Nov 8th 2011, 16:16 by The Economist online
LAST month The Economist held a conference in Mexico City on the issues facing the country. It included conversations with many of Mexico’s most influential leaders. Below are videos of some of the highlights:
Interview with Felipe Calderón, president
Interview with Marcelo Ebrard, mayor of Mexico City
Interview with Josefina Vázquez Mota, presidential candidate in 2012
In this blog, our correspondents provide reporting, analysis and opinion on politics, economics, society and culture in Latin America, the Caribbean and Canada.
Advertisement
Over the past five days
Over the past seven days
Advertisement
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
President Calderón made a good point: there is no point in decriminalizing drugs in Mexico, if demand is determined by US consumption. And, in the same logic, what is the point of fighting a war where your opponent is having and endless influx of money and arms coming from the consumers themselves? And, why don't we see comments like this in the US media? The US media talks endlessly about violence in Mexico, but rarely about the direct and obvious link between US consumption of drugs, the networks operating in the US that distribute that drug, and violence in Mexico.
If AMLO wins, Ebrard's got a good shot at being appointed Secretary of Interior (Gobernación). Then, we will see if his plans to extend the "success" of Mexico City to the states will actually work. Realities in Mexico City are far different from those in Chiapas or Guerrero.
I failed to understand what Josefina Vázquez Mota was trying to say: protect the life of the unborn, but do not criminalize women -arguably, those that have an abortion. How will PAN achieve these two seemingly contradictory goals? She doesn't say.
Good one Mr president! so lets just wait until the US comes up with a plan to erradicate the demand for drugs. Meanwhile lets pretend that nothing happens in the country, while the violence and insecurity increase. Even if the flow of drugs stopped, the violence in Mexico would definitely not. This gangs are not only driven by greed ($30 billion drug market), its all about the lifestyle they have. A lifestyle boosted by ignorance (lack of education), poor job opportunities and corruption.
Obviously Calderón didn't imply that the best course of action is to wait. He's merely stating what many of us think: the US government is worried about the violence in Mexico, but they happily continue to let their population consume drugs.
It doesn't matter how much money the Mexican government spends on fighting the cartels, as long as the huge American thirst for drugs exists, the cartels will continue to operate.
Felipe's interview was concerning the consumption of drugs by Americans. The basis of his interview was that since the Americans are consuming all of the drugs, they should be taken responsible for the actions instead of blaming Mexico because all they do is produce it, it's the Americans choice to buy it or not. Most of it is bought through illegal means through the black market showing that the black market makes a huge profit off of this, proving that more Americans are willing to buy it than rather stop buying it. I think he has a point to say that it is the Americans fault for the consumption of drugs and they must fix it, it is their black market system that is corrupt and you can not blame the Mexicans for this.
Great snapshot of Calderon! :P
The cost of supporting students to avoid dropouts that Marcelo Ebrad stated was "18 mil millones de pesos", shouldn't it be translated as 18 billion pesos and not as trillions?
In spanish speaking countries and in the International System of units a billion is 10^12.
In commonwaelth countries and the U.S. a billion is 10^9