U.S. Agents Being Bribed by Drug Smugglers on the Mexican Border

It seems like the only thing in the news recently is the increase in drug related problems between the U.S. and Mexico. This article by Reuters makes the claim that its not just Mexicans who are to blame for this growing problem. More and More U.S. Border Patrol Agents are accepting bribes from drug gangs. This article claims that many of these Agents even helped facilitate the smuggling in of drugs into the US. They think the problem stems from an increase in border patrol agents from 9K to over 14K over the past couple years.

One example is that: “U.S. Customs inspector Richard Elizalda, arrested in 2006, was paid $70,000 to let through hundreds of immigrants after a persuasive female smuggler he met at the San Ysidro crossing became his lover”. For that amount of money and pressure I can understand why it is so hard for 100% of agents to hold firm against the bribes.

This does however spark a question of integrity. When you accept a position like that you have to be ethically trained and prepared for the types of situations that you  may find yourself. Even though that sum of money is immense, it is not worth the compromise of American integrity nor the jail time and repercussions that result from the transaction. This issue combines both the policy matters of counter-narcotics and illegal immigration, the two most central areas needed of reformation. I personally think there is no excuse, these agents should have been given thorough background investigations and practice scenarios to be prepared for these instances. Integrity is an extremely important thing to maintain within the government, any desecration of or shortage of can lead to large instances of corruption that can overpower a nation, i.e. Mexico and Columbia. The article is located here: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1531199420080715?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

The Beginning of Justice in Darfur

I have been active in pursuing the end of the genocide in Darfur with Amnesty International since I started here at GMU, so this for the first time is giving me hope. The ICC announced the other day that the prosecutor in charge- Luis Moreno-Ocampo has issued an arrest warrant for the President of Sudan- Omar Hassan al-Bashir. For the first time ever, the prosecutor at the ICC is charging someone on genocide charges. They are charging the president on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Getting this far was a long and arduous process but it is definitely a step in the right direction. Getting the president in custody is going to be even tougher, he’s a cruel and corrupt leader so I’m sure he has plans up his sleeve to escape or something. One positive note is that the government of Sudan did say that they will not retaliate against the peacekeepers and aid workers currently in Sudan.

The people of Sudan, most vocally the JEM- Justice and Equality Movement are determined to remove the president from power, and will not stop to make “negotiations” with the war criminal. I think these people need all the help they can get and that just like in Serbia, the US needs to either covertly or overtly step in to help the people revolt against the tyrant. According to the article, some people feel that the move will undermine efforts for peace talks and for providing aid, but I agree with the majority who feel that this puts added pressure on the president to end the slaughter. I hope the U.S. will eventually set aside its pride and support the ICC in this endeavor, people are people regardless of location and therefore deserve the same rights and support as everyone else. The article is located here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/world/africa/15sudan.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin . I would love to know how everyone else feels about this and what the current sentiment is about the US not intervening in the genocide.

Blog on “Behind Closed Doors”

After watching the Frontline documentary I realized how muddled the situation seemed to the public at the time and how controversial the issue actually was. At the time this was all happening, I had no idea that there were two sides arguing for vastly different strategies, I saw them all as a unified front against Iraq. Now I learned that it was Powell and Rice against Wolfawitz and Rumsfeld. I feel like Powell should have been given closer attention and that when the key moment occurred with Wolfawitz bringing his case to the president, Powell was unfortunately stuck in a plane coming back from South America ( I think thats where it said he was). I think if maybe Powell had been at that meeting, things would have ended up slightly different.

    It was also interesting to see that on the original strategy urging the president to go to war, Francis Fukyuama’s signature was on it. I had no idea he was actively involved in the decision to go to war, and I wonder if he still has a hand in it now. I dont know if it was just an accident that Frontline showed his signature of if it was done on purpose, but its definitely real interesting since it questions his earlier work of The End of History?

   After watching this documentary, I still dont understand how exactly Iraq and Bin Ladin are connected. I know that a lot of figures that were involved with the Taliban and Bin Ladin resided in Iraq, but I dont understand clearly why after going to Afghanistan and not finishing the mission there why they decided to jump on Iraq as if it was a greater threat. I think the decision to go to war in Iraq at that time was still a little premature and if a little more time was spent in Afghanistan looking for Bin Ladin, the UN might have been given enough time to deliberate and grant us the international support we needed to then go to Iraq. The documentary was definitely very helpful in presenting a time line of the events pre-war and the discussions behind the speeches that went on which clearly illustrate how the president came to the decision that he made.

Low Gas Prices in Mexico

I know the topic of gas prices has become redundant but this story from the New York Times caught my eye. Each day Americans reach into empty pockets to meet the rising gas costs. For US citizens along the border its a different battle. The gas prices in Mexico are astonishingly cheap, around $2.66 a gallon. But the cities along the border are notorious for crime and violence. Therefore the question for these US citizens living on the border is to go 5 miles across the border and possibly save $20 but risk their life, or stay inside the borders and pay twice as much. The attractiveness of Mexico’s gas is becoming stronger every day, and thus traffic along the roadways of the border is gradually becoming heavier in volume.

     This article claims that “The low gasoline and diesel prices that draw Americans here are a result of subsidies provided by the Mexican government to curb inflation and make fuel affordable to the poor”. So it is almost completely by accident that our neighbor is offering such incredibly low prices while our domestic gas prices are skyrocketing.  Because of this discovery, many things are becoming more at risk including American lives of those who travel to the perilous city of CIUDAD JUAREZ and American businesses on the border being forced to close. The prices between the two countries are so different that: “One Texan in the trucking industry, who declined to give his name for fear of being prosecuted for tax evasion, said he saved $12,000 a month by fueling his four-truck fleet in Mexico”.  It is however uncertain that the gas prices across the border will stay where they are. The article is located here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/us/25gas.html?ref=todayspaper

Safe Area Gorazde

Contrary to my first impressions of the book, Sacco has created an interesting alternative to typical history books. I absolutely loved this book. I still cant get over the detail in every single one of his cartoons. I found myself just staring into the pictures looking at every detail down to the tiny microscopic grass leaves and roof shillings and everything, wondering how on earth it was possible and how he could spend so much time on every single detail. I also found this book addicting, I had trouble putting it down just for two seconds, the characters had such different personalities and kept it really intriguing. It also made everything so realistic, its like you really felt the violence and misfortunes these people endured. Sacco was able to really make it personal with the combo of drawings and easy to read captions.

Safe Area Gorazde also really exemplifies the intensity of ethnic battles. I cant believe how absolutely radical and irrational the SDS were. It also evoked such empathy from me for the Muslims and the Croats who didnt want to fight. I feel so bad for the main guy, Edin, who tried so hard to make peace with his neighbors but they just weren’t having it. I kind of got confused at one part though when they were at Edin’s house and he pointed out that his Serb neighbors had torched it, because he said earlier that his Serb neighbors and him lived in peace for many years…so why would his neighbors randomly go and torch his house? Because of the newfound radical nationalism? I never knew that religion could seriously have such an effect on people. It also really bothered me that none of the Serbs, not even ones he was extremely close friends with in school would give him the time of day, Edin seems like such a nice guy. Anyways, I highly reccommend this book and am excited to discuss it in class.

Fourth Foreign Policy Blog- 7/1/08- Futile Counternarcotics Policy

The US is ubiquitous for its stringent, hard-pressed counternarcotics policy domestically and internationally. According to a new international study published in the scientific PLoS Magazine, the US are the world’s top drug users. The article reporting this finding tells us that “The study, released Monday, revealed that 16.2 percent of Americans had tried cocaine at least once, and 42.4 percent had used marijuana”. Its astonishing to me since for example, in Mexico the US adamantly demands that they tighten their domestic counternarcotics policies but they aren’t even in the top 3 nations that use illegal drugs. One thing is, this study solely focussed on marijuana and cocaine, which in my mind aren’t the most harmful drugs out there, so even if our population has a high usage rate of those drugs but not as much as the other drugs, thats a big difference. I think harder drugs should be the issue, and therefore our foreign policy regarding counternarcotics should reflect this and focus on harder illegal drugs in other countries as well as domestically. Still despite our governments efforts, it is still shocking to see that “the United States remains the world’s top drug market, one amply supplied by South American cartels”. With this having been discovered I think the US should revise their foreign policy on this matter and maybe focus more on other issues such as human rights..which in my mind need more of our attention right now then the international drug market. The article is available here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080701160706.4pl3ba3e&show_article=1

Third US-Mexico Foreign Policy Blog 6/24- Border Fence??

So where have I been? Apparently we are building a fence on the border between the US and Mexico? I thought that idea got vetoed..I guess not. According to this article: “the multibillion-dollar fence project that stretches from the Pacific surf at Tijuana to the Gulf of Mexico near Brownsville, Texas” is proceeding at full force without any sign of slowing down. As of June 13th, 331 miles of fencing have already been built. You are probably wondering, that’s great Elizabeth but how does that relate to foreign policy? Well, it represents a perfect example of presidential reactivity without a comprehensive plan to back up the decision. We were just talking about this yesterday, how to be an effective president and make effective policies, you have to consider all information out there and examine the pros and cons before jumping into action, something both of the Bushs’ lack. This article claims that there are a lot of reasons to halt the construction of the security fencing, but that neither the president nor the supreme court care to listen why. This matter is highly debated and controversial but it poses a conflict between security and the environment. The fence is known to highly jeopardize the lives of already endangered species and also will impede on the lives of marine mammals. The thing that caught my eye is that in order to pass this legislation to begin the fencing project, “in 2005 Congress gave the administration wide-reaching power to waive environmental and other laws that could stand in the way”….since when can the government just bypass laws in order to proceed with new laws? Apparently this happens a lot, and even more in international law. Not good, I think we need a return to basics. The article is available here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91G1J80G&show_article=1 Let me know what you think.

Third Foreign Policy Blog 6/24- Environmental Policy

Just a note on yesterday’s class. First, the movie clips and such on Bush #41 matched up quite closely from what the reading said about him, how he is very reactive and responsive to situations that occur but that there is definitely a lack of strategic planning. Also, I would choose him over his son because it seems like the first Bush really did focus and sanctify the importance of personal relationships, he did make it a priority to meet face to face with state leaders and gave off more of a diplomatic vibe. I don’t see that too much with George W. I would have said this in class but after sitting there for 2.5 hours straight…its no longer that important.

Anyways, on a different note, I think the significance of environmental policy is going to be on the rise in foreign policy debates. In this article, the former UN secretary general urges that its polluter vs. non-polluter, and that the modertnized nations really are the ones to blame, not the lesser developed states. I find this to be interesting because it was the US’s key reason for not signing the Kyoto protocol that it should be all nation’s responsibility to protect the environment, not just the more industrialized states, so the US refused to sign it until every state was included in the accountability. Annan completely contradicts this and says that nations strickened with poverty aren’t doing the polluting and thus shouldn’t be further burdened. So who is right? Should every sovereign state share the same responsibility to combat “the Tragedy of the Commons” regardless of GDP, or should the states that are doing the majority of the polluting be responsible? I think I might have to side with Annan on this, but its definitely a tough situation. The article is here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080624114449.9wjckc1h&show_article=1 

Second Mexico-US Foreign Policy Blog 6/17/08

Something very exciting has happened within the Mexican Judicial System recently. The revelation is that Mexico has just adopted U.S. style public trials and are now implementing “innocent until proven guilty”. Although this sounds very promising, I’m not exactly convinced yet, Mexico’s history is filled with instances of corruption and lack of integrity in the government. So we’ll see how this plans out but I will admit it is a very good start. An optimistic quote from this article is: “This is perhaps the most important reform to the criminal system that Mexicans have had in a long time,” Calderon said after signing the amendment. Which is nice because it shows the president is acknowledging that reform is a necessity in the criminal system.  The changes supposedly have a deadline of implementation which is 2016 – quite far off in the distance. Nonetheless, its definitely a step in the right direction and shows that despite the differences in political ideology between Mexico and the U.S., Mexico still sees the U.S. as a role model in some aspects. The article is available here for more information: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g1b3ovVjcz0RztEKCyuIA5rFS9AgD91C15HG0 . I’m excited to see where this will go, and if Mexico is really taking a turn for the better.

Second Foreign Policy Blog 6/17/08

In class on Monday we learned about the “sacrifice trap” which is when a politician or leader chooses a course of action in foreign policy but then if it turns out its failing, the leader fails to accept it and pushes on with the plan because he or she believes it is too late to stop what he is doing, that they’ve already made such a sacrifice where they wont stop till they feel the cause is justified, that their sacrifice was worth it. I see a lot of examples of this in recent news. One example is with Hillary Clinton, how she persisted on until the bitter end, how she kept in the race despite the fact that she had pretty much lost. Some may say its just determination but it also can be seen as exemplifying the sacrifice trap. Other more famous examples of this are Vietnam and as many might agree, Iraq. No one likes to admit their wrong or that they have been defeated, somehow the future of foreign policy actors have to reverse this trend or the ramifications could be extreme.

One promising event that just happened is the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas for the Gaza Strip which is scheduled to begin Thursday morning.  This article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/world/middleeast/18mideast.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin explains more about it.  As we discussed in class, NGO’s can be very effective in putting a halt to, or even preventing ethnic clashes such as this, and when these types of clashes do occur between different international actors and civilian lives are being compromised, NGO’s are even more effective in getting aid provided by other countries to the right people in the conflict-ridden area. I’m personally a fond supporter of NGOs as long as they stick to their objectives and don’t become irrational, Amnesty International I believe is a great example of an effective NGO.