Mexico

On July 18th, the Mexican Navy intercepted a mini submarine that was transporting more than 5 tons of cocaine. This is a significant operation that highlights the ability of Mexican armed forces to combat drug trafficking by air, land, and sea. Bilateral cooperation between the United States and Mexico contributed to the capture of the submarine. Given the current context, it is important to ask whether foreign assistance in the form provided by the Mérida Initiative or Plan Colombia actually reduce drug trafficking.

Answering such a question is not an easy task. Indeed, there are methodological issues that do not allow to test whether military assistance provided by one country (or countries) to another actually reduce drug trafficking. A large transfer of resources to combat drugs is public information. Drug cartels can observe this transfer. Having observed the transfer, they can modify their activities accordingly. However, this modification is not observable—although intelligence agencies should be able to observe these activities. Cartels can improve their efforts and become even more difficult to catch (they become better drug traffickers); or they can reduce their efforts, thus giving the impression that the aid is working (they play a low profile). This last event is a response to the transfer, not a response to the actual implementation of the funds provided by the transfer.

But high office is run by politicians and not by researchers. Indeed, it is always good to show the photos of a submarine being taken over by Special Forces. We can expect observing more dramatic seizures of drugs under a new bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States. The question is whether those seizures will be masking other types of illegal operations that make use of even more fantastic ways of transporting drugs across countries.

The June 30 signing by President Bush of House Resolution 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, not only includes the Merida Initative to help Mexico crack down on drug cartels, it also funds wide-ranging American policies of which Latin America forms part of the global war on terror (see the President’s remarks here).  To the dismay of Congress, the Merida Initiative was largely negotiated without their consultation, and passed onto the appropriations bill.  Significantly, its passage represents an important compromise between Congress and the President.  First and foremost, it provides funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without timetables or other restrictive conditions.  Secondly, it expands educational benefits from the GI Bill, as demanded by Democrats, and also includes $2.7 billion for natural disaster relief. It also represents somewhat mended fences between the Executive and Legislative branches.

In perspective, the $465 million to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America pales in comparison to the massive spending in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Nevertheless, it represents an important step forward in bilateral and multilateral relations between the US, Mexico, and Central America.  All parties have signed a free trade agreement, which has now led to a security agreement against illegal drugs.  The passage also represents a balancing act between Mexico and the United States.  Both parties weighed the desire to protect human rights against concerns of sovereignty and efficacy.  Its passage is a great step forward, and ideally will reduce the influence of illegal drugs cartels and, if not more importantly, bring Latin America into America’s foreign policy spotlight.  Perhaps the next step will be immigration reform…

On June 30th, President Bush signed into law the Merida Initiative. The initiative is part of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, and provides $465 million dollars for the war against drugs in Mexico and Central America. Mexico will receive $400 million dollars.

The Senate passed the controversial bill on June 27th. The original bill had produced strong reactions in Mexico because it required the fulfillment of conditions that were considered unilateral and against Mexico’s sovereignty. In addition, the administration of President Bush criticized Congress for jeopardizing a necessary initiative that would certainly contribute in the War against Drugs in both Mexico and the United States.

Having reached a deadlock, it seems that the inter-parliamentary session between members of the US and Mexican Congresses in early June contributed to the progress of the bill. After the usual exchange of comments between the US Congress and the Mexican and the American governments, the bill was modified and finally approved by everyone. The Bush administration finally got it passed in both chambers, which represents a victory for the administration; and the Mexican authorities stated that the new initiative does not infringe Mexico’s sovereignty and even represents a new bilateral relationship.

This is not the first time that the US government has contributed with large amount of resources to the fight against drugs in Latin America. Although Plan Colombia—conceived in the late 1990s—did contribute to the war on drugs in that country, it was also correlated with instability in the region and human rights abuses. The situation in Mexico is not as volatile as it was in Colombia, but it is beginning to get there. Hopefully, the initiative will stop this process.

The Merida Initiative would provide $950 million dollars in two years to Mexican law enforcement agencies to support their efforts against resourceful and elusive criminal organizations. The Mexican government needs the aid and the executive branch in the US is willing to provide it. But the US Congress would only grant the funds conditional on the improvement of human rights in Mexico. At these crossroads, the positions of these actors are not precisely original.

First, key members of the US Congress—like Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont and member of the Senate’s Committee on Appropriations—believe that Mexican law enforcement agencies are not trustworthy and that tax dollars should not produce further corruption and human rights abuses. This is not the first time the US Congress conditions the use of tax dollars abroad and definitively not the first time the Mexican government is accused of corruption and human rights violations.

Second, high ranking Mexican officials like Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mourino, as well as members of the political parties, have argued that the conditions established by the US Congress for the provision of the funds are not only unilateral, but also represent interference and even infringe national sovereignty. This is not only an old argument that could have been presented by a 19th century Mexican minister of foreign affairs, but also represents a myopic perspective that does not seem to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with improving human rights in the country.

Third, the White House, right in between the US Congress and the Mexican government, has argued that conditioning aid to Mexico is counterproductive and that the funds are vital in the War Against Drugs both in the US and Mexico.

These three actors seem to agree on the fact that American support is important and necessary since the demand of drugs and the flow of arms from the US have fueled the conflict in Mexico. They also coincide on the structural inability of Mexican institutions to fight the drug cartels. However, this is not enough to guarantee the approval of the bill and the provision of the funds. Indeed, the US Congress, the White House, and the Mexican government need to find a middle ground that keeps constituents pleased with the efforts of the officials and lawmakers that represent them, while making sure that they engage in true bilateral cooperation to solve a multinational problem like drug trafficking and consumption.

Drug-related murders in Mexico have soared in the last two months. Municipal, state, and federal police officers have died in clashes against heavily armed commandos or have been assassinated on the orders of drug bosses. It has been argued that this rise in violence is a signal of the Mexican government’s progress in the War Against Drugs. The argument is that cartels, while retreating, have launched a series of desperate attacks on police forces. This “measure of progress” has been complemented by some dramatic drug and cash seizures.

These events have contributed to the recent advance of the Merida Initiative in the US Congress—both the Senate and the House have approved bills that include aid to Mexico, although they still have to agree on a single bill. But is Mexico receiving aid because its forces are doing really well and need further support to win the battle with the cartels or is the country doing so badly that it needs urgent assistance before it loses the War on Drugs? Carrying out the world’s largest cash seizure has definitively contributed to victory over drugs, but losing the chief of federal police has not, specially since this highlights the government’s inability to protect its main strategists and operatives against drug cartels.

The fact is that Mexico needs help to curve ubiquitous violence across the country and strengthen, professionalize, and protect the law enforcement agencies leading the War on Drugs. Indeed, not only are police officers resigning but also asking for asylum in the US. Furthermore, the country’s general population is now affected by drug consumption and fear caused by cartel members roaming through rural towns close to the trafficking routes.

In short, in a multi-front war against drug trafficking and consumption, the Mexican government’s efforts seem to be mixed. In order to recover the confidence of the population and the aid of foreign actors like the US Congress, the Mexican government must reach higher standards, particularly when it comes to the status of the police forces and their members.