United States: Enemy or Ally?

Nearly seven months since the tactical Operation Fast and Furious — in which the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) allowed into Mexico more than 2,000 assault rifles, 50 sniper rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition that ended up in the hands of drug cartels — the Los Angeles Times wrote about a similar operation called Wide Receiver, coordinated by the ATF itself between 2006 and 2007 with the knowledge of senior Justice Department officials.

The data indicate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the delivery of high-caliber weapons by U.S. officials to criminal groups operating in Mexico is not an isolated event or product of a “mistake” as Mexican President Felipe Calderon said last week, referring to Fast and Furious, but part of a pattern of conduct. In light of available evidence, it is now possible to know that while the Bush administration negotiated and signed with Calderon’s government the Merida Initiative — a bilateral assistance agreement in which Washington pledged to guide, advise and equip Mexican authorities — from a public office in Washington, the power of criminal organizations south of the Rio Grande was fed by the supply of a destructive arsenal.

The actions taken by the U.S. government for the various sides involved in the “war crime” are no longer a surprise. If anything has characterized the international projection of that country’s war on drugs and security, it is precisely the immorality and double standards of its officers. A recent instance was the statement of the alleged drug trafficker Vicente Zambada Niebla to an Illinois court, where he mentions that officers of the DEA, FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement gave their consent to conduct illegal activities between January 2004 and March 2009.

The veracity of the words of an alleged drug dealer seem uncertain, but it is more difficult to deny this fact when official documents that account for Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver as criminal operations demonstrate the complicity of U.S. authorities to Mexican crime. It is difficult to explain the actions of the U.S. public authorities — the supply of arms to factions which an allied government has declared its main enemy — without attributing it to a destabilizing context.

It is also difficult to understand the Mexican government’s efforts to maintain a pact of cooperation on fighting crime and reestablishment of security with a partner as unreliable as Washington. If the Calderon administration was aware of the Wide Receiver operation, their decision to subscribe, under such conditions, to the mentioned bilateral agreement with the United States would have been extremely serious; however, the Mexican government was not aware of the operation. This would be indicative of an inexcusable lack of understanding of the challenges to public safety and the nation, knowledge that is a precondition for the formulation of any strategy with minimal prospects of success in those areas.

It is inevitable to identify, in the ambiguity of Washington, reasons that explain the failure of the current security strategy, which has resulted in 50,000 deaths so far. It has caused the destruction of the social and economic network in wide swaths of territory, as well as the exacerbated erosion of the institutions responsible for safeguarding the security and territorial integrity and seeking justice. Last but not least, this failure of the current security strategy has led to an unacceptable surrender of national sovereignty at the expense of the neighboring country.

In conclusion, the least we would expect from the authorities after the revelation of these operations is to halt the Merida Initiative immediately while it is being revised, since the United States government does not offer a plausible explanation for its double play. An exact definition of the U.S. status in the armed conflict will clarify the bleeding of Mexico; after the discovery of the Wide Receiver operation, it is unclear whether the U.S. is an ally or enemy.