Pubdate: Mon, 17 May 1999 Source: Washington Report on the Hemisphere (US) Contact: 1999, Council on Hemispheric Affairs Website: http://www.coha.org/ Author: Jon Cullum-Coito DOES MEXICO HAVE A STAKE IN THE DRUG WAR? In the "War on Drugs," the U.S. has relentlessly has pressed other countries to combat production and trafficking of illegal substances within and across their borders. Mexico, in particular, has faced strong pressure from Washington to "do its part" in combating the menace, with the annual certification process serving as a major cudgel in the White House's hand. But does Mexico have a transcending national interest in fighting the drug war? First, a sharp distinction must be made between the drug war and the drug trade. All too often, its advocates justify the drug war on the basis of phenomena that some argue are prompted by it. For example, it is the war, not the trade that is ultimately responsible for most of the corruption in transit countries. A distinction must also be made between the interests of individual Mexicans and the country's often self-seeking political apparatus. Mexico's participation in the drug war is often justified in the name of its national security, but it is far from certain that the results of the conflict have made it any safer. James Rochlin, author of Redefining Mexican "Security": Society, State, and Region under NAFTA, argues that the war on drugs, rather than the trade, poses the greater threat to the citizenry, since it has served to legitimize and encourage a potentially dangerous militarization of Mexico and has allowed the state to use repression as a means of addressing social discontent. The war on drugs is also utilized to buttress the state's machinery as it engages in a vastly unpopular restructuring of the economy, mainly at the expense of the poor and the working class. The drug trade, on the other hand, actually may provide certain benefits to Mexican society, mainly regarding job creation. Economic Consequences of Drugs In economic terms, it even is arguable that the drug trade has had a positive impact on Mexico, bringing a huge windfall of dollars into the country. While much of this cash flow may be in "empty calories," in that it is untaxed and almost immediately flows out of the country, the heroin trade alone could be enriching the country by as much as $1.5 billion a year. Poor peasants directly benefit from the trade as cultivators of plants yielding narcotic derivatives which earn them far more money than do legal crops. As part of their overhead, many mid-level drug lords may use part of their ill-gained profits to improve the lives of the marginalized. By creating jobs, raising the standard of living of poor peasants, building schools, clinics, and roads, they gather the support of entire communities. In contrast, anti-narcotics campaigns cost the government a significant part of its entire annual public security budget. In Feb. 1999, the authorities announced a three-year, $400 million plan to improve Mexico's anti-drug effort, with the Zedillo regime identifying drug trafficking as one of its greatest national security threats. Corruption In "The U.S.-Mexican Border and the Foreign Policy of Counter-Narcotics," Eric Wexler estimates that area drug cartels spend around $500 million a year bribing local, state and other government officials. Those who argue that drug-related corruption goes all the way to the top were buttressed over a year ago when Gen. Gutierrez Rebollo, Mexico's drug czar, was arrested for taking bribes from drug cartels. Drug-related corruption includes officials on the take, as well as the police and the military playing a more pro-active role by protecting drug shipments, harassing a cartel's designated rivals, or even directly getting into the drug business. Narco-corruption clearly poses a fundamental threat to Mexico, undermining confidence in public officials on the drug lords' pay rolls. If Mexico ended this war, some corruption undoubtedly would remain because traffickers would still be motivated to bribe police officials to favor them over competing cartels, but there would be no need to induce officials to look the other way. It is entirely conceivable, even likely, that much drug-related corruption would disappear were Mexican authorities to take the combined steps of ending the anti-narcotics campaign while increasing police pay. The inescapable conclusion is that the war on drugs as an effective means of combating narco-corruption can have the paradoxical result of being among its main causes. In reality, the U.S.-inspired drug war is equally an onslaught on the citizenry because it has given the authorities an enhanced capacity as well as a cover to intensify repression of the population. In her book Desperados, Elaine Shannon describes the use of intimidation and torture by the police in their efforts to find and destroy drug crops. Their favored methods include threats to drop blindfolded peasants from helicopters to gain acquiescence. International human rights organizations have accused the Mexican government of a long history of rights violations. In a recent report, Human Rights Watch states that, "Mexico's human rights problems extended far beyond the occurrences in Chiapas. In many parts of the country, serious human rights violations, including torture and illegal arrests, continued to take place in incidents related to counterinsurgency, drugs, and common crime." U.S. condemnation of the Mexican military's tactics can be regarded as highly hypocritical. Washington has not only helped arm it, but has also trained many of its personnel. Controversy arose in early 1998 when the Washington Post reported that the anti-drug tactics the Pentagon trainers teach are "similar to the counterinsurgency methods they used in the preparations of Latin American officers during the Cold War." In Whose Interest? The drug war is not necessarily in the unqualified interest of Mexican society because, while the drug trade brings with it corruption and violence, it also provides the economic incentives mentioned above. The ruling PRI government is engaged in the drug war both as a result of unremitting U.S. pressure and because it serves its domestic political interests. The drug war fits nicely into what journalist Ted Lewis calls Mexico's "two-face strategy," whereby: "The north-looking, smiling face of commercial Mexico offers low wages, and a stage-managed democratic partnership with the U.S. The inward-looking face of Mexico is harsher: an austere and repressive state and security apparatus that, with a nudge from the U.S., has drastically cut back on social services, while continuing to use bribery, torture, murder, and, in some cases, the latest forensic techniques provided by U.S. police agencies to control, hunt down, and imprison its political opponents." Unfortunately, a bona fide reevaluation of current policy is highly unlikely in Mexico, let alone in the U.S., where few mainstream political figures question its efficacy. - --- MAP posted-by: Don Beck