Para-Military Groups in Mexico

This is a report from the Blog Borderlands Beat.  It provides a translation of a video released by the Mata Zeta organization. Babel Fish tells me that "mata" translates into "it kills".  So this is an organization opposed to the Zeta Cartel.

The background is ugly.

This is the latest evidence of the rising influence of paramilitary groups, as drug cartels increasingly resemble insurgent armies in response to the militarization of the drug war, and the role of drug cartels in society increasingly resembles that of a parallel state.

And maybe with this video communiqué we are beginning to see an attempt by a criminal organization to legitimize itself into a “movement”.

Is there a rising danger that militarized drug cartels will attempt to influence the outcome of Mexico’s 2012 presidential elections by targeting the civilian population with violence?

Only time will tell, but what does not bode well for Mexico is that what the attack on civilians in Monterrey’s Casino Royale that resulted in 52 deaths and the terrorizing of the people of Veracruz with this past week’s bloodbath or the murder of up to 200 innocent victims pulled from buses in San Fernando, Tamaulipas, tells us is that drug cartels have lost all respect for Mexican society.

In a video staged with spartan yet powerful theatrics the Mata Zetas/CJNG issued a new communiqué to the people of Veracruz, and more than likely a national audience.

An obviously educated and effective orator uses themes of patriotism, nationalism, morality, and respect for families and institutions to explain their role as protectors of the Mexican people.

You can read the statement itself at the link.

If this is of some interest, there is a Free 75 page booklet out of the Army's Strategic Studies Institute this month, that talks to Mexico's problem.

Until the 1980s, Mexico enjoyed relative freedom from violence. Ruthless drug cartels existed, but they usually abided by informal rules of conduct hammered out between several capos and representatives of the dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled the country until the 1990s. Relying on bribes, the desperados pursued their illicit activities with the connivance of authorities. In return for the legal authorities turning a blind eye, drug dealers behaved discretely, shunned high-tech weapons, deferred to public figures, spurned kidnapping, and even appeared with governors at their children’s weddings. Unlike their Colombian counterparts, Mexico’s barons did not seek elective office. In addition, they did not sell drugs within the country, corrupt children, target innocent people, engage in kidnapping, or invade the turf or product-line (marijuana, heroin, cocaine, etc.) of competitors. The situation was sufficiently fluid so that should a local police or military unit refuse to cooperate with a cartel, the latter would simply transfer its operations to a nearby municipality where they could clinch the desired arrangement. Three key events in the 1980s and 1990s changed the “live and let live” ethos that enveloped illegal activities. Mexico became the new avenue for Andean cocaine shipped to the United States after the U.S. military and law-enforcement authorities sharply reduced its flow into Florida and other South Atlantic states. The North American Free Trade Agreement, which took effect on January 1, 1994, greatly increased economic activities throughout the continent. Dealers often hid cocaine and other drugs among the merchandise that moved northward through Nuevo Laredo, El Paso, Tijuana, and other portals. The change in routes gave rise to Croesus-like profits for cocaine traffickers--a phenomenon that coincided with an upsurge of electoral victories. Largely unexamined amid this narco-mayhem are vigilante activities. With federal resources aimed at drug traffickers and local police more often a part of the problem than a part of the solution, vigilantes are stepping into the void. Suspected criminals who run afoul of these vigilantes endure the brunt of a skewed version of justice that enjoys a groundswell of support.

If anyone does not see the fact that the problems in Mexico are influenced by our own problems and actions here in the United States, they are not paying attention.

I will admit that one of the reasons I voted for George Bush (aside from his opponent being Al Gore) was that I had high hopes that he would begin to address the problems south of the border, so long ignored by other Presidents, distracted by this or that issue in foreign policy.  One of the reasons I have held a stubborn grudge against Osama bin Laden (in addition to his managing the murder of nearly 3,000 US and other citizens on 9/11) is that he distracted the nation from the important issues south of the border.

I will be looking to see what the Presidential Candidates have to say about Mexico and Latin American in general—and it isn't all about illegal immigration.

As I am sure the new PBS Ken Burns series on Prohibition will show, trafficking in illegal substances leads to corruption and corruption leads to not only abuse of law abiding citizens, but to mayhem and murder.  If poor peasants can make it across that border, so can the crime wave sweeping Mexico.  With things like Operation FAST AND FURIOUS, the deeply flawed ATF sting operation, the current Administration is showing doubtful ability to deal with what is going on at the border.  And, murdered Customs and Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, shot with a gun involved in the larger Project GUNRUNNER, is becoming a cause célèbre in certain circles in the US.

Regards  —  Cliff