SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
U.S. Drug Policy Feeds Violence in Mexico
The soldiers burst into Fernanda Hernandez's house at eight in the morning. There were 39 of them. Fernanda was with her two young children.
Apr 19, 2010
The soldiers burst into Fernanda Hernandez's house at eight in the morning. There were 39 of them. Fernanda was with her two young children.
"I told them we don't have any weapons," said Hernandez (not her real name). "They barged right in and rifled through everything--throwing everything on the ground--clothes, papers, even the food in my kitchen. My house is poor, made of corrugated metal. There is no security. I asked them if they had a search warrant and they didn't. They were there for a half an hour. They said we had guns and drugs but they found nothing, of course. My children are still scared."
Fernanda's experience has been replicated hundreds of times since the United States began paying Mexico to militarize its anti-drug efforts through the Merida Initiative.
And this March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top diplomatic officials traveled to Mexico to announce a "new phase" of U.S.-Mexico cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking. In her address, Clinton referred to increased funding for drug treatment programs in the U.S. and anti-poverty efforts in Mexico. Unfortunately, these positive developments were paired with a failure to recognize the inevitable outcome of any program that intends to crush drug violence with more violence: failure.
The "new phase" is a continuation of the Merida Initiative, former President George W. Bush's three-year, $1.4 billion military aid package to Mexico and Central America. The Obama administration has requested $300 million in aid to Mexico for the upcoming year, primarily to be used to fight drug traffic.
A valid evaluation of the Merida Initiative's few successes and many failures should lead to making drug treatment and poverty-fighting programs bigger priorities than military aid. The meager adjustments to the policy in its second phase are insufficient. Clinton's lip service to program modifications doesn't address the tragic human consequences of the failed "drug war" model, or the policies that keep people poor and vulnerable to the influence of drug trafficking and drug use.
Both drug use in the United States and drug trafficking in Mexico are born from deep-seated problems like poverty and the lack of economic opportunity. And since the passage of NAFTA in 1994, 2 million Mexican farmers have been displaced from their land, unable to compete with artificially cheap imports from the United States. How many days of not being able to feed your children would it take for you to be tempted by the drug trade?
Now Mexico is facing the consequences of trying to blow these problems away with military might. The Los Angeles Times reports 22,700 drug-related killings in Mexico since 2006. Murder rates continue to rise in Ciudad Juarez, despite the presence of over 10,000 troops in that city alone. Many other Mexican cities are dealing with the same problem.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have released reports detailing the harassment, torture, and murder of human rights defenders throughout the country. Reports of human rights abuses committed by police or military have increased six-fold during Calderon's term. Police officers and personnel accused of human rights abuses are tried in martial court, and in a country where most murders are not prosecuted or investigated, victims rarely receive justice.
Considering these trends, and with no decrease in drug supplies reaching the United States, why are we pursuing the same policy?
Presidents Obama and Calderon need look no further south than Colombia to see the future of the Merida Initiative. Ten years, $5.6 billion, and countless fumigations later, more coca is grown in Colombia than ever. As long as there is high demand for drugs in the United States, the illicit drug trade and all its bloody consequences won't stop.
The State Department's new agenda includes building "strong, more resilient communities" among its strategies for fighting the war on drugs. But if this goal is merely tangential to the Merida Initiative's military aid policy, the drug crisis will continue on both sides of the border.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The soldiers burst into Fernanda Hernandez's house at eight in the morning. There were 39 of them. Fernanda was with her two young children.
"I told them we don't have any weapons," said Hernandez (not her real name). "They barged right in and rifled through everything--throwing everything on the ground--clothes, papers, even the food in my kitchen. My house is poor, made of corrugated metal. There is no security. I asked them if they had a search warrant and they didn't. They were there for a half an hour. They said we had guns and drugs but they found nothing, of course. My children are still scared."
Fernanda's experience has been replicated hundreds of times since the United States began paying Mexico to militarize its anti-drug efforts through the Merida Initiative.
And this March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top diplomatic officials traveled to Mexico to announce a "new phase" of U.S.-Mexico cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking. In her address, Clinton referred to increased funding for drug treatment programs in the U.S. and anti-poverty efforts in Mexico. Unfortunately, these positive developments were paired with a failure to recognize the inevitable outcome of any program that intends to crush drug violence with more violence: failure.
The "new phase" is a continuation of the Merida Initiative, former President George W. Bush's three-year, $1.4 billion military aid package to Mexico and Central America. The Obama administration has requested $300 million in aid to Mexico for the upcoming year, primarily to be used to fight drug traffic.
A valid evaluation of the Merida Initiative's few successes and many failures should lead to making drug treatment and poverty-fighting programs bigger priorities than military aid. The meager adjustments to the policy in its second phase are insufficient. Clinton's lip service to program modifications doesn't address the tragic human consequences of the failed "drug war" model, or the policies that keep people poor and vulnerable to the influence of drug trafficking and drug use.
Both drug use in the United States and drug trafficking in Mexico are born from deep-seated problems like poverty and the lack of economic opportunity. And since the passage of NAFTA in 1994, 2 million Mexican farmers have been displaced from their land, unable to compete with artificially cheap imports from the United States. How many days of not being able to feed your children would it take for you to be tempted by the drug trade?
Now Mexico is facing the consequences of trying to blow these problems away with military might. The Los Angeles Times reports 22,700 drug-related killings in Mexico since 2006. Murder rates continue to rise in Ciudad Juarez, despite the presence of over 10,000 troops in that city alone. Many other Mexican cities are dealing with the same problem.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have released reports detailing the harassment, torture, and murder of human rights defenders throughout the country. Reports of human rights abuses committed by police or military have increased six-fold during Calderon's term. Police officers and personnel accused of human rights abuses are tried in martial court, and in a country where most murders are not prosecuted or investigated, victims rarely receive justice.
Considering these trends, and with no decrease in drug supplies reaching the United States, why are we pursuing the same policy?
Presidents Obama and Calderon need look no further south than Colombia to see the future of the Merida Initiative. Ten years, $5.6 billion, and countless fumigations later, more coca is grown in Colombia than ever. As long as there is high demand for drugs in the United States, the illicit drug trade and all its bloody consequences won't stop.
The State Department's new agenda includes building "strong, more resilient communities" among its strategies for fighting the war on drugs. But if this goal is merely tangential to the Merida Initiative's military aid policy, the drug crisis will continue on both sides of the border.
The soldiers burst into Fernanda Hernandez's house at eight in the morning. There were 39 of them. Fernanda was with her two young children.
"I told them we don't have any weapons," said Hernandez (not her real name). "They barged right in and rifled through everything--throwing everything on the ground--clothes, papers, even the food in my kitchen. My house is poor, made of corrugated metal. There is no security. I asked them if they had a search warrant and they didn't. They were there for a half an hour. They said we had guns and drugs but they found nothing, of course. My children are still scared."
Fernanda's experience has been replicated hundreds of times since the United States began paying Mexico to militarize its anti-drug efforts through the Merida Initiative.
And this March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top diplomatic officials traveled to Mexico to announce a "new phase" of U.S.-Mexico cooperation in the fight against drug trafficking. In her address, Clinton referred to increased funding for drug treatment programs in the U.S. and anti-poverty efforts in Mexico. Unfortunately, these positive developments were paired with a failure to recognize the inevitable outcome of any program that intends to crush drug violence with more violence: failure.
The "new phase" is a continuation of the Merida Initiative, former President George W. Bush's three-year, $1.4 billion military aid package to Mexico and Central America. The Obama administration has requested $300 million in aid to Mexico for the upcoming year, primarily to be used to fight drug traffic.
A valid evaluation of the Merida Initiative's few successes and many failures should lead to making drug treatment and poverty-fighting programs bigger priorities than military aid. The meager adjustments to the policy in its second phase are insufficient. Clinton's lip service to program modifications doesn't address the tragic human consequences of the failed "drug war" model, or the policies that keep people poor and vulnerable to the influence of drug trafficking and drug use.
Both drug use in the United States and drug trafficking in Mexico are born from deep-seated problems like poverty and the lack of economic opportunity. And since the passage of NAFTA in 1994, 2 million Mexican farmers have been displaced from their land, unable to compete with artificially cheap imports from the United States. How many days of not being able to feed your children would it take for you to be tempted by the drug trade?
Now Mexico is facing the consequences of trying to blow these problems away with military might. The Los Angeles Times reports 22,700 drug-related killings in Mexico since 2006. Murder rates continue to rise in Ciudad Juarez, despite the presence of over 10,000 troops in that city alone. Many other Mexican cities are dealing with the same problem.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have released reports detailing the harassment, torture, and murder of human rights defenders throughout the country. Reports of human rights abuses committed by police or military have increased six-fold during Calderon's term. Police officers and personnel accused of human rights abuses are tried in martial court, and in a country where most murders are not prosecuted or investigated, victims rarely receive justice.
Considering these trends, and with no decrease in drug supplies reaching the United States, why are we pursuing the same policy?
Presidents Obama and Calderon need look no further south than Colombia to see the future of the Merida Initiative. Ten years, $5.6 billion, and countless fumigations later, more coca is grown in Colombia than ever. As long as there is high demand for drugs in the United States, the illicit drug trade and all its bloody consequences won't stop.
The State Department's new agenda includes building "strong, more resilient communities" among its strategies for fighting the war on drugs. But if this goal is merely tangential to the Merida Initiative's military aid policy, the drug crisis will continue on both sides of the border.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.