Calderon-Obama Summit
Published in El Universal
(Mexico) on 3 March 2011
by Mauricio Meschoulam (link to original)
(Mexico) on 3 March 2011
by Mauricio Meschoulam (link to original)
Translated from
by Joseph Locatelli.
Edited by Sam Carter.
They say the summit will not be marked by the issue of safety. The agenda is not dominated by drugs. There are many more questions in this summit, and the bilateral subject matter is ample. The meeting is already planned; as Carney, the press secretary, said: “The president is deeply committed to the strong partnership the United States has with Mexico.” The reality is that if we seek to understand this type of high-level meeting exclusively in the context of the last weeks, we will have an incomplete vision regarding this matter. It is necessary to go back a bit. There are movements, environments and contexts, and there is discourse.
It deals with an important sector of the United States’ public administration, and aside from that, one can see a growing risk through what occurs in our country (for its national security, through our border). Already, some months ago in Excélsior (Nov. 2, 2010) Armando Azúa documented the presence of important think tanks in the State Department’s discourse with respect to the use of terminology including failed-state, narco-insurgency and narco-terrorism. He talked about analysts such as John Sullivan and his reports for the Small Wars Journal or those of the Center for a New American Security. As we have analyzed in the Media Watchdog of the Ibero-American University, the use of these kinds of expressions is independent of phenomena such as terrorism.
The strategic use of discourse on the part of important actors in the U.S. reflects an intention that can be drawn with clarity. WikiLeaks revealed the perception of certain members of their own State Department regarding the weakness of our government to confront the security crisis. Subsequently, Under Secretary of the Army Joseph Westphal said that before the potential danger of the cartels taking control of the Mexican government, the United States would be obliged to intervene — including crossing the border. Later, Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, affirmed the risk of a nexus between al-Qaida and organized crime in the country. Once again, this is not to validate the existence of such a nexus but only to understand the direction of the language. The logic is not too difficult to understand: “There is danger south of our border. We are too focused on what goes on in our latitudes when we should be more present to detain the risk of possible contagions. We should assign economic and human resources to such an objective.” To make matters worse, an attack occurs against two Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Afterward, there are more declarations from one side or another, more filtered cables and declarations. This is the context of the summit.
Obama, it seems, was not very convinced about the discourse with respect to Mexico that had been woven from the Pentagon to the State Department, passing through the Department of Homeland Security. This was revealed in September of 2010 when he changed Clinton’s plan with his declarations. Mexico, to him, is not comparable to Colombia. This was not an “insurgency” but an ample and progressive democracy, which defines our country. But that was then, not now. Time passes, and the pressure builds.
Surely the meeting of these presidents will seek to reestablish ties of communication in order to avoid misunderstandings. But it is quite possible that the Obama of today, aged a few years due to the world in which he has lived, would have other kinds of ideas regarding what should be done with Mexico. It does not surprise us that the influences from at least three fronts within the administration have finally had a strong impact on his perception; the Democratic president is thus considering more ways to get more active in the complicated situation in our country to change course and not extend beyond our borders.
The agenda that unites and separates our countries is large and complicated. But today Obama seems to have much to face in the world that is slipping through his hands. How can he pay attention to other things than the national security of his country?
It deals with an important sector of the United States’ public administration, and aside from that, one can see a growing risk through what occurs in our country (for its national security, through our border). Already, some months ago in Excélsior (Nov. 2, 2010) Armando Azúa documented the presence of important think tanks in the State Department’s discourse with respect to the use of terminology including failed-state, narco-insurgency and narco-terrorism. He talked about analysts such as John Sullivan and his reports for the Small Wars Journal or those of the Center for a New American Security. As we have analyzed in the Media Watchdog of the Ibero-American University, the use of these kinds of expressions is independent of phenomena such as terrorism.
The strategic use of discourse on the part of important actors in the U.S. reflects an intention that can be drawn with clarity. WikiLeaks revealed the perception of certain members of their own State Department regarding the weakness of our government to confront the security crisis. Subsequently, Under Secretary of the Army Joseph Westphal said that before the potential danger of the cartels taking control of the Mexican government, the United States would be obliged to intervene — including crossing the border. Later, Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, affirmed the risk of a nexus between al-Qaida and organized crime in the country. Once again, this is not to validate the existence of such a nexus but only to understand the direction of the language. The logic is not too difficult to understand: “There is danger south of our border. We are too focused on what goes on in our latitudes when we should be more present to detain the risk of possible contagions. We should assign economic and human resources to such an objective.” To make matters worse, an attack occurs against two Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. Afterward, there are more declarations from one side or another, more filtered cables and declarations. This is the context of the summit.
Obama, it seems, was not very convinced about the discourse with respect to Mexico that had been woven from the Pentagon to the State Department, passing through the Department of Homeland Security. This was revealed in September of 2010 when he changed Clinton’s plan with his declarations. Mexico, to him, is not comparable to Colombia. This was not an “insurgency” but an ample and progressive democracy, which defines our country. But that was then, not now. Time passes, and the pressure builds.
Surely the meeting of these presidents will seek to reestablish ties of communication in order to avoid misunderstandings. But it is quite possible that the Obama of today, aged a few years due to the world in which he has lived, would have other kinds of ideas regarding what should be done with Mexico. It does not surprise us that the influences from at least three fronts within the administration have finally had a strong impact on his perception; the Democratic president is thus considering more ways to get more active in the complicated situation in our country to change course and not extend beyond our borders.
The agenda that unites and separates our countries is large and complicated. But today Obama seems to have much to face in the world that is slipping through his hands. How can he pay attention to other things than the national security of his country?