Last fall in a packed auditorium of over 1,000 “juarences” (Ciudad Juárez citizens), Sergio Fajardo, former mayor of Medellín and vice-presidential candidate of Colombia, recounted the story of how Medellín turned the odds around and got off the list of the world’s most insecure and violent cities. The main ingredient in Medellín’s recipe for success was to invest in public spaces in the most dangerous and marginal neighborhoods of the city. The youth need alternatives. They need nice looking parks, schools and libraries where they could “hang out” and stay out of trouble. Fajardo showed pictures of neighborhoods being transformed by high-quality, prize-winning architectural buildings and other public spaces along with statistics of declining crime rates. His message was clear: if Medellín did it, so can Juárez. Attendees walked out of the auditorium full of hope and empowerment.
By contrast, a couple of weeks ago — in a public act of complete despair after the murder of another one of its reporters — the editors of the Ciudad Juárez newspaper El Diario, devoted the editorial to openly ask the cartels what they want from the press, “¿Qúe quieren de nosotros?” which translates to “What Do You Want From Us?”
Comparing Juárez to Medellín, or the scenario brought about by Mexican drug cartels to that by the Colombian FARCs, or to “Colombianize” Mexico, confuses more than clarifies Mexico’s complex situation. Although we can draw certain parallels from general narco-business practices in one country compared to another, each country operates this business under its own peculiar realities. Each single country involved in the production, consumption or transit of drugs has different manifestations of the problems this multibillion-dollar business brings. Mexico is the only country in the world that shares a 2,000 mile-long border with a rich and powerful neighbor that is a prime market for an illicit product Mexico sells.
The late Carlos Rico, who was a visiting fellow for Latin American Affairs at Baker Institute for Public Policy and a former Mexican Undersecretary for North America, was very clear about the power of perceptions. He would emphatically say that when things are perceived as real, they are real in their consequences. Mexican President Calderón and his administration are particularly sensitive to the images used to describe the insecurity problems Mexico is currently facing because of the consequences they may bring. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mention of Mexico’s fight with the cartels resembling that of Colombia’s insurgencies of the 1980s was an image too grave and inaccurate for the Calderón administration to ignore. The day after her comment, President Obama made it clear that that kind of image was not going to be part of the official discourse.
Another important issue during this difficult time for Mexico is Calderón’s decision to give the military a prominent role. His administration clearly knows the use of military force will not bring down the cartels. It knows a more effective tool would be the “on-the -ground” intelligence that involves local police and takes years to develop. However, given the fact that several local police forces — and in many cases parts of local governments — have been infiltrated by the cartels, the military was seen as the only readily available option. It is a temporary measure taken under desperate circumstances that has had serious consequences. In the meantime, Calderón is starting the slow process of restructuring Mexico’s police force. He presented Congress with the “Mando Único Policial,” a constitutional reform unanimously endorsed by the 32 governors that dismantles and merges the more than 2,000 independent municipal police forces into 32 state forces under one command.
While Mexico is going through the thorny growing pains a new democracy with its history has to endure, it needs all the help it can get from the international community and especially from the countries in the neighborhood.
Erika de la Garza is the program director of the Latin American Initiative at the Baker Institute. Her chief areas of interest include U.S.-Latin American relations; emerging leadership; coalition building between public, private and civil society actors; and trade and business development in Latin America.