Drug violence in Mexico

Can the army out-gun the drug lords?

Four top police officers, and more than a hundred people, are killed over the course of a single week in drug-related shootings

“FEAR is our chief safeguard,” Pericles declared in his funeral oration, “for it teaches us to obey the magistrates and the laws.” In Mexico, however, fear has become the chief aid not of the state, but of those who are trying to subvert it. On May 8th, Edgar Millán Gómez, Mexico's acting chief of police, was shot nine times as he arrived home late at night. One of his bodyguards, who was also wounded, managed to wrestle the police chief's assailant to the ground and arrest him. Mr Millán was conscious for long enough to ask his killer who was behind the hit, but died before he could get a reply.

The answer to his question, provided later by investigators, helps cast some light on why it is so hard to end drug-related violence in Mexico. They say that his assassin was sent by José Antonio Montes Garfias, another federal police officer. Furthermore, the people who organised Mr Millán's killing were also behind the assassination on May 1st of Roberto Velasco Bravo, head of the federal police's organised crime division.

In addition to Mr Millán's assassination, the past few days have seen the murder of a top official in Mexico City's police force; of the police second-in-command in the border town of Juárez; and of the administrative head of the Estado Mayor, a military body charged with protecting the president. Such targeting of senior law-enforcement officials is unprecedented in Mexican history.

The gangs have not restricted themselves to killing senior policemen, though. According to Guillermo Zepeda of CIDAC, a think-tank in Mexico City, the week leading up to May 12th saw a total of 113 murders in Mexico, including 17 people on a single day. Estimates of the total number of deaths linked to drugs and organised crime so far this year range from 1,100 to 2,500 people. The war on drugs has never seemed less like a metaphor.

The involvement of the police in some of the killings helps to explain the lack of sympathy for dead policemen. “When police die in the line of duty, there is no condemnation of the violence in society,” says Ernesto López Portillo of Insyde, another think-tank. Part of the problem, he says, is that it is impossible to know which police officers lost their lives because they were doing their jobs, and which ones died because they were allied with a drug gang. The lack of public confidence in the police undermines their effectiveness and makes them more open to corruption.

Unable to rely on the police, President Felipe Calderón's habitual response to violence has been to send the army into trouble spots. This week the president dispatched 2,700 federal troops and police to the state of Sinaloa, where much of the violence has taken place. The army is now widely deployed around the country. Some Mexican legislators are even calling for troops to be deployed in Mexico City. Replacing the police by the army while the former were being reformed was meant to be only a temporary measure. But it is fast taking on an air of permanence.

As no figures are available for the volume of drugs being traded, the best way to measure it is to look at what is happening to drug prices north of the border. Mexico used to be one of the world's biggest producers of methamphetamines, and Mexican gangs still control meth distribution in the United States. They also dominate the wholesale distribution of cocaine there, as well as the transit of the drug through Mexico from South America. According to the United States' Drug Enforcement Administration, the average price of methamphetamine jumped 73% between January and September last year (the most recent figures available). The price of cocaine rose by 44% over the same period, despite a decline in purity.

The recent killings are a response to this success. Police officials said the murders of Messrs Millán and Velasco were probably both ordered by Arturo Beltrán Leyva, a capo in the Sinaloa drug cartel. Mr Beltrán Leyva's brother, another Sinaloa leader, was arrested in January. Joaquin Guzmán, the gang's head, escaped from prison in early 2001 under still unexplained circumstances. Government pressure has also prompted infighting among the gangs; Mr Guzmán's son was killed the same day as Mr Millán in a shoot-out thought to have been between his father's faction and a rival group from Juárez.

But setting the army on the drug-traffickers cannot be a permanent solution to the problem. The army was not trained for this job and has come under heavy criticism from human-rights groups. The government has shown little tolerance of this, forcing (according to some accounts) the representative of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to leave the country for being too critical of the army.

In a speech after the latest killings, the president called for “a transformation in the administration of justice”. Under a controversial new law, due to come into effect soon, the police will be allowed to hold suspected drug-traffickers and other suspected participants in organised crime for up to 80 days without charge. But a real transformation means a greater upheaval of the police, something that Mr Calderón promised when he first deployed the army nearly a year and a half ago, though there is little sign of it yet.

America is partly to blame. Last October the American and Mexican governments announced a plan under which the United States would contribute $500m a year to Mexican law-enforcement, equipment and training. But neither government bothered to consult its legislature. The programme is now stalled in the United States Congress. As its research service dryly noted in March, “there is no legislative vehicle for the funding request”, and that is still true. If the programme does ever materialise, it will almost certainly be a lot smaller in scope.

Thickening the blue line

Furthermore, some say the plan is not particularly well thought through. Geoff Thale of the Washington Office on Latin America, a think-tank, told the United States Congress that the approach to police training, a centrepiece of the initiative, was wrong to focus on creating specialised police units, which could easily be undermined or corrupted, rather than concentrating on institutional reform.

The status quo leaves both the army and the police vulnerable. In a brazen bit of nose-thumbing, the Zetas, a paramilitary wing of the Gulf cartel (the Sinaloa gang's main rivals), recently hung up banners in several border towns inviting current and former soldiers to join them. The Zetas themselves were originally formed by army deserters.

Following this week's murders, Eduardo Medina Mora, Mexico's attorney-general, said that the violence was a sign of “weakness, desperation, and frustration” on the part of organised crime. That is partly true. But as Mr Millán's killing makes clear, the distinction between law-enforcement authorities and organised crime is sometimes blurred. So far Mr Calderón's administration has failed to come up with a solution to an abiding paradox: success in disrupting drug cartels only leads to more violence as gang members fight to fill power vacuums and continue to supply the ever-lucrative drug market.

Kuwait

An election in Kuwait

Kuwait holds a parliamentary election. Is democracy slowly spreading in the Gulf?

WHAT does a parliamentary election in Kuwait, on Saturday May 17th, suggest about the progress of democracy in the region as a whole? Kuwait is certainly one of the more democratic corners of the Gulf, with a freer press and more elections than most. For this round of voting the number of constituencies has been reduced from 25 to five, in an effort to discourage vote-buying. And Kuwait manages to introduce elements of a modern system—these are only the second elections in which women have been able both to stand for office and to vote—while preserving older forms of public expression of opinion: an effort by the cabinet to restrict diwaniyas, traditional public meetings, was rebuffed by popular demonstrations.

It is still far from a democratic free-for-all. The country remains dominated by the head of state, Sheikh Sabah al-Sabah, and his ruling family; its democratic representatives enjoy limited power and their institutions still look pretty feeble. The new parliament chosen on Saturday will be as a result of the third election in just five years. The previous parliament was dissolved after the entire cabinet, which is appointed by the emir, resigned in protest over the lack of co-operation from parliamentarians.

But the parliamentarians have had power enough, according to the cabinet, to do the country harm. Critics say that MPs have prevented much-needed economic reform, while focusing, instead, on local issues or the promotion of Islamist policies. And as they have fiddled, for example in failing to pass a long-awaited bill designed to attract foreign investment, neighbours have moved ahead. Dubai, Qatar and Bahrain are developing more diverse economies, by establishing themselves as centres for finance and tourism, whereas Kuwait does little more than rely on pumping oil.

Whether responsibility for Kuwait’s failure to diversify can mostly be laid at the door of the parliamentarians is doubtful. But others in the region could be forgiven for wondering whether democracy brings any general benefits. Elections in Iraq, or in Lebanon, have done little to suggest that voting helps to sort out the dreadful messes in those countries. In the Gulf those who are experimenting with democracy are mostly doing so only with baby steps: Qatar introduced its first written constitution in 2005 which provided for some democratic reforms; Saudi Arabia has announced that women will be able to vote and stand in the municipal elections next year.

Even if further democratic reform in the region is likely, few expect to see rapid change. High oil prices—the cost of a barrel has passed $127 on May 16th, another new record—are providing governments with the means to buy off critics, for example with hefty welfare handouts. Perhaps it is because Bahrain is likely to be one of the first in the region to run out of oil that it is also one of the most forward in carrying out political and economic reforms. Bahrain has held open elections in which women can take part; as in Kuwait, Bahrain has a (partially-elected) parliament with limited powers. In recent months it has also seen several riots and protests over wages and high prices. If such pressures increase, in Bahrain, Kuwait or elsewhere, the demand for more democratic changes may rise, too.

Yahoo!

Now the rebellion

Enraged shareholders and activists are pushing Yahoo!’s board to revive takeover talks with Microsoft

YAHOO!’S co-founder and boss, Jerry Yang, and his board had this coming. For three months they did everything they could to rebuff Microsoft, which was offering to buy the internet company at a big premium to its value before the bid. They succeeded, if that is the word, when Microsoft walked away in frustration this month. Yahoo!’s shareholders were livid, and have been saying so. The proxy fight that Microsoft itself shied away from now appears likely to start anyway.

The person to launch it is Carl Icahn, a shareholder activist who is feared by boards across America that he has taken on or threatened. Since Microsoft dropped its bid for Yahoo!, Mr Icahn has bought 59m shares, worth more than $1.5 billion, in the company and has applied for regulatory permission to buy lots more. And his first action as a shareholder has been to send Yahoo!’s board a letter that amounts to a public flogging.

Yahoo!’s board, Mr Icahn wrote, “acted irrationally” in its response to Microsoft. It has “lost the faith of shareholders,” he continued. To him it is “obvious” that Microsoft’s bid was “superior” to any value Yahoo! could create on its own. He is “perplexed” by the board’s behaviour, he said, which is “irresponsible” and “unconscionable.”

One pictures Yahoo!’s wounded fiduciaries gulping. They may indeed be on their way out, because Mr Icahn is nominating his own slate of ten directors in their stead. It is a cheeky line-up, consisting of himself and several private investors who have been his partners. There is also a corporate-governance professor and a media tycoon turned investor. Above all, there is Adam Dell, the brother of Michael, founder of the eponymous computer company, who once sold a company to Yahoo!; and Mark Cuban, who got rich by selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo! at the height of the dotcom bubble and now owns the Dallas Mavericks, a basketball team.

Mr Icahn does not always succeed in his attacks on boards he considers soft, but often. He recently played a big role in forcing another technology company, BEA Systems, a neighbour of Yahoo!’s in Silicon Valley, to resume negotiations with Oracle, another software company in the valley, that led to its acquistion.

In Mr Icahn’s favour is that he has a good point. The overwhelming logic for a combination of Microsoft and Yahoo! is that this appears to be the only way that the two can put up a good fight against the new superpower of web search, online advertising and the Internet in general, which is Google. As a reminder, on the day of Mr Icahn’s letter, Hitwise, an online-measurement firm, released the latest market-share numbers in American web searches. Google’s share once again went up, to 67.9%, and both Yahoo! and Microsoft fell, to 20.28% and 6.26% respectively.

And what has been Mr Yang’s proposed alternative so far? To do a deal with Google, in which Yahoo! would outsource part of its search-advertising technology. Mathematically, this could indeed boost Yahoo!’s profits somewhat, and thus raise its technical value, because Google is better at placing ads next to search results that consumers actually click on, and collects more revenue for each such click. But for Yahoo! this would amount to total capitulation in its effort, after years and billions spent, to catch up with Google in precisely this technology. Yahoo! would in effect resign to becoming a second-tier internet player, not unlike Ask.com, another search engine that uses Google’s advertising technology.

Even assuming that Mr Yang and his board now feel the pressure, would Microsoft come back to the table? Mr Ballmer, its boss, may just be playing the game tactically, but his frustration appears to have been real. Engineers in both companies have been griping about a combination. In the bigger battle against Google to attract and retain the brightest geeks—ultimately the crucial factor in the search wars—the uncertainty of an acquistion cannot help. Mr Yang had better become very co-operative indeed, and quickly.

McCain Iraq, Iran Policies Make Him Favored Candidate to Saudis

-- John McCain, who is trying to strike a distance from the policies of President George W. Bush, accuses Saudi Arabia of sponsoring insurgents in Iraq and condemns it for human-rights violations, including imprisoning people whose ``only crime is to worship God in their own way.''

That should make the prospect of a McCain presidency a nightmare for the Saudi rulers, who have enjoyed close ties to the Bush family. Instead, Saudis are privately rooting for the presumptive Republican nominee, discounting some of his rhetoric because he's the only candidate to promise to keep U.S. troops in Iraq and to deter Iran.

``The royal family and other elites would like to see McCain,'' Mai Yamani, a visiting scholar with the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, said yesterday in a telephone interview from London.

``He would keep the troops in Iraq, and that is their main worry, that the U.S. may withdraw or minimize its presence,'' said Yamani, whose father, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, was the kingdom's oil minister from 1962 to 1986. U.S. forces are needed to counter the spread of Iranian influence from Iraq, which many Saudis believe ``now is ruled by Iran,'' she said.

Oil Prices

Bush today will visit King Abdullah's horse farm to mark the 75th anniversary of U.S.-Saudi ties, which have been strained by what the Saudis view as mismanagement of the war in Iraq and soaring oil prices. Bush is set to discuss oil prices with the Saudis, the world's largest producer, during his visit.

As former Texas oilmen, Bush, 61, and his father, President George Herbert Walker Bush, 83, were both known quantities to the Saudis. McCain has no business experience, though the Saudis appreciate his military and national-security credentials.

The Saudis, like other Gulf Arabs, are comforted by McCain's repeated commitment to stay in Iraq. Campaigning in Columbus, Ohio, the Arizona senator said yesterday that he envisions a successful outcome to the war by 2013, when Iraq will be ``a functioning democracy.''

For the Saudis, that is preferable to the positions of either of the Democratic candidates -- Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York -- who both have vowed to undertake an Iraq withdrawal as one of their first acts in office, analysts said.

`Very Nervous'

``They are worried about any deal the Democrats may cut with Iran,'' said Henri Barkey, a foreign policy adviser to Obama and former State Department policy planner, who now heads the international relations department at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

The Saudis are preoccupied by Iranian influence in their region. The McCain campaign points to Obama's pledge to engage in direct talks with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as evidence that the Democratic candidate lacks the experience to become president.

``Unconditionally meeting Ahmadinejad would fatally undermine any chance that we have of building a coalition of Arab states willing and able to contain Iranian power,'' said Randy Scheunemann, a McCain foreign-policy adviser.

Obama, 46, is eager to debate Iran policy with McCain, said Denis McDonough, an Obama foreign-policy adviser.

`Status Quo'

``What's evident is the status quo as it relates to Iran, and which John McCain seems to support, has resulted in an expanded Iranian nuclear program and expanded Iranian influence,'' McDonough said.

McCain has encouraged the perception that he would restore the pragmatist tradition of the first President Bush, and resolve conflicts with Saudi Arabia behind closed doors.

A McCain administration would practice a policy of ``speak softly and press firmly,'' Scheunemann said.

McCain's signals to the Saudis, however, haven't been consistent. On the one hand, he said this month that his personal connections would allow him ``to manage our strategic relationship'' with the Saudis, while also pressuring them on other subjects.

McCain said May 6 aboard his campaign bus that he knows Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to U.S., ``very well,'' citing a 25-year relationship and the bond they share as former military pilots. McCain's campaign co-chairman, Tom Loeffler, is a registered lobbyist for Saudi Arabia, which earned his firm, the Washington-based Loeffler Group, close to $10 million in the last two years.

`They Know' McCain

The Saudis ``feel like they know John McCain,'' said Hady Amr, the director of the Brookings Institution's Doha Center.

At the same time, however, McCain has used some tough language toward Saudi Arabia. He has promised to bring more pressure on the country on human rights and has accused the Saudis of sponsoring the Sunnis who are attacking U.S. forces in Iraq. Last week, McCain lumped Saudi Arabia with Iran, Burma, Sudan and North Korea, describing them as nations that have imprisoned ``tens of thousands of people'' for their religious beliefs.

Wyche Fowler Jr., a U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia from 1996 to 2001 who is now chairman of the Middle East Institute in Washington, said the criticism may not matter to the Saudis. Fowler met in Riyadh last month with senior Saudi officials, including King Abdullah.

``They are used to a certain amount of Saudi bashing every four years,'' he said.