The United Nations Security Council engaged in heavy debate today with regards to the ongoing Drug War in Mexico. While discussing the broad issue of cartel violence, two blocs had already emerged – one supporting military intervention with the opposition believing that increased force would simply worsen the problem. The Russian Federation was the leader of the group supported an increase in military force, claiming that the cartels had become bolder and out of control, and needed to be dealt with decisively. The delegation of Egypt pointed out the contradiction within the Russian Federation’s statement that if you “cut one head off, two grow back” and their support of military intervention. Egypt then introduced an important and recurring theme of the discussion, reminding the committee of the history of a correlation between an increase in military force and more innocent bystanders hurt by cartel violence.
The United States of America and Ukraine supported Egypt’s position, with Ukraine warning that motioning for more military intervention, especially without the presence of Mexico in the deliberations, would be extremely unwise. The delegation of Ukraine continued to suggest that targeting the source of business for Mexican cartels would be a far more effective solution. The United States of America and Spain added on to this proposition, bringing up the importance of intra-government communications. Due to increasing globalization, drug cartels communicate across international borders to coordinate trafficking, and it is essential that international governments communicate among themselves to combat the problem with any degree of efficacy. In favour of this, the delegation of Senegal spoke eloquently of the harm of cartels on West Africa, a target for narcotics trafficking.
In opposition, the delegation of China emphasized the imperative to “quell escalating violence”. Holding the belief that stronger violence requires countering with more force, they proposed a temporary military presence that would result in a stronger police force in the long-term. Venezuela took a drastically different view with the solution they put forward, a far cheaper alternative than any along the lines of the United States of America’s “War On Drugs”. The delegate suggested the radical legalization of all drugs in conjuction with government monitored facilities and clean needle programs. Venezuela convincingly stated that if demand for drugs were to decrease, the supply would decrease as an eventual result and cartels would lose power.
However, the delegation of Egypt made a compelling case that the decrease in demand would simply be one more reason for cartels to fight among themselves, and that legalising all drugs is not a simple, easy solution for Mexico’s drug problem. The delegation of Ukraine was continually a voice of reason reminding the committee not to act rashly without consideration for the long-term effects on Mexico and that there is no precedent for hasty action when “fighting a platform of chaos [...] from a platform of order”. The United States of America added to this, stating that the mandate of the United Nations Security Council is not to interfere with Mexico’s democratic process, but to help and protect the people.
Although delegates continued to toy with ideas related to military intervention, such as a presence being used solely to protect citizens and cut off black market supply lines and not directly engage cartels, or a redistribution of current resources, the discussion began to focus on ways to decrease corruption within the Mexican government. Fully in favour of “regulation as opposed to obliteration”, the delegation of France expressed the importance of effective legislation. The delegation of Spain continued on this theme, laying forth a few potential measures to improve the corruption in the Mexican government. Pinpointing and persecuting corrupt officials and increasing government communication were examples given of long-term solutions. In particular, the prospect of improved international communications is promising, as the sharing of intelligence would allow countries to foresee potential conflicts and prepare for violence, and effectively combat trafficking. Finally, the buzzword of the day seemed to be transparency, as every delegation reiterated the importance of the Mexican government providing full access to financial records and operations. The delegation of Spain stated, “fight fire with fire, and somebody gets burned”.
The United States of America and Ukraine supported Egypt’s position, with Ukraine warning that motioning for more military intervention, especially without the presence of Mexico in the deliberations, would be extremely unwise. The delegation of Ukraine continued to suggest that targeting the source of business for Mexican cartels would be a far more effective solution. The United States of America and Spain added on to this proposition, bringing up the importance of intra-government communications. Due to increasing globalization, drug cartels communicate across international borders to coordinate trafficking, and it is essential that international governments communicate among themselves to combat the problem with any degree of efficacy. In favour of this, the delegation of Senegal spoke eloquently of the harm of cartels on West Africa, a target for narcotics trafficking.
In opposition, the delegation of China emphasized the imperative to “quell escalating violence”. Holding the belief that stronger violence requires countering with more force, they proposed a temporary military presence that would result in a stronger police force in the long-term. Venezuela took a drastically different view with the solution they put forward, a far cheaper alternative than any along the lines of the United States of America’s “War On Drugs”. The delegate suggested the radical legalization of all drugs in conjuction with government monitored facilities and clean needle programs. Venezuela convincingly stated that if demand for drugs were to decrease, the supply would decrease as an eventual result and cartels would lose power.
However, the delegation of Egypt made a compelling case that the decrease in demand would simply be one more reason for cartels to fight among themselves, and that legalising all drugs is not a simple, easy solution for Mexico’s drug problem. The delegation of Ukraine was continually a voice of reason reminding the committee not to act rashly without consideration for the long-term effects on Mexico and that there is no precedent for hasty action when “fighting a platform of chaos [...] from a platform of order”. The United States of America added to this, stating that the mandate of the United Nations Security Council is not to interfere with Mexico’s democratic process, but to help and protect the people.
Although delegates continued to toy with ideas related to military intervention, such as a presence being used solely to protect citizens and cut off black market supply lines and not directly engage cartels, or a redistribution of current resources, the discussion began to focus on ways to decrease corruption within the Mexican government. Fully in favour of “regulation as opposed to obliteration”, the delegation of France expressed the importance of effective legislation. The delegation of Spain continued on this theme, laying forth a few potential measures to improve the corruption in the Mexican government. Pinpointing and persecuting corrupt officials and increasing government communication were examples given of long-term solutions. In particular, the prospect of improved international communications is promising, as the sharing of intelligence would allow countries to foresee potential conflicts and prepare for violence, and effectively combat trafficking. Finally, the buzzword of the day seemed to be transparency, as every delegation reiterated the importance of the Mexican government providing full access to financial records and operations. The delegation of Spain stated, “fight fire with fire, and somebody gets burned”.