Mexico reaches highest growth in ten years

During the1990s, after the West imposed neoliberal structural adjustment policies on debtor countries seeking financial bailout following economic collapse and financial crisis, many people and experts criticized neoliberslism for being unduly harsh on socioeconomic conditions.
However, it now appears that these policies are beginning to bear fruit. Chile and mexico, the two countriesthat most deeply implemented neoliberalism, are both now macroeconomic success stories in the region.
But many citizens have been excluded from policy decisions and have been made to best a relatively disproportionately large burden if these reforms, leading to disillusion with their democratic political systems. What is  needed now is for government to continue to craft policies aimed at bringing development and prosperity to those often neglected portions of the population, through programs like Bolsa Familiare.

Here's the BBC story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/business-12538168

Nick Harper

Troubling Signs : Republican Senators Want to Militarize CAN-US Border

I've written previously that I was in favour of the recently revealed border harmonization policies between Canada and the US. While I'm unhappy with the fact that the terms of this initiative weren't being discussed in the House of Commons, I said that I supported the specific details of this plan. Investing in the border infrastructure to speed up passage is not a risk to Canadian Sovereignty or culture, despite the knee-jerk reactions of politicians trying to capitalize on latent anti-American fear and sentiment for their own purposes (cough Ignatieff cough.) The same threat was said to be posed to Canadian culture and sovereignty by the 1988 Free Trade Agreement with the US, and again by NAFTA in 1994, and these have not been materialized either. Few today are woeing a precipitous decline of Canadian identity caused by these agreements. This border plan (as I understood it) would increase the efficiency of the economic transactions that are already in place in NAFTA, and increase prosperity for Canadian businesses.      

However, recent comments by US Republican Senators concerning the Canadian border are worrisome. Very worrisome. Jeff Duncan, Senator from South Carolina, said on 15 Feb 2011 that "the acceptable level for the American citizen is total control of our southern border, our northern border, our natural ports of entry, allowing the Americans to "determine who comes into this country, how many folks come here through legal means annually, what they come for, whether they're seeking citizenship." This militaristic view of unilateral border patrol is profoundly misguided, divorced from reality, and completely unacceptable to Canadian interests.

First off, this view is premised upon the American fear that Islamic terrorists are pouring across a porous northern border to conduct acts of terrorism against the US, like is alleged to have happened prior to 9/11.

This is just a plain selective interpretation of the facts. Granted, some of the terrorists had stop overs of a few months to a year in Canada prior to travelling Stateside. But it deemphasizes the utter failure for the CIA and FBI to share information in their possession and act in concert with one another in the years leading up to the attacks because of their own institutional egoisms. I read the Pulitzer Prize winning book "The Looming Tower" by Lawrence Wright for my International Terrorism class, which excellently details the schism between these two US agencies. The Americans had all the information they would have needed to have stopped the attacks before they happened, and tragically failed to do so.  The CIA had gathered information abroad about Al Qaeda operatives in the US, but did not relay this information to the FBI so that these people could be put under surveillance and detained. Most of the hijackers stayed for extended periods of time in the US before acting, regardless of which country they stopped over in.  The 'pilots' of the hijacked aircraft learned to fly at a Florida flight school over a period of several months, but were not arrested despite the flight school instructor reporting it suspicious that none of his students were particularly interested in learning how to land the plane. Downplaying their own country's responsibility and scapegoating others is a convenient approach for American politicians, but unfortunately neglects a more proximate cause of the 9/11 tragedy.

Second, the Republican view also discounts the effectiveness of the border controls that have been enacted since 9/11. We are all familiar with the new stringent air travel requirements. We no longer can take potentially sharp objects nail clippers or possible containers of explosives like eye contact solutions. While bothersome, I believe that these regulations are unfortunately necessary in the world we live in today and are a justifiable infringement on our Privacy rights. Air travel is not a human right, but a privilege, and if the cost of ensuring that we touch down safely at our travel destination is packing my toiletries in my suitcase rather than my carry-on, well thats fine by me. I believe it is reasonable to assume that these new regulations have been effective. The fact that terrorists have had to be increasingly inventive and resourceful in their plotting demonstrates that the new security measures have at least eliminated all the 'obvious' ways of committing atrocities. Unfortunately, the only way of knowing if the current regulations are effective or not  not is for a plot to be thwarted in action or for an attack to be 'successful'. Not exactly desirable metrics by which to support the argument for the current 'moderate' level of regulation.  

Third, the desire for some American politicians to militarize our border on top of the effective policies in place already would also further impede the flow of cross border trade. The main complaint since 9/11 emanating from Canadian businesses has been that the existing level of regulation at the border passages has slowed trade. This has hurt business on both sides of the border at a most inopportune time (ahem, the Recession.) "Total control" by the Americans would only further hinder this vital trade flow.  

Militarizing the border might be effective in the short term, but it would simply propel terrorists to search for more inventive ways of circumventing these restrictions as well. In case you don't know, the typical profile for Islamic terrorists is not a mindless uneducated religious zealot for a background of destitution, but rather a middle-class, well educated, religious moderate who has fallen under the sway of radical Islamist indoctrination.  These individuals most certainly will be able to put their educations to use and think of ways around the "Security Perimeter". Delegating border control to the US would not increase their security in the long-run, but would instead be another costly adventure further increasing their staggeringly high budget deficit and foreign debt.

What is needed is not further 'enforcement', but rather better intelligence sharing across borders.  The Canada-US border is too long to keep an omnipresent eye on, so working cooperatively with US agencies is perhaps the only way forward. Monitoring the actions of terrorist suspects is (or ought to be...) an issue of law and order like any other. That being said, Prime Minister Stephen Harper must resist becoming  implicit in shady American practices, liked "rendition" and water-boarding, and from unilaterally adopting American security laws and regulations. We also need to retain control over our own immigration policies, as migrants to Canada are a vital component of our economic development, but also of our cultural heritage. Any change to Canadian law must be done through deliberation in the House of Commons before Canada's elected representatives, who will (hopefully) deliberate over the issue in a way that reflects the interest of Canadian citizens, much as this Border Security deal should have been done in the first place.

Humourous Take on Jose's Case By Mr. Lalo Espejo

I just read this excellent article on Jose's case by Lelo Espejo, a funny Canadian political satiricist.

Mr. Espejo's offers a humourous take on this serious issue. He points out that the board member who  finally assessed that Jose was a risk to national security  immediately advised Jose to seek legal council because he will mostly likely have a strong case against the decision that he had just  made! Mr. Espejo also calls the junior CBSA who originally flagged Jose's case an "intrepid keener" who's unfamiliarity with El Salvador led him to overlook the fact that FMLN is the democratically elected government of that country.

The whole article can be read here.

UNASUR Becomes Reality Following Uruguayan Ratification

Today is a big day for South American Politics.

The constitution of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) was ratified by Uruguay, which means that it will now enter into legal being on March 11th as an official recognized regional association of states, similar to ASEAN in South East Asia, and NATO in Europe and North America.

UNASUR members include: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador,Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Canada is not a member, nor are there any plans for it become an observer associate state.

This multilateral institution is a 'collective security' body meant to deter each member from aggression against other member states, as well as to protect the region's historically shaky democracies against subversion. It also provides a forum for the nations of South America to discuss economic development and trade policies.

UNASUR first convened a Defense Council in 2004. This body provided a meeting place for the Secretaries of Defense of the various members countries to discuss national and regional defense projects and its implications for member states. This council met to discuss the US-Colombian military treaty in 2009, following a regional uproar in opposition to what many of Colombia's neighbours viewed as US encroachment in the region.

The formation of UNASUR had gone largely unnoticed by US policy makers due to their preoccupation with  the Middle East. However, the establishment of this regional body may supplant the American-backed Organization of American States (OAS), which has been tainted in the region since its inception because of its historic congruency with US foreign policy interests in the region, most notably its compliance with the CIA-backed coup against Jacabo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954. In contrast, the US is not party to UNASUR, which is viewed as manifestation of regional solidarity by its Latin American member states.

It will be very interesting to see how the US responds to the ratification of the UNASUR Constitution. Although, it is very likely that it will be a non-event for them given their current preoccupation with Egypt and the Middle East,  despite the significance of UNASUR for the Americas. Neither has Canada taken a position on this new regional institutional heavyweight - although it is obvious what it should do.

In order to strengthen our role as a regional leader and to advance democratic, economic, and social development in the Americas, Canada needs to foster these important ties with UNASUR and its member states.

Like 1988 FTA, Border Agreements Will Not Undermine Canadian Sovereignty

Voices of cultural doom wrong again

This article rightly argues that Canadian sovereignty will not be affected by the new border plans. Instead, trade and security will be enhanced.

This is the first time since the 1988 agreement that top-level dialogue has taken place between Ottawa and Washington.  Despite the allegations that the 1988 FTA would destroy Canadian culture, usher in privatization, and undermine Canadian sovereignty, none of these have come to pass.

The Canadian Governments' lack of a coherent foreign policy vision should not be confused with subservience to American policy. In fact, it is interesting to note the similarity between Ignatieff's democracy promotion agenda for Egypt and the American neoconservative plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps Canada's saving grace is that the Canadian Forces have been so thoroughly gutted that Canada poses no risk to committing that a blunder of that proportion.

'Harmonizing' the border, not transplanting security laws

Whenever cross border cooperation with the Americans comes up, a knee-jerk reaction of some Canadians is too oppose the initiative on national sovereignty grounds. 

The latest plan led by Stephen Harper has the misfortune of having been 'revealed' to the electorate rather than having been deliberated upon in the House of Commons. However, despite the lack of democratic input into the original decision, the new border plan is a good one so long as the Canadian negotiators can resist some of the Americans more unpopular demands, like sharing information on a 'No Fly List'. 

As we all know, Canada's biggest trading partner is theUSA. Most of our trade flows across this border. Speeding up this process with new border facilities cannot but increase this trade that is vital to our economic growth. 

Others might reject the plan because they view it as an unnecessary militarization of the "world's longest unprotected border". Opponents might also reject the plan in response to the view held by some Americans that the Canadian border is a porous conduit for terrorist activity. 

It is true that security is one of the areas that both sides wish to improve, and rightly so. In fact, there are several real threats to Canadian society that originate south of the border. Guns from Buffalo and Detroit make their way to Toronto street gangs, where street violence has increased in recent years. Illicit drugs is another obvious threat. Mexican drug gangs have begun creeping their way northward, and are believed by the RCMP to already set up shop in Canada. 

New border infrastructure that incorporates the latest technology will help us stem the flow of both of these US-originating harms, and keep Canadians safe. 

That being said, an appropriate response to these problems requires rehabilitative programs, in addition to better school's and community programs, in the neighborhoods that are affected. A one-sided securitization of the issue will not by itself reduce the flow of drugs and guns. 

Critics of the Harper's government should now focus on the merits of the plan itself, and not the sneaky way it was initiated. That latter conversation is tied into a much wider non partisan conversation about the nature and practices of Canada's political system.


Here is an editorial discussing the border plan along these lines.
Opening up the border

"The Economist" Map of Mexican Drug Violence, 2008-2010

The Economist has recently added "Deaths Related to Organized Crime" for the years 2008 through 2010 to it a map that shows Mexican drug trafficking routes and Cartel areas.  The map is made of a compilation of data from Texas-based STRATFOR Geopolitical Think Tank, and the Mexican Government's Official Statistics.  


The Mexican Drug War has been raging since atleast 2006 as the Calderon government declared war on the Cartels, and new groups emerged that challenged the established balance of power amongst the five original cartels. However, unlike Colombia's previous drug war that engulfed the entire country, the Economist article shows that Mexico's war is highly concentrated: in 2010, 70% of deaths occurred in 3% of the municipalities. 


The new map shows that drug-related deaths are highest in the state of Chihuahua, which contains the border town Ciudad Juarez near  El Paso, Texas. This is an area much coveted by drug traffickers and is a main trafficking route for all types of illicit drugs: methamphetamine, marijuana, ephedra, and cocaine. This state has had the most deaths over this time period, with 4,427 reported and recorded  homicides in 2010, up from 3,345 in 2009. It is predominantly under the control of the Sinaloa Federation Cartel, although this hegemony has been challenged with the emergence of the Carrillo Fuentes organization in the border areas.  


Another state experiencing growing levels of violence is Tamaulipas. In 2008, the state had 96 homicides, but in 2010 there were 1209, an increase of a factor of twelve and a half. It is a main transshipment point for cocaine from Colombia, and is near the Reynosa and Nuevo Loreda border crossings with Texas. Here, competition between Los Zetas and the Gulf Cartel has caused the violence. 

From www.davegranlund.com/cartoons/

The drug war has been a source of tension between Mexico and its Northern Neighbour. Mexican President Felipe Calderon accused the US of not doing enough to reduce demand for drugs in their own country, which many Latin American's view as the primary cause of their struggle against international drug trafficking cartels. Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos called for international cooperation in the war on drugs in response to California's referendum on the legalization of Marijuana  US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton caused further offensewhen she compared their country to Colombia of the 1980s and 1990s.  President Obama was then forced to restate the America position, saying that the comparison between Mexico and Colombia was unfair, since today "Mexico is vast and progressive democracy, with a growing economy". 

While both of these claims are of course debatable, the Americans have entered into a substantial bilateral agreement with Mexico aimed at fighting the Drug Cartels called the Merida Initiative. The Americans will provide money and training to reinforce the rule of law and bolster the Mexican police force, their judiciary system as well as expunging the systemic and pervasive corruption of the Mexican security and law enforcement apparatus. 

Insufficient Commitment to Mexican Progress Contrary to Canada's Well Being

Canadians like to think that our country is safe from many of the troubles that plague the rest of the world. Indeed, we have been blessed to be spared the endemic poverty, corruption, food and human insecurity, and bad governance that trouble many other countries of the world. 

However, a 2010 Macleans article argued that Canada is increasingly under threat from Mexican drug cartels. If you've read a newspaper anytime over  the past few months, you'll already know that over 15,000 people have been killed in drug related violence since Mexican President Felipe Calderon bravely decided to take on the drug organizations that had blighted Mexican society for decades. The Americans are very concerned, and have committed a few billion dollars to support democratic institutions and the rule of law in Mexico. They have also  increased cross-border cooperation with the Mexican police to increase the effectiveness of interdiction and law enforcement. 

Once across the border, Mexican drug cartels have free access to the US Interstate system, which has seen trafficking cells established in Atlanta, Arizona, throughout the US Northeast, and finally in Ontario and BC. Phoenix has become known as the "Kidnapping Capital of America", largely as a byproduct of growing Mexican drug organization activity there. 

 

RCMP superintendent Pat Fogarty is certain that the Mexican cartels have established themselves in Canada. Most of the trafficking occurs at the Detroit-Windsor border tunnel. An American DEA agent says that the drug trade between the Mexicans and the Canadian groups is in fact a two -way street: Canada trades Marijuana for Cocaine. Canada needs to develop a coherent strategy to address the causes of Mexico's drug problems, at the very least so our own internal security will become affected as the Mexican traffickers partners become further 

strengthened. 

So far, the response from the Harper Government has been underwhelming. In 2009, PM Harper announced that a paltry $15 million dollars would be spent on the  "Anti-Crime Capacity Building Program" to "enhance the capacity of key beneficiary states, government entities and international organizations, to prevent and respond to threats posed by international criminal activity throughout the hemisphere." In response to Mexican request for technical assistance, Canada sent just eight RCMP officers to the beleaguered Federation to help train police recruits. This response indicates that either the Harper government is happy to free-ride off of the American initiative, or are simply not providing the attention that the Mexican drug war deserves. 

In addition to addressing our own demand-side problems, Canada needs to support the development of social programs, democratic institutions, and the rule of law in Mexico after the harsh sting of years of “stabilizing” macroeconomic policies.

Much like other countries in Latin America, Mexico is marked by high levels of inequality that are masked behind the return to positive macroeconomic indicators. Following the 1982 Debt Crisis, Mexico was left with no decision but to adopt harsh austerity measures, privatize their economy, and undertake structural adjustments to make their economy more competitive. This meant selling state-owned industries, reducing/eliminating state social services, and letting the Mexican population largely fend for themselves in the midst of continued economic crisis.  Upon the signing of NAFTA in 1994, the Zapatista indigenous insurgency was launched in protest of what seemed to be the Constitutionalization of neoliberalism generally and private property 

specifically, long a source of fierce opposition in this community. 

In the 2006 Mexican Presidential Election, a candidate of the Left hostile to NAFTA was very nearly elected. (In fact, some argue that he was only kept from office through electoral fraud.) A big factor in support for anti-NAFTA sentiment is the disillusionment of a population with neoliberal economic policies that are viewed as having been forced upon them, that have not delivered on their promises of sustained growth and social progress, and have instead brought a sharp drop in living standards with only moderate economic prosperity for the few.  Trade with Mexico has become increasingly important to Canada, growing to $27.4 billion dollars in 2010. If an anti-NAFTA candidate in Mexico managed to rescind their commitment to the free trade agreement, it would cause economic hardship for many of Canada's businesses. 

Canada does not have an official CIDA mission to Mexico, although it does provide $400,000 to Mexican NGOs and community groups through the "Canada Fund for Local Initiatives". While this amount is a good start, the restrictions on its use mean that it can have little lasting impact. Organizations can only apply for the fund for a specific project that is completed within a 12 month period, and the average amount given for these projects is 150,000 Mexican Pesos/12,415 Canadian Dollars. These restrictions mean that Canada is neither providing sufficient nor sustained support for peoples whom have been excluded from the economic gains of Canada and others in their own country, perhaps pushing them towards a “Left” policy alternative that is unfavorable to Canada's own interests.

  

The Canadian government needs to recognize that it is in our own country's interest to act to counter the activities of the drug cartels, as well as provide economic development support to the citizens of Mexico. In order keep vital trade with its NAFTA partner growing, Canada should see to it that solutions to Mexico's socioeconomic problems, of which the drug trade is but a symptom, are pursued.