malcolm beith

Enrique Pena Nieto and the three little books

2011-12-06T19:47:00.000-08:00

Mexican and international commentators are, unsurprisingly, having a field day over presidential candidate Enrique Pena Nieto's inability to name three books that influenced his life at the Guadalajara Book Fair over the weekend.

But the real story isn't that he hasn't read three books. He has. Of course he has. He's a well-educated man, with a bachelor's degree from the Universidad Panamericana and a master's in business.

The real story is that it is quite possible, with all the posturing and puppeteering going on, both during his governorship and his campaign, with all the political platitudes he's dished out over the years, that he has forgotten how to think for himself. And when asked a question about his own life, his personal life, books that changed that life, he can't actually remember. This might even be more worrisome than if he had not read any books, if he's to be the next president of Mexico.

The Mexican people need a person as their president, not a puppet.

Ron Paul and the drug war

2011-11-23T16:31:00.000-08:00

Ron Paul is getting a fair bit of credit for some of the matter-of-fact things he said in the last debate, particularly his comments on the drug war. A sampling:

“I think the federal war on drugs is a total failure. You can—you can at least let sick people have marijuana because it’s helpful, but compassionate conservatives say, well, we can’t do this; we’re going to put people who are sick and dying with cancer and they’re being helped with marijuana, if they have multiple sclerosis—the federal government’s going in there and overriding state laws and putting people like that in prison. Why don’t we handle the drugs like we handle alcohol? Alcohol is a deadly drug. What about—the real deadly drugs are the prescription drugs. They kill a lot more people than the illegal drugs. So the drug war is out of control. I fear the drug war because it undermines our civil liberties. It magnifies our problems on the borders. We spend—like, over the last forty years, $1 trillion on this war. And believe me, the kids can still get the drugs. It just hasn’t worked.”

On the surface, the guy seems smart, and almost compassionate. Calling it like he sees it; even echoing the anti-drug war, left-leaning crowd which argues that the $1 trillion spent on a drug war that has not really reduced consumption and has only filled up U.S. prisons. According to some media reports, Paul really caught the attention of the so-called youth vote with these comments.

But look closer: Paul goes on to mention the "real deadly drugs." Prescription pills. Anyone know what the DEA's new No. 1 priority is? Going after, yes, prescription pills.

Now, I'm not a drug war-basher just for the sake of bashing, as anyone who has read The Last Narco will tell you. I'm not really for drugs, nor really against them, except when they clearly destroy lives. Personally, I don't like them because I prefer beer.

I'll even go so far as to say that I support the drug war as it exists today, because I haven't seen a truly viable alternative (no, nationwide legalization is not viable, because it won't ever happen.)

But what I don't support are politicians twisting their own opinions to pander to certain crowds. If the DEA makes pills its priority, does anyone really think the war on traffickers of other drugs will ease up? Why would it? An all-out war on pills would mean a bigger budget because you've got one more illicit substance to go after; that budget could and most likely would be allocated pretty much anywhere a vast bureaucracy likes.

Again, I'm all for going after pills, and the people who sell them to unsuspecting victims illegally. It's a sordid affair, and needs to be stopped. But please, don't pretend to be against a $1 trillion war that will only continue if you go after the pills!

It's this easy: I, ––––––––, think the DEA should go after prescription pills, perhaps the deadliest drug threat of them all. I recognize that the drug war has not entirely succeeded, especially in the eyes of many critics, and we need to seriously examine how to better combat the drug scourge in the future. Debating legalization is futile, unless you, the American people, decide to actually vote for it (California didn't; I somehow doubt the rest of you will). So in the meantime, we will add prescription pills to the long list of illicit substances our authorities will go after, and do our utmost to fix the underlying societal issues that are turning our kids to drugs.

Chapo's cash and clean soldiers

2011-11-22T12:29:00.000-08:00

Following the news that the Mexican military seized $15 million in cash allegedly belonging to Chapo in Tijuana, I want to bring up a point that is rarely mentioned in the drug war: the soldiers actually brought the cash in.

Imagine stumbling upon $15 million in cash. You've searched a car, and there, just sitting there, is $15 million. You could pocket that cash and walk across the border into the US, and you'd never be heard from again. Neither you nor I can really fathom that amount of money. Nor, if we are entirely honest, can we imagine not being tempted to walk off with it. Yet these soldiers turned the money in to their superiors. They didn't take any of it (as far as we know). Kudos.

Incidentally, most news reports are claiming that this is the second-largest seizure of cash during the Calderon administration. It's actually the third. Here's an account (from The Last Narco) of the largest seizure and how a few honest cops refrained from taking a slice of the $207 million that was seized in Zhenli Ye Gon's Mexico City mansion.

//Antonio (not his real name) once helped lead a raid on a mansion in the swanky Mexico City district of Lomas de Chapultepec. The property belonged to Zhenli Ye Gon, a Chinese-Mexican businessman who the authorities believed was importing methamphetamine precursors for Chapo and the Sinaloa cartel.

Antonio and his crew found an enormous stash of cash in the mansion: 207 million in US dollars, 18 million Mexican pesos, 200,000 euros, 113,000 Hong Kong dollars and nearly a dozen gold bullion coins.

Antonio and another top police commander (his superior, on that occasion) wanted to make sure none of the cops walked off with any of the loot. So they ordered their men to empty their pockets and remove their clothes prior to leaving the scene. They did; no one had stolen anything. The other commander and his men then began to leave, but Antonio blocked him. No, everyone, he told the ranking man. What my men do, I do. So the two of them stripped down to their underwear.

Antonio and his superior (as well as their subordinates) were both clean – that time. But the superior officer would later be charged with links to organized crime and, specifically, receiving vast amounts of cash from one cartel in exchange for information on anti-narco operations.

No. 2 No. 5

2011-11-19T13:38:00.000-08:00

While all the recent news has focused on the helicopter crash that killed Interior Secretary Francisco Blake Mora and of course, the conspiracy theories surrounding it, few journalists have pointed out that he is not only the second No. 2 to die in an aviation tragedy during this administration; his death makes successor Alejandro Poire the fifth interior secretary in as many years.

Mexican interior minister dies in helicopter crash

2011-11-11T10:57:00.001-08:00

So the Mexican authorities have declared Francisco Blake Mora dead, after a helicopter crash outside of Mexico City. Blake Mora, the nation's interior minister, or No. 2, was headed to Cuernavaca.

This is the second interior minister to die in an aviation disaster during the Calderon administration – the first, Juan Camilo Mourino, was a close friend and ally of Calderon's, and died in a plane crash in Mexico City on Nov. 4, 2008.

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but seriously, this is all very suspect no matter how one looks at it. At the very least, it's time Mexican officials got either a) better helicopters/planes or b) better pilots.

My condolences to the families of the eight who died in the most recent crash.

Chapo on Forbes' list

2011-11-07T09:30:00.000-08:00

Once again, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman has been named to Forbes' list of most powerful people in the world, occupying the no. 55 spot for no apparent reason.

Well, Forbes gives reasons, ie, a methodology of sorts. Forbes measured "how many people a person has power over." It looked at the person's "financial resources," then asked whether "a candidate [is] influential in more than one arena, or sphere." Lastly, Forbes "gave consideration to how actively the candidates wield their power."

Patrick Corcoran has some good thoughts on the matter here:
http://estepais.com/site/?p=35954

My thoughts, as someone who has researched Chapo for a fair amount of time now:

One thing to take into account on power lists is the fear factor. For instance, mention the name of President Felipe Calderon in Sinaloa, and you will most likely elicit a chuckle. I like Calderon, and I respect him, but that doesn't change the fact that in places like Sinaloa, people regard him as a pendejo.
Mention Chapo's name, on the other hand, and you get fear, awe, trembles, respect. That's power.

And what about his power as a brand? In 2007, Chapo was being written off by everyone in Mexico. Now, his name is as well-known as Pablo Escobar's. When one thinks of the global drug trade, one thinks of Chapo. Some idiot rapper even named his album after him.

I think another criteria for power should be likely effect of death or departure. For instance, if President Barack Obama resigned tomorrow for no apparent reason, the world would be in shock. There would be ripple-effects all over the place. Everyone would be wondering what happened, why, buzzing about what might happen next.

If Chapo were to retire tomorrow, or die, or be captured, what would happen? It's all speculation, but there would likely to be serious violence throughout Sinaloa, perhaps throughout Mexico. I still believe there are contingency plans in place for retaliation against the authorities if they nail him. (Disclaimer: this is based on no evidence whatsoever, just a hunch.)

Lastly, what about connections to power? A senior Mexican general was allegedly sent by a high-ranking administration official to talk to Chapo to ask him to contain the levels of violence in Sinaloa. When a member of the army – undoubtedly the most powerful entity in the country, at least officially – is sent to talk to you, to effectively ask for your assistance, that is power indeed.

Long story short, I think Chapo should be included on Forbes' list. But I think they should have included a little more info on why he belongs there, given how murky details on his financial resources etc really are.

Enique Krauze weighs in

2011-11-03T04:23:00.000-07:00

Mexican historian and publisher Enrique Krauze has written a piece for Bloomberg View which several friends have sent along, recommending on Facebook and the like.

As a big fan of Krauze (ok, I admit I have never read more than three paragraphs of his stuff, but I've always wanted to write for Letras Libres) I eagerly opened the link to the article.

This is what I got:

"Mexico, battered by an interminable narco war, hasn’t found a firm consensus on how to combat organized crime."

My response: Mexico's congress, often battered by its own stubbornness, hasn't found a firm consensus on much in recent years. Just look at the gridlock since 2000. Police reforms are stuck there for a reason. As for Mexicans, well, polls do show that more than 70 percent of people favor the death penalty for narcos, and more than 80 percent support the use of the military in the drug war.

"In Spain, which has been plagued by the violence of the Basque group ETA, such a consensus was slow to develop..."

My response: ETA is not and never was part of a multi-billion dollar industry. Please don't compare rotten apples and rancid oranges.

"A major factor impeding agreement on a program of action is a rejection, by many Mexicans, of the law-enforcement policies pursued by President Felipe Calderon. Nevertheless, in a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, 83 percent of respondents approved of the government’s deployment of the army against the cartels."

My response: Did I miss something here? Did you just undercut your own argument in the following sentence?

"Yet a strong undercurrent of opposition to Calderon’s strategy has been expressed in the recent countrywide marches of the Movement for Peace, founded by the poet Javier Sicilia after his son was murdered by men connected with a drug cartel for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, as has happened to so many innocents in recent years."

My response: Come on, Dr Krauze. You know full well that Sicilia's movement, as moving and inspiring as it seems, is not likely to be very different from past movements, led by the likes of Alejandro Marti. Marches bring awareness, but right now, Mexico is hardly an under-reported news story of yesteryear. People need security now, not some poet speaking out and shedding tears on their behalf and taking up the president's time by having a nice little televised dialogue with him about things he already knows and is trying to fix.

"A complete acceptance of Calderon’s strategies is by no means required to secure a broad national consensus against organized crime."

My response: Thank God for that. I'm no fan of authoritarianism, but Calderon is the president, and definitely needs some leeway to just do what he thinks is right. He shouldn't have to ask permission on every detail of his plan; sometimes I wonder if some Mexican pundits have taken this whole democracy thing a bit far.

"Like many others, I would criticize the overwhelming emphasis on a military solution... [and the lack of] focus on the corrupt connections between power and crime."

My response: No one has said the military is a solution. Every single government official that I know of says the eventual aim is to get the military back in the barracks as soon as it is possible. It has done so on several occasions in Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, only to have to bring them back in. As for focusing on the corrupt connections between power and crime, well, I would agree with that if the Calderon administration hadn't thrown its drug czar in jail, arrested a top DEA-backed commander, thrown 30 or so Michoacan officials and mayors in jail (let's ignore the fact that they were later released due to lack of evidence), and so on. Sure, much more needs to be done, but Operation Clean House wasn't all smoke and mirrors.

"A society mobilized to confront so grave a problem as the cartel violence in Mexico cannot tolerate inefficiency and corruption in its political leaders. But it must be equally firm in its rejection of, and active opposition to, criminals."

Response: Agreed.

A link to the article is in the title of this post.

Anonymous

2011-11-01T06:31:00.000-07:00

Back in 2008, Mexican officials called on the people of Mexico to rise up and do their part against organized crime. Report incidents and suspicious activity, top officials urged. It's up to you to fight organized crime, not us.

At the time, the request seemed a little off colour, ridiculous even. Tens of thousands of people were dying, shootouts in public places were becoming more common.

But the government was right: the people had to do something, at the very least gain confidence in their ability to report crimes and not become victims themselves.

The authorities set up some anonymous hotlines in cities like Culiacan, Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. They got some calls. Some tips were worth acting on. Then the calls stopped coming.

The callers were getting killed. The local police were simply noting down the numbers of the callers, checking in the phone company, and passing a list of the numbers/names off to the narcos.

Human rights activists caught wind of it, and warned the brave folks who still might dare to report illicit activity: call from a payphone. Never use your home phone or mobile. Never give your real name. Don't stay on the line too long.

The denuncias anonimas kept coming. They still are to this day. There have been few reprisals that I know of.

That's what the authorities had in mind when they called on people to take matters into their own hands.

The video released by people purporting to be the hacker group Anonymous is an interesting new twist. Reporting information about a shootout on twitter is one thing, threatening the Zetas head-on is another. I still am not quite sure what this group hopes to achieve. Los Zetas can track hackers if they are local. They don't really care about the names of officials being publicized, because most people already assume who is involved, thanks to the Mexican penchant for secretos a voces. Publishing names anonymously might implicate someone who is not a criminal; at best, it will only likely reaffirm the public's suspicions about official so-and-so. Hard evidence, if the group has it, should go straight to the federal authorities – perhaps on the condition that if the authorities do nothing, the group will publish it, if trust in said authorities is lacking.

Going after Los Zetas, as many commentators have already written, could be really dangerous. There is no clear goal, and Los Zetas, let's remember, do not hesitate to behead people when they deem it necessary.

I want the violence in Mexico to end just as much as the next guy. But the only thing I can see coming out of the Anonymous threat is more violence. I cannot see a serious challenge to Los Zetas anywhere in this.

I welcome comments, particularly from people who have been to Veracruz recently or actually, anywhere in Zeta territory, because it's been a few years since I was there.

Drug war opposition and support

2011-10-26T21:32:00.000-07:00

I wrote a short piece on the polarity of voices in the drug war, for Voice of Mexico, a friend's web site. Here it is (link in title of the post, too)
http://www.voiceofmexico.com/articles/the-fog-of-facts

Creel's drug war plan

2011-10-26T17:35:00.000-07:00

PAN presidential hopeful Santiago Creel on Wednesday pulled a smart political move by declaring he would break with the current drug war strategy (which he condemned) and then laying out plans that fit perfectly into the currently designed template.

Creel, no ally of Calderon within PAN circles, said he would change "everything" if elected in 2012. "The direct, frontal, expansive strategy is a strategy that should end with this administration."

Creel said that he would begin to take the army off the streets - he gave a 24-month withdrawal timeframe – and insisted the priority should be going after the cartel's revenue streams, going after money laundering, and cleaning up prisons.

This is no different from Calderon's strategy. In fact, according to a senior official I spoke with about the matter about a year ago, it is considered to be Phase 4 of the current drug war plan. So, clearly, Creel has calculated that by bashing the current administration's strategy, he will win political points with an increasingly disillusioned electorate, while also appeasing the powers that be inside the PAN (and of course, winning friends internationally – the US has invested $1.4 billion in Merida Initiative money towards this drug war strategy; so does anyone think things are going to change dramatically in the next sexenio?)

Calderon interview with NY Times/Chapo stuff

2011-10-18T11:52:00.000-07:00

The New York Times interview with President Felipe Calderon is really pretty interesting, if you read the Spanish transcript rather than the edited version. (Link in title of post.)

I won't analyze it, or go into the statements about the PRI, but will comment on his remarks about Chapo, which are now generating buzz in Mexican dailies.

Here's what he says: (in response to a question about Chapo's wife giving birth to twins in a Los Angeles hospital and how she might have made it there)

Calderon: Well that you have to ask US border authorities. Because the [customs/immigration checkpoint] one has to cross in order to get to Los Angeles is American, not Mexican. If Chapo was in Los Angeles I'd ask the Americans why they didn't catch him. I don't know if he was in Los Angeles, but those are questions I have.

NYT: But he/she (unclear from context whether NYT is referring to Chapo or his wife) had to travel across Mexican territory to get to LA.

Calderon: He/she is not in Mexican territory, and I suppose/guess that Chapo is in US territory. Here the surprising thing is that he or his wife are so comfortable in the United States, which makes me ask myself... How many families [of drug lords] or capos would be more comfortable on the northern side of the border than on the southern side? What does Chapo Guzman gain by having his family in the United States?

Calderon, speaking about Chapo and other capos: Chapo, like other leaders, Los Zetas, Lazcano... these are very protected people, people who have very complex cover networks. In the specific case of El Chapo, we suspect his area of influence extends through the Sierra Madre Occidental, between the states of Chihuahua, Durango and Sinaloa, which allows him great mobility and regardless of what operations we conduct to catch him, he has a way of detecting [the authorities] at dozens of kilometers distance, hours away.

Certainly, during my administration, the Mexican army has arrived, probably twice, at a site where Chapo had been just hours before. Sooner or later, he and other leaders will fall.

NYT: Do you want Chapo dead or alive?
Calderon: Frankly, I don't wish death upon anyone.

Them's fightin' words

2011-10-06T17:30:00.000-07:00

I might have to reconsider my last post: La Jornada has published a scathing editorial in the aftermath of Fast and Furious, asking whether the United States is an "ally or enemy?"

Link in title of the post.

Global Post piece on US military assistance to Mexico

2011-10-06T12:17:00.001-07:00

Global Post has an interesting story on US military assistance to Mexico. (Link in title of post).

The headline: US troops aid Mexico in drug war... The US doesn't need to invade — it's already there.

The piece, by Ioan Grillo (admittedly a very good foreign correspondent in Mexico), is decent, and outlines the ways in which the U.S. is offering assistance to Mexico in the drug war.

Then, however, Grillo proceeds to write: "But few in the U.S. are aware how entrenched their military machine has already become south of the Rio Grande. The rising American presence has caused consternation in Mexico, a strongly nationalist country that annually celebrates the ninos heroes, child soldiers who died fighting the U.S. in 1847.
Some commentators here say new American involvement violates Mexico’s constitution."

True, some commentators have indeed noted their offense to US assistance on the ground; they have also expressed unease at the amount of US agents (DEA, FBI, ICE) on their soil.

"Some commentators."

This is important; over the past few years, there's been a notable shift in US-Mexican relations, one that few media have dared report. The shift is this: there has been very little public outcry (even from the traditionally anti-gringo Left) over US assistance in the drug war. Even La Jornada has refrained from outright gringo-bashing, because, well, they realize Mexico needs all the help it can get. "Consternation?" Not to much.

So what's the point of this statement in the Global Post article? In my mind, it's simply an attempt to rile people up, to try and throw a spanner in the works by harkening back to bygone eras of nationalist fervor – rather than a real effort at serious reporting of a serious issue.

I welcome thoughts on this subject. Sovereignty is obviously an important issue in this drug war, and it's important to put Rick Perry's comments in proper context. But as reporters, I think it's equally important to look for the facts and then make the point, rather than the other way around.

Chronology of bloodshed

2011-10-04T12:19:00.000-07:00

The video released by the matazetas just recently has some new elements to it, and the killing of 35 alleged zetas in Veracruz seems to be a ratcheting up of drug violence. So I thought I'd do a quick recap of the violence, and how it has evolved. I welcome any incidents that I've left out:

2005 – Video featuring La Barbie and his men interrogating, torturing and then killing four alleged Zetas is uploaded onto the Internet.

Sept. 2006 – Five heads are rolled onto a dance floor at the Sol y Sombra nightclub in Uruapan, Michoacan. La Familia takes credit, mentions "divine justice."
This is the first mention of religion in context of drug cartel violence. It is not the first beheading, but it garners much media attention.

Also in late 2006, the head of a decapitated Acapulco policeman is placed on a pike outside of the police station.

2007 - Narcomantas start appearing on overpasses throughout Mexico, often accompanied by dead bodies of rival narcos. Some of the messages taunt rivals, others accuse the authorities (as high up as the president) of collusion with groups like the Sinaloa cartel. Some narcomantas, attributed to Los Zetas, attempt to lure soldiers to the other side with offers of "better salaries and benefits."

During 2007 and 2008, beheadings become commonplace. Dozens of heads, sometimes left in coolers, are discovered alongside roads throughout Mexico. A couple are even discovered at Mexico City's airport.

August 2008 – Thirteen apparent innocents – including several teenagers, a 4-year-old and a 16-month-old – are massacred in the Chihuahua town of Creel.

January 2009 – 'El Pozolero' is arrested. Confesses to having dissolved more than 300 bodies in caustic soda for one drug cartel.

Early 2009 – In Caborca, Sonora, a gang of Sinaloa cartel hitmen kidnap a group of rivals. Limb by limb, they saw them to bits.

Some time also in 2009, the headless bodies of two men are thrown out of a small plane flying over Sonora. Stunned farmers discover them shortly after.

September 2, 2009 – An attack on a rehab center in Ciudad Juarez leaves 18 dead. This would be the first of several attacks on rehab clinics nationwide.

In 2009, there were more than 300 beheadings throughout Mexico.

Around New Year's Eve, 2009: A thirty-six-year-old man is found dead in Sinaloa. His body has been cut into seven pieces. His face has been carved off, delicately. It was later found, stitched on to a football. A note was left with the ball: "Happy New Year, because this will be your last."

August 2010 - The bodies of 72 migrants are found in a mass grave in Tamaulipas.

December 2010 – 14-year-old Edgar Jimenez Lugo is arrested, confesses that he worked as a sicario and participated in four executions.

February 2011 – Sicarios fail to find their target in Ciudad Juarez, so kill his three daughters (aged 12, 14, and 15) instead.

March 2011 – A state police commander in Chihuahua is attacked as she walks her 5-year-old daughter to school; both die of gunshot wounds.

Also in March, a young woman is bound and gagged, shot and abandoned in a car in Acapulco. Her 4-year-old daughter is discovered next to her, killed with a single bullet to the chest. That same week, according to the Washington Post, four other kids are killed in Acapulco.

April 2011 – 193 dead bodies found in a mass grave in Tamaulipas.

May 2011 – More than 180 bodies are dug up at five sites in Durango.

There are more incidents, obviously, but these are the ones that spring immediately to mind.

The matazetas

2011-09-22T20:31:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of the recent killings in Veracruz, there's been a lot of talk about the so-called "matazetas," apparently an alliance between la Gente Nueva (originally from Sinaloa), la Generacion Nueva de Jalisco (from Jalisco) and possibly, the Gulf cartel. The Wall Street Journal has a fine piece on the subject and the fears of paramilitarization. (Link in title of post)

Contrary to conventional wisdom (if there is any such thing in Mexico's drug war), the Matazetas are nothing new. Around 2004, when a Sinaloa cartel-backed kill squad known as Los Negros moved into Nuevo Laredo to take on the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas, the name "matazetas" was born (to the best of my knowledge, that is the first time it was mentioned.)

Then in 2005/2006, when La Barbie took it upon himself to work with La Gente Nueva and try to instill the fear of God in Los Zetas in Tamaulipas, the term matazetas became commonplace. (One of the infamous videos of La Barbie's men executing Zetas, which were later uploaded onto the Internet, was titled "Be a patriot, kill a Zeta.") Throughout Tamaulipas, if you ask anyone with a decent memory, they'll tell you stories of the matazetas, and the fears that residents had back then that these apparent vigilantes, or paramilitaries as some are calling them, might take over. They might even admit that they preferred the Zetas running the show.

Throughout 2007, Veracruz was in the midst of a raging turf war, too – the violence there is not that new, although it does appear to have intensified with the latest killing of 35 Zeta-affiliated gangsters. Back in 2007, Los Zetas was under threat from an armed wing of La Gente Nueva, according to newspaper reports. Chapo was trying to take the plaza.

The local Veracruz chapter of La Gente Nueva went by another name, too, according to a Dec. 16, 2007, story in Mexico's leading newspaper, El Universal.

"They're known as Los matazetas," wrote correspondent Edgar Avila Perez.

The significance of Veracruz

2011-09-21T15:59:00.000-07:00

So 35 bodies were dumped in full display in Veracruz. (Link to AP story in title of post)

The significance of this latest massacre should not be understated, in my view. Veracruz is traditionally a Zeta-Gulf cartel stronghold. I last went there in late 2008, and everything you could imagine was said to be run by Zetas. Bars, nightclubs, hotels – if you named it, locals likely identified it as a Zeta operation.

Real Zetas, mind you, not the young thugs running around the country currently calling themselves Zetas for shits and giggles and to make a name for themselves.

Rumor (based on a narcomanta allegedly left at the scene) has it that Chapo's Gente Nueva were responsible for the latest killings.

If that's the case, and Chapo's people are moving in on Zeta turf in the southeast/gulf region, then this could spell serious trouble for an already volatile area.

For several decades, the southeast corner of Mexico (Veracruz is at what I consider to be the tip of that corner) has been inhabited by both the Gulf cartel and the Sinaloa cartel. I don't know details of the arrangement by which they co-existed, but there is sufficient evidence that both big groups have been allowed to operate in the states of Veracruz, Quintana Roo and Yucatan. Veracruz and Cancun have both served as useful ports of entry for cocaine coming in from Colombia, as well as shipping points for drugs destined to Europe.

So if Chapo's people are indeed going after rivals in Veracruz (the city), it could signal a shift of some kind. We already know that US officials believe the Gulf cartel leadership and the Sinaloa cartel have formed an alliance against the renegade Zetas, so this may be just another sign of that move.

But we also know that the Sinaloa cartel is hellbent on expanding its operations, particularly to Europe, where drug consumption is up and law enforcement is down (would be nice to have a port like Veracruz in one's control). We also know that the goal of the Mexican authorities is not to end drug trafficking altogether (an impossibility) but to make it so difficult to traffic through Mexico that the cartels have to look elsewhere.

Back to the Caribbean, for instance.

Games without frontiers

2011-09-19T15:34:00.000-07:00

In early 2009, a lawyer believed to be representing the Sinaloa cartel named Humberto Loya-Castro allegedly approached DEA agents in an attempt to introduce them to a client of his – Vicente Zambada-Niebla, the son of El Mayo Zambada, and according to U.S. Justice Department indictments, ranked as high as Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman in the Sinaloa cartel.

Loya-Castro allegedly indicated to the agents that Zambada-Niebla might be interested in cooperating with the authorities. DEA agents in Mexico apparently obtained permission from higher-ups in Washington, D.C. to conduct a preliminary introductory meeting with Zambada-Niebla, arranging to meet the lawyer and his client in Mexico City on March 18.

According to what appears to be a government response to a motion filed by Zambada-Niebla in a Chicago court (where he is now on trial), two DEA agents flew to Mexico City on March 17, where they met with their Mexico City-based counterparts; their superior in Mexico City at the time allegedly met with them and "expressed concern" about U.S. agents meeting with such a high-level member of a cartel. According to the document, the ranking agent ordered his subordinates to call off their attempts to meet with Zambada-Niebla unless they received further explicit authorization to do so.

DEA agents then allegedly met with Loya-Castro at a Mexico City hotel to break the news. But shortly after, Loya-Castro apparently returned to the hotel, Zambada-Niebla in tow. The DEA agents then allegedly informed the lawyer that they could not meet with Zambada-Niebla, who purportedly "indicated that he simply wished to convey personally his interest and willingness to cooperate with the U.S. government.

This all is supposed to have happened on March 17, 2009. In the wee hours of March 18, Zambada-Niebla was arrested by Mexican authorities in the Lomas de Pedregal neighborhood of Mexico City (pic of the house above, courtesy of Google maps). In February 2010, he was extradited to the United States.

NOTE: The information above was obtained from a PDF of what appears to be the government response to Zambada-Niebla's motion, which was posted on the web. I can't vouch for the veracity of the document, hence my use of "allegedly" and "apparently" above. More information as I find out more.

Viva Mexico!

2011-09-15T09:16:00.001-07:00

In honour of Mexican Independence Day, here's a recap of how I spent the celebrations two years ago, in Badiraguato, Sinaloa. (Excerpted from The Last Narco)

As the rain fell hard, the last of Badiraguato’s revellers could be heard, singing, yelling profanities, stumbling or driving drunkenly home after the Independence Day festivities. They had just enjoyed a peaceful celebration – no violence at all, no shootings – much to the delight of local government and residents.

Some local narcos, sporting gold chains, guns and fancy cowboy boots, had filed into the square at about 9 p.m. to listen to the live traditional banda tunes with the rest of Badiraguato, but they’d caused no trouble. Some were surely just wannabe narcos, too, dressing like those they aspire to become.

A group of mothers, lined up in a row along the side of the plaza, looked on as one young narco grabbed the hand of a beautiful brown-haired girl of about fourteen. She was decked out in stilettos, an open-backed top and a short skirt. Her long nails were neatly painted, specks of glitter on her cheek reflected in the lighting. He dragged her out in front of the band and they began to dance sloppily – like teenagers – as the brass banda group churned out another lively, upbeat tune.

Normally, the sight of an apparent drug trafficker and a dolled-up teen princess dancing to what can only be described as circus music would be sidesplitting. But in Badiraguato it’s the norm – the narcos love their banda, and they love their princesses.

There was an air of calm to Badiraguato that Independence Day, 15 September 2009. The previous year had been a troubled one; homicides had dominated the talk of the town. ‘Mochomo’ – a nickname meaning ‘fire ant’ given to Alfredo Beltran Leyva – and Chapo had been at war, and no one really knew who was in charge any more. But now, with a pact between the feuding kingpins, there was control again and the violence was declining.

Soldiers in the shadowy barracks at the far end of Badiraguato peered out over the walls to catch a glimpse of the festivities – they had not been invited but they would enjoy as much of the moment as they could. Some residents glared at the soldiers; all opted for silence while walking by. Only when they were out of the soldiers’ earshot did they resume their conversations.

The air of calm in Badiraguato felt precariously temporary. The Sierra of Sinaloa was not what it once was. For several years, the region had been what one resident called a ‘marked zone’. The military was ever-present, but so were the narcos. By and large, the military avoided conflict, but that didn't mean the narcos weren't duking it out among themselves.

Homicide had become so common in Sinaloa that it cost a mere $35 to have a rival murdered.

On 15 September 2009, Independence night in Badiraguato, some locals hoped to see Chapo there. A group of local narcos had conducted a thorough review of their operations to make sure the marijuana was growing and being delivered at the pace they had promised. When he arrived, Chapo would be pleased.

A helicopter circled overhead before the fireworks began. The next morning, the helicopter appeared again. The military was watching, waiting.

Chapo never came.

From the Dept. of Terrible Headlines

2011-08-30T23:06:00.000-07:00

Fox News has a new story about the Mexican drug war, with the headline: Is Mexico our ally or our Enemy?

This is inflammatory nonsense. Disagree as the two nations might about what to do with the drug cartels and drug consumption, Mexico and the United States are allies, always will be (contrary to George Friedman's prediction that war will break out in the next 100 years between the two countries) and the media and politicians should stop stirring things up at a time when cooperation is at an all-time high, and is absolutely crucial to progress.

There is such a thing as a stupid question

2011-08-30T13:14:00.000-07:00

El Universal has a list of questions for readers on its web site, including one about making a pact with the narcos. The nonsensical nature of the questions just about sums up the feasibility of making such a pact.

¿Te parece que debe pactarse con criminales?
* ¿Crees que es posible vivir de la basura?
* ¿Y tú, respetas a los policías?
* ¿Te gustaría llegar vivir más de 100 años?

The final straw?

2011-08-30T01:58:00.000-07:00

I'm usually a big fan of Global Post, but a recent blog item caught my attention for its lack of insight. (Link in title of post).

The author asks whether the Monterrey attack is "Mexico’s final straw," and then goes on to say that "Mexicans have protested before, demanding an end to mass graves and kidnappings amid the drug violence. In the past, little has changed. This time, though, it seems like the people's anger may have helped bring about some results."

The results: the arrest of five suspects.

Anyone who has covered Mexico, or even observed it from a distance for some time, knows that suspects are often arrested after incidents like this, after mass protests, after public outcry, after political calls for justice. Anyone who knows Mexico also knows that due to lack of good investigations, god only knows whether the alleged culprits are indeed guilty.

I'll keep reading Global Post, but I would prefer if it didn't feed into the pro-Sicilia people power hype and instead kept a more level-headed sense of perspective on Mexico.

Just when you thought you knew something

2011-08-29T05:09:00.000-07:00

Various media (including the Associated Press, link in title of post) have stories out about the Sinaloa cartel's apparent expansion into meth production. The reports – citing US law enforcement officials in Mexico (ie, DEA) – come on the heels of some massive meth busts. One was in Queretaro, where authorities seized nearly 500 tons of precursors (the chemicals used to make meth, which are banned in Mexico). Another seizure in Queretaro netted 3.4 tons of pure meth, worth about $100 million, according to the AP.

Mexican authorities also seized a 300-foot meth lab buried underground in Sinaloa. The authorities and the media have put two and two together, speculating that the Sinaloa cartel is increasing its interest in meth and trying to take over from the splintered La Familia as the major meth producer in Mexico.

There are several problems with this logic: While meth production in Mexico began in Michoacan (and Colima) under the Amezcua brothers in the 1980s, El Chapo Guzman and his Sinaloa crew moved into the business at least as early as 2003. They knew it was a golden opportunity.

Since then, massive meth labs have regularly been seized in Sinaloa, including one in 2009 which had the capacity to produce about 20 tons of meth – US street value, $700 million – in a month. Another meth compound in Durango was seized in the summer of the same year – it boasted top-of-the-range technology (internet, satellite tv, sat phones etc) and was nicknamed "El paraiso de cristal." Chapo was believed to have hidden out there, along with Nacho Coronel, who incidentally was nicknamed the "Ice King" because of his meth interests.

It should also be noted that La Familia has NEVER had the clout that the Sinaloa or Gulf cartel have had. When La Familia started rising up, it's believed that Chapo struck a deal with the Michoacan-based group – La Familia would produce the meth, the Sinaloa cartel would distribute it. After all, La Familia lacks a smuggling corridor into the United States, therefore must always rely on one of the bigger groups to allow it passage.

In the AP story, the US official is also quoted as saying the Sinaloa cartel has a better distribution network in the US than La Familia. This is absolutely right, as the Sinaloa cartel enjoys longer working relationships with US gang counterparts, probably has a better foothold of its own when it comes to distribution, while La Familia can only really rely on unestablished opportunists and fellow Michoacanos (hence a large suspected La Familia presence in Chicago, which is home to a very large community of Michoacan expats).

And yet: the DEA recently announced the results of Project Delirium, a 20-month series of US investigations targeting La Familia. 1,985 arrests were made, $62 million in U.S. currency was seized, as well as 2,773 pounds of methamphetamine, 2,722 kilograms of cocaine, 1,005 pounds of heroin, 14,818 pounds of marijuana and $3.8 million in other assets.

On Oct. 22, 2009, the DEA announced the results of Project Coronado, a 44-month series of investigations which resulted in the arrest of more than 1,186 alleged members of La Familia.

I have a few problems with these two operations: Heroin is not produced in large quantities in Michoacan. La Familia is from Michoacan. Are you telling me that La Familia, the cartel (as it's called by the DEA), is running heroin for another cartel? Sounds iffy to me. There have been cases of independent operators working in Michoacan, stockpiling poppy bought in Guerrero and then distributing it on up north, but to the best of my knowledge, these guys have not been members of La Familia, and my speculation (based on their last names and connections that have been made public) is that they were Sinaloans.

Second, Project Coronado was 44-months in the making. Forty-four months before Oct. 22, 2009, La Familia had yet to exist, or at least be known, outside of small towns in Michoacan. The group had yet to throw heads on a dance floor in Uruapan, for instance. I find it difficult to believe that the DEA had such great inside sources that they knew about La Familia's rise even before the Mexican authorities, who admitted quite bluntly in 2006 and even 2008 (the grenade attack in Morelia) that they really didn't have any idea of La Familia's growing clout.

Last point to a long-winded post: I believe we will see a global rise in meth production and distribution in the coming years, as the world works itself out of a recession. Meth is cheap to produce, cheap to sell, cheap to buy and as cheap a high as you're likely to find. Recession-proof, to say the least.

My thoughts on Monterrey

2011-08-27T03:19:00.001-07:00

Just wrote a piece for Foreign Policy about Mexico's latest atrocity, the torching of a casino in Monterrey that left at least 52 dead. Link is in title of the post.

Meeting Saviano

2011-08-22T11:01:00.000-07:00

The call came in the evening. He will see you, Mr. Malcolm. His security team has cleared your visit. You will meet with him in the late morning.

We drove through the hills, the lush vegetation surrounding us on all sides. A few miles outside of the city, and we were the only people on the road. We continued on for about 15 minutes.

We turned into the driveway of a villa. It's a hotel now, but it was once owned by a wealthy family from Perugia.

The bodyguards met us at the door.

"He's waiting in his quarters. He's ready to see you," one of them said.

I walked across the gardens, past the swimming pool, to a room – most likely, it was normally used as a conference room by visitors on business.

Today, it was empty. Empty, save a table in the middle, with three chairs.

I sat down. I was sweating. I often sweat ahead of meetings like this, but usually it's from the heat. This time, it was from nerves. I was about to meet a man I had heard much about. A man who I respected. A man who has a price on his head, and who has been on the run, living in hiding, since 2008.

He walked in. He had a big grin on his face, a childlike grin. He was happy to see me. I was delighted to see him, to meet him in person, finally.

We talked. He talked about the mafia in Italy; I told him about the mafias in Mexico. We talked about the history of mafias, their rise in the United States. We talked about what we would really like to write about as journalists, if we had a real choice in the matter. We exchanged pleasantries, polite comments about each other's books, about projects we might undertake in the future. He told me about his life in hiding. I told him that our meeting was a bit odd; I felt like I was meeting a mafia boss, whereas in fact I was meeting just another journalist.

We both admitted we don't like fame in our profession; journalists are not supposed to be famous, we both agreed. At least I can wander around wherever I want, I told him. Yes, he said; I have to deal with my security everywhere. I can't do anything normal anymore.

"I just want to buy a girl an ice cream," he said, softly.

After about 30 minutes, my meeting with Roberto Saviano came to an end. He got into a black car, surrounded by bodyguards provided by the Italian government since his ground-breaking book Gomorra, an expose of the Neapolitan mafia best known as the Camorra. I waved goodbye as he drove off to a new hiding place, somewhere in Italy, somewhere out of the line of fire of the men he exposed, the men who issued death threats after his book put the spotlight on their illicit activities and influence.

His car drove off, up the hill and out of sight.

Chapo has been caught...

2011-08-13T00:03:00.000-07:00

Chapo's been caught talking on the new iphone4 (http://www.apple.com/iphone/) in the hills of Sinaloa. He was apparently talking to Lindsay Lohan (http://www.tmz.com/person/lindsay-lohan/) about the new Harry Potter flick (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1201607/)

Joking, obviously, but trying to see if this will pick up hits for my blog, then maybe I'll start blogging again regularly.

Mexico's image problem

2011-07-14T21:42:00.000-07:00

Foreign Policy magazine has just published my piece on Mexico's image issues; check it out. (Link is in the title of the post.)

How powerful is Chapo?

2011-07-13T12:25:00.001-07:00

Interpol's chief representative in Mexico says that Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman Loera is losing clout, and no longer has such great control over drug trafficking out of Mexico. Patrick Corcoran has a good short summary at InSight (link in title of post.)

Wait, but wasn't Chapo the most powerful drug trafficker in the world just a few weeks ago, according to one DEA official? (I allude to it too in the title of my book, "The Last Narco, inside the hunt for the world's most wanted drug lord")

Here's the thing about the drug trade: it evolves rapidly. Chapo doesn't man the day-to-day operations of the Sinaloa cartel anymore (and actually, rarely did in the past, operating more like a hands-off CEO), but every time a new group springs up that might threaten his hegemony, he makes a move – an alliance or war. When La Familia sprang up in the early part of last decade, for instance, he let them operate and made deals with them so that their meth could be moved across the US border (being based in Michoacan, La Familia had a coastline but no direct overland route to the US). When he saw an opportunity in Nuevo Laredo – a weakened Gulf cartel – Chapo sent his people there to try and take that plaza in 2003. (They failed.) When La Familia started becoming more influential and powerful in 2006-2007, Chapo made a more formal alliance with them, effectively incorporating the smaller group into his organization.
When the violence produced by Los Zetas and other thugs in Tamaulipas got out of hand, Chapo and the Gulf cartel struck an alliance to crack down on them, with the greater good (well, from their perspective, which is drug trafficking) in mind.

With all these alliances, Chapo's control has expanded, but these are not cut-and-dry deals – the alliances shift, and he only purportedly steps in when absolutely necessary. So one could interpret the growing activity of other gangs as a sign that Chapo does not have as much control, but the reality is that in many cases, they operate with his blessing – so he's basically still in charge. However, there are clear signs – massacres and shootouts in Durango, for instance – that suggest he is not in control of these other gangs. Conflicts in Sinaloa, too, suggest he doesn't even have complete control of operations in his home state.

Chapo's operations are also certainly growing worldwide – Sinaloan drug traffickers have been arrested in a number of countries, ranging from Egypt to Argentina to Malaysia in recent years. Whether they are actual Sinaloa cartel operatives – ie, in the employ of Chapo himself – or lowly drug traffickers who happen to come from Sinaloa and are trying to make some money, is unclear. Some have been confirmed as actual operatives and conejos (scouts), others have not. Properties belonging to Chapo and his Sinaloa cartel cronies have also been seized in Europe and parts of South America, which points to an obvious expansion of presence, even if cartel operatives in this case are lawyers and money launderers.

As we've seen Chapo's operations grow globally, we've also seen the decline of his hegemony at home. This is unsurprising, in my opinion, because as he extends his empire, he's going to risk losing control of his base operations. If you're fighting a war on various fronts, expanding your business by acquiring new groups and at the same time facing pressure from the authorities (yes, contrary to popular belief, the Sinaloa cartel has been hit very hard by the Mexican authorities, lots of arrests and seizures, etc), you leave yourself vulnerable at home. You are putting resources and effort into foreign operations, while your base is being attacked. Recent conflicts in Sinaloa indicate that there is very little top-down control being implemented by Chapo and El Mayo in the region – their focus is obviously elsewhere.

The real question is what this will mean for the drug war going forward: will Chapo lose control altogether? He never has before, and has been in precarious situations in the past. But he's 54 years old now, and has been on the run for 11 years. And the situation is quite different today: the Zetas and La Familia are not tight-knit, organized units with which alliances can be easily struck. Both organizations are heavily divided, fractured even, and not easily controlled. They seem content to massacre migrants and shoot up innocents, no matter how bad it might be for business. And no one seems to be sending them a message to quiet down anymore, which Chapo and El Mayo used to do in Sinaloa.

I do envision Chapo losing control. I don't see the possibility of a pact, nor do I see him taking control back once he's lost it. I see the increased efforts to launder money and buy property outside of Mexico as a means of getting out while he still can. And the inability (or reluctance) to stem violence in Sinaloa and Durango on the part of Chapo and his crew appears to be a further sign of his diminishing power. That said, I think the Sinaloa cartel will continue to grow globally, and probably domestically, as a loose-knit federation (which is always how it operated in Sinaloa and its environs).

As for the violence, it's tragic, but I think Police Chief Genaro Garcia Luna is right in his assessment – it's not going to ease up for another 7 years or so. More groups operating independently will inevitably mean more disputes being settled through violence rather than dialogue (say what you will about the old guard, but they did have meetings and strike alliances that way); I also think the degree of brutality will increase, although that is indeed hard to imagine, because these groups will have to outdo each other to gain respect.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I still think Chapo will be killed before the 2012 elections. Again, it's just a hunch, I don't have any intel that would back this up.

Sinaloa most-wanted

2011-06-27T20:15:00.000-07:00

Some might find it amusing that when one clicks on the link to the PGR's list of Sinaloa's most-wanted fugitives, the page above (link in the title of this post) appears. Check it out and see.

Secretive or responsible?

2011-06-27T15:38:00.001-07:00

Why didn't US officials who learned of Chapo's presence in Sonoita, Sonora, on Jan. 26, 2009, tell their Mexican counterparts?

According to a leaked document, the US authorities who suspected Chapo was there didn't say anything to their counterparts across the border. It reeks of conspiracy, keeping the Mexicans out of the loop on something like this. But it also reeks of reason and good judgment. According to a US Justice Dept. indictment, Chapo and his associates met for three days at a ranch in Sonoita. So first off, the US officials alerted someone higher up in their own chain of command, otherwise this never would have made into a federal indictmnt. Then there's the reason for Chapo's supposed meeting: after El Vicentillo's arrest, they were angling for revenge on the authorities. In Sonoita, they allegedly discussed the possibility of "orchestrating attacks against US or Mexican government buildings," according to the indictment. They were also allegedly plotting attacks in Mexico City – effectively, not Sinaloa cartel turf – in order to shift the authorities’ attention toward the Beltran Leyva brothers, who base some operations there.

What would have happened in officials in Arizona had alerted their local or state counterparts in Sonoita? Well, imagine the following scenario:

Arizona cop: Oye, compadres, I've got a tip for you. Chapo is apparently at a ranch just outside of your town.

Sonoita cop: Que bueno. Gracias for telling us. We'll go check it out.

Ending A: Local cops phone Chapo and tell him he's on the radar, and should leave town.

Ending B: Local cops actually try and raid the ranch, to become heroes. Their corpses are left at the roadside, accompanied by a message: Don't mess with us.

Either way, I wholeheartedly back the decision not to tell the Mexican cops anything in this instance.

El Lazca dead?

2011-06-17T16:07:00.000-07:00

The Brownsville Herald is reporting that Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano, a.k.a. El Lazca, has been killed in a shootout between the Gulf cartel and Los Zetas. El Lazca is the alleged leader of Los Zetas. I predicted a while ago that he'd be the next to fall, but have to admit that I thought he'd be captured by the authorities, not killed in battle. More to come...

Link to the Brownsville Herald story is in the title of this post.

UPDATE: Most reports are now debunking this Brownsville Herald story. El Lazca appears to be very much alive.

Chapo, the most powerful drug lord in history

2011-06-17T05:35:00.000-07:00

A DEA official has declared Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera the most powerful drug trafficker in history, ranking him above Medellin's Pablo Escobar in terms of clout and staying power.

Since writing The Last Narco, I've had a few opportunities to get a little deeper into the Chapo story. For instance, I recently met a man who knew Chapo's mother, Maria Consuelo Loera Perez. He met her in La Tuna de Badiraguato, the family pueblo, in 2006. He showed me a few photos of her – she looked kind, stern, wore glasses, looked like an ordinary mom, a typical (if a bit more light-skinned than usual for those parts) Mexican mother from a mountain pueblo.

According to my source, the man who met her, she is. Just a normal lady, he said, nice. Friendly. Tough.

Chapo's mother lives in a finca in La Tuna, which her son built for her. It's a pretty splendid place, particularly when compared to the tiny one-story, dirt-floor homes that most of the pueblo's residents live in. She's managed to stay above the fray in throughout the drug war, only talking to reporters on two occasions (once to denounce human rights abuses and another to complain about the arrest of another son, Miguel Angel, a.k.a. "El Mudo." (The Mute).

When El Mudo was arrested, Loera Perez was quick to express her anger. "They took him away without any arrest warrant. He makes an honest living," she told reporters at the scene of the arrest, a Chinese restaurant in Culiacan. "I don’t believe that he dedicates himself to illegal activities... They arrested him only because he’s Chapo’s brother."

She sprang to Chapo’s defence, too. "He didn’t force one door or threaten anyone to get out of jail [in 2001], they opened [the doors] for him. It’s as if one opens the cage for a bird, it flies away. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen Joaquin; I’m not in contact with him. He only helps good people. How can I feel bad, if I am his mother? A mother has to bear all the problems that her children bring, for this I will plead to God on their behalf – he’s my best lawyer."

I'm all for mothers springing to the defence of their sons, but when it comes to Chapo, I just wonder if she might be suffering from a bit of maternal denial. He is, after all, the most powerful drug lord in history, according to some.

The good things...

2011-06-09T08:30:00.001-07:00

Mexico may produce meth, marijuana and heroin, but it also produces some wonderful things like carnitas. Thanks, Mexico.

Jorge Hank Rhon

2011-06-08T05:26:00.000-07:00

By now it's old news that Jorge Hank Rhon, the eccentric millionaire former mayor of Tijuana and controversial PRI stalwart, has been arrested on gun charges. The owner of Agua Caliente racetrack and various other establishments in Tijuana, Hank Rhon was arrested Saturday with 10 other people, for the possession of 88 guns, 9,298 rounds of ammo and a gas grenade.

As far as gun possession goes, I'm not surprised Hank Rhon has an arsenal like this, even if he denies ownership (his wife claims, on the other hand, that he has the appropriate licenses for them.) The guy lives in Tijuana, has a number of businesses, and has to deal with serious security issues that anyone who owns a business in Mexico would be well aware of.

But Hank Rhon is as controversial a figure as any in Mexico. There have long been suspicions that he has ties to drug trafficking (always denied and never proven; but as recently as 2009, a US diplomatic cable said that he is "widely believed to have been a corrupt mayor and to be still involved in narco-trafficking") and he has been accused of being the intellectual author of the murder of a muckraking Tijuana journalist. Still, he has always escaped serious investigation – he was briefly arrested in 1995 at Mexico City's airport in possession of endangered animal skins and ivory – and even made a run for governor of Baja California after his stint as mayor.

Hank Rhon is a character – at 55, he's had numerous wives and girlfriends and has 19 children; he once famously said that women were his favourite animals; he also has a zoo inside the racetrack in Tijuana which is home to crossbred lions, tigers, you name it. His father, Carlos Hank Gonzales, was famous for saying that "a politician who is poor is a poor politician," while Hank Rhon has famously claimed that he is so rich he cannot be corrupted.

But is Hank Rhon guilty of more than gun possession, if even that? Some PRIistas are accusing the authorities of a "witch hunt" ahead of the State of Mexico gubernatorial elections in July (State of Mexico is the Hank family and PRI stronghold). In spite of Hank Rhon's lackluster performance as mayor, supporters have turned out in Tijuana to rally in his favour. Hank Rhon, meanwhile, has now been transferred to the medium-security prison in Tecate, Baja California, after spending a few days in the holding cells of the SIEDO, the organized crime division of the attorney general's office.

There is talk that the authorities are trying to nail him on organized crime-related charges; if so, they had better have more evidence than just the guns. After all, authorities have tried to investigate Hank Rhon before, and it hasn't been easy. (Update: some of the guns apparently are military-issue – a serious federal offense.)

Still, as Hank Rhon told me during our interview in 2004: "I’ve always [said], 'Don’t pay attention to gossip, just find the proof, then come back'."

"The truth is, it’s what happens when you’re starting to become too popular and you step on someone’s foot...," he continued. "They find a way to neutralize you. But it’s always been allegations..."

Show us the money

2011-06-02T12:49:00.001-07:00

Just to give a sense of how much money is involved in the drug trade, the Mexican military seized $500,000 in US currency from a Chevy truck that had been abandoned on the Culiacan-Navolato road just the other day. The guy just took off without his cash when he realized there was a military checkpoint nearby.

Since December 2006, the Army has seized $149 million in US currency, and about 263 million Mexican pesos (roughly $22 million US).

Needless to say, that's a fair amount of cash.

What's new and what's not

2011-06-01T18:24:00.000-07:00

Back in Mexico, I'm hearing again that the cartels might be coming to Mexico City. I'm also hearing a few other scare stories that are being passed off as "new."

1) The Sinaloan narco-corrido ban is not all that new a thing. As far back as 1998, authorities have tried to ban narco-corridos. First reported effort was in Chihuahua, the effort failed.

2) As early as 2008, El Universal has run stories addressing the fear that narcos are "surrounding" the capital. Indeed, they have the capital surrounded. But that doesn't mean they want the capital for anything but a place to hide. Chapo and the Beltran Leyva brothers used to call Mexico City "el humo" (the smoke) because it offered anonymity that one couldn't find elsewhere. But they don't really want to take over turf here, in large part because the police force is so strong (and present – there are about 70,000 cops in the DF) but also because the city has well-established gangs that are hard to break into. Tepito, for instance, is considered a no-go area for drug traffickers. They can make deals with the local guys, and pay them to do work, but it's menial. Lastly, Mexico City is neither a major distribution nor transport center for trafficking – only important thing about it strategically is the airport.

3) The Mexican government says catching Chapo is a "priority." I'll believe it when I see it.

4) Mexico is not a failed state. It has one of the strongest economies in the world, job creation was nearly a record last year, FDI is up. Mexico certainly has serious problems, but it's not on the verge of collapse. Guatemala, on the other hand, might just be.

To be continued...

Tijuana police and striptease

2011-06-01T09:22:00.001-07:00

An incident occurred in late May, in Tijuana, that I chose not to comment on at the time because I was just frustrated by the news. I'd heard these stories so many times before, and I thought, christ almighty, do we have to read about this again?

The reality is, yes, we do: 15 police officers in Tijuana, after arresting a man and a woman for possession of drugs, forced the woman to do a striptease in exchange for her freedom.

This is obviously a terrible example of abuse of power. But also, it highlights what is horribly wrong with the Mexican police system, at its core. Most of these cops do not get paid well, we know that. Nor are they very well-educated. Nor do they receive praise for work well done – ie, a bust of people in possession of drugs. Nor do they have the ingrained sense of integrity that, say, a Chicago street cop has. So what do they do when they see a situation they can exploit? They exploit it.

This isn't the first time we've seen stories like this, obviously. The one that springs to mind always when these issues come up is that of Victor Gerardo Garay, the AFI commander who was plucked by the DEA as a man to make things happen. Garay was fed intel by his US counterparts, was lauded within the AFI, was a right-hand man of Genaro Garcia Luna's. He made some major arrests – including the takedown of some of the Arellano Felix brothers. Then he made a major bust – a bunch of Colombian narcos with strippers, hookers, cocaine etc at a narco-mansion in Desierto de los Leones.

Did he get a medal for his efforts? A pay raise? A ceremony in Los Pinos? No. Instead, he and his men threw themselves a roaring party the night of the bust, taking advantage of the hookers and cocaine they had seized earlier in the day.

Herein lies one of the most serious problems in the war on drugs in countries like Mexico, where integrity is a novel concept to most police officers (and I don't mean that as a blanket insult, but it is true that integrity does not flow in the veins of most cops in the developing world. Even the US has its serious corruption issues.) Garay and his men knew something when they made the bust at the narco-mansion: they knew that making the bust would put their lives in serious danger, more danger than ever. They knew that night might be their last. They had a perfect right to blow off some steam. The problem is that they had no idea how to do it correctly; worse, they did not seem to care. Their supervisors should have promised them something – a raise, a bonus, some sort of recognition (even if only in private) to make sure they felt proud enough of their achievement to carry on to the next day's challenges.

But no. When a Mexican cop makes a big bust, he doesn't get a medal. He doesn't meet the president. He almost always gets tarnished in the media as corrupt (after all, how could he have gotten the narco if he wasn't in the pockets of a rival narco?) and his potentially good name is slandered/libeled. I don't know the stats, but I would be willing to bet that a good number of good cops lose their marriages as a result of their work, too. So there's really no reward for doing your job well except for the rewards you give yourself.

Police reform needs to go further than just bettering the police force capacity to coordinate, to filter intel, to pursue suspects. It requires a conscious effort on the part of the authorities, the powers that be, to ingrain within the police corps a sense of honor, of duty, and to also reward those who stand out in their accomplishments with something, anything. Invite them to Washington for special training. Give them a grant to further their education. Pay them bonuses. Give them something, or they will continue to reward themselves however they see fit at the time. And that won't likely be something we want to read about or hear about.

A few media quibbles

2011-05-30T14:53:00.000-07:00

I figured I'd blog today about a few things worth clarifying in the media that I continually read that are wrong...

1) There is no concrete figure pertaining to Chapo Guzman's worth. Forbes listed him as worth $1 billion, but there was no methodology used to figure that out. The number was pulled from thin air.

2) The 90-percent-of-guns-used-by-Mexican cartels-come-from-the-US figure comes from a tracing program enacted for about a year between the ATF and PGR. There were a few thousands guns used in homicides in Mexico traced back to the US. That's where this number comes from, it's an estimate extrapolated from the results tracing program.

3) Proceso claims that Chapo was married in Durango, El Mayo Zambada claims that story is untrue. You decide who to believe.

4) El Chapo is not in Liverpool, contrary to headlines of stories quoting me quoting a source saying the Sinaloa cartel is believed to be shipping drugs there.

5) Badiraguato, the town, is different from Badiraguato, the county. Chapo is from Badiraguato, the county, not the town.

6) I was a General Editor at Newsweek, not THE editor. Mexican newspapers don't tend to distinguish between the two, but there is a big difference, and well worth noting.

Chapo in Argentina

2011-05-28T15:29:00.000-07:00

Proceso has a good story this week about Chapo and the Sinaloa cartel's empire establishing itself in Argentina. One of the notable parts is expert Edgardo Buscaglia talking about why the Sinaloa cartel would set up production and distribution networks in the southern cone. The reason, Buscaglia tells Proceso, is to "diversify" and "minimize risk."

Indeed, this is what the Mexican cartels, not just Chapo and Sinaloa, have been doing in recent years. As early as 2006, they were getting meth precursors like ephedrine (by then, illegal in Mexico) shipped to Argentina and then brought all the way up north to make meth. Ephedrine imports to Argentina rose from 5.5 tons in 2006 to 28.5 tons in 2007, according to the DEA.

In addition, there were some major arrests on Argentine shores. On one occasion, two Mexican men who had recently entered the country were arrested with 750 kilos of cocaine. A judge investigating their case believed they were working for the Sinaloa cartel. They were allegedly planning to smuggle the cocaine to Spain, where it would have a street value of $27 million.

Another raid outside Buenos Aires had netted twenty-three Sinaloa-linked Mexicans and a meth lab in 2008: already then, the cartels were thinking of producing in Argentina rather than just using it as a transshipment point.

Violence has also accompanied the arrival of the Mexican cartels in Argentina. In 2009, three Argentines were found in a ditch outside Buenos Aires, their corpses riddled with bullets, their hands bound. The killing had all the hallmarks of a Mexican cartel-related execution. According to a retired DEA agent working in Argentina, the young men had tried to rip off their Mexican counterparts.

We'll see if violence increases in Argentina with these new reports of Chapo's people working there. Meanwhile, an Argentine press report that cites an anonymous official talking about Chapo having lived in Argentina in 2010, before heading to Paraguay, Colombia and then Europe, is likely BS. Patrick Corcoran has a nice piece on it at insightcrime.org, but I am not quite sure this story warrants any attention whatsoever. While it is possible Chapo has traveled in recent years, I'm not convinced it would be that easy for him to just jet around as the article implies. And from conversations with people who know way more about this than an anonymous Argentine official, I'm pretty convinced he's still holed up in Durango and Sinaloa, where he's safe and powerful. He can send envoys to Argentina and the like, rather than risk a visit himself.

Corruption at its worst

2011-05-26T18:14:00.000-07:00

When we think of corruption, we tend to think of politicians, drug cartels, police etc. We don't usually think of soccer. But ahead of the FIFA election campaign, it's worth remembering Sepp Blatter and his FIFA empire. Rob Hughes has a great article on the subject of corruption within the FIFA ranks here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/sports/soccer/27iht-SOCCER27.html?_r=1&hpw

(Link is also in title of the post)

Banning narcocorridos

2011-05-18T17:50:00.000-07:00

Sinaloa Gov. Mario López Valdez has introduced a reform to ban narcocorridos in his state, a state where corridos are hugely popular among the young and old, and which sometimes, and I emphasize sometimes, highlight the exploits of criminal elements like El Chapo Guzman.

Under the new law, establishments who allow narcocorridos to be played or performed by bands will lose their licenses.

This isn't the first time the authorities have sought to ban narcocorridos in Mexico. According to Sinaloan writer Elihah Wald, who has researched narcocorridos extensively and written at least one book about them, there have been calls for censorship of corridos associated with drug trafficking or the crime world ever since Los Tigres del Norte hit with 'Contrabando y Traición' and 'La Banda del Carro Rojo' in the 1970s.

Calls to ban narcocorridos have "intensified in recent years," according to Wald. On his web site, (link in title of post) he lists the many attempts to crack down on this brand of music. He also expresses some interesting opinions on the crackdowns. Some of them I agree with.

The authorities are sorely misled if they believe that narcocorridos are in any way related to the deep-rooted issues they apparently don't want to address. Narcocorridos do not turn young people into narcos, they simply celebrate rebellion and people who make a living in a world where the government and ordinary business don't allow them to operate or succeed. Banning the songs won't make the kids think of getting an education or a job; providing them with genuine opportunities and jobs will. The Sinaloan government is wasting its time in this moral battle, when it could be trying to think up positive ways to improve Sinaloan society, the economy, education, etc etc.

The Sinaloan government is also taking a risk with its ban on narcocorridos. It is outlawing one of the few freedoms of expression young people have, essentially a way of voicing their discontent with their situation without actually resorting to violence or crime. Take that away from them, what will they be left with? Nothing.

Lastly, banning narcocorridos is a mistake because many narcocorridos are often not just odes to crime bosses, but to the people, to the reality of what is happening around them. In many parts of Sinaloa, bands perform tributes to the deceased; they write and sing about what is happening around them, as journalists do. Take Omar Meza, for instance, a local from Badiraguato who I met a few years ago while there researching The Last Narco. Omar sings about what's going on around him. He doesn't really glorify the narcos, but he sometimes does mention them in his tunes, because they are involved in the events occurring.

Here's one of his corridos, or ballads. Will the authorities decide to ban this one, because it talks about them in a bad light?

‘Tragedy in Santiago de los Caballeros’ by Omar 'El Comandante' Meza

People of Badiraguato, the blood flows again
For the four lives who couldn’t defend themselves
Their families and friends couldn’t believe it
They were heading to a party when the soldiers came out of nowhere
Without any motive they fired their rifles
And how surprised were they the men were unarmed
Sinaloa is in mourning for this situation
La Joya de los Martinez already lived the same terror
Reckless soldiers
more dangerous than a lion
Assassins through error, there will be a simple repercussion
These are published news stories on the radio and in print
All we ask for is justice assassins without conscience
This is your farewell
goodbye Geovany my friend
because that’s how he wanted your destiny to be
Grandmother, mother and brothers never forget that I love you
And that I’ll protect you when I find myself in heaven
I will continue on the path of my father and my grandfather

Rapper glorifies El Chapo

2011-05-08T09:58:00.000-07:00

So the New York rapper, Tony Yayo, has decided to put El Chapo on the cover of his new album. (It's on itunes, called "El Chapo" if you want to not buy it.)

I used to sympathize a little with rappers who wrote about drugs and dealers, the street life they had grown up in, because it drew attention to the plight of many young minorities in the United States. But this is pushing it way beyond the limit.

There's a lyric in Yayo's song "Orange and black caviar" which goes: "A little drug money never hurt nobody, El Chapo 18 cars..." (I think it's cars, or he could be referring to carats, as in gold, not sure)

A little drug money never hurt nobody? Really? 40,000 people dead and climbing. Beheadings on a daily basis. Hundreds of migrants kidnapped and executed at a time. Top police commanders killed. Innocent teenagers and children killed intentionally and in crossfires. I could continue...

Good piece on Tamaulipas

2011-05-06T17:23:00.000-07:00

Alfredo Corchado has an excellent story in the Dallas Morning News from Nuevo Laredo. (Link in title of post.) As always, his reporting is top notch.

What's most interesting about the article to me is once again, the role perception plays in this whole drug war. The people of Nuevo Laredo, and other parts of Mexico, increasingly see the cartels as in control of government, or as "virtual parallel governments," as Corchado describes it.

I've found this to be true in various parts of Mexico, from Sinaloa to Michoacan to Chipas to my own neighborhood in Mexico City, where local PRIistas took advantage of local proprietors whenever they had the opportunity.

Of course, they weren't armed, vicious thugs calling themselves Zetas and running into town beheading people. But once again, I think perception is the biggest problem. When there is no clear law and order, when the authorities can't be trusted to keep order and peace let alone leave the public alone, you get a sense that everything is falling apart and in the words of one US official I talked to a while back about Tamaulipas, that there is "no law."

Anyway, read the Corchado piece. It's solid stuff.

Who's most-wanted now?

2011-05-04T09:22:00.000-07:00

Following the fall of Osama bin Laden, is Chapo Guzman now the world's most-wanted man?

Well, to clarify all the chatter, there really is no such thing. Forbes named him the 2nd most-wanted fugitive in the world a while back, but that doesn't mean US authorities are now scrambling to find the gomero's son from Sinaloa. Chapo isn't even on the FBI's 10 most-wanted list. Through the US State Dept., the DEA did issue a $5 million reward for information leading to his capture in 2004; that order still stands.

As a face of the enemy, as Sam Keen might have put it, Chapo is probably now the most-wanted man in the world. The Australian authorities are talking about him as if he was personally responsible for delivering all the drugs consumed in their country, and throughout Europe, his name is starting to become known. In the US, people know about him and I've even encountered some folks who believe he's a rebel of sorts, to be admired – they've made t-shirts and painted canvases of his face.

But I don't anticipate a massive push to catch or kill him, except for what the authorities are doing right now. The authorities know full well that his death or capture won't end the drug trade or drug war. They also know that, like bin Laden, Chapo is now more of a symbol than hands-on leader. His people work in his name, and put up narco-mantas from Culiacan to Juarez declaring his might, but even if he were gone tomorrow, they'd keep trafficking drugs, keep killing their rivals and innocent people, and disrupting the social order.

Still, catching Chapo would be a massive political boon for Calderon. Like Obama, he would gain ground in polls; he would be able to quiet critics who say he's made a pact with Sinaloa. Calderon would not be able to claim an end to the drug war, but he'd be able to close a chapter on it, as I've said before. So all in all, it'd be well worth going after him ahead of the 2012 elections, rather than letting him retire in peace.

No results in drug war?

2011-04-29T11:22:00.000-07:00

Benjamin Arellano Felix, one of the reputed leaders of the now-defunct Tijuana cartel, was extradited to the US today. Benjamin, with his brother Ramon, was allegedly one of the most ruthless drug lords in Mexican history. He and his bro had a bloodlust that led them to kill random civilians in Tijuana just because they felt like it, according to DEA agents.

Benjamin was captured in Puebla in 2002. He's one of the most high-profile suspects to be extradited during the Calderon presidency. Seeing him being led onto a plane on his way to a maximum-security prison in the US, it's kinda hard to argue that this administration is doing nothing to fight the drug war.

Failed state?

2011-04-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

Is the US a failed state?

According to one commonly used definition, a failed state is "a dysfunctional state which also has multiple competing political factions in conflict within its borders or has no functioning governance above the local level."

Looking at the US the way a foreign correspondent (or a US Embassy staffer writing a cable back home) might look at Mexico, you get this impression:

Congress appears increasingly dysfunctional, with both parties trading blame on budget issues and refusing to move out of gridlock. U.S. President Barack Obama and congressional leaders struck a last-minute deal to avert a total government shutdown. Opposition parties remain at odds and in conflict, in spite of the recent agreement.

President Obama is struggling to convince an increasingly skeptical public (and opposition) that his leadership is legitimate, and is also having difficulty winning support for wars that he inherited but on which he has taken a commanding position.

A top business leader in the country has called on the president to prove that he is not a fraud, and is indeed a US citizen and well-educated.

Education remains a serious problem throughout the country, in spite of good intentions by the new administration. "Teachers' Unions Failing U.S. Schools" read one recent headline by Time magazine.

According to reports in the Wall Street Journal and other reputable local newspapers, "secessionist movements" are on the rise, as American citizens increasingly resist government influence. Although crime is, by and large, down, homicide rates in Washington DC and Atlanta are worrying. There have been efforts made by the authorities to persuade residents that foreigners (Mexicans, in particular) are to blame, but it appears that local demand for drugs is at the root of the problem.

Corruption remains rampant along the border. A sheriff in Texas was arrested for aiding the drug cartels, while a mayor in Columbus, Ohio, is also being investigated. Currently, there are hundreds of federal agents (FBI and Homeland Security, mainly) being investigated for alleged ties to the drug cartels. Reforms to clean up the institutions have been promised, but given past efforts, this is unlikely.

A former top anti-organized crime prosecutor and sitting governor was linked to a prostitution ring, and forced to resign. While the resignation was a positive sign, the fact that he wasn't arrested is disconcerting. Confidence in the US authorities' ability to deliver on promises to root out corruption and criminal behavior by public officials is at an all-time low.

Efforts to crack down on money-laundering remain fruitless. Banks who have been found complicit in organized crime have simply been asked to pay large fines and apologize, rather than be shut down as they would be in Mexico.

The war on drugs is proving costly, and public support in the US has waned to the point of absolute boredom. The US government has spent more than $1 trillion since launching its war during the Nixon era, and has failed to capture one single "capo," or cartel leader. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the usual suspects have been arrested. Consumption continues unabated. The US authorities continue to insist that drugs in the US are distributed only by gangs, but when a Mexican or Colombian is arrested, the defendant automatically belongs to a "cartel." Given the amount of resources being spent by countries like Mexico on the war on drugs, not to mention the lives being lost, the US authorities need to be doing a better job.

Corruption and hypocrisy

2011-04-23T12:22:00.000-07:00

Ok, so in Mexico these days, we have an increasing number of politicians, pundits and journalists calling for an end to the drug war, an end to the use of military force in particular. The current strategy isn't working, they say, the violence is simply increasing. The people want the military off the streets and back in the barracks, they say.

Valid points. The violence is increasing. Tamaulipas, in particular, is getting much worse. (The Washington Post has a grim read on the so-called Highway of Death, the main road through the state.) The calls to end the use of military force (which the authorities argue is the reason for the increased violence, remember – the military crackdown and arrests have turned the cartels on each other etc etc) have more than a ring of sanity to them.

Many of these same critics of the drug war also accuse the Calderon administration of collusion with the Sinaloa cartel, and making a pact with Chapo Guzman. There is evidence, some of them say, that former Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mourino sent an envoy, a general, to meet with Chapo himself and orchestrate said pact. The Mexican government cannot negotiate with drug traffickers, the critics scream, or it will be just as corrupt and evil as the narcos themselves.

But aren't the drug war critics themselves in essence calling for a pact? Sure, most of them are arguing that social programs, education, addiction/rehab programs and the like are the priorities. Which is all true and good. But to pull the military out of the drug war would be to allow the drug trade (in Mexico) to continue unabated. It would mean to either turn a blind eye to the drug trade (and all the monstrosities that come with it – beheadings, killing of innocent people etc) or to be complicit in the trade, as many officials from the PRI were in the old days (and to be fair, many members of all of Mexico's parties probably still are today).

There is no way the drug trade would cease if the military was taken off the streets. The police cannot handle this sort of organized crime. And the people of Mexico certainly can't be burdened with the task of taking on the narcos themselves through denuncias anonimas.

So, sounds like the critics are asking for a pact, even if it's not negotiated outright, it'd be implicit.

There's a weird hypocrisy enveloping much of Mexico these days regarding the drug war, in my opinion. For instance, I constantly hear journalists crying out about how you can't trust the authorities, then they use testimony taken by said authorities to prove that the authorities are corrupt. So can you trust the authorities or not? You can't, for instance, call Garcia Luna corrupt in public or in a book using testimony that was taken by the PGR and then thrown out by them because it didn't warrant serious investigation and then call the PGR equally useless and corrupt. Well, you can, but you come across a bit like a naive fool and your argument wouldn't stand a chance in court.

Of course, any thinking person would realize that it's not black and white, that some testimony is more valid than others, that just because you "have the documents" doesn't mean those documents are worthwhile or would hold up in a court, or that they give you the right to scream in public that someone is corrupt. (Well, actually I'm not 100 percent sure about Mexican freedom of speech laws, maybe one does have the right to shout accusations like that in public).

I think all journalists should be somewhat suspicious and skeptical, and I know that Mexican courts still leave much to be desired, but I think journalists should be wary of simply taking the easy route and blindly accusing the authorities of all being corrupt. That sells books, it sells magazines and newspapers, but it doesn't get you one inch closer to the truth or democracy. And it honestly doesn't help Mexico one little bit. There are people in the government, people like former Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora, for instance, who actually are trying to improve their country's judicial system, its investigations, its systems of law enforcement. Journalists should be doing the same, not simply trying to cash in by throwing accusations out to see what sticks. (On another note, they should also press officials etc whenever possible to answer for serious allegations – ie, staged arrests or military abuses.) Using the word corruption so loosely is not only dangerous, the word loses its value when it actually matters.

When writing The Last Narco, I came across a source (Samuel Gonzalez Ruiz, the former SIEDO prosecutor) who claimed the DEA and US Embassy had helped Chapo escape in 2001. I was skeptical of his claims, but given his previous position as an authority, I reported it. I also checked with DEA for their response. I was shocked by part of their reaction, which was "Thanks for calling to ask." Well, of course I asked. I was trained as a journalist to ask for comment before accusing someone of something as atrocious as that. (I should also add that I was raised as a kid to think before I speak.) I don't care whether it is true or not, or whether I have evidence or not, the accused has a right to answer the accusations in person or on the phone before publication.

Former President Vicente Fox, on the other hand, has resorted to posting messages on Twitter in answer to journalist Anabel Hernandez's claims that he received $20 million in return for Chapo's escape. "Anabel Hernandez is always... trying to sell books at the expense of others. If you have proof, show it. Or be quiet..." reads one.

I don't really care whether you're a fan of Fox or not, or whether you disagree with his governing of Mexico, his handling of the Oaxaca mess, or whatever. If you accuse him of taking $20 million for Chapo's escape, and you claim to have proof, show it! Show it on TV when you are doing all those interviews! Why has no one asked Anabel Hernandez to show this proof? Why didn't Carmen Aristegui, one of the country's best journalists, ask her to show the proof? We all want to see it! (And don't get me wrong, I also admire her work as an intrepid journalist, and her courage in writing the book. But I just want to see proof of such massive corruption.)

After my book came out, a bunch of Mexican papers and magazines (Proceso included) called me asking about certain allegations in the book. One misquoted me, saying that I accuse the DEA and US Embassy of doing a deal with Chapo (rather than my source claiming it). They also pushed me to say that Garcia Luna is corrupt, when I have no evidence of that, nor do I make the claim. I simply noted some available testimony (incidentally, some of the same testimony Anabel Hernandez used in her book) and noted the appropriate denials. If I had solid proof, I would have written a front page story for the New York Times and I would be a Pulitzer prize winner by now. A couple of journalists have also tried to push me to say I've been threatened by the authorities. I haven't been, that's that. No one has threatened me in the slightest.

Folks, pushing people to say such things just to rile up public opinion against the authorities because you have an agenda is just bad journalism. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's corrupt journalism.

Let's stick to the hechos, not just the dichos, to paraphrase Mr Marizco at borderreporter.com

Alejandro Suverza

2011-04-23T02:25:00.000-07:00

Still no news published in El Universal on Alejandro Suverza, their intrepid reporter who was arrested with lots of undeclared cash heading for Cali, Colombia. I hope the editors are involved in backroom negotiations with the authorities, because it'd be a tragedy if they just washed their hands and let him hang.

A group of journalists have sprung to his defense, meanwhile, at the link above in title of the post. They've also set up a Facebook page on his situation. We'll see if either have any effect.

More news when I know something.

And now for the story of the day...

2011-04-07T17:32:00.001-07:00

Got nothing to add. Nicely done, Mr Marizco (borderreporter.com) with the scoop.

http://www.fronterasdesk.org/2011/04/sinaloa-cartel-offers-legal-challenge-to-u-s/

For those who still don't believe

2011-04-07T16:07:00.000-07:00

The young woman cuts, slowly, with her machete. Through the skin, through the veins, through the entire neck. Then she takes her knife and delicately carves the young man's face off. Her nickname is The Crazy Blonde. "This is what happens to those who help Los Zetas," says a man in the background.

I just watched a video of a beheading, conducted by a young woman. I usually shy away from this stuff, having seen one or two before years ago in the Al Qaeda days, but I wanted to watch this one because it's believed the be recent, and I've kinda forgotten just how dismal the situation in Mexico is right now. This makes it hit home even if you're not there in the midst of it.

The calls for the drug war to end are mounting. The military stands accused of thousands of rights abuses. The violence isn't stopping.

Fair enough. But watch this video, and I challenge you to deny that someone has to take these people on. This sort of atrocity cannot happen in a modern society, a modern democratic nation, a member nation of the OECD, a country that ranks 56th in the world in the human development index.

This sort of barbarity is medieval. It has no place in the 21st century. The army may not be winning the drug war, but until the police in Mexico are ready and able to take on this sickness, I still think it might be the best possible option.

Here, why don't you have a go

2011-04-06T16:25:00.000-07:00

Christian Science Monitor has an interesting story about a new initiative the Mexican government has launched which would reward anonymous tipsters who lead the authorities to drug traffickers and their money. (Link in title of post)

"Mexicans who tip off investigators to money launderers will receive up to one-quarter of the illegal funds seized," writes Sara Miller Lana of CSM.

Good idea going after the money, pathetic that the people are being asked to do the work that the authorities apparently can't or simply won't.

PS - The anonymous hotlines set up in various troubled cities have been quite successful, excepting the fact that dozens of residents have been threatened or even killed in Tijuana, Culiacan and Ciudad Juarez after daring to give anonymous tips by telephone (the cops simply relayed their phone numbers to the narcos.)

The biggest capos

2011-04-06T07:23:00.000-07:00

According to federal police chief Genaro Garcia Luna (speaking at a press conference today), the biggest drug lords in the country today are Heriberto Lazcano, "El Lazca", Miguel Treviño Morales, "El Z-40" and "of course," Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman and Ismael "El Mayo" Zambada.

Well, nothing we didn't know, right?

But wait. What about Juan José Esparragoza Moreno, aka, "El Azul"?

This is a guy, if you recall, who was No. 2 in the Juarez cartel at the same time as he was No. 3 in the Sinaloa cartel. He's known as a consiglieri, a peacemaker, a negotiatior, a silent hand of power, always discreet and in the background. Without him, I doubt the Sinaloa cartel would be as powerful and widespread as it is today.

If I could retitle my book, I might call it The Second to Last Narco, because more and more, I get the sense that El Azul is gonna be the guy to take the reins of the drug trade in Mexico in the future, once they catch those on the list above. He may well be the last of the guard left standing.

But no one will know about him; even the authorities aren't mentioning him anymore. Always in the shadows, always maneuvering, always staying out of the limelight, always staying on top. That's El Azul.

Man detained at airport not just any old man

2011-04-05T11:18:00.001-07:00

The federal police on Saturday detained a Mexican man at Mexico City's international airport trying to leave the country with $57,000 hidden in various parts of his suitcase, El Universal reported today.

This is nothing unusual, except for the fact that the man is not just any man, but a former El Universal reporter, Alejandro Suverza Tellez. He was well-known for his stories about narcos; the last story he wrote for El Universal was a piece on Feb. 4, 2011, about the Mexico City metrobus.

Was he guilty of something other than trying to take an illegal amount of money out of the country?

I honestly have no idea, nor do I have a hunch of any sort. I met Suverza once, in a hipster Mexico City bar. He was surrounded by young women, and seemed like the kind of guy who enjoyed the attention his stories brought him (who wouldn't? it's not as if the money for a Mexican journalist is great). He'd been to Michoacan and interviewed a leading member of La Familia, for instance; everyone was enthralled by that story. He was a tough looking guy, looked like he came from the streets, looked like he could hold his own in narco-territory. He gave me tips about how to report in Tepito, too.

You could tell he was a journalist pretty much right away. He wasn't a gangster; he didn't look rich to me. He certainly didn't appear arrogant. At times during our conversation, he came across as quite compassionate.

Was he in with the narcos? Is that where the money came from? Or was he simply a reporter eager to get the hell out of Mexico, where his only hope was to cover the drug trade for the rest of his life? (Suverza's not the sort of guy who gets promoted into the upper echelons of the Mexican media, ever.) Had he saved his money legitimately, only to try and take it out of country illegally?

When reporters who cover narcos get killed in Mexico, almost inevitably their name gets sullied with rumours that they were linked to the very same people they covered. Likewise reporters who cover any other sordid element of society. (In fact, this isn't just true of Mexico, it's true of many parts of the world.)

I don't know if Suverza crossed the line, and I sincerely hope he didn't, for his sake, that of my profession and also my initial judgment of him as a person.

I also hope there is a serious investigation into where he got the money. I sincerely hope they find that he stashed it away under the mattress, hoping to leave Mexico one day, and that the only crime he is guilty of is failing to declare his cash upon exiting the country.

Lastly, I hope El Universal fully acknowledges its relationship with Suverza and works to get the truth out. If it doesn't, well, then it's no better than those in the government who issue promises to protect reporters who cover organized crime and then fail to deliver on anything.

Military and human rights abuses

2011-04-04T18:26:00.000-07:00

El Universal is reporting that Mexico's Human Rights Commission (CNDH) has received 3 complaints against the military per day in 2011, bringing the total during the Calderon administration to 4,772 (as ganchoblog points out, 3 a day is not a major upsurge; still, it's too many.)

Complaints against the military are common in Mexico. Sometimes, the complaints are legitimate. Sometimes, locals are paid or coerced into making them, by the narcos themselves. The CNDH, to its credit, files every complaint as required.

Here's a bit of reporting for my book regarding human rights abuses and the tension in Sinaloa. Hopefully it will lend itself to better understanding of the situation everyone is in.

The air of calm in Badiraguato felt precariously temporary. The Sierra of Sinaloa was not what it once was. For several years now, the region had been what one resident called a ‘marked zone’. The military was ever-present, but so were the narcos. By and large, the military was avoiding conflict, but that didn’t mean the narcos weren’t duking it out among themselves.

Homicide had become so common in Sinaloa that it cost a mere $35 to have a rival murdered.

The military’s hands were covered in blood, too. One Friday night, a group of teachers and their children had been driving back to La Joya de los Martinez, in the Sinaloan hills, from a meeting in a nearby village. A unit of soldiers was returning from a long day of burning marijuana in the fields. As the car approached, the soldiers waved it down.

The driver was caught off guard. Were they really soldiers? In this part of the country, assaults on vehicles by bandits are all too common. He slowed the car, but kept it moving. The car got closer. The soldiers opened fire. A hail of bullets swept through the car.

Alicia Esparza Parra, nineteen, was dead. Griselda Martinez, twenty-five, was dead, too. So were her children. Edwin, age seven. Grisel, age four. Juana Diosminey, age two.

On another occasion, in Santiago de los Caballeros, Badiraguato, four youths in a car were heading to a party. The military stopped them as they rounded a bend on the country road. Tensions were high; an argument ensued. A shot was fired. The army peppered the car with bullets, killing everyone inside. Investigations would prove the soldiers were at fault – there was no gun inside the car, nor was there evidence of bullets having been fired from that direction. There was a tense atmosphere in Badiraguato. The people staged protests, at one point walking several hours to Culiacan in a large procession to demonstrate outside the governor’s office.

Gen. Noe Sandoval and his men continued to maintain pressure throughout Sinaloa. On Aug. 8, 2009, they received a tip that Chapo was paying his respects to his dead son Edgar at his tomb, which had been erected in Jesus Maria, the town outside Culiacan where the boy was born.

Since Edgar's death the year before, residents of Jesus Maria had been left alone, both out of respect for the dead and on account that no one prominent would likely risk a visit. But on Aug. 8, Gen. Sandoval had deployed his men to the area around the tomb, which was still under construction. They would guard it for 24 hours; Chapo wouldn't get away this time. He never showed.

Undeterred – and trusting of his information – Sandoval sent in two helicopters to survey the area, and scrambled his men throughout the tiny town. They searched from house to house, but found no one suspicious.

From the helicopters, Sandoval's men spotted two suspicious vehicles. The cars were driving around the town; around and around. As they were leaving Jesus Maria, the helicopters blocked the road, and soldiers surrounded the vehicles. They yanked out three young men, and began to question them. Was Chapo in town? Had he come? What did they know?

According to local media reports, the soldiers repeatedly beat the suspects, accusing them of being Chapo's gunmen.

Frustrated, and still without answers, the soldiers left the scene; the three young men lay there, bruised and bleeding. When a group of local reporters turned up, the soldiers returned to haul the suspects off to an undisclosed location.

Back in Culiacan, the frustration was also getting to Gen. Sandoval's men. A young soldier returned to the barracks after an evening of letting off steam. He was drunk; the soldiers at the entrance were on their guard.

They began to argue, the drunk soldier pulled out his gun. So did the other, and bullets flew. One soldier died, three were injured. The drunk grunt who started it all committed suicide.

The Army had no comment about the incident.

It was a tough time for Gen. Sandoval, who was making more enemies by the day. Acting on his orders, five soldiers banged on the door of the house of Mercedes Murillo, an elderly human activist with good standing in the community. We want to check up on the house, the soldiers told her. She refused to let them in, telling them they could come back in the morning.

A military convoy turned up. The soldiers were apparently searching for a vehicle registered to that residence – back when the previous owners lived there.

Murillo, who has long documented military violations in Sinaloa, was furious. "The military authorities are teaching their members to violate the law; there is nothing to justify their midnight arrival at your house," she said. "Whether it's the general, Saint Peter or the president of the Republic who has sent them, it's illegal for them to be there, for them not to go."

Around the same time, Gen. Sandoval's men conducted another controversial raid on a personal residence, searching for guns and explosives. This time, it was the home of a supposed fisherman, who they believed was a narco. They raided the place.

Unfortunately, he turned out to be exactly what he was said to be – a fisherman.

Over and over

2011-04-02T13:56:00.001-07:00

Each night, deep in the sierra, the soldiers put up their tents. A dozen men altogether, they take turns sleeping – four doze off, another four stand guard, another four patrol the area, their guns at the ready.

Who knows what they'll meet. They might meet nothing more than a squirrel. They might meet a group of migrants hiking through the hills in hope of making it to the United States. They might meet a few gomeros walking back from the poppy and marijuana fields. They might run into a group of narcos.

If they do, they must make a judgment call. Are the narcos trigger happy? Can they be approached without firing first? Can the soldiers be certain they are indeed narcos?

If the narcos are in a vehicle, the chances of them firing back are higher – they have a getaway car and a small height advantage over the soldiers, who are patrolling on foot on the road. If they're on foot, they can be cornered and then corralled.

The soldiers end their night patrol, exhausted and soaking wet from the rain. They return to camp, and sleep for a few hours.

They are awoken at dawn. They have a breakfast of rice and beans, or tamales. They put on their boots, and start walking up the nearby hill. Intelligence has pointed them in the direction of a poppy field about 3 kilometers away, up a hill, down along a small ridge and then up another hill.

Having located the field, hidden in a small clearing on the side of the mountain, they separate, forming a line. They begin to pull up the poppy plants, one by one. Sometimes they grab a few at a time, but the lieutenant in charge jumps in: you can't pull them out like that, or they grow back right away. You must pull them out with the root.

Within a few hours, the soldiers have uprooted thousands of poppy stems, and piled them in a corner of the field. They light a bonfire, and begin to burn them.

They hear a whistle from across the valley – a local gomero is signaling to his buddies that the soldiers are nearby. The lieutenant in charge takes note of where the whistle is coming from – that will be tomorrow's mission.

Having burned the poppy plants, the soldiers file down the mountain. They stop at a marijuana field on the way down, and proceed to tear it up and burn it down just as they had the poppy field. Two soldiers stop to talk to a local farmer living nearby. Does he know anything about the marijuana? No, the man says. Has it been there long? No, the man says. How long, then? I don't know, the man says. "Do you know of any narcos living nearby? No, the man says.

The soldiers don't believe him, but there's little they can do; he glares as they leave. His wife pops her head out of the window as they drive off – she is glaring too.

Night is approaching. The soldiers return to base camp. Some have naps, others sit around and play cards. They talk and eat dinner, meat and potatoes.

One by one they drift off to sleep. Another group takes the night patrol.

The next morning, they begin again, heading off to the marijuana plantation they spotted the day before.

Two weeks later, they head back to base in the city, a few hours drive by humvee. Most of them have families waiting. They all live together on the base.

Some of them head home within the city to their families. They were raised here, and are proud to be part of the military unit stationed in their hometown. On the drive back into town, a small boy playing on the street had yelled and smiled at one of the young soldiers in the humvee – "My son," the man had said.

Two weeks later, these same soldiers will head once again into the hills. They will have been briefed by their general, as well as military intelligence officials. They will once again be seeking out marijuana and poppy plantations. They will once again tear them up and burn them down. Every morning, they'll eat their rice and beans; every night, before going on patrol, they'll feast on meat and potatoes.

In a year, they'll tear up and burn down 17,998 hectares of marijuana throughout Mexico.

They'll destroy 15,330 hectares of poppy.

They won't make a dent in drug production.

Chapo for president?

2011-03-31T14:54:00.000-07:00

Talk about taking things to extremes. Complaining once again about alleged collusion between the Calderon administration and Chapo's Sinaloa cartel, federal deputy Gerardo Fernandez Noroña proposed a few days ago that Chapo be named the PAN candidate for the 2012 presidency.

Seriously, Sr. Diputado, if you want to be taken seriously, don't make a serious allegation in the form of a joke. You may believe sincerely that the government is protecting Chapo, and yes, by default, the drug war does appear to have come out in his favour. But if it weren't coming out in his favour, then Osiel Cardenas Guillen would be winning – and "protected." Or the Arellano Felix brothers would still be standing and running the show from Tijuana. You know how drug wars work, so as I said before, don't be silly and throw out silly suggestions about a very serious matter if you want to be taken seriously.

The congressman also claims that Anabel Hernandez, the Mexican journalist who has written a book about Chapo, offers up proof that Calderon is directly linked to the drug lord.

This is again a serious accusation, and one Hernandez doesn't actually make. Hernandez, in her book, links a General X with the drug lord (he was allegedly sent to discuss peace terms with Chapo by Los Pinos). She also makes claims that Juan Camilo Mourino was linked to the Beltran Leyvas and Chapo – he was allegedly the man in Los Pinos who sent the general to discuss terms of peace.

This is where grey areas need to be defined a little better, in my mind. (Just like when Proceso misquoted me about claims made by one of my sources in The Last Narco.) First off, I have to say that I don't believe these accusations against Mourino. They reek of "this guy is already dead, so let's let him hang." Mourino, during his term as interior secretary, suffered no end of bashing from the press, who didn't like the fact that he was of Spanish descent. He had also allegedly broken a few rules while serving as undersecretary of energy (under then-energy secretary Calderon). No one ever gave him much of a chance.

Some of the past stuff may be true, but that's neither here nor there. Are we really to believe that he sent a veteran, 65-year-old general to the Sinaloan hills to negotiate a pact? Really, the interior secretary of this administration, and close confidant of the president? I've heard the story before. A few officials were reportedly sent to Durango to talk to Chapo and the Beltran Leyvas in early 2008, when blood was boiling between the two groups and Sinaloa was falling to pieces following the capture of Mochomo and the revenge killing of Edgar Guzman Loera. The version I heard in Sinaloa was that it was low-level local officials and a few state officials – no one in a federal capacity. There might have been military there, but everyone I talked to thought that unlikely. No mention of generals – and in Sinaloa, when a general does something, people tend to talk about it.

There is also talk in Mexico that this same general met with the leaders of La Familia and Los Zetas during Mourino's tenure. Rumour even has it that Defense Secretary Guillermo Galvan Galvan knew of these supposed meetings.

Rumoured, alleged, denied, lacking proof and so on. Secretos a voces may hold a lot of weight in the streets of Mexico, but they don't with me. I need to see the proof before I start accusing an administration of actively seeking out a pact or explicit deal. I don't want to be naive about this – I know this has happened in the past in Mexico, and few are above negotiating with the drug cartels – but I also would like to believe the Calderon administration is innocent until proven guilty.

And are we really to believe that in the midst of a major, bloody drug war, all the leaders of the major drug cartels would meet with a general? I think they're smarter than that, and that they know a potential trap when they see one.

Here's what I do know. The name of the general allegedly in question is Mario Arturo Acosta Chaparro. On August 30, 2000, he was apprehended for alleged links to Carrillo Fuentes and the Juarez cartel and shuttled off to military prison in the Campo Militar No. 1. For seven years, he remained there. On June 30, 2007, all charges were dropped. On April 23, 2008 – a couple of months after the alleged meeting in Durango or Sinaloa or wherever is supposedly took place – he retired, receiving full military honours in an official ceremony.

Then again, that's what any general who has been cleared of all charges would get upon retirement, isn't it?

Incidentally, the ceremony honoring Gen Acosta Chaparro took place in the same Campo Militar where he was imprisoned for 7 years. And alongside him was one Gen. Rolando Eugenio Hidalgo Eddy, the many who during the Fox administration did valiantly try to hunt down Chapo in Sinaloa. He, too, had been accused of being in the pockets of the Juarez cartel at one point. No official charges were ever filed.

Not so precious now, are we

2011-03-31T07:31:00.001-07:00

Well, that scandal-laden post didn't drive up traffic, so I guess I'll get back to the serious stuff.

Jean Succar Kuri, the Lebanese-Mexican businessman at the heart of the Lydia Cacho affair (he ran a child prostitution network stretching all the way to Los Angeles, which journalist Cacho exposed in her book, Los Demonios del Eden), has been sentenced to 13 years on child pornography charges and corruption of minors.

Thirteen years is not enough, in my estimation, but lost in the newspaper stories about this case is just how big a step this is for the Mexican judicial system.

A few years ago, my guess is that this guy would have got off with little more than a slap on the wrist. He was so well connected – a resort owner in Cancun, he knew everyone there – and was backed by powerful political figures in the PRI.

But the PRI is now losing clout, even in the states (it lost in Puebla and Sinaloa in last year's gubernatorial elections; I'll get at whether the PRI overall is actually losing steam or reinventing itself tomorrow.) Mario Marin – the "gober precioso" whose claim to fame is basically fucking over his entire state and talking to businessman Kamel Nacif on the phone about jailing and harassing Cacho for her exposure of their buddy and mentioning Nacif – is no longer in power in Puebla. I believe that's why the sentencing took so long – now that Marin is out of office, there is likely less pressure coming from those PRI quarters to sway the judge in Quintana Roo.

What's next? Will Marin, who left office in January, face some sort of charges? Will the PAN, in the final days of the Calderon administration, put pressure on the authorities to nail the scumbag? Get the PRI dinosaurs and make them face justice, Mr. President, and well, you have another term for your party. I'd be willing to put money on it.

Forbes does it again

2011-03-30T22:11:00.000-07:00

Not content with putting a narco like Chapo on its billionaires' list using questionable methodology, Forbes has blundered once again by calculating Rebecca Black's fortune, or should I say, miscalculating it.

Slate debunks the talk of her making a million off her song "Friday." (Link in title of post.)

I've mentioned both Chapo and Rebecca Black in one blog post; surely that will get me a few hits. (If I add "Sean Penn and Scarlett Johanssen get hitched", maybe that will help too? And how about "Angelina Jolie photographed at nude beach in Somalia?" And one more for good measure: "Readers discover that 90 percent of what they read on internet is fabricated and/or sensationalized in order to drive up traffic.")

faulty intelligence

2011-03-27T10:41:00.000-07:00

It always astounds me when I learn of egregious intelligence errors in the halls of power of Washington.

In 2009, an information packet put together by the DEA in Washington, for the media to learn more about the drug war, mistakenly included the name of former anti-organized crime prosecutor Jose Luis Santiago Vasconsuelos as an official suspected of corruption and collusion with the drug cartels.

I say mistakenly, because when I reported out the story, I got a sincere apology from the DEA spokesperson at the time, who blamed the error on the fact that a subordinate had put the report together and his supervisors had not had time to fact check it.

Oops, no harm, no foul.

I'm in Nicaragua right now, and have been doing a bit of looking into the reports that the Iranians are building up a vast mega-embassy – the kind the US has built up in Baghdad and other parts.

There have been rumours, talk of some 70-100 personnel, a sign that the Iranians can only be up to something, attempting to expand their sphere of influence in Latin America. Nicaragua has some unseemly allies, of that there is no doubt, but Iran? Is it really building up a presence here?

“The Iranians are building a huge embassy in Managua,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said back in 2009. “And you can only imagine what that’s for,” she added, calling the effort “quite disturbing.”

Her comments were quickly debunked by reporters who went to Managua and saw that the Iranian embassy consists of a small compound, with a dozen staffers, max.

Still holds true today. And Iranian investment is still quite minimal here in Managua.

Oops.

Human beings are fallible, even the intelligence community makes mistakes (or especially, depending on your point of view). There are all sorts of unknown unknowns to contend with. But sometimes, these intelligence mistakes have serious consequences, and lead to decisions that, for instance, lead to wars that last a long time and don't show much sign of success. Or instill Cold War-style fears about a country that does need to be understood and dealt with, but not necessarily through fear-mongering. Sometimes the intel is manipulated in the wrong hands, who do whatever they like with it in order to satisfy their own agendas.

Oops, indeed.

On a side note

2011-03-24T17:33:00.001-07:00

I have always envied whoever has the job of writing the Secretary of State's statements congratulating countries on their national day. There is one nearly every day of the year, and they're always so uplifting and positive. It'd be a bit like being a cheerleader, or the person in the office who always buys cakes for someone's birthday but doesn't actually do much that really matters.

And everyone gets a shoutout! For example, this from Secretary of State Clinton on Feb. 28:

"On behalf of President Obama and the people of the United States, I congratulate the people of Wales as you celebrate St. David’s Day this March 1. This special occasion celebrates the rich history and culture of the Welsh people.

The United States is enriched by years of influence from Welsh-Americans. The friendship between our two countries dates back to the early 1700s and nearly 2 million people living in the United States today have Welsh ancestry. Iconic authors, philanthropists and statesmen of Welsh descent have helped shape the history of the United States. This relationship continues today as we work on areas of mutual interest and shared ideals.

The United States and Wales benefit from commercial and educational exchanges, strengthening this already robust relationship. We look forward to deepening these connections, increasing prosperity and continuing our efforts to promote peace around the world.

As you celebrate St. David’s Day, know that the United States stands with you as we work toward a better future for all our people."

Fantastic, I had no idea about the US-Welsh relationship. What I would give to interview whoever writes these things up... just imagine how tempting it would be to be just a little sneaky or subversive.

The capo, his wife, her husband and his brother

2011-03-23T17:59:00.000-07:00

Victor Manuel Felix, the brother-in-law of one of Chapo's wives, was caught in an operativo that netted 9 relatively high-ranking alleged members of the Sinaloa cartel.

There are a few notable things about these arrests that make me think the net may well be closing on Chapo and his closest:

1) Victor Manuel Felix was in charge of both financial and trafficking operations all the way to Ecuador. Only high-ranking, well-respected folks within the Sinaloa cartel get to this level of responsibility. The authorities love to say every suspect caught is high-ranking, but this guy appeared to really be just that. Plus, he was a relative, and Chapo's relatives are usually close to the big guy.

2) It was an international sting. The authorities don't bust people like Manuel Felix, using international resources and perhaps risking leaks about their coordination, to go after small-time narcos. And when they make one big bust, they usually follow it with another or two, effectively hitting the capos with a jab and then an uppercut. Expect another big capture within the coming weeks.

3) The 9 arrested were caught in Quintana Roo, Jalisco and Mexico City. These are not the normal places for average Sinaloa cartel members to be caught. Some bigshots certainly have been caught in DF and Jalisco, but it's not standard fare. That means that the authorities are actively going after the Sinaloa cartel (rather than just rounding up the usual suspects in Ciudad Juarez and Sinaloa). Of course, I've always argued that Sinaloa is not being let off easy, but this is just another little piece of evidence, in my mind.

Incidentally, there's a new general in charge of Sinaloa and the sierra where Chapo is believed to still be hiding out. His name Moises Melo Garcia, and he was previously in charge of the 10th Zona Militar in Durango.

His predecessor, Noe Sandoval Alcazar, was the 3rd general that Chapo has either outwitted, outbribed, or outfought in Sinaloa since his escape from Puente Grande.

But according to a journalist friend who recently traveled to Badiraguato, some locals say that Chapo has become increasingly aggressive these days. Tensions are high in the sierra right now, and the people are scared.

Will this general get lucky? Will the Calderon administration finally be able to move on and claim some sort of symbolic victory in its drug war? We shall see.

Oh, Chavez

2011-03-22T21:29:00.000-07:00

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez said Tuesday in speech to mark World Water Day.

"Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water, according to Reuters.

Apparently, when you surround yourself with yes men and you build yourself into a strongman, no one dares even question your sanity.

US border corruption

2011-03-22T11:13:00.000-07:00

As we all know, US consumption of drugs is one of the driving factors behind the violence in Mexico. But another under-reported factor is US corruption, particularly along the southwest border. A new case highlights just how bad the problem can be:

Angelo Vega took over the police force in Columbus, New Mexico, about two years ago. Like many of his Mexican counterparts, he pledged to fight the drug cartels and human traffickers' influence in the town.

Vega is now fighting federal charges of conspiring with the town mayor, a Columbus trustee and eight other residents to buy and smuggle weapons into the hands of the drug cartels.

According to the 84-count indictment, the defendants allegedly bought about 200 guns. The indictment says they made false claims that the guns were for their own personal use. They were allegedly acting as what's known as "straw buyers" – ie, they bought the weapons knowing they would end up in someone else's hands.

And indeed, according to the indictment, some of the weapons did end up in the wrong hands, in the hands of Mexican drug cartels south of the border, in the hands of the very people who are responsible for violence that has cost more than 35,000 lives in just over four years.

This is the kind of story one hears every day in Mexico – good cop pledges to bring peace, good cop turns out to be corrupt on the side, eager for a little extra. In the US, it's more rare, but as this case shows, it does happen. And when it does, it has terrible consequences on both sides of the border.

Go to war with Mexico?

2011-03-20T19:56:00.001-07:00

Paul Hair of the Washington Examiner has some very well-reasoned thoughts to offer on the Mexican drug war.

"Why not go to war with Mexico instead of Libya?" he asks on the paper's web site.

He questions whether Libyans are a direct threat to US national security, as the drug cartels supposedly are. "If people need another war, let us declare war against Mexico," he writes. The estimated 11 million illegal aliens living inside the US crossed the border, which by Hair's reasoning, "amounts to an invasion and occupation of our nation."

The US government, he says, should tell "Calderón to end his War on America (illegal immigration)," or face the consequences.

Christ almighty. I hope I never run into this guy, anywhere, ever.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

2011-03-20T18:45:00.000-07:00

"Respect. Just give them some goddamn respect! They're marines, for fuck's sake! They fought for their country!"

The bartender was slamming his fist down on the bar, looking over at the two journalists in front of him. A bunch of marines stood idly by at the other end of the bar.

We hadn't been disrespectful; in fact, we'd been quite polite, asking them when they had returned, whether they were from New York – pleasantries of the non-journalistic variety.

But I understand where the bartender was coming from. Soldiers are returning by the boatload from Afghanistan and Iraq. There are very few parades, very few welcome-home ceremonies. Largely, there's simply apathy.

Every once in a while I'll see a soldier in uniform, walking down the street or at the airport terminal, a despondent look on his or her face. They're usually grunts, shipping off home for some R & R or heading back to the frontlines, wherever they may be.

Most people who walk by ignore them. America doesn't care, neither do Americans, it would seem. A record-high 52 marines committed suicide in 2009.

There's little respect for anyone in America these days. Good politicians get bashed endlessly. Good journalists get no respect either (those of us who cover wars and the like apparently just love the adrenaline, most people like to believe) and even ordinary folks I see don't seem to offer each other basic human respect. I find it amazing, saddening, maddening and infuriating all at the same time.

According to psychologists, America is in the midst of a narcissism epidemic. Corporate America is the most culpable, because it effectively breeds sociopaths. I'm not qualified to diagnose that, but I do know that in my life, the most self-centered people I have ever met in the world are average Americans. They see everything in terms relative to themselves, what they want, what they can get out of another person, what that person can offer them. ("Mutual use friendships," as one journalist I knew liked to call them.) They do not see or appreciate you as an individual, in spite of how important individuality is supposed to be in this country. Perhaps it's the power – power, as we all know, corrupts even the best people and makes them forget what they actually value. Perhaps it's a result of the way things function here in America – high stress, a lot of responsibility, a lot of pressure to conform and keep up with the Joneses), and the rules and regulations that mold people into something they're supposed to be. Every culture has its conformity and problems, its self-interest and self-centeredness, but in America, it seems stronger.

I dunno, I'm just thinking out loud. As a friend of mine recently told me, "I just wish someone would recognize that I'm a human being."

Ambassador Pascual

2011-03-19T21:05:00.000-07:00

So my question is, should US Ambassador to Mexico Carlos Pascual have resigned?

According to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton: "He has collaborated tirelessly with his Mexican counterparts to lay the foundation for a cross-border renewable energy market, to open negotiations on the management of oil and gas reserves that span U.S. and Mexican territory, and to build a new border strategy to advance trade while staunching illicit flows. Carlos has also engaged U.S. and Mexican business to build markets that have helped make Mexico the number two destination of U.S. exports.

Ambassador Pascual worked with the Mexican government to integrate human rights into our respective policies and engagement; he also partnered to enhance the human and cultural connections that underpin the friendship between the people of Mexico and the United States. Carlos partnered with his counterparts to reach beyond the Merida Initiative’s initial focus on disrupting cartels to building institutions for the rule of law in Mexico and engaging Mexican civil society in advancing their security. These ties, grown and strengthened throughout his tenure, will serve both our nations for decades."

But he was dating a PRIista's daughter, and well, chose to voice his concerns about the reality of the drug war through confidential cables that Wikileaks chose to publish. Incidentally, nothing Ambassador Pascual wrote in those cables was anything many people in the Calderon administration didn't know or wouldn't admit off the record – ie, confidentially. So really, it wasn't that big a deal, but Calderon played the nationalism card, dissed Pascual to the media and that's how we got here.

I met Pascual on one occasion in Mexico, and from that initial meeting, even though it was brief, I think it's a shame he's gone. He seemed like the kind of ambassador who actually cares about his work, rather than just the kind who enjoys the life of an ambassador.

I don't think he should have resigned, nor do I think President Obama and Sec. of State Clinton should have accepted his resignation. US-Mexico cooperation is at an all-time high right now. US drones are flying over Mexican territory, DEA agents are training Mexican cops, intelligence sharing is at an all-time high, major drug lords are being caught, and complaints from ordinary Mexicans about this US presence have been quite tempered, even from the Left. (Although one La Jornada reader did care to share his comments about Pascual and the US: "Get out of Mexico! Forever! The Mexican government needs to confiscate everything that's been robbed from us!")

Anyway, that's that.

adios, amigo

2011-03-19T18:30:00.000-07:00

And so, carlos pascual is out as ambassador to mexico. More to come later...

4-year-old killed

2011-03-17T15:54:00.000-07:00

El Universal and several other Mexican papers are reporting that a 4-year-old boy was killed in Tepic, Nayarit, caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout.

Yet another reason to worry about the drug war and be horrified by what it's doing to parts of Mexico.

And yet another reason to question the reliability of foreign news accounts of incidents like these. The Huffington Post, which may be valued at $315 million but apparently can't tell the difference between Acapulco and Tepic, real reporting and aggregation, or the fraudulence of putting a dateline on a story that you didn't actually report yourself and not even crediting it (it's an AP story) believes that it was a four-year-old girl who was killed, in Acapulco.

Well, what can you do.

Not good news

2011-03-14T16:09:00.000-07:00

Mexico's human rights commission (CNDH) has received nearly 5,000 allegations of human rights violations against the military since 2007, including killings, enforced disappearances, torture, and rape.

Not good news at all.

I've spent a fair amount of time with generals in Mexico, who can be quite blunt about their disdain for human rights. Kudos to La Jornada for getting Brigadier General Carlos Bibiano Villa Castillo, Torreon’s Director of Public Security, to speak so candidly. (Translation courtesy of Mexicoblog of the CIP Americas Program).

Villa Castillo: The other day we were sent out to kill six bastards and we killed them. What’s the problem?

Reporter: Were they Zetas or Chapos?

Villa Castillo: Zetas.

Reporter: How do you know? You don’t interrogate them, or even talk with them.

Villa Castillo: We found out because they had stolen some weapons from us and we found them there.

Reporter: There are laws, General. You decide who ought to live or die…Don’t you think that God decides that?

Villa Castillo: Well, yeah, but you have to give him a little help.

Reporter: If one of these guys were to approach you to talk…

Villa Castillo: I’d kill him right there. I’d fuck him myself.

Reporter: Kill, and ask questions later?

Villa Castillo: That’s how it ought to be. It’s a code of honor.

Narco-dreams

2011-03-13T14:01:00.001-07:00

"Daddy, why is that man's head not on his body?"

My friend's son had just seen the front page of a tabloid newspaper in Mexico City. He was on his way to school, and one of the street vendors had waved it in front of the car window.

Eight-year-old kids shouldn't ask those sorts of questions, in my mind. But more and more, throughout Mexico, kids are being exposed to horrors unfathomable to most of us.

Then there are the dreams. A friend of a friend recently had her first narco-dream, as I call them.

I've talked to a few kids in Mexico about their dreams. In one kid's dream, he was slowly slicing through a man's neck with a saw. He recalled thinking, (in the dream), this is wrong, so wrong. This is sick. I must wake up, I must wake up, he thought.

He forced himself to wake up, in a cold sweat. He was only 11 years old.

On one occasion in Badiraguato, as I wrote in my book, I slept like a baby. As I nodded off to sleep, I kept thinking: Chapo knows I'm here. His people know. They've given their blessing. They won't kill me, there's no reason to. No reason for unwanted attention by kidnapping me. I drifted off to sleep.

I went into a deep sleep that night. I dreamed of running through the marijuana fields that lay behind me, out the window (pic above). I dreamed that I was running between the flames as the soldiers burned them down. I dreamed that I looked up and saw Chapo, standing on a hillside, looking down on the carnage, grimacing.

I woke up. The mosquitoes had bitten me to death, but I was very much alive. I wandered over to the military parade in the center of town. People had begun to gather. The soldiers weren't invited to their own parade; a few forlorn grunts stared over the wall of their barracks as locals walked past.

The parade began. The town's officials walked solemnly past the crowds; a group of local schoolkids followed, as did a brass band. No army. A few people whispered about Chapo. There was a rumour that he might make an appearance. A helicopter circled overhead – Gen. Noe Sandoval and his men had heard the rumour too, it appeared. Chapo didn't come.

I wandered over to the church, where a year before I had met a young boy whose parents helped maintain it.

The boy had led me to a crossing in the road, in front of the church.

"They killed a boy over there the other day," he said.

He frowned.

Badiraguato

2011-03-12T13:58:00.000-08:00

It's always easy, as an outsider, to describe somewhere as "odd." But wandering into Badiraguato, in the foothills of the Sierra Madre in Sinaloa, one cannot help get the sense that something is indeed odd about the place.

The first thing that strikes you is the light. It's bright up there. Boiling hot, too, but a bit cooler than Culiacan, which gets the coastal humidity.

The streets of Badiraguato are nearly bereft of people. It's because they like their privacy, officials say. But you can't help wondering whether it's actually because of the narco-presence.

The streets are well-paved. The church is in good shape, having recently been refurbished. The mayor's house is a nice two-storey villa, reminiscent of some of the homes one sees in Santa Barbara, California. The town looks surprisingly well-off – not wealthy, but definitely not the sort of place you'd expect in one of the 200 poorest counties in Mexico.

The narcos rule in Badiraguato and its environs. There are roughly 35,000 people in the county – the county where Chapo Guzman and many other capos were born – but there are only about 1,000 legitimate jobs in Badiraguato itself. So people work in the drug trade.

On one visit to the town, I was sitting in the square chatting to an old man when four SUV's with tinted windows circled the square. They circled four times. The old man told me to leave, immediately. I did.

On another occasion, I met a man named Carlos, who had studied and got a diploma in education. But there was no work, so he turned to Chapo for a job. He told me quite bluntly: "Chapo's the law."

When I last went, I met with the mayor. He invited me for a nice lunch on Independence Day, in the conference room of his offices. It was interesting to look at the faces of the previous mayors, through the ages, on portraits hung around the room.

If you've seen Ley de Herodes, then you'll understand the type of person who tends to govern in Badiraguato. Decent people but perhaps not the brightest in the barrel, who for their own good turn a blind eye to the narcos and their business. There's not much real governing in the county – the last mayor went to La Tuna (the hamlet where Chapo was born) once while campaigning and never went again.

But a big change has recently taken place in Badiraguato. For the first time in history, the PRI is no longer in power. There's a new mayor in town, and it will be interesting to see whether he can change things for the better, improve infrastructure, create employment, connect the pueblos to the city, and avoid corruption.

Or will he end up just another forlorn face on the wall of the palacio municipal?

The big news out of Mexico

2011-03-11T11:05:00.000-08:00

Scarlett Johansson and Sean Penn, living and loving it up on the beach in Cabo San Lucas. (Link above in title of post.)

I guess this answers questions whether it's safe to travel to Mexico – no, if you don't want to be anywhere near these two.

Wonder if this post will do anything to increase my online hits.

The agent

2011-03-10T15:06:00.000-08:00

I was just trawling through some FBI documents when I stumbled upon the story of Emilio Kosterlitzky, who according to the FBI, was "one of the most colorful characters to ever serve as a special agent."

He was also of Russian descent, and had served in both the Russian and Mexican militaries prior to becoming an FBI agent. He had reached the rank of brigadier general in the Mexican military (not that high, but it is a senior rank at least.)

Kosterlitzky left Mexico during the Revolution, heading to Los Angeles, where he joined the FBI in 1917, at the tender age of 63.

Acccording to the FBI document, Kosterlitzky was appointed a “special employee," and with "his deep military experience and international flair (including strong connections throughout Mexico and the Southwest U.S. and the ability to speak, read, and write more than eight languages) he excelled at it."

He earned six dollars a day for the nine years he worked with the FBI before he died in 1926.

Just thought I'd share this guy's interesting story.

Whose side are you on?

2011-03-09T19:59:00.000-08:00

Several commentators have been wondering recently whether the people of Mexico support the narcos or the authorities. In a recent piece on COIN strategy, (a good read, by the way) Patrick Corcoran of ganchoblog argues that "in the battle between the drug gangs and the government, the loyalty of the people is plainly not at stake."

Patrick argues that "poll after poll demonstrates this. The polling group BGC published a survey in the Mexico City daily Excélsior in September of 2010 showing 88 percent support for anti-drug policies. A few months previous, Pew’s Global Opinions Project polled 80 percent support for the use of the army to combat organized crime. Seeking an answer to basically the same question, the Mexican firm Mitofsky found 74 percent support of using the army in April of 2010."

Unfortunately, the odds of the people being polled actually telling the pollsters the truth are minimal.

I agree with Patrick on a lot of things in the piece, except for this part. I've interviewed countless residents of Ciudad Juarez, Sinaloa, Tijuana, Tamaulipas, and Michoacan over the past four years. I've asked them about the narcos. I've asked them about the army. I've asked them about the police. The only common denominator in their answers was their apparent schizophrenia.

ME: Do you support the narcos?
THEM: Yes, well, no, because we don't like the violence between them, but they leave us alone. So, yes.

ME: Do you support the army?
THEM: Oh yes... but no, because the soldiers bring more violence. But yes, perhaps.

ME: Do you trust the police?
THEM: Hell no.

ME: Who do you support in the war against organized crime?
THEM: Well the narcos, obviously – I mean, the authorities, the army, the police, the government.

ME: What is the best solution you can think of for the future?
THEM: Let Chapo take control.

The sad reality of these apparently funny answers (which, incidentally, are pretty close to the real answers, I'm not taking many liberties here) is that very few people I have interviewed really seemed to know whose side they were on, or were willing to admit it. They are stuck in the middle of a bloody conflict, and are not quite sure whether they can actually trust the authorities to look after them. They know that when the old-school narcos are in charge – the Chapos – things are quieter. When the army comes to town, things settle down a bit, but then violence heats up, there's a human rights abuse or two, and suddenly the army is Public Enemy No. 1 again. The only thing they're sure of is that the police can't be trusted.

Which reminds me of a conversation I had with a cop in the police station in Culiacan back in 2008.

ME: It must be hard to know who to trust around here.
COP: Yeah, sure. I don't even trust myself.

He was joking. I think. I dunno. Maybe not.

What may have happened...

2011-03-08T21:04:00.000-08:00

There have been a few criticisms following Obama's meeting with Calderon, as well as the latter's comments about Ambassador Carlos Pascual (including from myself). I talked to a former diplomat about it, and although he never worked in Mexico, he explained that what likely occurred is the following: Calderon phoned Pascual shortly before his interview with El Universal, warning him that he would be saying some things in order to pander to the public and address the Wikileaks cables. Pascual would not acknowledge any of this publicly, yet would be reassured by his president that all was fine.

Then when Calderon and Obama met, they could get down to real business and not worry about the Mexican president losing any face. Which he didn't, Obama and Calderon made progress on the trucking issue, and Calderon went home happy with America again.

If this is what happened, well then, interesting.

Good journalism

2011-03-08T19:39:00.001-08:00

I've been thinking a lot about good journalism lately, upon my return to the US. I was a bit of a critic of the Mexican media while in Mexico (particularly when I was misquoted in Proceso – to their credit they ran a correction) but since coming back to the US, I've found myself bombarded by trash and roaring rhetoric too. Sadly, it's not only coming from Fox News.

What I've been seeing way too much of (for my liking) is well-reported, yet completely unbalanced pieces of long-form journalism. The ones that have struck me most were in Rolling Stone (whether it be the McChrystal profile by a former colleague Michael Hastings, which was extremely well-reported but too sensational for my taste, given the way military folks talk about everyone – but hey, they did break the chain of command) to Matt Taibbi's rantings and ravings about everyone and their mother.

I've got to admit, I don't really get Matt Taibbi. He spits vitriol out at other journalists and everyone who gets in his way. Is it a schtick to provoke people, to rile up the reader? He even called my old boss, Fareed Zakaria, "maybe this country’s preeminent propagandist."

I worked for Fareed, and he is anything but a propagandist. He's a damn smart guy who gets a lot of things us normal journalists don't. In fact, Taibbi went on to say "whereas most writers grow up dreaming of using their talents to stir up the passions, to inflame and amuse and inspire, Zakaria shoots for the opposite effect, taking controversial and explosive topics and trying to help rattled readers somehow navigate their way through them to yawns, lower heart rates and states of benign unconcern."

Helping to explain complicated issues so that the reader understands them is NOT propaganda.

But riling up readers, stirring their passions, is that really what journalists are supposed to do? Angling the story so that every time, it is a "stick it to the man" piece, even if the man doesn't deserve it to be stuck to him that time? I don't think that's the way journalists are supposed to work. Inform readers so they can make up their own minds and get angry if they want to. Give them the facts, as objectively as you possibly can. (No one can help a little bias here and there, but if you at least recognize it and try to keep that in check, then you're doing your job.)

I don't really know where I'm going with this, and perhaps I'm wrong to single out Rolling Stone, because maybe I'm simply out of touch with what people want to read. Personally, I used to like Rolling Stone when I was about 13, and I would have much preferred a Michael Hastings counterinsurgency analysis than a McChrystal-and-crew drink and say stupid things story. And I never liked Fox News or anything on that network aside from the Simpsons.

It just seems odd to me. I've had several conversations recently with people and they keep telling me how much they miss Walter Cronkite. I also had a conversation with a New York journalist the other day, during which I mentioned Tom Ricks, one of the greatest Pentagon correspondents this country has known. She said, fine, he may be good, but no one knows who he is because he doesn't have a talk show and isn't a celebrity. Give her Anderson Cooper anyday.

Again, I dunno. Maybe I'm getting old. I welcome comments telling me to get with the 21st century or something.

The elephant in the room

2011-03-04T17:03:00.000-08:00

"We are very mindful that the battle President Calderon is fighting inside of Mexico is not just his battle, it's also ours," President Barack Obama said after Calderon's Washington visit. "We have to take responsibility just as he's taking responsibility. And that's true with respect to guns flowing from north to south, it's true about cash flowing north to south."

The two presidents discussed "how we can strengthen border security on both sides" to curtail the weapons and drug traffic," Obama said, calling it "a challenging task."

Indeed. Why are we here again? Why have I heard this spiel a dozen times in my life, and I'm only 36 years old?

The buildup to this meeting was appalling. It was as if players on all sides of the equation were making everything as bad as possible so that the two presidents would be able to meet and proclaim everything will be better just so it appeared everything would indeed be better.

A recap: In an interview with the leading Mexican daily El Universal last week, Calderon bashed US cooperation in the war on drugs and organized crime and even called US Ambassador Carlos Pascual "ignorant."

Calderon's use of the anti-American card was risky at a time when US-Mexico cooperation is at an all-time high. There is just no doubt of that. The DEA assists 200-something vetted high-ranking Mexican cops, who conduct anti-drug operations. Dozens of top cartel leaders have been caught or killed in the past four years. US military advisers are on the ground in Mexico and even the Left has been relatively quiet about it. Yes, the violence is out of control and yes, that is a huge, huge problem. But that's nothing to do with US cooperation. Cooperation must be continued and built upon. Wikileaks couldn't be helped, don't make matters worse by spilling your guts to a newspaper that you know isn't going to highlight to lovey-dovey aspects of the relationship.

Everyone knows there are tensions between US and Mexican agencies. Since 2006, Mexico's top anti-drug official has been arrested for being in the pockets of organized crime, while a former ICE agent was also charged with feeding information to the drug cartels (I believe he plea-bargained). A US agent was killed in Mexico two weeks ago; eight Mexican soldiers were arrested yesterday while trying to traffic a ton of cocaine through Tijuana. The bodyguard of the Mexican general in charge of catching Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted drug trafficker, was arrested for feeding information to the drug lord; and so on.

On Thursday during an interview with the Washington Post, Calderon cited a U.S. cable that said that Mexican military officials had "risk-averse habits," suggesting that it had caused turmoil on his national security team.

"It's difficult if suddenly you are seeing the courage of the army [questioned]. For instance, they have lost probably 300 soldiers ... and suddenly somebody in the American embassy, they [say] the Mexican soldiers aren't brave enough," Calderon said during an hour-long meeting with The Post editorial board and reporters. "Or you decide to play the game that they are not coordinated enough, and suddenly start to bring information to one agency and not to the other and try to get them to compete."

Well, sorry Mr President, but your soldiers are indeed risk averse – perhaps rightly so. I've spent plenty of time with them in the past three years. Most of them are lonely and scared, and will put aside their machismo to readily admit that. They hate being stuck out in the middle of the sierra, spending the night camped out in tents, worrying that at any point, a group of AK-47-wielding narcos might gun them down. They spend most of their days pulling up and burning down marijuana plants, and then are asked to conduct raids against what are effectively well-armed paramilitaries during their off-hours? They aren't allowed off the base on weekends because they'll be killed or kidnapped? They have to wear masks 24 hours a day, some even wear them inside the military compounds because they don't trust each other! They are formidable when it comes to hurricane rescues and the like, but combat against these thugs is a different story. Put the pride aside, and admit it, Mr Calderon. Your army is fine, but it could do with some help.

As for bringing intel to different agencies, courage was the factor cited by Calderon, but I'm pretty sure the person in the Embassy who questioned that courage was just being diplomatic. What's likely being questioned is integrity. For instance, Gen. Noe Sandoval is in charge of operations in Sinaloa – where Chapo is believed to be hiding – and his bodyguard was arrested for filtering intel to Chapo's people. If I were sitting in the embassy, or in the DEA, that might make me think twice before I shared intel with the general, no matter how honest he might be.

As for the "challenging task" of "how we can strengthen border security on both sides" to curtail the weapons and drug traffic" that Obama mentioned, here's one suggestion: Get Mexican soldiers deployed to checkpoints along the border to actually start checking suspicious vehicles for weapons. I spent an afternoon about two years ago in Matamoros watching soldiers "inspect" the vehicles. They stopped one in every ten cars and only checked about every 10 of those. That, my friends, is not "increased and improved" weapons checks along the border, as the Calderon administration had promised back then.

Calderon is right to complain, he really is. The US has so much to do which it never does and will never do. During the period that the assault weapons ban was in effect, 1994-2004, Mexican homicide rates apparently dropped. The weapons ban was never renewed, and my guess is, it never will be.

Drug consumption is a US problem, not a Mexican one. Something has to be done, and I'm flummoxed as to what it is. Legalization in the US, in my mind, is not the answer, as I am pretty sure the drug cartels would simply lower their prices and still flood the market (this is what they do now anyway, it's not like Mexican weed is the good stuff. But maybe legalizing weed would be a way to start something new.)

Nor is legalization in Mexico, because I just cannot see the cartels giving the government control over drug production. Nor will they pay taxes on their stuff if they do retain control over it. (About 40 percent of Mexicans already don't pay taxes, why would the narcos be more law-abiding?)

Lastly, I don't think legalization would quell the violence. I just can't imagine a bunch of narcos deciding to settle their dispute in a court. Much easier to just shoot each other down in some back alley somewhere.

So maybe, once again, it comes down to ending American drug use – the one issue that didn't come up in Obama's recap of his meeting with Calderon.

Oops

2011-03-03T17:03:00.000-08:00

Eight soldiers were caught with a ton of cocaine in Tijuana today. Coming on the heels of Calderon's comments about lack of US cooperation, and during his visit to Washington, this isn't exactly good news.

Media and the drug war

2011-02-28T16:41:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking a little about media coverage of the drug war, after an email from a Mexican friend in Mexico who asked me what was happening in his own country.

The reason for his questions and lack of clarity from his standpoint, is that the media is doing a horrendous job of covering the drug war. Simple as that. It's hard, no doubt, to find out exactly what is going on in the fog of this war. It's messy, confusing and dangerous. But for some reason, a lot of print media has turned toward TV-style, lazy reporting.

For instance, quotes like this in a Reuters story:

"Restaurants, bars, delicatessens, shoe shops, everyone is paying extortion money," said a business man with an car dealership who has been extorted by drug gangs and declined to be named. "And if you can't pay both extortion fees and your taxes, you tell the gangs and they sort it out for you."

This quote was in an "analysis" piece about how "Mexico risks losing large areas to drug gangs." But the quote offers no context or even evidence of anything except the man's general vague interpretation of what's happening. Details, please. Average Mexicans living in the midst of organized crime are not prone to giving up details, but you have to probe. You have to ask, for instance, what this businessman means by "everyone." Everyone on his block? Everyone he knows? Every one of Reynosa's 200,000 residents? And was it worse six months ago? Two years ago?

Well, according to a Reuters story a little over 6 months ago, it appeared to be worse then. "In another sign of escalating violence, men threw three grenades in the center of the manufacturing city of Reynosa," Reuters reported.

In a 2009 story, Marc Lacey of the New York Times quoted one Reynosa resident as saying: "You begin to wonder what the truth is... Is it what you saw, or what the media and the officials say? You even wonder if you were imagining it."

I think this is a great quote to describe just how little everyone actually knows.

A Mexican colleague of mine at The News once told me that Mexicans have no memory, which explains why it's difficult to get detailed answers. But she also advised me that if I wanted to get people talking, I should try to trigger their memories with gentle suggestions or hints, which might help them open up or reveal details. It worked at times, and I think is necessary. The authorities can pay their informants, but journalists have to work a little more ethically. (With poverty come principles.)

Of course, the problem with having no memory is that the general public is extremely susceptible to manipulation by the authorities and the media. We like to think of the media as the good pillar of society, but that's not always the case.

Take, for instance, the recent stories about the drug war encroaching on Mexico City. Folks, this is not happening. And I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is.

In late 2007, El Universal ran a story about the cartels surrounding the capital. In 2008, they published a similar story. I believe there was one in 2009, too. There was one late last year, and now again this year.

The reasons for the cartels not coming to the capital are the following: there are about 70,000 cops in Mexico City. Sure, some are corrupt, but by and large, it's a cohesive force that operates properly, and is certainly impossible to buy off entirely. There are also gangs, and those gangs are very well-established. Muscling in on them and their turf will cause serious problems. These gangs have ties to the cartels, to deliver drugs and whatnot, but the cartels don't operate in the capital. There is no reason for them to: Mexico City is neither a major production hub nor a transit route. The State of Mexico and Morelos, where the recent violence has occurred, are.

Mexico City is attractive as a place for big-time narcos to hide out, and sometimes, live a quiet life of luxury. Chapo and his cronies have long nicknamed the capital "the smoke," because of their ability to just disappear there.

But they don't want to take over Mexico City. These scare stories unfortunately do nothing to inform the Mexican people, they simply seek to sensationalize and scare. Neither do soundbite-like quotes which sound good in a TV story but don't give me enough information for a print story.

Unknown unknowns

2011-02-26T19:36:00.000-08:00

In his interview with the Daily Show, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Jon Stewart that "there are 3 million people in that operation," referring to the Pentagon.

Newsflash: The Pentagon has about 23,000 employees, non-military and civilian. Even if Rumsfeld was including the entire military (which is quite possible) the total number comes to about 2.3 million. Here are some other Pentagon numbers, for those who are interested.

There are 131 stairways in the Pentagon, and 19 escalators. There are 4,200 clocks, 691 water fountains, 284 rest rooms, 1 dining room, 2 cafeterias, and 7 snack bars.

The interview is really quite interesting, I've included the link above. I know this isn't my field of expertise, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Calderon interview

2011-02-24T14:41:00.000-08:00

A few comments about Calderon's interview with El Universal the other day, in which he condemns the US and says "institutional cooperation" has been "notoriously insufficient." He also lambastes US Ambassador Carlos Pascual.

As a member of the press, I'm all for spilling your guts when there's good reason. But in this instance, I don't get it. Why is Calderon pulling a Nicolas Anelka?

I believe in institutions, and I certainly believe in diplomacy. If Calderon has a problem with Pascual, and the content of the leaked cables, why stoop to the level of a leaker yourself? Why not approach the diplomat, uh, diplomatically, and tell him you take issue with what he has supposedly said/written? Surely that would be the presidential thing to do? And then resolve the issues?

The Calderon administration has failed, since Day One, to communicate its message of the drug war to the people, and now it risks relations with the US (they won't fall apart, of course, but there's a good chance trust will erode between the agencies who are actually working together). There will no doubt be some very annoyed people in Washington and at the US Embassy right now.

There is the off-chance that Calderon was playing up the anti-American stuff to resonate well with an electorate he needs to win over, as the nationalism card always works nicely. But I hope not, because I have seen little sign in Mexico that people are genuinely against US cooperation on the drug war; they just want the violence to stop. The fact that US military advisers are on the ground to train their Sedena counterparts hasn't even raised much of a stink.

Speaking of:
On his blog yesterday, Admiral James A. Winnefeld, head of Northcom – which in turn heads the military advising team – wrote the following:

"Yesterday, the Mexican Army (known as SEDENA) conducted a quite impressive and highly successful operation to arrest some of the suspected perpetrators of this crime (the killing of ICE agent Jaime Zapata). This operation is yet another testament to the courage and skill of SEDENA and is typical of all our partners in the Mexican military and security services. On behalf of USNORTHCOM, I simply want to express my personal appreciation for the determined, rapid, and capable response to the murder of Agent Zapata."

I'm not a huge fan of the overblown cheerleading you sometimes hear from US officials (see ganchoblog for his latest on the Justice Dept.'s 'mission accomplished' talk) but this comment from Winnefield is amazingly positive when contrasted with Calderon's comments. And it is just the thing I'd like to see more of, given that US-Mexico cooperation in this drug war is without a doubt at an all-time high. Perhaps realistic, positive talk can drown out the fearmongers, cheerleaders, whiners and doomsayers.

Hitting the Zetas?

2011-02-23T17:58:00.000-08:00

How will the authorities respond to the killing of a US agent and the wounding of another?

You'd expect them to come down hard on Los Zetas. But Los Zetas, right now, are not really in any state to be taken down. They're still pretty disorganized and independent, and not really all that powerful. A roundup like the one against La Familia back in late 2008 might work, and in any event would help stop Los Zetas from organizing and consolidating along the east coast and southern border, which is what they're trying to do right now.

The authorities already claim to have caught one of the shooters of ICE agent Jaime Zapata, in San Luis Potosi. I'm suspicious, of course, but it could well be that the guy received no protection from any of his Zeta crew on account of the severity of his crime.

Anyway, what to expect now? I think the authorities are going to go after El Lazca and El 40, the two old guard Zetas, and try to put a stop to the Zetas' attempts to organize nationwide. They'll get a little help from the Sinaloa/Gulf alliance, which to the best of my knowledge still holds.

What the authorities SHOULD do, however, is exactly the opposite. Leave Los Zetas for now and send in the big guns after Chapo and the big Sinaloa guys. They'll be expecting a crackdown on the Zetas, so why not give them a little surprise?

Interestingly, the military has been pretty quiet in Sinaloa in recent days. Perhaps the army is up to something? (Or of course, they could be just sitting around all day pulling up marijuana plants as usual.)

Drug war suggestions

2011-02-22T16:57:00.000-08:00

I usually shy away from making suggestions on how to combat the drug war in Mexico, preferring to leave that to the policymakers. But a few things have struck me in recent weeks, so I thought I'd comment over the course of the next few days.

First off, I and others have argued against talk of the Colombianization of Mexico in the past. But Mexico is now at risk of becoming Colombianized, in the following way.

When Uribe took office in 2002, he faced one major challenge, and it wasn't making sure the cartels or FARC etc launched an insurgency. He needed to secure the country's main roads for economic purposes.

So he bought some tanks from Spain, which everyone laughed at because everyone knows tanks can't patrol Andean roads or jungles. And they sat outside Bogota, looking menacing to anyone (read: no one) who wanted to take on the capital.

But Uribe did eventually secure the roads, particularly the one from Medellin to Bogota, and trade picked up.

Calderon, when he took office, didn't face such a problem. He has pledged to invest $10.25 billion into highway construction, a promise which I have read is being followed up on, albeit slowly.

But at the same time, the government doesn't appear to control some of those highways. In Sinaloa, a new highway is being built from Badiraguato through to Chihuahua. I saw a gunman standing atop a hillside near the end of the currently paved road. Once built, the road will serve as a gateway for the drugs, not as a legitimate transportation route. (Admittedly, the two go hand in hand everywhere, so Mexico is not really an exception here.)

Dozens of attacks have occurred on highways throughout Mexico, often on major routes like Highway 16 – through Ojinaga – or Highway 45, which goes up through Ciudad Juarez.

The road from Mexico City to Monterrey has been blockaded several times in recent months; last week, two US agents were attacked along the route in San Luis Potosi. A Mexican military official told the AP that the military doesn't have checkpoints along the route.

It needs to. The Mexican military must prevent Mexico's roads from falling into the hands of the narcos. If they allow this to happen, then unfortunately, we will be able to talk about the Colombianization of Mexico. A few permanent checkpoints (you have to arm them well, given the narcos' propensity for attacking such outposts) will act as a deterrent, at the very least.

Silver lining

2011-02-17T18:59:00.000-08:00

Mexico's violence may show no signs of abating, but that hasn't bothered business. In the World Bank's latest Doing Business survey, Mexico ranked No. 1 in Latin America, having overtaken another drug-troubled spot, Colombia.

Homicides

2011-02-17T13:35:00.000-08:00

The Mexican military reported that in 2008, drug-related killings represented roughly 17 percent of the 10,700 intentional homicides in Mexico, according to one of the Wikileaks cables.

Hmm. I've always wondered and tried on occasion to check into how many of the killings were actually drug-related. The military does not have much investigative capacity, but this estimate is really interesting. It supports my theory that a lot of the homicides in Mexico are nothing to do with drugs or organized crime and more due to the simple fact that law enforcement is lacking and in some places, you can get away with murder, literally.

ICE agents attacked

2011-02-15T19:59:00.000-08:00

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent was killed and another wounded in Mexico today. They were driving through San Luis Potosi on their way to the northern city of Monterrey when they stopped at a checkpoint. Gunmen opened fire on their black SUV.

According to a Mexican military official quoted by the AP, the checkpoint may have appeared to be a military one, but the military does not have checkpoints in that area.

Right now it's not clear whether the ICE agents were targeted specifically because they were ICE agents or because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Their black SUV, with tinted windows, is the kind often used by narcos, so they could easily have been mistaken for narcos by either rival narcos or the army. It's unclear whether they had diplomatic plates.

Was the checkpoint a "narco-bloqueo," as blockades often set up by the narcos are known? Or was it a military checkpoint, and the military screwed up?

Narcobloqueos have been set up on this road before. And if the narcos knew a pair of ICE agents were on their way to Monterrey, that would have been an easy time to get them.

That would be a definite escalation from what we've seen in the past. Ten DEA
law enforcement liaison officers have been killed since 2007, 51 FBI contacts
have been murdered, and more than 60 top Mexican law enforcement officers have died, but US officials have not been targeted specifically.

According to one of the diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks, US officials "frankly don't know enough about how DTO (cartel) members think and operate to know what factors might trigger a decision to mount such an attack, but the potential threat is very real. We assess that the threat to U.S. personnel could increase if the violence continues to escalate and more high-level government officials and political leaders are targeted."

If the ICE agents were indeed targeted, it would be the first killing of a US agent on Mexican soil since DEA agent Kiki Camarena was kidnapped and killed in 1985.

Agents have since been threatened – in 1999, Osiel Cardenas Guillen famously told two of them: ‘You fucking gringos. This is my town, so get the fuck out of here before I kill you" – but none have been killed.

Camarena's death prompted what I believe is the largest DEA investigation in history; it led to the capture of Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo (El Padrino), Ernesto Fonseca and Rafael Caro Quintero. A handful of Mexican cops were also involved in Camarena's kidnap/killing.

Could the military have accidentally shot at the agents? Well, I sincerely hope not, because if it did, and the checkpoint is no longer there, then the military realized what it had done and bolted. A hit-and-run on US agents would not be advisable.

One last thing: This occurred on the main highway to Monterrey. In recent months, the narcos have ratcheted up their blockades and caused trouble along this road, albeit further north. San Luis Potosi is usually not so problematic, but wouldn't it pay to think a little, and put up some military checkpoints all along this road to prevent the narcos from doing it first? Just a thought.

Chavez and Uribe do lunch

2011-02-14T19:15:00.000-08:00

It had been a tough morning. The heat had blasted down on his beret as he had addressed the crowd. But he had held forth. His nation would host a summit in 2011, he had declared proudly, and his people would commemorate the realization of the Bolivarian themes of Latin American solidarity in the birthplace of the "Great Liberator.” He had denounced the Organization of American States, and rightly so, and even showed a bit of support for his Argentine brethren fighting British drilling in the Malvinas.

Now, for some lunch. Hugo Chavez pulled up his chair at the table. He glared across at his eating companions. There sat Alvaro Uribe, his long-standing foe, on one side. He was getting tired of Uribe, to put it mildly. The two had already bickered this morning; Chavez was pretty sure they'd have some sort of argument during lunch, too.

Chavez smirked as Rafael Correa, Ecuador's president, sat down opposite him. Leftie-lite, he thought. You may be part of my movement, but you, sir, have nothing on me. Uribe bombs a rebel camp in your country and the best you can do is cry for help? Launch long-winded investigations? Fight back for your people next time! (And quit protesting too much about those money-laundering allegations, man. Just stay quiet, and the storm will pass.)

What's that? A mouse? Something nudged Chavez's right elbow. The Venezuelan looked down; it wasn't a mouse. It was little Evo.

Ah, Evo Morales. Chavez's little boy from Bolivia. He was so wonderfully idealistic sometimes. But so annoying, too. Eh, well, at least he was loyal. All morning, he'd been parroting Chavez's speeches, and praising Cuba to boot. So what if he's diminutive, loves his coca and is totally deluded about his perceived influence over the people of Los Altos, Chavez thought; at least he makes a good sidekick.

Enter Felipe Calderon, stage right. Chavez got up. He gave his Mexican counterpart a big bear hug.

So tempting. So damn tempting. He could have crushed him like an ant just then. He could have put the Mexican Left out of its misery and crushed that conservative right then and there. Then he wouldn't have had to pay all that money to the pendejos in the PRD just so they can lose an election. Ah, coulda, woulda, shoulda, Chavez thought.

Lunch was served, and they all talked a bit of nonsense. Chavez was bored. This diplomatic stuff had never interested him much; he'd rather be hanging out with Naomi, or smoking a nice cigar and shooting the shit with Fidel.

Calderon was droning on and on. He kept bringing up the need to talk, to discuss, to share ideas within the region. Correa agreed quietly and with a bit of reservation. At one point, Raul Castro hobbled into the room and sat at the table, but no one really paid attention. Chavez missed Fidel.

"NNANANNNANANAAA…."

Uribe was talking. Chavez kept looking at the waitress, not hearing a thing.

"NNANANNNANNot happy…"

Chavez couldn't ignore him any longer. Uribe was mumbling, quietly. Why couldn't he just blurt it out like a man? Chavez leaned over, and listened more closely. Uribe was lamenting Venezuela's economic embargo on Colombia, calling it unhelpful and inconsistent with the region's economic interests. Whine, whine, whine.

Chavez listened. He held his tongue. He thought of his mother, how she had always told him to think before he spoke, to count to ten, to listen to other people before responding. To be patient.

He couldn't do it. This guy had tried to kill him! He had sent his assassins to kill him, and here was Chavez, being polite and diplomatic, the better man, sitting next to him at lunch and listening to him whine about economic sanctions? Are you kidding? Are you out of your mind?

Chavez stood up, red in the face. He accused Uribe point blank. The assassins. You sent them. You sent them to kill me.

"You can go to hell," yelled Chavez “I am leaving!”

With that, he turned to go. But Uribe had to get one more word in.

“Don’t be a coward and leave just to insult me from a distance,” he yelled.

Right, that's it. Chavez strutted over to the Colombian. Uribe stood up.

He was bigger than Chavez thought. Not a brute, obviously, but quicker than Chavez on his feet. The two exchanged words. They both swore furiously. Chavez edged forward; Uribe quickly moved his elbows up to block him.

Raul Castro stepped between the two. Come on guys, basta, he pleaded. He didn't have time for these shenanigans. He was getting old, he was quite weary. He couldn't waste his time watching two grownups, leaders of their respective nations, duke it out like a pair of schoolboys.

They backed away from each other. Chavez adjusted his beret. Uribe hunched over to pick up his glasses. He picked them up and gave them a wipe.

Outside of the dining room, Venezuelan security officials ran toward the door to help their president. Mexican security guards blocked them; a scuffle ensued.

NOTE: This is an account of a lunch attended by Uribe and Chavez in Cancun, described in one of the Wikileaks cables. I thought it'd be fun to write it up, and took some liberties in doing so; please read it as a piece of creative writing. Still, quite a bit of it is accurate according to the cable's description.

Is Mexico's fight against organized crime a war?

2011-02-05T13:05:00.001-08:00

McClatchy has a good piece about the debate over the use of the word "war" to describe Mexico's conflict. Indeed, it's worthy of a discussion:

Calderon himself has never used the word war. He prefers "lucha contra el crimen organizado" or "lucha contra el narcotrafico." The military, too, uses these terms, rather than "war" (guerra).

But as they say, a picture speaks a thousand words: if it's just a struggle, or fight, then why has Calderon donned military garb on more than one occasion? Why has he so often been pictured alongside the military when surveying what can only be described as battlefields?

Some experts argue that it can't be a war because the end result won't bring about a clear winner or loser. "With a war, you either win or lose. And with this one, how are we going to win it?" asks security analyst Jorge Chabat in the McClatchy piece.

But he's not exactly right in this argument, in my opinion. After all, war isn't as black and white as that. In Iraq and Afghanistan, which surely must be defined as wars, there is no clear winner or loser. There are multiple elements to these wars – invasion, regime overthrow, counterinsurgency, reconstruction, peacekeeping, and so on – that take time, prompt the evolution of strategies, and often don't produce clear and tangible results immediately. There are other players in the game, too, who cannot be considered the enemy in a conventional sense. The same goes for Mexico's lucha against the drug cartels and organized crime.

Standard definitions of war boil it down to a state of armed conflict between different nations/states or different groups within a nation/state.

Some 50,000 Mexican soldiers are currently using force to fight some extremely well-armed drug trafficking organizations. I think this is a war, personally.

Concerns over Egypt

2011-02-03T07:52:00.000-08:00

It's not really my field of expertise, but I've been thinking about the events in Egypt. While anyone of democratic mind is rightly cheering the turn of events there, we should be thinking of the possible repercussions.

And the repercussions are that whatever regime takes Mubarak's place will likely be far worse and more repressive than he was. The reason is that this is how it has always played out in the region after protests and overthrows, and there is no reason to believe this time will be any different, unless all the players are thinking ahead to this likely eventuality and coming up with solid plans to avoid it.

According to an Associated Press report, Obama's response to the crisis in Egypt is "drawing fierce criticism in Israel, where many view the U.S. leader as a political naif whose pressure on a stalwart ally to hand over power is liable to backfire."

Israeli officials have made no secret of their view that shunning Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and pushing for swift elections in Egypt could bring unintended results, the Associated Press reports.

Then again, while I don't doubt the AP claims that Israeli officials are concerned, we should be wary of who is being quoted.

"I don't think the Americans understand yet the disaster they have pushed the Middle East into," lawmaker Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told the Associated Press. (DISCLAIMER: he's a longtime friend of Mubarak)

"If there are elections like the Americans want, I wouldn't be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood didn't win a majority, it would win half of the seats in parliament," he told Army Radio. "It will be a new Middle East, extremist radical Islam."

Botox behind bars

2011-02-02T03:28:00.000-08:00

Hold my thoughts on the use of the term "cartel": The Associated Press reports that Sandra Avila Beltran, aka The Queen of the Pacific, received Botox injections during her stay in Santa Marta Acatitla, a women's prison in Mexico City. ((link above in title of post.)

Christ, it only gets worse, doesn't it. Mexico's prisons are notoriously lax – part of this is justified by the fact that they are considered rehabilitation centers rather than just lock-ups – but this is a bit ridiculous. A doctor was improperly admitted to give the Botox injection, the authorities say.

I visited Santa Marta Acatitla several times during my time in Mexico. It was one of the few prisons which journalists were allowed to visit regularly; I also made some contacts inside who put me on their list of registered visitors, which allowed me more regular access while researching The Last Narco (one of the inmates who I visited several times had a brother in the army who had worked for Los Zetas and been arrested for it). The guards who were supposed to regulate contraband smuggling left much to be desired, to say the least. On one occasion, I brought my mobile phone, and the guard found it when searching me. He lifted a finger to his lips as if to say "It's between you and me."

Unsurprisingly, many of the inmates had cellphones. They had food smuggled in from outside, clothing, and allegedly, some even had weapons.

Ms Avila Beltran, when I saw her in the prison, was wearing what must have been a designer pantsuit (it was regulation beige, which is obligatory for inmates awaiting sentencing). She had popped into the courtyard to make a call at the payphone; I assume she was using said payphone because cellphones might be tapped. (My understanding is that the prison payphone can't be tapped because inmates have a right to privacy).

Anyway, Ms Avila Beltran apparently had a few quibbles with conditions in the prison. There were cockroaches in her cell, she complained to the human rights commission. In addition, she reputedly had complained about the noise in the cellblock, and behavior of the guards. (This is hearsay from other inmates; I couldn't verify any of it with officials.)

During his stay in Puente Grande, Chapo had women and booze smuggled in; the Queen of the Pacific had a doctor come in to make her a bit more beautiful.

You've got to be kidding me.

Incidentally, all charges against Ms Avila Beltran were dropped late last year; she's currently fighting extradition to the US. She denies all charges.

Does marijuana matter?

2011-01-31T06:45:00.001-08:00

There's been a lot of debate over how much marijuana contributes to the Mexican cartels' profits. New White House Drug Czar Gil Kerkowski said late last year that the figure often cited – 58% to 60% of cartel revenues come from marijuana — was introduced by the White House Office of Drug Control Policy in 2006, and based on research from 1997. He said it's too outdated to use.

Clearly. Kerkowski is right to suggest not using that data. "Everyone that recognizes these cartels clearly understands that their revenues have changed a lot since 1997," Kerkowski argues. "We strongly believe we see significantly less than the numbers cited from 14 years ago."

Really? According to the National Drug Threat Assessment 2010, the latest data available from the best law enforcement sources possible, "the amount of marijuana produced in Mexico has increased an estimated 59 percent overall since 2003... Contributing to the increased production in Mexico is a decrease in cannabis eradication, which has resulted in significantly more marijuana being smuggled into the United States from Mexico, as evidenced by a sharp rise in border seizures."

Ok, it is possible that because the amount of marijuana coming into the US from Mexico has increased since 2003, the price has actually declined, therefore actually giving less profits to the cartels. Possible. But it's highly unlikely.

The phrase "as evidenced by a sharp rise in border seizures" is important here. An increase in seizures should be regarded as evidence of an increase in production, according to the standard law enforcement argument in both the US and Mexico, (this is often contradicted by congratulatory diplomatic statements. The US loves to praise Mexico for its increased seizures, which everyone on the ground knows is not a success at all.)

Let's look at Mexico's own numbers for eradication and seizures of marijuana during the Calderon administration:

In 2007, 590,765 kg of marijuana were seized by the Mexican military
In 2008, 477,286 kg of marijuana were seized by the Mexican military
In 2009, 715,383 kg of marijuana were seized by the Mexican military
In 2010, 866,340 kg of marijuana were seized by the Mexican military

In 2007, 22,952.5220 hectares of marijuana eradicated in Mexico
In 2008, 18,394.4770 hectares of marijuana eradicated in Mexico
In 2009, 16,029.1848 hectares of marijuana eradicated in Mexico
In 2010, 17,998.7162 hectares of marijuana eradicated in Mexico

Indeed, the numbers do suggest that marijuana eradication is down in Mexico, while seizures are up. The Mexican military is not eradicating fast enough.

But marijuana is not the primary source of income for the cartels?

A recent and widely-cited RAND corporation study calculated that "Mexican drug trafficking organizations generate only $1 billion to $2 billion annually from exporting marijuana to the United States and selling it to wholesalers, far below existing estimates by the government and other groups."

RAND also found that "the often-cited claim that marijuana accounts for 60 percent of gross drug export revenues of Mexican drug trafficking organizations is not credible. RAND's exploratory analysis on this point suggests that 15 percent to 26 percent is a more credible range."

According to my calculations, the Mexican military seized about $2 million in marijuana last year (based on a roughly estimated US street value that US authorities often use). That means that by RAND's calculations, they seized 0.2-0.4 percent of the total marijuana produced in Mexico. (I'm not including US authorities' seizures of Mexican marijuana, and I'm sort of using apples and oranges to make a nice salad, but I think it's enough for these purposes.)

Above, I quoted Kerkowski as saying the cartel "revenues have changed a lot since 1997."

Are they getting rich off other drugs?

According to the National Drug Threat Assessment, cocaine availability has decreased sharply in the United States since 2006. So prices have gone up, and the Mexicans are increasingly taking a lead role from the Colombians, so they're making more money off it themselves rather than having to share.

Heroin, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment, "remains widely available and that availability is increasing in some areas..."

Seizures of opium gum and poppy fields have increased in Mexico, indicating an increase in production. Ok, so heroin might be making some more money for the Mexicans.

According to the National Drug Threat Assessment, methamphetamine is increasingly available in the United States. The Mexican military seized 22 meth labs in 2007; it seized 146 in 2010. Clearly the Mexicans are making more meth. Chapo and his Sinaloa cronies went into the meth business around 2003; they saw an opportunity and given their business savvy, they were right.

There has also been a "resurgence in MDMA (ecstasy) availability" in the US, according to the National Drug Threat Assessment. But it's Asian drug trafficking organizations who are responsible for the so-called resurgence, the authorities say, not the Mexicans. So no profit from that.

Something doesn't add up. Is Kerkowski right and I don't know something? Probably, but what he knows that I don't know is a complete unknown.

The timing in all this has been particularly interesting. For instance, the RAND study came out shortly before Californians voted on the pro-legalization of marijuana PROP 19. I highly respect RAND, and trust their objectivity, but for them to come out right before such a monumental vote struck me as odd; their widely reported data certainly weakened the argument that legalization might help quell the violence in Mexico. After the RAND study, the sympathy vote was lost and the legalization argument became a "moral America" one once again. Ie, all drugs are bad.

The shift away from marijuana's importance to the cartels could also be a justification for the authorities' pressure on La Familia (which has now apparently disbanded – I'll believe that when I see it). La Familia is a meth producer, and highlighting meth as a major source of income could better justify cracking down on that group.

Incidentally, who is the biggest marijuana grower in Mexico? Chapo and his Sinaloa cronies. And the battle over Guerrero right now, which has left dozens decapitated, is over the state's marijuana and poppy fields, as well as its vast coastline along which smugglers can drop cocaine from Colombia. Not meth labs.

I'm not sure what to make of all this really. It's all interesting, and doesn't all add up, and makes me think that everyone is pushing their own numbers without a clear agenda. I welcome thoughts.

For what it's worth, former Mexican Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora told me in September 2010 that he firmly believes the 60 percent marijuana figure. And he called for a bigger push than PROP 19 on the US side. "If you are effectively legalizing [consumption] but not legalizing production," he said, "you are fostering production in Mexico [and] fostering violence and illegality in Mexico."

Lastly, I find it appalling that the White House Office of Drug Control is using 2006 data. Another factsheet on the web site, concerning drug use in the US, is dated 2003. Surely, out of the several billion dollars being used to fight the drug war each year, a few million could be spent on researching this stuff and updating the info?

TOMORROW: Kerkowski and the use of the word "cartels."

Sinaloa cartel protection

2011-01-31T06:42:00.000-08:00

Another reader recently asked whether I think political figures are protecting Chapo. An eternal question, and I am currently working on an essay about that very subject. I'll elaborate on the details as I uncover them, hopefully they'll make for decent blog posts.

A decade on...

2011-01-19T02:39:00.000-08:00

Today marks ten years since Chapo Guzman escaped from Puente Grande penitentiary in Jalisco. Ten years, he's been Mexico's most-wanted man, on the run from the law.

They've almost caught him a few times, but it's always been close but no cigar.

In 2007, when I moved to Mexico and started reporting on the drug war, everyone had written Chapo off. He was 50 at the time, and everyone from the attorney general to reporters told me that he was finished, just a symbolic figure now.

Perhaps. But when I looked at his past, I saw how time and time again he had escaped capture, rebounded, struck alliances and waged war at the right time. He couldn't be dismissed, I thought. He'll be the last one standing (hence the title of my book, The Last Narco – no, he's not the last of all narcos, or capos, but he's the last of a certain breed, thanks in large part to mexican law enforcement efforts to decapitate and disrupt the cartels and also thanks to the internal reorganization of the cartels themselves)

Who has survived this phase of the military-led drug war? Chapo. Who has managed to outwit DEA intelligence thus far? Chapo. Who controls the majority of drug trafficking in Mexico today? Chapo. Whose organization is the strongest drug trafficking syndicate in the world today? Chapo's.

The Associated Press this week has a story headlined "Mexico's 'El Chapo' thrives 10 years after escape." (Link in title of post.)

Mexican officials insist that Chapo will be caught, soon. They are on his tail, they say. He is a priority, once again, they insist.

They really have to catch him, US officials say, otherwise their efforts against other cartels in recent years will appear somewhat futile. If they don't catch Chapo and his crew, said former DEA adminstrator Robert Bonner in a recent AP story, the Sinaloa cartel "would end up being the only criminal organization in Mexico, intolerably powerful and corruptive... You have to bring them all down... Sinaloa can be last, but you have to destroy the organization. You have to.”

There's something happening here...

2011-01-17T11:37:00.000-08:00

What it is ain't exactly clear. However, here's what I know: Since December, several alleged narcos believed to have worked closely with Chapo have been arrested. One talked, said his boss was still moving around Durango and Sinaloa. He was notably caught by the marines (back in 2008); the marines have been used more and more of late because they are considered less corruptible/penetrable than other security forces, seeing as they're not stationed in enemy territory all the time. The marines tend to be used for high-value targets.

Another narco, reputedly responsible for transport of drugs through Sonora on behalf of Chapo, was recently caught in that northern state. An alleged associate of Chapo's was caught in Colombia, too.

Massive bloodshed follows in Acapulco; beheadings are accompanied by a note purportedly signed by Chapo. Chapo is not known for beheadings or massive violence. He is not known for drawing attention to his group; his subordinates know these are lines not to be crossed.

I've long had a theory that Chapo has made contingency plans: if he finds himself cornered or near capture, I believe he has instructed his people to fight back with serious force, to make sure the authorities know who's boss. It's just a theory, based only on his past smarts and savvy rather than any evidence.

It's apparently heating up in Sinaloa again too; a bunch of killings over the weekend all over the state. Sinaloa only usually heats up when the plaza is in dispute or someone wants to challenge Chapo et al's authority. Wonder what's going through the minds of the local narcos right now: do they know something we don't?

And the big new news: the army clashed with gunmen in Xalapa, Veracruz, on Thursday night/Friday. About a dozen of the gunmen died; a couple of soldiers apparently did too.

Several reports noted that Xalapa is normally very quiet. Indeed. That's why, according to a source of mine, Chapo owns a house in the city. He was almost caught a couple of years back, the source says, when the army came storming in on foot. Chapo apparently got away by helicopter that time, so the story goes.

The newspaper Reforma's Templo Mayor column the other day mentioned that this time around, the Army had been following intelligence leads all the way from the city of Puebla – another of Chapo's lesser-known strongholds.

Are the authorities on his tail? Are they finally giving the man a run for his money?

Jan. 19 is the 10th anniversary of his escape from Puente Grande, and Mexicans do love to celebrate their anniversaries with something big. Watch this space...

Argument of the day

2011-01-16T11:10:00.000-08:00

Mexico's interior secretary, José Francisco Blake Mora, has apparently rejected criticisms of Mexico's handling of its security issues by saying the critical nations have worse problems of their own. (Link in title of the post.) This is certainly true in some cases, but I'm not sure it's a good enough argument to get the critics off your back.

Caye El Condor

2011-01-14T09:53:00.000-08:00

Colombian authorities have detained Julio Enrique Ayala Munoz, aka El Condor, believed to be El Chapo's man in Cali, Colombia.

Nothing amazing about this arrest, but two interesting elements: once again, it's a Sinaloa cartel connection, and this time with international cooperation. The Colombians have actually done a fair bit of cracking down on Sinaloa connections in their country in recent years; in 2009 they seized dozens of properties worth tens of millions, all of which belonged to Chapo and his crew.

Second, the Colombian authorities say that Ayala had two bosses: Colombia's Comba brothers, and Chapo.

If El Condor was indeed as high-ranking as believed, this speaks volumes about the nature of the Colombian-Mexican relationship. Remember, the Colombians once ran the show entirely, simply using the Mexicans as mules to transport the drugs to the US. No longer. Several US officials warned back in 2009 that the Mexicans were becoming so powerful in the region that they were now operating in Colombia as if they owned the place. The fact that El Condor was reporting to Chapo and being paid by him, rather than dictating any conditions, suggests that the relationship has indeed been flipped, and that the Colombians are now simply producers – the Mexicans are the jefes. And Chapo, it appears, is still jefe de jefes.

Freedom's just another word

2011-01-13T11:49:00.000-08:00

"Mexico’s political rights rating declined from 2 to 3 and its status from Free to Partly Free due to the targeting of local officials by organized crime groups and the government’s inability to protect citizens’ rights in the face of criminal violence." – Freedom House's report, Freedom in the World 2011

Hardly great news from Freedom House, which also notes how West Africa is becoming a bit of a concern, with barely a "free state" in the region.

Mexico should, however, pride itself on the fact that it is not deemed a failed state by the level-headed at Freedom House, and that the NGO fails to mention the fact that pockets of Mexican territory are not controlled by the state.

I think the Calderon administration got off easy on this one, personally.

"While the country benefited from an important consolidation of democracy during the past decade, government institutions have failed to protect ordinary citizens, journalists, and elected officials from organized crime. Extortion and other racketeering activities have spread, and conditions for the media have deteriorated to the point where editors have significantly altered coverage to avoid repercussions from drug gangs."

That's basically it from the report. Worth noting: Mexico's rating of "partly free" puts it on a par with nations like Sierra Leone, Malawi and Paraguay. Not great really.

Its rate of decline, meanwhile, was the same as Iran's.

On wandering...

2011-01-11T13:12:00.000-08:00

Sometimes as a journalist, you use all your wits and senses, and take every precaution possible. (Sensible, really.) Sometimes, you throw caution to the wind and take that extra risk. Then there are those occasions you simply let someone who knows better than you lead the way.

I wandered through the sand, between the maze of one-storey, windowless concrete homes. Entire families sat inside; some smiled as I walked by and peered in, others frowned. I didn't know exactly where I was headed; I turned a corner.

About ten feet ahead of me, a little girl of about 8 was walking with her father. Hand in hand, they strolled. I was wandering; they had purpose.

The little girl looked back at me. Her dreadlocked braids shifted to one side. She smiled, let go of her father's hand, and slowed her pace.

She extended her little hand to mine, and took it. Her father chuckled as we continued our walk through the maze. We ambled a few hundred paces, crunching the seashells that cover the alleyways in Joal-Fadiouth, Senegal.

As we emerged from the concrete mass of homes, the little girl stopped. She let go of my hand, and took that of her father once more. They both looked at me, then looked up ahead.

A church. A church for Christians and Muslims, here on this tiny little island town in West Africa. A church where everyone is welcome.

They had led me to their destination. It wasn't mine. But I went in, too.

Acapulco

2011-01-11T12:32:00.000-08:00

A bit of punditry on the Acapulco violence here (and in title of blog post): http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decapitated+bodies+grisly+sign+Mexico+raging+drug/4081049/story.html

They know where Chapo is...

2011-01-07T02:52:00.000-08:00

A high-ranking Mexican official confirms that new reports regarding Chapo's whereabouts appear to be reliable.

Chapo is apparently living in Durango these days (the Archbishop did say this back in 2009, and remember, the Church knows everything and never lies...) Chapo moves around constantly, according to testimony from a recently detained suspect who was pretty close to the big boss.

Chapo moves around Durango and Sinaloa in light planes, according to the suspect. When staying put, he holes up in small cabins equipped with an exercise bike, a bed, a small kitchen and Sky satellite TV. This jibes with the reports that came out of Durango in mid-2009, when the military stumbled across a meth compound. The cabins there were equipped with similar gear, and the authorities believed Chapo had been living there.

There was also alcohol on the premises at the meth compound in Durango: according to the latest testimony, Chapo still likes his whiskey – aged 18 years. His culinary preference is apparently a little more down-to-earth: he's fond of machaca (basically, shredded beef).

The suspect told the authorities that in spite of his clandestine life, Chapo continues to control his organization and is constantly preoccupied with new developments, such as who is winning the battle for control of Ciudad Juarez.

Chapo is apparently still quick to act, too. When his son was killed in 2008, the recently detained suspect said, Chapo immediately ordered the killers caught. They were – within a day; Chapo apparently had the assassins brought before him in the hills, where he had them killed.

Interestingly, Chapo is said to have some opinions on the drug war: It simply generates more violence and "the country heats up," he allegedly said at one point.

What a patriot.

Another interesting thing to come out of this testimony is the suspect's revelation that Chapo's current wife is named Alejandra. If this is the Alejandra I'm thinking of, it's Alejandra Maria Salazar Hernandez, whom Chapo married back in 1977, when he was only 20 years old. Have the rest of his wives, including Griselda who was recently detained (but let go almost immediately), been fronts? Was his marriage to Emma Coronel, the beauty queen, simply a rumor or sham/misinformation to keep the authorities at bay and Chapo's mythical status intact? In his old age, has Chapo now gone back to his childhood sweetheart? Is she the most trustworthy person in his life, having been there through thick and thin, even as he romanced other women and lived a crazy life on the lam?

Truly the stuff of novels.

Lucha libre and the narcos

2011-01-03T11:10:00.001-08:00

The Washington Post has a story about how narco has infiltrated practically every corner of Mexican culture, but somehow Lucha Libre (wrestling) has maintained its innocence.

Not so fast: According to the Mexican wrestling blogosphere, millionaire Lucha Librador Alberto del Rio (aka Dos Caras) will soon be making an appearance as a "narco-personaje."

here's one link to the rumour:
http://wwecuador.blogspot.com/2010/12/controversia-segura-alberto-del-rio.html

It was only a matter of time really, sadly, tragically, annoyingly.