VZCZCXRO7260
RR RUEHCD RUEHGD RUEHHO RUEHMC RUEHNG RUEHNL RUEHRD RUEHRS RUEHTM
DE RUEHME #2952/01 2822231
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 092231Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY MEXICO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8584
INFO RUEHXC/ALL US CONSULATES IN MEXICO COLLECTIVE
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHINGTON DC
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHINGTON DC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL
RUEAHLA/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
RUEABND/DEA HQS WASHINGTON DC
RHEHAAA/NSC WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 002952 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL PINR KCRM SNAR MX
SUBJECT: NORTHERN BORDER CONFERENCE FOCUSES SIGHTS ON ARMS 
TRAFFICKING COOPERATION 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:   GOM and USG law enforcement officials 
huddled September 22-26 in Phoenix at the Northern Border 
Conference to discuss expanding cooperation on combating arms 
trafficking.  Both sides support a greater exchange of 
information on firearms sales as well as relevant legislation 
on firearms, including statutes that speak to  prosecuting 
arms traffickers.  Future progress will rely on progress by 
sub-working groups on a wide range of action items in advance 
of a follow-on conference in Tapachula, Mexico at the end of 
October.  End Summary. 
 
 
Participants 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Officials from the Mexican Army (SEDENA), Navy 
(SEMAR), the Attorney General's Office (PGR), the Federal 
Police (SSP), Tax Collection (SAT), Intelligence (CISEN), the 
President's Office, and Foreign Affairs (SRE) represented 
Mexico at the meeting.  The PGR representatives included 
prosecutors, forensic experts and intelligence analysts.  The 
U.S. delegation included representatives of the Arizona 
Attorney General's Office, ATF, CBP, DEA, the Defense 
Attach's Office, DOJ, ICE, FBI, ONDCP, the Phoenix Police 
Department, ONDCP and NAS.  The DOJ representatives included 
prosecutors from Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, 
Texas, Utah and the DOJ Criminal Division.  All of the U.S. 
representatives invited to the conference participate in 
firearms trafficking interdiction and/or prosecution that 
includes operational or programmatic functions. 
 
 
Seeing is Understanding 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  The conference was tailored to requests by the 
Mexican side.  Off-site tours included a firearm licensee 
establishment, a gun show, the Phoenix Police department, and 
the ATF headquarters and firing range.  These off-site tours 
highlighted vendor security and compliance, forensic 
processing of actual cases, and maintenance of firearm 
forensic evidence.  In their classroom sessions, 
participants learned how U.S. officials detect and track 
straw purchasers of firearms (individuals who purchase 
multiple weapons for others or willingly allow their identity 
to be used by others to purchase firearms) using databases 
and E-trace (a program designed to trace weapons sales to the 
last vendor) to support investigations.  PGR requested 
additional E-trace accounts to facilitate future tracing 
efforts, and ATF immediately granted five accounts. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  The conference also pinpointed several follow-up 
issues for the bilateral arms trafficking implementation 
group (GC Armas).  Vetted units, such as the ICE BEST (Border 
Enforcement Security Task-force) unit,  assume a key role in 
the investigation of information on arms movements between 
the two sides.   Both sides agree on the need to establish 
guidelines for strengthening these vetted units.  In 
addition, the U.S. and Mexican representatives discussed the 
creation of an inter-institutional group dedicated to firearm 
inspection and database information mining.  This matter will 
require follow-up as GC Armas seeks to enhance the collection 
and utilization of intelligence from existing cases as well 
as current arms seizure forensics in order to connect the 
dots on trafficking patterns and traffickers. 
 
 
Can We All Just Share More? 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Conference participants agreed that effective 
prosecutions in each country rely on consistent data from 
firearm seizures on both sides of the border.  At the very 
least, they need the following firearm data: (1) serial 
number (including obliteration information), (2) make and 
model, (3) importer information found on the weapon, (4) date 
of seizure, (5) location of seizure, (6) nature and 
circumstances of the seizure, (7) finder, seizing official, 
and forensic processor of the firearm, (8) caliber and 
action, (9) photograph and criminal history of individuals 
arrested, and (10) point of contacts for locating seized 
weapon. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The two sides then need to share more information 
with each other.  Septel will discuss the GOM desire to 
create a single database of all seized firearms -- which may 
 
MEXICO 00002952  002 OF 002 
 
 
or may not be a realizable objective.  In the meantime, 
though, the GOM and USG agreed to explore the potential for 
sharing existing databases, with the USG on the hook to 
explore its international protocols in order to allow PGR 
CENAPI (the investigative branch of the Mexican Attorney 
General) greater access to E-trace. Once the sides embrace a 
structure and guidelines for sharing information, each 
country will need to develop a consistent statistical method 
for measuring fruitful investigations and successful 
prosecutions.   Such statistics will lend themselves to 
tracking trends, developing targets for in-bound and outbound 
port interdiction, creating "lookouts" in targeting systems, 
and focusing attention on arms trafficking danger spots in 
each country. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The complexity of U.S. laws, in particular, the 
differences between individual states and U.S. federal law, 
is a source of immense confusion to Mexican Officials.  Both 
countries pledged to share translations of federal firearms 
laws with an aim to foster greater GOM appreciation for the 
kind of information required for bilateral case development 
and the strict rules that U.S. law enforcement faces in the 
apprehension and prosecution of offenders.  Inasmuch as laws 
dictate the forensic requirements needed for crime scene 
management and evidence handling, each country will develop 
training programs tailored to established guidelines. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) USG representatives agreed to explore creative 
prosecution strategies to attack firearms trafficking, 
including possible reliance on statutes involving conspiracy 
to distribute and possession with intent to distribute, and 
RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Institutions).  The 
U.S. conveyed its readiness to train prosecutors on both 
sides of the border on using these possible tools more 
effectively.  In addition, the U.S. side said that it would 
explore expanding the use of Article IV of the U.S. and 
Mexico Extradition Treaty, which allows the extradition of 
Mexican nationals from the U.S. to Mexico to be prosecuted 
for trafficking weapons that fall into the hands of organized 
criminals in Mexico. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Comment:  The Phoenix Bilateral Arms Trafficking 
Conference opened the eyes of participants to the immense 
amount of work that needs to occur on both sides of the 
border to abate the flow of illegal weapons across the 
border.  The Mexicans acquired a better appreciation of the 
challenges facing U.S. law enforcement in the investigation 
and prosecution of individuals or entities involved in 
firearm crimes.  The USG pledged to provide Mexican officials 
with training, as appropriate, to facilitate compliance with 
U.S. legal requirements.  Meanwhile, both sides agreed on the 
need for greater information sharing on arms trafficked and 
seized.  Each side will need to continue to engage 
aggressively on the issues raised at this conference as well 
as the programs identified in the GC Armas sub-working groups 
in order to demonstrate adequate progress in the run-up to 
the Tapachula Arms Conference scheduled for the end of 
October.  End Comment 
 
Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity and the North American 
Partnership Blog at http://www.intelink.gov/communities/state/nap / 
 
PASCUAL