Mexico in Focus

Pepsi is already Pecsi

 It happened first in Argentina, then in Spain and now it is happening in Mexico.

In a brilliant move to recognize the cultural differences of these countries, Pepsi, the world-known soft drink of Pepsico, has become “Pecsi” in the Mexican market.

Adapting the word Pepsi to the different ways that people from all over the world pronounce it is a marketing strategy that surely will produce good results for PepsiCo–the world’s second-largest food and beverage company with consumers in more than 200 countries.  In Argentina, Pepsi is already called Pecsi, and in Spain, Pepsi is called “Pesi.” Nobody can complain about this strategy. On the contrary, many Spanish-speaking people would feel more comfortable pronouncing Pecsi or Pesi, rather than Pepsi.

Three years ago, Pepsico launched a very funny and successful marketing campaign in Mexico named “Wiwichus.”. The “wiwichus” were five small characters that people could exchange in convenience store for a determined number of Pepsi bottle caps.  The campaign involved the use of applications to download “wiwichus” in personal messages as well as ringtones for mobile phones. 

The funny thing about the campaign was that the word “wiwichu” came from the way Spanish-speaking people sing the part of a certain Christmas song that says, “We wish you a Merry Christmas.”  We is pronounced as ‘gui’/wi’ and two consecutives ‘gui’ along with the you, create the sound “guichu”/wichu.

Mexican people loved the “wiwichus,” sang the American song and bought a lot of Pecsis to acquire them.  I need to say that during that time I also got my own “wiwichu.”

With campaigns such as these, PepsiCo shows that they know their markets well, and that they are willing to adapt their products to the idiosyncrasies of their customers from around the world.

 

 

 

Mexican media organizations sign agreement on coverage of the violence

A group of Mexican news organizations signed today an agreement on how to cover the violence generated by organized crime.

It is an unprecedented agreement, which attempts to unify the criteria for the coverage of the most relevant issue affecting Mexican society these days.

The agreement signed by more than 50 news media outlets responds to the need of developing a strategy to defend the freedom of speech, which has been threatened and cancelled in some regions of the country by organized crime.

The participants agree on several points, among them the purpose of making sure that drug cartel leaders are not seen as victims or public heroes. They also agree on establishing mechanisms to prevent criminal organizations of using media as a propaganda tool.

However, there are some concerns regarding that specific point. According to the document, the media should “omit and reject information coming from criminal groups with propagandistic purposes. The media should not become a part of the conflict between organized crime groups”.

Few days ago, some media outlets published information about the creation of a mega-coalition of drug cartels with the purpose of fighting the Zetas, a criminal organization that is considered the most violent group in Mexico. Under the new media coverage agreement, would this be a news story worthy to cover? If the information was covered, would be the media contributing to the propagandistic purpose of the coalition of drug cartels?  The other way around, if the information was not covered –because media decide that this is propaganda from the cartels– what would happen with the citizens’ right to be informed?

One of the points of the agreement also establishes that media should not release information that would risk the government operations against organized crime or the life of people involved in those operations.  Although one can agree on the need to protect people’s lives, the line between self-censorship and following the protocol would be very thin.  Often, in some of those government operations there are issues of human rights and judicial proceedings that should be clearly exposed to the public opinion. What would be the protocol to follow in those cases?

In several forums, President Felipe Calderón has expressed his disagreement with the way the mainstream media has covered the drug war. He has complained that media has put to much attention to the bad things and not enough effort to cover the Mexican government achievements to reduce crime.  I’m wondering if this media agreement is in some way related to Calderon’s complains…Hopefully it is not.

There are some plausible points within the agreement, such as the need to protect the identity and the rights of victims and children, or the urgency to establish protocols to guarantee the safety of journalists covering information related to organized crime.

As you probably know, Mexico is considered one of the most dangerous places for journalists in the world, with more than 65 journalist killed since year 2000. In some regions of the country, news organizations have imposed self-censorship as a way to protect their reporters and their own survival as a media outlet. As a result of that, complete communities in the north of Mexico (Tamaulipas, Reynosa, and some cities in Coahuila, just to mention a few) are not receiving any information regarding the organized crime violence from their local news organizations.

I’m wondering then, how an agreement such as this is going to help those organizations to overcome the self-censorship situation. And the answer seems to be clear: is not going to help them in anyway because in those areas, the power and voices of organized crime are much stronger than the voice of society.

 

 

 

Coahuila's authorities attempt to censor comments on Twitter and Facebook

Saltillo, Mexico.  Mexican politicians often surprise me with the foolishness of some of their ideas.  Sometimes I wonder if they really think about what they are going to say before opening their mouths.

The most recent example of one of these stupid ideas came from the authorities of Saltillo, in the northern state of Coahuila: Governor Jorge Torres and the mayor of Saltillo, Jericó Abramo Masso have announced that people who use social networks to spread rumors about possible violent acts will be fined.

They said the government already has a program to closely follow the people who use Twitter or Facebook to spread rumors that provoke panic among citizens.

The authorities’ brilliant idea came after a week in which the relative calm of the city was broken on March 4 by different confrontations between police forces and organized crime members. As a result of these battles seven people were killed –among them an innocent citizen– and several others were injured.

The day the confrontations occurred, the Saltillenses were terrified: through every social network –Facebook, Twitter and even text messages– they alerted each other about what was happening: which areas or streets to avoid, what to do with children at schools or how to react if you were in the middle of a shooting. In other words, they were reacting and trying to keep informed about something unusual for them.

Not used to the violence that has affected many other cities in the country, the Saltillenses reacted with panic. And since March 4, rumors about more violence have been spreading through social media. A traditional “kermes” (religious celebration) in a local church was abruptly suspended last Sunday because of rumors of shootings all around the city. Some people have decided to avoid freeways because it is said they are dangerous –criminals used them to escape from police–. Some people even decided not to take their children to school because of multiple rumors of bomb threats.

Until recently, Saltillo had been relatively safe compared with the violence affecting other surrounding cities such as Torreon or Monterrey. Because of the proximity of those cities, many people knew that sooner or later the violence would touch the city. And when it happened, they reacted frenetically.

Trying to punish people who use social networks to express their fears and concerns is not an intelligent response. The authorities of Coahuila should recognize the important role of social networks in mobilizing and keeping people informed.  They should keep in mind the recent role of social media in the Egypt revolt and more recently in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami.

In circumstances such as the ones Mexico is going through –when traditional local media is not always able to inform the citizens because of self imposed censorship– social networks become the voice of the citizens. Yesterday, for example, rumors about a grenade explosion at the police station were spread mouth to mouth, but the newspapers didn’t report anything unusual. If the information that spreads through Facebook or Twitter is not 100 percent accurate, well, that’s another discussion. But trying to shut down those voices just because “they create panic” is an absurd act of censorship and shows the shortsightednsess of the politicians in Coahuila.

Between that and trying to censor any other comment expressed through social networks there would only be a small step, and taking that step would be a terrible and lamentable mistake.

 

 

Asylum seekers and the governor of Chihuahua

The governor of Chihuahua, Cesar Duarte has publicly dismissed Marisol Valles’ petition of asylum in the U.S.

In a press conference yesterday, Duarte said the reason behind Marisol’s petition was not related to her security. He said that she took advantage of the circumstances of insecurity to ask for asylum and to be able to live legally in the United States.

As you probably remember, Marisol got international media attention when she became the youngest female police chief of Praxedis G. Guerrero, a small and violent town near Ciudad Juarez and Guadalupe. She held the position from Oct. 20 last year until March 2, when she asked permission to leave the town for personal reasons.

Later on, U.S. immigration authorities confirmed she was in this country asking for asylum.

Mr. Duarte’s comments about Marisol’s situation are outrageous for several reasons. They show that the governor is not taking seriously the threats against a police officer, which means there are not any measures to protect their safety. It will be Marisol's responsibility to demonstrate to the US immigration officers that her life was in danger, but even before that,  Mr. Duarte is taking the initiative of dismissing her claim.

Most likely Mr. Duarte already forgot that the previous police chief of Pradexis G. Guerrero, Manuel Castro was tortured and brutally killed one year before. He probably forgot that the city didn’t have a police chief for one year because nobody was willing to accept that job before Marisol did it.

Probably Mr. Duarte also forgot that Pradexis G. Guerrero is located in the region of Chihuahua that is considered the most violent region of the country, a situation that explains why municipalities such as Pradexis have lost more than a half of their population in the last five years. People abandon their houses, their animals, and their roots because they don’t feel safe anymore. How can somebody dismiss a threat in an environment like this?

In several interviews with the press, Marisol said she wouldn’t be fighting crime with guns. In fact, her police force consisted of 13 agents –nine of them women-, a single working patrol car, three automatic rifles and a pistol. Her idea was to fight crime with education, principles and moral values.

She said that fighting the drug cartels was  a federal and state responsibility. At the municipal level, she said, they could help with preventive measures, changing the culture, educating young generations and promoting civic values among the population.

"I took the risk because I want my son to live in a different community to the one we have today. I want people to be able to go out without fear, as it was before," she said in an interview last year.

Today we know that she failed in her attempt, not because the lack of capability, but most likely because of the lack of authorities’ support.

Instead of dismissing her, Mr. Duarte should admit that his government has failed to protect the safety of the citizens. Proof of that is not just Marisol’ case, but also the recent cases of the relatives of killed activists Josefina Reyes and Marisela Escobedo, who are also looking for asylum.

Or probably he also thinks they took advantage of the circumstances just to live legally in the U.S or any other country.

 

An armed country in a dangerous moment

In November last year Alejo Garza Tamez, a 77 year-old rancher in the northern state of Tamaulipas became a Mexican hero in the social networks after his tragic death.

Garza Tamez died defending his property in Ciudad Victoria from criminals. The story began on Nov. 13, when a group of armed gunmen warned he had 24 hours to turn over his property or he would suffer the consequences.

When the men left his ranch, Garza Tamez ordered his workers to go home for the weekend and in solitary prepared a well thought defense  strategy for his property.

The rest of the story is well known. The men arrived 24 hours later and were received by a rain of bullets. Don Alejo killed four of his enemies and injured two more until they hit him. He died defending his property, his dignity and his life.

I’m bringing this story to account after reading Adriana Gomez Licon’s story in El Paso Times today. According to figures she found, it is estimated that residents of Mexico own 15.5 million weapons. It would be impossible to determine what percentage of those weapons are in the hands of criminals. But I´ve decided to play a lit of bit with numbers to understand the magnitude of the story.

In 2008, Mexico’s Secretary of Defense informed that 500,000 people were involved in drug trafficking activities. Around 300,000 were growers, 160,000 were dealers, transporters, distributors and informants. The rest, some 40,000 were leaders. These figures refer only to organized crime; all other delinquents are not considered.

Let´s make an arbitrary estimate and say that each of them have three weapons: we would then have 1.5 million guns in their hands.

The other 14 million would be in the hands of regular citizens such as Don Alejo. If this were so, every other family in Mexico owns a gun.

It is common to hear Americans wave their right to self defense. Bearing arms in the US is a constitutional right. According to a Harvard School of Public Health 2004 investigation, 38% of US households reported having at least one firearm. Almost half of these gun-owners posess 4 or more guns.

As Gomez Licon’s story states, less than one third of the guns owned by Mexicans are registered. It is difficult to obtain a permit to have guns and those who don't have it are infringing the law. In theory, they should be  punished with jail time.

Traditionally Mexico has not been a country where people take justice in their own hands and cases such as the one that took Don Alejo's life are rare.

However, the institutions are failing to respond to Mexican´s claim for safety and justice. Mexican citizens are more vulnerable with each day that passes. We will very probably see more and more Don Alejos in the short term if authorities cannot successfully fight crime and guarantee safety for the people.

It is ironic that for many years Mexicans didn´t openly sympathize with American´s love for guns. This seems to be changing.

What would be the repercussion in the social life if Mexicans start shooting at anyone who threats their safety? What would be the role of the state?

I don’t have the right answers now, but replacing the rule of law by a wild-west style can’t be the solution for this country. 

 

Human rights organizations demand safety for activists in Mexico

Surprisingly, it took only eight days for Mexican authorities to arrest the suspected killer of Jaime Zapata, the ICE agent killed on an interstate highway in Mexico Feb. 15.

Yesterday, the authorities also announced the arrest of some other members of Los Zetas, the criminal organization that allegedly was behind the attack on the U.S. agents.

The speed with which the crime was solved shows how efficient Mexican authorities can be when they act under pressure, especially when that pressure comes from the United States.

It would be nice if they would act with the same speed on those cases that are becoming a shame for the country, specifically in regards to the killing of social activists.

What do we know about the killers of Marisela Escobedo, the activist who was murdered in front of the Chihuahua’s government offices more than two months ago?

Nothing.

Will we know who killed activist Josefina Reyes and six other members of her family? 

Most likely we don’t.

What kind of pressure does the government need to solve the killings that are destroying Mexico’s families?

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights for the United Nations are demanding that the government investigates and punishes the people responsible for these killings. They are asking the government to guarantee the safety of activists and their families, but their voices are probably not loud enough to be heard by the authorities.