Mexico, the failed state debate, and the Mérida fix

This paper examines the discourse of ‘shared responsibility’ that the governments of the U nited S tates and M exico created through the 2008 M érida I nitiative. This discourse fixed the terms of an unruly debate that stood in the way of bilateral cooperation – are M exico's drug cartels terrorists, and if so is M exico in danger of failing? Specifically, the discourse does three things. First, it clarifies the formal position of both governments that M exico's drug cartels are criminals, not insurgents. Second, by using the term ‘transnational criminal organisation’ ( TCO ) to label the cartels, the U nited S tate accepts some responsibility for them. Finally, the discourse establishes a territorial notion of sharing so that US participation inside M exico is limited. Although ‘shared responsibility’ has been characterised as a ‘paradigm shift’ in how the two countries deal with one another (Benítez Manaut 2009, R evista   M exicana de   P olítica   E xterior 87), I argue here that it reinforces a militarised status quo. By defining ‘shared responsibility’ as an obligation between states, the two countries do not have to articulate a joint responsibility to M exico's civilians, who bear the brunt of both the cartels and the bilateral fight against them. This framing also helps explain the US government's muted response to abuses by the M exican military since the agreement took effect.