government essay

Sample Paper

(Assignment: Title)

(Your Name)

(Instructor’s name)

(Course and Section)

(Semester and Year)

(Word Count Excluding Citations)

The United States has a long history of policy efforts to fight drug trafficking and

cartel violence in Mexico, most recently through the Merida Initiative in 2008. However,

increasing drug-related violence in Mexico over the last decade suggests that existing

foreign policies require reconsideration and increased attention under the new

administration. By redirecting emphasis to promoting fair bilateral trade and institutional

change instead of simply funding Mexican militarization, U.S. foreign policy can combat

the underlying economic and social conditions of the narcotics crisis, attacking the

problem at the root. Continuing to aid Mexico rather than estrange it will yield positive

economic benefits for both nations, strengthen the United States’ geopolitical power,

and reinforce the United States’ role as a global humanitarian leader.

American counternarcotic operations stretching back to Operation Intercept in

1969 have traditionally emphasized military action as a response to Mexican drug

violence. However, due to inherent corruption within Mexican enforcement agencies

and deteriorating socioeconomic conditions, the drug industry actually grew in spite of

crackdowns on drug trade and kingpin arrests. The Merida Initiative, like its

predecessors, focused the bulk of its aid on arming and training Mexican security forces

without first resolving the fundamental issues that fuel the growth of the illegal drug

business. Continuing to pursue such a strategy of fighting drug trafficking at the surface

level without addressing its root causes is an illogical approach that has been proven by

time and experience to yield few lasting results.

The traditional approach to counternarcotic policy has resulted in the costly,

suboptimal allocation of financial aid and resources. In the years from 2007 to 2010,

nearly 72% of U.S. assistance under the Merida Initiative went towards funding military

and security expenses, particularly training and equipment for enforcement agencies

(Carpenter). In contrast, only $15 million of the approximate $1.6 billion funding

provided went towards initiatives supporting “anticorruption, transparency, and human

rights” (Carpenter, 142). Instead of funneling resources into wasteful and ultimately

unproductive firepower endeavors, U.S. policymakers can instead promote social and

economic initiatives that address persistent problems like government corruption and

poverty, factors that continually drive poor citizens into the narcotics business and

reinforce their influence.

Though the current administration is considering the revocation and repurposing

of Merida funds for border wall construction, continuing to provide Mexico with aid in

fighting drug trafficking is actually in the United States’ economic and security interests

(Gardiner and Semple). Mexico has consistently ranked among the top three trade

partners of the United States and vice versa, including a trade increase of 506%

between the years 1993 and 2012 with the signing of NAFTA (Figueroa Ortiz). Ceasing

Merida aid would severely disrupt Mexico’s economy and destabilize current American

corporate sector interests in the nation. Preserving a cooperative relationship and a

favorable, stable economic atmosphere in Mexico ultimately benefits both parties by

fostering increased investment and productivity.

Encouraging more equitable bilateral trade between Mexico and the United

States can also help resolve the issue of poor labor conditions and unemployment in the

nation that drives thousands of poor citizens into the drug industry, staunching the

steady flow of cheap, desperate labor into cartels. By encouraging job creation and

bolstering the profitability of the legal Mexican economy, policymakers can cut off one of

the biggest factors of human capital growth to drug trafficking. If drug cartels lose a

constant source of labor to replenish losses, ongoing military efforts to weaken their

power can experience a more sustainable impact. Notably, enforcing trade agreements

with Mexico in the past has had some negative repercussions. The enactment of

NAFTA, despite its positive influence on overall U.S.-Mexico trade, unfortunately also

increased the size of the drug industry because cheaper imports of subsidized U.S. corn

resulted in the loss of 2.3 million jobs in the Mexican agricultural sector (Corchado).

If bilateral economic policies are enacted fairly, however, boosting trade with

Mexico can help alleviate the chronic poverty that many Mexican citizens experience,

improving their overall quality of life and positioning the United States as a leader in

global humanitarian efforts. As close geographic neighbors and allies, the United States

has a vested interest in improving conditions in Mexico to mitigate border crime and

strengthen its partnership by fostering greater trust in U.S. policies. Furthermore, the

United States has a responsibility to aid Mexico’s social condition due to its role in the

proliferation of the drug trade. The growth of cartel power is closely tied to, if not

dependent upon, American consumer demand for illegal narcotics and the accessibility

of American arms traffickers and money launderers (Reich and Aspinwall).

Continuing Merida Initiative aid to Mexico also ensures that the United States can

maintain its geopolitical power and hegemony in the region. A historical key tenet of

U.S. military strategy in Latin America revolves around keeping the region as a “U.S.

‘backyard’ free of European, and later Chinese, influences” (Mercille, 1640). Because

the United States partially relies on Mexico for priority access to “raw materials essential

to U.S. security” such as oil, preserving a close cooperative relationship with the nation

will keep rival foreign interests from intervening and assuming claim over these

resources (Mercille). Keeping foreign powers out of the region also poses security

benefits by distancing competitive superpowers from U.S. borders and strengthening

the geographic alliance of North America.

Finally, preserving U.S.-Mexico relations and continuing U.S. policies against

narcotics trafficking is in fact aligned with the current administration’s domestic policy

goals of constraining immigration. Clinton administration drug policy advisor General

Barry McCaffrey noted that increases in narco-terrorism cause ‘a surge of millions of

refugees crossing the US border to escape the domestic misery of violence,’ a trend

that coinciding historical spikes in border crossing and cartel violence seem to support

(Mercille). Foreign and domestic policy goals should reinforce rather than contradict.

Continued funding for the Merida Initiative, especially with focus on institutional change,

has the potential to create a much greater impact on reducing illegal drug trafficking and

meeting domestic goals than constructing a costly wall.

The United States has political, economic, and security interests in protecting its

relationship with Mexico and improving the Latin American country’s socioeconomic

situation. Alliance, not alienation, is critical for U.S.-Mexico foreign policy. Thank you for

your consideration on this issue.

Works Cited

Primary Sources: Carpenter, Ami C. "Changing Lenses: Conflict Analysis and Mexico's 'Drug War'." Latin

American Politics & Society 55.3 (2013):139-160. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Mar.2017.

Figueroa Ortiz, Carlos Obed. "Indirect Transportation Cost in the Border Crossing

Process: The United States-Mexico Trade." Estudios Fronterizos, 17.33 (2016): 169-196. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Mar.2017.

Mercille, Julien. "Violent Narco-Cartels or US Hegemony? The Political Economy of the

‘War on Drugs’ in Mexico." Third World Quarterly 32.9 (2011): 1637-1653. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Mar.2017.

Reich, Simon and Mark Aspinwall. "The Paradox of Unilateralism: Institutionalizing

Failure in U.S.-Mexican Drug Strategies." Norteamérica: Revista Académica Del CISAN-UNAM 8.2 (2013): 7-39. Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Mar.2017.

Supplementary Sources: Corchado, Alfredo. Midnight in Mexico: A Reporter’s Journey through a Country’s

Descent into the Darkness. New York, NY: Penguin, 2013. Print. Harris, Gardiner, and Kirk Semple. "Rex Tillerson Arrives in Mexico Facing Twin Threats

to Relations." The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 Feb. 2017. Web. 20 Mar.2017.