It surprised me that few Mexican officials seem to take into account the relevance of the recent experience of Colombia (with the notable exception of Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora). In both countries drug trafficking exists in symbiosis with the weakness of the rule of law. In Colombia, a historically weak state, combined with a difficult geography, allowed for the growth of irregular armies of guerillas and paramilitaries, some time ago turned into bands of drug traffickers. Happily, Mexico doesn't suffer these evils.I wonder if Reid doesn't understate what Mexico is doing to address those ills. Last year's judicial reforms and the drug judges I write about here every so often are a good step toward a more efficient, independent judiciary, although it will take years for the reforms to really take hold. Reforms to the federal police have been ongoing (including more developments just yesterday). Of course, none have succeeded in creating a professional, respected Federal Police, but clearly it is a goal for Calderón's team.
But Colombia also has what Mexico lacks: an independent and relatively efficient judicial branch, a national police that enjoys the respect and collaboration of the public, and specialized bodies well trained in the techniques of criminal investigation. The security forces are beneath a single --and civil-- authority. In Álvaro Uribe, for all his defects, they have a president who has shown urgency and force in overcoming any bureaucratic sloth. Furthermore, Colombia has almost a decade of experience combining the support of the United States with its own efforts (as in the Mexican case, the aid is a small fraction of its own security expenditure).
It's true that all these efforts have not impeded the recent growth of cocaine production in Colombia. But they have achieved a significant improvement in public security, which is more important. Of course there are many differences between Colombia, a politically unique country, with a long democratic tradition, and Mexico. But the size of the challenge that Mexico confronts in the realm of security mean that it can't give it itself the luxury of ignoring similarities and extracting corresponding lessons.
I'm also not sure Colombia in particular is the best example. First of all, an independent judiciary and a competent police force are both universal goods, not something Mexico needs to learn to appreciate by looking at other nations. Furthermore, of course Mexico should take what it can learn from any other country's experience, from Sri Lanka to Italy, but Colombia's challenges are fundamentally different from Mexico's. And despite all the advances the country has made, as well as the recent decline in Mexican security, Colombia remains far more dangerous than Mexico.
4 comments:
And despite all the advances the country has made, as well as the recent decline in Mexican security, Colombia remains far more dangerous than Mexico.I agree with most of the post, but I'd disagree with that statement. The stats show Colombia is a safer place today in terms of murder or kidnapping than Mexico (or Guatemala or El Salvador or Venezuela...). Colombia's security really has improved that much in the past decade and the other countries have declined.
In large part, it depends on where you are. Urban Colombia is much more safe than urban Mexico, but rural Colombia is far more dangerous than rural Mexico.
Good point. That's an important distinction abuot urban versus rural, and one I shouldn't have ignored. I'd rather be in Cartagena than Mexico City from a crime standpoint. And yeah I am referring to the murder rate without taking into account kidnapping, which is just as important. However, I know there's a lot of variation to the stats, but this one shows Mexico with a murder rate a fraction of Colombia's.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2008/12/12/tiene-mexico-10-9-asesinatos-por-cada-100-mil-habitantes-al-ano-pnud
Again, there always seems to be some variation about those numbers, and Mexico has gotten more violent since then.
Yeah, I hesitate to disagree with as informed a feller as Boz, but all the stats I've seen point to lower murder rates in most Mexican cities than Colombian ones, and definitely in the country as a whole. It's important to keep in mind that the Colombian "miracle" represents a huge improvement in absolute numbers of dead and kidnapped in the cities, but the murder rates - even in Medellin and Bogota, the two shining stars as far as declines go - are still on the level of fairly violent US cities (and seem to be creeping upward this year).
Colombia is a success story...relative to Colombia hace veinte anos, and there are some institutional and technocratic security lessons to learn. But I hesitate to hold it up as an example for others, given the continuing human rights catastrophe in the countryside and the means of achieving "control" in the cities. Even with the rash of rights complaints against the military in Juarez, it's still a far cry from Operation Orion in Medellin.
I suspect we haven't heard more than the tip of the iceberg as far as Mexican rights abuses are concerned, but based on what has trickled out so far it seems unlikely to approach anything like what went on and to a certain degree goes on still in Colombia.
I also tend to think Mexico's criminal situation is going to more and more resemble the US's rather than Colombia's in future years. One thing that is not being reported so much is how much of the recent spike is due not to fighting over smuggling routes but gang turf wars like you'd see in American cities. It's too soon to draw any concrete conclusions, but regional gangs like la Familia Michoacana and el Teo's gang in Tijuana are starting to take on greater significance, and the hierarchical national groups, it would seem, are ceding some ground to these newer groups.
Post a Comment