What Westphal Meant
Published in EL Universal
(Mexico) on 11 February 2011
by Ana Maria Salazar (link to original)
(Mexico) on 11 February 2011
by Ana Maria Salazar (link to original)
Translated from
by Julie Paige.
Edited by Amy Wong.
In the past days, the comments about the security (or insecurity) situation in Mexico, made by United States government officials, are maddening to the Mexican government. Before the contradictions of Obama’s administration’s political expressions, it seem that the Americans are schizophrenics who seem dedicated to drive President Calderon and his security team crazy.
The comments by the undersecretary of the army, Joseph Westphal, which he expressed in a lecture at the University of Utah, displayed his worry about a drug insurgency that not only could be authorized by the government but could result in American soldiers having to fight on this side of the border. Hours later, the U.S. government publicly retracted the statement by Westphal. Hillary Clinton used the same expression of “insurgency” this past September in another academic forum, the Council on Foreign Relations. During her recent travel to Mexico in January, the word “insurgency” never came up. On the contrary, Secretary Clinton convincingly came out to defend President Calderon’s strategy, even more so than the National Action Party.
What is going on? Why such contradictory positions by the U.S.?
The answer is simple. There isn’t consensus.
First of all, in order to understand what the true feelings of American government officials are, I suggest that you carefully follow the comments made in Congress and in the U.S. Senate hearings. This week they witnessed Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper both stressing their worry about not only what happened in Mexico today but what could happen in the future. We should take into account that all the officials testified under oath, and these hearings require certain preparation from government officials and legislators. This guarantees that their comments reflect the true position and concerns of the U.S. government. One can deduce by their comments whether or not they are worried. The question is, is there anyone who is not worried by what is happening and what could happen in Mexico in the following years?
When one sees other factors that would define the feelings of Americans, the truth is that Americans continue to have faith in Mexico. Despite the State Department publishing 14 alerts in 2010 asking their citizens not to travel to 12 states in Mexico, around 19 million Americans visited this country in the past year and Americans continue to invest between $17 and $19 billion in Mexico. In fact, each year thousands of Americans decide to move to cities like Ajijic, Vallarta, Los Cabos and San Miguel Allende. This data shows that Americans have not abandoned Mexico.
The reaction of Mexico’s government has not been the best in stride and efficiency. The secretary of Hacienda, Ernesto Cordero, believes Mexico is more secure than Miami or Detroit, as he commented this week in New York. In reality, I do not believe it. I imagine the mayor of Miami, Cuban American Tomas Regalado, is going to demand a retraction of this comment by the Mexican government.
Some government officials look to defend what they consider an attack, arguing that the United State should worry about preventing arms trafficking and reducing drug consumption instead of criticizing what is happening in the country. This is not the best response; playing the game of recrimination brings us no closer to the answer and solution we need while the insecurity situation continues to deteriorate.
Why such incongruities on the part of North American government officials? The fundamental problem of the Obama administration is the pressure from different interest groups placing their problems on the table about what could happen in Mexico. To be critical or point out what is happening in the country runs the risk of weakening the fight of President Felipe Calderon and would make bilateral relations difficult, which would further hinder the capability of the state to confront these groups of organized crime, considered among the most dangerous in the world. Do we denounce or keep quiet? Often, it’s a confusing choice.
The comments by the undersecretary of the army, Joseph Westphal, which he expressed in a lecture at the University of Utah, displayed his worry about a drug insurgency that not only could be authorized by the government but could result in American soldiers having to fight on this side of the border. Hours later, the U.S. government publicly retracted the statement by Westphal. Hillary Clinton used the same expression of “insurgency” this past September in another academic forum, the Council on Foreign Relations. During her recent travel to Mexico in January, the word “insurgency” never came up. On the contrary, Secretary Clinton convincingly came out to defend President Calderon’s strategy, even more so than the National Action Party.
What is going on? Why such contradictory positions by the U.S.?
The answer is simple. There isn’t consensus.
First of all, in order to understand what the true feelings of American government officials are, I suggest that you carefully follow the comments made in Congress and in the U.S. Senate hearings. This week they witnessed Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper both stressing their worry about not only what happened in Mexico today but what could happen in the future. We should take into account that all the officials testified under oath, and these hearings require certain preparation from government officials and legislators. This guarantees that their comments reflect the true position and concerns of the U.S. government. One can deduce by their comments whether or not they are worried. The question is, is there anyone who is not worried by what is happening and what could happen in Mexico in the following years?
When one sees other factors that would define the feelings of Americans, the truth is that Americans continue to have faith in Mexico. Despite the State Department publishing 14 alerts in 2010 asking their citizens not to travel to 12 states in Mexico, around 19 million Americans visited this country in the past year and Americans continue to invest between $17 and $19 billion in Mexico. In fact, each year thousands of Americans decide to move to cities like Ajijic, Vallarta, Los Cabos and San Miguel Allende. This data shows that Americans have not abandoned Mexico.
The reaction of Mexico’s government has not been the best in stride and efficiency. The secretary of Hacienda, Ernesto Cordero, believes Mexico is more secure than Miami or Detroit, as he commented this week in New York. In reality, I do not believe it. I imagine the mayor of Miami, Cuban American Tomas Regalado, is going to demand a retraction of this comment by the Mexican government.
Some government officials look to defend what they consider an attack, arguing that the United State should worry about preventing arms trafficking and reducing drug consumption instead of criticizing what is happening in the country. This is not the best response; playing the game of recrimination brings us no closer to the answer and solution we need while the insecurity situation continues to deteriorate.
Why such incongruities on the part of North American government officials? The fundamental problem of the Obama administration is the pressure from different interest groups placing their problems on the table about what could happen in Mexico. To be critical or point out what is happening in the country runs the risk of weakening the fight of President Felipe Calderon and would make bilateral relations difficult, which would further hinder the capability of the state to confront these groups of organized crime, considered among the most dangerous in the world. Do we denounce or keep quiet? Often, it’s a confusing choice.