In 2012 a colleague collected me from the Miami airport
Hilton for a tour of college campuses to promote my textbook, Gateways to
Art. As we walked to his car, we noticed a large number of police vehicles
in the parking lot, all marked as police dog vans. My colleague, David, commented
that he had loved working with police dogs. Until recently, he had been a drugs
cop in Chicago. A transition from police officer to book salesman is quite
unusual, so, as we drove around Miami and Palm Beach, we talked about his law
enforcement career.
David told me that he resigned from the police force because
he concluded that anti-drug policing was essentially corrupt. When his force was
ready for a big bust, they would notify a local TV station, so that they were
filmed for maximum publicity value to secure continued support from politicians
and the public. Apparently, the police force earned a share of the value of each
bust, which enabled them to buy more arms, helicopters etc. In short, if the
drugs business disappeared the police business would suffer.
Earlier this week a friend sent me a brief article by a
Mexican historian and commentator Héctor Aguilar Camín. The text referred to a
forthcoming study of human rights abuses committed by the Mexican police. The
writer argues that the US government, as part of the “War on Drugs”,
established programmes to train Mexican police officers. Increasingly, the federal
government, supported by police unions, has provided funding to equip American
officers with quasi-military capabilities (and quasi-military mindsets). The
training programmes for Mexican officers, apparently, were based on the same
assumptions.
I don’t think it would be reasonable to blame US training
methods for the many problems of Mexican policing, but this report reminded me
of a book that my son Chris gave me a few years ago, by a remarkably fearless journalist,
Anabel Hernández. The argument of her book is that until the mid-1980s the
trade in drugs to the US market was run by Colombian cartels, for whom the
Mexican crime gangs were humble intermediaries. In 1985, the Reagan
administration wanted to arm insurgent groups (the so-called Contras) in
Nicaragua in order to depose the revolutionary Sandinista government. The problem
was that the US government was legally prohibited from spending federal funds
for this purpose. The solution was to sell arms covertly to the Khomeini
government in Iran, and to use the proceeds to buy arms for the Contras.
There remained one difficulty to overcome: transport. The Mexican
drug gangs were the solution, since they had planes used to transport Colombian
drugs that could be repurposed to ship arms to Nicaragua without any apparent
US involvement. In return, the Americans told the Mexicans, they could bring
back from Nicaragua whatever they liked. And, of course, they liked drugs and their
enormous profit margins. Thus began the rise of the Mexican drug cartels.
Then, of course, the Mexican cartels used their profits to
arm themselves. A friend told me a story of an exchange of views during an
election campaign in New Jersey in 1982. A proposed ban of assault weapons in
the state was a much-debated issue at that time. My friend was asked whether he
supported the ban, to which he replied “Of course”. “Why of course?”. My friend
responded that military weapons should not be in the hands of the public. The
other man stated his view that the constitutional freedom to bear arms had
automatically expanded in scope as new kinds of armaments were developed. When
my friend asked if, therefore, he would advocate the freedom to bear tactical
nuclear weapons, the man replied “Of course”. Now, it is not easy to acquire
firearms legally in Mexico, but it is very simple indeed for American suppliers
of firearms to sell them to drug cartel representatives who can then smuggle
them into Mexico. As a result, the cartels now outgun not just the police but
the Mexican army. When I lived in Mexico in the 1970s police officers were
armed with revolvers. The only time I saw more potent weapons was in the hands
of a bank security guard, or of soldiers searching buses for suspected guerrillas
in the mountains. Today, a common sight is a pickup truck in the back of which
stand behind shields police officers equipped like soldiers. Indeed, the
federal police was recently brought under the command of the army.
The illegal trade in arms from the USA to Mexico is no
secret. From 2006-2011, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
(ATF) in Arizona carried out a sting operation to crack down on such sales. The
idea was to trace the firearms along the distribution channels to senior cartel
figures. Unfortunately, the ATF lost track of the guns. Some were used to
murder a US Border Patrol Officer, others were eventually seized by the Mexican
army. Some simply disappeared into the hands of Mexican criminals. So, when Mr
Trump vows to defend the freedom to bear arms, he is also vowing to continue to
arm the very Mexican criminals from whom claims to protect Americans.
Add a good dose of corruption in most Mexican police forces,
and you have a potent recipe for police abuse of human rights. In a society
with a theoretical, but, in practice, very weak rule of law, the police can usually
act with impunity. While in the USA and the UK protests have been at a national
level and have focused on racial injustice in policing, in Mexico protests have
been directed at local abuses.
For example, on 4 May a young bricklayer, Giovanni López,
was arrested by police officers in Guadalajara for reasons that remain unclear.
His family searched for him in various police stations without success, and the
next day discovered that his dead body was in a city hospital. He died from
cranial trauma and had several other wounds, including a gunshot to his leg. On
9 June, Alexander, a 16-year old American citizen visiting family in a small town
in the state of Oaxaca, was shot dead by municipal police officers while riding
his motorbike after buying soft drinks from a petrol station. In both cases,
police officers have been arrested, but past incidents suggest that punishment
may or may not ensue.
In sum, those directly responsible for the abuses that Mexicans
suffer are individual police officers, but punishing “bad apples” alone will
not solve the problem. An end to impunity would be a major step towards reform,
but the forces that have shaped Mexican policing are far broader, and extend
beyond the country’s borders. The bad apple theory does not fully explain
police abuses, any more than it does in the USA.
Oppression and cruelty is not confined to the policing
element of the US justice system. I recall a visit to Delta State University in
Cleveland, Mississippi. I met a photography professor who told me about his
project photographing prisoners in the nearby Bolivar County Regional
Correction Facility. He told me that the prison had provided quite a good
education programme for its prisoners. However, a Republican politician had
worked out that the per capita amount spent educating the prisoners exceeded
the per capita sum spent to educate children in the state’s schools. One response
would have been to increase the school budget, but the Republican gentleman
preferred a much more law and order solution: abolish the prison’s education programme.
California’s higher education system has a justifiably excellent
reputation. A professor once told me that there was a time when spending on the
state’s universities exceeded the spend on prisons. However, a variety of
law-and-order initiatives expanded the prison population to the point that spending
on prisons exceeded the budget of state universities. In recent years, the
state has introduced initiatives that have reduced the number of incarcerated
prisoners somewhat. Nevertheless, in 2019-2020 the prison budget was $13.3
billion, while the state university system budgeted $7.3 billion. The political
and business interests that drove the expansion of the prison population have
been far more powerful than the educational lobby. California’s prisons have
been run by private companies. In 2019 Governor Gavin Newsom signed a bill to
end the involvement of private companies in prisons by 2028. Perhaps reducing
prisoner numbers and ending private management of prisons will be beneficial,
but results will take time.
A relentless focus on eliminating racism (a problem that
will not be quickly fixed) and abusive behaviour is essential, but whether
reform will include the wider interests and forces that determine how the USA
is policed is another matter. Similar forces operate in the UK. One of our friends
was employed in a prison to educate school-age prisoners. Her job was difficult
because prisoners were often moved for administrative reasons, which disrupted
their education. A private company, Capita, won the contract to manage the
prison and told our friend that her role and salary would be reduced to that of
a teaching assistant. She left and the prison lost an excellent teacher.