Mexico: The Merida Initiative discussed

At the end of last month, the Merida Initiative -- a $400 million aid package for Mexico aimed at helping the country fight its powerful drug cartels and organized crime networks -- was approved by the United States Congress.

The Merida Bill faced stiff opposition across the political spectrum and from both sides of the border. Detractors in the United States worry that the funding will put more resources into already corrupt law enforcement agencies in Mexico. Here in Mexico, critics are concerned that the help from the U.S. administration signals American interference in the country's affairs.

Here on La Plaza, we receive many comments and questions in response to posts on the issue of what is also known as Plan Mexico, which we have covered extensively. So today, we put questions about the aid package to two specialists on the subject.

Laura Carlsen is the director of the Americas program for the Center for International Policy, which advocates foreign policy based on demilitarization and a respect for human rights. She writes extensively on Mexico.

Senator Patrick Leahy is a Vermont Democrat who heads the foreign operations subcommittee and is an advocate of the package.

How significant an amount of money do you think $400 million is in helping Mexico fight its drug cartels and organized crime networks? How can it compare to initiatives such as Plan, which involved more than $7 billion?

Laura Carlsen The Merida Initiative is both too little and too much — it’s too little aid to have any appreciable impact on the flow of illegal drugs to the U.S. market and the power of the Mexican drug cartels, and it’s too much since the aid forms part of a misguided and ineffective model. The fundamental flaw of the initiative is not the amount of aid but the terms in which the Bush administration presented it and Congress approved it. The appropriation of $400 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the market for illegal drugs in the United States, which runs into the tens of billions a year. According to the General Accounting Office, 90% of imported illegal drugs come through Mexico. Experience has shown that as long as an underground market of this size exists, criminal organizations will find ways to supply it. Plan Colombia is the best example of the failure of these enforcement/interdiction models that focus on supply rather than demand. After nearly eight years, Colombia has registered an increase in acreage dedicated to drug cultivation and the flow of illegal drugs to the U.S. market has not decreased. The Merida Initiative copies this failed model. Billed as a “regional security cooperation initiative,” it focuses exclusively on security forces and supply-side interdiction without going to the root causes of the bilateral drug trade. Faced with a growing consumption problem, Mexico receives no aid to expand prevention and rehabilitation programs or promote crop conversion in the bill, and although heralded as a major step forward in binational cooperation, it contains no commitments or performance goals for U.S. interdiction, demand reduction, gun-running or money laundering programs.

Senator Patrick Leahy It is a significant amount, and if it shows results it will be the beginning of a multi-year commitment. [Re Plan Columbia] That is the amount we have provided Columbia over the past 8 years, so one cannot compare it to the first year of the Merida Initiative. Also, at the start of Plan Colombia, half the country was under the control of the FARC, bombs were exploding in Bogotá and the Government was no match for the drug traffickers. While the challenge facing Mexico is serious, it is of a different scale and the Government is more capable.

How do you think the money will be spent, and how accountable will that spending be? And is this just a one-off aid injection, or the beginning of a much longer cash flow agreement between the two countries?

Laura Carlsen The $400 million appropriated for 2008-2009 is the first installment of the originally $1.4 billion three-year plan announced by the Bush administration on Oct. 22, 2007, if subsequent years are funded. Some sources say the aid commitment could last much longer given that Mexico’s “war on drugs” will not be won by 2011 when this initiative ends. Congress has stipulated that Mexico receives no cash payments or budget support under the plan. All the resources will be given in kind, through military and hi-tech equipment and training programs. This means that most of the money will remain in the United States with defense contractors, information technology firms and private security firms. This raises ethical issues of what constitutes foreign aid, and the impunity that these private security firms enjoy on foreign soil, where they have allegedly been involved in the murder of civilians and other human rights violations. The degree of unprecedented U.S. government involvement in Mexico’s intelligence and national security apparatus has also raised valid concerns over sovereignty within Mexico that could end up increasing friction between the two nations.

Senator Patrick Leahy The legislation requires the U.S and Mexican governments to develop a strategy and spending plan and then to consult with Congress. We do not provide cash payments. Rather, the funds are used to purchase equipment and training. A portion of the funds will be used to pay for helicopters and other hardware. Some will be used for institution building. The Merida Initiative is for three years, but I believe this is the beginning of a long-term partnership that should expand beyond the law-enforcement focus of the initiative. The reasons why drug-related violence, corruption and organized crime have been able to flourish in Mexico are complex. Establishing the rule of law and respect for human rights requires reforming and strengthening the capacity and independence of Mexico’s judicial institutions. Also, the U.S is the primary market for illegal drugs, and the source of most of the guns used by Mexican cartels. Solving these problems will only be possible if each country does its part.

There has been opposition to the bill because of Mexico's poor human rights record and corrupt law enforcement agencies. What exactly are the conditions of the bill in terms of human rights and accountability on spending? How will they work and be measured? Or has the United States just given Mexico a shot of money to spend as it sees fit?   

Laura Carlsen It’s a well-documented fact that elements of Mexican security forces have direct working relationships with the drug cartels. This is especially true of the police but as the army becomes more involved in the drug war, it becomes more susceptible to corruption. Both the army and police have committed numerous human rights violations since launching the war on drugs under the Calderon administration. Mexicans want to control organized crime but in some areas populations report feeling a double threat — from the delinquents and from the security forces. Under the conditions, 15% of the aid package will be released only after the Secretary of State reports that Mexico is: enforcing the prohibition on the use of testimony obtained through torture, establishing a police complaints mechanisms, creating a non-binding civil society commission to monitor anti-organized crime programs, transferring cases involving military personnel to civil courts where Mexican law permits, and assuring that security forces are cooperating with investigations and their crimes are effectively prosecuted in the court system. Mexico is also required to create a police registry, and provide human rights training to security forces. Conditions originally proposed by Congress included 25% of funds withheld, transferral of military cases to civil courts, a vetting process in the U.S. for Mexican security forces, and an international monitoring committee with greater powers. These were removed following an outcry by the Mexican government. The disastrous result of attempting to condition this bill was not so much that the conditions were for the most part abandoned, but that they diverted attention from the dangerous implications of the bill itself on Mexico’s transition to democracy and the U.S.-Mexico relationship. Evidence from the Mexico drug war so far shows that empowering corrupt and abusive security forces and militarizing society does not have a salutary effect; it has increased both drug-related violence and the number of abuses against civilians. Particularly at risk are women, indigenous peoples and leaders of opposition movements. We anticipate that this U.S. aid package will increase the number of violations as well as the likelihood that aid will end up in the wrong hands. The U.S. government had an opportunity to finally show a real commitment to its southern neighbor. Mexico has received on average only around $40 million dollars a year in aid since NAFTA, despite that when the European Union entered into an economic integration plan with less-developed countries it created a multi-year transition fund that enabled those countries to successfully implement economic development programs and reduce immigration flows. Mexico today faces intransigent poverty, high emigration and increasing violence in its communities. Organized crime must be combated internationally. But with the Merida Initiative, Congress has appropriated funds that will not solve the problems they address, and ultimately will have the reverse effect of holding back Mexico’s progress toward fuller democracy and rule of law.

Senator Patrick Leahy There have been inaccurate statements in the Mexican press about the human rights requirements. Here is what the legislation says: Fifteen percent of the funds for the military and law enforcement agencies may not be made available until the U.S. Secretary of State reports to the Congress that the Mexico Government meets the following requirements: -- Ensuring that civilian prosecutors and judicial authorities are investigating and prosecuting, in accordance with Mexican and international law, members of the federal police and military forces who violate human rights, and the police and military forces are fully cooperating with the investigations; -- Consulting regularly with Mexican human rights organizations and other relevant civil society organizations, to make recommendations concerning implementation of the Merida Initiative in accordance with Mexican and international law; -- Enforcing the prohibition, in accordance with Mexican and international law, on the use of testimony obtained through torture or other ill treatment; and -- Improving the transparency and accountability of the police forces, including through police commissions with authority and independence to investigate. These requirements, if met, will improve accountability and respect for human rights by Mexican Police and military forces, who have historically violated the law with impunity.    The legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of State the responsibility for determining that the requirements have been met, in order to be able to report to Congress. There needs to be a spending plan that Congress has to sign off. We also have mechanisms for monitoring the use of the funds, such as the Government accountability office and the State Department Inspector General.

Comments

[a.]

Yesterday was a very interesting day.

Ingrid Betancourt received an award;

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/26/betancourt.austria.frtizl.ap/

another politician was freed by/from (?) the FARC;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/27/2401786.htm?section=justin

a drug cartel leader was captured in Tijuana

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/world/americas/27mexico.html?sq=%22arellano%20felix%22&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=print

A last gasp flurry of activity to boost the McCain campaign, while the Mexican government blames protest movements for the murder of journalist Brad Will?

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2008/10/mexicos-national-human-rights-commission-blames-plan-mexico-appo-ar

I'm thinking of a movie I saw earlier this year on the structural adjustment programs promoted by the IMF/World Bank and femicides/violence against women in Juarez. Peruse the archives of NarcoNews, and these scandals with spectacular arrests appear cyclical/happen every decade...

[Julio Arturo-Montez Beltre III]

What does the U.S do with the drugs that are seized on U.S soil? They put them back in the streets to round up more dealers and addicts. Whether its legally(pharmaceutical companies) dealt or illegal sold by drug barons and small time thugs.
Are we in other countries to help or help ourselves in the war on drugs? Like someone said we can only help by cutting down on the demand by addicts rich and poor. Let's cure the addiction that way we have no problem.

[eljefejesus]

Shocking that so many people could make so ignorant, conspiratorial comments, look at the facts!!!

Columbian crime has dropped dramatically, as has the drug-dealing FARC that lost its bad guerrila ways in favor of worse drug-funding ways, the terrorists and drug dealers have been so weakened that the government of Columbia can function again and its people can walk in safety. That is why their President Uribe maintains popular support, he brought security to a drug and guerilla ravaged nation

Now that the drug battles have been pushed from Columbia towards a closer supply territory in Mexico, wouldn't it be decent to complete the start of the war on drugs by including the neighboring country that is now getting ravaged because of it?

Mexican drug lords were assisted by Plan Columbia when it lacked any measure to reduce drug violence in Mexico.

Now it is time to make up for that failure that has caused so much misery and out-migration in neighbor Mexico.

Without ignorance, just based onfacts, including Mexico in "plan columbia" only makes sense. It would be irresponsible not to fight drugs in Mexico.

Consuming is still ok? Pushing the drug war to our neighbor is ok? Fighting drugs there is a nescessity.

[fran carter]

Mexico's poor human rights record and corrupt law enforcement....What A laugh have you ever tried to put a complaint towards the INS or any gov US Official? First INS puts the fear of God in you when you try to put a complain.
about year later some little gal calls you and claims they have found your report.
Don't ask for the outcome casue its all in house info, only and you will never know the outcome....I say clean your own house before you start throwing arrows on human rights on other countries!!!

[fran carter]

Mexico's poor human rights record and corrupt law enforcement....What A laugh have you ever tried to put a complaint towards the INS or any gov US Official? First INS puts the fear of God in you when you try to put a complain.
about year later some little gal calls you and claims they have found your report.
Don't ask for the outcome casue its all in house info, only and you will never know the outcome....I say clean your own house before you start throwing arrows on human rights on other countries!!!

[Roger]

Read a discussion of this item and the Mérida Initiative at WOLAblog, www.wolablog.typepad.com

[Floyd]

Thanks LA Times for a great presentation on an issue that is so widely ignored or misunderstood. On the drugs, guns and violence nothing is going to change until people rise up against politicians like Leahy and demand that drugs be regulated and taken out of the hands of gangs, cartels,terrorists and others who today profit from them. Without regulation we are not protecting young people from drugs, quite the opposite.

Thank you, Floyd

[Chris]

Not one of these people, Leahy or Carlsen mention those of us that will have to actually "pay" for these and other failed Government "war on____" programs. The Government will end up borrowing the money to pay for these programs from foreign countries that may be hostile to our foreign policies. It was these policies that shifted major drug trafficking centers from Venzuela to Mexico which has resulted in the worst border narco terrorism and an increase in the instability of the Mexican Government.

[Spencer]

As other commenters, wrote, really too bad that the Senator was not willing to truly debate the issues brought up by Laura Carlsen.

His response vis a vis Colombia was interesting, since it's basically saying that Plan Columbia's parallel purpose (and the only one whose objectives were met) was helping the Columbian military fight it's own civil war. I'm sure it was quite the surprise for the Senator, when it turned out that all those efforts aimed against drug-cartels had coincidentally helped turn the tide of the civil war, while failing in their stated goal.

The recent revelations of US-based private security contractors having trained Mexican police forces in torture tactics over the past several years (paid for thru US funded programs) really indicates what to expect from enhanced US-Mexican security cooperation. And parallel with the illegal mass-wiretapping scandal within the US, parallel aid programs helping the Mexican authorities develop their own total-surveillance computerized wiretap system has been a major focus of US aid to Mexico.

Laura Carlsen's comment on the disparity between NAFTA and the EU is quite interesting, though of course, un-responded to by the Senator. It's interesting that NAFTA 'renegotiation' has emerged as a 'topic' of some of the current presidential candidates, though only pertaining to the narrowly packaged range of issues thought to appeal to US workers... Even though Mexico has a huge range of issues which could be negotiated more to it's favor (from water issues to US agricultural subsidies, not to mention human rights and migration, all dealt with more comprehensively by the EU, for example.)

The glaring question is why the Mexican government was, and is content with the current status quo, when it's obvious that none of the poorer European countries would ever have agreed to joining the EU without being able to share in the Common Agricultural Subsidies and development funds, as well as worker migration rights.

Instead of focusing on narrow protectionist issues, it might be even more productive to insist on links with other countries that respect the wishes of their populations, not just their corrupt governments/ elites, which profit at their countrymen's expense as intermediaries of transnational corporations and foreign powers. Strangely similar to how the US is negotiating NATO military expansion and missile base agreements into countries whose populations don't want these agreements (Czech, Poland, Ukraine). But perhaps as the Mexican and US people's experiences get closer and closer together, with the joys of modern democratic Presidential 'elections' and 'free press', coordinated responses, to insist on policies in the interests of the people and not the rulers, may be effected across all borders.

RE: "The War on Drugs", since the late 50's/early 60's it has been known that Ibogaine (from the Iboga plant of West Africa) can be used to CURE the most serious addictions (including heroin, cocaine). Once knowledge of this plant started to spread in the West, it was promptly banned amongst the 'hardest' drugs by the US Government/ DEA... Because it causes 'spiritual experiences' when taken in potent dosages. "Fight on, soldiers"...

[Robert]

I'd like to applaud the LA Times for running this article. As mentioned above, it has been very difficult to find articles in the mainstream press that offer any critical analysis of Plan Mexico. Hopefully this is the beginning of a longer series of articles/debates.

This was not much of a debate though; Carlsen did a great job touching on relevant statistics and taking apart arguments that have been made for Plan Mexico. Unfortunately there was no actual exchange between the two pundits, and Leahy's arguments were characteristically thin, as he avoided pertinent questions about the plan and its implementation by retreating into the legislation itself.

I would like to see Leahy answer questions from Carlsen and vice versa. That would be quite interesting...

[Altha Cravey]

Thank you for this excellent informative debate on Plan Mexico. I appreciate the hard work Laura Carlsen is doing to get facts on Plan Mexico aka the Merida Initiative to the public. I also have expertise on Mexico and it is nearly impossible to get mainstream newspapers to print anything critical about this funding. I've tried letters to editors and op-eds. In any case, I simply want to applaud Laura Carlsen and the Los Angeles Times for providing some essential facts and perspective.

[Andrew Miller]

I have a hard time believing Plan Colombia is a "failure" - before Plan Colombia, COLOMBIA was a failure. So if Colombia is increasingly a success, and only Plan Colombia a failure, I think Colombia and the U.S. can live with that result.

That said, I am always aamazed by how much money goes into the war side of the equation and how little goes into the demand side. - especially with rehard to drugs. Why isnt money poured into treatment programs? A war on addiction , say. That would certainly reduce demand for certain drugs. That would change the supply side. Also, increasingly the trade is changing - synethitics are coming back into use and populairtiy , so perhaps coca cultivation is looking increasingly out of place.

[Ricardo]

Hasn't the US learned yet the results of "Plan Colombia"? Bilions of dollars to military contracters and for weapons makers, and cocaine production has like quintupled! The war on drugs is really a war on the poor to soften countries up for the privatization of their resources. In Mexico it is Pemex. Nothing whatsoever to do with drugs human rights or all the other bu^&*(t excuses we are constantly bombarded with.

[Christine]

This is an excellent format for learning more about an issue, the side by side approach. The advocate is great and to the point. Senator Leahy, on the other hand, has lost any semblance of respect I may have afforded him. They really are entirely out of touch in the hinterlands of Vermont, and he was supposed to be one of the more informed Senators. meaning, he knows the murderous uses US money is put to, yet he still speaks in this bureacraticease. I just don;t understand why we keep providing money and not demand accountability first, rather than wait for State reports that will obscure and befuddle.