Doing the Work of the World’s Policemen
Published in La Cronica de Hoy
(Mexico) on 13 February 2011
by Jesus Martinez Alvarez (link to original)
Paul Babeau, sheriff of Pinal County, Ariz., says that he sends officials to the deserted zone of Vekoi Valley to confront Mexican cartels.
Inspired by the statements of the under secretary of the U.S. Army, Joseph W. Westphal, the sheriff does not hesitate to say that “we are talking about cartels that have almost brought down the Mexican government.” It reached the point where Ms. Napolitano expressed the “presumption” of the alleged complicity between al-Qaida and the Zetas.
Who knows how to understand what Sheriff Babeau says? We don’t even know if he understands. It is evident, however, that his statement is a product of a certain alarmism, regardless of the seriousness of Ms. Napolitano's allegations.
In this gap we have become critical of the governmental strategy in its fight against drug trafficking, and we have exposed the gravity of the situation. That now leaves us with the purpose of minimizing the problem. But we cannot overlook the disproportionate and inappropriate statements of U.S. officials.
The first was aforementioned Joseph W. Westphal, who asserted that “there is a form of insurgency in Mexico with the drug cartels that’s right on our border.” And he added that the situation could “provoke the United States to have to send soldiers, both at the border and through it, to fight the insurgency.”
No, it cannot be compared to an insurgency. The drug traffickers are not idealists or guerrillas, neither social combatants nor revolutionaries. They wish to continue operating a business whose profits means multimillion dollar earnings. They want economic and criminal power. They want to buy cars and jewelry and even government agents, but they do not want the government.
A guerrilla, although wrong in his methods, lives austerely. He sacrifices his comfort for an idea, doesn't buy or rent property in Lomas de Chapultepec or in Huixquilucan or gild his AK-47 or engrave his initials on it.
A guerrilla usually thinks of the people he fights for. His attacks are always directed at elements of the state. He wants a new order. For that reason he is an insurgent.
The harassed trafficker can appeal to terror and he does it. Of little importance are his innocent victims. But it is not his ideal world. He would like business to flourish in the shade and enjoy his money in the light. Although he can and does organize great banquets at his house, not able to resist the temptation of the feast, which he always wanted to have and was not able, confirming his economic ascent. He wants to feel like a relevant part of the world he does not intend to change.
Furthermore, affirmation of the sheriff in the sense that the cartels are almost bringing down the Mexican government is absurd. Or maybe it keeps within its folds the heroic desire that almost all Americans dream of. We are the global police, they say.
By this conviction, they talk of going to the border and through it to bring order. They go where they are invited and where they are not. They are justice. They dictate it and make it possible. There are many countries that can give testimony to this American sensation, the same one it takes to orchestrate coups to invade nations, always with the argument of freedom and justice.
Yes, they should be worried because the fight in Mexico against crime is developing in a neighboring country. Reminding them that what the drug traffickers sell is consumed beyond the border. That if they had taken provisions against the drug market it would not have expanded so much and the cartels never would have attained the economic power that they have today.
They also forget that many of the weapons that organized crime in Mexico uses come from the United States, where one can acquire weaponry freely with basic requirements. The border that has so much surveillance of Mexico toward the U.S. is completely porous from there to here. Because of this, weapons pass into Mexican territory for whoever wants them. They also launder $500 billion annually.
Yes, much is what they have to do. But not here — instead up there. If they pursued drug traffickers there as they want to do here, or if they decriminalized the production and sale of drugs, the scene would change dramatically in Mexico.
As there is no interest or effectiveness in the United States to prevent drug consumption or to fight drug trafficking, the state, the Navy and the Mexican police have to confront crime and are more powerfully armed every time. Mexican territory has turned into a battleground so that they don't bring any more drugs to Americans than the thousands of them consume. It is known and it is forgotten: If there is no one to buy, there is no one to sell. I hope that they apply that there, so that there is no more bloodshed here.
It seems paradoxical, but our law enforcement officials are doing the work of the “world's policemen.”
Inspired by the statements of the under secretary of the U.S. Army, Joseph W. Westphal, the sheriff does not hesitate to say that “we are talking about cartels that have almost brought down the Mexican government.” It reached the point where Ms. Napolitano expressed the “presumption” of the alleged complicity between al-Qaida and the Zetas.
Who knows how to understand what Sheriff Babeau says? We don’t even know if he understands. It is evident, however, that his statement is a product of a certain alarmism, regardless of the seriousness of Ms. Napolitano's allegations.
In this gap we have become critical of the governmental strategy in its fight against drug trafficking, and we have exposed the gravity of the situation. That now leaves us with the purpose of minimizing the problem. But we cannot overlook the disproportionate and inappropriate statements of U.S. officials.
The first was aforementioned Joseph W. Westphal, who asserted that “there is a form of insurgency in Mexico with the drug cartels that’s right on our border.” And he added that the situation could “provoke the United States to have to send soldiers, both at the border and through it, to fight the insurgency.”
No, it cannot be compared to an insurgency. The drug traffickers are not idealists or guerrillas, neither social combatants nor revolutionaries. They wish to continue operating a business whose profits means multimillion dollar earnings. They want economic and criminal power. They want to buy cars and jewelry and even government agents, but they do not want the government.
A guerrilla, although wrong in his methods, lives austerely. He sacrifices his comfort for an idea, doesn't buy or rent property in Lomas de Chapultepec or in Huixquilucan or gild his AK-47 or engrave his initials on it.
A guerrilla usually thinks of the people he fights for. His attacks are always directed at elements of the state. He wants a new order. For that reason he is an insurgent.
The harassed trafficker can appeal to terror and he does it. Of little importance are his innocent victims. But it is not his ideal world. He would like business to flourish in the shade and enjoy his money in the light. Although he can and does organize great banquets at his house, not able to resist the temptation of the feast, which he always wanted to have and was not able, confirming his economic ascent. He wants to feel like a relevant part of the world he does not intend to change.
Furthermore, affirmation of the sheriff in the sense that the cartels are almost bringing down the Mexican government is absurd. Or maybe it keeps within its folds the heroic desire that almost all Americans dream of. We are the global police, they say.
By this conviction, they talk of going to the border and through it to bring order. They go where they are invited and where they are not. They are justice. They dictate it and make it possible. There are many countries that can give testimony to this American sensation, the same one it takes to orchestrate coups to invade nations, always with the argument of freedom and justice.
Yes, they should be worried because the fight in Mexico against crime is developing in a neighboring country. Reminding them that what the drug traffickers sell is consumed beyond the border. That if they had taken provisions against the drug market it would not have expanded so much and the cartels never would have attained the economic power that they have today.
They also forget that many of the weapons that organized crime in Mexico uses come from the United States, where one can acquire weaponry freely with basic requirements. The border that has so much surveillance of Mexico toward the U.S. is completely porous from there to here. Because of this, weapons pass into Mexican territory for whoever wants them. They also launder $500 billion annually.
Yes, much is what they have to do. But not here — instead up there. If they pursued drug traffickers there as they want to do here, or if they decriminalized the production and sale of drugs, the scene would change dramatically in Mexico.
As there is no interest or effectiveness in the United States to prevent drug consumption or to fight drug trafficking, the state, the Navy and the Mexican police have to confront crime and are more powerfully armed every time. Mexican territory has turned into a battleground so that they don't bring any more drugs to Americans than the thousands of them consume. It is known and it is forgotten: If there is no one to buy, there is no one to sell. I hope that they apply that there, so that there is no more bloodshed here.
It seems paradoxical, but our law enforcement officials are doing the work of the “world's policemen.”
Previous article![]( "The World after Mubarak")
