Cooperation with Transparency

With the understanding that drug trafficking and organized crime are phenomena whose repercussions cross borders, transnational cooperation is crucial for effectively combating the problem. No country can face the large criminal organizations on its own. Nevertheless, all collaboration should depend on solid legal support, and transparency is likewise important in guaranteeing that it operates in total accordance with the law and with complete respect for national sovereignty.

In this vein, the joint announcement made yesterday by Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs and the U.S. Department of State about the initiation of programs in which the United States will provide training and equipment to the police in Chihuahua, Tamaulipas, and Nuevo León is welcome, since in the struggle against organized crime, our country’s police forces presently lack the structure and strength to effectively carry out their mission.

It is good that this cooperation is being demonstrated with action. But this is not enough. The terms of these operations must be made very clear to the public. There is no place for opacity, as was demonstrated by events that occurred in Tres Marías, where a confused attack against U.S. agents transpired, presumably during training duties. In this case, many doubts still remain.

It is true that in the fight against criminal organizations some information must remain classified for the sake of national security, but this doesn’t mean, under any circumstance, that the participation of foreign agencies should be granted a completely veiled framework. It must be specified which foreign institutions will be responsible in this mission and under which guidelines. Providing the public with this necessary information doesn’t mean revealing our plans of action to the enemy.

If public opinion is unfamiliar with the legal terms of the cooperation between both nations, properly distributing the accountability will become more complicated when something turns out badly. Moreover, relying on openness in this sense will permit evaluation of the effects of these programs, showing when it is time to promote them on a larger scale if they are yielding results, or when it is necessary to reconsider them if they don’t perform as expected, as could occur if better trained forces were to end up on the side of the criminals.

The implementation of security policy is the business of governments, of course, but society at large must be included in this equation so that the struggle remains democratic, not authoritarian.