Winning the Hearts and Minds

In “Beyond Greed and Grievance: Policy Lessons from Studies in the Political Economy and Armed Conflict,” Ballentine and Nitzschke study how the nature of extraction among different types of natural resources available in a specific territory affect or shape the identity, extension, and possibilities in which different sorts of conflicts are defined and fought. Basically, the authors suggest that lootable resources such as diamonds or narcotics are more likely —statistically speaking— to be implicated in non-separatist insurgencies, while unlootable resources such as oil, gas, and deep-shaft mineral deposits are associated with separatist conflicts. Even though this finding could seem evident, it seems to me that it is far from obvious and that it is pivotal to understand the problems at hand.
According to the Human Security Report 2005, after the end of the Cold War there has been a steady decrease in the number of wars and armed conflicts. For instance, the report acknowledges that between 1989 and 2002, about 100 conflicts came to an end (Human security Report, 2005: 17). The same source states that there has been an increase in the number of terrorist incidents and that the majority of current armed conflicts are characterized by low-intensity warfare, mostly because of the asymmetric environments in which these struggles take place. Therefore, and if we accept the main thesis behind Ballentine’s and Nitzschke’s work, efficient or at least reasonable public policies (intelligence) to fight organized violence should be oriented to cut the access of these organizations to lootable resources, connection that contribute, to a large degree, to the existence of violent and insecure environments.
However, possible steps in this direction could end up damaging the entire population by enhancing or creating strong links between the civil population and guerrillas/terrorist/resistance groups, thus preventing any change to win the minds and hearts of the civilian inhabitants. Actually, this is the main reason that explains why Nelson Mandela defended the diamond industry. According to an article published in the NYT, 99% of all diamonds come from countries that are not currently at war, such as South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, and Russia among others. Another good example is provided by the current situation in Afghanistan and the role played by the cultivation of poppy fields. Afghanistan supplies around 90% of the world’s heroin.
The following-up question is, then, what public policies/intelligence should be implemented to close some of the pipes that feed the coffers of organized violent organizations? What are our alternatives?
Any kick-off oriented to improve levels of security should, first, acknowledge that these are, generally speaking, multilayered problems and, therefore, any solution has to work at multiple levels, simultaneously. However, from the angle proposed by this week’s readings and putting aside the discussion of greed vs. grievances, I think it is possible to make two basic suggestions/comments. First, politicians, civil society, and the international community should acknowledge that in addition to the existence of lootable resources there is always another (constant?) variable that allows the existence of non-state organizations capable of managing the trade/contraband of these commodities: a weak state. Without strong political institutions able to deliver justice, security, and public services, the mushrooming of parallel organization competing for vacuum of power left by the state seems inevitable. Secondly, what if we tried to democratize the incomes or wealth generated by these (illicit) commodities? By democratize, I mean that the majority of the population of a specific territory or country would get beneficiated from their sale. The most direct way to implement such policy would be to nationalize those resources (e.g. diamonds) and use the wealth generated by that industry in pro-poor investments such as education, housing, health care, and so forth. I cannot think of a better way to win the hearts and minds of the civilian population.

Security and corruption in Mexico

When Felipe Calderón —current Mexican president— took office on December 2006, he self-imposed a series of goals oriented to change the country. Among these polices, Calderón promised to fight with iron fist the drug cartels that exist in Mexico. After 18 months of government, and in spite of aggressive efforts to control and diminish the leverage of these criminal organizations, the panorama is depressing. 

Since Calderón took power at least 450 police and more that 3,500 people related to the drug business have died. From January to May of this year more than 1,400 inhabitants have been killed, number that represents an increase of 50% from the same period in 2007. The Mexican state is struggling to control strong organizations that have access to sophisticated weaponry such as rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and semiautomatic rifles. But more dangerous that all this armament is the extended net of contacts and informants inside the government as well as in both the local and the federal policies that cartels relay on. In other words, corruption in the Mexican state is drug cartels’ best ally.

Every time the Mexican police hits the cartels, these organizations strike back. Thanks to the information provided by the network of corruption, the leaders of the Gulf Cartel, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Tijuana Cartel, and the Zetas are targeting with remarkable success “good” cops, demoralizing the government. For instance, top-rank police cannot sleep in the same location for more than a few days because of the permanent threat of being killed in the line of duty. To make even gloomier this already dark scenario, many honest officers have begun deserting the police forces scared of being the next drug-cartel target.

In the international arena the main victim is the U.S. 90% of the cocaine entering the U.S. comes through some of the hundreds of illegal passes that exist along the 2,000- miles border that separates the United States from Mexico. This is the reason that explains the generous support that the Bush administration has given to Calderón’s government. In average, the U.S. sends 500 million dollars each year to Mexico with the objective to support the so-called war on drugs. More than to the militarization of the border, this economic aid should be oriented to significantly increase the wages of police forces in order to avoid further corruption. Besides, the efforts should focus on including into the formal economy the marginalized groups that now work in drug-trafficking activities.

Rainbow Nation

           This week the world witnessed another brutal burst of xenophobia in Africa. In the main cities of South Africa, hundreds of immigrants were stoned, shot, burned, and beaten. The principal reason that explains this purge is the poor distribution of the South Africa wealth.

Since the end of the apartheid in 1994, the South African economy has remained one of the most prosperous of the continent. However, just a small and well-connected segment of the society has gotten benefits from the economic performance. The white elite that ruled the country from 1948 to 1994 was replaced by a black elite that, as its predecessors, has failed to addresses people’s claims.

In addition to this unequal distribution of wealth, the current economic situation has amplified South Africa’s social tensions. As in the rest of the world, high oil and food prices have provoked a rapid increase in the cost of basic staples, augmenting South Africans’ discontent, especially among the 23% of unemployed population. In this scenario, the population has tuned its fury against legal and illegal immigrants, who have crossed South Africa’s borders on pursuit of better quality of life for them and their families.  

            During the apartheid, black humans were abused, discriminated, and neglected by the National Party. Blacks were not allowed in some areas and cities such as Cape Town, mixed marriages were prohibited, and sexual intercourse among people from different races was considered a criminal offense. But the African National Congress (ANC) fought against the segregation system. After suffering a great deal, Nelson Mandela’s generation was finally capable of ending white domination and black discrimination. In this way, the so-called rainbow country became an example of integration and reconciliation not just for Africa, but also for the whole world.

However, this week events have exposed the kind of conflict that will dominate the world of our generation —specially in poor countries— where the lack of food and price increases combined with unequal distribution of wealth will generate collective explosions of outrage that could easily produce waves of ethnic cleansings, xenophobic movements, and civil wars.