And Now Obama’s Angry!

The death of three Americans in Ciudad Juarez angers Americans, but in Mexico many people have been fed up with the violence for much longer.

In the ‘60s, the legendary Bob Dylan said: “When you’re lost in the rain in Juarez, and it’s Easter time, too; when your gravity fails you and negativity don’t pull you through, don’t put on any airs …” And I would add: for God’s sake, don’t even think about it.

“They had to kill three gringos for people to realize that the problem in Ciudad Juarez is huge.” It sounds unjust, it sounds hard, it sounds cruel. And it is. But the perception is beginning to sink in. The man on the street, the pundits, many others. There are deaths, and then there are deaths, some say. They don’t all have the same value, say others. For some, the important deaths are useful, because they attract attention; for the rest, they just show the “official disdain” for an obvious situation.

It was Sunday, and it was also a religious holiday. But in Mexico, there is no cease-fire. Dozens were assassinated in Acapulco, that legendary Pacific beachfront city. During the week when Mexican beaches fill up with hordes of late adolescents escaping their American routines to celebrate Spring break — in that space, dozens dead. Of course, far from the tourist crowds, but Acapulco is not such a big city and the news does not stay contained in an immediate area. We hear about all of it, because blood sells, and news of dead people has a way of getting around. That’s the way it is. Up until that point — and I know I sound cynical — it was all local.

Things changed that afternoon.

Three people, one of them pregnant, are gunned down in Ciudad Juarez. It would seem a common piece of news, except for one detail: they are Americans, or they are linked to the American consulate in that city. Lesley A. Enríquez, Arturo Haycock Redelf and Alberto Salcido Ceniceros. Deplorable deaths, without a doubt; dramatic, like all human loss. They died at different times, but all in what appeared to be planned ambushes. The unforgettable image: an infant crying silently, sitting in the back seat of one of the bullet-ridden cars. The silent cry of undeniable trauma. As if she knew that screaming makes no sense, and, besides, it’s dangerous.

The following Monday, the Mexican media reports the event and people’s reactions. With some exceptions, they all agree: Obama is indignant, and, above all, angry. The president of the United States did express his anger, beginning that same Sunday. Secretary Clinton did as well. The U.S. media went from reporting the violence in certain parts of Mexico as an everyday occurrence to lamenting the unjust death of their own. It seems to me we should not expect anything different. Mexico protests when the U.S. is going to execute a Mexican, but there is no clear and constant condemnation of the death penalty in that country. Things truly hurt when they apply to us. Otherwise, they are just news, for our reference, or occasionally, they provide perspective for decision-making.

Through the voice of President Calderón, Mexico condemns the murder of the Americans and promises to investigate the matter. This also coincides with a visit to Juarez by Calderon himself, spiced up with the “PowerPoint gaff.” Before the civil society of Juarez, the secretary of public security uses electronic slides to present the figures that prove there has been a decrease in the number of murders, kidnappings and violent acts in Juarez. The message is clear: you are probably afraid, and you see corpses, but in my PowerPoint we are approaching a better world. If you don’t believe me, the problem is your perception; the real reality is different. In any case, the condemnation of the murders of the Americans still stands. Although Calderon’s complaint manages to leak out, they must take some responsibility; this is not only Mexico’s war.

Let’s face it, the death of some American citizens was inevitable, sooner or later, given the course of events. There were, we are now learning, previous threats and obvious misunderstandings. The border is so much of a no-man’s land and an every man’s land that Mexicans and Americans share the same context, though not always the same destiny. But, as in everything, form is reality, actions matter, and our gestures betray us. Thus, the Mexican media seemed almost frightened by Obama’s anger — as if some parent had caught us doing something wrong — and, thus, the government, beginning with the president, showed a sensitivity to the deaths of foreigners that it had never shown to the deaths of its own people. This is the reason for the recurring comments: “They had to kill three gringos for people to realize that the problem in Ciudad Juarez is huge.”

“Now all the authorities, they just lay around and boast how they blackmailed the sergeant at arms into leaving his post, and picking up Angel who just arrived out here from the coast, who looked so fine at first, but who left just looking like a ghost.” Yes, Dylan still belongs to the ‘60s, as does walking around lost in Juarez.

Gentlemen, decision makers and those who advise decision makers, let’s not pretend that they are saviors of the nation, not even from problems that came from far away … We know that Juarez, Acapulco and Torreón … are deep wounds. We understand the reaction to Obama’s anger. But please, don’t make us feel that some deaths are more important than others. If the very lamentable murder of three Americans speeds the taking back of our public spaces, then they will have counted for something. It will not be the first time the death of a famous or important person helped bring about a change. But even so, there must be some consideration. Obama’s anger will fade, but many of us Mexicans have been angry for a long time.

And not even Bob Dylan walks the streets of Juarez anymore.