SSI SPECIAL REPORT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: THE UNITED STATES, MEXICO, AND THE AGONY OF NATIONAL SECURITY Donald E. Schulz June 24, 1997 ******* The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. ******* Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5244. Comments may also be conveyed directly to the author by calling commercial (717) 245-4123 or DSN 242-4123. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Publications and Production Office by calling commercial (717) 245-4133, DSN 242-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or via the Internet at [email protected] ******* All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are loaded on the Strategic Studies Institute Homepage for electronic dissemination. SSI's Homepage address is: http://carlisle- www.army.mil/usassi/ ******* The author wishes to thank Eric Olson, Gabriel Marcella, James Rochlin, Steve Metz, Sami Hajjar, Colonels Richard Witherspoon and Michael Gonzalez, and Ambassador John Bennett for their comments on earlier drafts of this study. Any errors of omission or commission are entirely the author's responsibility. ii FOREWORD Few countries are as important to U.S. national security as Mexico. Yet, surprisingly little has been written about the complex of issues that make up the U.S.-Mexican national security matrix. In part, this is because we have long taken our southern neighbor for granted. Today, however, this is no longer possible. Mexico is the birthplace of a rapidly growing segment of U.S. society. The North American Free Trade Association has accelerated its interdependence with the U.S. economy. At the same time, Mexico has been experiencing great political, economic, and social disruption, and has become the territory of origin or transit of most of the illegal drugs entering the United States. The growing interpenetration and interdependence of the two countries means that this turmoil is more likely than ever to spill over the border. Whether in the form of economic interaction, illegal immigration, or the spread of corruption and violence, what happens in Mexico increasingly affects our own national interests. By redefining U.S.-Mexican national security in nontraditional terms, Dr. Donald E. Schulz has gone a long way towards helping us comprehend the implications of what has been happening. Equally important, he offers practical suggestions as to how U.S. leaders should respond--and not respond--to these challenges. The Strategic Studies Institute is pleased to publish this report as a contribution to understanding events in this critical North American neighbor. RICHARD H. WITHERSPOON Colonel, U.S. Army Director, Strategic Studies Institute iii BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR DONALD E. SCHULZ is a Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. He is coauthor of Reconciling the Irreconcilable: The Troubled Outlook for U.S. Policy Toward Haiti and The United States, Honduras and the Crisis in Central America, and coeditor of Mexico Faces the 21st Century, Revolution and Counterrevolution in Central America and the Caribbean, Cuba and the Future and Political Participation in Communist Systems. His articles have appeared in Foreign Policy, Orbis, the Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, and Small Wars and Insurgencies, as well as such media outlets as Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Miami Herald, the Los Angeles Times, and the Christian Science Monitor. iv SUMMARY This study analyses the changing nature of U.S.-Mexican national security issues, with a focus on narcotrafficking, the growing militarization of Mexico's counterdrug and police institutions, the danger of spreading guerrilla war, and the prospects of political and economic instability. The conclusion is that Mexico is in the midst of an extended period of transition in which it is extremely vulnerable to disruption on several different fronts simultaneously. While the economy has largely recovered from the 1994-95 peso crisis, it remains both fragile and volatile. Although much progress has been achieved in democratization, there is still a long way to go. Both political and criminal violence are growing. A new guerrilla group has appeared which may prove to be more troublesome than the Zapatistas. At the same time, the drug cartels are increasingly targeting law enforcement officers for assassination. In response to this growing lawlessness, the Mexican government has turned to the military for support in the struggles against narcotrafficking, insurgency, and common crime. Law enforcement is being increasingly militarized. While the immediate benefits of the strategy make it tempting, the costs and risks are considerable, especially as they relate to the growing vulnerability of the armed forces to corruption, the increased likelihood of human rights violations, and the potential for undermining Mexican democracy. Unless a major long- term effort is made to foster police and judicial reform, militarization may turn out to be a semipermanent feature of the emerging new political system. Within this context, the author argues that the United States should provide, and encourage other governments to provide, Mexico with the assistance it needs to strengthen civilian institutions and gradually reverse the militarization process. Meanwhile, care should be taken to make sure that U.S. counternarcotics aid is used for the purposes intended. When human rights violations, electoral fraud, or other abuses occur, the United States should forcefully exert its influence, but primarily through private diplomacy rather than public demonstrations like the annual certification ritual. Indeed, the author suggests that certification has become counterproductive and should be abolished. v BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE: THE UNITED STATES, MEXICO, AND THE AGONY OF NATIONAL SECURITY A politician who is poor is a poor politician. Carlos Hank Gonzalez Cabinet member during the Salinas Administration1 Since I was 17, I have been in military schools where they have hammered us with values such as honesty, discipline, and loyalty to the fatherland. These values make us more resistant to corruption [than civilians]. General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo Director, National Institute to Combat Drugs (December 1996-February 1997)2 Over the past several years, a major shift has occurred in the panorama of U.S.-Mexican national security concerns. In the process, Mexico, a country that had enjoyed extraordinary political and socio-economic stability for most of the preceding half-century, has become dangerously unstable. Yet, few of the sources of this instability can be traced to traditional national security threats. While there was a time when one could view national security in narrow military terms, that era has now passed, both for Mexico and the United States.3 The question is whether nonmilitary solutions can be found for these problems, or whether, failing that, a strategy of militarization will be adopted, and, if so, with what consequences. The Scourge of Narcopolitics. Arguably, the most serious threat to Mexican national security today is narcotrafficking.4 The reason is not hard to discern: The cartels have so penetrated the Mexican state and socio-economic structure that they have effectively subverted the country's institutions. You name the institution, and it has to one extent or another been corrupted: Congress, the courts, state governors, banks, businesses, the military, the police. The Federal Judicial Police have been so corrupted that it is no longer possible to make clear-cut distinctions between them and the criminals they are supposed to apprehend. In Mexico, the police very often are the crooks, and they have been deeply involved in narcotrafficking.5 Even the presidency has been touched, at least indirectly. There have been cabinet members who have had connections with the cartels. A former member of President Zedillo's and ex-President Salinas' security detail has admitted having been an operative for the Tijuana Cartel. Salinas' brother, Raul, almost certainly had ties with the Gulf 1 of Mexico Cartel, and possibly with the Tijuana Cartel as well.6 In short, we are not simply talking about a comparative handful of crooked politicians or gangsters. Drugs are the country's major export crop. In 1994, Mexico earned at least $7 billion and perhaps as much as $30 billion from narcotics.7 The same year, the largest legal export--oil--earned only $7 billion, and all legal exports combined amounted to less than $61 billion. And while much of this money is invested abroad, much also is returned to Mexico where it is recycled into businesses, both legitimate and illegitimate. By investing in privatized state companies, ports, tourism, construction, hotels, restaurants, exchange houses, banks, and innumerable other enterprises, Mexico's narcos "are able to both launder their profits and masquerade as respectable entrepreneurs."8 Mexico has become hooked on drug money. And that raises an important question: Given the extent of its addiction, can it stand a withdrawal? If the Zedillo administration were to succeed in eliminating--or, more realistically, sharply reducing--drug trafficking, what would be the impact on the economy? Mexico is currently in the process of recovering from a deep recession; the economy is still very fragile. Can the government take the chance of disrupting the recovery by really going after the drug lords? And if it did, what would be the social and political implications (the impact on unemployment and social unrest, for instance)? It is significant that U.S. officials have been very hesitant to slap stringent economic sanctions on the traffickers- -in no small part out of fear of the damage that could be done to the Mexican economy.9 The pain of withdrawal would be considerable in another way as well. For some time now, Mexicans have been debating whether or not a process of "Colombianization" was underway in their country. By Colombianization, of course, I am referring to a state of all-out war between the government and the cartels, similar to that which occurred in Colombia in the early 1990s, when the government went after (and eventually got) Pablo Escobar and the Medellin Cartel. So far, that has not happened in Mexico. It has not happened because the government has not waged war against the cartels the way the Colombian government did, and so there has been no massive retaliation or massive bloodshed. There have, however, been some troubling recent developments. For some time, the United States has been pressing Mexico to take a stronger stand against the cartels, and President Zedillo has accordingly agreed to do this.10 In early 1996, the government arrested the head of the Gulf of Mexico Cartel, Juan Garcia Abrego, and turned him over to U.S. authorities. Not long thereafter, it began going after the Arellano Felix brothers in Tijuana. An aggressive federal 2 commander, Ernesto Ibarra Santes, was appointed head of a special mobile intelligence unit, which swept through the area confiscating properties and arresting associates of the Tijuana Cartel. In August, as part of a nationwide purge of the Federal Judicial Police, about a quarter of the Federales in Baja California were dismissed. Ibarra was appointed commander of the federal police there. One month later, he received a call from then Attorney General Antonio Lozano, ordering him to report to Mexico City. When he arrived, no security detail was there to escort him so he left the airport in a cab. A few minutes later, a car pulled alongside, and gunmen sprayed the taxi with automatic weapons fire, killing Ibarra, two bodyguards, and the driver.11 This was not an isolated assassination. During this period, eight counternarcotics officials or former officials based in Tijuana were killed in a little over a year, along with more than a dozen state and municipal police and scores of minor traffickers. Altogether, in the year ending in October 1996 some 200 Mexican officers were killed in drug-related violence.12 One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what has been happening. There is a cause and effect relationship. If you go after the cartels, they will come after you. And I will go even farther than that: If you go after the corrupt police who are linked to the cartels, they will retaliate also. The fact that the assassins knew the details of Ibarra's travel plans suggests they were acting on inside information.13 Beyond this, there is another problem. Since coming to office, the Zedillo administration has made a serious attempt to revamp the police. In 1996 alone, some 1,200 police officials were dismissed. Over the past couple of years, the Federal Judicial Police (PJF) have been purged and over a third of the force fired.14 Meanwhile, the military has been increasingly brought into the law enforcement business. In late 1995, the armed forces took over the top command of the Federales in Chihuahua, bringing in active duty and former officers in a "test case" for a pilot project to incorporate personnel with military training into the PJF.15 Since then, generals have been placed in command positions in at least 19 state civilian police agencies and the federal district.16 Ninety-five federal police and drug enforcement agents in Baja California have recently been replaced by soldiers. Over 100 military personnel have been incorporated into the federal attorney general's office in Chihuahua, and others are performing similar functions in Tamaulipas. In Nuevo Leon, the entire contingent of 50 PJF agents has been replaced by twice as many soldiers. Increasingly, mid-level local commanders are meeting with police and judicial officials to formulate public security strategies.17 3 In December 1996, moreover, generals were placed in charge of the Federal Judicial Police, the National Institute to Combat Drugs (INCD, the Mexican equivalent of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration), and the Center for the Planning of Drug Control (CENDRO).18 Reportedly, the mid-level officers and the operational command units that will support them will also come from the armed forces.19 At the same time, the Center for National Security and Investigation (CISEN), the government's secret information service, has increasingly been taken over by the military.20 Furthermore, since June 1996 there has been a sweeping shake-up of the police in Mexico City. The new head of that force, retired Brigadier General Enrique Salgado Cordero, has brought in nearly 200 military officers to oversee the department. Some 2,600 police are to be replaced by soldiers charged with patrolling the streets and combating crime. In the Federal District and elsewhere, troops have been repeatedly used to locate and help apprehend drug traffickers. In Tijuana, military officers have been placed in charge of the federal prosecutor's local office and the special police border unit monitoring immigration; the director of the state police is a military man, as is the chief of security at the city's international airport. As a result of these and other measures, some 70 percent of the narcotics confiscated in Mexico in 1996 was found by the armed forces.21 All of this, of course, is being done for a reason: Not only are the cartels more powerful than ever, but violent crime has been skyrocketing. There were some 1,500 kidnappings in Mexico in 1995, more than in any other Latin American country except Colombia (which leads the world in that dubious honor). Last year, about 30 percent of Mexico's commercial establishments were held up. Some of this, at least, is attributable to the police or former police, who are putting their skills to use in new and creative ways. (By 1995, according to an internal Mexican Interior Ministry report, there were some 900 armed criminal gangs in Mexico, over half of which were composed of current or former law enforcement officials.)22 Now, much of this crime is due to other factors also. The socio-economic crisis that began in December 1994 has driven a lot of people over the line, and they are doing whatever they have to do to survive. A lot of it is illegal, and some of it is violent. At the same time, drug traffickers and guerrillas have increased their involvement in the kidnapping business. The point is simply that efforts to cure the diseases of drug trafficking and corruption will be painful. Indeed, in the short run they may be as painful as the diseases themselves, which is one reason why the government has been so reluctant to push the matter. Again, the danger is that a dialectic of violence may occur, which could potentially take Mexico down the road to full-scale "Colombianization." If that happened, even the president of the republic would not be safe. 4 Why is all this of interest to the United States? The answer is fairly obvious. In recent years, some 50-70 percent of the cocaine, up to 80 percent of the marijuana, and 20-30 percent of the heroin imported into the United States has come from or through Mexico.23 And add to this a newcomer: methamphetamines. "Speed" is enjoying a dramatic surge in popularity in the United States. Indeed, it is not too much to suggest that a major shift is occurring in the international drug trade. Over the next decade, there is likely to be a marked decline in U.S. consumption of cocaine. Tastes are changing, and synthetic drugs will at least partially push it out of the market. And here the Mexicans--especially the Guadalajara cartel run by the brothers Jesus and Luis Amezcua--have gotten in on the ground floor. They control about 80 percent of the U.S. market for methamphetamines, operate labs and distribution systems deep inside the United States, and have a vast network of foreign suppliers that stretches around the world.24 Finally, Mexico has become one the most important money laundering centers in the Americas. Drugs are a national security issue for the United States. Indeed, they may well be the most important U.S. national security interest in this hemisphere. They are poisoning our society, destroying the social fabric, and spreading crime, violence, and death. Mexican drug organizations already operate deep inside the United States, and there is mounting evidence of their corrupting effect on U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies all along the Rio Grande. Should drug violence in Mexico escalate, we will not be immune. It will spread over the border. Indeed, it already has. This again raises the issue of the cure and the disease. I have already asked whether Mexico can stand the pain of a withdrawal from its addiction. The question might equally be posed of the United States. Given the impact that a major drug war would have on the Mexican economy and its potential for social and political destabilization, including an increase in illegal migration across the border, can the United States really afford such a policy? I do not pretend to have the answer. I would merely suggest that this is an issue that needs to be fully thought out. The Spread of Guerrilla Violence. Another major national security issue that needs to be addressed is the spread of guerrilla war. Some time ago, this writer raised the issue of whether there were other groups besides the Zapatistas (EZLN) that might pose a national security threat to Mexico. In particular, I mentioned a group calling itself the Clandestine Revolutionary Workers Party-Union of the 5