Skip to main content

Why Were DOJ Charges Against Cienfuegos Dropped?

Because, as Christian Merch (see below) could tell us, narco-trafficking in Mexico is just not that much of a priority for the United States.  It certainly wasn’t during the Operation Condor of the 1970s; it took a decided backseat to counterinsurgency, with the prerogatives of the CIA always trumping those of law enforcement agencies like the DEA and the FBI.  Nor was drug enforcement all that important during the 1990s.  Most border arrests were of low level traffickers - the most easily replaced foot soldiers in the Drug War, who were trying to move, bulkier, lower value products such as marijuana.  Their apprehension was, as Peter Andreas suggests in Border Games, mostly to demonstrate that the government was doing something about narcotrafficking, but drug dealing took a back seat to NAFTA and, consequently, that a border designed to accelerate licit flows of goods would also facilitate illicit flows as well.  Today, according to Tim Golden’s story about Salvador Cienfuegos, the war on drugs takes a back set to the control over immigration flows.  Here are some of the conclusions from Golden’s story: 

"Joint operations against drug traffickers came to a standstill. U.S. agents reported being followed by what appeared to be Mexican Army surveillance teams. In the new bicentennial framework for security cooperation put in place after Mexico’s unilateral abandonment of the Mérida pact, joint operations against organized-crime groups were  so scarcely mentioned."

"The Biden administration had other priorities. “The agenda consists of immigration, immigration and immigration,” one senior Mexican official told me. That suited López Obrador fine. His challenge to U.S. law-enforcement goals was met with silence in Washington."

"What neither government has acknowledged publicly is that Mexico’s national security — and that of the United States — may be more seriously at risk than ever from organized crime. The Mexican government has backed away from confronting gangs without reducing their power or violence. The loss of trust between the two governments has undercut already troubled efforts to reform the Mexican justice system. Many Mexican analysts saw Cienfuegos’s exoneration as an especially powerful message of impunity to the military just as it was taking even greater control of law enforcement."

Bill Barr killed the prosecution because he thought it would harm U.S.-Mexican relations.  It turns out that this was a point of view shared by the Biden administration as well, which is worried about immigration and depends on Mexico’s willingness to interdict migration flows as a part of its strategy for managing the U.S.-Mexican border.  What is Biden so worried about?  Not the actual impacts of immigration, but rather the spectacle of the border broadcast through the media, which generates a widespread national unease. For no nation can be secure if its border is not secure, as I believe a recent student of mine conveyed to me recently.  What is at work here is a point raised by John Agnew concerning the nature of imagined community in the United States.   Agnew:  America has been defined not so much by a common past…as through a shared geography” (50) with the American territory comprising the body of the nation (I would suggest).  Disorder at the border is an attack on the body of the nation.  

For Golden, these are misplaced priorities because of the immense damage narco-trafficking is inflicting on the United States.  Stephanie Brewer of the Washington Office on Latin America comes to a similar conclusion.  Mexico is willing to engage in militarized whack a mole drug enforcement, as evidenced by the capture of Joaquin Guzman, one of the sons of El Chapo.  His apprehension by the military generated a violent response from the Sinaloa cartel in the city of Cuilacan, similar to the 2019, only this time Lopez Obrador went through with the arrest and incarceration of Guzman (in this case, a different son of El Chapo). This coincided with Biden’s summit with the leaders of Canada and Mexico - proof that Mexico can police (however ineffectively) its own territory. That’s nice, but it is not the top priority for the U.S., which is managing migration and avoiding political fallout, but this is a fool’s errand, Brewer suggests, because Biden’s critics will never be satisfied with what he does.  What he is doing is externalizing migration problems to Mexico, turning Mexico into a combination of warehouse and interdiction zone for migrants, most of whom are wanting to exercise their legal right to claim asylum in the United States.  The people who pay the cost of U.S. policy priorities are, of course, the migrants themselves but also Mexicans subject to the violence organized crime and its complex linkages to the Mexican state.  One way of summarizing this is: political interests of political elites in both Mexico and the United States first and human rights/security interests of migrants and Mexicans, a very distant second. 




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is the Exclusionary Nation State Justified?

Who gets to be part of a political community?  More generally how should membership in a political community be determined?  I would like to start by looking at this debate in theoretical terms and then, in a follow up post, consider how this debate is taking place today.  Joseph Carens (1987) is an advocate for open borders, based on the idea that liberal ideas are universal in scope and limit government authority (of any territorial state) to keep people from being able to move around the earth as they choose. Michael Walzer (1983) develops a communitarian critique of liberalism, which insists on the primacy of community over individual rights and hence the right of communities to determine membership policy in whatever way they like.  These arguments are rehearsed below.                  Walzer, “The Distribution of Membership” Walzer focuses on a fundamental question of rights.  Not which rights ...

Movement of October 28

This blog post is a preliminary sketch of the October 28 Movement in Puebla, Mexico.  I will start with some theoretical points of reference and then move on to discuss the movement. The sociologist William Robinson is a key theorist of globalization.  He argues that globalization is shaped by a transnational capitalist class.  In terms of theories of imperialism, this is very different from Lenin´s thesis of inter-imperialist rivalry.  There is conflict between states in terms of how they position themselves within the global economy, a phenomena which can be understood in terms of the concept of the competitition state.  But the primary lines of conflict in the world today are not between states, but between transnational capital and the great majority of people in the world whose livelihoods, communities and environments are uprooted, dislocated or destroyed by the encroachment of transnational circuits of capitalist accumulation.  This is exactly what...

Cholula Viva y Digna: People's Power in Puebla

Yesterday the study abroad class that I have been teaching in Cholula, Mexico met with journalist, Samantha Paez Guzman, Adan Xicale, an attorney and social activist, and his son, Paula Xicale, also a local activist.  They told us about the movement Cholula Viva y Digna.  The movement began in 2014 when the governor of the state of Puebla, Rafael Moreno Valle (of the PAN) announced a plan to develop the archeological zone in Cholula. To tell the story of Cholula Viva y Digna, some background about the archeological zone is in order.  At the center of this zone is the grand pyramid of Cholula, the largest pyramid in the world.  Cholula has been inhabited since 1500 BC and a series of civilizations have flourished there.  During the colonial period, the Spaniards used the stones of the ancient temples to build their churches.  In Cholula, they buried the great pyramid by building a hill over it and then constructing the Church of the Virgen de los Re...