The Reach of the Fight against Crime
The U.S. House of Representatives is asking President Obama’s administration to detail, in its reports about the Merida initiative, the progress in their strategic goals and the reach of the help that is being given to Mexico within the framework of this bilateral agreement. The representatives of that country claim that the reports they receive only mention the contracts with the enterprises that offer the services of consulting, training and technology sales — but not whether those efforts have paid off.
This essential petition of reporting back to the neighboring country goes to the core of an essential issue in the bilateral agenda: how to measure the results and the efficiency of the struggle against organized crime in Mexico. By the number of gang leaders arrested? By the confiscations of drugs, by the price of drugs out in the streets or by levels of consumption? How can one know if there was any progress and how much is there left to achieve a point of equilibrium equal to a normal state of things?
All of this goes to say that the American domestic issue does necessarily concern us, because at the time of accepting help via the Merida initiative, Mexico got involved in – for better or for worse — the U.S. public debate. What the representatives are now asking is the definition of the bilateral agenda — not only with respect to intentions but also with respect to measurable results. There are millions of taxpayer dollars of that nation at stake, and they want to know if their resources are being well invested. They are entitled to that.
What follows is that the reach of the project and its goals are clarified, as well as the indicators to determine them. A basic perception is that if drugs keep flowing uncontrolled into U.S. territory, if the violence has already reached their cities and if the consumption does not go down (instead of continuing to grow), then the investment might be insufficient or useless. In a scheme like this one, only the contractors win, not the American citizens. This is why it is necessary to know what the original plan is and in what stage of progress it is currently in.
The Mexican government does not have to subordinate itself to the power of other nations — even if they are allies — but they do have the obligation to add transparency to their achievements and challenges to the Mexican people. In this way, clarifying the reach and the timing of the bi-national cooperation will help to provide an accurate diagnosis of the state of this struggle and the steps that they are to take.
This essential petition of reporting back to the neighboring country goes to the core of an essential issue in the bilateral agenda: how to measure the results and the efficiency of the struggle against organized crime in Mexico. By the number of gang leaders arrested? By the confiscations of drugs, by the price of drugs out in the streets or by levels of consumption? How can one know if there was any progress and how much is there left to achieve a point of equilibrium equal to a normal state of things?
All of this goes to say that the American domestic issue does necessarily concern us, because at the time of accepting help via the Merida initiative, Mexico got involved in – for better or for worse — the U.S. public debate. What the representatives are now asking is the definition of the bilateral agenda — not only with respect to intentions but also with respect to measurable results. There are millions of taxpayer dollars of that nation at stake, and they want to know if their resources are being well invested. They are entitled to that.
What follows is that the reach of the project and its goals are clarified, as well as the indicators to determine them. A basic perception is that if drugs keep flowing uncontrolled into U.S. territory, if the violence has already reached their cities and if the consumption does not go down (instead of continuing to grow), then the investment might be insufficient or useless. In a scheme like this one, only the contractors win, not the American citizens. This is why it is necessary to know what the original plan is and in what stage of progress it is currently in.
The Mexican government does not have to subordinate itself to the power of other nations — even if they are allies — but they do have the obligation to add transparency to their achievements and challenges to the Mexican people. In this way, clarifying the reach and the timing of the bi-national cooperation will help to provide an accurate diagnosis of the state of this struggle and the steps that they are to take.
You correctly assumed that the only benefit will be to the arms manufacturers, the contractors, and the prison industries and drug cartels. There’s a LOT of money invested in continuing the war on some drugs, criminalizing victimless crimes and addiction, and supplying incredibly cheap prison labor for the prison manufacturers.
Just follow the money. Who benefits?