A new feature on the Crossroads blog will feature translations of governance-related articles from their original foreign language sources. The following translation provides excerpts of a long interview with Mexican president Felipe Calderon published last week by Mexico City’s El Universal newspaper. The interview was conducted by Jorge Zepeda Patterson, El Universal’s editorial director and formerly a very incisive weekly columnist for the paper.
From a governance perspective, several things stand out in the interview. First of all, Zepeda’s questions are very well-targeted and hit on real points of weakness within the Mexican government, including human rights issues, corruption, institutional stagnation, and the question of how political will can be translated into concrete achievements.
Calderon’s answers are of variable quality. He deserves credit for his forthrightness about the scale of the crime problem as well as his dual acknowledgments that institutional reconstruction is necessary and that previous administrations – including that of his National Action Party colleague, Vicente Fox – were overly lax in their attitude toward drug traffickers. However, some of his other answers are suboptimal from a human rights and governance perspective. For instance, while even the most idealistic activist understands that isolated incidents of abuse are inevitable in a conflict on the scale of Mexico’s war against the cartels, Calderon is overly mild in discussing the issue, and in fact comes close to adopting a “to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs” attitude. This is unfortunate: Mexico continues to suffer from severe deficits in human rights, and in 2008 the military received hundreds of complaints from civilians about its actions. Signals matter, and it would have been far more encouraging for the president to firmly state that human rights abuses are unacceptable and will be investigated.
Indeed, this gets at the most significant missing concept in the interview: impunity. One of the key drivers of Mexico’s rule of law problems is the fact that criminals are hardly ever punished for their crimes. Likewise with corruption, which is why Zepeda does well to bring up the embarrassing fact that no major political figure has been convicted of corruption since 1999, a reality that no Mexican would attribute to a newfound zeal for probity among public officials. Calderon’s statement that new institutions are needed is welcome, but it would have been even better had he explicitly noted the obvious thread running between crime, human rights abuses, and corruption: impunity.
The excerpts are long, so the rest can be found below the fold.
“Crime is the biggest threat to human rights”
After a 90 minute conversation, it is clear that the leader has an obsession. Although he attends to the economic crisis with special emphasis and does not cease to weigh up the political sphere, his greatest efforts are dedicated to the war against narcotrafficking.
By Jorge Zepeda Patterson
The smiling, relaxed nature of the president seems to correspond to the leader of a different country, one in which there are neither 20 daily assassinations nor a crisis that is becoming rampant. But as soon as he begins to speak, it is clear to what extent the war against drug trafficking has become an obsession for Felipe Calderon. After 90 minutes of conversation in his home in Los Pinos, it is easy to understand why.
His former passion, politics, and his latest mission, the economy, pale against the growing threat of a narco-state-within-the-state. “Organized crime seeks territorial control,” warns the president, “it will be a war with no quarter because there is no possibility of coexisting with the narco,” he says. “There’s no going back; it’s them or us.”
The President of Mexico discusses politics, the economy, the lapses of his secretaries, the ascent of the PRI, human rights, and, of course, the war against narcotrafficking and what he is willing to sacrifice to win that war.
Crime:
JZP: On the Day of the Flag you declared with great fanfare the end of the battle against organized crime. However, no new strategy to combat crime was made known to us, which causes disbelief. After two years of fighting the cartels, why should we believe that we will have any success now?
FHC: It is a decision of the government, which must be a decision of the country. While there is addiction and demand, trafficking and drug use, the problem of course cannot end. But, we must focus on organized crime and other crimes linked to it. What’s most important here is the key decision, as a country, to face up to and reduce this problem, so as to allow for an orderly and peaceful coexistence among Mexicans.
JZP: But then there is no shift in strategy in the fight against organized crime. It was simply the announcement of an act of political will. But that was never questioned, because you have stood up to organized crime since the beginning of your term.
FHC: The key element in this current stage is precisely an expression of political will, which in my judgment is lacking. Also, it is not only about phrasing it or expressing it, but about truly carrying it forward. But do not rule out a complete discarding of the strategy that, in my judgment, constantly requires revisions. The strategy stands on two horizons: a very short term horizon which consists of repositioning the authority and power of the state through the mobilization of the public force and the army. We cannot lose territories, federal states in which authority has become vulnerable.
But the trigger point is the long term, and this implies a strategy of complete institutional reconstruction. This involves the purging and strengthening of the police forces, the generation of new information and intelligence systems, a new legal framework, like that which we have proposed to Congress. And, of course, a new direction focused on the prevention that we still do not have in the country and is worth giving more emphasis.
JZP: But then this still seems to be more of an act of political will than a modification of the strategy aimed at putting an end to crime.
FHC: From now on, political will is not enough. But, nothing can be done if there is no will; it seems to be shade, a triviality, something obvious, but this is not the case. I think that if something has been missing in Mexico it is precisely political will.
Human Rights:
JZP: There is a growing concern about the collateral damage which the fight against cartels leaves in its wake: human rights violations. This week a U.S. Department of Justice report was made public, in which Mexico was essentially scolded.
FHC: I think that in the past and in the present Mexico has paid a high price as a result of this insecurity, and it is this price that we have to measure in order to evaluate these actions. That is to say, it seems to me that the costs associated with fighting insecurity with determination are always lower, abysmally lower, than the costs associated with simply ignoring crime and allowing crime to take over the space and decisions of Mexicans. The cost of not doing so is infinitely greater, because it implies, of course, the loss of territory of the loss of a country’s own capacity to determine its destiny.
JZP: But that would mean that civil rights, human rights, are something dispensable in this battle…
FHC: I think that fortunately, we are in a democratic state, and the biggest challenge is to fight this battle within the boundaries of human rights; but without losing sight of the fact that the biggest threat to human rights in Mexico is crime.
JZP: But both within the country and outside, the country is considered to be lost on the issue of human rights…
FHC: In the international arena there is a problem of information and perception that perhaps we have not addressed well. And I speak for the government. This is not to deny the reality of what is occurring in Mexico, but to put the issue in its proper place, especially with regards to the versions of the story which allude to a failed state, for example. Analysis and critique are one thing, and are welcome, but the other is to stay that the state does not exist. Here, we have powers that work well, a judiciary which I believes works better than ever, with the Supreme Court in the midst one of its best periods, and a robust Legislature which functions, and an Executive who is seriously committed to solving the country’s most important problems.
JZP: To what extent is the cabinet itself to blame for these communication problems which, as you say, cause people inside and outside of the country to be misinformed about the situation? The slip-ups of various members of the government are well known these days.
FHC: Without a doubt we have failed in communication, especially with regards to the comments made recently by colleagues of mine. But the issue is complex. The Chancellor made a statement that was interpreted very virulently. However, it’s necessary to put his statement in context. What the Chancellor has pointed out, and I believe that this is supported by data, is that 57% of the deaths linked to organized crime in the last year took place in three states: Chihuahua, Baja California, and Sinaloa. In over 90% of these cases, the victim was linked to organized crime. A relevant figure, for example, is that over 25% of these victims have yet to be identified, their bodies yet to be claimed.
JZP: This brings us back to the deterioration of the human rights situation. In El Universal, we just published a report about the “dead souls.” The judiciary does not even investigate these crimes, as if the lives of human beings weren’t involved. Though murder is involved, the cases are not even investigated for procedural reasons.
FHC: These deaths indicate a clear confrontation between the Juarez cartel and the Sinaloa cartel along with their respective allies: the Juarez cartel is associated with Arturo Beltran Leyva and Los Zetas; the Sinaloa cartel is associated at least marginally with some groups in the Pacific, and if not directly connected, at least very close to The Family. But the confrontation is for territory, specifically for Tijuana, Culiacan, and Juarez. Although in the cases of Tijuana and Culiacan, the level of fighting has reduced significantly in the last few weeks and months.
Corruption:
JZP: Changing crime should have changed the apparatus of justice, which seems to have become obsolete.
FHC: Not only that. I think it was an unwritten rule in the country’s old political model without giving names, colors, or parties; there was a political climate in which the implicit understanding was “I will not involve myself with you because in the end what you are doing is a federal crime, but it’s not my job to persecute it; you don’t bother me, and I won’t bother you.” I’m not saying that it worked, because this political culture permitted the expansion of crime in the country.
But when the “business model” changes to the model of territorial control, this culture or this understanding ends up being catastrophic. Those who think that we should return to the former “strategy” do not realize that this is impossible. To allow this to take place would give them control over Mexican society. They associate with businesspeople in order to extort money from them, associate with housewives to impose their law in social life. This myth that they have their own code of ethics and that if we do not bother them then they will not bother us is false. The massive military and police operations that we have in place obviously do not eliminate criminal activity, but they do allow the state to strengthen its control and its rule over its own territory.
JZP:…The question which every Mexican is right to ask is if the president has any idea of when the turning point in the spiral of violence and crime, which keeps rising, will arrive.
FHC: I think that it would be irresponsible on my part to make predictions. The path towards a solution involves focusing on methods to recover. The correct methods are going to generate the desired results; the more we delay in implementing them, the longer the results will take…
And corruption?
JZP: In 1999, Mario Villanueva, the ex-governor of Quintana Roo, was imprisoned. That was nine years ago, before reform governments. Since then, no other “big fish” of the political class has fallen. For 50 years, the PAN championed the criticism of PRI corruption, but now that the party is in power, it seems to have forgotten about the issue. Doesn’t it seem like the PAN government owes this to the Mexicans. Between the need for good governance and the need to attack corruption, it seems that the first ate the second. With three years remaining in your term, isn’t it worth it, as president, to settle this account with the Mexican people?
FCH: I believe that this is being worked on…
JZP: The truth? It’s not looking, frankly….
FCH: We’re going by steps. In the case of the federal government, there has been no other period in history in which public servants have been subject to such rigorous scrutiny. Obligations in terms of transparency are such that we are not only obligated to dedicate countless amounts of time and personnel to meet these requirements, but also to say what we do, what we spend. Indeed, the case of Governor Mario Villanueva is significant, but so is the fact that the former attorney for OFDI and the former director of the Federal Police are in also in jail. The purging and persecution of the upper management of the PRG have not been easy things.
JZP: Actions are limited to sector policing. In other areas, corruption remains endemic. The Ministry of Civil Service seems to be a white elephant.
FCH: Part of the problem is the limitation of powers. While in the federal government, absolute transparency is a requirement, in other sectors of government there is no obligation, and there are cases of absolute opacity. We have to go to other levels of government or particularly to sectors of society where traditionally recognized spheres of autonomy should be put to debate.
Roll back civil society?
JZP: About civil society, there would seem to be a regression, a growing authoritarianism in areas of society, a prominence and stubbornness of the political class. An IFE that is more limited than its counterpart in the 90s.
FCH: More partisan…
JZP: Human rights commissions which respond to power; governors who have become feudal lords; regulation committees controlled by the regulated; the de facto power over the society is increasingly brazen.
FHC: Well, specifically in the case of the IFE, the issue is complex. My opinion is that the IFE, as it was before, had adequate integration. Of course you can say that I have a subjective position since I am President due to the result of an election that was challenged, without any grounds in my point of view, but challenged nonetheless. But I ended up agreeing with other opposition parties, certainly not my party, on the need to change the composition to maintain the political consensus with regards to the electoral umpire. It was important to renew the IFE with a consensus that had been eroded and destroyed by the questioning of the presidential election…….
Photo Credit: Flickr user World Economic Forum
