The trouble with Mexico's army

Drug-related violence has taken the lives of more than 7,000 people in Mexico in the last eighteen months. The crisis in public security has put serious pressure on Mexican President Felipe Calderón, who cannot fail to respond to violent turf battles among powerful drug cartels, an influx of sophisticated weapons into the hands of criminals, and a large number of kidnappings and executions in several states. Under the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, the US government has pledged to help.

The crisis is one of law enforcement. But with Mexico’s police evidently incapable of combating the drug violence, Calderon has turned to the country’s armed forces instead. Their scorched-earth tactics have included enforced disappearances, killings, torture, rapes, and arbitrary detentions – themselves horrific crimes. The result is an erosion of public trust that undermines rather than furthering efforts to curb drug-related violence and improve public security.

At the core of the issue: the military has grabbed the task of investigating itself. Out of 17 cases that Human Rights Watch examined from 2007 and 2008, not one military investigation of army abuse led to a single criminal conviction of even one soldier on human rights violations. (The only civilian investigation into any of these cases led to convictions of four soldiers.)

Civilians prosecutors tend back off when the military claims jurisdiction. But does that comport with Mexican law? The Mexican constitution allows for military jurisdiction only for “crimes and faults against military discipline.” The Code of Military Justice says that military courts hold sway when military officers commit common crimes while “in service” – that’s hardly rape and killing. A recent Supreme Court decision defined military service as “performing the inherent activities of the position that [he or she] is carrying out.” The court did not explicitly state that all military abuses against civilians should be sent to civilian prosecutors and courts, but serious abuses such as enforced disappearances and torture clearly cannot be considered “inherent activities” of the military.

The problem is that the secretary of defense wields both executive and judicial power over the armed forces. Military judges have little job security and may reasonably fear that they will be removed if they adopt decisions that the secretary dislikes. Meanwhile, civilian review of military court decisions is very limited, and there is virtually no public scrutiny of military investigations and trials. At its heart, the issue is political. Back to you, President Calderón.