Roberto Newell Garcia of the Woodrow Wilson Center has published a great report titled “Restoring Mexico’s Reputation.”
The basic premise of Newell’s argument is that Mexico is facing a number of problems, but that the one that gets far and away the most coverage – organized crime/drug-related violence – is not necessarily the most important. Citing successes across issues as disparate as improved health care/life expectancy and economic conditions that should be the envy of the BRICs, he implies that in many ways, things in Mexico are going well.
What is not going well, the author argues, is how Mexico has managed the onslaught of negative media surrounding the body counts and gruesome killings of the drug war, which he implies does have a real negative economic impact on the country. This is not to suggest that the violence, impunity, and lawlessness are not a major concern (follow any social media on the drug war and you will hear of horrific atrocities being committed on a daily basis), but rather to say that it is one that receives a disproportionate amount of coverage.
There are numbers behind this. One of the most fascinating points in the report is a study conducted on the content of articles published in the NYT and WSJ between 1987 and 2010. Newell points out that between that time period, not only has coverage of the country shrunk, but the focus of attention has shifted almost exclusively to organized crime, undocumented immigrants, and corruption. In 1993 13 percent of articles focused on these three issues, by 2010 84 percent did.
The recent explosion of news articles focusing on the narco-tanks serves as a good example for the overall debate. That story was picked up by dozens of English-language media, while very few analyzed its overall significance (or lack thereof) in the grand scheme of issues Mexico must confront. Newell’s report strikes a similar tone, suggesting that narco tanks are not the issue, but rather:
…the need to dramatically improve the quality of law enforcement and the judicial system. The country also needs to improve and reform vital regulatory institutions, especially those that regulate telecommunications and the energy sector, and create the conditions that will stimulate labor productivity growth. There is also a need to reduce the dependence of public finances on oil revenues. Steps should also be taken to improve the quality and pertinence of higher education.”
Newell argues for a coordinated communications campaign that runs through the president himself, and talks about the importance of recapturing Mexico’s brand to restore faith in the international community. While I agree that it is important to present a more balanced account of everything that is happening in the country and that Mexico would benefit from ‘reclaiming its brand’, it is important to recognize a few major issues with this strategy:
- That people, especially journalists, decision makers, and opinion influencers will recognize a government flack campaign as hollow and disingenuous at best and deceptive and manipulative at worst
- The drug war is a popular story, and apparently, according to the afore-linked critique from the Mex Files, one that editors constantly seek out that could lead to selective pitching
- Simply trying to change the brand will not be enough. The reality must also be changed. Companies dealing with supply chain issues or violence at maquiladoras along the border and people in towns where fear of talking is pervasive are facing realities that require immediate action that messaging alone does not solve
So how do you reclaim brand Mexico? To me, it starts with changing the organized crime narrative that has characterized coverage of Mexico in the mainstream media for the last five years.
This is obviously no small order, and one that no amount of PR, even led by the president (Calderon’s pithy remarks about at a recent tourism industry summit in Las Vegas included) will be able to change. So it has to change with the gatekeepers of information themselves. Broaden the scope to include other issues. After all, selective attention is a real phenomenon, and sometimes, as a result, the big picture slips through the cracks.
In Ciudad Mier, deploying troops is not enough
Back in November 2010, a small town on the US-Mexico border, Ciudad Mier, made headlines when most of the town’s residents left because of intense fighting between the Zetas and Gulf cartels. Both groups wanted the plaza, which is a strategic smuggling corridor for weapons, cash, and money between the United States and Mexico, and openly fought day and night for it without regard for local residents or businesses.
The story was big news because it seemed to demonstrate, through the story of a town that once was safe and a tourist haven, just how dire the security situation in parts of Mexico had become.
So an article written today by EFE reports that since then residents have begun to return due to the construction of an army base and a greater military presence in the town is laudable. It is good for the city’s residents, and, on the PR front, is a victory for the Calderon administration, as it sends the message that the government can respond to fighting. Although this victory may be in vain – more than half of all Mexicans believe that progress against the cartels is worse or the same as in 2010 – it will draw praise from those who support the use of the military in Mexico to fight drug cartels.
This strategy will also, as the Ciudad Mier case has shown, be popular among those who support Calderon’s strategy of deploying military troops in areas hardest hit by fighting. Though this strategy has had some success at quelling violence in the past, there are two major reasons why all praise should be moderated:
1. Public security in northern Mexico is still a significant problem. That Ciudad Mier’s residents are returning offers an anecdotal example against a common trend. For every Ciudad Mier, there are many other small towns where inter-cartel fighting is just as intense and where local, state, and federal exist in name only and where the real authority is at the hands of non-state actors. While this episode in Ciudad Mier represents a battle won, the war rages on.
2. The underlying problems facing the future use of deploying the military to towns throughout Mexico. According to a recent Pew Research Center study, for the majority of Mexicans, crime and cartel-related violence are significant problems in the country. Additionally, a full 84 percent of Mexicans, according to the study, support deploying the military to improve citizen security.
Given that A) there is significant political capital to do so, and B) it is seen as an effective way to combat cartels, it follows that we may see more military deployments to retake lost towns in the future. Security is the most important thing for citizens, and thus the use of the military to ensure safety is probably the best course of action, given the strength of cartels and ineffectiveness of local authorities.
But the deployment of troops is not a sustainable or perfect solution, a point to which followers of the successes and failures of the conflict in Colombia’s consolidation program can attest. Although it has been noted that the two countries pose different problems and a blanket strategy (and thus blanket solution) will not be the same if applied to the other country, some commonalities persist. Allegations of collusion between former/current members of the military and cartels, transitioning power to competent civilian authorities, and the military’s role in day-to-day policing and conducting administrative tasks required to run a city are but a few of the problems militarized municipalities will face once a baseline level of safety has been achieved.
The homecoming of Ciudad Mier’s residents is a victory for citizen security in Mexico. But even if money, training, personnel, and corruption were not issues the Mexican government had to face, deploying troops is not the savior solution.