I'm writing this from one of the world's most dangerous cities. Last night at 7:30 pm, a gunman sprayed bullets at a crowd, killing four and wounding at least five people. The initial belief is that it was drug-related, but investigators are pursuing all leads. An AK-47 may or may not have been used.
"All l I saw was bodies dropping," said one witness. "It was like Vietnam."
Welcome to Washington DC. According to Kevin Casas-Zamora of the Brookings Institute, Mexico had a homicide rate of 11.5 people per 100,000 in 2008. Washington DC, by comparison, had a rate of 31 per 100,000.
Andres Oppenheimer cited Casas-Zamora's research in a recent column, and quoted him saying the following: "In [Mexico] as a whole, [the homicide rate] doesn't come even close to Washington, D.C.'s.''
Of course, comparing a country with a city is like comparing apples and oranges, and most experts don't like to do that. But maybe they should: they're both fruits, and the homicide rate is calculated per capita, so it shouldn't really make all that much difference.
PS - Ciudad Juarez is still far more dangerous than DC. With about 130 homicides per 100,000, according to some calculations, it is definitely worse than Washington DC.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
terror alert
The killing of 10 Mexican kids in Durango over the weekend worries me immensely. I was pretty sure that more terror attacks after Morelia in 2008 would be unlikely; it never serves the cartels to attack innocents, even if their rather blase methods of killing (line up everyone and shoot them even if they only want one person dead, for instance) often do result in that.
But these were kids. They were between the ages of 8 and 21. Was there at least one narco among them? Perhaps. But did the rest have to be killed?
I don't believe this was a standard "line 'em up and shoot everyone" kind of incident. The killings occurred out in the middle of nowhere, so there would have been plenty of time to separate the target from the rest. Instead, the assailants peppered the truck with bullets and tossed grenades at it. They wanted to kill everyone.
I can only see one motive for that: to instill terror. Just like decapitations were once the rage, now it takes killing a bunch of kids or stitching people's faces to soccer balls to get the blood curdling.
The New York Times called the massacre "baffling." Unfortunately, at this point in the drug war, I'm not sure it is.
But these were kids. They were between the ages of 8 and 21. Was there at least one narco among them? Perhaps. But did the rest have to be killed?
I don't believe this was a standard "line 'em up and shoot everyone" kind of incident. The killings occurred out in the middle of nowhere, so there would have been plenty of time to separate the target from the rest. Instead, the assailants peppered the truck with bullets and tossed grenades at it. They wanted to kill everyone.
I can only see one motive for that: to instill terror. Just like decapitations were once the rage, now it takes killing a bunch of kids or stitching people's faces to soccer balls to get the blood curdling.
The New York Times called the massacre "baffling." Unfortunately, at this point in the drug war, I'm not sure it is.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Role models
Had an interesting conversation the other day with a Mexican friend.
"Of the successful people in this country, can you name five who you respect?" I asked him.
His answer:
1) Joaquin Guzman Loera, a.k.a. El Chapo. Mexico's most wanted drug trafficker.
2) Jorge Castaneda. Academic and former foreign minister. Renowned for harping on about just about anything and changing positions as he sees fit, but always arguing well.
3) Jacobo Zabludovsky. Veteran journalist, I don't know much about him, to be honest.
4) Alfredo Harp Helú. Businessman and head of a foundation in his name. Unfortunately, one of his claims to fame is having been kidnapped (but at least he survived the ordeal.)
So we've got a drug trafficker, an academic, a journalist and a businessman. My friend couldn't name a fifth.
To me, that's a pretty worrying sign of our times.
"Of the successful people in this country, can you name five who you respect?" I asked him.
His answer:
1) Joaquin Guzman Loera, a.k.a. El Chapo. Mexico's most wanted drug trafficker.
2) Jorge Castaneda. Academic and former foreign minister. Renowned for harping on about just about anything and changing positions as he sees fit, but always arguing well.
3) Jacobo Zabludovsky. Veteran journalist, I don't know much about him, to be honest.
4) Alfredo Harp Helú. Businessman and head of a foundation in his name. Unfortunately, one of his claims to fame is having been kidnapped (but at least he survived the ordeal.)
So we've got a drug trafficker, an academic, a journalist and a businessman. My friend couldn't name a fifth.
To me, that's a pretty worrying sign of our times.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Drug report
Looking through the National Drug Threat Assessment, I found some of the developments interesting.
On the east coast of the US, local distributors are now bypassing the Colombians for their cocaine and going straight to the Mexicans. That seems backward, given that Mexicans get their cocaine from the Colombians in the first place, until you realize just how powerful and organized the Mexicans are. Any Colombian supplier dealing directly with a US distributor is actually bypassing the now-traditional route through the Mexicans, so the Colombian isn't necessarily as secure a source. The Mexicans can better guarantee delivery and protection.
In the 1980s, the Colombians began giving Mexicans increased control over cocaine, to the point that now, Mexicans control much of the delivery all the way from Colombia itself. They've shored up the route; any Colombian who tries to revert to the old way is taking a huge risk. Impressive gains by the Mexicans.
Italian organized crime outfits are also decreasingly involved in drug trafficking, the report notes, as the Mexicans take over their turf too. I see this as possibly big news for the future: the Italian organizations in the US still have ties to much of Europe. If the Mexicans take over their drug racket in the US, and make some sort of alliance, they could use those ties to distribute cocaine directly to Europe, too. The Colombians would be relegated to mere producers, and the Mexicans would traffic it.
The last thing that I thought interesting was that Mexican traffickers are increasingly using ships and submarines to smuggle their drugs to the US. The Colombians have long used these; the Mexicans have largely stuck to overland routes and on occasion, planes.
The use of maritime vessels is interesting: getting drugs across the border is pretty easy, why the need to go by sea? My thinking is that this might be a pre-emptive move: noting that the border is attracting so much attention, the Mexican cartels are trying out new routes. When the US Coast Guard cracked down on the Caribbean in the 80s and 90s, the Colombians did the same and discovered Mexico. Now that the border is being scrutinized, the Mexicans are themselves eyeing new options.
On the east coast of the US, local distributors are now bypassing the Colombians for their cocaine and going straight to the Mexicans. That seems backward, given that Mexicans get their cocaine from the Colombians in the first place, until you realize just how powerful and organized the Mexicans are. Any Colombian supplier dealing directly with a US distributor is actually bypassing the now-traditional route through the Mexicans, so the Colombian isn't necessarily as secure a source. The Mexicans can better guarantee delivery and protection.
In the 1980s, the Colombians began giving Mexicans increased control over cocaine, to the point that now, Mexicans control much of the delivery all the way from Colombia itself. They've shored up the route; any Colombian who tries to revert to the old way is taking a huge risk. Impressive gains by the Mexicans.
Italian organized crime outfits are also decreasingly involved in drug trafficking, the report notes, as the Mexicans take over their turf too. I see this as possibly big news for the future: the Italian organizations in the US still have ties to much of Europe. If the Mexicans take over their drug racket in the US, and make some sort of alliance, they could use those ties to distribute cocaine directly to Europe, too. The Colombians would be relegated to mere producers, and the Mexicans would traffic it.
The last thing that I thought interesting was that Mexican traffickers are increasingly using ships and submarines to smuggle their drugs to the US. The Colombians have long used these; the Mexicans have largely stuck to overland routes and on occasion, planes.
The use of maritime vessels is interesting: getting drugs across the border is pretty easy, why the need to go by sea? My thinking is that this might be a pre-emptive move: noting that the border is attracting so much attention, the Mexican cartels are trying out new routes. When the US Coast Guard cracked down on the Caribbean in the 80s and 90s, the Colombians did the same and discovered Mexico. Now that the border is being scrutinized, the Mexicans are themselves eyeing new options.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
US Drug report
The Justice Department National Drug Threat Assessment 2010 has finally been released. (http://www.justice.gov/ndic/)
It's normally released on Feb 1, which made me wonder about the delay; at a quick glance it looks pretty standard to me – it continues to warn of increased Mexican domination of US distribution, as the Colombians lose clout. Mexican drug cartels are the only drug traffickers who have a presence in every single US "region" (the US is split into 9 regions in the report.)
I'm going to read through this closely tonight for anything spectacular, but in the meantime, a couple of things caught my eye. 1) There is no map breaking down which Mexican cartels work where in the US, as there has been in years past. That could mean several things: the US authorities think it's irrelevant to the media and public; the authorities are working on the assumption that these gangs/cells are not as firmly tied to the cartels as once thought, and will work for whoever pays most. With the cartels in Mexico in such disarray these days, the latter would seem more likely.
2) Marijuana eradication in Mexico was down last year. The report paints this as bad news, but it may actually be good news. Eradication in most of Mexico is a grindingly slow, tit-for-tat process. The narcos grow a marijuana patch, the army burns it down. If the soldiers have to eradicate the same patch a few months later, it means eradication totals increase, but it also means the narcos are winning, because they've regrown the same patch. But if the patch is still destroyed, the eradication tally goes down, and the authorities are actually winning.
At least, that's how the Mexican army rationalizes it, and it makes more sense to me than the way the Justice Department interprets it.
It's normally released on Feb 1, which made me wonder about the delay; at a quick glance it looks pretty standard to me – it continues to warn of increased Mexican domination of US distribution, as the Colombians lose clout. Mexican drug cartels are the only drug traffickers who have a presence in every single US "region" (the US is split into 9 regions in the report.)
I'm going to read through this closely tonight for anything spectacular, but in the meantime, a couple of things caught my eye. 1) There is no map breaking down which Mexican cartels work where in the US, as there has been in years past. That could mean several things: the US authorities think it's irrelevant to the media and public; the authorities are working on the assumption that these gangs/cells are not as firmly tied to the cartels as once thought, and will work for whoever pays most. With the cartels in Mexico in such disarray these days, the latter would seem more likely.
2) Marijuana eradication in Mexico was down last year. The report paints this as bad news, but it may actually be good news. Eradication in most of Mexico is a grindingly slow, tit-for-tat process. The narcos grow a marijuana patch, the army burns it down. If the soldiers have to eradicate the same patch a few months later, it means eradication totals increase, but it also means the narcos are winning, because they've regrown the same patch. But if the patch is still destroyed, the eradication tally goes down, and the authorities are actually winning.
At least, that's how the Mexican army rationalizes it, and it makes more sense to me than the way the Justice Department interprets it.
Yet another prison break...
"One day, it's going to explode," said Matamoros prison warden Jaime Cano Gallardo when I met him early last year.
He was right: today, 41 inmates escaped from his prison. I don't know much more than that, will post again when I do.
For the record, Cano Gallardo seemed a likeable, honest guy. He carried a gun around for his own protection, but didn't come across as any sort of thug. He asked if I'd put a good word in for him with his superiors, as he knew full well what fate would likely befall him. He knew he didn't have much of a chance getting the prison in order, or preventing a major escape if one was organized. His priority was improving conditions and morale, in part by supporting the prison's baseball team, which won the city championship.
In the fine tradition of the Mexican judicial system, Cano Gallardo will likely be removed of his post and jailed, pending investigation. If there is a real investigation, then he'll probably be found guilty (most big escapes involve buying off the warden; whether he has a choice or not is another matter); if there isn't a thorough investigation, he'll likely be branded a crook for the rest of his life regardless.
I have to admit, I have sympathy for the guy, even if he was completely complicit. I just don't know how anyone in law enforcement or similar positions can do their job properly in this day and age in Mexico.
PS - photo above is the Matamoros prison in less tumultuous times.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Troops a-twitterin'
The Mexican military has taken its new transparency pledge to new heights: you can now follow Sedena's actions on Twitter.
Let's hope they don't put anything important out there, as I'm sure the enemigo is monitoring every tweet.
Let's hope they don't put anything important out there, as I'm sure the enemigo is monitoring every tweet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)