"Mexico, U.S. can learn from Bogota."

Here is an excerpt from an editorial by Edward Schumacher-Matos in the North County Times:

"Mexicans once bridled at suggestions of learning anything from Colombia, but as the violence and power of drug cartels have grown in their country, they now are beating a path here. President Felipe Calderon, civil society groups, policy experts, police and others have been traveling to this Andean nation to learn how it beat back the cartels, sharply reduced murders and kidnappings and reasserted a sense of civic participation. Some, such as journalists, just seek tips on how to survive. There is much good to be learned from Colombia, but my own visit here reveals that it is not what many Americans hope it might be. John P. Walters, former head of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is right when he recently wrote that Colombia is 'one of the greatest international policy success stories of the last decade.' But he is wrong in concluding that any of this means fewer illicit drugs and less crime in the United States." Link to Full Editorial

Analysis: I don't make comments on editorials very often, but sometimes quite a bit can be learned from them when written properly. There are a few inaccuracies in this one, however, that I need to point out, although the overall message is pretty good. It's not surprising that many, including people at the highest levels of both the Mexican and US governments, are looking to the Colombian experience for answers. However, I agree with the author that there are just enough differences between the two cases that the possibility of applying the Colombian strategy to Mexico might just not cut it.

It's true that, even if cocaine production in Colombia ever truly sees a significant decrease, entities in other Latin American countries like Peru and Bolivia are ready to step in to fill that market gap. Mexican DTOs have been making friends and influencing people in Peru for several years now, and the word on the street is that Shining Path, a once mostly defunct and now possibly a comeback terrorist organization in Peru, is getting in on the action with them. Now THAT is something to be concerned about. As for Colombian groups like the FARC and ELN, their numbers and strength have diminished, but they're still continuing to wage war against the Colombian military, government, and people in both a conventional fashion and terrorist manner. They're still producing the white powdery stuff, and there are hundreds of micro-cartels throughout Colombia that are waiting for the FARC to finally go away so THEY can fill the market vacuum. I strongly disagree with Schumacher-Matos' assertion that "the paramilitaries have been disarmed and the guerrillas have been pushed back into isolated jungle areas." The United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC), which served as the umbrella group for paramilitaries in Colombia, doesn't exist in the same fashion as before and several members have disarmed, but the large majority of them stay in the business under a different guise, forming other organized crime groups. They're still working as enforcers and protectors for the various Colombian cartels; they're just not as organized as they once were and don't have a singular name. As for the guerrillas, they've always had their strongholds in isolated jungle areas, so they were never pushed back there because they never left. And they're still carrying out attacks in or near populated areas and killing civilians.

Something that bothers me a little is Schumacher-Matos' offhand assertion that the answer lies not in Latin America, but in the rethinking of domestic policies, including the legalization of some or all drugs. I definitely won't get into that debate here because it's a long one, but he just leaves his statement at that, which is pretty weak, considering what a controversial subject legalization is and that he believes that's the better answer. If I thought I had the better answer to the Colombia and Mexico problem, I'd address it in more than a sentence or two. He ends the editorial with that sentiment, but I didn't feel that everything he talked about leading up to that was designed to support that argument.

Finally, I'm glad he inserted a statement by a Colombian woman explaining that in Colombia, people believe in the authorities and the police, whereas in Mexico they do not. If anything, this is part of an argument against legalization as the answer. Corruption in Mexico MUST be addressed and minimized (it will never be eliminated) to make a dent in the supply problem, and demand and enforcement must continue to be addressed - ever more effectively - in the US to make a dent in the demand problem.