By Patrick Corcoran

The debate over the Mérida Initiative is in full swing, with both the “yeas” and the “nays” taking to the media to make their cases. It has not been illuminating.

“[T]he initiative will give Mexican security forces the material and technical advantages they need to defeat the criminals,” writes U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza, who is in favor of the aid package. "American taxpayers should not foot the bill for military and police forces with histories of abuse," says Amnesty International’s Renata Rendón, who is not. Both arguments have serious flaws.

For those in favor of the aid package, which was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week and would deliver US$1.4 billion in military hardware and training to Mexico over the next three years, it’s a matter of hospitality. Mexico is in grave danger, and what kind of neighbors would we be if we turned our backs on them?

But the same people don’t have a whole lot to say about how exactly American gifts will help Mexico. Anyone who knows a bit about the security situation here can tell you that Mexico is not just a few helicopters shy of conquering the drug cartels. The challenge is far more complicated. Mexico’s contingent of dirty cops, which author Ricardo Ravelo estimates at one-half the total, will remain corrupt despite the influx of dollars. That represents a much more immediate threat to Mexico’s safety than a firepower deficit.

Even the money set aside for training will have a limited impact, because officials’ lack of training isn’t really the issue – loyalty is. Will the Mérida Initiative be able to increase officers’ loyalty to the Mexican state?

Another question for supporters: if Mexico’s security is so important to the United States, why don’t they propose laws to crack down on the sale of automatic weapons in southern states? A huge proportion of the assault rifles that wind up in the cartel’s hands come from gun shows in Texas and other border states. Taking weapons out of the cartels’ hands would be a much more effective way of leveling the playing field than giving more firepower to the police. The initiative does aim to cut down on smuggling, but giving billions to Mexico to accomplish that goal is like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Of course, contemplating enhanced gun control would really require a sacrifice from Republican lawmakers, much more so than cooking up an aid package using taxpayers’ money.

Backers of the initiative also need to set some goals. Garza refers to defeating the criminals, but if cartels still exist in five years will that mean the initiative failed? Taxpayers and lawmakers alike need to be able to measure the success of our investment. Instead of specifics, pro-initiative commentators talk endlessly about increased cooperation. As any kindergartner can tell you, cooperation is great, but Mexico and the United States have become ever more cooperative over the past decade and a half, and the security situation has steadily deteriorated. So how will this cooperation be any different?

These issues remain largely unaddressed, which is in itself a powerful argument against the initiative. However, the opponents focus their opposition solely on complaints about human rights. Yes, the army has committed some violations, and unfortunately that will continue to be the case for as long as the army is deployed. But even a sporadically abusive army is several orders of magnitude better than the cartels. After all, abusing other humans is a fundamental part of running a cartel.

A more important question than whether the military has committed abuses is whether Mexicans would be better off with the military or the cartels as the final authority? On this there can be no debate. The army does not systematically assassinate police officers, it does not kidnap business leaders, and it does not cut the heads off of its enemies.

I remain utterly unconvinced that American money is the answer to Mexico’s security problems, but if human rights is the prism through which you want to view the issue, there’s no question that in Mexico’s contested zones the army is more humane than any immediate alternative.

I am deeply ambivalent about the agreement. I think it is unlikely to do a great deal of good, as Mexico’s problems go far beyond a few helicopters and fancy surveillance equipment. At the same time, the opposition is utterly unconvincing; concern for human rights is laudable, but it doesn’t provide any clues as to how to make Mexico safer.

As much as I wish that the initiative’s backers had presented it with more clarity, I tend to think that a country with an annual GDP of US$13 trillion can spend US$1.4 billion on an issue that is both partly its responsibility and a serious security threat.

——————————

Patrick Corcoran, a MexiData.info columnist, is a writer who resides in Torreón, Coahuila. He blogs at Gancho.