While a large market for drugs in the United States and Europe has long fueled drug trafficking through Mexico, violence began to escalate around 2004.  The government was in a transition period at that point, with the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) having lost power in 2000 after 71 years.  2004 saw the expiration of the US legislative ban on assault weapons, facilitating the flow of weapons to the cartels that control the black market for drugs.  In 2006 new president Felipe Calderon decided to step up the fight against drug cartels.  The US, which has always worked closely with Latin American countries in the War on Drugs, was heavily involved with the Mexican government through the Merida Initiative.  This agreement enabled increased cooperation and intelligence sharing between the US and Mexico as well as the provision of billions of dollars to the Mexican government.  25 of the 37 most wanted cartel members were captured or killed by Calderon’s government and they seized huge quantities of drugs.  However, the operation was in many ways counterproductive.  After cartel leaders were arrested or killed, uncertainty led cartels to increase violence in an attempt gain power.  The greater involvement of Mexican security forces also came with heavy consequences, with increased human rights abuses against civilians, disappearances with state complicity, and an increase in torture of 600% since Felipe Calderon launched his operations.

Throughout these operations there have been three main actors: the drug cartels, the Mexican government, and the US government.  The cartels are focused primarily on profiting from the drug trade, and the massive demand for drugs in the US despite their prohibition creates huge business opportunities for cartels.  Cartels participate in extensive and often gruesome violence in an attempt to intimidate local populations and the government.  Beheadings and filmed executions are common tactics.  The Mexican government has alternated between aggressive, incompetent, and corrupt.  While it has led the fight against drug cartels, many officials also support cartels and accept their bribes.  The US government has firmly backed the Mexican government and the War on Drugs despite its questionable success.  The prohibition of drugs that creates a market for Mexican drug cartels also continues.

The kidnapping and murder of 43 students in the small southern city of Iguala has highlighted Mexico’s problems.  The 43 men training to be teachers planned to hold a protest against the mayor of Iguala on September 26th but were detained earlier in the day.  While the details are still somewhat unclear, it is believed they were then handed over to the Guerreros Unidos cartel that transported them to a landfill where they were burned to death.  This seems to have been a result of the orders of the mayor and his wife, who have since been arrested along with 56 others by the Mexican authorities for their suspected involvement.  While the news of a government official orchestrating murders with cartels was damaging enough, the national government’s seeming indifference in the weeks following the murders fueled anger.  Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Mexico City to demand changes from the government, including calls for current President Enrique Peña Nieto to leave office.  The government has not yet committed to major reforms, and investigations continue into what exactly happened to the 43 students.  One body has been identified, and in the search for the 43 men an unrelated mass grave with 38 bodies was also found.

The violence in Mexico may or may not qualify as a mass atrocity, although if cartel members are considered combatants then the death toll would certainly be high enough.  As the massacre of the 43 men shows, the human costs on Mexico’s citizens have been enormous.  The recent protests may lead to change, but unless that happens rapidly the students in Iguala will not be the last victims of Mexico’s violence.

An estimated 60,000 Mexicans that have lost their lives due to drug violence in the past 6 years.  Another 26,000 people have been reported missing and 140,000 have been displaced from their homes. The deaths, disappearances, and displacements are only the surface of the entrenched problems that plague our neighbor to the south.  The conflict in Mexico has corrupted the entire country.  It has seized control of the country out of the hands of the government and put it into the hands of criminals.  This inextinguishable conflict has come to dominate Mexico. The drug cartels are powerful enough to control the entire country of Mexico because they are the heads of a multi-billion dollar industry.  U.S. consumers funnel between 19 to 29 billion dollars into the hands of Mexican cartels to fill our demand for illicit drugs.  It is estimated that 95% of cocaine travels through Mexico into the United States and 40-67% of marijuana in the US comes from Mexico.  The U.S. demand for illegal drugs makes drug trafficking a profitable business in Mexico.  Consequently, it is U.S. dollars that fund the conflict. U.S. responsibility for this conflict does not end there.  The weapons that enact the violence also have strong American ties. Huge supplies of guns are arriving in Mexico both through legal and illegal means.  Mexico is now the largest recipient of weapons through “direct commercial sales.”  This is a U.S. government policy that sells weapons to the Mexican military.  Many of these weapons are being diverting into the hands of the cartels.  Additionally due to lax border control, guns purchased in the U.S. are easily smuggled into Mexico. Around 70-90% of the weapons confiscated from Mexico originate in the U.S.

Americans are filling the hands of cartel members with both money and weapons: all the necessary ingredients to perpetrate mass violence on innocent Mexican civilians.  There is no denying the close ties the U.S. has as both a funder and facilitator of the violence that is destroying the lives of an entire nation. Currently two of the hottest debates in the U.S. are about the legalization of marijuana and gun control.  But is the crucial connection to Mexico a loud voice in the dialogue? When we talk about legalization of drugs we talk about things like medical marijuana, the cost of incarcerating harmless drug users, and the potential tax revenue.  I want to know why we don’t talk about the fact that our black market demand for drugs feeds the violent drug wars in Mexico.  After the historic legalization of recreational use in Colorado and Washington in 2012, talk and support for legalization are at all time highs.  Let’s make Mexico a part of this conversation!  Let’s pump up marijuana users to promote peace while promoting drug legalization! Shouldn’t be a hard sell, right? Similarly, when we talk about gun control policy Mexico is not considered.  The media focuses on mental health and second amendment rights but very rarely does anyone point out how our gun policies are enabling the killing of thousands of innocent people in Mexico.  The horrors of isolated events like the Aurora or Newtown shootings shock and capture the attention of our nation and spark national debate about safety and regulation.  Unfortunately, violence is a pervasive reality of the everyday lives of Mexicans, and this too is enabled by American gun policy. We as Americans have a direct responsibility for what is going on in Mexico.  The drug wars in Mexico are an exported American conflict that would not exist without the U.S.  As a nation we are having policy debates right now that have the potential to greatly improve the future of Mexico.  Our ties and responsibility to this conflict are inescapable.  Fortunately, we have the power to limit the vitality of the conflict as well.  Let’s not let Mexico be forgotten.

As STAND moves into a new stage as an independent, self-sustaining organization, we’ll continue to advocate for human rights in our existing areas of concern: Sudan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, and Syria. Given our global scope, however, we’re keeping our eyes peeled for additional opportunities to highlight civilian protection in U.S. foreign policy worldwide. In 2013, here are a few civilian protection crises that we’ll be watching.

Civil War in Syria

With both sides in Syria continually failing to reach political agreements, it seems unlikely that the Syrian civil war will find an end without thousands of more civilian deaths. As Syria reaches its two year mark, the opposition is gaining ground and the regime is slowly eroding. However, even if the regime falls, it is unlikely that peace will be found with the opposition in its current state. Today, the West seems more likely than ever to support the opposition, which could hasten the opposition’s control. As the Syrian regime becomes more desperate, the fear of chemical weapon use by both sides will become more salient, and an international intervention will become more likely.

Ethnic Violence in Nigeria

Nigeria’s violence represents a confluence of crises, many of which have plagued the country throughout its decade-and-a-half management of civilian rule. Throughout the past three years, the Nigerian government has struggled to contain the domestic consequences of Boko Haram, an Islamist insurgency which has emerged from Nigeria’s marginalized northern provinces. As Boko Haram’s operations fragment, and its attacks on civilian and military targets creep further south, Abuja will struggle to contain the organization’s impact on inter-communal violence in central Nigeria’s volatile Middle Belt region. To complicate matters, security services appear unable to uphold a civilian protection mandate, leaving civilians throughout northern Nigeria in the crosshairs.

Political Divisions in Sudan

Discontent in Sudan, both within the ruling National Congress Party (NCP) has been growing throughout 2012. The Sudanese government has cracked down on growing revolts in Khartoum over rising costs of living, targeting students protesting austerity measures, rising tuition costs, violence against female Darfuri students, and the recent murder of four male Darfuri students. The crackdown against peaceful protesters, the swift response to a possible coup attempt in late November, and the NCP’s political divisions show state weakness and point to more repression in the coming year. In addition to political tensions within the NCP, Khartoum continues to fight the Sudan Revolutionary Front, limiting access to humanitarian aid organizations in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, and displacing hundreds of thousands of civilians into South Sudan.

State-Building in South Sudan

As the world’s newest state, South Sudan has witnessed border conflict with neighboring Sudan, inter-communal violence, and civilian discontent with state services. South Sudan’s Upper Nile and Unity states are home to approximately 200,000 refugees from Sudan’s South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, and conflict in South Sudan’s Jonglei State, caused by climate change and localized militarization, has internally displaced approximately 80,000 people. In addition to managing refugee and IDP influx, in 2013, South Sudan will need to improve its basic infrastructure, strengthen security, carry out a civilian disarmament campaign, and reach an agreement with Sudan on citizenship issues. Widespread poverty and South Sudan’s lack of funds for infrastructure and assistance are obstacles to these goals.

Continuing Instability in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo

The M23 group in the eastern DRC, allegedly backed by bordering Rwanda and Uganda, has increased human rights abuses and internal displacement in the east, leading to the M23 takeover of Goma in late November. While peace talks have been initiated, violence in the region remains rampant, and the Congolese government does not have the capacity to address the longstanding security and governance issues that the east faces. Without a meaningful commitment to political and governance reform by the DRC government and with the continued meddling of Kigali in eastern Congo, the situation will likely continue in 2013.

Cartel Violence in Mexico

As we’ve observed, Mexico’s cartel violence is a challenging case for atrocity prevention advocates: clashes between cartels, as well as between cartels and Mexican security forces, appear criminal, yet mirror the scope and scale of civil conflicts elsewhere. Mexico’s cartel conflicts occur in the context of trans-regional drug trafficking, as well as the U.S. government’s efforts to limit the domestic reach of the illicit narcotics trade. Mexico’s new President Enrique Pena Nieto has indicated an interest in diffusing the country’s crisis, but has remained ambiguous on particular steps towards mitigating violent clashes between cartels and the security services. U.S. politics may also prove a decisive factor, as the second Obama administration ponders the implications of Colorado and Washington’s recent marijuana legalization referenda for domestic and international drug policy.

Electoral Violence in Kenya

During the three-month aftermath of Kenya’s 2007 presidential polls, a corrosive mix of elite competition and popular mobilization facilitated a devastating wave of electoral violence, which continues to drive Kenyan politics in 2013. As Kenya heads towards its next presidential contest, which will likely occur in March, the atrocity prevention community is looking for early warning signs of conflict outbreak. The Kenyan state appears incapable of containing outbreaks of violence at the local level, such as the recent inter-communal clashes in the coastal Tana River Delta. While post-2007 reforms have encouraged broader accountability within Kenyan politics, two International Criminal Court indictees, William Ruto and Uhuru Kenyatta, remain active participants in the current race.

Tentative Reforms in Burma

In the past year, Burma has undergone a series of political, economic and administrative reforms at the hands of the Myanmar government. Political prisoners have been released, labor laws introduced, censorship relaxed, and an independent National Human Rights Commission convened. While these signs are heartening, conflict between the Kachin and the Myanmar military continues in the north and the government seems to have little interest in negotiating peace between the Rakhine and Rohingya in the west. In light of the country’s recent reforms, the US has eased up on sanctions, and it will be important to protect resource-rich minority areas from entering corporate power.