By Peter Gellert
MEXICO CITY — US government certification of Mexico's efforts to counteract drug trafficking have unleashed a storm of protest here.
Washington's yearly certification process comes on the heels of several weeks of new and major scandals that have placed the problem of drug trafficking and its influence on all levels of government at centre stage in Mexican political life.
- <~>In mid-February, General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, the government's anti-drug tsar, was discovered to be working with, and in the pay of, drug cartels. He has been accused of passing sensitive information, including from the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), to Mexican drug lords.
- <~>Leading families, including members of former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari's family, have been accused of involvement in the narcotics trade.
- <~>Two top state governors, from Sonora and Morelos, have been publicly accused by the New York Times of having ties with drug trafficking.
- <~>On February 28, suspected drug trafficker Humberto Garcia Abrego was allowed to walk free even though he was in detention and under questioning at the National Anti-drug Institute at the time. The information was withheld from the public and the press until the news of Clinton's certification was in.
To be sure, drug addiction is barely a social problem in Mexico, and in any event invariably involves sniffing glue or smoking marijuana, hardly the stuff moved by drug lords.
While no reliable statistics exist, domestic consumption of hard drugs is minimal. As the Mexican press and public figures have repeatedly pointed out in recent days, it is demand from the US market that drives the drug trade.
Thus, certification has been universally rejected across the political spectrum as yet another open intrusion into Mexican affairs and an attempt to divert attention from the source of the problem: US domestic consumption and the inability of US law enforcement authorities to crack down on drug lords and the drug trade. The White House is widely viewed as employing a double moral standard, given its poor results in combating drug use and money laundering in its own country.
Even the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), normally more cautious in its public opposition to Washington, has been unusually vocal in its declarations, in part because its own state governors are under the spotlight.
Although in the end — and as expected — Clinton gave Mexico its certification, in a move considered a response more to political considerations than any progress on Mexico's part, the very possibility of being rejected by Washington threw Mexican financial and exchange markets into a mini-crisis.
Within a few days, the Mexican stock exchange index fell and the currency depreciated overnight by about 3%, to eight pesos to the US dollar, the greatest drop in four months. While a major catastrophe was averted by Clinton's announcement, events of recent days once again show how vulnerable Mexico's economy remains.
Mexican public opinion is asking what concessions President Ernesto Zedillo made to obtain certification.
Despite government denials, the press has speculated that these concessions include: disbanding the National Anti-drug Institute and its replacement with a DEA-type division; increasing the number of DEA agents operating in Mexico and allowing them a greater role inside the country, including the right to carry arms; stepping up extradition of drug traffickers to US courts; and greater use of new laws against money laundering.
Mexican officials say many of these measures were adopted independently of the certification dispute, and point out that the Finance Ministry has stepped up investigations into money laundering, including 40 in collaboration with US government agencies.
But Mexico has not yet cleared the final hurdle, as the US congress may rescind Clinton's certification. Should this occur, it would have far-reaching effects on US-Mexican relations and the country's economy.