“The same forces now making our world more dangerous contain the ingredients we need to make it safer. In every roadside bomb in Tal’Afar, in every death from drug-resistant tuberculosis, in each hiccup of global financial markets, we can see the workings of powerful forces that, once mastered, offer hope at the same time they present new dangers”
Joshua Copper Ramo, The age of the unthinkable, p. 15
In the opinion of the author of this cite, Joshua Copper Ramo, our traditional way of thinking is failing to solve the complex problems that we are now facing. The more we use force against terrorism, Copper Ramo remind us, greater the chances are that terrorism increases. In the opinion of Ramo we need to look at new sources if we want to find new ways of thinking. He looks, as the title of his book suggests, at the unthinkable as a source of new ideas that can make our world more resilient.
This approach has been haunting me over the past weeks. Does Mexico need also to look at the unthinkable as a source of new ideas? Does this approach suggested by Copper Ramo is applicable to the reality of Mexico?
In the particular case of Mexico there’s no question that the traditional concepts, ideas and people that have been dominant in the country in the last half century have failed to improve its overall condition. The ruling class of Mexico liberalized the economy in the 80’s to stimulate growth but since then, most of the time the economy has been stagnated. In that decade, Mexico laid the foundation for having a market economy free of monopolies, but since then the power of monopolies has increased. The examples of solutions implemented and paradoxical outcomes obtained are abundant. One in particular calls my attention: since 2006, the administration of the Mexican President Felipe Calderón launched a war against the drug mafias with the supposed goal of freeing the country of their grip, but once again, as in the other instances, the solution only made the problem more serious. Since 2006, the drug trade has worsened, the drug gangs have multiplied and the resulting violence has increased.
The time has come, as Copper Ramo suggest, to try to find innovative solutions in the “unthinkable”? To what would be equivalent the notion of the unthinkable in the context of Mexico?
Let’s focus our attention in the problem of the drug trafficking, which with all its corrupting capacity is putting at risk the functioning of the Mexican state. What the unthinkable offers to Mexico as a source of a new strategy for fighting the drug mafias? Where Mexico can turn its attention in order to find innovative strategies for confronting this threat?
In the same way as Copper Ramo presents the example of the Israeli Army analyzing in detail the reasons that make Hezbollah resilient, would it be possible for Mexican security officials to see The Zetas (a paramilitary group allied with the Gulf Cartel, formed of former Mexican Army members) as a source for keys to defeat the drug cartels?
Of course, there’s nothing in the Mexican mafias that anyone would want to emulate. There’s nothing in them that can be considered as a model for a new society. But, on the other hand, probably there’s something in their way of operating that contains the keys for fighting them. Would looking at The Zetas, at the La Familia, at the Juarez Cartel, be for Mexico a way of looking at the unthinkable for finding creative solutions for complex problems?
In the Mexico of these years, affected by such a complex array of problems, we will never know why President Calderón decided amid many other priorities to devote his administration to the fight against drugs. Being a country troubled by inequality, poverty and stagnation, why President Calderón decided to start with the fight against drugs? That’s a question for the future analysts of Mexican political decision making. Something seems to me certain: he adopted an approach doomed to fail.
With all the lessons that history offers regarding the failure of large armies, such as the Soviet, the French and the American armies in fighting guerrillas and terrorism movements, it should be clear to the advisers of President Calderón that sending the army to fight the drug cartels would not be the solution for curbing the drugs problem. Based on the experience of the US and Israeli armies in the Middle East, it should be evident for the Mexican security advisers and for President Calderón that once the Mexican government sent the army, the mafias would wave an asymmetrical war against the State. For someone that read history it should be clear that it is almost axiomatic that weak enemies tend to fight powerful enemies using assymetrical tools.
And this is precisely what the drug mafias are doing now: they are fighting the Mexican state with assymetrical tools: hand grenades, kidnappings and terrorizing ways of killing: beheading and killing their victims in acid.
Anywhere is more clear than here that the solution offered by the government made the problem worst: 10, 000 people killed since Calderón took office and, still worst, the drug mafias and cartels have multiplied. The tumor has metastasized, just as in other countries the terrorist cells multiplies when confronted with large armies.
The bad new is that this war started by Calderón can not be pursued without facing further risks nor can be stopped without making the mafia kingpins know that they won. The choices in front of the government are: if it continues the war, the drug mafias will keep reproducing and its capacity to corrupt the State will be increased. On the other hand, if the government stops the war or the next administration does so, that would send the message that the government lost and that in the future it accepts the existence of the drug mafias.
This is a terrible dilemma, because both choices tend to give the victory to the mafias.
Just as the Israeli army is adapting its strategy based on the analysis on how Hezbollah and Hamas operate, my idea would be that the Mexican government revisits its strategy adapting it to the facts that this is not a war of regular armies and that the drug mafias have attained a level of resilience, in the same way as Hezbollah and Hamas, that is worth studying.
In the complex and colorful universe of the Mexican organized crime of these days, any other organization shines as much as The Zetas. This is the most outstanding Mexican criminal gang of our days. Formed of defected special forces group of the Mexican Army, anybody else is recruiting, killing and operating as successfully as the Zetas. The Zetas are the Hezbollah of Mexico, an organization that is attracting poor young people in Northern Mexico (and Southern US) and that is becoming a legend for the cruelty of its methods.
In the Mexican government strategy for fighting drugs, is there something to learn in the resilience of The Zetas? Would it be possible to adapt the strategy based on the analysis of the Zetas?
Following Copper Ramo, my personal invitation for thinking the unthinkable would be: studying the reasons that make the Zetas resilient and departing from here for beating the drug mafias. What would be the translations of this?
If you ask me, the translation of this would be waving a dirty war against the mafias. That would include:
For the most part of Mexico, sending back the army back to their barracks but keeping in the field groups of special forces that perform covert and chirurgical actions; paying special attention to the municipal realities of the country: countering the recruiting operations of these organizations though infiltrating agents in the places where the mafias recruit their young operatives; condemning publicly their atrocities, denouncing their actions and looking for allies in the media, the Church and the academia; geographically encircling the gangs, restricting their movements, etc.
I am not a security expert, but it’s clear to me that instead of sending the bulk of the army it would be more effective to learn from the reasons that are making these organizations resilient and use that knowledge for applying chemotherapy to the tumors.
It may be, as Copper Ramo indicates, that in the unthinkable there are hidden solutions to our problems. Probably the time has come to Mexico to look at it.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
Iran and Lebanon versus Mexico
Shanghai June 19, 2009.- The past elections in Lebanon (June 7th) and Iran (June 12th) would be for me two more important international events with no further interest if the Mexican elections were not scheduled to be held on next July. These Mexican mid term elections, on the other hand, would not spark additional interest for me if the outcomes of the Lebanese and Iranian were not as they were. My mind is connecting Mexico and these two countries of the Middle East because the contrasting images of what happened in Lebanon and Iran over the past weeks and what is taking place right now in Mexico: a sharp contrast between the high participation and the passion of Lebanese and Iranian voters against the social ongoing campaign in Mexico to override the vote on the coming July elections.
As in other instances, Mexicans have come to believe that while our economy can experience a mediocre development our democracy is superior to the political situation in other countries, as Lebanon and Iran could be. And this established belief is again to be questioned, at least from a social perspective.
I’m not going dwell on the profound differences between Mexico and Iran and Lebanon. Likewise I’m also aware to the fact that these Mexican elections are mid-term elections (which traditionally call much less interest from voters in Mexico than the Presidential elections) and that low participation is a widely extended democratic malaise. Notwithstanding that, the high participation in the part elections of Iran and Lebanon and the lack of interest of Mexican people in taking part in these elections makes me think about the political reality of Mexico.
I can synthesize my reflection saying that what happened in Lebanon and Iran (a victory of the Pro Western alliance in Lebanon and a strong opposition to the Mullahs that rule Iran) shows the miracles that democratic participation can operate in countries where the political system are flawed or oppressive, as is the case in Lebanon and Iran, whereas in Mexico the widespread skepticism of electors show how the word “democracy” can be employed to put in place a system that is distrusted by society. In Lebanon and Iran, the democratic passion of society erupted and took by surprise the system. In Mexico its “democratic system” in its current form seems to be against society.
I have never been to Lebanon and Iran and I what I know of both countries is very limited. Perhaps these are systems marked by countless flaws and weaknesses (irregularities and foreign interference in Lebanon; supreme authority of Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran) but what the high participation in both countries show is that people there had some hope in their vote, some confidence in the system. At least, it seems, Lebanese and Iranian electors flocked the polls because they saw some choice among the contenders, some real options and people believed that with their vote they can contribute to the transformation of the system. Lebanese and Iranians saw options and they had hope in their vote. They believed they can change things, voting.
To me, this is a miracle. A miracle of what the democratic passion can achieve in imperfect systems.
But in Mexico the people is on the other side, campaigning to blanking the vote, voting no or voting for fictional characters.
In contrast to the authoritarianism of the Islamic Republic, in Mexico on the surface there are choices, strong institutions and the ballots are respected. On the surface, in Mexico it would be enough for a citizen to go to the polls and cast a ballot. But what is happening is that citizens don’t believe that anymore. What Mexican citizens are showing is that they don’t believe that this system they have is giving them the tools or the options to transform reality. Reality is beyond the system, not only because reality is complex but because they know that this system, as it was designed, is unable to do something to transform the Mexican reality. What is worse, what Mexican society exhibits with this attitude is their underlying belief that this system is probably the reason the Mexican reality is so bad.
And Mexican people is not on the other side because apathy or lack of interest in politics. Mexican electors are skeptical of the system because they are fed up with the daily soap opera the Mexican democracy has become. From being a public spectacle to watch on TV and enjoy (like a reality show) it has come to be a miserable, distasteful show anybody wants to participate. In Mexico participating in the system is no longer seen as patriotic or civic. Participating in the system has become irrelevant at best and self deluding at worst. What this pre elections in Mexico show is that there are a lot of people so disenfranchised with the system, so disconnected from the system, that the number of people refusing to participate or be part of the system is growing.
If Lebanon and Iran remind us of the transformational and miraculous power of the democratic passion, Mexico shows how democracy can become a label that betrays authentic democratic sentiments. In Iran the ruling class is attempting to prevail over a large portion of Iranian electors. In Mexico is like if the “democratic system” is imposing over the aspirations of society. In Mexico the democratic system is gradually coming to be against society. This is tragic. What gives me hope, is that Mexican people are noticing it and as a consequence, if reforms that authorizes independent candidates or ways of limiting the power of the political parties are not passed in the short term, the legitimacy of this democratic system is going to erode.
A “democratic” Mexico like this reminds me more of places like pre revolutionary Vietnam or Cuba or democracies as such as the Egypt of President Mubarak, all of them defined by their lack of legitimacy.
As in other instances, Mexicans have come to believe that while our economy can experience a mediocre development our democracy is superior to the political situation in other countries, as Lebanon and Iran could be. And this established belief is again to be questioned, at least from a social perspective.
I’m not going dwell on the profound differences between Mexico and Iran and Lebanon. Likewise I’m also aware to the fact that these Mexican elections are mid-term elections (which traditionally call much less interest from voters in Mexico than the Presidential elections) and that low participation is a widely extended democratic malaise. Notwithstanding that, the high participation in the part elections of Iran and Lebanon and the lack of interest of Mexican people in taking part in these elections makes me think about the political reality of Mexico.
I can synthesize my reflection saying that what happened in Lebanon and Iran (a victory of the Pro Western alliance in Lebanon and a strong opposition to the Mullahs that rule Iran) shows the miracles that democratic participation can operate in countries where the political system are flawed or oppressive, as is the case in Lebanon and Iran, whereas in Mexico the widespread skepticism of electors show how the word “democracy” can be employed to put in place a system that is distrusted by society. In Lebanon and Iran, the democratic passion of society erupted and took by surprise the system. In Mexico its “democratic system” in its current form seems to be against society.
I have never been to Lebanon and Iran and I what I know of both countries is very limited. Perhaps these are systems marked by countless flaws and weaknesses (irregularities and foreign interference in Lebanon; supreme authority of Ayatollah Khamenei in Iran) but what the high participation in both countries show is that people there had some hope in their vote, some confidence in the system. At least, it seems, Lebanese and Iranian electors flocked the polls because they saw some choice among the contenders, some real options and people believed that with their vote they can contribute to the transformation of the system. Lebanese and Iranians saw options and they had hope in their vote. They believed they can change things, voting.
To me, this is a miracle. A miracle of what the democratic passion can achieve in imperfect systems.
But in Mexico the people is on the other side, campaigning to blanking the vote, voting no or voting for fictional characters.
In contrast to the authoritarianism of the Islamic Republic, in Mexico on the surface there are choices, strong institutions and the ballots are respected. On the surface, in Mexico it would be enough for a citizen to go to the polls and cast a ballot. But what is happening is that citizens don’t believe that anymore. What Mexican citizens are showing is that they don’t believe that this system they have is giving them the tools or the options to transform reality. Reality is beyond the system, not only because reality is complex but because they know that this system, as it was designed, is unable to do something to transform the Mexican reality. What is worse, what Mexican society exhibits with this attitude is their underlying belief that this system is probably the reason the Mexican reality is so bad.
And Mexican people is not on the other side because apathy or lack of interest in politics. Mexican electors are skeptical of the system because they are fed up with the daily soap opera the Mexican democracy has become. From being a public spectacle to watch on TV and enjoy (like a reality show) it has come to be a miserable, distasteful show anybody wants to participate. In Mexico participating in the system is no longer seen as patriotic or civic. Participating in the system has become irrelevant at best and self deluding at worst. What this pre elections in Mexico show is that there are a lot of people so disenfranchised with the system, so disconnected from the system, that the number of people refusing to participate or be part of the system is growing.
If Lebanon and Iran remind us of the transformational and miraculous power of the democratic passion, Mexico shows how democracy can become a label that betrays authentic democratic sentiments. In Iran the ruling class is attempting to prevail over a large portion of Iranian electors. In Mexico is like if the “democratic system” is imposing over the aspirations of society. In Mexico the democratic system is gradually coming to be against society. This is tragic. What gives me hope, is that Mexican people are noticing it and as a consequence, if reforms that authorizes independent candidates or ways of limiting the power of the political parties are not passed in the short term, the legitimacy of this democratic system is going to erode.
A “democratic” Mexico like this reminds me more of places like pre revolutionary Vietnam or Cuba or democracies as such as the Egypt of President Mubarak, all of them defined by their lack of legitimacy.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Mourning a fallen President in Seoul
After living in China for seven years, it was only last week that I took the time to visit South Korea. For someone like me, interested in witnessing history, I came on what was probably one of the most interesting weeks in the recent history of the Korean Peninsula: only few days before my visit, two important events took place: the former President, Roh Moo-Hyun, kill himself when hiking and North Korea held its second nuclear weapon test. It was impossible to come to South Korea on a more interesting time.
I arrived in Seoul on May 27th 2009, just one day before the scheduled funeral of the former President Roh. Besides the well known Korean language salutation “Ahhn niyong ha say yo” I don’t speak or understand any Korean and what I consign here is basically what I saw during my time in Seoul.
The week I traveled from China to Korea, the headlines in the world were the news about the North Korean nuclear test. But the country was in shock more for the suicide of Mr. Roh than for anything else. During my time in Seoul that’s actually what stroke me more: the seriousness with which the Korean people took the death of a former president. On my first day, I saw the every day life going as usual: people working on a normal day and young people enjoying the prosperity offered by their country in shopping malls, galleries and coffee shops but in the evening I witnessed a generalized respect and devotion to the memory of a fallen leader that surprised me very much.
From someone like me, who comes from a country where most of the people have a negative opinion of most of politicians and who remember European friends expressing negative opinions of leaders such as Sarkozy or Berlusconi, witnessing the mourn and respect of the Korean people to its former president was very surprising. Honestly I don’t know that much about President Roh, but what I read is that he has been accused of corruption and that’s another reason that made me wonder how was that possible that the death of a leader charged with corruption had that impact in Korea.
I don’t have any explanation for that but to me that reaction of the Korean people is very different with what in my opinion would happen in my country or in any other Western country, where in most of the people it’s present an instinctive suspicion of politics and politicians and where is very difficult, especially now, that the individual sacrifices his personal time to participate in political activities.
Regardless of the causes or the differences with the rest of the world, on May 27th in the eve of the funeral, Seoul Plaza was filled with thousands of people that gathered to mourn President Roh. There were people of different ages carrying candles and pictures of their leader; there were people reading speeches and there were also people that sang sad songs having the South Korean flag and the image of President Roh as background. On the floor, there were young and old people sitting on newspapers, just there, just being part of the event. There were also screens that showed President Roh when he was young, probably during the time when he was an activist.
There were thousands of people on the street on May 27th, but there was order and there was civility. Everybody respected everybody, nobody was pushing or rushing or littering or yelling. People were just there, being part of a community, showing respect, worshiping a fallen leader. There was a heavy police presence that evening, but the order was not maintained because the police. No, the individuals showed care about the individuals. People were offering water and there was a silent dialogue going on between them, not the loud voices of confrontation.
What I saw in Seoul that evening made me think on the differences between Korea and my country, between the West and East Asia. I thought that if in my country a former president charged with corruption committed suicide, there would be some people that would have the idea of throwing a party for that. My reflection was: who on these times would resent the disappearance of a politician? I think only the sudden disappearance of President Barack Obama would make people publicly express their condolences.
But Korea apparently was different: in Korea was possible to charge and impeach a President and then to publicly mourn his death.
Something also different about Korea that also sparked my reflection is that the funeral of President Roh and the fact that millions of people watched on TV, showed that in Korea individuals had a genuine and legitimate interest on the system. Individuals, people, seemed to care about the system, showing interest in the system, whereas in other places, individuals were anomic, just as the French sociologist Durkheim said. Is the interest of the individual one prerequisite for the health of a system? Would it be possible for a system to dye without the interest of its members?
Finally, I saw in Seoul that day a highly civilized behavior of the crowds, which behaved like one educated individual. What I saw in Korea and I compared for the case of China is that crowds are not always synonymous or equivalent of chaos. The Seoul example showed to me that it was possible to have thousands of people in a public square without chaos and destruction.
I arrived in Seoul on May 27th 2009, just one day before the scheduled funeral of the former President Roh. Besides the well known Korean language salutation “Ahhn niyong ha say yo” I don’t speak or understand any Korean and what I consign here is basically what I saw during my time in Seoul.
The week I traveled from China to Korea, the headlines in the world were the news about the North Korean nuclear test. But the country was in shock more for the suicide of Mr. Roh than for anything else. During my time in Seoul that’s actually what stroke me more: the seriousness with which the Korean people took the death of a former president. On my first day, I saw the every day life going as usual: people working on a normal day and young people enjoying the prosperity offered by their country in shopping malls, galleries and coffee shops but in the evening I witnessed a generalized respect and devotion to the memory of a fallen leader that surprised me very much.
From someone like me, who comes from a country where most of the people have a negative opinion of most of politicians and who remember European friends expressing negative opinions of leaders such as Sarkozy or Berlusconi, witnessing the mourn and respect of the Korean people to its former president was very surprising. Honestly I don’t know that much about President Roh, but what I read is that he has been accused of corruption and that’s another reason that made me wonder how was that possible that the death of a leader charged with corruption had that impact in Korea.
I don’t have any explanation for that but to me that reaction of the Korean people is very different with what in my opinion would happen in my country or in any other Western country, where in most of the people it’s present an instinctive suspicion of politics and politicians and where is very difficult, especially now, that the individual sacrifices his personal time to participate in political activities.
Regardless of the causes or the differences with the rest of the world, on May 27th in the eve of the funeral, Seoul Plaza was filled with thousands of people that gathered to mourn President Roh. There were people of different ages carrying candles and pictures of their leader; there were people reading speeches and there were also people that sang sad songs having the South Korean flag and the image of President Roh as background. On the floor, there were young and old people sitting on newspapers, just there, just being part of the event. There were also screens that showed President Roh when he was young, probably during the time when he was an activist.
There were thousands of people on the street on May 27th, but there was order and there was civility. Everybody respected everybody, nobody was pushing or rushing or littering or yelling. People were just there, being part of a community, showing respect, worshiping a fallen leader. There was a heavy police presence that evening, but the order was not maintained because the police. No, the individuals showed care about the individuals. People were offering water and there was a silent dialogue going on between them, not the loud voices of confrontation.
What I saw in Seoul that evening made me think on the differences between Korea and my country, between the West and East Asia. I thought that if in my country a former president charged with corruption committed suicide, there would be some people that would have the idea of throwing a party for that. My reflection was: who on these times would resent the disappearance of a politician? I think only the sudden disappearance of President Barack Obama would make people publicly express their condolences.
But Korea apparently was different: in Korea was possible to charge and impeach a President and then to publicly mourn his death.
Something also different about Korea that also sparked my reflection is that the funeral of President Roh and the fact that millions of people watched on TV, showed that in Korea individuals had a genuine and legitimate interest on the system. Individuals, people, seemed to care about the system, showing interest in the system, whereas in other places, individuals were anomic, just as the French sociologist Durkheim said. Is the interest of the individual one prerequisite for the health of a system? Would it be possible for a system to dye without the interest of its members?
Finally, I saw in Seoul that day a highly civilized behavior of the crowds, which behaved like one educated individual. What I saw in Korea and I compared for the case of China is that crowds are not always synonymous or equivalent of chaos. The Seoul example showed to me that it was possible to have thousands of people in a public square without chaos and destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)