Pubdate: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 Source: Miami Herald (FL) Copyright: 2007 The Miami Herald Contact: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/262 Author: Michael Shifter Note: Michael Shifter is vice president for policy at the Inter-American Dialogue. Alert: Just Say NO To 'Plan Mexico' http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0352.html Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/bush.htm (Bush, George) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Stephen+Harper Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Felipe+Calderon Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Plan+Mexico (Plan Mexico) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Mexico (Mexico) HELP MEXICO WITH COSTS OF THE DRUG WAR In Quebec tomorrow, a large U.S. aid package to Mexico -- reportedly on the order of several hundred million dollars a year -- will be on the agenda at a North American summit meeting with President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon. The eight-month-old Calderon government has repeatedly called for substantial U.S. support to help stem the uncontrolled, drugfueled violence that is subduing city after city in Mexico. For the health of our southern neighbor's nascent democracy and the strengthening of our own border controls, it is fundamental that the United States and Mexico enhance their cooperation. Indeed, a failure to heed the appeals for assistance at such a critical juncture would be not only self-defeating for the United States but highly irresponsible as well. As Calderon often points out, the United States bears a significant responsibility for the spreading violence and criminality in Mexico. U.S. consumption is largely driving the drug trade, and the inability or, rather, political unwillingness to control the sale and transport of arms that end up in the hands of vicious drug gangs, is hard to defend. But the United States needs to proceed cautiously. For understandable historical reasons, Mexicans are very sensitive about protecting their country's sovereignty, particularly from the United States. Not surprisingly, U.S. military training on Mexican soil is prohibited. True, such mistrust has declined somewhat in recent years. Not too long ago, after all, Calderon's request for U.S. support would have been met with opprobrium in Mexico. But the widespread disapproval of the U.S. military-centered adventure in Iraq makes any ratcheting up of anti-drug aid quite delicate. In addition, the United States should look closely at its seven-year experience in assisting Colombia in its fight against drug-fueled violence within the framework of "Plan Colombia." (Predictably, despite sharp differences between the two cases, the Mexico package is commonly referred to as "Plan Mexico.") To date, the United States has spent some $5 billion on that effort, which has yielded mixed results -- scant progress in reducing drugs but some success in improving security conditions. For Mexico, the most relevant policy lesson of Plan Colombia is that the main objective should be to bolster the legitimate authority of the state and its capacity to protect citizens from violence, within the rule of law. That means directing ample support toward improving the performance of Mexico's police forces and judicial institutions. To be sure, some military aid is also important to fight the heavily armed cartels -- especially since this is the linchpin of Calderon's own approach. But it would be a serious mistake if that element ended up driving or dominating the U.S. assistance package, possibly resulting in more human rights violations. The Bush administration would also be wise to consult widely with others in the hemisphere. It is worth recalling that such consultations were not carried out as seriously and thoroughly as they should have been in advance of Plan Colombia, which provoked suspicions about U.S. motives that have hurt Colombia's relations with some of its neighbors. Though it will be impossible to completely dispel questions about the aid package, U.S. leaders should seek input from other relevant governments and explicitly state its intentions. Risks and difficulties in pursuing such an enterprise abound. Incompetence and corruption -- on both sides of the border -- should not be underestimated. Despite their intense and diverse bilateral relationship, mistrust between the United States and Mexico persists, which could impede effective intelligence gathering and other essential cooperative tasks. But the situation in Mexico is extremely grave -- so far this year drug-related violence has claimed more than 1500 Mexican lives. Last year that figure topped 2000, a big jump from 2005. Today the United States provides a paltry $16 million in counter-narcotics aid. Given the shared responsibility that the United States must accept for this tragedy, this country cannot remain on the sidelines. Struggling to build a strong democracy after decades of authoritarian rule, Mexico is paying a terrible cost for the U.S. appetite for illegal drugs and lax gun laws and needs our help to level the playing field with the well-financed traffickers. Of course even if the United States and Mexico are able to reach agreement on a deal, Iraq fatigue, mounting budget pressures and a sour aftertaste from the NAFTA and immigration debates mean the plan will be a tough sell in the U.S. Congress. But a well-crafted program could save lives on both sides of the border and go a long way to repairing strained bilateral relations. As Bush rightly said on Sept. 5, 2001, Mexico is "our most important relationship." Now that country, a close neighbor and ally, is going through a very bloody period. The key question is whether the Bush administration and U.S. Congress will be able to match Calderon's leadership and forge a national consensus. With so much at stake for both countries, are we prepared to support Mexico in this struggle? - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake