Helms right to worry about Weld nomination

By Richard Estrada / The Dallas Morning News

Just as William F. Weld was beginning to imagine the scrumptious tacos
he would be enjoying as ambassador to Mexico, the White House began
wondering the other day whether he wouldn't prefer the zesty curry of
New Delhi instead.

But in a scorching press conference held at the Massachusetts Statehouse
several days ago, Mr. Weld said no. In effect, the Republican governor
observed that he already had ordered from the menu of ambassadorships
and didn't recall having asked to see the list again, thank you.

Though President Clinton now promises to fight for Mr. Weld's
nomination, the matter is turning out badly for the president. What was
supposed to be a slam dunk nomination is costing excess time, effort and
political capital. Still, Mr. Clinton has no one to blame but himself.
At this critical juncture in U.S.Mexico relations, the post demands the
naming of an ambassador who is known to support stated administration
policy on major issues such as free trade and drugs.

There is no doubt about Mr. Weld's commitment to free trade, which is at
the top of the administration's agenda when it comes to Mexico. But here
is the real question: Is Mr. Weld so much a free trader that he would
fail to exert meaningful pressure on the Mexican government in the
matters of official corruption and drug trafficking? In this regard,
both Mr. Weld and the administration are on trial in the controversy
surrounding his nomination as ambassador to Mexico.

Most political pundits in Massachusetts and Washington agree that Mr.
Clinton tapped Mr. Weld for the Mexico City post largely on the basis of
Massachusetts Democratic politics and the political ambitions of Rep.
Joseph P. Kennedy III. Mr. Weld's departure from state politics would
improve (but not guarantee) Mr. Kennedy's chances to become governor.

What Mr. Clinton never foresaw was the opposition to Mr. Weld's
nomination by Sen. Jesse Helms, the North Carolina Republican. As
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Helms has
promised to destroy Mr. Weld's chances as envoy to Mexico merely by
refusing to schedule a hearing on his confirmation.

When it comes to an ambassadorship for Mr. Weld, says Mr. Helms, India
s’, Mexico no. Mr. Helms says he is appalled by Mr. Weld's drug
prosecution record as U.S. attorney in Boston. At a time when Mexico,
drugs and corruption are major issues on the binational agenda, Mr.
Helms won't support a nominee with weak drug credentials.

But Mr. Weld characterizes Mr. Helms' stated reasons as a smoke screen.
He is casting the fight with Mr. Helms as a battle for the heart and
soul of the GOP. Mr. Helms may speak of drugs, says Mr. Weld, but he
really is concerned over Mr. Weld's moderate positions on issues such as
abortion. According to Mr. Weld, it is a battle between oldfashioned
conservatism and enlightened moderation.

Mr. Weld's counterattack actually may have begun in late June, when
exDrug Enforcement Administration chief John Lawn, a Reagan appointee,
portrayed Mr. Weld as a tough prosecutor in an opinion piece in the Los
Angeles Times. Yet while Mr. Lawn's defense of Mr. Weld may be an
accurate still photograph, it has nothing to do with the motion picture
of Mr. Weld's public life.

Mr. Weld's support of medical marijuana legislation as governor is only
one scene missing from Mr. Lawn's picture. Yet another is the
administration's own sleight of hand in tapping Mr. Weld after the White
House and its drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, loudly opposed medicinal
marijuana legislation, which Mr. Weld signed into law in Massachusetts
earlier this year.

If a McCaffreyWeld contradiction is problematical, so is the
possibility of a parallel between the two individuals. The former
fourstar general's military record was widely underscored at the time
of his appointment as drug czar, but he has since been criticized for
softpedaling Mexican officialdom's lax or even corrupt response to drug
trafficking.

Did the White House settle on Mr. Weld as an ambassadorial nominee with
law enforcement credentials in the expectation that he would come in
under radar during Senate confirmation hearings? Was the expectation
that he then would proceed to safeguard free trade for the sake of free
trade by not daring to stand up aggressively to official drug corruption
in Mexico?

Mr. Weld may disagree with Mr. Helms' substantive reasons for seeking to
thwart the governor's diplomatic ambitions. But it is narcissistic for
Mr. Weld to be calling attention to his role in a drama about internal
GOP politics. What should be of far greater concern to Americans is Mr.
Weld's role as a barometer by which to measure the truthfulness of the
Clinton administration's position on Mexico and drugs.