinic. Then you have the capture of many cartel leaders, and deaths; Tony ‘Tomenta’, former leader of the Gulf Cartel was slain in November, while more recently the leader of the Sinaloa Cartel, Edgar “La Barbie” Valdez was captured in August of last year, among others.

All of these ‘successes’ were emphasised and yet the violence within Mexico actually increased rapidly, and even exploded onto the US border; cartel drug trafficking operations continued to smuggle drugs into the US market, and their violent wave that has claimed the lives of many has raised sharply in the last year. Then recently, the mass graves discovered in San Fernando, Tamaulipas – the Northern State that borders Texas – where a staggering numbers of bodies have been found, which only add a new element to the crisis.

It perhaps seems that the Mexican Government have suddenly altered tactics, to cloak their campaign, their war in government policy terminology, instead of using the word ‘war’. Is it possible the Mexican Government is attempting to gain fresh credibility by calling it a ‘comprehensive policy’ in order to help ease through the proposed changes to the National Security Law? The Calderon Administration knows the general elections are around the corner, and Calderon by law cannot stand for another term which eliminates the idea that he’s doing it for electoral credibility. However, it might hold true for the next election when the current government – if they win again – introduce a new leader who may continue with the current administrations military campaign.

It suggests that there are American Policy influences. The Patriot Act was passed to protect Americans and the US from terrorists and further attacks therefore the changes to the NSL would mimic the same objectives, although cartel operations would not be elevated to terrorist status – not at this stage anyway. It suggests that the American model, which proponents argue has stopped further attacks on American soil, is the most effective and may well work in Mexico. And if we look at the proposed changes in the light of the American model, it could be illustrated that there may have been a push by the Washington to influence Mexican Government Policy not to just help Mexico, but to keep the US in a favourable light on the world stage and to escape any criticism it may receive for its handling of the Mexican Drug War.

Then again, could the Mexican Government be using this as a tactic to be seen as more effective and less corruptive, when in reality they are using it as a whitewash to remove some of the slack it gets for human rights abuse in order to continue the crusade a little longer? Or could we give the benefit of the doubt to the Mexican Government, and suggest that they are only preparing for the long term, with a predicted rise and escalation of the current crisis, by believing this is the only way to protect its citizens.

On top of all of this, it’s been reported that US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton is heading an official meeting with Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa in order to discuss revisions to the Merida Initiative, the treaty that allows billions of US Dollars to assist in Mexico’s campaign to dismantle organised crime and drug trafficking in Mexico. This certainly adds further conviction to the idea that there are broader changes underway for Mexico, and furthering of American Foreign Policy influence.

On the other hand, if Clinton demands further human rights priority and judicial changes, it may be a counter balance that could ease fears for critics to proposed changes to the NSL.

We can view Calderon’s decisions from a human point of view; it may be true that President Calderon may be turning to desperate measures, realising that his own campaign hasn’t been working out as he would have liked. Maybe after years of being in the ‘backyard’ of the United States, Calderon wanted to do something patriotic for Mexico that could take the country into the future, and that’s completely understandable. Instead, he may have turned to another model, an American model, to help fill the void, a model he may have been stubborn to use because it wasn’t Mexican enough in the first place.

Or maybe he has just realised he was simply, wrong.

Whatever he has realised, there can be no turning back.

At the same time, it’s important to consider that this is no longer Calderon’s war. As much as he and his administration have fought it, when he hands over his reins of power, it will be up to the next President to only continue to find new ways of approaching a war that will inevitably stay around for the coming years. And it will be more than just the Presidents war; it will be a war that must be tackled with many different approaches, from all of Mexico’s Institutions, and perhaps a significant obligation from Washington that goes above and beyond giving money, or influencing foreign policy.

Calderon has severed any sort of reproach, or link with the past that might have worked, such as the truces and pacts with Drug Cartels that have beleaguered and corrupted many of Mexico’s most important institutions. In many ways, the war against the drug cartels has been fought for many years and decades before this, only covered up in false hopes and realities that frustrated politicians who could only see the status-quo as a way to deal with the problem.

However it’s a problem that Calderon believed he could change, and perhaps, still does.

The current changes to the National Security Law may not even be passed by the Mexican Senate. However it’s clear that this curious shift in official stance in the way the Government views its Military Campaign – its war – and those proposed changes to the National Security Law, coupled with high-level talks with Washington means something is undeniably afoot.

Whether it actually changes the direction of the Mexican Drug War – for better or worse – is another matter entirely.

Credits: Thank you also Latin America News Dispatch