The Multiple Risks of Border Militarization

As announced last June, yesterday the U.S. National Guard initiated the deployment of 1,200 troops to the U.S.-Mexico as part of an operation to block the entry of members of organized crime groups. Although the National Guard has insisted that the presence of American soldiers in the border area will be focused on assisting with logistics, maintenance and intelligence operations, the measure has been received with fear and rejection by social organizations and inhabitants of the border communities, who perceive that this deployment could entail more risks than solutions.

Indeed, the militarization of different border locations by the U.S. government does not necessarily represent a correct step in the fight against drug trafficking. On the contrary, such a decision is a mistaken strategy for security if it is taken into account that the common border is only one of the spaces where the actions of criminal organizations develop, despite being where these groups are concentrated and express themselves in the most violent and unmasked ways.

The formation of the military presence in the border areas seems to overlook the fact that the movement of drugs, arms and criminals across the border is, in any case, a symptom of the social and institutional breakdown, which involves many more geographic zones than the dividing line and whose attention requires a wider and more diverse range of action than simply political and military responses.

With these considerations in mind, it is possible to confirm that the deployment of a larger number of troops in the region doesn’t indicate, in itself, a blow to the power of the drug cartels or their operative and financial structures, but instead a level of risk in several fields, like human rights and national sovereignty.

As mentioned, it cannot be neglected that the deployment of National Guard troops to the border is a process of militarization that demonstrates the increasing extension of the United States throughout Latin America, from the humanitarian occupation in Haiti after last January’s earthquake to the installation of military bases in Colombia and Panama and, recently, the sending of naval officers and military ships to Costa Rica. The increasing military presence of Washington in the subcontinent is an indicator of unacceptable activity in terms of sovereignty and self-determination for some governments in the region and, furthermore, constitutes a focal point of diplomatic tensions, like those that have been expressed recently between Caracas and Bogota. It is fitting to remember that a crucial point of the present conflict between those governments has been the Colombian government’s decision to hand over military bases to the Pentagon.

In the case of the United States-Mexico border, even though the deployment takes place in American territory, the governments of both countries do not seem to understand that these circumstances entail undesirable risks for the border communities: history suggests that these types of measures present favorable conditions for the vulnerability of the territorial integrity of both states and the abuse of individual liberties.

Under the present circumstances, to combat drug trafficking, violence, and the disorder that this phenomenon entails, Washington could carry out much more efficient measures than the militarization of the border. These include dismantling the money laundering networks that operate in the American financial system, curbing the influx of arms to our country and combating corruption in its territory which facilitates the operations of criminal organizations on both sides of the Rio Grande. The militarization of the border with Mexico presents, in that sense, an unnecessary, inappropriate and risky measure.