MEXICO CITY - Before there was a United States or a Mexico, Bernardo de Galvez, under orders from Spain in 1779, fought battles in Baton Rouge, Natchez, Mobile, Pensacola and Charlotte to prevent arms and supplies from reaching the British to be used against the colonials.
That's why there's a statue honoring Galvez in front of the State Department in Washington, D.C.
Arms embargoes are not a new thing between the neighboring territories, now nations. Galvez was at George Washington's hand in the first July 4 parade.
Francisco Martín Moreno, in his June 3 column in Excelsior, a Mexico City newspaper, brought up bi-national arms control embargoes of the past. Arms purchases might date to field marshal Pedro Garibay, who in 1809 proposed that New Spain buy rifles, cannons, ammunition and shrapnel in Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York from the freewheeling arms dealers.
Once the Mexican independence movement began, Jose Maria Morelos, one of Mexico's founding fathers, waited for U.S. arms on the Gulf Coast, but President James Monroe got Congress to restrict U.S. citizens from giving aid to the insurgents against colonial Spain. Madison went so far as to declare which countries could sell arms to Mexico.
In the first decade of the 20th century, reform leader and later president Francisco I. Madero was supported by President Howard Taft and New York bank financing. Opposition Gen. Bernardo Reyes was held in the United States for conspiring against Madero when Taft applied the "neutrality" laws. Taft was the first to decree on March 14, 1912, a prohibition of arms exports to Mexico without it being considered a violation of the Second Amendment.
In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson lifted the arms embargo as a way to minimize violence in Mexico but did not hesitate to intervene after Germany was discovered supplying arms to a rogue element. The United States intervened at the port of Veracruz to halt the arms shipment.
The United States even applied its neutrality laws and detained Gen. Victoriano Huerta, who was returning to Mexico from exile through U.S. territory in an attempt to overthrow the new constitutional government.
These were all considered discretionary acts by U.S. presidents. At one point, arms were sold to the rogue revolutionist Pancho Villa. And Calvin Coolidge made known in 1928 the United States had supplied arms to strengthen President Alvaro Obregon's government in the closing days of the Revolution.
The point Francisco Martín Moreno makes in his Excelsior column is that President Barack Obama has sufficient historical and judicial precedent to declare an arms embargo against those who are supplying U.S. weapons to the drug cartels.
International leaders have made it abundantly clear a new policy is needed to decriminalize some drug use, limit gunrunning, and money laundering by enablers, who are complicit in massive deaths.
Former Mexico President Vicente Fox on June 8 said the price paid by Mexico in the drug war to keep U.S. consumers on a neuroscience high is too great. He had once had congressional approval to legalize some drugs, similar to the proposal put forward recently by an imminent international commission. Fox's proposal was opposed by President George W. Bush. The measure never got to the Official Gazette, which is required for a bill to become law here.
Between 2007 and 2010, only 10,384 of the alleged 114,753 charged drug violators were jailed. As a practical matter, decriminalization might become a practical necessity just to clear the books.
Yet the heart of the matter is the high number of violent deaths. U.S.-encouraged militarized measures have failed to curb the drug trade, whose henchmen have unfettered access to U.S. arms.
If this keeps up, Francisco Martín Moreno and others interested in history might want to research whether a Nobel Peace Prize winner has ever been recalled for failing to act when he could. Or was there ever a Nobel laureate who failed to act against death but made hope the theme at the eulogies of 45,000 graves?
Jose de la Isla writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. E-mail him at joseisla3@yahoo.com
Dale Whiting posted at 7:15 pm on Thu, Jun 16, 2011.
One statistic said that 70% of the arms ceased from drug cartels originate in the US. If this means 70% were made here, that would be one thing. Arms and sold, then resold, again and again. But I rather think it means that there is an active arms trade between the US and Mexican Drug cartels, drug money going south from the US to pay for drugs going north, and some of that drug money returning to purchase rather new, just off the shelf fire arms.
What we need is accountability. Each weapon bears a serial number. Each number can be traced back to a US manufacturer. Those made elsewhere but passing through US customs have serial numbers, too. As a vendor, retail or wholesale, get caught having traded a weapon found in the hands of a cartel member, and you must prove to whom you sold the weapon. If the sale was retail, then the owner must have registered it. If he sells it, not unlike selling a car, ownership must be transferred. Get caught selling a weapon across a border and you do time, hare time, in Mexico!
Do Drugs, do time. Sell weapons to drug dealers, do time, too.
Now Slabside, what is your proposed solution to the drugs for weapons trade? There is nothing in the Second Amendment calling for a well regulated militia which mandates trading weapons for drugs!
Cerulean posted at 10:39 pm on Thu, Jun 16, 2011.
I watched some of the testimony of the House Oversight Committee that asked ‘why are US guns bought and redistributed through known Mexican drug cartels.’ Dale describes the interactions very well in the first paragraph of his post. However, Dale, the US did know exactly where the guns were bought and sold. The ATF agents were told, hands off - just watch. It was described as Operation Fast and Furious.
Jose said, “U.S.-encouraged militarized measures have failed to curb the drug trade, whose henchmen have unfettered access to U.S. arms.” This is true.
Thousands of weapons were sold to Mexican drug cartels (against Mexican law) with the full knowledge of US officials and 35,000 people have died in drug related violence.
This is shameful commentary of the US and our behavior.
Evil Dale Whiting posted at 11:40 pm on Thu, Jun 16, 2011.
I almost forgot! We can solve all our problems by legalizing all drugs! This will also solve the problem of for-profit correctional facilities and the inherent corruption they encourage. Sometimes my good side can be a real thick headed moron.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:48 am on Fri, Jun 17, 2011.
Why is it that most commenters on this cite hide behind 'handles?" Are they too chicken to speak for themselves? The above commenter certainly is!!!
Dale Whiting posted at 8:51 am on Fri, Jun 17, 2011.
Cerulean,
Now who do you suppose was behind the 'hands off" call? My idea is to put teeth into the laws behind registration and sales. Do time for illegal sales just like we have drug cartel workers doing time for marketing drugs. I suspect that not all of the crooks are cartel people. We have crooks up north in the weapons trade, too.
Cerulean posted at 1:11 pm on Fri, Jun 17, 2011.
Both Dale Whitings have good ideas!
Evil Dale says, ”Legalize all drugs! I agree. We waste too much energy trying to be puritans.
Second thought, lets keep some drugs illegal, or only physician prescribed. Drugs that are highly addictive, brain killers should have distribution laws. Some drugs should be outlawed entirely.
Definitely - legalize marijuana and psilocybin mushrooms.
Dale, I do not know who gave the "hands-off" call, but it was some entity within our gov. The ATF guys said they did not know where the order came from. So your suspicions about "crooks up north" is interesting.
RationalHuman posted at 1:14 pm on Fri, Jun 17, 2011.
Dale, who do you suppose was behind the military grade assault weapons being sold to the drug cartels under Operation Fast and Furious?
These are weapons that are UNAVAILABLE to you or me, or civilian gun shops.
The only way to procure such weapons is a military weapons depot.
Treason IS still a crime, right? Heads need to roll for this.
Dale Whiting posted at 2:16 pm on Fri, Jun 17, 2011.
Yes,
As Evil Dale may recall, I have discussed legalization before, as well. We have two ways to go, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Legalization is likely to be opposed by the conservative types, especially the "moral" types. Full legalization may not be the best approach. Legalize possession of marijuana. Make use of harder drugs a health issue and treat it as an addiction, not unlike addiction to tobacco or alcohol.
Legalization is the more comprehensive approach. If legalized, and perhaps taxed, the free enterprise system, and particularly domestic free enterprise runs the show. The need for cartels armed to the teeth and killing thousands pretty much ends.
If we cannot do legalization, then we need to have arms dealers do time. And if those arms dealers are steeling weapons from arms rooms and ordnance depots, send them up the river for life.