Mexico and the World
Vol. 3, No 1 (Winter 1998)
http://www.profmex.org/mexicoandtheworld/volume3/1winter98/mexico_funandfolly.html

Los Angeles Times, May 11, 1997

Mexico; the Fun and Folly of Attack Politics

Sidney Weintraub

U.S. policy toward Mexico has been buffeted by two diametrically opposed views on how Washington can best obtain maximum action from Mexico City on the fight against narcotics trafficking. President Bill Clinton's visit to Mexico last week again brough t a version of the clash out in the open.

Essentially, one side contends that ultimatums are the best stimulant: Unless Mexico extradites most or all its drug lords accused of trafficking by U.S. prosecutors, and permits American drug agents to carry sidearms while on duty in Mexico, U.S. supp ort for loans to Mexico should cease. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is closely identified with this view.

The other side insists that seeking cooperation through threats will not work, because Mexico is ultrasensitive to any perceived infringement of its sovereignty in its U.S. relations. This is the Clinton administration's view, which prevailed in the dr ug-certification battle.

This difference in approaches plays out in many areas. Should senior U.S. officials openly attack Mexico for its corruption or instead seek precise ways to overcome particular problems by closer cooperation in, say, detecting money laundering?

U.S. legislators cannot be held to the same restrictions as administration officials. Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) recently attacked the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) for its long, authoritarian rule, then said that just about any other p arty would be better. But his outburst came at the time when the PRI was conceding state and municipal elections to its main opposition. Opinion polls in Mexico show that the more U.S. politicians attack the PRI, the more support they drum up for the part y.

Many U.S. attacks are motivated by domestic U.S. politics. This was evident in the anti-immigrant, anti-trade position of Patrick J. Buchanan as he sought the Republican nomination for president. Gov. Pete Wilson surely had his gubernatorial campaign i n mind when he supported Proposition 187, which denies public services, including education, to Mexican and other immigrants illegally in California. But to give these politicians some due, attacks sometimes work. Colombia did more to go after narcotics t raffickers after the country was decertified than it did previously. Mexico agreed to discuss migration issues only after the U.S. made clear it would act forcefully to prevent illegal border crossings.

Yet, for anyone familiar with the contentious U.S.-Mexican history, it strains credulity to believe that any Mexican president would cave in to U.S. demands in the face of what its population considers blackmail. President Ernesto Zedillo needs no remi nding that the violence and corruption associated with the drug trade has the potential to destroy Mexico's social fabric. He has said as much, over and over again, from day one. He also knows he made an egregious error in the appointment of his drug czar . He can act to rectify his errors if this is seen as being in the Mexican national interest. He could not survive as a viable leader if he were seen as taking these actions in order to mollify some domestic U.S. concern.

During his visit to Mexico, Clinton took the approach that a public demonstration of friendship would be more effective in obtaining cooperation than bitter public denunciations. He conceded, for example, that the narcotics problem has two facets, the large U.S. demand and the ability of traffickers to supply the craving. The governments reached agreements to deal with money laundering and gun running from the U.S. to Mexico. While insisting that the U.S. has the right and obligation to act against ill egal immigration, Clinton acceded to Mexico's point that the human rights of migrants, legal or otherwise, must be respected. The agreements are largely symbolic. More germane is whether they'll stimulate more constructive Mexican responses than open atta cks.

Clinton probably should brace himself for denunciations at home from political opponents in both parties who insist that he should have gone to Mexico as a lion, but instead behaved like a kitten. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) already has asserte d that drug certification granted to Mexico should be put on a short leash and if no progress is evident in a few months, punitive congressional action should follow. Weeks earlier, he said that the rationale of certification should be reexamined because of its ineffectiveness as a drug-fighting tool. He is playing this both ways.

But this is Gingrich talking, not the president of the United States. Had Clinton taken the short-leash approach to the narcotics issue, the internal Mexican political reaction probably would have forced Zedillo to insist on the withdrawal of all agent s of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and to shut off the extensive dialogue that now takes place on this issue. There is evidence that Mexican authorities looked the other way when DEA agents carried firearms even though they were not supposed to . After this was made a major condition by those seeking to bludgeon Mexico into cooperation, this practice of "not seeing" will be harder to continue; and if there is an incident affecting an innocent bystander because the Mexican authorities looked the other way when a DEA agent used his gun, there will be hell to pay politically in Mexico. And, as we know in U.S.-Mexico relations, if Murphy's law can work, it will

How does attack politics against foreigners play with the U.S. electorate? The answer is mixed. It helped Wilson's reelection. Buchanan did better than expected. Attacks play well in the media because they are dramatic, whereas patient diplomacy is bor ing. Yet, there is evidence that the majority of the public can distinguish between loudmouths who take cheap shots that lead nowhere and more patient leaders who seek to make progress, even if slowly. Gov. George W. Bush of Texas, who advocates cooperati on with Mexico, is being talked about as a potential Republican nominee for president in the year 2000, whereas Wilson bombed last year when he tried this.

Domestic grandstanding, with Mexico as the target, has its political and publicity rewards. It need not be fatal to U.S.-Mexico relations, because the sophisticates in Mexico have learned by now to distinguish between what a congressperson or senator s ays and official U.S. policy. But if the political posturing came from a senior administration official, especially from the president, the damage to overall relations, and to two-way cooperation, would be substantial. It is one thing to shout from the si delines, but Theodore Roosevelt was right, that those actually in the game are best advised to speak softly even as they act firmly.