03/ 27 Closing Prices / revised 03/28 2024 06:59 GMT 03/27    OPEC Basket    $84.98 -0.94     | 03/27    Mexico Basket (MME)   $76.29    -0.21 | 02/12    Venezuela Basket (Merey)  $67.27  +0.77  | 03/27    NYMEX WTI Texas Intermediate May CLK24   $81.35  -0.27 | 03/27   ICE Brent May  BRNK24      $86.09   -0.16     | 03/27    NYMEX Gasoline April RBJ24   $2.68   -0.5%  |  03/27    NYMEX  Heating Oil April  HOJ24   $2.60  -0.9%   | 02/27    Natural Gas May NGK24    $1.72   -3.9% | 03/22    Active U.S. Rig Count (Oil & Gas)    624   -5  | 03/28     USD/MXN Mexican Peso  16.5606  (data live) | 03/28     EUR/USD    1.0817  (data live)  | 04/01    US/Bs. (Bolivar)   $36.28960000 ( data BCV)  

Bomb Mexico to What End? – Mary Anastasia O’Grady/WSJ (video)

Journal Editorial Report: More politicians want a frontal attack on Mexico's drug gangs.
Journal Editorial Report: More politicians want a frontal attack on Mexico’s drug gangs. Images: AFP/Getty /Zuma /Composite: Mark Kelly

By Mary Anastasia O’Grady

The brutal kidnapping of four Americans in the Mexican border city of Matamoros on March 3 horrified the public. Grim news followed when two of the victims were found murdered. The survivors have been returned to the U.S.

On the same afternoon in the same city, not far from where the Americans were attacked, there was a third fatality. The Mexican daily Reforma reported that the victim was a 33-year-old mother hit in the head by a stray bullet. She may have been caught in the crossfire of a separate shootout between a cartel and the Tamaulipas State Guard. That killing didn’t make headlines and the victim’s name hasn’t been released.

The killing of innocent Mexicans, who find themselves in the crossfire of battles to get drugs to consumers in the U.S., doesn’t get the coverage that American victims of cartel violence receive. If it did, maybe the discussion in Washington around the problem would be serious. Instead it gets sillier by the day.

The latest bromide aimed at combating the availability of dangerous drugs in the U.S. comes from conservatives inside the Beltway, who propose to use the U.S. military to take out the cartels by striking Mexico, our sovereign, democratic neighbor. This isn’t only insane, it’s unlikely to alter the availability of street narcotics in the U.S.

Even before the kidnapping and murder of Americans in Matamoros, U.S.-Mexican relations were strained. One big reason is the trafficking of opioids laced with the powerful, and often lethal, Chinese-made synthetic fentanyl. They are made in Mexico and smuggled over the southern border. Because there is an American appetite for illegal opioids, consumers buy them on the black market. Many have overdosed because they unknowingly bought a bad batch.

Some Americans want other Americans to stop doing so many drugs. Mexicans want this too, since it’s the billions of dollars their rich next-door neighbors pay in cash for the stuff that has empowered the gangsters and overwhelmed the country’s young, weak democratic institutions. The trouble is that the use of U.S. military force on foreign soil has never worked to reduce American demand for illegal drugs, and the unintended consequences could be costly.

The recent saber-rattling by American conservatives is the best thing that has happened to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in his four years in office. His policy of nonconfrontation with the cartels has been a failure. As Mexican journalist Jorge Ramos explained in a March 3 column in the newspaper El Norte, there have been 139,077 homicides in Mexico since the start of the López Obrador presidency, which runs another 18 months. To put that in context, there were 124,478 homicides during the full six years of the government of Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-18) and 121,683 killed during Felipe Calderón’s presidency (2006-12).

Mr. López Obrador’s security agenda is an easy target for his political opponents. But now threats from the American right are generating a sense of wounded national pride. Pressure on the president inside the country for bilateral cooperation has been undermined by what feels like gringo bullying—not to mention the lack of accountability for drug demand.

Cartel violence wasn’t a Mexican problem until U.S. counternarcotic operations successfully blocked Caribbean trafficking routes in the 1990s. That’s when transnational criminal organizations discovered the path through Central America and Mexico. With the highest profits along the Latin American journey collected at the U.S. border, the Mexican gangsters seized control of the business. Since then they have expanded into extortion, kidnapping and human trafficking.

In the 2000s, the Bush administration put muscle behind Plan Colombia—a U.S. foreign-policy initiative designed to help that country beat back drug-trafficking guerrillas. Some have suggested that if only Mexico would cooperate like then-Colombian President Álvaro Uribe did, the same model could be used in Mexico. But the plan’s success was in re-establishing the presence of the state across Colombia during Mr. Uribe’s presidency. Cocaine flows from the Andes were little changed; producers merely shifted to other countries. When Mexican cartels began to control the business, Colombian cartels weakened, which also helped Mr. Uribe.

The U.S. military successfully intervened against terrorists in Afghanistan—until President Biden abandoned it. But U.S. troops on the ground couldn’t defeat the poppy growers.

Another American hypocrisy is the distribution, all over the U.S., of illicit substances. If U.S. institutions are so strong, why don’t they stop the drugs from moving, for example, between Brownsville, Texas, and New York City? It’s on that journey that vertically integrated transnational narco-businesses capture the highest added value.

Let’s agree that fentanyl deaths are tragedies and stopping them is a worthy goal. But there’s no upside in waging a war we can’t win against a sovereign, democratic neighbor.

Write to O’Grady@wsj.com.

__________________________________________________________________

Mary Anastasia O’Grady is an Opinion Columnist, writes “The Americas,” a weekly column on politics, economics and business in Latin America and Canada that appears every Monday in the Journal. Ms. O’Grady joined the paper in August 1995 and became a senior editorial page writer in December 1999. She was appointed an editorial board member in November 2005. She is also a member of the board of directors of the Indianapolis­-based Liberty Fund. Energiesnet.com does not necessarily share these views.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally appeared on Tthe WSJ in the March 13, 2023, print edition as ‘Bomb Mexico to What End?’. All comments posted and published on EnergiesNet or Petroleumworld, do not reflect either for or against the opinion expressed in the comment as an endorsement of EnergiesNet or Petroleumworld.

Original article

Use Notice: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.

energiesNet.com 03 14 2023

Share this news

Support EnergiesNet.com

By Elio Ohep · Launched in 1999 under Petroleumworld.com

Information & News on Latin America’s Energy, Oil, Gas, Renewables, Climate, Technology, Politics and Social issues

Contact : editor@petroleuworld.com


CopyRight©1999-2021, EnergiesNet.com™  / Elio Ohep – All rights reserved
 

This site is a public free site and it contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of business, environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have chosen to view the included information for research, information, and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission fromPetroleumworld or the copyright owner of the material.

 
 
Scroll to Top