THE ARTS
CHILD POLICY
CIVIL JUSTICE
EDUCATION
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY
POPULATION AND AGING
PUBLIC SAFETY
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TERRORISM AND
HOMELAND SECURITY
TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE
WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE
This PDF document was made available
from www.rand.org as a public service of
the RAND Corporation.
Jump down to document6
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit
research organization providing
objective analysis and effective
solutions that address the challenges
facing the public and private sectors
around the world.
Support RAND
Purchase this document
Browse Books & Publications
Make a charitable contribution
For More Information
Visit RAND at www.rand.org
Explore the RAND Corporation
View document details
Limited Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated
in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND
intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized
posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are
protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce,
or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For
information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions.
This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series.
RAND monographs present major research findings that address the
challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for
research quality and objectivity.
Security in Mexico
Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Agnes Gereben Schaefer, Benjamin Bahney, K. Jack Riley
C O R P O R AT I O N
This monograph results from the R AND Corporation's continuing
program of self-initiated research. Support for such research is provided, in
part, by the generosity of RAND's donors and by the fees earned on clientfunded research.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Schaefer, Agnes Gereben.
Security in Mexico : implications for U.S. policy options / Agnes Gereben
Schaefer, Benjamin Bahney, K. Jack Riley.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-0-8330-4719-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. United States—Foreign relations—Mexico. 2. Mexico—Foreign relations—
United States. 3. National security—United States. 4. Border security—United
States. 5. Internal security—Mexico. 6. Drug traffic—Mexico. 7. Drug traffic—
Prevention—International cooperation. 8. Violence—Mexico. I. Bahney, Benjamin.
II. Riley, Kevin Jack, 1964– III. Title.
JZ1520.A57M6 2009
355'.033072—dc22
2009014949
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing
objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing
the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
R® is a registered trademark.
Cover photo courtesy ShutterStock Images (© Copyright Frontpage)
© Copyright 2009 RAND Corporation
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long
as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial
purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND
Web site is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law.
For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND
permissions page (http://www.rand.org/publications/permissions.html).
Published 2009 by the RAND Corporation
1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665
RAND URL: http://www.rand.org
To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact
Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002;
Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: order@rand.org
Preface
Violence in Mexico has spiked over the past four years and is increasingly afecting the United States. In response, both the Mexican government and the U.S. government are searching for ways to improve
security in Mexico. his monograph examines the security situation
in Mexico and assesses its impact on the United States. In addition, it
outlines a number of policy options that the United States can consider
in its eforts to assist the Mexican government in improving internal
security in Mexico.
his monograph should be of interest to U.S. and Mexican
policymakers and analysts involved in eforts to improve security policy
in Mexico, as well as to those interested in security reform in general.
he multidisciplinary project team of researchers brought to the study
an array of expertise in security policy, international relations, and economics, as well as Spanish language skills. he study was a companion
to a larger RAND study that examined a range of social and economic
issues in Mexico. his monograph results from the RAND Corporation’s continuing program of self-initiated research. Support for such
research is provided, in part, by the generosity of RAND’s donors and
by the fees earned on client-funded research.
Readers of this monograph may also ind the following RAND
publications on security sector reform to be of interest:
• Establishing Law and Order After Conlict, by Seth G. Jones, Jeremy
M. Wilson, Andrew Rathmell, and K. Jack Riley (MG-374-RC)
iii
iv
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
• Making Liberia Safe: Transformation of the National Security Sector,
by David C. Gompert, Olga Oliker, Brooke Stearns Lawson,
Keith Crane, and K. Jack Riley (MG-529-OSD)
• U.S. Policy Options for Iraq: A Reassessment, by Olga Oliker, Keith
Crane, Audra K. Grant, Terrence K. Kelly, Andrew Rathmell,
and David Brannan (MG-613-AF)
• Clean, Lean, and Able: A Strategy for Defense Development,
by David C. Gompert, Olga Oliker, and Anga R. Timilsina
(OP-101).
Questions or comments about this monograph are welcome and
should be directed to the project leaders:
Agnes Gereben Schaefer
RAND Corporation
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
(412) 683-2300 x4488
Agnes_Schaefer@rand.org
K. Jack Riley
RAND Corporation
4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
(412) 683-2300 x4956
Jack_Riley@rand.org
More information about RAND is available at www.rand.org.
Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii
ChAPTer One
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Need for his Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
he Deteriorating Security Situation in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
he Importance of U.S.-Mexico Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Deining the Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Data Sources and Method of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Organization of his Monograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ChAPTer TwO
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Mexico’s Security Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
he Federal Security Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Scale of the Policing Efort in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Little Coordination Among Federal, State, and Local
Security Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Public Distrust of Mexican Security Institutions and
Security Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
v
vi
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Security in hree U.S. Priority Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Organized Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Illegal Migration and Human Traicking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Terrorism and Rebel Insurgencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Increased Domestic Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
ChAPTer Three
he Mexican Government’s response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Recent Actions and Federal Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Organized Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Illegal Migration and Human Traicking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Terrorism and Rebel Insurgencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
What Mexico Is Doing at the State and Local Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Police Corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Transnational Gangs (Maras). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Judicial Reform at the State Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
ChAPTer FOur
Impact on the united States and the u.S. Government’s response . . . . 45
Impact on the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Overview of U.S. Aid to Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
U.S. Response: Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
U.S. Response: Federal-to-Federal Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
U.S. Response: Technological Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
U.S. Response: Institution Building as a Secondary Focus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
he Mérida Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Barriers to Monitoring the Efectiveness of Aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
ChAPTer FIve
Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Potential Priorities for the New U.S. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Help the Mexican Government Streamline and Rationalize the
Delivery of Security Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Encourage the Mexican Government to Bridge the Gap Between
Federal and Local Security. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Support Mexico’s Eforts to Address Domestic Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Contents
vii
Focus Less on Technology Transfer and More on Building Trust
in Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
U.S. Policy Options for Improving Security in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Strategic Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Retrenchment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Assessment of the hree Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Mexico’s Reaction to the hree Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
he Future of U.S.-Mexico Security Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Figures
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
Mexico’s Federal-Level National Security Structure. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Scale of the Mexican Policing Efort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Federal and State Spending on Public Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Mexican Cartel Territories and Drug Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
ix
Tables
S.1.
S.2.
3.1.
4.1.
5.1.
5.2.
5.3.
Demands Created by the hree Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii
Impact of the hree Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxii
Extraditions from Mexico to the United States,
2000 hrough Mid-October 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
U.S. Support for Mexican Counternarcotics Activities,
FY 2000–FY 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Policy Options for Improving Security in Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Demands Created by the hree Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Impact of the hree Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
xi
Summary
Against the backdrop of a deteriorating security situation in Mexico
and the recent change in administration in the United States, this study
assessed the security situation in Mexico and its impact on the United
States. Drawing from the study’s indings, this monograph outlines a
range of policy options that the U.S. government can use to assist the
Mexican government in improving Mexico’s internal security. Its release
is particularly timely because the new U.S. administration is beginning
to address the security situation in Mexico and formulate strategies to
prevent violence from spilling farther into the United States.
Mexico’s Security Structure
Since its irst opposition president was elected in 2000, Mexico has
struggled to articulate a cohesive national security strategy. his lack
of a cohesive security strategy has led to shifting responsibilities, the
duplication of services in a number of agencies, and general instability
in Mexico’s security structure. hese ambiguous, shifting, and overlapping responsibilities have led, in turn, to uncoordinated eforts (and
often animosity) across federal, state, and local security forces (particularly among police forces).
While trust in Mexican public institutions has historically been
low, conidence in the police is particularly low. According to opinion
polls, the police are considered corrupt by 80 percent of Mexico’s population, while the armed forces are the most highly respected public
xiii
xiv
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
institution in that country.1 With crime and distrust of oicials such
widespread phenomena, bribery is a part of daily life in Mexico.
The Deteriorating Security Situation in Mexico
he security situation in Mexico began to deteriorate in 2005 and
became precipitously worse in 2008, when drug-related killings more
than doubled from 2,275 in 2007 to 6,290 in 2008.2 One of the major
drivers of this decline in security is increased violence associated with
the drug trade. According to the Mexican daily Reforma, in 2007 and
2008, more than 8,000 people died from drug violence, including
more than 500 police oicers in 2008 alone.3 While Mexico has experienced occasional spikes in drug violence over the past two decades,
this recent uptick in violence difers from previous episodes of drug
violence. First, the drug cartels are deliberately targeting high-level
police forces in unprecedented numbers because government forces
are focusing law enforcement eforts on the cartels like never before.
Second, violence is more public than it has been, and citizens are sometimes caught in the cross ire between cartels or between the cartels and
the police or military. hird, drug cartels have access to more sophisticated weaponry (mostly smuggled from the United States) and are
now enlisting the protection of special operations forces, such as the
Zetas (former Mexican military special operations forces) and Kaibiles
(former Guatemalan special operations forces). he security situation
in Northern Mexico has deteriorated so precipitously that President
Felipe Calderón’s government has deployed more than 40,000 troops
to ight the drug cartels and bring order to areas that are dominated by
the cartels.4
1
See Diego Cevallos, “Police Caught Between Low Wages, hreats, and Bribes,” Inter
Press Services, June 7, 2007.
2
Justice in Mexico Project, “New Report, January 2009,” Transborder Institute, January
2009; “Mexican President: We’re Not Losing Drug War,” MSNBC, February 26, 2009.
3
Justice in Mexico Project, 2009.
4
“Mexican Troops Swoop on Police HQ,” BBC News, February 10, 2009.
Summary
xv
In addition to traditional threats to national security, issues of
“personal insecurity” (such as crime and lawlessness, police corruption and abuse, and transnational street gangs) are also currently major
concerns in Mexico. In one large survey conducted by the Citizens’
Institute for Security Studies (Instituto Ciudadano de Estudio Sobre la
Inseguridad, or ICESI), 71 percent of respondents reported not feeling
safe in their homes and 72 percent reported not feeling safe in the city
in which they live.5 Improving personal security was a cornerstone of
Calderón’s presidential campaign and continues to be a high priority
for his administration.
Security in Three U.S. Priority Areas
While the overall internal security situation in Mexico has deteriorated
over the past few years, our analysis of the literature and our interviews
with U.S. government oicials and nongovernmental experts indicate
that three areas are priorities for the United States: (1) organized crime
(including drug traicking and arms traicking), (2) illegal migration and human traicking, and (3) terrorism and rebel insurgencies. hese three areas are intertwined, making them diicult to assess
individually.
Organized Crime
Almost all of the U.S. government oicials, academics, and nongovernmental organization representatives with whom we spoke agreed that
organized crime (including drug traicking and arms traicking) is the
primary security threat to the United States from Mexico. Organized
crime has iniltrated all levels of government and the police forces in
Mexico. Organized criminal elements are also involved in a variety
of illegal activities, including drug traicking, human smuggling, and
arms traicking. housands of citizens have been killed each year, and
5
Instituto Ciudadano de Estudios Sobre la Inseguridad [Citizen’s Institute for Security
Studies], Cuarto Encuesta Nacional Sobre Inseguridad/Urbana [Fourth National Security
Survey, Urban Areas], Mexico City, 2006.
xvi
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
the targeting of police and military oicers has increased over the past
two years.
Drug Trafficking. It is estimated that $25 billion–$30 billion
worth of illegal drugs comes into the United States through Mexico
each year. According to the U.S. State Department’s 2009 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, about 90 percent of the cocaine
that enters the United States is traicked through Mexico.6 According to U.S. government estimates, approximately 15,500 metric tons
of marijuana were produced in Mexico in 2007, primarily for export
to the United States, making it the United States’ primary foreign supplier. In addition, the vast majority of methamphetamine produced in
Mexico is exported to the United States.7 Drug traicking in Mexico
has historically been dominated by four major drug traicking organizations (DTOs): the Gulf Cartel, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Juárez
Cartel, and the Tijuana Cartel. However, the constellation of DTOs
in Mexico is changing as these larger cartels break into atomized units.
hese smaller, decentralized DTOs have waged an increasingly violent turf war over key traicking routes and “plazas” (border crossings
for traicking drugs into the United States), ports of entry, and territory. In response, Calderón has deployed an estimated 40,000 troops
since 2006.8 However, this unprecedented use of the military has
raised concerns from both domestic and international human rights
organizations.
Violence associated with drug traicking is increasingly afecting
the United States. While border cities bear the brunt of the spillover
efects of drug violence, the U.S. government has found the footprints
of Mexican smuggling operations in all but two states: Vermont and
West Virginia. hese operations include kidnappings and murders.
6
U.S. Department of State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Washington,
D.C., February 2009.
7
U.S Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug hreat
Assessment 2009, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Oice, December 2008.
8
“Mexican Troops Swoop on Police HQ,” 2009.
Summary
xvii
In addition, the number of corruption investigations involving U.S.
border patrol agents is increasing.9
Arms Trafficking. Mexican authorities are increasingly outgunned
by well-armed traickers, and nearly all illegal guns seized in Mexico
have been smuggled from the United States. In many ways, the characteristics of the arms trade mirror the dynamics of the drug market.
Drugs low north from Mexico to the United States and guns low
south from the United States to Mexico. Data from the U.S. Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives indicate that 90 to
95 percent of the guns used in drug-related violent crimes in Mexico
enter illegally from the United States.10 As with drug smuggling or
kidnapping, it is not unusual to ind police oicers, military personnel,
and customs agents involved in the illegal arms trade. Over the past
few years, several government oicials have been arrested on both sides
of the border for participating in the arms trade.
Illegal Migration and Human Trafficking
Illegal movement into the United States from Mexico is clearly a threat
to U.S. national security. Terrorists could use human traicking networks to gain entry into the United States; however, the likelihood
that terrorists might use the U.S.-Mexico border is highly contested.
here has not been a single report of a terrorist entering the United
States from Mexico. More generally, human smuggling and human
traicking feed into crime in the United States. In 2003, it was estimated that there were at least 100 human smuggling organizations and
gangs active in Mexico. Like other facets of organized crime, there have
been credible reports that police, immigration, and customs oicials
are involved in human traicking.
Terrorism and Rebel Insurgencies
Since September 11, 2001, there has been speculation about al-Qaeda’s
interest in using Mexico as a gateway for entry into the United States
9
Randal C. Archibold and Andrew Becker, “Border Agents, Lured by the Other Side,”
New York Times, May 27, 2008.
10
U.S. Department of State, 2009.
xviii
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
or as a launching point for an attack on the United States. his view
is extremely controversial but has received signiicant media attention,
though there have been no reports of known or suspected terrorists
arrested along the U.S.-Mexico border. However, operatives detained
elsewhere have reported that Mexico has been considered by terrorist
organizations as a staging and entry point to the United States. While
most U.S. government oicials with whom we spoke indicated that
there was no current evidence of strong al-Qaeda ties to Mexico, we
include the possibility in our list of priority areas because it remains a
continuing area of potential concern.
Within Mexico, the Popular Revolutionary Army (Ejército Popular Revolucionario, or EPR), a Marxist guerrilla group formed in the
mid-1990s, could cause disruptions and challenge the Mexican government. On July 6 and July 10, 2007, the EPR blew up natural-gas
pipelines belonging to state oil giant Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX),
cutting of gas supplies across central Mexico. On September 10 of that
year, the EPR struck again, setting of 12 simultaneous explosions on
gas pipelines. According to Mexico’s leading manufacturers’ association, the estimated lost economic output was about $1.6 billion. While
the insurgents have thus far operated independently of the DTOs, a
concern is that the insurgents either align with one another or become
one and the same. Other insurgency groups in Latin America have
become involved in the drug trade to fund their activities, including
the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the National Liberation
Army in Colombia, and Shining Path in Peru.
Mexican Domestic Concerns: Crime, Corruption, and
Street Gangs
In addition to the U.S. concerns already discussed, our research also
identiied broader domestic concerns within Mexico, including crime,
corruption, and street gangs. hese issues have a direct impact on many
Mexicans’ everyday lives and can erode their trust in public institutions, such as the police and the judicial system. In deciding how it
might move forward in assisting Mexico, the United States should con-
Summary
xix
sider issues beyond those outlined in the prior section and ask how it
can also support Mexico’s eforts to address the following domestic
concerns.
Crime
According to an August 2007 Mexican congressional report, in the
irst half of 2007, the rates of major federal crimes, which include homicides, kidnappings, and arms traicking, rose 25 percent above the
rates of the same period of the previous year. From 2005 to 2006,
the rates of these same crimes had risen 22 percent. Gangland-style
executions have risen 155 percent since 2001.11 On August 30, 2008,
public concern over crime spilled into the streets when at least 13 anticrime groups planned demonstrations in all 31 Mexican states. he
protests were inspired by the abduction and murder of Alejandro
Marti, the 14-year-old son of a wealthy businessman.12 he case provoked public outcry when it was learned that a police detective was a
key participant in the kidnapping for ransom.
Corruption
Police corruption is widespread in Mexico at all levels of the police
forces—federal, state, and local. In fact, President Calderón has, at
times, ordered the federal police to take over entire municipal police
forces in an attempt to weed out corruption. Such takeovers once again
highlight the lack of a cohesive national security strategy and the failure to delineate responsibility and authority across police forces.
Transnational Gangs (Maras)
he United States is becoming increasingly concerned about the transnational impact of gangs. However, reliable data on the extent of the
gang activity in Mexico are extremely diicult to ind. According to
interviews conducted by the U.S. Agency for International Develop11
Jay Root, “Mexico Crime Continues to Surge,” McClatchy Newspapers, September 22,
2007.
12
here was a similar anticrime demonstration in Mexico in 2004 in which 250,000 people
marched.
xx
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
ment (USAID), in October 2005, it was estimated that 17,000 gang
members (predominantly members of the Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13,
and 18th Street gangs) operated in the border city of Juárez in Mexico.13 Mexico’s attorney general has said that nearly 1,100 gang members were arrested in Mexico in 2004 and 2005.14 he Secretaria de
Seguridad Publica, Mexico’s public security ministry, has a permanent
antigang operation called Operación Acero that dates back to 2003.
However, to date, it does not appear that Mexico has adopted national
anti-mara legislation as some other counties have.
Potential Priorities for the New U.S. Administration
Given the impacts of organized crime, drug traicking, arms traicking, illegal migration, and human traicking and the threat of terrorism, the new U.S. administration will have to address the deteriorating security situation in Mexico. In addition, it will need to decide
which security issues should be addressed when allocating U.S. aid to
Mexico and how U.S. aid should be prioritized. Four potential priorities emerged from our study:
• Help the Mexican government streamline and rationalize the
delivery of security services.
• Encourage the Mexican government to bridge the coordination
gap between federal and local security.
• Support Mexico’s eforts to address domestic concerns, such as
ordinary crime and personal insecurity.
• Focus less on technology transfer and more on building trust in
institutions.
13
14
USAID, Central America and Mexico Gang Assessment, April 2006.
Kevin Sullivan, “Mexico Battles Inlux of Violent Gangs,” Washington Post, January 21,
2005.
Summary
xxi
U.S. Policy Options for Improving Security in Mexico
he future of U.S.-Mexico relations will depend largely on the approach
that the new U.S. administration chooses to take. While some, including the former deputy foreign minister of Mexico, Andrés Rozental,
advocate the legalization of drugs in the United States as a solution
to the violence in Mexico, we have not included a discussion of this
option because it is not broadly supported, especially with respect to
cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.
Based on how much the new administration wants to prioritize
long-term reform in Mexico, we have identiied three policy options
that the administration can use to address security issues in Mexico:
• Engage in a strategic partnership with Mexico that emphasizes
reform and longer-term institution building.
• Maintain the status quo approach, which focuses on ad hoc, issuespeciic cooperation but does not emphasize reform or longer-term
institution building.
• Institute a retrenchment approach by focusing on U.S. domestic eforts to combat security threats from Mexico and disengage
from any partnerships with Mexico.
As Table S.1 indicates, the strategic partnership option places the
greatest demands on the U.S. government, the status quo option places
medium degrees of demand on the U.S. government, and the retrenchment option places the fewest burdens on the U.S. government.
he three policy options address the four potential priority areas in
diferent ways. As shown in Table S.2, the strategic partnership option
is the only option that has a high level of impact on all four potential priority areas. On the other side of the spectrum, the retrenchment option is the only option that has a low level of impact on all
four potential priority areas. he status quo option has varying degrees
of impact on the potential priority areas, depending on the particular
issue or area of cooperation that is being examined.
xxii
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Table S.1
Demands Created by the Three Policy Options
Policy Option
Strategic
Partnership
Status Quo
Retrenchment
U.S. institutional commitment
High
Medium
Low
U.S. interagency cooperation
and planning
High
Low
Low
Domestic U.S. support for
reform in Mexico
High
Medium
Low
Need for metrics to evaluate
the effectiveness of U.S. aid
High
Medium
Low
Area of Demand
NOTE: High, medium, and low indicate degree of demand for U.S. government
resources, personnel, and time.
Table S.2
Impact of the Three Policy Options
Policy Option
Strategic
Partnership
Status Quo
Retrenchment
Develop cohesive security strategy and
reform the security structure to meet
that strategy
High
Low
Low
Bridge the gap between federal and
local security forces
High
Low
Low
Support Mexico’s efforts to address
domestic concerns
High
Low
Low
Focus aid less on technology and
equipment and more on increasing
transparency in government institutions
High
Medium
Low
Priority Area
NOTE: High, medium, and low indicate degree of impact on the four priority areas.
In assessing which policy option to pursue, the U.S. government
should also be sensitive to the potential reactions of the Mexican government. he United States and Mexico have had a unique relationship that has given rise to unique historical sensitivities. For instance,
Summary
xxiii
the Mexican government has always been wary of U.S. involvement
in Mexican internal afairs. hese Mexican sensitivities could result in
barriers to the implementation of the policy options. he strategic partnership option asks the most of both the United States and Mexico,
whereas the retrenchment option is the most potentially damaging
option to U.S.-Mexico relations. he status quo option is the safest
option for both countries.
Ultimately, whichever policy option the United States pursues, its
success will hinge on whether or not the United States can demonstrate
that Mexico’s sovereignty will be respected. As our research indicates,
the stakes are high and none of the issues examined can be resolved
without cooperation from across the border. he new U.S. administration should take advantage of this historic window of opportunity and
further engage the Calderón government in a deeper and broader relationship that strives to establish a long-term strategic partnership.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to the RAND Corporation for providing the funding
to support this project. We are also grateful to Jim homson, Richard
Neu, James Dobbins, and Emma Aguila for their feedback on early
drafts and brieings of this research; to Katherine Krumme for her
research assistance; and to the internal and external reviewers of the
draft report for their helpful comments. In addition, we thank Michelle
McMullen, Lauren Skrabala, and Stacie McKee for their assistance in
the preparation of this monograph.
his monograph was informed by interviews with numerous U.S.
and Mexican government oicials, as well as representatives from nongovernmental organizations. hese interviews were conducted on a notfor-attribution basis, and interviewees were granted anonymity. We are
deeply grateful for the interviewees’ insights and candor.
he content and conclusions in this monograph are solely the
responsibility of the authors.
xxv
Abbreviations
AFI
Agencia Federal de Investigación
[Federal Investigative Police]
ATF
U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives
DTO
drug traicking organization
EPR
Ejército Popular Revolucionario
[Popular Revolutionary Army]
ICESI
Instituto Ciudadano de Estudio Sobre la Inseguridad
[Citizens’ Institute for Security Studies]
MS-13
Mara Salvatrucha
PAN
Partido Accíon National [National Action Party]
PEMEX
Petróleos Mexicanos
PFP
Policía Federal Preventiva [Federal Preventive Police]
SEDENA
Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional
[Ministry of National Defense]
SSP
Secretaría de Seguridad Pública
[Ministry of Public Security]
USAID
U.S. Agency for International Development
xxvii
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Need for This Study
In response to a deteriorating security environment in Mexico, the
governments of both Mexico and the United States are searching for
policy options to improve internal security in Mexico and reduce violence along the U.S.-Mexico border. his study assessed the security
situation in Mexico and its impact on the United States. Drawing from
the study’s indings, this monograph outlines a range of policy options
that the U.S. government can use to assist the Mexican government in
improving Mexico’s internal security. Its release is particularly timely
because the new U.S. administration will need to address the security
situation in Mexico and formulate strategies to address it before violence from Mexico spills farther into the United States. Mexico’s recent
willingness to engage the United States presents a window of opportunity to expand and deepen U.S.-Mexico security relations.
The Deteriorating Security Situation in Mexico
he security situation in Mexico has deteriorated, particularly since
2007. he situation had already grown so serious by the end of 2006
that the international organization Reporters Without Borders ranked
Mexico as the second-deadliest country for reporters (Iraq was the
deadliest).1 One of the major drivers of this decline in security is
1
Reporters Without Borders, “Vera Cruz Crime Reporter Becomes Seventh Journalist
Murdered his Year in Mexico, Making It Second-Most Dangerous Country for Press, After
Iraq,” November 22, 2006.
1
2
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
increased violence associated with the drug trade. With the breakup
of Colombian cocaine cartels, Mexican drug cartels have increasingly
diversiied beyond transshipment into all aspects of drug traicking
and the traicking of diferent types of drugs.2 he result is violent turf
wars in which the Mexican police and civilians are often caught in the
middle or deliberately targeted.
Mexico has a population of more than 108 million people and an
area of more than 758,000 square miles. In 2007 and 2008, more than
8,000 people died from drug violence, including more than 500 police
oicers in 2008 alone.3 In 2008, 6,290 murders were linked to drug
violence (compared with approximately 2,275 drug-related deaths in all
of 2007).4 he Mexican daily Reforma’s tally of 167 murders (including 27 police oicers) during the last week of August 2008 marks
the deadliest week since President Calderón took oice in December
2006.5 he 58 homicides reported on November 10, 2008, made it the
deadliest day in Mexico in 2008.6
he Mexican state of Chihuahua has been particularly hard hit
by drug violence. he state of Chihuahua saw 1,026 drug-related murders from January to August 2008, or approximately 35 percent of
the country’s total homicides. In one 20-day period alone (July 15 to
August 5, 2008), there were 326 slayings in the state.7 In the border
city of Juárez (which is in the state of Chihuahua) alone, 1,600 people
were killed as a result of drug violence in 2008.8
While drug violence in Mexico has surged from time to time
over the past two decades, the most recent uptick in violence difers
2
Interview with a U.S. government oicial, May 2008.
3
Justice in Mexico Project, 2009.
4
“Mexican President: We’re Not Losing Drug War,” 2009; Justice in Mexico Project, 2009.
5
Sara Miller Llana, “Can Mexico’s Calderón Stop the Killings?” Christian Science Monitor,
September 2, 2008b.
6
STRATFOR, “Mexico Security Memo: November 10, 2008,” November 10, 2008c.
7
“In 8 Months Mexico Drug-Linked Killings Top 2007 Total,” Associated Press,
August 16, 2008.
8
“U.S. Families Feel Sting of Mexico’s Drug Violence,” CNN, February 27, 2009.
Introduction
3
from previous episodes. First, the drug cartels are deliberately targeting
high-level police forces in unprecedented numbers (often in the form of
hit lists posted in public places). In May 2008, several prominent government oicials were assassinated, including Edgar Millán Gómez,
the acting chief of the federal police; Roberto Velasco Martínez, the
head of the organized crime division of the federal police; and José
Aristeo Gómez Martínez, the administrative head of the military body
in charge of the president’s personal security. In addition to highlevel police oicers, line-level police oicers have also been targets. In
May 2008, the police chief in Ciudad Juárez was assassinated after 24
hours on the job; his predecessor had also been assassinated. he entire
municipal police force quit after the attack, and 300 military troops
and 16 state police oicers were deployed to the city.9 he daily Milenio
newspaper reported that 71 police oicers had been slain nationwide in
the month of August 2008 alone.10
Second, violence is more public than during previous cycles, and
citizens are often caught in the cross ire between cartels or between
the cartels and the police or military. One of the most public displays
of violence is decapitations, a tactic that was almost never used by the
drug cartels previously but that has been steadily increasing in prevalence. In 2006, gunmen rolled ive severed heads across the dance loor
of a nightclub in Michoacán.11 During the last week of August 2008
alone, a total of 21 decapitated bodies were found throughout Mexico,
18 of which were found in a span of three days.12 Kidnappings are also
on the rise. According to federal oicials, in 2007, the number of kidnappings nationwide increased about 35 percent over the 2006 level,
9
James C. McKinley Jr., “After Massacre, Mexican Town in Terror of Drug Violence,”
New York Times, May 31, 2008a.
10
Ken Ellingwood, “Drug War Bodies Are Piling Up in Mexico,” Los Angeles Times,
August 30, 2008a.
11
12
“Calderón Sends Troops to Michoacán,” El Universal (Mexico), December 12, 2006.
“Mexicans Protest After More Decapitations,” Herald Sun (Australia), September 1,
2008.
4
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
to 438.13 According to a report by Milenio, a review of federal statistics
showed that only one in eight kidnapping victims was a business executive; about half were in the middle class or below.14
hird, drug cartels have access to more sophisticated weaponry
(mostly smuggled from the United States) and are now enlisting the
protection of special operations forces, such as the Zetas (former Mexican military special operations forces) and Kaibiles (former Guatemalan special operations forces). hese highly trained forces serve to
intimidate local citizens and other cartels.15 In May 2007, Luis Astorga,
a drug traicking expert at the National Autonomous University of
Mexico, told the Houston Chronicle, “We’re seeing a transition from
the gangsterism of traditional hitmen to paramilitary terrorism with
guerrilla tactics.”16
he security situation in Northern Mexico has deteriorated so
precipitously that the Calderón government has enlisted an estimated
40,000 troops to ight the drug cartels and bring order to areas that are
under the foothold of the cartels.17 he Mexican military has been used
by previous Mexican administrations to help ight the drug war and
has been deployed in counterdrug operations in Mexico since at least
the 1960s. However, the Calderón administration has used the military in unprecedented numbers to ight drug traickers. As a result, the
military’s engagement in counterdrug operations has also raised concerns among both domestic and international human rights groups.18
13
Oscar Avila, “Mexico Reels After Spate of Kidnappings,” Chicago Tribune, August 30,
2008.
14
Ken Ellingwood, “Fear of Kidnapping Grips Mexico,” Los Angeles Times, September 1,
2008b.
15
here is also speculation that the cartels are enlisting the protection of street gangs, or
maras. See Sullivan, 2005.
16 Stephanie Hanson, Mexico’s Drug War, New York: Council on Foreign Relations,
June 28, 2007.
17
18
“Mexican Troops Swoop on Police HQ,” 2009.
See Diego Cevallos, “War on Crime Triggers Activists Suspicions,” Inter Press Service,
December 15, 2006. See also Sara Miller Llana, “Military Abuses Rise in Mexican Drug
War,” Christian Science Monitor, June 24, 2008.
Introduction
5
In July 2008, Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission released
a report documenting a total of 983 complaints against the Mexican
army since Calderón took oice on December 1, 2006. Seventy-ive
percent of those complaints were tied to the military’s ight against
organized crime. he commission recommended that the military not
conduct police work and urged Calderón to set a date for the military’s
removal from such duties.19
In addition to traditional threats to national security, issues of
“personal insecurity” are also current major concerns in Mexico. In
recent years, the concept of “national security” has shifted from the
idea of strategic defense to that of human safety.20 Between 1998 and
2000, the percentage of Mexicans claiming that the “protection of citizens” was an important national security concern more than doubled,
while the portion citing the importance of the “protection of the country” declined.21 At the same time, political rhetoric also evolved from
a focus on military strategy, articulated in the 1995–2000 National
Development Plan, to a “softer” interest in the preservation of individual security, articulated in the Vicente Fox administration’s 2001–
2006 plan.22 he Calderón administration has continued in this vein
19
“Mexico’s Human Rights Commission Documents 8 New Cases of Human Rights
Abuses,” Associated Press, July 11, 2008.
20
For more discussion of insecurity in Mexico, see Wayne A. Cornelius and David A.
Shirk, eds., Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico, Notre Dame, Ind., and La
Jolla, Calif.: University of Notre Dame Press and Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego, 2007. For a discussion of criminal impunity in Mexico, see
Guillermo Zepeda, Crimen sin Castigo: Procuracion de Justicia Penal y Ministerio Publico en
Mexico [Crime Without Punishment: Prosecution of Criminal Justice and Public Ministry in
Mexico], Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, Centro de Investigacion para el Desarrollo, 2004.
21
José María Ramos García, “Seguridad Ciudadana y la Seguridad Nacional Mexico: Hacia
un Marco Conceptual” [“Public Safety and National Security in Mexico: Toward a Conceptual Framework”], Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Politicas y Sociales, Vol. 47, No. 194,
May–August 2005.
22
Oice of the President of Mexico, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo [National Development
Plan] 1995–2000, 1995, and Plan Nacional de Desarrollo [National Development Plan]
2001–2006, 2001.
6
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
by making the ight to improve personal security one of the cornerstones of its National Development Plan.23
Personal security concerns include increased crime and lawlessness, police corruption, and street gangs. hese concerns are apparent
in available survey data. For instance, in one large survey conducted
by the Citizen’s Institute for Security Studies (Instituto Ciudadano de
Estudios Sobre la Inseguridad, or ICESI), 71 percent of respondents
reported not feeling safe in their homes and 72 percent reported not
feeling safe in the city in which they live.24 In many cases, these issues
intersect with traditional security concerns, such as drug traicking,
organized crime, and smuggling, but they are often underemphasized
as threats to U.S. security. However, these issues have direct links to
U.S. security, including increased migration pressure, increased corruption of U.S. and Mexican border oicials, and increased violence on
both sides of the border. In addition, personal security issues directly
afect the Mexican people, have the potential to undermine the public’s trust in Mexican institutions, and threaten the overall stability of
Mexico. Improving personal security was a cornerstone of President
Calderón’s presidential campaign and continues to be a high priority
for his administration. In September 2008, Calderón told representatives from a number of civic groups, “We know the biggest problem in
Mexico is public insecurity.”25
The Importance of U.S.-Mexico Relations
he relationship between the United States and Mexico is particularly
important and unique. he two countries share not only a border that
is almost 2,000 miles long, but also increasing cultural and economic
ties. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox’s election in 2000 ended
71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party and marked a
23
Oice of the President of Mexico, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo [National Development
Plan] 2007–2012, 2007.
24
Instituto Ciudadano de Estudios Sobre la Inseguridad [Citizen’s Institute for Security
Studies], 2006. he survey had a sample size of more than 26,000 people.
25
Alexandra Olson, “Mexican Leader Meets Anti-Crime March Organizers,” Associated
Press, September 1, 2008b.
Introduction
7
new era of democracy in Mexico. A new era of U.S.-Mexico relations
was also ushered in with the election of U.S. President George W. Bush
in 2000. Mexico was a priority for the Bush administration, and, as
such, the Bush administration was anxious to engage with Mexico.
Just ive days before the 9/11 attacks, President Bush stated,
Mexico is an incredibly important part of the United States’ foreign policy. It is our most important relationship, because Mexico
is our neighbor, and neighbors must work together.26
Since 9/11, this relationship with Mexico became even more
important to the United States, especially with regard to border security issues. During Fox’s 2000–2006 term, U.S. military and police aid
to Mexico nearly tripled, from $15.7 million in 2000 to $45.8 million
in 2006.27 Warranted or not, there is a recurring concern about the
possibility of al-Qaeda using Mexico as a staging point for an attack on
the United States or as a transit route into the country.28 In addition,
other border security issues (such as border violence, arms traicking,
human traicking, and illegal migration) have all received increased
attention since 9/11. here is a potential terrorist connection to all of
these activities, but, more immediately, these activities also feed into
crime in the United States—including drug-related crimes and corruption of U.S. oicials. he recent change of administration in the
United States presents another opportunity to redeine U.S.-Mexican
relations.
Defining the Future of U.S.-Mexico Relations
When President Calderón came into oice in December 2006, the issue
of security was a major priority on his agenda. his priority has been
26
White House, “Presidents Bush, Fox Discuss State Visit,” press release, September 6,
2001.
27
Chris Hawley, “Mexico’s Drug Control Initiative Relects More Trust,” USA Today,
October 29, 2007.
28
While the threat of terrorism has captured the media’s attention, all of the U.S. government oicials with whom we spoke agreed that the issues of drug traicking and organized
crime are the most important threats to both the United States and Mexico.
8
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
elevated further as the security situation in Mexico has severely declined
over the past two years. On the domestic front, Calderón is relying on
the Mexican military to ight drug traickers in unprecedented numbers. In addition, on the international front, he has approached the
United States and proposed a historic joint efort to cooperate in
the ight against drug traicking. According to former Assistant Secretary of State homas Shannon, when Mexico’s foreign minister presented him a proposal in 2007 for a U.S.-Mexican military and police
alliance against drug lords, “We all immediately grasped the historic
nature of the moment. It represented a dramatic departure in our bilateral relationship.”29 he United States has been supportive of Calderón’s proposal, and Congress and the Bush administration inalized the
Mérida Initiative, an assistance package that will provide $400 million
in aid to Mexico in 2009 and $1.4 billion over three years (primarily
for technical assistance and equipment to combat drug traicking).
Our study was particularly timely in light of the deteriorating
security situation in Mexico, the unprecedented levels of cooperation
between the United States and Mexico on security issues, and the recent
change in administration in the United States. he new U.S. administration will face many choices with regard to security in Mexico. hus,
a reassessment of the security issues in Mexico, their impact on the
United States, and the policy options available to the U.S. government
seem both warranted and necessary.
Methodology
his study was guided by a number of research questions:
• What are the major security issues facing Mexico?
• How do these security issues afect the United States, and why
should the United States be concerned about them?
29
Hawley, 2007.
Introduction
9
• What actions has the government of Mexico taken to address
these security challenges, and what have been the outcomes of
those actions?
• What policy options are available to the U.S. government to aid
the Mexican government in improving security in Mexico?
Data Sources and Method of Analysis
A comprehensive assessment of the current security situation in Mexico
was developed by
• reviewing the current literature in both English and Spanish
regarding security issues in Mexico
• identifying the size and scope of Mexico’s security institutions
and the challenges to those institutions
• interviewing Mexican and U.S. government oicials in various
government agencies involved with security in Mexico.
We began our study by conducting a broad review of the English and Spanish literature on security issues in Mexico. Our analysis included a review of primary Mexican and U.S. government documents, Mexican media reports, and the publications and Web sites of
nongovernmental organizations. In addition, we reviewed Mexican
and U.S. academic publications and publications produced by nonacademic research organizations and think tanks in both Mexico and the
United States.
From this literature review, we identiied the major challenges to
Mexican security institutions, examined how those security challenges
afect the United States, and conducted an in-depth analysis of the
structure of Mexican security institutions. Next, we conducted a more
detailed literature review, focusing on the major challenges to Mexican
security institutions. We examined the challenges, noted the actions
taken by the Mexican government to combat those challenges, and
assessed the outcomes of those actions.
Next, we conducted interviews with Mexican and U.S. oicials
in various government agencies that are tasked with addressing secu-
10
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
rity issues in Mexico,30 and we conducted a historical review of joint
Mexican-U.S. security eforts. From the information derived from our
historical analysis and subsequent interviews, we identiied three priority areas for the United States: (1) organized crime (including drug traficking and arms traicking), (2) illegal migration and human traicking, and (3) terrorism and rebel insurgencies. Finally, we formulated a
range of policy options that the new U.S. administration could use as
it moves forward in addressing the security situation in Mexico, and we
assessed the needs and potential outcomes of those policy options.
Organization of This Monograph
his monograph is organized into ive chapters. Chapter Two provides
background on the current security situation in Mexico. In that chapter, we examine the security structure in Mexico by identifying the
main federal, state, and local government security institutions and their
responsibilities. In addition, we examine the scale of the security efort
in Mexico by examining quantitative measures, such as the number of
police per capita and spending on public security. Next, we provide an
overview of security in the three U.S. priority areas that we identiied:
organized crime, illegal migration and human traicking, and terrorism and rebel insurgencies. Finally, we examine crime indicators and
the state of the judicial system in Mexico.
Chapter hree focuses on the Mexican government’s actions to
address security issues in Mexico. he chapter begins by providing an
overview of President Fox and President Calderón’s respective policies.
It then examines the actions taken by the Mexican federal government to address the three U.S. priority areas identiied in Chapter Two.
Finally, the chapter examines what the Mexican government is doing
at the state and local levels to address security concerns.
Chapter Four examines the U.S. government’s response to security issues in Mexico. he chapter begins by providing an overview
30
he interviews were conducted on a not-for-attribution basis, and the interviewees were
granted anonymity.
Introduction
11
of the impact of instability in Mexico on the United States. Next, it
examines U.S. eforts to aid Mexico in improving its internal security,
the areas that U.S. aid has historically targeted, and potential target
areas for additional future U.S. aid. Finally, the chapter examines the
barriers to the efective monitoring of future U.S. aid to Mexico—
in particular, the lack of performance metrics for measuring improvements in security.
Chapter Five presents conclusions and recommendations, outlining four potential priorities and three policy options for the new U.S.
administration as it works to help improve security in Mexico. he
chapter concludes with an assessment of the needs and demands created by each of the policy options, as well as how they address the
potential priorities of the new administration.
CHAPTER TWO
Assessment of the Current Security Situation
in Mexico
his chapter provides an overview of Mexico’s security structure, focusing on the structure of the federal security apparatus, the scale of the
policing efort in Mexico, and the tension among federal, state, and
local security forces in Mexico. Next, it examines three U.S. priority areas (organized crime, including drug traicking and arms traficking; illegal migration and human traicking; and terrorism and
rebel insurgencies). he chapter concludes by examining the increase
in crime and violence in Mexico, a major concern at the local level but
one that is not a focus of U.S. aid to Mexico.
Since its irst opposition president took oice in 2000, Mexico
has struggled to articulate a cohesive national security strategy. With
the election of President Fox in 2000, there were expectations that the
government would implement major national security reforms; however, those reforms never came to pass. he events of 9/11 in the United
States proved to be an important test of Mexico’s national security
structure.
When the United States asked for Mexico’s assistance in ighting
terrorism, there was much disagreement within Mexican security institutions as to how to respond to the United States’ request.1 Because
President Fox had not yet conceived of a national security plan, there
was disagreement as to what Mexico’s security priorities should be. In
January 2002, Fox’s national security adviser, Adolfo Aguila Zinser,
was named ambassador to the United Nations, thus leaving a vacuum
1
Abelardo Rodriguez Sumano, “Mexico’s Insecurity in North America,” Homeland Security Afairs, Supplement No. 1, 2007.
13
14
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
in Mexico’s national security apparatus. his vacuum led to several
problems:
First, Mexico lost a golden opportunity to develop a democratic
national security agenda. Second, the government did not take
advantage of its chance to conceptualize a national strategy.
hird, the lack of an institutionalized, conceptually coherent
strategy, combined with national security law, revealed Mexico’s
vulnerabilities.2
Due to political inighting in his cabinet, as well as between his
administration and the Mexican congress, President Fox was unable to
implement national security reform during his six-year term.
When Felipe Calderón began his term as president in 2006 after
a closely contested and controversial election, there were again high
hopes for the reform of Mexico’s national security apparatus. While
Calderón has made ighting the drug cartels, crime, and corruption
a cornerstone of his administration, a cohesive national security strategy has, again, yet to be articulated. Such a national security strategy
would identify the nature of new security threats, determine how the
threats have changed, prioritize the threats, describe how the country
is responding to the threats, and delineate responsibilities across agencies and levels of government. Calderón has articulated his National
Development Plan; however, there is no explicit link between national
security priorities and that plan or among the various national security
institutions.3 In March 2007, President Calderón announced a major
initiative that he called the Comprehensive Strategy for Preventing and
Combating Crime. While this initiative was a major leap forward in
the administration’s strategy to ight organized crime, it is not linked
to other national security priorities or threats.
2
3
Sumano, 2007.
“Seguridad y Estado de Derecho” [“Security and Rule of Law”], in Oice of the President
of Mexico, 2007.
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
15
Mexico’s Security Structure
he lack of a cohesive security strategy in Mexico has led to shifting
responsibilities, the duplication of services in a number of agencies, and
general instability in Mexico’s security structure. In addition, this has
created a situation in which the military is more involved in internal
security than is the case in most countries. he Mexican military is
generally viewed to be less corrupt than the police and is seen as the
institution of last resort when all others have failed.4 hese ambiguous, shifting, and overlapping responsibilities have also led to uncoordinated eforts (and often animosity) across federal, state, and local
security forces (particularly among police forces).
The Federal Security Structure
he security structure in Mexico is extremely complex. Figure 2.1 provides an organizational overview of the major federal security agencies
in the Mexican government. As shown in the igure, national security responsibilities are split between the president and eight cabinet
departments.
Security services in Mexico are often duplicated across agencies
because roles, responsibilities, and authority are not clearly deined. For
instance, drug interdiction activity is implemented by the Secretary of
the Navy, the Secretary of National Defense (Secretaría de la Defensa
Nacional, or SEDENA), the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary
of Public Security (Secretaría de Seguridad Pública, or SSP), and the
state and local police. Investigations into drug crimes are carried out by
municipal police, the Federal Agency of Investigation (Agencia Federal
de Investigación, or AFI), or SEDENA, in a few cases. While overlapping roles may provide checks and balances across agencies, the main
issue is that there seems to be confusion with regard to authority, roles,
and responsibilities, and this had led to bureaucratic turf battles across
agencies. President Calderón seems to recognize the need for reform
across the national security apparatus. SEDENA was recently given sole
4
See Cevallos, 2007.
16
Figure 2.1
Mexico’s Federal-Level National Security Structure
Cabinet-level posts
Secretary
of
National
Defense
(SEDENA)
Federal
Registry
of
Firearms
Secretary
of the
Navy
Air Force
and
Army
Military
Intelligence
Secretary
of Public
Security
(SSP)
National
Public
Security
System
Federal
Preventive
Police
(PFP)
National
Center for
Evaluation
and
Control of
Confidence
in Police
Attorney
General
NOTE: The figure shows major federal security agencies only.
RAND MG876-2.1
Center for
Investigation
and
National
Security
Federal
Investigative
Police
(AFI)
Center for
Analysis,
Planning and
Intelligence
Against
Organized
Crime
Secretary
of
Finance
and Public
Credit
Secretary
of the
Interior
Office
for
Crimes
Against
Health
Judicial
Affairs
and
Human
Rights
Center for
Financial
Intelligence
National
Migration
Institute
Secretary
of Foreign
Relations
Secretary of
Communication
and
Transportation
National
Human
Rights
Commission
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
President
Felipe Calderón
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
17
responsibility for drug eradication,5 and the Federal Preventive Police
(Policía Federal Preventiva, or PFP) and AFI recently merged into one
organization.
Until the summer of 2008, Mexican federal police forces were
under two separate commands and carried out separate functions: he
PFP did not have investigative authority and reported to the SSP; the
AFI was charged with investigating crimes and reported to the attorney
general’s oice. In September 2008, more than 100 AFI agents held a
protest outside the federal attorney general’s Oice in Mexico City and
later occupied the building. he demonstration appeared to stem from
opposition to the PFP-AFI merger. Several days later, several hundred
PFP agents were called in to forcibly remove the AFI agents. he AFI
agents eventually withdrew but threatened not to work for a few days.6
Such actions demonstrate the historical bureaucratic turf battles that
occur across the Mexican national security apparatus because roles and
responsibilities are not clearly articulated within and across national
security agencies.
Scale of the Policing Effort in Mexico
As shown in Figure 2.2, the scale of the Mexican policing efort is
comparable to neighboring countries. Mexico has 370 police oicers per 100,000 people, whereas the United States has 225 police
oicers per 100,000 people.
Although the scale of the Mexican policing efort seems comparable to that of other countries, the eicacy of this policing efort is
compromised by shifting and overlapping responsibilities. As shown in
Figure 2.3, spending on the public security system is concentrated
mostly on equipment, technology, and infrastructure rather than on
salaries or training. In Mexico City, the average beat police oicer is
paid $700 per month, compared with $900 per month for a payroll clerk
5
SEDENA, hearing before the Chamber of Deputies, Committee on National Defense,
April 26, 2007.
6
STRATFOR, “Security Memo: Sept. 29, 2008,” September 29, 2008b.
18
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Figure 2.2
Scale of the Mexican Policing Effort
Police officers per 100,000 population
450
400
370
350
384
333
300
250
225
233
202
200
143
150
100
50
0
Guatemala
Costa
Rica
U.S.
El
Colombia
Salvador
Mexico
Panama
SOURCE: 2008 Jane’s Sentinel Country Risk Assessments.
RAND MG876-2.2
in the city government.7 Police in the more rural areas of Mexico make
even less money. While corruption is rooted in systemic problems relating to recruitment, supervision, and inefective internal investigation,
these low wages are often cited as another reason that state and local
police are so vulnerable to corruption.
As discussed in Chapter Four, U.S. aid to Mexico has also historically concentrated on equipment, technology, and infrastructure at the
federal level.
Little Coordination Among Federal, State, and Local Security Forces
In total, there are more than 1,661 independent police forces in
Mexico, with jurisdictions at the federal, state, and municipal levels.
Most policing services are provided at the state and local levels. Mexico
7
Chris Hawley and Sergio Solache, “Mexico Focuses on Police Corruption,” USA Today,
February 5, 2008. See Cornelius and Shirk, 2007, for a wider range of comparisons.
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
19
Figure 2.3
Federal and State Spending on Public Security
9
Total spending
Equipment, technology,
and infrastructure
Billions of pesos (nominal)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
SOURCE: “Anexo Estadístico” [“Statistical Annex”] in Office of the President of
Mexico, Segundo Informe de Gobierno [Second Government Report], 2008.
NOTE: Amounts for 2008 reflect appropriations only, not spent funds.
RAND MG876-2.3
has approximately 350,000 federal, state, and municipal police oicers,
but about 90 percent (317,000) are governed by state and local authorities.8 he remaining 33,000 oicers are under federal control.
Each unit of the Mexican federation (31 states and the federal
district) has its own police force, and most municipalities have their
own municipal police forces. It is not uncommon for federal, state,
and local police to keep information to themselves and fail to inform
one another of operations.9 According to Mexico’s Secretary of the
SSP, Genaro García Luna, “here is no coordination among the 1,661
police corporations that operate in this country.”10
8
Hawley and Solache, 2008; Cevallos, 2007.
9
Interview with a U.S. government oicial, May 2008.
10
Shelley De Botton, “Mexican Police: Unify to Optimize,” Comunidad Segura, August
11, 2008.
20
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Public Distrust of Mexican Security Institutions and Security Forces
While trust in Mexican institutions has historically been low, conidence in the police is particularly low. According to opinion polls, the
police are considered corrupt by 80 percent of the population, while
the armed forces are among the most highly respected institutions in
Mexico, along with the Catholic Church.11 With crime and distrust
of oicials such widespread phenomena, bribery is a part of daily life
in Mexico. Transparencia Mexicana, a branch of Transparency International, estimates that 8 percent of a Mexican household’s income is
spent on bribes. Another Transparencia survey considered the “national
corruption index” score for Mexico, deined as the percentage of daily
transactions that were conducted with some sort of bribe. In 2007,
about 10 percent of all transactions required a bribe (down from 10.6
percent in 2001), and certain types of transactions had a particularly
high rate of bribery. Averting being towed or reclaiming one’s car from
an impound facility, for example, required a bribe in 50 percent of
instances. In Mexico City, the corruption index score was 12.7 percent
in 2007, and nearly 50 percent of towing and automobile reclamation
cases required a bribe.12
Security in Three U.S. Priority Areas
While the overall internal security situation in Mexico has declined
over the past two years, our analysis of the literature and our interviews with U.S. government oicials and other nongovernmental
experts indicate that three areas are priorities for the United States:
(1) organized crime (including drug traicking and arms traicking),
(2) illegal migration and human traicking, and (3) terrorism and rebel
insurgencies. hese three areas are intertwined, making them diicult
to assess individually.
11
12
See Cevallos, 2007.
Transparencia Mexicana, Indice Nacional de Corrupcion y Buen Gobierno 2007 [National
Index of Corruption and Good Governance 2007], April 2008.
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
21
Organized Crime
Almost all of the U.S. government oicials and nongovernmental
experts with whom we spoke agreed that organized crime and drug
traicking are the two main security threats to the United States
from Mexico. In addition, while organized crime and drug traicking are related, they are not the same. Organized criminals are commonly involved in a variety of illegal activities in addition to drug
traicking—including human smuggling and arms traicking. As
such, organized crime in Mexico is closely intertwined with the issues
that are most important to the United States. Organized crime has iniltrated all levels of government in Mexico as well as the police forces.
hese criminals also exact bribes and intimidate the general public.
housands of citizens are killed each year, and the targeting of police
and military oicers has increased over the past two years. In addition,
organized criminal elements are increasingly using beheadings and
gangland-style murders to send a message to their opponents or the
public. In one particularly prominent case, on September 12, 2008, 26
people were found bound and shot execution-style in Atlapulco, south
of Mexico City. It was suspected that they were victims of organized
crime.13
Organized crime in Mexico is a growing concern for the United
States because these criminal organizations are increasingly projecting
their force into U.S. territory. For instance, Mario Espinoza Lobato, a
businessman, city councilman, and outspoken critic of criminal gangs
in the border city of Acuña, sought refuge in the United States and was
gunned down in 2007 in Del Rio, Texas.14 In August 2008, security
was heightened along the southern U.S. border because U.S. authorities
“received credible information that drug cartels in Mexico have given
permission to hit targets on the U.S. side of the border.”15 In addition,
some Americans have become involved in organized crime in Mexico.
13
“Bodies of 24 Shooting Victims Found in Mexico,” CNN, September 13, 2008.
14
Root, 2007.
15
“Police: Mexican Cartels Give OK to Hit U.S. Targets,” Associated Press, August 25,
2008.
22
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
In January 2008, after a ireight between police and Zetas in Tamaulipas, two men from Detroit and one from Texas were arrested.16
Drug Trafficking. It is estimated that up to $25 billion–$30 billion
worth of illegal drugs comes through Mexico into the United States
each year.17 According to the State Department’s 2009 International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report, about 90 percent of the cocaine that
enters the United States is traicked through Mexico.18 In addition,
Mexico is the United States’ largest foreign supplier of marijuana, and
99 percent of all methamphetamine produced in Mexico is exported to
the United States.19
Drug traicking in Mexico has been dominated by four major
drug traicking organizations (DTOs): the Gulf Cartel, the Sinaloa
Cartel, the Juárez Cartel, and the Tijuana Cartel. Drug traicking
in Mexico has become increasingly decentralized and atomized, with
new, smaller DTOs emerging. hese cartels have waged an increasingly
violent turf war over key traicking routes and “plazas” (border crossing areas), particularly around Tijuana, Juárez, Sinaloa, Nuevo Laredo,
and Matamoros, as well as ports of entry and territory. As Figure 2.4
shows, large areas of northern Mexico, southwestern Mexico, and the
Yucatan peninsula are disputed.
Several factors have contributed to increased violence among the
Mexican drug cartels, including the breakup of the Colombian drug
cartels (which allowed the Mexican cartels to increase their market
share), a reduction in cocaine traicking routes through Florida (which
increased the Mexican DTOs’ roles in cocaine traicking), the capture of several Mexican cartel leaders (which has created competition
to take over those leadership positions), and increased domestic drug
use in Mexico (which has caused the cartels to refocus on the domestic
Mexican drug market).
16
Lawrence Ilif, “Mexico Takes Fight to Zeta Drug Gang,” Dallas Morning News, January
10, 2008.
17
STRATFOR, “Organized Crime in Mexico,” March 11, 2008a.
18
U.S. Department of State, 2009.
19
United Nations Oice on Drugs and Crime, 2007 UN World Drug Report, 2007.
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
23
Figure 2.4
Mexican Cartel Territories and Drug Routes
SOURCE: STRATFOR, 2008a. Used with permission.
RAND MG876-2.4
As mentioned in Chapter One, the Mexican DTOs have recently
hired other groups to provide security and intimidate other cartels
and the public. he Zetas (former Mexican military special operations
forces) act as assassins for the Gulf Cartel. In response, the Sinaloa
Cartel established its own heavily armed gangs, the “Negros” and
“Pelones.” In October 2007, the U.S. Congressional Research Service reported indings of a Mexican federal investigation that the Gulf
Cartel is recruiting Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang members and
Guatemalan Kaibiles. However, Mexican and U.S. law enforcement
oicials deny that there are signiicant ties between the Mexican cartels
and MS-13. hey indicate that, instead, the cartels work with Central
American gangs on speciic tasks but that the cartels have not deepened
their ties with these gangs.20
20 Colleen Cook, Mexico’s Drug Cartels, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RL34215, October 16, 2007.
24
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Arms Trafficking. Mexican authorities are increasingly outgunned
by well-armed traickers, and nearly all illegal guns seized in Mexico
have been smuggled from the United States. he arms trade in many
ways mirrors the dynamics of the drug market. Drugs low north from
Mexico to the United States, and guns low south from the United
States to Mexico. In 2004, it was estimated that there were 16.5 million illegal weapons in Mexico. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) data show that 90–95 percent of the guns
used in drug violence in Mexico enter illegally from the United States.21
Oicial numbers reveal that, from December 2000 to December 2005,
Mexican customs oicials were able to coniscate a mere 1,791 weapons: not even one per day.22 In 2007, the number of guns coniscated
jumped to 9,000.23
As with drug smuggling and kidnapping, it is not unusual to ind
police oicers, military personnel, and customs agents involved in the
illegal arms trade. Over the past few years, several government oicials
have been arrested on both sides of the border for participating in the
arms trade.24 On September 12, 2007, three high-ranking Mexican
police commanders from Baja California states were arrested by ATF
agents in Phoenix for illegally purchasing weapons at a gun show.25
(U.S. law prohibits foreigners from buying weapons.) In addition,
attempts to stop the low of guns into Mexico have also been hampered by technological limitations. For example, until recently, Mexi-
21
“ATF: Most Illegal Guns in Mexico Come from U.S.,” USA Today, August 11, 2008; see
also David McLemore, “U.S. Oicials Praise Mexico for Anti-Drug Eforts,” Dallas Morning
News, August 12, 2008.
22
Sergio Aguayo Quezada, “Mexico: A War Dispatch,” Open Democracy, June 25, 2007.
23
Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, “Real Solutions for Challenges Along the U.S. Mexico Border: he Merida Initiative,” lecture, Heritage Foundation,
Washington, D.C., Heritage Lecture No. 1095, April 28, 2008.
24
Fred Burton and Scott Stewart, “Mexico: Dynamics of the Gun Trade,” STRATFOR,
October 24, 2007.
25
“Mexican Oicers Arrested at Gun Show,” USA Today, September 12, 2007.
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
25
can authorities lacked X-ray equipment to inspect vehicles entering the
country, and inspection capacity remains limited.26
One of the most signiicant barriers to stopping the low of guns
is the U.S. government. Some Mexican government oicials have
accused the U.S. government of taking a lax stance against arms smuggling. “he irepower we are seeing here has to do with a lack of control
on that side of the border,” said Mexican Assistant Secretary of State
Patino in May 2007.27 heir argument is that they need the help of the
United States in curbing arms traicking just as much as the United
States needs Mexico’s help in curbing drug traicking.
Illegal Migration and Human Trafficking
Illegal movement into the United States from Mexico is a clear threat
to U.S. national security. Terrorists could use human traicking networks to gain entry into the United States. More generally, human
smuggling and human traicking feed into crime in the United States
and present additional opportunities for organized criminals to expand
their operations and territories in the country.28
In 2003, Mexico’s National Migration Institute, SEDENA, Oice
of the Secretary of the Navy, and attorney general released a report
acknowledging that traicking in human beings—and the smuggling
of human beings through Mexico into the United States—pose serious risks to Mexican national security. According to the report, this
situation is especially true as organized smugglers (popularly known as
polleros) and traicking gangs branch out into other criminal activities,
including kidnapping, child stealing, traicking in human organs,
money laundering, and counterfeiting. he report also asserts that traf-
26
Burton and Stewart, 2007.
27
Mark Stevenson, “Mexico Asks U.S. to Help Stop Arms Flow,” Associated Press, May 16,
2007.
28
he Traicking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386) makes a distinction
between traicking and smuggling. Traicking victims do not consent to their situation, and
they do not necessarily need to be physically moved. Smuggling involves consent by those
who are smuggled and is always transnational.
26
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
icking encourages the corrupt involvement of municipal, state, and
federal oicials.29
As is the case for other facets of organized crime, there have been
credible reports that police, immigration, and customs oicials are
involved in human traicking. In 2003, it was estimated that there
were at least 100 human smuggling organizations and gangs active
in Mexico.30 In 2004, the Fox government had 12 cases in progress
against traicking organizations in various Mexican states, and some
664 suspects had been detained for traicking-related ofenses between
January 2004 and September 2004. During the same period, the government reported the rescue of 2,747 victims.31
While much attention is focused on the U.S.-Mexico border,
Mexico’s border with Guatemala is also problematic. he border is
quite porous and, thus, serves as a route for Central Americans to
enter Mexico and, in many cases, to continue on to the United States.
Magdalena Carral Cuevas, former director of Mexico’s immigration
agency, said in 2005 that her agency had about 300 immigration oicers to patrol the entirety of Mexico’s 720-mile border with Guatemala.32 In 2006, the Mexican city of Tapachula (in the extreme southwestern corner of Mexico along the Guatemalan border) was a center
for the country’s human smuggling enterprise, “enjoying little attention from authorities who are focused on the northern border with
the U.S.”33
Terrorism and Rebel Insurgencies
Since 9/11, there has been speculation about al-Qaeda’s interest in using
Mexico as a gateway for entry into the United States or as a launch29
Bernard hompson, “People Traicking, a National Security Risk in Mexico,”
Mexidata.info, November 17, 2003.
30
hompson, 2003.
31
“Central America and Mexico Gang Assessment: Annex 4—Southern and Northern
Border of Mexico Proile,” in USAID, 2006.
32
33
Sullivan, 2005.
Samuel Logan, “Illegal Migration and Mexico’s Maras,” International Relations and
Security Network, November 7, 2006.
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
27
ing point for an attack on the United States. his view is extremely
controversial but has received signiicant media attention.34 Although
there have been no reports of suspected or known terrorists entering
the United States through Mexico, operatives detained elsewhere have
reported that Mexico has been considered as a staging and entry point
to the United States. Most U.S. government oicials with whom we
spoke indicated that there was no current evidence of strong al-Qaeda
ties in Mexico and that Mexican organized criminal groups would
probably not want to risk trying to smuggle al-Qaeda members into
the United States. As one oicial put it, “hey would not want the
attention or the publicity.” In September 2008, this view was reinforced when Mexican oicials said they had arrested 12 people on terrorism charges in the years since the 9/11 attacks, but none had been
linked to Muslim extremist groups, such as al-Qaeda, nor were any
planning to strike in the United States.35
Within Mexico, the Popular Revolutionary Army (Ejército Popular Revolucionario, or EPR) could cause disruptions and challenge
the Mexican government, which, it believes, is holding two missing
EPR activists. he EPR is a Marxist guerrilla group formed in the mid1990s in the state of Guerrero. On July 6 and 10, 2007, the EPR blew
up natural-gas pipelines belonging to state oil giant Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX), cutting of gas supplies across central Mexico. In
August 2007, the EPR claimed responsibility for a small bomb that
damaged a Sears store in Oaxaca and for a bomb outside a Banamex
bank that police were able to successfully defuse. On September 10,
the EPR struck again, setting of 12 simultaneous explosions on gas
pipelines. he attacks cut gas supplies for days to some 3,000 companies, idling the plants of Nissan Motor Company, Honda Motor Company, and others. According to Canacintra, Mexico’s leading manufacturers’ association, the estimated lost economic output was about
34
See Adam Zagorin, “Bordering on Nukes?” Time, November 14, 2004; J. J. Green,
“Al-Qaida Suspect Arrested in Texas,” FederalNewsRadio.com, March 31, 2005.
35
Eduardo E. Castillo, “Mexico, U.S. Find No Al-Qaeda Links Since 9/11,” Associated
Press, September 12, 2008.
28
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
$1.6 billion.36 Such actions by insurgents could threaten other critical
infrastructure, such as Sempra Energy’s vital liquid natural-gas terminal in Baja California.
Increased Domestic Crime
Crime has steadily increased in Mexico over the past two years. According to a Mexican congressional report released in August 2007, major
federal crimes, which include homicides, kidnappings, and arms traficking, rose 25 percent in the irst half of 2007 over their level in the
same period of the previous year. In 2006, rates of the same crimes had
risen 22 percent over the previous year’s rates. Gangland-style executions have risen 155 percent since 2001.37
Although President Calderón’s overall approval rating hovers
above 60 percent, according to an August 2008 poll by the Mexican
daily Reforma, his ratings in speciic areas have dropped sharply: Current approval levels are only 34 percent for public security, 31 percent
for jobs, and 25 percent for eforts to combat kidnapping.38 Conidence
in the security forces is also low. Although 48 percent of those polled
continued to have high levels of conidence in the army, only 10 percent felt the same way about the attorney general’s oice. Conidence
in the judicial police sank to a low of 7 percent.39
On August 30, 2008, public concern over crime spilled into the
streets, when at least 13 anticrime groups planned demonstrations in
all 31 Mexican states. he protests were inspired by the abduction and
murder of Alejandro Marti, the 14-year-old son of a wealthy business-
36
Jose De Cordoba, “Guerillas in the Mist: In a Modernizing Mexico, Blasts Reveal Shadowy Side,” Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2004.
37
Root, 2007.
38
“Oh Rose, hou Art Sick,” Economist, September 4, 2008.
39
“Losing the Anti-Drug Fight?” Economist, June 8, 2008.
Assessment of the Current Security Situation in Mexico
29
man. he case provoked public outcry when it was learned that a police
detective was a key participant in the kidnapping for ransom.40
40
Alexandra Olson, “Hundreds of housands of Mexicans Protest Crime,” Associated Press,
August 30, 2008a.
CHAPTER THREE
The Mexican Government’s Response
his chapter examines how the Mexican government has responded
to the deteriorating security situation in Mexico and what actions it
has taken at the federal, state, and local levels. Here, we pay particular attention to the Mexican government’s actions to address the three
U.S. priority areas: organized crime (including drug traicking and
arms traicking), illegal migration and human traicking, and terrorism and rebel insurgencies.
Recent Actions and Federal Responses
Both President Fox’s and President Calderón’s responses to the deteriorating security situation in Mexico have focused on the federal level.
During his presidency, Fox increased the role of the military in countertraicking and preventing organized crime while at the same time
pursuing a long-term strategy of institution and accountability building at the federal level. he Fox administration started attacking corruption early on its irst term. Because the federal judicial police were
known to be highly corrupt, Fox’s administration dissolved the organization and created a new one, the AFI, in 2001. In addition, Fox signed
the irst national freedom of information law in June 2002.
On June 11, 2005, President Fox began his irst major antidrug
operation, Operation Mexico Seguro (Operation Safe Mexico), in several Mexican states that were particularly hard hit by narcoviolence,
including Tamaulipas, Sinaloa, and Baja California. he operation
tried to coordinate actions by federal, state, and municipal authori-
31
32
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
ties and involved resources of the internal afairs, justice, inance, and
defense (the Army and Air Force) ministries and the Navy.1 Fox tried to
initiate other security reform initiatives, including intelligence reform,
but these initiatives did not gain enough support in the Mexican congress to move forward.2
Mexican oicials with whom we spoke indicated that public safety
is as important now as democracy was in the 1990s. In the short term,
President Calderón has focused on an ofensive campaign against organized crime. As part of this campaign, the military and federal police
have taken over local police functions as well as customs enforcement
in some key areas. In the long term, Calderón has focused on judicial reform, bolstering the interagency communication and information infrastructure, consolidating the federal police under the SSP, and
crime prevention.
President Calderón has presented several national security reform
plans during his time in oice. Early on in his term, he presented a
“federal pact” that included
the adoption of a single penal code for the entire Federation; the
possibility for federal judicial police to carry out wiretapping of
telephone conversations and to perform entry and search without
a warrant; and transfer to the public domain of property coniscated from criminals in order to modernize the resources available for the national struggle.3
Like those of President Fox, President Calderón’s reform proposals have met resistance from the Mexican congress, but a major penal
reform did ultimately pass. It is diicult to isolate why Calderón has
been more successful in implementing security reforms, but one factor
1
Jean-Paul Huste, “Is Mexico Under Mr. Calderon at the Point of No Return in Its Conlict with Organised Crime?” European Strategic Intelligence and Security Center, Background Analysis, June 12, 2007.
2
Christopher Leroy, “Mexican Intelligence at a Crossroad,” SAIS Review, Vol. 24, No. 1,
Winter–Spring 2004.
3
Huste, 2007.
The Mexican Government’s Response
33
may be that the public is more interested in these reforms because of
the deteriorating security situation.
In March 2007, President Calderón announced what he called
the Comprehensive Strategy for Preventing and Combating Crime.
his strategy sets guidelines for federal policy in seven functional areas:
(1) alignment of Mexican government structures and competencies
against crime, (2) crime prevention and social involvement, (3) institutional development, (4) the penitentiary system, (5) tackling corrupt
practices, (6) technology, and (7) federal police performance indicators
in coordination with civil society.4 Mexican oicials with whom we
spoke indicated that the strategy has provided coherent guidance for
combating organized crime.
In response to planned anticrime protests throughout Mexico,
in August 2008, President Calderón proposed his next and widestranging set of national security reforms. A summit meeting was held in
Mexico City on August 21, 2008, and included representatives of the
three branches of the federal government, the 31 state governments,
the chief of the capital (federal district) government, unions, churches,
businesses, civil organizations, and the news media. he representatives
signed an anticrime pact that deined crime as “a matter of national
security” and consisted of 75 commitments,5 including the following:6
• transferring all organized-crime suspects to high-security prisons
within 30 days
• a new, more secure national ID card to be introduced within
three years
• the establishment of a single, nationwide emergency number for
reporting crime and a national database of cell phone users
4
Genaro García Luna, Mexico’s Secretary of Public Security, “Comprehensive Strategy for
the Prevention and Fight Against Crime,” presentation, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., January 31, 2008.
5
“Anti-Crime Pact Signed by All Levels of Government,” El Universal (Mexico),
August 25, 2008.
6
“Public Outcry vs. Violence Spurs Mexico to Set Anti-Crime Reforms,” Associated Press,
August 23, 2008; see also Olson, 2008b.
34
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
• increased testing, training, and vetting of Mexico’s approximately
376,000 police oicers
• the creation of a citizens’ panel to monitor government progress
in ighting crime
• better police recruiting and oversight systems
• equipping oicers with more powerful weapons.
Organized Crime
he ight against organized crime has been at the forefront of President
Calderón’s agenda, both during his presidential campaign and during
his presidential term. Calderón has made the ight against organized
crime one of the cornerstones of his national security agenda because
organized crime is intertwined with so many of the country’s other
security threats, including drug traicking, arms traicking, smuggling, and corruption. Calderón’s current policy is to go after “speciic
targets” or heads of criminal syndicates, and this strategy was ramped
up further in 2008. “Since the irst of January [2008] we have changed
our operations,” said Mexico’s deputy minister for intelligence and
strategy that same month. “It’s no longer just patrolling, but rather a
direct ight, a direct ight against speciic objects, against speciic targets that has grown out of important intelligence work.”7 A U.S. law
enforcement oicial said of the strategy, “hey [authorities] realize that
putting out small ires isn’t going to help them very much. hey’re now
entering the gates of hell as they try to dismantle the organization by
targeting the key igures.”8
Drug Trafficking. he U.S. State Department’s 2008 International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report praised the Calderón administration’s
eforts to ight drug traicking. According to the report, “In 2007,
Mexico made unprecedented eforts and achieved unprecedented results
in attacking the corrosive efects of drug traicking and consumption during the irst complete year of the Calderón Administration.”9
7
Ilif, 2008.
8
Ilif, 2008; bracketed text in original.
9
U.S. Department of State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Washington,
D.C., March 2008a, Vol. 1, p. 75.
The Mexican Government’s Response
35
Calderón has deployed an estimated 40,000 troops since December
2006,10 launching his irst military antidrug operation—Operation
Michoacán—on December 11 of that year. Michoacán was particularly hard hit by narcoviolence in 2006: here were more than 560
murders and 17 beheadings, and six police oicers were assassinated.
his combined operation involved 7,000 personnel, 5,300 of whom
came from various forces, and included armored cars, aircraft, and surface vessels.11 Also in 2006, Mexico launched the Northern Border
(Frontera Norte) initiative, a federal-state efort to ight violence that
included the deployment of 800 PFP oicers to Nuevo Laredo, who
joined the 300 federal oicers already deployed there under Operation
Safe Mexico.12
he Calderón administration has made great strides in arresting and extraditing members of DTOs to the United States. From
January 2000 through September 2006, the Mexican government
arrested more than 79,000 people on charges related to drug traicking. From December 2006 (the beginning of the Calderón administration) through August 2007 alone, Mexican authorities arrested nearly
10,000 people on drug-related charges.13 In addition, a record number
of criminals have been extradited to the United States since President
Calderón came into oice (see Table 3.1).
In October 2007, the White House Oice of National Drug
Control Policy reported that the Mexican government’s increased pressure on cartels coincided with cocaine shortages in 37 U.S. cities and
a 24-percent increase in the retail price of cocaine, from $95.89 to
$118.70 per gram, from January to September 2007.14 During that
same period, the price of methamphetamine also increased by 73 percent, from $141.42 to $244.53, and the purity of methamphetamine
10
“Mexican Troops Swoop on Police HQ,” 2009.
11
Huste, 2007.
12
Huste, 2007.
13
Cook, 2007.
14
Oice of National Drug Control Policy, “White House Drug Czar Releases Southwest
Border Counternarcotics Strategy,” press release, October 2, 2007a.
36
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Table 3.1
Extraditions from Mexico to the United States, 2000 Through
Mid-October 2007
Extraditions
2000
2001
2002
Total, by year
12
17
25
2007
2003 2004 2005 2006 (through mid-Oct.)
31
34
41
63
68
SOURCE: U.S. Government Accountability Office, “U.S. Assistance Has Helped
Mexican Counternarcotics Efforts, but the Flow of Illicit Drugs into the United States
Remains High,” testimony by Jess T. Ford, director, International Affairs and Trade,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, before the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, GAO-08-215T, October 25,
2007b.
dropped by 31 percent.15 hese igures remain controversial, however,
and other sources indicate that the price of cocaine has stabilized.
Mexican government oicials with whom we spoke stated that
they believe that the uptick in violence is a direct result of the government’s more aggressive actions against the cartels. he government has
seen indications that drug routes and territory have been shut down
along the Paciic and the Gulf coasts and that this explains why violence has increased along the interior spine of the country.
Arms Trafficking. President Calderón is using many of the same
tactics against arms traicking that he has used against drug traicking. he military has taken over several key border areas, and authorities have begun to use X-ray technology at some border crossings.
Data indicate that Calderón’s policies are having an impact. Oicial
numbers reveal that, from December 2000 to December 2005 (prior
to Calderón’s presidency), Mexican customs oicials were able to
coniscate a mere 1,791 weapons: fewer than one per day.16 In 2007
(Calderón’s irst full year in oice), the number of guns coniscated
jumped to 9,000.17
15
Oice of National Drug Control Policy, “New Data Show Signiicant Disruptions in U.S.
Methamphetamine, Cocaine Markets,” press release, November 8, 2007b.
16
Quezada, 2007.
17
Sarukhan, 2008.
The Mexican Government’s Response
37
Because 90–95 percent of all illegal guns in Mexico are smuggled from the United States, the Mexican government has also been
appealing to the United States to help curb the tide of illegal weapons
entering the country. he United States has given Mexico access to the
ATF’s eTrace system, and, from FY 2006 to FY 2007, the number of
trace requests from Mexico increased by almost 100 percent.18 In addition, in 2007, the ATF started Project Gunrunner, an efort to stop the
smuggling of guns to Mexico. In FY 2005, ATF reported that more
than 6,400 guns had been sent illegally into Mexico from the United
States. By the end of September 2007, after Project Gunrunner had
been implemented, that estimate had dropped to about 3,200.19
Illegal Migration and Human Trafficking
As discussed in Chapter Two, in 2003, a Mexican government report
acknowledged that traicking in human beings poses a serious risk
to Mexico’s national security. his broad acknowledgement of human
traicking gained some bite when federal legislation to prevent and
prosecute human traicking was passed in November 2007.20 he
legislation prohibits all forms of traicking in persons at the federal level and carries penalties of between six and 12 years in prison.
he penalty increases to nine to 18 years in jail when the victim is
a child or a person lacking mental capacity. If the defendant is a
public oicial, penalties increase by one-half and include loss of the
oicial’s job.21
In addition to enacting legislation during the Calderón administration, Mexico has also made some changes to its public security apparatus to take into account human traicking. In February 2008, the
18
William Hoover, assistant director for ield operations, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Afairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, February 7, 2007.
19
Julian Aguilar, “he Hunt for Guns; Fed Agents Busy Trying to Stymie Local Weapons
Trading,” Laredo Morning News, May 26, 2008.
20
International Organization for Migration, “IOM Mexico Provides Assistance to Victims
of Traicking,” press release, February 12, 2008.
21
U.S. Department of State, Traicking in Persons Report, Washington, D.C., June 2008b.
38
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
attorney general formed a new antitraicking prosecutorial unit: he
Crimes Against Women and Traicking in Persons Unit will prosecute
all federal human traicking cases except those involving organized
crime, which will be handled by the attorney general’s oice.22
It is diicult to evaluate the impacts of Calderón’s policies because
illegal migration, human traicking, and human smuggling are such
underground operations. We were unable to ind credible statistics on
how much of an impact these policies have had on identiication of
human traicking victims and prosecution of human traickers. However, one indication of progress may be that Mexico showed improvement in the U.S. State Department’s Traicking in Persons Report. For
four years, Mexico was listed on the tier 2 watch list in that report,
meaning that the country was cited as being at risk of slipping to
tier 3 status.23 But in 2008, Mexico was promoted to tier 2 because it
had enacted a comprehensive antitraicking law in 2007, constructed
shelters for traicking victims, and sponsored a public awareness campaign on human traicking.24
Terrorism and Rebel Insurgencies
he Calderón administration seems to have adopted a very broad deinition of terrorism, often referring to organized crime syndicates and
drug traickers as terrorists. he Calderón administration was also
sensitive to the Bush administration’s concerns about terrorists crossing into the United States from Mexico. Calderón has argued that his
overall campaign against organized crime and drug traicking will
ultimately diminish the opportunity for terrorists to use criminal networks to smuggle people or materiel into the United States.
22
U.S. Department of State, 2008b.
23
Governments that are making signiicant eforts to meet the minimum standards of the
Traicking Victims Protection Act of 2000 are placed in tier 2. Governments that do not
fully comply with the minimum standards and are not making signiicant eforts to do so are
placed in tier 3. Finally, the special watch list criteria are considered and, when applicable,
tier 2 countries are placed on the tier 2 watch list. See U.S. Department of State, 2008b.
24
Clare Ribando Seelke and Alison Siskin, Traicking in Persons: U.S. Policy and Issues for
Congress, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RL34317, August 14, 2008.
The Mexican Government’s Response
39
With regard to rebel insurgencies, the EPR remains at the top of
the list of internal rebel groups that may threaten the Mexican government. Following the PEMEX bombings by the EPR in 2007, Calderón
sent an elite military unit consisting of 5,000 troops to protect energy
facilities and other strategically important sites.25 In April 2008, the
Mexican government agreed to talks with the EPR if the group promised not to commit future violence.26 No major bombings or other incidents were attributed to the EPR in 2008.
What Mexico Is Doing at the State and Local Levels
Police Corruption
Police corruption is widespread at all levels of Mexico’s police forces—
federal, state, and local. For instance, in April 2007, more than 100 state
police oicers in the northern state of Nuevo León were suspended due
to corruption concerns. In June 2007, President Calderón purged 284
federal police commanders, including commanders of all 31 states and
the federal district. he commanders were suspended and subjected
to drug and polygraph tests. he Mexican government immediately
named replacements for all 284 dismissed commanders.27
President Calderón has ordered the federal police to take over
entire selected municipal police forces in an attempt to weed out corruption. For instance, in January 2007, one month after assuming oice,
Calderón ordered that the 2,300 police oicers in Tijuana be conined
to barracks and disarmed; he entrusted control of the city to the army
and the federal police.28 In March 2007, Mexican soldiers and federal
police oicers took over the police headquarters in Tabasco state and
forced state police to hand over their weapons for registration.29 Such
25
Hector Tobar, “Mexican Troops Sent to Guard Energy Facilities,” Los Angeles Times,
July 13, 2007.
26
“Mexico Accepts Talks with Leftist Rebels,” Reuters, April 29, 2008.
27
Cook, 2007.
28
Huste, 2007.
29
“Mexican Soldiers Take Over Tabasco State Police,” Reuters, March 17, 2007.
40
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
takeovers once again highlight the lack of a cohesive national security
strategy and the failure to delineate responsibility and authority across
police forces.
President Calderón’s public security reform proposals include professionalizing the police force by raising salaries and adding mandatory training modeled on the programs of such countries as the United
States and Chile.30 One program that has been implemented is the
new national police academy. he new academy promotes internationally accepted policing techniques and logistics and is trying to develop
a new way of thinking among the police forces. hus far, 1,000 new
police oicers have graduated from the academy, and the plan is to
implement similar academies at the state and municipal levels. To ight
corruption, the National Assessment and Reliability Control Center
was also created, with a view to ensuring that every person working
in a police institution is reliable and matches the proile required by
the new police model.31 he plan is for every state in Mexico to have a
similar center. Finally, in the summer of 2008, Mexico’s federal investigative and preventive police forces were combined into a single unit
to minimize corruption.
Local municipalities are also taking action against corruption. In
August 2008, Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced that the
city would create a new police investigative agency to replace its old,
corruption-ridden detectives’ unit. In addition, the city hopes to name
as many as 300,000 neighborhood anticrime representatives to evaluate law enforcement eforts.32
30
Hanson, 2007.
31
Felipe Calderón, “Message to the Nation from the President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón
Hinojosa, on the Occasion of His First State of the Union Address,” transcript, September 2,
2007.
32
“Mexico Announces Anti-Kidnapping Reforms,” CNN, August 13, 2008.
The Mexican Government’s Response
41
Transnational Gangs (Maras)
he United States is becoming increasingly concerned about the transnational impact of gangs.33 However, reliable data on the extent of gang
activity in Mexico are extremely diicult to ind. According to interviews conducted in October 2005 by the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), it was estimated that 17,000 gang members
(predominantly members of the MS-13 and 18th Street gangs) operate
in the city of Juárez.34
In November 2005, the Mexican government, responding to
public anger about growing gang activity, deployed 1,200 agents in a
multiregion sweep that led to the arrests of about 200 gang members.
According to Eduardo Medina Mora, Mexico’s attorney general, nearly
1,100 gang members were arrested in Mexico in 2004 and 2005.35
he SSP oversees a permanent antigang operation, called Operación Acero, that dates back to 2003. his operation has been implemented once per year for the past three years and has detained 179
gang members.36 However, to date, it does not appear that Mexico has
adopted national anti-mara legislation as some other countries have.
While the federal government has taken little action against gangs or
developed policy to counter gangs, in Chiapas, the state government
has changed criminal legislation to target maras.37
Judicial Reform at the State Level
Survey data indicate that Mexicans feel that crime is very high, and
that authorities are inefective and even corrupt in combating this pervasive problem.38 While most crimes in Mexico go unreported,39 of the
33
Celinda Franco, he MS-13 and 18th Street Gangs: Emerging Transnational Gang hreats?
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RL34233, November 2, 2007.
34
USAID, 2006.
35
Sullivan, 2005.
36
USAID, 2006, Annex 4.
37
Logan, 2006.
38
For a discussion of criminal impunity in Mexico, see Zepeda, 2004.
39
See Cornelius and Shirk, 2007.
42
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
approximately 200,000 crimes that are reported to police each year,
the number of arrests is on the order of 10,000 per year. Calderón’s
well-publicized drive to increase arrests has thus far had little efect on
these igures.40
A major judicial backlog means that even those victims who decide
to report and initiate judicial proceedings for a crime face long waits
and the necessity to bribe oicials. Moreover, independent sources, such
as Global Integrity41 and the Mexican media outlet El Universal,42 cite
intimidation, physical harm, and killing of judges as major concerns in
Mexico. It frequently takes more than a year to bring a suspect to trial,
resulting in prison overcrowding and permitting some arrested cartel
members to continue operating their businesses while incarcerated.
According to Mexican oicials, there is currently a deicit of 50,000
prison beds in Mexico, and the rate of overcrowding is 32 percent.
In response to concerns that the process of written trials was
secretive and vulnerable to corruption, the state of Chihuahua instituted judicial reforms in late 2006.43 hese reforms included a change
from written to oral trials, potentially cutting down on corruption
because written trials involve a secretive process in which the judge
reviews written evidence in private and then renders a decision. he
reforms also included the change from the presumption of guilt to
the presumption of innocence. We were told by several government
oicials that, in addition to academics, nongovernmental organizations, and the European Union, USAID assisted the state of Chihuahua in assessing its options for reform. his is an important example because it could potentially serve as a model for how institutional
reform can be supported externally and initiated at the state level rather
40
Mayolo Lopez, “Descarta el Ejecutivo Titubeo Contra Crimen” [“Rejecting Executive
Hesitation to Counter Crime”], Reforma, October 13, 2007.
41
Leonarda Reyes, “Reporters Notebook: Mexico,” Global Integrity, 2006.
42
Eduardo Alonso and Francisco Gómez, “Matan a Juez Encargado de Casos del Narcotráico” [“Judge in Charge of Drug-Traicking Cases Killed”], El Universal, August 18, 2006.
43 Sean Mattson, “Chihuahua Pioneers Judicial Reform,” San Antonio Express News,
March 8, 2008.
The Mexican Government’s Response
43
than at the federal level.44 Similar judicial reforms were inally passed
at the federal level in June 2008 after delays due to opposition in the
Mexican congress.45
44
See homas Carothers, Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006.
45
Jens Erik Gould, “Mexico’s Calderón Signs Law to Boost Judicial System Eiciency,”
Bloomberg, June 17, 2008.
CHAPTER FOUR
Impact on the United States and the U.S.
Government’s Response
Clearly, the United States is concerned about the deteriorating security
situation in Mexico. Violence on the southwestern border continues to
spill over into the United States, and crime and violence in Mexico feed
into crime and violence in the United States. he current spike in violence in Mexico and the recent change in U.S. administration provide
an opportunity for the United States to reevaluate its current strategy
for providing aid to Mexico. his chapter discusses some of the most
immediate impacts of security issues in Mexico on the United States
and provides a brief overview of U.S. aid to Mexico. It also outlines
the recent Mérida Initiative and examines some barriers to monitoring
U.S. aid to Mexico.
Impact on the United States
In its 2009 National Drug hreat Assessment, the U.S. Department of
Justice National Drug Intelligence Center states that “Mexican DTOs
represent the greatest organized crime threat to the United States.
he inluence of Mexican DTOs over domestic drug traicking is
unrivaled.”1 Mexican organizations ailiated with the so-called Federation smuggling network were identiied in 82 U.S. cities, mostly in the
Southwest. Elements of the Juárez Cartel were identiied in at least 44
cities, from western Texas to Minneapolis. Gulf Cartel ailiates were
1
U.S. Department of Justice, 2009.
45
46
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
operating in at least 43 cities, from South Texas to Bufalo, New York.
And the Tijuana Cartel, active in at least 20 U.S. cities, is extending its
network from San Diego to Seattle and Anchorage.2 It seems that the
spread of the Mexican DTOs is also having an impact on U.S. security personnel: he number of corruption investigations involving U.S.
border patrol agents is increasing.3
Drug traicking violence is increasingly spilling over into U.S.
communities. In Pearsall, Texas, just outside San Antonio, a tow-truck
driver was abducted and taken across the border in 2007 by thugs
allegedly connected with Mexican drug traickers.4 In 2008, cartel
members pleaded guilty in federal court to charges related to a murderfor-hire and kidnapping ring that stretched from the Rio Grande to
northern Texas. Several men and two teenage boys on the U.S. side
of the border were killed as part of a war that pitted the Gulf Cartel
against the Sinaloa Cartel over the lucrative drug traicking route to
northern Texas and beyond. Hit men were paid in drugs and cash
to help carry out the slayings.5
While border cities have been hardest hit by this violence, it has
been far-reaching, with even Anchorage, Alaska, reporting activity by
a Tijuana drug cartel.6 In San Diego, a rogue faction of the Arellano
Félix organization has been accused in connection with as many as a
dozen murders and 20 kidnappings over a three-year span.7 In September 2008, authorities announced that 175 alleged members of Mexico’s
Gulf Cartel had been rounded up across the United States and abroad,
including 43 who had had been active in the Atlanta area.8
2
Sam Quinones and Richard A. Serrano, “Mexico’s Drug War Spills Across the Border,”
Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2008.
3
Archibold and Becker, 2008.
4
Quinones and Serrano, 2008.
5
Quinones and Serrano, 2008.
6
Quinones and Serrano, 2008.
7
Quinones and Serrano, 2008.
8
Jason Trahan, “175 Arrested in Crackdown on Notorious Gulf Cartel,” Dallas News, September 18, 2008.
Impact on the United States and the U.S. Government’s Response
47
here has also been an increasing number of high-proile kidnappings in the United States related to drug violence. For instance, in
November 2008, three armed men disguised as police oicers broke
into a Las Vegas home, tied up a woman and her boyfriend, and
abducted the woman’s six-year-old son. Authorities said that the men
were tied to a Mexican drug smuggling operation and were trying to
recoup proceeds allegedly stolen by the child’s grandfather.9
he increasing violence is receiving more attention from U.S.
policymakers and strategists. For instance, the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s 2008 Joint Operating Environment report states that, in terms
of worst-case scenarios, two large and important states are at risk of
rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico.10 In January 2009,
Michael Chertof, the outgoing secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, announced that the department had developed
contingency plans against signiicant spillover of drug violence or a
surge of people trying to escape the drug violence in Mexico. Chertof also said that he had advised then-Governor Janet Napolitano of
Arizona, who would later succeed him as homeland security secretary,
that he had “put helping Mexico get control of its borders and its organized crime problems” at the very top of the list of national security
concerns.11 In February 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry called for the
deployment of National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border.12
It is within this context that the new U.S. presidential administration
will need to decide which policy options can be utilized to address the
security situation in Mexico.
9
Nicholas Riccardi, “Kidnapped Boy Is Safe; Vegas Police Shift heir Focus to Unraveling
the Abduction Scheme, Purportedly Linked to a Mexican Drug Cartel,” Los Angeles Times,
October 20, 2008.
10
U.S. Joint Forces Command, he Joint Operating Environment: Challenges and Implications for the Joint Future Force, Sufolk, Va., 2008.
11
Randal C. Archibold, “U.S. Plans Border ‘Surge’ Against Any Drug Wars,” New York
Times, January 8, 2009.
12 Evan Perez and Cam Simpson, “U.S. Still Evaluating Mexican Border Issue,” Wall Street
Journal, March 13, 2009.
48
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Overview of U.S. Aid to Mexico
As a middle-income country, Mexico has not been a major recipient of
U.S. foreign assistance. Annual foreign-aid allocations to Mexico are
typically between $60 million and $70 million. In FYs 2006 and 2007,
the United States allocated $68 million and $67 million, respectively,
in aid to Mexico.13 he majority of U.S. assistance to Mexico is for
international narcotics and law enforcement programs. In FY 2006,
nearly $39 million, or 58 percent, of aid to Mexico was designated for
international narcotics and law enforcement programs. An estimated
$37 million was spent on narcotics and law enforcement programs in
FY 2007.14
Table 4.1 outlines the division of funds allocated to Mexican
counternarcotics activities between 2000 and 2006. In total, almost
$400 million was allocated to Mexico over the six-year period.15 As the
table indicates, most of these funds supported port and border security
($72.7 million) and counternarcotics programs ($51.2 million). Of the
four agencies that provided assistance, the U.S. Department of State’s
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Afairs provided the most funding, and USAID provided the least.
Much U.S. counternarcotics aid to Mexico has concentrated on
training. he U.S. government’s Law Enforcement Professionalization
and Training Project provided 275 training courses to 6,269 Mexican law enforcement agency personnel. he U.S. government has also
provided training to new SSP polygraph operators.16 In addition, the
U.S. Coast Guard provided several training courses for the Mexican navy in 2007, including seven maritime law enforcement courses
13
Connie Veillette, Mark P. Sullivan, Clare Ribando Seelke, and Colleen W. Cook, U.S.
Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: FY2006–FY2008, Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Research Service, RL34299, December 28, 2007.
14
Veillette et al., 2007.
15
he new Mérida Initiative promises this same amount—$400 million—in FY 2009.
16
U.S. Department of State, 2008a.
Impact on the United States and the U.S. Government’s Response
49
Table 4.1
U.S. Support for Mexican Counternarcotics Activities, FY 2000–FY 2006
Agency and Activity
Cost ($ millions)
U.S. Department of State (Bureau of Int’l Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs)
Port and border security
72.7
Law enforcement infrastructure
28.4
Interdiction and eradication
23.3
Aviation
22.2
Training
14.8
Other
Subtotal
7.5
168.9
U.S. Department of Justice (Drug Enforcement Administration)
Mexico field offices
123.9
Intelligence and enforcement groups
8.9
Special support and administrative support units
7.2
Subtotal
140.0
U.S. Department of Defense
Counternarcotics support programs (National Defense
Authorization Act §1004)
51.2
International Military Education and TrainingProgram
6.6
Subtotal
57.8
USAID
Rule of law
15.6
Anticorruption
13.0
Financial transparency
Subtotal
Total, all agencies
1.3
29.9
396.6
SOURCE: U.S. Government Accountability Office, Drug Control: U.S. Assistance Has
Helped Mexican Counternarcotics Efforts, but Tons of Illicit Drugs Continue to Flow
into the United States, Washington, D.C., GAO-07-1018, August 17, 2007a.
50
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
focused on maritime boarding tactics and procedures for more than
250 Mexican navy personnel.17
In addition to its counternarcotics initiatives, the U.S. government has also increased its eforts against organized crime, arms smugglers, and street gangs. For instance, the United States has used the
United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime
to secure an extradition that otherwise would not have taken place
under an existing bilateral extradition treaty and to obtain provisional
arrest warrants.18 As mentioned in Chapter hree, the ATF is operating Project Gunrunner in an efort to stop the low of illegal guns into
Mexico from the United States. U.S. and Mexican law enforcement
agencies also recently unveiled a joint efort, called Armas Cruzadas
(Crossed Arms) to disrupt cross-border weapon smuggling through the
sharing of databases and better monitoring of illicit sales at gun shops
and gun shows. And the Federal Bureau of Investigation is engaged
with Mexican police in a binational antikidnapping task force.19
In an efort to address street gangs, on July 18, 2007, at a security
meeting of the seven Central American countries, a U.S. delegation
announced the release of the U.S. Strategy to Combat Criminal Gangs
from Central America and Mexico. he new U.S. antigang strategy
builds on cooperative eforts already under way and will amplify both
prevention and enforcement programs.20
Our analysis of U.S eforts to address the three priority areas
(organized crime, including drug traicking and arms traicking; illegal migration and human traicking; and terrorism and rebel insurgencies) found four trends in U.S. aid to Mexico:
17
U.S. Department of State, 2008a.
18
David T. Johnson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law
Enforcement Afairs, “Combating Transnational Crime and Joint Eforts to Safeguard the
Western Hemisphere,” speech to Ministers of Justice or Attorneys General of the Americas,
Washington, D.C., April 28, 2008.
19
20
McLemore, 2008.
White House, “Statement on the U.S. Strategy to Combat Criminal Gangs from Central
America and Mexico,” press release, July 20, 2007.
Impact on the United States and the U.S. Government’s Response
51
• he U.S. response has focused on counterterrorism and counternarcotics.
• he U.S. response has focused on federal-to-federal cooperation.
• he U.S. response has focused mostly on technological aid.
• he U.S. response has focused little on institution building.
U.S. Response: Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics
As shown in Table 4.1, U.S. aid to Mexico has focused primarily on
counterterrorism and counternarcotics. With U.S. assistance, extraditions of criminals to the United States increased, thousands of Mexican
law enforcement personnel were trained, and controls over chemicals
to produce methamphetamine were strengthened.21 However, since so
much law enforcement assistance has been directed toward counterterrorism and counternarcotics eforts, the goal of improving everyday security for Mexicans has not been a target of U.S. assistance to
Mexico.
U.S. Response: Federal-to-Federal Cooperation
U.S. eforts to address the primary threats from Mexico have largely
involved federal-to-federal cooperation across countries. For instance,
recent U.S. eforts to combat corruption have focused on the vetting of
federal (rather than state or local) police units. Given that this sort
of aid does not address the root of corruption in state and local police
forces, the United States may want to reconsider whether aid should
be redistributed, with more allocated to the state and local levels. If
direct aid at the state and local levels is not palatable to the Mexican
government, such aid could be funneled through and administered by
the Mexican federal government, with the provision that the aid would
reach the state and local levels.
U.S. Response: Technological Aid
Most U.S. aid to Mexico has focused on technological aid and equipment. For instance, the United States has provided Mexico with ixedwing aircraft and helicopters. he U.S. Department of Homeland
21
U.S. Government Accountability Oice, 2007b.
52
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, has also loaned nonintrusive inspection equipment to Mexican customs for use during
surge operations along Mexico’s northern border. his equipment complemented three mobile units that were provided to the government of
Mexico in 2005.22 A large portion of the initial request in the Mérida
Initiative consisted of equipment and technological assistance.
U.S. Response: Institution Building as a Secondary Focus
Perhaps due to Mexican resistance, institution building has been a secondary focus of U.S. aid to Mexico. Assistance for institution building
is probably the least palatable to the Mexican government due to concerns over issues of sovereignty. As indicated in Table 4.1, rule of law,
anticorruption, and inancial transparency initiatives have not received
much funding in comparison to counternarcotics programs and border
security. here seems to be a disconnect between current U.S. counternarcotics aid and institution building. he reasons for this may include
the cost and diiculty to sustain institution building and resistance
from entrenched interests.
The Mérida Initiative
On June 30, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Supplemental
Appropriations Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-252), which provided Mexico
with $352 million in FY 2008 supplemental assistance and $48 million
in FY 2009 supplemental assistance.23 Mérida will increase the Mexican counternarcotics budget by 20 percent.
During the debate surrounding the Mérida Initiative, the issue
of human rights took center stage. Several human rights groups advocated including strong human rights provisions in the Mérida Initia-
22
23
U.S. Department of State, 2008a.
Colleen W. Cook and Clare Ribando Seelke, Merida Initiative: Proposed U.S. Anticrime
and Counterdrug Assistance for Mexico and Central America, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RS22837, July 7, 2008.
Impact on the United States and the U.S. Government’s Response
53
tive.24 However, the language in the inal enacted measure reduced the
amount of funding subject to human rights conditions, from 25 percent to 15 percent. It also removed conditions that would have required
the Mexican government to try military oicials accused of abuses in
civilian courts and to enhance the power of Mexico’s National Human
Rights Commission.25
Like previous aid packages to Mexico, the Mérida Initiative
focuses on technological aid. he irst stage of funding in the package
will provide26
• helicopters and surveillance aircraft to support interdiction and
rapid response by Mexican law enforcement agencies
• nonintrusive inspection equipment, ion scanners, and canine units
for Mexican customs, the new Mexican federal police, and the
military to interdict traicked drugs, arms, cash, and persons
• technologies and secure communication systems to improve data
collection and storage, thereby ensuring that vital information is
accessible to law enforcement agencies
• technical advice and training to strengthen institutions of justice and improve vetting for the new Mexican police force, case
management software to track investigations through the legal
process, support for oices to oversee citizen complaints and professional responsibility, and assistance in establishing witness
protection programs.
Mérida may broaden the scope of cooperation between the United
States and Mexico, and it will provide stronger human rights protections than previous aid packages. In addition, it may improve transparency via technology and equipment (e.g., polygraph machines) and
may help ight corruption in the federal police by providing the equip-
24 Renata Rendon, “U.S. Aid Package to Mexico Raises Human Rights Concerns,” Amnesty
International Magazine, Spring 2008.
25
Cook and Seelke, 2008.
26
U.S. Embassy in Mexico, “Law Enforcement at a Glance,” Web page, undated.
54
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
ment to vet police units and track oicers who move from one unit to
another.
However, Mérida may fall short for the following reasons:
• It does not address the gap between federal and local police
forces.
• It does not provide assistance at the local level to address everyday
security issues.
Barriers to Monitoring the Effectiveness of Aid
To measure the progress of national security reforms, there must
irst be agreement on what the indicators of progress should be. Our
research and interviews indicate that there is no agreement on those
indicators, and, as a result, much attention is paid to the outputs of
the aid rather than the outcomes of the aid. While there are efective
performance measures in place to measure outputs (e.g., the number of
helicopters or trucks provided or the number of police oicers trained
with funds from the aid package), measuring outcomes (e.g., institutional reforms, increased government capacity) is much more diicult.
Increased trust in government may be one indicator of the public’s
acceptance of institutional reforms, but it is a weak proxy for measuring long-term improvements in government capacity.
Our research and interviews indicate that there is much work to
be done in developing appropriate indicators of progress as well as performance measures to monitor outcomes of aid. Given increased pressures on U.S. government agencies to account for the impact of the
aid that they disperse, there has also been a tendency to focus on outputs rather than outcomes because outputs are easier to measure and
account for. herefore, if efective performance metrics are developed
for measuring outcomes, some U.S. government agencies might be able
to make a stronger argument for more aid to be given for the purposes
of institution building and reforms.
Another barrier to monitoring U.S. aid to Mexico is the Mexican
government’s weak data collection infrastructure. Without these data,
Impact on the United States and the U.S. Government’s Response
55
the United States lacks the information needed to assess whether its aid
is targeted to the appropriate areas or whether its aid strategy needs to
be reassessed. By providing training and assistance to the Mexican government on data collection methods and systems, the United States can
assist in building the institutional infrastructure that will ultimately
make it easier to monitor the efectiveness of U.S. aid to Mexico.
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions and Recommendations
he events of the past two years have proven to be a mammoth test for
Mexico’s national security structure. Mexico has not had a cohesive
security strategy since President Fox came to oice in 2000. he lack
of a cohesive security strategy has led to shifting responsibilities, the
duplication of services in a number of agencies, and general instability in Mexico’s security structure. Ambiguous and overlapping responsibilities have created gaps (and often tensions) among federal, state,
and local security forces. his situation has resulted in the Mexican
military becoming more involved in internal security issues than is the
case with most countries’ militaries because it is seen as the trusted
institution of last resort. Given Mexico’s proximity and the impact of
its security situation on the United States, the new U.S. administration
will need to set priorities and strategies for slowing or stopping the progressive decline in Mexico’s internal security.
Potential Priorities for the New U.S. Administration
Given the impacts of organized crime, drug traicking, arms traicking, illegal migration, and human traicking and the threat of terrorism on the United States, the new U.S. administration will have to
address the declining security situation in Mexico. In addition, the
new administration will need to decide which security issues to address
through U.S. aid to Mexico and how that aid should be prioritized.
Four potential priorities emerged from our study:
57
58
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
• Help the Mexican government streamline and rationalize the
delivery of security services.
• Encourage the Mexican government to bridge the gap between
federal and local security.
• Support Mexico’s eforts to address domestic concerns, such as
ordinary crime and personal insecurity.
• Focus less on technology transfer and more on building institutions that can be trusted.
Help the Mexican Government Streamline and Rationalize the
Delivery of Security Services
he lack of a cohesive security strategy has led to shifting responsibilities, the duplication of services in a number of agencies, and general
instability in Mexico’s security structure. his instability has created
a situation in which the military is more involved in internal security
because the Mexican government has come to rely on the military as
the institution of last resort that can address issues that other security
institutions cannot.
he United States should encourage the Mexican government to
develop a cohesive security strategy and reform its security structure
to meet that strategy. While the country must develop this strategy on
its own, U.S. aid could provide assistance with institutional reform.
he clear deinition and streamlining of security responsibilities would
eliminate overlap and duplication of services, and, more importantly, it
could bolster the public’s trust in Mexico’s security institutions.
Encourage the Mexican Government to Bridge the Gap Between
Federal and Local Security
Ambiguous and overlapping security responsibilities have also created
a gap among federal, state, and local security forces. At each of these
levels, security forces are unsure of their roles and responsibilities, and,
in many cases, they do not share information with one another because
their relationships are contentious.
he U.S. government should encourage the Mexican government to bridge the gap between federal and local security forces. he
development of a cohesive security strategy that deines the roles and
Conclusions and Recommendations
59
responsibilities of federal, state, and local security forces would go a
long way toward bridging this gap. he issue of corruption is clearly
one of the barriers to the sharing of information across levels of government. For this reason, longer-term eforts to address corruption should
be undertaken.
Support Mexico’s Efforts to Address Domestic Concerns
Most U.S. aid has been focused on the federal government in Mexico
to address the major issues, such as drug traicking or organized crime.
While these issues certainly warrant U.S. attention, the U.S. government should not neglect assistance for everyday security, including combating crime and corruption. hese are the issues that afect Mexican
citizens on a day-to-day basis, and, consequently, these are the issues
that largely deine the public’s level of trust in Mexican institutions.
he United States should either encourage the Mexican government to allocate more assistance for local security institutions or stipulate in its aid agreements that more aid should be funneled to local
security institutions. Some U.S. oicials with whom we spoke thought
that federal-to-federal cooperation was the most prudent strategy in
Mexico, given the degree of corruption at the state and local levels.
However, we would encourage the new U.S. administration to think
about creative ways to funnel U.S. assistance to the state and local
levels in Mexico.
he case of USAID’s support for judicial reform in the state of
Chihuahua may be a model for this type of assistance. A second model
may be to provide money to the Mexican federal government with the
stipulation that a certain amount be allocated to the state and local
levels, but the Mexican federal government would maintain oversight of
the money. he U.S. Oice of Community Oriented Policing Services
within the U.S. Department of Justice could serve as a template for this
type of program. he agency provides grants to local law enforcement
agencies, but the Department of Justice maintains oversight over the
grant money. A third model may be to create cross-border collaborations between Mexican and U.S. states. here are a few such collaborations already in place for emergency management and humanitarian
assistance, but they could be expanded and deepened.
60
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
While it is understandable that both the U.S. and Mexican governments have take the position that reform must begin at the federal
level before it can take hold at the local level, the majority of security
services in Mexico are provided by local institutions (such as local preventive police). herefore, reform at the local and state levels should not
be ignored for the sake of reform at the federal level. We believe that
U.S. aid should emphasize reform at all three levels of government and
that reforms should feed into one another.
Focus Less on Technology Transfer and More on Building Trust
in Institutions
While most U.S. aid to Mexico has historically focused on technology,
equipment, and training, less aid has focused on longer-term institution building and reform of the security structure in Mexico. Without
clearly delineated roles and responsibilities, Mexican security institutions at the federal, state, and local levels will continue to lose the public’s trust.
he U.S. government should focus aid less on technology and
equipment to serve an immediate need and instead on how that technology can instill trust in public institutions. Some U.S. and Mexican
oicials make the argument that technology and equipment lead to
increased transparency in government institutions (e.g., administering
polygraph tests to police oicers will decrease corruption). However,
we believe that technology and equipment are efective in the long term
only if they work in tandem with institutional reforms. he Calderón
government seems to recognize this. he United States may want to
consider whether aid should be concentrated more on improving transparency and accountability at all levels of government, including state
and local police forces.
U.S. Policy Options for Improving Security in Mexico
he future of U.S.-Mexico relations will depend largely on the approach
that the new U.S. administration chooses to take. While some, including the former deputy foreign minister of Mexico, Andrés Rozental,
Conclusions and Recommendations
61
advocate the legalization of drugs in the United States as a solution
to the violence in Mexico, we have not included a discussion of this
option because it is not broadly supported, especially with respect to
cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Based on how much the new
administration wants to prioritize long-term reform in Mexico, we have
identiied three policy options that the U.S. administration can use to
address security issues in Mexico:
• Engage in a strategic partnership with Mexico that emphasizes
reform and longer-term institution building.
• Maintain the status quo approach, which focuses on ad hoc, issuespeciic cooperation but does not emphasize reform or longer-term
institution building.
• Institute a retrenchment approach by focusing on U.S. domestic eforts to combat security threats from Mexico and disengage
from any partnerships with Mexico.
hese policy options can be mapped as shown in Table 5.1.
Strategic Partnership
A strategic partnership would entail a long-term commitment by the
U.S. government to support reforms and institution building in Mexico.
In addition, a strategic partnership would require the United States to
take on shared responsibility for the drug problem and address domestic demand. he United States should also take measures to stem the
illegal low of three things into Mexico: arms, bulk cash, and chemical
Table 5.1
Policy Options for Improving Security in Mexico
Policy Option
Strategic partnership
Status quo
Retrenchment
Impact
Time Horizon
High
Long term
Medium
Medium term
Low
Short term
62
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
precursors (such as those used in the manufacture of methamphetamine). his approach would also consist of more bilateral approaches
to addressing security issues in Mexico, including, for example, more
U.S. training and assistance to Mexican security forces across all levels
of government. Such a partnership requires the United States to view
Mexico as a full partner that is capable of both institutional reform and
maintaining stability within its borders.
Such an approach also requires the United States to take a comprehensive approach to security. his includes deemphasizing technology and equipment as solutions to security problems in Mexico, prioritizing institution building, and making security reforms in Mexico
an interagency priority across the U.S. government. Finally, a strategic
partnership would emphasize reforms and institution building across
all levels of Mexico’s government, not just the federal level. Such a
strategic partnership could be a U.S.-Mexico bilateral partnership, or
it could be a greater North American security collaboration involving
the United States, Mexico, and Canada.
Status Quo
he status quo option maintains current U.S. priorities for addressing security issues in Mexico. U.S. aid would continue to emphasize
technology and equipment, and that aid would continue to be targeted
mostly toward federal-level reforms in Mexico. Under this option, the
U.S. government would not foster comprehensive security reform, but,
rather, would cooperate with Mexico on an ad hoc basis. Examples
of such issue-speciic cooperation include U.S.-Mexico cooperation on
counterdrug or law enforcement operations. While this option has a
medium time horizon, it does not emphasize reform and institution
building to the same extent as the strategic partnership option.
Retrenchment
Retrenchment is the option in which the U.S. government disengages
from Mexico and instead focuses inward on such issues as securing
U.S. borders and keeping threats from Mexico at bay. his isolationist
option rises from the perspective that Mexico is a failed partner and
that it is not capable of securing its own border or maintaining order.
Conclusions and Recommendations
63
herefore, according to this view, the United States must unilaterally
do all it can to minimize threats to its security.
Assessment of the Three Policy Options
As Table 5.2 shows, the strategic partnership option places the greatest
demands on the U.S. government. his option requires a high degree
of institutional commitment by the U.S. government because it focuses
on long-term, tough, institutional reforms that perhaps will not be
achieved even within the term of a presidential administration. he
strategic partnership option also requires a high degree of interagency
coordination and planning because it requires a more comprehensive
approach that includes agencies from across the U.S. government. For
the new administration to make strategic partnership a feasible option,
it will need to ensure a high degree of domestic U.S. support for reform
in Mexico and realize that such reforms take time. Finally, this option
creates a need for performance metrics that can measure the efectiveness of security reforms—in particular, long-term, institutional reforms.
As discussed in the previous chapters, current metrics measure outputs
well, but they are much less capable of measuring outcomes.
Table 5.2
Demands Created by the Three Policy Options
Policy Option
Strategic
Partnership
Status Quo
Retrenchment
U.S. institutional commitment
High
Medium
Low
U.S. interagency cooperation
and planning
High
Low
Low
Domestic U.S. support for
reform in Mexico
High
Medium
Low
Need for metrics to evaluate
the effectiveness of U.S. aid
High
Medium
Low
Area of Demand
NOTE: High, medium, and low indicate degree of demand for U.S. government
resources, personnel, and time.
64
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Table 5.2 also shows that the status quo option places a medium
degree of demand on the U.S. government in terms of U.S. institutional commitment, domestic support for reforms in Mexico, and need
for performance metrics. It also requires low levels of interagency cooperation, since most ad hoc issues are handled by single agencies.
Finally, Table 5.2 shows that the retrenchment option places the
fewest burdens on the U.S. government. Since it entails selective disengagement from Mexico, the retrenchment option requires very little
institutional commitment from the U.S. government, low levels of
interagency cooperation and planning, and low levels of domestic support for reforms in Mexico. he U.S. government would likely not be
interested in measuring progress if it chose this option, so there might
not be a high degree of need for performance metrics.
hese three policy options address the four potential priorities
areas in diferent ways. As Table 5.3 shows, the strategic partnership
option is the only option that has a high level of impact on all four
potential priority areas. On the other side of the spectrum, the retrenchment option is the only one that has a low impact on all four potential
Table 5.3
Impact of the Three Policy Options
Policy Option
Strategic
Partnership
Status Quo
Retrenchment
Develop cohesive security strategy and
reform the security structure to meet
that strategy
High
Low
Low
Bridge the gap between federal and
local security forces
High
Low
Low
Support Mexico’s efforts to address
domestic concerns
High
Low
Low
Focus aid less on technology and
equipment and more on increasing
transparency in government institutions
High
Medium
Low
Priority Area
NOTE: High, medium, and low indicate degree of impact on the four priority areas.
Conclusions and Recommendations
65
priority areas. he status quo option has varying degrees of impact on
the potential priority areas, depending on the particular issue or area of
cooperation that is being examined.
Mexico’s Reaction to the Three Policy Options
In assessing which policy option to pursue, the U.S. government should
be sensitive to the potential reactions that the Mexican government
may have to the policy options. he United States and Mexico have
a unique relationship that has given rise to unique historical sensitivities. For instance, the Mexican government has always been wary of
U.S. involvement in Mexican internal afairs. hese Mexican sensitivities will create diferent barriers to the implementation of the policy
options.
While the strategic policy option may not have been a feasible
option before the election of President Fox in 2000, this option is more
possible than ever before. As our interviews with Mexican oicials substantiated, indications are that the Calderón administration is interested in longer-term reform and institution building. However, as the
negotiations surrounding the Mérida Initiative have demonstrated, the
Mexican government is sensitive to the United States pushing too hard
on human rights and institutional reform issues. As long as a strategic
relationship can be forged in which the Mexican government feels that
it is not ceding any of its internal authority by accepting U.S. assistance, the strategic partnership option may be palatable to Mexico.
As evidenced by the Mérida Initiative, the current Mexican
administration wants more from the United States than the status quo.
hroughout the Fox and Calderón administrations, the Mexican government has slowly shifted the deinition of status quo closer to what is
characterized by the strategic partnership option. herefore, the status
quo option is somewhat risky for the Mexican government because it
opens the door for cooperation on issues that may infringe on national
sovereignty. As we saw during the U.S. congressional debate over the
66
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Mérida Initiative, President Calderón and his administration were very
sensitive to issues of sovereignty. Calderón said,
My government will defend at all times its national sovereignty
and the interests of Mexicans and we will act strictly in accordance with the Constitution, and, of course, we will not accept
conditions that simply are unacceptable.1
In the end, the Mexican government accepted the human rights
stipulations that accompany the Mérida Initiative. “he terms that
were approved are respectful of the sovereignty and jurisdiction of both
countries,” said Mexico’s interior minister, Juan Camilo Mouriño.2
Perhaps the option to which Mexico would be most receptive is
the status quo option (again, as long as it does not threaten the country’s
sovereignty). his is a safe option for the Mexican government because
it does not require any longer-term commitment, and the Mexican
government can choose the issues that it wants to pursue in close collaboration with the United States. he downside of this option is that
the Mexican government’s relationship with the United States is sporadic and uneven, depending on the issue. he Calderón administration seems to recognize this and, in turn, seems to be moving beyond
the status quo toward more stable and ongoing cooperation on a wider
set of national security issues.
he most risky and potentially damaging option is the retrenchment option. If the United States chooses to entrench itself against
threats from Mexico and disengage from that country, such retrenchment may trigger reciprocation from Mexico. Our analysis demonstrates that U.S.-Mexico border security issues are extremely complex
and intertwined. None of those issues can be solved unilaterally or
without the cooperation of the other country.
1
James C. McKinley Jr., “Conditions on U.S. Aid in Drug Fight Anger Mexico,” New York
Times, June 7, 2008b.
2
Marc Lacey, “Mexico Accepts Anti-Narcotics Aid from U.S.,” New York Times, June 28,
2008.
Conclusions and Recommendations
67
The Future of U.S.-Mexico Security Relations
All of the U.S. and Mexican oicials with whom we spoke indicated
that they felt that the Calderón administration is serious about implementing reforms and tackling security issues in Mexico. If the United
States does not build on the unprecedented levels of U.S.-Mexican
cooperation, the strides forward in U.S.-Mexico relations during the
Fox and Calderón administrations may dissolve. herefore, the new
U.S. administration should take advantage of this historic window of
opportunity and further engage the Calderón government in a deeper
and broader relationship that strives toward a long-term strategic
partnership.
References
Aguilar, Julian, “he Hunt for Guns; Fed Agents Busy Trying to Stymie Local
Weapons Trading,” Laredo Morning News, May 26, 2008. As of September 16,
2008:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19720280&BRD=2290&PAG=461
&dept_id=569392&ri=6
Alonso, Eduardo, and Francisco Gómez, “Matan a Juez Encargado de Casos del
Narcotráico” [“Judge in Charge of Drug-Traicking Cases Killed”], El Universal
(Mexico), August 18, 2006. As of September 3, 2008:
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion/141814.html
“Anti-Crime Pact Signed by All Levels of Government,” El Universal (Mexico),
August 25, 2008.
Archibold, Randal C., “U.S. Plans Border ‘Surge’ Against Any Drug Wars,” New
York Times, January 8, 2009, p. A16. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08chertof.html
Archibold, Randal C., and Andrew Becker, “Border Agents, Lured by the Other
Side,” New York Times, May 27, 2008, p. A1. As of February 2, 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/us/27border.html
“ATF: Most Illegal Guns in Mexico Come from U.S.,” Associated Press,
August 11, 2008. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-11-mexico-guns_N.htm
Avila, Oscar, “Mexico Reels After Spate of Kidnappings,” Chicago Tribune,
August 30, 2008. As of April 14, 2009:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/30/nation/chi-mexico-kidnapping_
avilaaug31
“Bodies of 24 Shooting Victims Found in Mexico,” CNN, September 13, 2008.
As of September 13, 2008:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/13/mexico.corpses/
Burton, Fred, and Scott Stewart, “Mexico: Dynamics of the Gun Trade,”
STRATFOR, October 24, 2007.
69
70
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Calderón, Felipe, “Message to the Nation from the President of Mexico, Felipe
Calderón Hinojosa, on the Occasion of His First State of the Union Address,”
transcript, September 2, 2007. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.presidencia.gob.mx/en/press/?contenido=31601
“Calderón Sends Troops to Michoacán,” El Universal (Mexico), December 12,
2006. As of June 15, 2008:
http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/22328.html
Carothers, homas, Promoting the Rule of Law Abroad: In Search of Knowledge,
Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2006.
Castillo, E. Eduardo, “Mexico, U.S. Find No al-Qaeda Links Since 9/11,”
Associated Press, September 12, 2008. As of September 15, 2008:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/
20080912-1105-mexico-terrorarrests.html
Cevallos, Diego, “War on Crime Triggers Activists Suspicions,” Inter Press Service,
December 15, 2006. As of November 11, 2007:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35866
———, “Police Caught Between Low Wages, hreats, and Bribes,” Inter Press
Services, June 7, 2007. As of August 25, 2008:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38075
Cook, Colleen W., Mexico’s Drug Cartels, Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Research Service, RL34215, October 16, 2007.
Cook, Colleen W., and Clare Ribando Seelke, Merida Initiative: Proposed U.S.
Anticrime and Counterdrug Assistance for Mexico and Central America, Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RS22837, July 7, 2008.
Cornelius, Wayne E., and David E. Shirk, eds., Reforming the Administration
of Justice in Mexico, Notre Dame, Ind., and La Jolla, Calif.: University of Notre
Dame Press and Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California,
San Diego, 2007.
De Botton, Shelley, “Mexican Police: Unify to Optimize,” Comunidad Segura,
August 11, 2008.
De Cordoba, Jose, “Guerillas in the Mist: In a Modernizing Mexico, Blasts Reveal
Shadowy Side,” Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2007, p. A1.
Ellingwood, Ken, “Drug War Bodies Are Piling Up in Mexico,” Los Angeles Times,
August 30, 2008a. As of August 31, 2008:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/
world/la-fg-mexdrugs30-2008aug30,0,5217757.story
———, “Fear of Kidnapping Grips Mexico,” Los Angeles Times, September 1,
2008b. As of September 2, 2008:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/
la-fg-kidnap1-2008sep01,0,4003595.story
References
71
Franco, Celinda, he MS-13 and 18th Street Gangs: Emerging Transnational Gang
hreats? Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RL34233,
November 2, 2007.
García, José María Ramos, “Seguridad Ciudadana y la Seguridad Nacional
Mexico: Hacia un Marco Conceptual” [“Public Safety and National Security
in Mexico: Toward a Conceptual Framework”], Revista Mexicana de Ciencias
Politicas y Sociales, Vol. 47, No. 194, May–August 2005, pp. 33–52. As of
August 23, 2008:
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/421/42119403.pdf
Gompert, David C., Olga Oliker, Brooke Stearns Lawson, Keith Crane, and
K. Jack Riley, Making Liberia Safe: Transformation of the National Security Sector,
Santa Monica Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-529-OSD, 2007. As of March 24,
2009:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG529/
Gompert, David C., Olga Oliker, and Anga R. Timilsina, Clean, Lean, and Able:
A Strategy for Defense Development, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation,
OP-101-RC, 2004. As of March 24, 2009:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP101/
Gould, Jens Erik, “Mexico’s Calderon Signs Law to Boost Judicial System
Eiciency,” Bloomberg, June 17, 2008. As of June 17, 2008:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aTPckSSeWqwE&
refer=latin_america
Green, J. J., “Al-Qaida Suspect Arrested in Texas,” FederalNewsRadio.com,
March 31, 2005. As of February 27, 2008:
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=236719&nid=104
Hanson, Stephanie, Mexico’s Drug War, New York: Council on Foreign Relations,
November 20, 2008. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13689/mexicos_drug_war.html
Hawley, Chris, “Mexico’s Drug Control Initiative Relects More Trust,”
USA Today, October 29, 2007. As of June 17, 2008:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-10-29-mexico-drugcontrol_N.htm
Hawley, Chris, and Sergio Solache, “Mexico Focuses on Police Corruption,”
USA Today, February 5, 2008. As of August 25, 2008:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-05-mexico-police_N.htm
Hoover, William, assistant director for ield operations, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, testimony before the House Committee on
Foreign Afairs, Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, February 7, 2007.
As of March 13, 2009:
http://foreignafairs.house.gov/110/hoo020708.htm
72
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Huste, Jean-Paul, “Is Mexico Under Mr. Calderon at the Point of No Return in
Its Conlict with Organised Crime?” European Strategic Intelligence and Security
Center, Background Analysis, June 12, 2007. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.esisc.org/documents/pdf/en/mexico-calderon-279.pdf
Ilif, Lawrence, “Mexico Takes Fight to Zeta Drug Gang,” Dallas Morning News,
January 10, 2008. As of September 14, 2008:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/
011008dnintborder.2c86d9b.html
“In 8 Months Mexico Drug-Linked Killings Top 2007 Total,” Associated Press,
August 16, 2008.
Instituto Ciudadano de Estudios Sobre la Inseguridad [Citizen’s Institute for
Security Studies], Cuarto Encuesta Nacional Sobre Inseguridad/Urbana [Fourth
National Security Survey, Urban Areas], Mexico City, 2006. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.icesi.org.mx/documentos/encuestas/encuestasNacionales/ensi4_
urbana_2005.pdf
International Organization for Migration, “IOM Mexico Provides Assistance to
Victims of Traicking,” press release, February 12, 2008. As of September 10,
2008:
http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/pbnAM/cache/ofonce?entryId=16571
Johnson, David T., Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Afairs, “Combating Transnational Crime and Joint Eforts to
Safeguard the Western Hemisphere,” speech to Ministers of Justice or Attorneys
General of the Americas, Washington, D.C., April 28, 2008.
Jones, Seth G., Jeremy M. Wilson, Andrew Rathmell, and K. Jack Riley,
Establishing Law and Order After Conlict, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND
Corporation, MG-374-RC, 2005. As of March 24, 2009:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG374/
Justice in Mexico Project, “News Report, January 2009,” Transborder Institute,
January 2009. As of February 3, 2009:
http://www.justiceinmexico.org/news/pdf/
justiceinmexico-january2009news-report021709.pdf
Lacey, Marc, “Mexico Accepts Anti-Narcotics Aid from U.S.,” New York Times,
June 28, 2008.As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/world/americas/28mexico.html
Leroy, Christopher, “Mexican Intelligence at a Crossroad,” SAIS Review, Vol. 24,
No. 1, Winter–Spring 2004, pp. 107–130.
Llana, Sara Miller, “Military Abuses Rise in Mexican Drug War,” Christian Science
Monitor, June 24, 2008a. As of July 7, 2008:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0624/p06s01-woam.html
References
73
———, “Can Mexico’s Calderón Stop the Killings?” Christian Science Monitor,
September 2, 2008b. As of September 2, 2008:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0902/p06s01-woam.html
Logan, Samuel, “Illegal Migration and Mexico’s Maras,” International Relations
and Security Network, November 7, 2006. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Afairs/Security-Watch/
Detail/?id=52566&lng=en
Lopez, Mayolo, “Descarta el Ejecutivo Titubeo Contra Crimen” [“Rejecting
Executive Hesitation to Counter Crime”], Reforma, October 13, 2007.
“Losing the Anti-Drug Fight?” Economist, June 8, 2008.
Luna, Genaro García, Mexico’s Secretary of Public Security, “Comprehensive
Strategy for the Prevention and Fight Against Crime,” presentation, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., January 31, 2008. As of
April 14, 2009:
http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1486/
Mattson, Sean, “Chihuahua Pioneers Judicial Reform,” San Antonio Express News,
March 8, 2008.
McKinley, James C. Jr., “After Massacre, a Mexican Town Is Left in Terror of
Drug Violence,” New York Times, May 31, 2008a, p. A1.
———, “Conditions on U.S. Aid in Drug Fight Anger Mexico,” New York Times,
June 7, 2008b. As of September 10, 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/world/americas/07mexico.html
McLemore, David, “U.S. Oicials Praise Mexico for Anti-Drug Eforts,” Dallas
Morning News, August 12, 2008. As of August 27, 2008:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/
DN-border_12tsw.ART.State.Edition1.4d4c472.html
“Mexican Oicers Arrested at Gun Show,” USA Today, September 12, 2007. As of
August 9, 2008:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-12-mexican-police-guns_N.htm
“Mexican President: We’re Not Losing Drug War,” MSNBC, February 26, 2009.
As of April 14, 2009:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29413556/
“Mexican Soldiers Take Over Tabasco State Police,” Reuters, March 17, 2007. As
of September 10, 2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1722343620070318?page
Number=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
“Mexican Troops Swoop on Police HQ,” BBC News, February 10, 2009. As of
February 18, 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7880741.stm
74
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
“Mexicans Protest After More Decapitations,” Herald Sun (Australia),
September 1, 2008. As of September 3, 2008:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24271569-663,00.html
“Mexico Accepts Talks with Leftist Rebels,” Reuters, April 29, 2008. As of
September 16, 2008:
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN29367372
“Mexico Announces Anti-Kidnapping Reforms,” CNN, August 13, 2008.
“Mexico’s Human Rights Commission Documents 8 New Cases of Human
Rights Abuses,” Associated Press, July 11, 2008.
Oliker, Olga, Keith Crane, Audra K. Grant, Terrence K. Kelly, Andrew Rathmell,
and David Brannan, U.S. Policy Options for Iraq: A Reassessment, Santa Monica,
Calif.: RAND Corporation, MG-613-AF, 2007. As of March 24, 2009:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG613/
Oice of National Drug Control Policy, “White House Drug Czar Releases
Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy,” press release, October 2, 2007a.
———, “New Data Show Signiicant Disruptions in U.S. Methamphetamine,
Cocaine Markets,” press release, November 8, 2007b.
Oice of the President of Mexico, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo [National
Development Plan] 1995–2000, 1995.
———, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo [National Development Plan] 2001–2006,
2001.
———, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo [National Development Plan] 2007–2012,
2007. As of August 20, 2008:
http://pnd.presidencia.gob.mx/
———, Segundo Informe de Gobierno [Second Government Report], 2008. As of
March 13, 2009:
http://primer.informe.gob.mx/
“Oh Rose, hou Art Sick,” Economist, September 4, 2008.
Olson, Alexandra, “Hundreds of housands of Mexicans Protest Crime,”
Associated Press, August 30, 2008a. As of March 13, 2009:
http://media.abcnews.com/International/wireStory?id=5689862
———, “Mexican Leader Meets Anti-Crime March Organizers,” Associated
Press, September 1, 2008b. As of March 13, 2009:
http://abcnews.com/International/WireStory?id=5693673
Perez, Evan, and Cam Simpson, “U.S. Still Evaluating Mexican Border Issue,”
Wall Street Journal, March 13, 2009. As of March 22, 2009:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123686531194007247.html
References
75
“Police: Mexican Cartels Give OK to Hit U.S. Targets,” Associated Press,
August 25, 2008.
Public Law 106-386, Traicking Victims Protection Act of 2000, October 28,
2000.
Public Law 110-252, Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, June 30, 2008.
“Public Outcry vs. Violence Spurs Mexico to Set Anti-Crime Reforms,” Associated
Press, August 23, 2008. As of August 25, 2008:
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/254180
Quezada, Sergio Aguayo, “Mexico: A War Dispatch,” Open Democracy, June 25,
2007. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy_power/politics_protest/
mexico_war_dispatch
Quinones, Sam, and Richard A. Serrano, “Mexico’s Drug War Spills Across the
Border,” Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2008. As of February 9, 2009:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/
la-na-cartels16-2008nov16,0,1692616.story
Rendon, Renata, “U.S. Aid Package to Mexico Raises Human Rights Concerns,”
Amnesty International Magazine, Spring 2008. As of September 15, 2008:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Amnesty_Magazine/US_Aid_Package_to_Mexico/
page.do?id=1351036&n1=2&n2=19
Reporters Without Borders, “Vera Cruz Crime Reporter Becomes Seventh
Journalist Murdered his Year in Mexico, Making It Second-Most Dangerous
Country for Press, After Iraq,” November 22, 2006. As of June 22, 2008:
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19867
Reyes, Leonarda, “Reporter’s Notebook: Mexico,” Global Integrity, 2006. As of
September 3, 2008:
http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/MEXICO/notebook.cfm
Riccardi, Nicholas, “Kidnapped Boy Is Safe; Vegas Police Shift heir Focus to
Unraveling the Abduction Scheme, Purportedly Linked to a Mexican Drug
Cartel,” Los Angeles Times, October 20, 2008, p. A10. As of February 20, 2009:
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/20/nation/na-kidnap20
Root, Jay, “Mexico Crime Continues to Surge,” McClatchy Newspapers,
September 22, 2007. As of September 14, 2008:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/19879.html
Sarukhan, Arturo, Mexico’s ambassador to the United States, “Real Solutions for
Challenges on the Mexico-U.S. Border: he Mérida Initiative,” lecture, Heritage
Foundation, Washington, D.C., Heritage Lecture No. 1095, April 28, 2008. As of
September 16, 2008:
http://www.heritage.org/research/latinamerica/hl1095.cfm
76
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional [Secretary of National Defense], hearing before
the Chamber of Deputies, Committee on National Defense, April 26, 2007.
SEDENA—see Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional.
Seelke, Clare Ribando, and Alison Siskin, Traicking in Persons: U.S. Policy and
Issues for Congress, Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RL34317,
August 14, 2008.
Stevenson, Mark, “Mexico Asks U.S. to Help Stop Arms Flow,” Associated Press,
May 16, 2007.
STRATFOR, “Organized Crime in Mexico,” March 11, 2008a. As of June 29,
2008:
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/organized_crime_mexico
———, “Mexico Security Memo: Sept. 29, 2008,” September 29, 2008b. As of
March 4, 2009:
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20080929_mexico_security_memo_sept_29_
2008
———, “Mexico Security Memo: November 10, 2008,” November 10, 2008c.
As of March 22, 2009:
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20081110_mexico_security_memo_nov_10_
2008
Sullivan, Kevin, “Mexico Battles Inlux of Violent Gangs,” Washington Post,
January 21, 2005, p. A10. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24888-2005Jan20.html
Sumano, Abelardo Rodriguez, “Mexico’s Insecurity in North America,” Homeland
Security Afairs, Supplement No. 1, 2007.
hompson, Bernard, “People Traicking, a National Security Risk in Mexico,”
Mexidata.info, November 17, 2003. As of October 12, 2007:
http://www.mexidata.info/id93.html
Tobar, Hector, “Mexican Troops Sent to Guard Energy Facilities,” Los Angeles
Times, July 13, 2007. As of September 9, 2008:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/13/world/fg-pemex13
Trahan, Jason, “175 Arrested in Crackdown on Notorious Gulf Cartel,” Dallas
News, September 18, 2008. As of February 20, 2009:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/
DN-cartel_18met.ART0.State.Edition2.269c772.html
Transparencia Mexicana, Indice Nacional de Corrupcion y Buen Gobierno 2007
[National Index of Corruption and Good Governance 2007], April 2008. As of
April 14, 2009:
http://www.transparenciamexicana.org.mx/ENCBG/
References
77
U.S. Agency for International Development, Central America and Mexico Gang
Assessment, April 2006. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/democracy/gangs.html
U.S. Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug
hreat Assessment 2009, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Oice,
December 2008. As of March 4, 2009:
http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs31/31379/
U.S. Department of State, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report,
Washington, D.C., March 2008a. As of March 13, 2009:
http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2008/
———, Traicking in Persons Report 2008, Washington, D.C., June 2008b. As of
March 13, 2009:
http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2008/
———, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Washington, D.C.,
February 2009. As of April 14, 2009:
http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2009/
U.S. Embassy in Mexico, “Law Enforcement at a Glance,” Web page, undated.
As of September 16, 2008:
http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/eataglance_law.html
“U.S. Families Feel Sting of Mexico’s Drug Violence,” CNN, February 27, 2009.
As of March 22, 2009:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/27/juarez.mexico.violence/
U.S. Government Accountability Oice, Drug Control: U.S. Assistance Has Helped
Mexican Counternarcotics Eforts, but Tons of Illicit Drugs Continue to Flow into the
United States, Washington, D.C., GAO-07-1018, August 17, 2007a.
———, “U.S. Assistance Has Helped Mexican Counternarcotics Eforts, but the
Flow of Illicit Drugs into the United States Remains High,” testimony by Jess T.
Ford, director, International Afairs and Trade, U.S. Government Accountability
Oice, before the House Committee on Foreign Afairs, Subcommittee on the
Western Hemisphere, GAO-08-215T, October 25, 2007b.
U.S. Joint Forces Command, he Joint Operating Environment: Challenges and
Implications for the Joint Future Force, Sufolk, Va., 2008. As of February 20, 2009:
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf
United Nations Oice on Drugs and Crime, 2007 World Drug Report, 2007. As of
March 13, 2009:
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/WDR-2007.html
USAID—see U.S. Agency for International Develoment.
78
Security in Mexico: Implications for U.S. Policy Options
Veillette, Connie, Mark P. Sullivan, Clare Ribando Seelke, and Colleen W. Cook,
U.S. Foreign Assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean: FY2006–FY2008,
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, RL34299, December 28,
2007.
White House, “Presidents Bush, Fox Discuss State Visit,” press release,
September 6, 2001.
———, “Statement on the U.S. Strategy to Combat Criminal Gangs from
Central America and Mexico,” press release, July 20, 2007.
Zagorin, Adam, “Bordering on Nukes?” Time, November 14, 2004. As of
March 13, 2009:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,782068,00.html
Zepeda, Guillermo, Crimen sin Castigo: Procuracion de Justicia Penal y Ministerio
Publico en Mexico [Crime Without Punishment: Prosecution of Criminal Justice and
Public Ministry in Mexico], Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Economica, Centro de
Investigacion para el Desarrollo, 2004.
View publication stats