By Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera*
05 Nov 2024, 08:00 AM EST
Regarding the issue of security, what is the result that best suits Mexico in this electoral process on November 5 in the United States? How would Mexico be better? With Kamala Harris or with Donald Trump? These are very basic questions. In reality, it doesn’t matter if one candidate or the other wins; What matters is that the party that wins the presidential election also obtains a majority in Congress. But beyond that, what is the position that, on security and drug policy issues, is best for Mexico? It should be noted that, for Americans, the issue of security in their relationship with Mexico has to do with drug trafficking directly and with the management of their borders.
For almost everyone in that country, the explanation of all the evils in Mexico in terms of violence and insecurity, on the one hand, and its problems of addiction and deaths from drug overdoses, on the other, have to do with ‘narco’ and the ‘posters’. The real situation in Mexico and the United States in relation to these two issues is much more complex, but US anti-drug policy and the collaboration that that country suggests or imposes on Mexico in these areas, has focused largely on the so-called “war against drugs.” drugs” and the strategy kingpin—that is, in a focus on the downing/arrest of ‘narcos’ or on cutting off the heads of the so-called ‘cartels’. This strategy has been pursued regardless of the party that dominates the United States political scene at any given time. Republicans and Democrats—through their security agencies and primarily the anti-narcotics agency, the DEA—have focused on the Mexican ‘narco’ issue when it comes to solving its drug epidemic (now called the fentanyl crisis).
The anti-drug policy of the United States, beyond ensuring that the problem of drug consumption in that country is resolved, seems to function as a method of geostrategic and geopolitical control. which allows its security agencies to have a territorial presence beyond the borders of what ‘they’ call “America”. In reality, American drug policy does not appear to be a policy focused on solving the problem of mass consumption of illegal drugs in that country or the excessive number of overdose deaths—which in each of the past three years exceeded 100,000. That country’s anti-drug strategy is framed as a key national security issue and constitutes a foreign policy priority.
American foreign policy is generally quite stable and basically serves the interests of the United States. On domestic issues there seems to be much more divergence between Democrats and Republicans, particularly when it comes to the narrative of different issues at election time (abortion, taxes, race and gender issues, etc.). In drug policy and anti-narcotics cooperation with Mexico, there does not seem to be much difference in the positions of either party in practice—perhaps in discourse, it is a little different. In this sense, we note that both the Democratic and Republican administrations have focused on the ‘narco’ issue and have imposed the militarization of the anti-drug fight on other countries in the hemisphere, centrally including Colombia, Central America and, of course, to Mexico.
The case of Mexico is emblematic in this sense, and the United States and its companies in the border-military-industrial sector seem to have largely benefited from the militarization of border security on both sides and the anti-drug fight in Mexican territory. The Mérida Initiative, as an anti-narcotics cooperation plan with dire consequences for security and peace in Mexico, began in the George W. Bush administration and was consolidated in the Obama government. According to this example, the veiled pressure on Mexico (disguised as “shared responsibility”) to arrest and extradite drug traffickers and send the armed forces to confront the insecurity crisis in the country is exerted by both Republicans and Democrats.
Notwithstanding the above, the incendiary speech of what key members of the Republican Party have called in recent years the declaration of “a war against the Mexican cartels” does seem to be the exclusive subject of the America First movement, initiated and inspired by Donald Trump. The idea goes beyond calling Mexican cartels international terrorist organizations, which would allow US agencies to violate Mexico’s sovereignty in their fight against this scourge.
In reality, what Trump has suggested and what has inspired the MAGA movement is the possibility of sending US troops to Mexican territory—and even bombing the evil “cartels” from the air. Members of the Democratic Party have apparently not supported, until now, the Trumpist idea of ending the ‘bad men‘ through a deadly war against the Mexican cartels. Declaring that war, in reality, would be declaring a war against Mexico and its people. Between the position of Trump’s party and that of Harris’s party on this issue, the former seems much worse for Mexico, without a doubt.
The Dr. Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera
is a professor at the Schar School of Politics and Government at George Mason University.
The texts published in this section are the sole responsibility of the authors, so La Opinión does not assume responsibility for them.