Cynicism and Disproportion in the U.S.
Yesterday, at a conference at the University of Texas at El Paso, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano warned that if Mexican drug cartels engage in violence in the United States they “will be met with an overwhelming response” from the federal government. Immediately after, she denied that the border is subject to out-of-control violence. To support her claim she cited statistics on the reduction in detentions of undocumented immigrants and the increase in the confiscation of illegal money and arms.
Instead of Napolitano’s threats — which lack the moderation and restraint that should be the hallmark of any government pronouncement — it would be preferable if Washington would carry out concrete steps to prosecute and dismantle the criminal organizations that operate in its own country, to reduce the insatiable demand for illicit narcotics in the United States, or at least, to reduce the flow of arms, money and chemical ingredients to Mexico, as these are the primary fuel for the groups that Napolitano alludes to. But while the social, political and institutional life in Mexico are severely disrupted by criminal gangs, in U.S. cities — not only on the border — narcotics trafficking, distribution and consumption go on as usual, and the country is not assailed by the shoot-outs, executions and kidnappings usually associated with the drug trade.
Given the disconnect between the words and actions of the authorities in Washington when it comes to drug trafficking, one must remember that the central efforts of this government in recent decades has not really been to take on the root causes of the phenomenon — among them the corruption that is rampant in institutional spheres — so much as to export the actions destined to eradicate it, through interventionist policies, and with the help of unquestioning foreign governments.
Before these considerations, the sudden concern that the violence that is taking place in Mexico may spread to American cities smacks of cynicism and a double standard.
In addition, the fact that an official cites statistics about detentions at the border as well as confiscations of drugs and arms as examples of a successful strategy for controlling our common border, demonstrates once again the distorted vision of the political class in Washington, which equates the danger of illegal immigration with that of drug trafficking, when in fact the actions taken to combat the two phenomena are lopsided and almost contradictory. While the White House makes copious investments in the prosecution of undocumented immigrants — primarily Mexicans — their efforts to combat drug trafficking have been more than lazy.
Instead of Napolitano’s threats — which lack the moderation and restraint that should be the hallmark of any government pronouncement — it would be preferable if Washington would carry out concrete steps to prosecute and dismantle the criminal organizations that operate in its own country, to reduce the insatiable demand for illicit narcotics in the United States, or at least, to reduce the flow of arms, money and chemical ingredients to Mexico, as these are the primary fuel for the groups that Napolitano alludes to. But while the social, political and institutional life in Mexico are severely disrupted by criminal gangs, in U.S. cities — not only on the border — narcotics trafficking, distribution and consumption go on as usual, and the country is not assailed by the shoot-outs, executions and kidnappings usually associated with the drug trade.
Given the disconnect between the words and actions of the authorities in Washington when it comes to drug trafficking, one must remember that the central efforts of this government in recent decades has not really been to take on the root causes of the phenomenon — among them the corruption that is rampant in institutional spheres — so much as to export the actions destined to eradicate it, through interventionist policies, and with the help of unquestioning foreign governments.
Before these considerations, the sudden concern that the violence that is taking place in Mexico may spread to American cities smacks of cynicism and a double standard.
In addition, the fact that an official cites statistics about detentions at the border as well as confiscations of drugs and arms as examples of a successful strategy for controlling our common border, demonstrates once again the distorted vision of the political class in Washington, which equates the danger of illegal immigration with that of drug trafficking, when in fact the actions taken to combat the two phenomena are lopsided and almost contradictory. While the White House makes copious investments in the prosecution of undocumented immigrants — primarily Mexicans — their efforts to combat drug trafficking have been more than lazy.