History Repeated

          "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." -George W. Bush 10/7/2002

          Substitute President Bush with President Obama, and substitute Iraq with Syria and look what we have. We have the current issue of Syria possessing chemical weapons. This has been a claim made largely by the international community. But is this an accurate claim? Or is this a claim made as an excuse to go to war? Comparing Iraq and Syria, it is scary to see how they are similar. It is scary to see how history could possibly be repeating itself.
          The Iraq War started with the oppressive regime of Saddam Hussein. President Bush accused Saddam of possessing WMDs (weapons of mass destruction). Bush made the statement that Saddam was going to use these weapons against his own people and also use the weapons against the greater international community especially its neighbors, such as Iran. When Bush made this claim, people believed him. When Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council with a vial of anthrax, everyone believed him. At that point everyone was going to support an invasion of Iraq. But when the Iraq War "ended", it was revealed that Saddam had no WMDs. This lead to widespread speculation that the issue of WMDs was used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Did we invade Iraq due to WMDs? Did we invade due to a oppressive regime? Or did we invade to benefit ourselves?
          Now lets look at Syria. The Syrian regime is controlled by Assad. Assad has been oppressing the people of Syria, and Syria is caught in a civil war. The international community has largely not gotten involved on the ground in Syria. However, this may soon change due to one simple accusation. There have been reports that Syria posses chemical weapons. If Syria were to actual posses these chemicals, it could do severe damage to its people and some countries around it. But the question is does Syria actually posses these weapons? It could be possible that this is just an accusation made so that Syria is invaded. Either war, it provides an eerie comparison.
          We are not on the ground in Syria. Neither were we on the ground in Iraq. As a result we do not know the exact conditions. We were not in Iraq experiencing the issues there. We the public did not know if Saddam had the weapons. We were told that he did. It brings up the issue of what the public is told. We the public are outsiders. The people "in" major players in world relations either knew if Iraq had the weapons or they themselves were fooled as well. I am not willing to argue the conspiracy here, but I will acknowledge both sides have plausible cases. The issue that I would like to bring up is that we the public, as outsiders, are never told the full story. This is for obvious security reasons, but it brings up the issue what should or shouldn't we be told? In the case of Syria, I have no idea what is actually going on. I only have news sources to rely on. However, is that better than if I knew the actual truth?

Mexico and Traps

          Mexico. Sunny. Warm. Vacation hot spot. Illegal immigrants. Those are some typical connotations that certain Americans have with Mexico. However, those are certainly viewpoints from outsiders. If these individuals were to actually go on the ground in the streets of Mexico, not the elaborate resorts, they would certainly see a different place. They would possibly see a Mexico that is in conflict, or seeing people struggling. But, that is not to say that Mexico is a poor developing country. Mexico in fact is in the upper tiers of economic status. A recent book by Paul Collier, The Bottom Billion, talks about countries that are considered in the bottom sixth of the worlds growth. Collier describes four traps that countries in the bottom billion are stuck in. While Mexico is not in the bottom billion, nor is it directly caught in each trap, each trap still has something to do with Mexico.
         The first trap that Collier describes is the conflict trap. In Collier's book the conflict trap is centered around civil war. While Mexico is not in a civil war, it is caught in a drug conflict. Drug cartels have taken over Mexico in many ways, and deaths occur on a daily basis. This is a drug war. The government has not had a complete grasp on this conflict. Recently, the government of Mexico has captured certain drug lords; however, this capture does not entail the end of this war. This drug war has been long going. While people may argue a end is coming, it does not seem like it. This conflict has brought instability to Mexico. What it has also done is caused a great financial strain on the government in an effort to combat the war. While these costs are not to the extent of a civil war, it is still draining money that could be sent elsewhere. For this reason, Mexico is neither directly in the conflict trap, but it is also not completely out of it.
         The second trap Collier describes is the natural resources trap. Again, Mexico is not really effected by this trap. Mexico's two largest exports are oil and agricultural products. The natural resource trap describes an effect that too many resources are a bad thing. They bring instability to the region and cause economic strains. Mexico has been able to avoid this trap because first, they are not the main oil exporter in the world. Countries generally look elsewhere for their oil. Mexico's agricultural industry is not the only agricultural industry in the world either. Mexico has been able to avoid this trap because it does not really have a plethora of resources.
         The third trap is the landlocked with bad neighbors trap. Again Mexico has been able to avoid this trap because look at its neighbor to the north, the United States. Mexico is also not landlocked. It has oceans bordering its east and west. These coastal lines allow for trade. Therefore, Mexico has been able to use this to progress economically.
         The final trap is the bad governance in a small country trap. Again Mexico is not directly effected by this one. Mexico is not a small country. It has the eleventh largest population in the world. While Mexico may seem to have a government that has been incapable of holding a grip on the conflict within the nation, this has still not swayed investors from investing in Mexico. Mexico in fact has made multiple investments both with its government and its resources that have economically progressed the country. The problem for investors now is to ensure that their investments are secure in light of the conflict in the country. But Mexico's government has not led Mexico to economic hardship.
          All of this may have just opened up your eyes a little bit in your knowledge of Mexico. As outsiders it is not uncommon for us to overlook the certain events within a country. However, as outsiders we still need to be informed and up to date with the events in other nations. While an outsider may not believe the events in Mexico are significant, they are wrong. Mexico is our neighbor. We have had a relatively good relationship with Mexico. But our relationship with Mexico does not only stop at vacationing and illegal immigrants. Even throw in the drug war and that does not even begin to cover our relationship. Open up your eyes. Mexico effects us.