The Baja Media Watch

A Northerly View of South of the Border

2009-07-03T16:17:00.004-04:00

[Click here to view the story at CBC.ca]

“Tijuana’s Drug War” is an in-depth examination of the drug war in Tijuana, one of the flashpoints of President Felipe Calderón’s anti-cartel campaign. The piece aired May 20th on the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s nightly broadcast, The National, which is an hourlong combination of U.S.-style network news and longer newsmagazine-type stories. Reporter Saša Petricic intersperses interviews with Tijuana’s new police chief, a former Mexican foreign minister, and the former director of operations for the US Drug Enforcement Agency with integral background information and vivid video footage.

The story opens with signs of “typical” Tijuana life: a waving flag, street scenes, and musicians. Twenty seconds in, the music is revealed to be a ballad – a narcocorrido – about the city’s infamous drug lords, which has the effect of establishing the cartels as being equally enmeshed in the fabric of the city.

The song continues through several scenes of violence before cutting to Tijuana’s police chief, Lt. Col. Julián Leyzaola, entering his office through a secure back entrance. In street clothes, he has an assault rifle casually hanging on his shoulder. The ominousness increases with the revelation that “...even he doesn’t go out without a machine gun or a heavily armed escort.” Leyzaola, who was recruited from the military to run the department after his predecessor’s dismissal, proceeds to calmly recount the chaos he inherited.

In a country replete with cartels, Tijuana’s Arellano-Felix Organization is introduced as “its most famous of all.” After offering some background, it is established that there has never been a real stand taken against them or the other cartels prior to Calderón running in and winning the 2006 Mexican election.

Former US Drug Enforcement Agency operations chief Michael Braun reinforces Calderón’s central importance to the story. He explains how the Mexican president quickly realized that Mexico could “...devolve into a narco-state, perhaps in the next decade.” Dispelling the countless stories from earlier in the year suggesting otherwise, he clearly states that Mexico is not a failed nation at this point, even though parts of the country are or have been de facto ruled by the cartels.

The story of former cartel head Edward Arellano Felix’s capture allows Petricic to make the critical point that Calderón’s successes in removing some of the old guard from running the cartels actually worsened the violence. This is because the younger generation that took over “don’t play by the old rules” of relative restraint, which explains their brutality. This is elaborated through camerawork painting a bleak picture of a gunfight and description of the ongoing violence as a turf war with no limits, specifically referencing the grotesque disposal of bodies by a notorious cartel member nicknamed El Pozolero (“The Stewmaker”).

Jorge Casteneda, Foreign Affairs Minister under former President Vicente Fox is introduced and quickly naysays Calderón’s entire campaign. He comes across as particularly stubborn and embittered, as if to say “we tried to do something and failed, which means that anyone else who tries will also fail, so don't waste your time.” He stands in stark contrast to Leyzaola’s firm resolve and quiet confidence.

Scenes of normal life follow and then night falls. Viewers meet District Chief Victor de la Cruz, who makes an observation whose first part is as simple as it is profound, and can easily be extrapolated to the entire conflict: “The city of Tijuana is very complex because people from all parts of the country come here because we are close to the border.” As an urgent call goes out over the radio, local police are described as critically important to the anti-cartel fight but also its weakest link because of corruption, something so often associated with this city. Chief Leyzaola reappears and firmly declares that “fixing” the police is his first priority, one that he views as a process of renewal. The viewer is left with the impression that he not only has a deep understanding of the human element in the equation, but actually cares. The Mexican military is explained to seen by the public as “much less corruptible, if a little too aggressive”, which is why their presence is generally supported – an important point that could have been clearer.

Casteneda, dismissive again, claims any attempt to clean up border cities and rid local and state police of corruption is futile (and, so, presumably, not even worth trying). His solution is to create a national Mexican police force along the lines of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As if to reinforce his point, it is revealed that the first day the CBC team met Leyzaola, 16 members of his force, including one from his own security detachment was arrested for suspicion of corruption. This individual, we are then told, was quickly cleared and reinstated. The chief again exudes a cool, military professionalism about the incident.

Braun elaborates upon the seriousness of the corruption issue by positing it as what allowed the cartels to grow and flourish and notes their success at every level of government.

The effect of cartel-related violence on Tijuana’s citizens, described as “beyond despair” is then explored, as the story moves to a murder victim's funeral. Petricic describes how they grieve for their loved ones: “...some executed, some simply vanished, some innocent, some drawn into the drug trade as an escape from extreme poverty.” Instead of leaving the impression of Tijuana as being nothing but a city of defeated mourners, however, viewers meet a small but determined group of protesters led by the sister of another cartel victim. Her words go a long way to shatter the stereotype of average Mexicans passively accepting the situation.

As the story winds down, we are left with a determined police chief who is realistic about the near-impossible task of ever truly “defeating” the cartels but is equally adamant to command their respect at a minimum. Braun is equally realistic, emphasizing the need to maintain a “full-court press” and that the overall situation in Mexico will likely worsen before improving. The alternative is implied to have unimaginable consequences on both sides of the border. The story ends implying that Chief Leyzaola has, at best, an uphill battle ahead of him.

The Bottom Line: "Tijuana's Drug War" is well-worth watching.
Overall, it is fair, generally balanced, and well-supported, qualities in contrast with much of the selectively reported, two-dimensional, U.S.-based journalism on the subject. There is little fluff. Refreshingly, it provides context and background – viewers aren't left scratching their heads as to how the pieces fit together or with weak claims. It certainly did not whitewash the truth, as the story contains several examples of gratuitous violence and hints that the drug war is one that may never be won. Nothing seems forced or contrived, even Casteneda, who effectively provides a viewpoint at odds with the dominant narrative. The central players are depicted well: Chief Leyzaola comes across as someone who is easy to hope succeeds, and Braun as a knowledgeable, dedicated expert rather than a "tough guy" federal agent. The one glaring omission, however, is any mention of how the other communities south of Tijuana, which are frequently grouped together with it, are not experiencing the same kind of violence. Regardless, hopefully, there will be more stories like this in the near future more easily seen by American viewers.

"Is Mexico actually in danger of a sudden rapid collapse?"

2009-07-01T23:23:00.041-04:00

Question: When did this story break? Where was it reported?

Answer: The majority of reports perpetuating this idea were published in January, 2009 (although they continued for some time), with the highest concentration coming in the middle of the month. Most major wire services and numerous print, television, and radio outlets, US and foreign, some more grounded than others, reported some version of it.

Sources:

09-Jan-08 "Among top U.S. fears: A failed Mexican state" NY Times
13-Jan-09 "U.S. military report warns 'sudden collapse' of Mexico is possible" El Paso Times
15-Jan-09 "Report: Mexico On Verge Of Collapse" NPR
16-Jan-09 "Mexico in danger of collapse, says US army" Daily Telegraph (UK)
16-Feb-09 "Worst Case Scenario" Fox News

Question: Where did this idea originate?
Answer: A report written by the United States Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM), an organization within the Department of Defense devoted to the ongoing evolution of American military capabilities.
Sources:

Wikipedia; What is USJFCOM?

Question: What does this report actually say?
Answer: The report, entitled "Joint Operating Environment 2008", is written primarily for military members and civilian analysts. Its purpose is to lay out strategic possibilities that the United States may face over the next quarter-century. On the very first page, a note clearly states that it is a work of speculation and solely intended to stimulate discussion about potential contingencies over the next 25 years rather than formally predict the future. The report is broken up into six main sections: “Constants”, “Trends Influencing the World’s Security”, ”The Contextual World”, ”Implications for the Joint Force”, ”Some Leading Questions”, and ”Concluding Thoughts”. The third part is longest, and includes among other subheadings, “Technology”, “The Battle of Narratives”, and “Potential Challenges and Threats”, which is broken down by continent and lists the Middle East and central Asia as “The Center of Instability”. Pakistan is described in the “Weak and Failing State” portion as the nation most befitting of the title. In the entire 56-page report, the possibility of Mexico suddenly descending into a “narco-state” is mentioned in a grand total of two paragraphs. By contrast, Russia and China each have three whole pages devoted to them.

Source:

Joint Operating Environment 2008 (PDF)

Question: Mexican President Felipe Calderón has, unsurprisingly, strongly denied the “failed state” claim many times. Has anyone else?

Answer: Yes. Individuals as disparate as U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, among others, have all gone on the record refuting the notion.

Sources:

09-Mar-09 "Sarkozy denies Mexico is a 'failed state'" Agence France-Presse
26-Mar-09 "Despite Drug Wars, Mexico Is Not in Danger of Collapse, Obama's Spy Chief Says" U.S. News & World Report
30-Mar-09 "Sen. John Kerry: Mexico Is Not a Failed State" Associated Press

Question: Where does this fit into the overall Drug War narrative?
Answer: Prior to the release of this report, the Drug War was generally underreported outside of southern California and the southwestern border states. These stories, along with an explosion of violence in the border city of Juarez and a major increase in kidnappings (generally involving drug and/or human smugglers) in the Phoenix, AZ area, were a major catalyst for the explosion of coverage the issue has received in the weeks and months since. They spawned a considerable amount of anxiety because most of the general public had not considered how the United States could be affected should the Mexican government fail in its campaign against the cartels. Previously, the Drug War was generally considered by most Americans to be an exclusively “Mexican” problem.

Court of Public Opinion: Chew v. Delsol

2009-04-28T17:22:00.015-04:00

A recent article by Time.com's Robert Chew (Baja, Land of Drug Wars, Tries to Draw Tourists) certainly cuts a wide contrast to the story by Christine Delsol of seattlepi.com (Behind the Headlines: Safety in Mexico).

While the former pronounces ongoing danger and violence at the Mexican border cities on an unprecedented level, the latter basically suggests the tales of violence may well be way out of proportion. Both articles, which were published on 23 April 09, could not be any further apart in their depiction of the situation down south.

Well, who is right?

For one thing, I find myself drawn towards Delsol's dramatically measured and level-headed approach when it comes to digesting all the media account about the state of drug-related violence at the Mexican border cities. Her article is sufficiently beefed up with facts and figures to provide readers with a rounded perspective of the situation (she doesn't deny there is violence, but pleads for a common-sensical approach when examining the data).

It's not all gloom and doom, she says basically, as she urges visitors to just be intelligent about their travels to Mexico - the same tone and message that is also shared by the U.S. Department of State. Unlike the most current travel alert which specifically advises U.S. citizens against any non-essential travel to Mexico due to the outbreak of the H1N1 "swine flu," there hasn't been any travel warnings of such specificity on its 20 April security-related travel alert.

In fact, it's worth noting that this most recently updated travel alert is simply a continuation of the previous alert issued on 15 October 2008, which is precise in pointing out crime spikes in cities like Tijuana, Chihuahua City and especially at Ciudad Juarez, instead of over-generalizing violence in the Baja as a whole. In addition, Mexico is also not on the department’s current list of countries slapped with travel warnings that describe long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable.

I suppose it is intuitive to expect that the State Department would be responsible enough to recommend a similar non-essential travel restriction if the violence down south is proving to be detrimental to U.S. citizens? It's absence is therefore highly conspicuous, wouldn't you think?

On the contrary, there are some questions to ask about the Chew's article on Time. He talks about an 'unusual step by the U.S. State Department last month (March 2009) to citizens to avoid border towns like Rosarito Beach.' But two things struck me about this statement: Firstly, if the level of violence is as bad as his article is suggesting, then wouldn't the State Department's purported actions by well within reason and responsibility? The use of the word 'unusual,' in this case, appears to be a rhetorical move aimed at reinforcing his overall narrative about the dangers in Mexico.

This leads me to my second concern, which is about the veracity of the statement. Now, I'm not sure about his sources, but the State Department's webpage on Travel Alerts clearly points out that the 20 April 2009 advisory supersedes that of 15 October 2008, and even the link to 'Recent Embassy Notes on Mexico' fails to point substantively to this supposed March advisory.

There are also quotes that reeks of sensationalism and generalization that Chew clearly appears to have failed to challenge, framing as factual or logical statements such as (Gringo Gazette publisher) Conroy's take that "everyone [Mexicans] is lying," or that the entire real estate business over there is "...just another Mexican rip-off."

Everyone is lying?

Another Mexican rip-off?

Is he subtly trying to signal his agreement with Conroy's position?

In my opinion, he also appears to mischievously position the arrest of Santiago Meza Lopez, who notoriously dissolved victims of cartels in vats of acid, as if it were a recent matter when he was actually busted by local law enforcement agents in late January this year (see NPR's 'Tijuana Violence Likely to Continue in 2009' from 1 February 2009). By not providing a date to the mention, less informed readers may naturally conclude this as one of the more recent developments in Mexico's 'web of violence.' As Jamieson and Waldman (2003, p. 23) put it, journalists [and reporters], being custodians of facts, are duty-bound to help the public make sense of the world around them by sieving out the gold from the dross. Surely Chew could've done a batter job here.

If only the Time article had a space for readers to leave their comments, just as in the seattlepi.com piece, I wonder what the response would've been. If the reaction from the latter is anything to go by, I suspect the Web community may actually do a fairly decent policing job, with "voices of truth" springing forth to call-out instances of inaccuracies, generalizations or stereotypes.

Delsol's article garnered, at the time of this blog, 16 responses (the latest of which is dated 27 April 2009) generated by 12 different people. A review of the postings shows reveal that most of the participants aren't swallowing the conventional anti-Mexican rhetoric hook, line and sinker. Among themselves, many of them had in fact been to a couple of the border towns and were talking about how safe and secure they felt. These are the informed readers who refuse to be swept away by everything the media reports, or apply the situation of violence across the board with a broad stroke of the pen.

I respect these readers greatly for this because it certainly takes time and effort in order to stay on top of the situation, especially with today's fast-food media culture.

So here's my closing thoughts on the two articles analyzed here...

While the Time piece may appear authoritative, broad-based and well-researched, one really needs to dig deeper and question the accuracy of some of the anecdotes that tend to bury the complexities of the drug situation south of the border. The seattlepi.com story, on the other hand, seems to me a more level-headed and less alarmist approach to the matter.

But don't take my word for it. After all, aren't we in the courtroom of public opinion? Take a swipe at both stories and decide for yourselves if you agree.

Just do me a favor and remember to come back and tell me about it!

The American Dichotomy and the Arms Puzzle

2009-04-17T09:22:00.006-04:00

Wasn’t it just two days ago that I posted a blog touching on statistics about the downward trend in violence in Mexico’s Baja California?

Just yesterday, I was told by a colleague about a LA Times article on an abduction and murder case at Rosarito Beach, just two days away from the annual Rosarito to Ensenada Fun Bike Ride.

Such is the tentativeness and uncertainty that blankets the border Mexican towns and cities.

In that news report by Pete Thomas, a 16-year-old boy – son of a prominent Rosarito restaurant owner – was kidnapped a stone’s throw from his home the night before. He was purportedly practicing for the bike race when three heavily-armed hooded men swept in to capture him; a security personnel nearby who tried to intervene was also taken, and his decapitated body was found the next morning.

In the same article, this incident was confirmed by Ron Raposa, the spokesman for Rosarito Beach Mayor Hugo Torres. Raposa says that this is believed to be a kidnap-extortion bid as the cartels find their mainstream narcotic operations severely disrupted by the Federales. There is no known drug link in this latest episode, he says.

Mayor Torres has requested additional federal police to assist in the investigations, to have this happen just days before some 3,000 visitors are set to pour into the beach resort for the biking extravaganza must surely be a psychological setback of sorts.

One will expect Rosarito Beach, which has been at the forefront in terms of creative security initiatives to protect its visitors (see article on Rosarito Tourist Police Force) to step up the security presence to ensure that the Bike Ride proceeds smoothly.

But the troubling thought remains.

Even if the narcotic operations are disrupted as more and more government success stories against the cartels pour through, what happens if the cartels really do turn kidnapping into their next lucrative cash cow?

The challenge, therefore, is not just about stemming the flow of drugs, but also the dismantling of the cartels themselves because other forms of organized crime will continue to plague the local community.

And behind this is a far more complex web of issues that are feeding one another, such as government-wide corruption and a judiciary in need of reform (issues President Felipe Calderon has been accused of neglecting as he pushed for a military solution to the cartel operations).

A part of the equation lies with the U.S. side as well, with 90 percent of recovered arms in Mexico currently being traced back to the States (read Channel NewsAsia's 'Obama vows support for Mexico's Cartel Fight'; NY Times's 'U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels'). As long as American weapons continue to percolate into the hands of the Mexican cartels, it will provide the latter with the means and the methods to perpetuate their illicit activities, whether it is drug trafficking, kidnapping, or others.

President Obama has already admitted shared responsibility in the problem, but also concedes a far greater challenge of trying to get the lawmakers to vote through an arms-trafficking treaty that may help to stem the flow of guns own south.

To me, it seems absurd that the primary reason for not ratifying this treaty is fundamentally because of 2nd Amendment rights and the freedom to express oneself.

Even if it means toting a gun?

Even if it means that high-grade weapons, bullets and bombs are making their way onto Mexican streets and contributing to the carnage there that is part of the cartel’s activities to secure the supply of drugs up north?

Isn’t the U.S., which espouses liberty for all, the same country where women did not enjoy equal rights as men until national suffrage for women came about in 1920 because of the ratification of the 19th amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Isn’t it because of cultural and societal norms that women didn’t enjoy the rights they do today back in the early 1900s? Where were the fundamentals about equality for all back then?

Looking at today, isn’t the ‘right’ to carry guns nothing more of a cultural or societal norm and not so much a fundamental liberty to be expressed?

Is the right to be able to buy a gun more important than the choice of not buying it just so that another person may live someplace else in Mexico? And isn’t the ability to make that choice without duress an expression of liberty in itself?

I could go on and on. And forgive me if I seem to be rambling, but something just doesn’t seem right.

America is indeed a land of many dichotomies.

I'm just saddened that countries like Mexico suffer the consequences for it.

Mexico's Execution-Styled Deaths Plummet in First Quarter

2009-04-15T08:26:00.004-04:00

When I was in public affairs work about five years back, my boss once commented that in our line of work, say if we're told to sell oranges, we'd certainly do the necessary on the publicity and rhetorical front to try to get the fruits sold off. But regardless how hard we try, it's always going to be the quality of the fruit that dictates sales.

Words of wisdom, and something we all know intuitively.

So where am I going with this train of thought in the business about drug violence in Mexico and the U.S.? Well, the fruit in this case - at least south of the border - will have to be the results of the government's efforts to combat the cartels. (For the U.S. side, I think the new challenge is a highly political one of negotiating second amendment rights to set up controls about the sales of arms if the States ever hopes to ringfence the flow of American guns and weapons into the hands of the drug lords... but that's another story altogether, literally).

Back to this. I really read with gladness the 13 Apr 2009 CNN story 'Mexican official: Crime killings dropped 26 percent in first quarter' and all the positives that were carried in the report. If the figures are to be believed - and there's no reason not to since the Mexican authorities appear to have been very upfront with the casualty figures all these while - there's reason to be heartened as hitherto killing zones have seen an all round reduction in execution-styled deaths in the first quarter of this year as compared to the same period of 2008:

Chihuahua -> -26% (from 842 to 625)
Ciudad Juarez -> -39% (from 547 to 331)
Baja California -> -79% (from 515 to 108)
Sinola -> -49% (from 346 to 177)
Culican -> -45% (from 173 to 94)

There's still much work to be done, and this is certainly no reason for anyone to rest on their laurels. But to a Mexican population greatly fatigued by the sights, smell and sounds of violence in their streets, and wondering if the 'drug war' initiated by President Calderon is heading anywhere, the recent statistics should be a shot in the arm.

The war is far from over. But good news like this from time to time will never hurt!

A New Light is Dawning

2009-04-14T17:54:00.007-04:00

Like a huge vessel that takes time to slow down long after the engines have long been cut because of the forward momentum, the largely condescending and biased narratives in the U.S. media about the violence in Mexico looks like it’s finally turning around.

At least as far as the more liberal media channels are concerned (I certainly can't speak for the agenda of the conservatives)... no more Mexico-bashing, or a delineation of an us and them issue... or a Burkean play on God and Devil terms, or the good guys against the bad guys.

Today it's a wider recognition that everyone in the continent is pretty much in the same boat... after all, pure and simple economics dictate that where there is a supply, it must be due to a demand, and the local media is increasingly painting an unequivocally clear picture about this situation for all to see.

One of the latest stories to move along this theme is Carol Costello’s story about cheap heroin from Mexico feeding the drug-lust of teens and youths in northeastern America. In fact, as if to emphasize the extent of the local drug demand and how far the Mexican drug industry has crept up north as a result, she reports a NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) statistic that over 50% of all heroin arrests made in the States happen in the northeast.

Whereas media stories used to play on the familiar narrative about the loss of civil control down south and a Mexico that’s potentially becoming a failed state, attention is now being paid to the silent decay that’s been largely unnoticed in most U.S. neighborhoods. Until recently at least. The evolution in the tone has much to do with the change in the US administration and the generally more reconciliatory and collaborative tone that President Obama brings into his domestic and international policies – which can only be good for the U.S. and the world at large (see also 'Clinton vows US backing in Mexican drug wars'). I believe that the sooner people see the issues for what they are, the sooner we’ll get to a common platform of tackling the drug scourge on the domestic front. No more finger pointing, but an acknowledgment of the problem, and moving forward towards a solution from there.

With that as the backdrop, I reckon we’ll continue to see more human element stories percolating through the media such as this particularly heart-rending tale about Doreen and Victor Ciappa, and how they lost their 18-year-old daughter Natalie to heroin earlier this year. Now they're on a mission to educate other at-risk teens and their parents about the insidious drug threat that's been around for years.

Theirs is a grassroots movement borne out of tragedy, but one that aims to prevent more of such tragedies in the future. As sad as this may be, we need to hear their stories, and that of countless other parents, husbands, wives, siblings and friends who've lost loved ones because of the cancer of narcotics. While this won't be the first (and neither the last for the considerable future), these tales about loss and the subsequent finding of strength in adversity need to be the new dominant narrative right now more than ever before.

With the executive leadership, the media, and the larger community all seemingly heading towards the same direction, perhaps it's a new light of understanding that is now dawning on everyone.

Indeed, we need to stop the finger-pointing and start moving forward. Our children and our children's children are depending on it!

The new mediated reality?

2009-04-06T14:48:00.005-04:00

Came across this cartoon while skimming the 3 April 2009 print edition of the USA Today (page 9A) and can't help but wonder if the public's overall perception of the drug quagmire that affects both Mexico and a large part of North America is now starting to dominate public mindshare to such an extent that the media's coverage is also evolving as well.

Oh I love the symmetry of it! Makes you pause and think for a bit, doesn't it?

The Word's Getting Around... Finally

2009-03-25T07:53:00.003-04:00

Guns and shootouts have always, in my mind, been a romanticized and fascinating part about the wild wild west.

Those were the days of the cowboy on horseback, or the lone ranger, or the town sheriff battling a group of bandits. But in those stories that I recall, the good always triumphed against the bad.

Against all odds.

Fast forward to today, and Americans are seeing a wild west of a different kind. Look no further than the south of the border, where according to Mexican newspaper Excelsior, drug-related murders for 2009 have hit the 1,367 as of today.

Mexico is seen as a new frontier of violence and lawlessness.

But of course, that’s nothing new.

But what appears to be a new development, and one that's taking momentum, is the increasing recognition and public acknowledgement that most of the guns that are giving rise to the shootouts in the new wild west are actually creeping in from U.S. states with the laxer gun controls.

The phenomena is so serious that Mexican authorities have even given it the name contrabando hormiga (or ant contraband) because the illegal gun shipments are typically small and arrive in a steady trickle (see ‘Cartels' guns flow from U.S.’ by the San Diego Union Tribune).

This is also a narrative that’s reflecting in the ‘Police can't fight Mexican cartel violence alone' editorial piece by The Arizona Republic, which reports that U.S. demand for labor and illicit drugs are what’s enriching Mexico's crime syndicates, with an estimated 90 to 95 percent of the drug-related killings thus far being committed with high-powered weapons obtained in the United States.

‘This isn’t just Mexico’s problem,’ the editorial states.

U.S. President Barack Obama said as much during a press conference this past Tuesday when he praised his Mexican counterpart Felipe Calderon for the courage in tackling the cartel problem in his country (see ‘Violence spirals as US joins Mexico war on drugs’ by Channel NewsAsia). President Obama also added that the U.S. will have to do more to disrupt the flow of guns and cash back to the drug cartels in Mexico.

I find it really heartening to observe the gradual turnaround in the themes in the newspapers about the drug crisis, and to see the U.S. now coming out in unequivocal support of firm action together with the Mexicans. For a trans-border challenge that stretches from south of the border past the States into Canada (see a previous report), it requires no less a response.

Maybe with this narrative gaining traction, citizens from both sides can rally around a familiar story with a tang of twist but ultimately, I hope, a similar ending: that of the sheriffs and the Federales triumphing against the bandits of the times.

Against all odds.

It’s good that the word is getting around!

A Tale of two Laredos

2009-03-21T21:00:00.016-04:00

How the Gamboa family's woes are linked to US-backed law enforcement operation
Todd Bensman, GlobalPost
19 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/mexico/090319/tale-two-laredos

This is not a story about Rosarito but Nuevo Laredo, another of the many Mexican border towns that are plagued by the ongoing violence arising from the drug cartel situation. It seems ironic that no more than two months ago, John Burnett of NPR had filed a story about the gradual return of peace and a sense of normalcy to the town because the in-fighting among the various cartel factions were abating (apparently because one side was taking its operations elsewhere). And then this happened. This latest piece by Bensman only goes to show the fragile and often illusory nature of peace that our neighbors south of the border are living under.

I chose to comment on this story because there was something in the way the article's narrative was framed that arrested my attention almost immediately. I'm not sure if this is indeed happening, but I do suspect that elements of the U.S. media are gradually starting to develop the narrative about the violence in Mexico from a broader geopolitical perspecitive - one that recognizes the hand that America plays in the ongoing crisis, rather than a scapgoating of the southern nation that seemed to be the preferred route of the past.

Even until recently, Alex Johnson's MSNBC story on 9 March this year was, though a useful piece in providing a big-picture perspective to the drug situation and how the fortunes of Mexico are inexorably linked to the well-being of the U.S., a couple of steps short of framing the drug demand in North America as the engine for the continued supply from the south. This GlobalPost article, however, contains a key theme that the Mexican government had been trying to convey to the U.S. media, especially those in California and Texas, but had hitherto been unable to gain much traction: That tourists are rarely hurt or deliberately targetted in the violence; most of the victims have some sort of involvement in the drug trade.

A separate but equally interesting theme that cropped up is the key role the U.S. government plays alongside the Mexican federales in combating the cartels. Granted that in the case of Bensman's story, it is really a tale of a cross-border collaboration gone awry, thus jeopardizing the lives of the two Gamboa families (Alex Gamboa had leased the house to the US agents, but it was Ricardo that got kidnapped and is how feared murdered). But still, taking a step back and examining this from a broader perspective of gaining public mindshare, I would argue that having more such coverage that acknowledges the complexity of the cartel violence, and the consubstantiation between the U.S. and the Mexicans (e.g. the recent 16 March Rasmussen Report that cited how Obama Administration would soon unveil a plan that aims at stopping U.S. weapons and money from drug sales here from pouring back into the gangs in Mexico) would gradually develop a more balanced public perception of the emergency. Even if most Americans were to continue supporting tough actions such as the staging of troops along the border to combat potential violence, any resultant positive swing in perceptions from an anti-Mexico hysteria would be coup in the grand scheme of things.

But coming back to Bensman's article, I do have some questions to ask about the way certain events were played out.

While it's saddening to learn about how two potentially innocent families were dragged into this cycle of violence because of the alleged faux pas of the U.S. government, I think the circumstances in which Alan Gamboa had rented the house to the agents seem questionable. I'm not sure what Alan Gamboas thought about the likelihood of low-ranking counsulate officials arriving in a couple of armored SUVs, because that seems to suggest anything but a simple and ordinary transaction. Was Alan promised protection and a large sum of money in exchange for making the house available? This is somethign we'll never know for now.

However, if Alan's allegations are true, then one has to wonder about the competence of the U.S. agents, isn't it? Wouldn't traveling around a cartel-controlled town in armored vehicles be asking for trouble? Doesn't it seem that it was their rather cavalier actions that may have compromised the situation right from the onset?

Or, is it as the U.S. government says, that the Gamboa brothers' records aren't as clean as they appear to be? Thus, could it be the exact theme - that the victims tend to be those that are involved in the trafficking - playing itself out in reality after all?

Well, who knows for sure? What's certain right now is that a man has been kidnapped and is presumably dead, while his despairing wife and children are fearing for his safety as well as their own.

Despite all odds, I truly hope there will be a more fairytale-like ending to this story than the route it currently appears to heading. Where innocent lives are concerned, any life lost is always one life too many...

In Mexico's drug wars, fears of a U.S. front

2009-03-20T18:25:00.007-04:00

Violence that has killed thousands is beginning to cross border, officials say.
Alex Johnson, MSNBC
9 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29516551/

I really wonder if this story is the start of a brand new discussion thread in the wide expanse of the theme regarding Mexican cartel-related violence, but also one that marks the shift in the narrative from just being confined as an issue south of the border to one that is beginning to take root in mainstream US society.

A 25 Feb 2009 news release from the US Drug Enforcement Agency about Operation Xcellerator, which is one of the anchors of this MSNBC story, talks about the culmination of a successful 21-month operation between anti-narcotics and law enforcement units in Mexico, U.S. and Canada that landed a crushing blow to the Sinola Cartel by snagging some 750 individuals on drug charges and seized some 23 tons of dope. But equally eye-catching is the paragraph third from bottom of the news release, which hints at the breath of the cartel's operations in the country: from California in the west to Minnesota in the north and Maryland in the east.

In fact, Alex Johnson's story talks about how Mexican cartels have come to be rooted in a staggering 230 cities across the U.S., and flooding its markets with a buffet spread of both designer and organic drugs. This has led the US Justice Department's National Drug Intelligence Center to list the Mexican cartels as one of the greatest urban threats to American safety and security. As President Felipe Calderón continues to wage war against the cartels in Mexico, are the drug organizations shifting their main operations to the States? One must question how this will affect the ongoing state of violence in so many of the Mexican border towns.

Johnson's article makes one thing unequivocally clear: that the drug problem is not just a Mexican issue but one that is inexorably linked to the well-being of the U.S. too. His story, in my opinion, provides readers with a broad perspective of the complexities of the drug trade that is funneling into the States across the border (involving even states as far up as Alaska and as far out as Hawaii, among others), who the main players are in the ongoing cartel feuds, and also provides a look into the deep price that Mexican forces are paying in order to rein in the cartels on their end. Johnson's overall slant is understandably somewhat alarmist, given the talk about Mexico potentially becoming a failed state and how officials in Texas and Arizona are crying out for the infusion of thousands of federal troops to patrol the borders.

Nevertheless, one matter that I think Johnson could have addressed more clearly is how drug demand in the States is fuel for the fire in Mexico (a fire that is now spreading northwards). I thought he gingerly touched on this early on in the story - 8th paragraph from the top - but failed to pin the issue down with any clarity. In failing to do so, he may have inadvertently perpetuated the perception of the drug issue as a 'fault' of the Mexicans instead of showing it up for the complex situation that it is. So, read this story with some perspective, and make your own judgments!

Mexican resorts still 'safe' for travel

2009-03-20T18:24:00.003-04:00

Travellers should use caution in area near U.S. border
Alysa Noel, Sun Media
3 March 2009
Article URL: http://sherwoodparknews.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1458737

This article is a news piece by Alysa Noel of the Edmonton (Alberta) Sun, printed here in the local section of the Sherwood Park News. The reporter appears to take a rather measured approach in presenting the situation in the Mexican border cities. Issues of violence are reported matter-of-factly by riding on a Department of Foreign Affairs travel alert that warns Canadians traveling to the border cities for a break to exhibit a high degree of caution. The report does not mask the fact that firefights may break out between Mexican Federales and cartel members in broad daylight.

The 'balance' here is provided by representatives from two travel agencies, who try to assure the readers that traveling to Mexico continues to be safe so long as tourists do not venture too far beyond the boundaries of their resorts. There is a strong emphasis on the themes of ethics and responsibility as the travel agents are quoted as saying that they take the safety of their clients very seriously, and would never make any deals that would endanger the travellers. Seemingly to add some depth, as well as a different perspective to the story, the article cites the position taken by the US where diplomatic staff and citizens have either been asked to avoid non-essential travel down south, or exercise great caution. The irony to this is that tourism numbers from Canada to Mexico in 2008 have actually increased, and there seemed to be a hint that the bark may be worse than the bite when this statistic is put against the casualty figures that the Mexican authorities have declared at the end of the article.

It is necessary to point out that because the Sherwood Park News is a local paper that serves this neighboring hamlet of Edmonton, Alberta (Canada), it may be fair to assume that the overall thrust of the article is angled towards protecting the interests of local travel agencies (or otherwise, not to cause too much hurt to them). It certainly helps that Canadian tourists may not have suffered any scarring from the ongoing violence, which is key in building the generally positive narrative taken in this account.

Want to go to Mexico? Think Again.

2009-03-20T18:23:00.007-04:00

Kelsey Bernius, Montana Kaimin

3 March 2009
Article URL: http://www.montanakaimin.com/index.php/opinion/opinion_article/want_to_go_to_mexico_think_again/3467

Editorial blog by Bernius on the University of Montana student daily providing commentary on the deteriorating situation in most Mexican border towns. Editorial essentially revolves around a travel advisory issued by the US State Department to warn spring break revelers about the potential hazards when visiting the towns, as well as tips to stay safe. While the State Department advice clearly states that a generally safe holiday in Mexico is possible by following a couple of simple smart-travelling guidelines, the overall slant of the article is one intended to convey a sense of alarm about the violence there, due to the impact of the cartel activities.

Some elements of the editorial tries to portray a sense of balance by including interviews with holiday-goers like Chelsey Bigler, and also University President Dennison, whose main narratives are that while there is violence, its concentrated enough not to disrupt plans or retuire the University to issue its on travel warnings. However, the other anecdotes have been selected to convey a clear and unambiguous message of danger, such as making references to CNN's Anderson Cooper and his coverage about the Mexican violence where victims heads were sawn off with saws bought from US departmental stores. This example certainly makes the two other interviews pale in comparison.

The other subtle but unmistakable narrative throughout the editorial is how the drug cartel problem is seemingly a Mexico-only problem, and because the Mexican authorities have so far done a poor job of managing it, the violence is slowly spilling into the States. There seems to be a hint of the US having to 'clean up Mexico's problems' with the remark about seven hundred individuals were recently arrested in the United States for connections with just one of the major drug cartels. An oblique reference to the US's role in the issue seems to be made with the statement about how 90 percent of the firearms used by the cartels were purchased in the United States. But in my opinion, this is a slur that conceals the broader issue that Mexico's drug supply is due to demand in North America. This point is completely omitted in the editorial.

On the whole, I find her blog lacking in the needed objectivity to present the situation in Mexico. While the violence are probably facts, more could have been done to present the complexity of the issue and how US drug demand is a central aspect of the misery in the border towns. Perhaps, fairness was never part of the agenda, but to dissuade UM students from holidaying there instead.

“I’m in the U.S. Why should I care about a Mexican problem?”

2009-03-20T18:22:00.006-04:00

Who uses the product fueling the violence?
Answer: Americans. The demand for drugs keeps the supply line running strong from south of the border.
Source(s):
25-Feb-09 Only the U.S. Can Win the War on Drugs Brookings

Where does much of the high-powered weaponry and ammunition originate?
Answer: At least half of the military-style weaponry and high-grade ammunition used by narcotraficantes against Mexican government forces and each other are smuggled from the U.S. The drug cartels take advantage of U.S. gun law loopholes as Mexico has strict gun control laws. In fact, the latest official figures (15-Apr-09 U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels) report that about 90 percent of the 12,000 pistols and rifles the Mexican authorities recovered from drug dealers in 2008 were traced back to dealers in the United States, most of them in Texas and Arizona.
Source(s):
15-Apr-09 U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels NY Times
25-Feb-09 Drug runners powered by U.S. guns NBC Nightly News
25-Feb-09 U.S. Is Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels NY Times

What city is the kidnapping capital of the U.S.?
Answer: Phoenix, Arizona.
Source(s):
24-Feb-09 Mexican Violence: Phoenix police vs. narco-gangs Fox News

Viva Baja? No si los medios Americanos lo pueden evitar!

2009-03-20T18:17:00.000-04:00

Daniel Seet, a graduate student in Communications at Emerson College, brings us this insightful look into the mediated realities and agenda setting as set forth by American media surrounding the Baja. The piece compares two different takes on the state of affairs in the Baja, one from ABC, and one from NPR. Here's a snippet:

For years, news reports, especially those in the southern part of California, have been replete with stories of gang and drug related violence in towns and cities south of the border. Grisly stories of drive-by shootings, decapitations, execution-style murders constitute a regular diet that the Americans public is being by the media fed regarding daily happenings in Mexican border cities and towns such as Ensenada, Nuevo Laredo, Rosarito, Tijuana and others. The issue of the violence is well known, and the Mexicans accept this as their current lot as well. As TijuanaPress.com journalist Vicente Calderon said during a 27 March 2008 interview on KPBS’s These Days program, there is no doubt that violence exists in Tijuana [or other border cities]. However, what Calderon finds disconcerting is the poor reporting practices by some U.S. media that is exacerbating the generic level of prejudice that he feels many Americans already have towards their neighbors (These Days, 2008).

The impact of the media’s agenda-setting impact is undeniable. According to Jamieson and Waldman (2003, p. xii), the reporter’s views of the world are the lenses by which the world will understand the events being reported. The news coverage that results from those lenses thus becomes the frame or structure by which the public reads, hears, watches, and ultimately understands the world around them. Unfortunately for residents in Baja California, this is bad news because the dominant narrative currently being pushed about Mexico is the raging violence due to the ensuing battle between the drug cartels and the security forces of President Felipe Calderon, as well as infighting among the cartels for domination of the trafficking routes. The persuasive power of these narratives is further magnified when one brings in mediums such as television or radio, whose formatting takes audience from the dreariness of text and still pictures on a broadsheet to the compelling world of the audiovisual. If a picture says a thousand words, then one can only wonder about the mark left by motion videos and audio recordings.

Download the full version here