Acting with Dignity

Faced with the crisis in the bilateral relationship with its now uncomfortable partner to the south of the border, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is about to initiate the first in a series of high level visits that will culminate, in the middle of next month, with the presence of President Barack Obama in Mexico.

No one would doubt that this has occurred as a consequence of the bitter exchange of accusations and reproaches among governmental officials in both countries, topped off by Mexico’s commercial retaliation in reaction to the blocking of Mexican cargo trucks into the U.S.

On the agenda, out of necessity, is NAFTA and the proposal to partially renegotiate it, as well as drug trafficking, border security, and the limited resources in the Merida Initiative.

With respect to the trade agreement, it would never be too much to insist that advantage must be taken of this opportunity to make a comprehensive revision to the trilateral compromise, and not just to the sections of interest to the neighbor. It should be done with the purpose of ending the unjust disadvantages, such as those faced by Mexican exporters, eliminating abusive obstacles confronted in cargo transportation, and strongly promoting an agreement on migrant workers (including establishing strong measures against the hundreds of thousands of American citizens that work illegally in our country and are tolerated by the government).

With respect to the challenges raised by drug violence, Mexicans deserve a better deal than that implied by foreign “aid” with regards to security. Because on the one hand, while it is true that both governments should be equally responsible for a common problem on both sides of the border, it is also true that the demand in the U.S. market influences the great business of drugs and that the trafficking of arms to Mexico will not stop, since its sale is considered legal in grand scale to drug traffickers. It is equally true that in the United States, like here, there is great corruption among the authorities in charge of combating crime.

If there are groups operating here who introduce drugs onto American soil and others there distributing it, it is worth asking why the United States has not declared a corresponding war against drug trafficking and asking why measures imposed in the backyard are not acceptable in one’s own house.

The Merida Initiative places the government in Washington as the provider of military aid, logistics and intelligence so that it can be combated in the streets of another country, through blood and fire, without stopping for the minor details, such as the human rights of the civilian population, while the Obama administration strengthens its health system by giving attention to the millions of addicts that reside in its cities. For them, these social programs are directed towards attacking the problem of public health; for Mexicans, a state of martial law.

Therefore, a shared responsibility and cooperation should imply much more than the handing over of dollars and preconditioned praise towards the Mexican government in exchange for its subordination. But weakness by origin is an insurmountable condition for the Calderon government. Because of it, the government has bowed down time and time again to pressures from Washington, just like it gave into Nicolas Sarkozy and financial powers, as in the case of Banamex.

On these latter two issues, if anything can impede the handing over of the French delinquent and the flagrant violation of the Law of Credit Institutions, it is electoral calculation and a strong internal pressure opposing Calderon’s intentions and as a practicing key ally who, prompted by a disagreement that is strictly circumstantial, requires the resident of Los Pinos [Mexico’s presidential residence] fastening his belt to make decisions.

The margin at which internal pressures prevail or not, it is desirable that, for the good of country, Felipe Calderon realizes the convenience of acting with dignity and strength towards the arrogance of its neighbor, immune to the arguments, but sensitive to the powerful measures, however relative they may be.

However, the history of Calderon’s government leaves no room for optimism and, facing the eminent presence of Hillary Clinton and Obama, spreads wide distrust based on a government that has shown an excess of signs of ineptitude and appeasement.