THE MEXICO – UNITED STATES BORDER: A FRAGMENTED AGENDA

Luis Herrera-Lasso M.

Luis Herrera-Laso M. is a Mexican expert in international relations and a specialist in national and international security issues.  He is currently Director of the Mexican government’s School of Intelligence for National Security (ESISEN).

The Mexico – United States border is one of the busiest international borders in the world. Nearly one million persons, around 224,000 motor vehicles (2007),[1] and over 70 percent of bilateral trade cross every day through 42 ports of entry. [2]  Many types of illegal merchandise also pass through it, especially drugs from Mexico to the United States and weapons in the opposite direction.  In addition, hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers, mostly Mexican, make their way across every year.

In spite of the importance of the border for both countries, one finds that there is not one single official document that speaks of a shared strategic vision regarding the border.  There is no clear-cut answer to the question: What type of border do we wish to have, or to construct together?

This situation leads us to the conception of a border with fragmented agendas: each country defines its own approach.  In the absence of a shared strategic vision, every issue or problem is addressed in an isolated manner.  In the absence of institutional mechanisms possessing an integral vision and mission regarding the border (in both countries), each agency attends to its own issues.  In the absence of funds assigned for joint bilateral actions, each country determines the amount and distribution of the resources allocated.  Thus, the bilateral border agenda is built on fragments— segments of visions, missions and answers that are presented in an isolated fashion and scarcely constitute a national border policy.  There is no unity.

An expert in international relations would tell us that, by definition, border policy falls within the realm of States’ sovereign rights.  Strictly speaking, this is a solid argument. However, two facts stand out in the current international arena.  First of all, almost no country in the world, with the exception of the United States, expects to attain a greater level of security through the physical control of each and every segment of its borders.  The tendency in other states is to concentrate on security agendas that address issues that transcend physical borders, as is the case of the European Union—the clearest but not the only example.  Secondly, one must consider the gradual loss of control by States, in terms of the innumerable transactions and interactions that take place in an increasingly globalized world.  With these arise security threats that cannot be addressed with traditional methods.  The cybernetic world is just one example.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States regarding security issues is not immune to fragmentation, which becomes manifest when situations or realities are only conceived and managed as fractions and not as parts of a larger unit; they are reduced to their components and are dealt with as if they constituted the whole, but without an integral vision.  I will briefly attempt to explain how fragmentation affects four of the core issues on the security agenda: drugs, weapons, terrorism, and illegal crossings.  For this, I will concentrate on the realm of perceptions, where most fragmentations originate.

For most actors in the United States, having a border with Mexico is more of a problem than an advantage.  Because of its language, culture, level of development, and social behavior, Mexico is seen as distant from the American Way of Life.  For many United States citizens, the main or only reference they have of Mexico is that of undocumented workers, who are located on the lowest socio-economic strata of the country.  With Canadians, they have a greater level of empathy, although Mexicans are not considered equal in this case either.  For Mexicans, the United States is a similarly foreign country.  It represents a source of employment and creator of wealth, a situation that they admire and take advantage of, but also a country with political, social, and cultural codes very different from their own.

From the United States’ perspective, the border with Mexico is a source of concern due to the illegal merchandise that crosses the border every day.  Most of this merchandise is comprised of drugs, which are perceived as a harmful factor for society.  Cocaine from South America, as well as marijuana and synthetic drugs produced in Mexico make their way across the border.  From the Mexican point of view, the drug production and traffic phenomenon is fueled by consumption habits in the United States.

The drug problem has remained one of the most important issues on the bilateral agenda at least since 1985, when a DEA agent was murdered in Mexico.  Many actions and programs have been put in place since then to attempt to reduce drug flows.  There have been some positive results, but the problem has not been eradicated.  To complicate the issue, powerful criminal organizations, which sustain and propel drug trafficking, have become one of the main security threats for both countries.  In spite of this, perceptions have evolved favorably in this arena, and drug trafficking has lost force as the main contaminant of bilateral relations, to be replaced by organized crime and associated violence, mostly along the border.  The core issue of drugs is aggravated by higher levels of violence associated with organized crime.  This is due, in large part, to the crackdown on drug trafficking during the Calderon administration.

Gone are the days when the United States blamed Mexico for the problem.  It is now openly accepted that the driving force of the drug trafficking problem is consumption.  Differences in perceptions have narrowed and cooperation has increased.  This is good news, and yet cooperation remains fragmented.  Both countries unilaterally determine their policies, although there is greater convergence of perceptions and objectives, which has resulted in more specific programs that currently form part of the Merida Initiative.

The Mérida Initiative reflects this fragmentation.  Despite the fact that it originated as a genuine binational initiative, in the United States it has become part of an assistance program for a foreign country instead of being part of an ad hoc cooperation mechanism created by both countries.  It is possible to agree on common objectives, but the rules for the management and allocation of funds are entirely determined by the United States Congress.  Without a doubt, one of the most notable elements of progress is the awareness on both sides of the border that as long as drugs are illegal, and as long as their production, transport and sale constitute one of the most lucrative businesses in history, the phenomenon will not disappear.  This issue is now present in the minds of politicians and experts, and slowly getting place in the official positions.

The issue of arms trafficking is another aspect of the security relationship in which there has been progress, albeit incipient.  Any expert on the subject knows very well that violence in Mexico, increasingly associated with organized crime, is exercised mainly with weapons that have originated in the United States, where the right to legally purchase and possess firearms is part of the national culture.  In Mexico, there is a similar culture, but it is not legal—it ceased being so in 1968.  Since then, the illegal smuggling and possession of firearms bear severe penalties.  Smuggling of any forbidden weapon, even a pistol, is punished with 10 years in jail.

Until recently, there was no talk in the United States of the need to control arms trafficking to Mexico, because it would be tantamount to limiting the free purchase and possession of firearms.  This would potentially violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ferociously defended by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a conservative organization with heavy sway in Washington. Broaching the subject would constitute a significant risk for any politician.

This situation has not changed much, except for one particular fact that profoundly affects Mexico.  The need to take measures to limit arms trafficking to Mexico has, for the first time, appeared in U.S governmental discourse, and specific programs are proposed for this purpose.  Nevertheless, as long as the laws regarding the purchase and possession of weapons are not modified, particularly in the state of Texas, the outcome of these efforts will be limited.  Even so, they represent progress, and they are part of the Mérida Initiative commitments.

The third issue to appear on the bilateral security agenda is terrorism. Ever since 2001, this topic has been regarded as the main national security threat.  The border with Mexico was not exempt from consideration.  It is difficult, however, to prevent illegal crossings over a border which is daily transited legally by one million people, and illegally by several hundreds of thousands of undocumented individuals each year.

Until now, there have been no registered cases of individuals belonging to international terrorist organizations using Mexican territory to prepare routes or operations targeting the United States.  It would be bold, however, to ascertain that this has been the result of border control programs, and without a doubt, the potential threat remains.

For Mexicans, international terrorism has a different connotation than it does for United States citizens.  Until now, Mexico has not been a target for international terrorism, and the occurrence of such an attack on Mexican soil is considered unlikely.  In terms of international terrorism, what may happen in the United States is what concerns Mexico the most.  If a terrorist act were committed on United States soil by an individual having entered the country through its southern border, the implications for Mexico would be enormous.  It is very likely that in a matter of hours, a virtual shut-down of the border would take place, and the consequences for legal transit and border operation would be disastrous.

Mexico reacted in a positive manner from the beginning in regard to this new threat, which led to the improvement of information systems on passenger entries and exits; to the introduction of methods for the safe transit of merchandise; and, perhaps the most important elements of progress, better internal coordination mechanisms for Mexican intelligence work and increased bilateral cooperation in a field that has proven to be the most effective arena for combating terrorism.  Perceptions have come to coincide and there is increased cooperation between both countries.

In comparison to the subject of terrorism, when it comes to migration issues, perceptions and agendas become even more fragmented.  From the United States’ point of view, since 2001, immigration has become a security issue.  In the last eight years, most immigration policies that have been implemented come from a security perspective.  Along the Mexico – U.S. border, the number of agents, detection systems, and resources for stricter law enforcement have all been increased.  While undocumented flows have diminished, the numbers remain in the hundreds of thousands.  Is the United States’ southern border safer today than it was eight years ago?  The answer is not clear.

Mexicans have never considered themselves a security threat to the United States, and they are offended if treated as such, as is the case of many among the hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers and their families—estimated today to amount to at least six million—that reside in the United States in order to benefit from employment opportunities.  The Mexican government advocates a legal, orderly flow, but cannot do much to change policies within the U.S.  Experts in the field believe that current policies have only increased the costs and risks associated with crossing the border and have also stimulated the proliferation of crimes associated with migrant smuggling.  As is the case of drug traffic, the illegality of undocumented migrant flows provides business opportunities for criminals.  Smugglers have never complained about tougher border enforcement measures.

Regardless of the experiences along other international boundaries, the complex Mexico – United States border relationship bears social, historical, and cultural characteristics which make fragmentation almost inevitable.

Experts believe that the primary incentive for cooperation is the perception that one country cannot resolve its problem without the other’s cooperation.  One might also say that there is desired cooperation and there is necessary cooperation.  Collaboration between Mexico and the United States seems to fall within the second category, at least as far as Mexico is concerned.  There is also a third, inevitable type of cooperation: sometimes, it is preferable to cooperate than to face the consequences of not cooperating, which seems to have been the United States’ approach so far.

A radical change of agenda would have to involve profound changes in perception, which is unlikely in the short term.  But in order to progress on the matter, taking the current state of bilateral relations as a starting point, three fundamental steps would have to be carried out: first, the joint design of a strategic vision for the border; secondly, the joint design of more efficient border management methods; and third, the joint design of a binational mechanism for the collection and allocation of resources for joint actions along the border.  Until such steps are taken, any qualitative change in the bilateral relationship is unlikely to be significant.  Furthermore, how long will it take us to get to that point?  It is hard to predict, as it will depend on the politicians involved, their perceptions and abilities.  It will also depend on the circumstances, which are usually the ones that motivate or exert pressure upon politicians.