ON MEXICO'S DRUG WAR, VAN DER HORST DISPLAYS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING

To the editor:

In addressing Mexico's war on drug cartels, Benjamin van der Horst
makes a slew of mistakes that hamper our understanding of the problem
- - in fact, the column ("Mexico's Drug War Hits Home," March 27) raises
concerns on account of its omissions, snap judgments and, yes, its
prejudice.

First and foremost, van der Horst fails to acknowledge that the
primary reason Mexico has to deal with these powerful and
well-established cartels is an outsize demand for drugs in the United
States. If demand were to vanish, so would supply lines - as well as
most if not all of the related violence.

Second, he bristles at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks
that the United States has to crack down on weapons suppliers inside
American borders. Van der Horst would like the government to let the
suppliers carry on and for Mexicans to do a better job of thwarting
arms trafficking, as is their responsibility. Well, that might be fair
under normal circumstances, but not when, as the Economist notes, "out
of 107,000 gunshops in the United States, 12,000 are close to the
Mexican border and their sales are much higher than the average."

Third, he dismisses the Mexican government's say on the drug issue
because he contends that Mexico has not improved its economy, thus
forcing laborers into the United States (an absurd association). Here,
van der Horst's argument conveniently elides that the United States is
(still) the most powerful economy in the world, and that its standard
of living and minimum wage are therefore much higher than those in
Mexico, and would likely remain so no matter how much economic
progress Mexico made during Vicente Fox's six-year term. On top of
that, the migration issue is not so much a matter of simple economics
as it is a deeply rooted cultural phenomenon fed by myriad factors.

I also wonder with what authority van der Horst proclaims the Mexican
government "woefully unable to beat the drug cartels." He cites
nothing and pompously implies that the U.S. would be stepping in to
clean up President Felipe Calderon's mess. In reality, the Mexican
government has made unprecedented strides. The Economist points out:
"In the past two years the government has seized huge quantities of
drugs (some 70 tonnes of cocaine, including 26 tonnes in a trawler, a
world record for a single haul), money (some $260m) and arms (31,000
weapons, including 17,000 of high calibre). It has also made more than
58,000 arrests."

The U.S. Congress has committed only $1.4 billion over three years to
help fight drug cartels; van der Horst can rest assured that Mexico is
still footing the lion's share of the bill - $9 billion a year. (Both
governments should spend more: the New York Times yesterday reported
that cartels outspend anti-drug efforts.)

Most appalling, by far, is van der Horst's crude and exploitative
conclusion: "Most importantly, the administration needs to keep
Mexico's drug wars in Mexico, not Atlanta."

It is not only misguided, it is downright cruel to suggest that the
United States should wash its hands of this conflict; that it should
sit back and bolt its borders while Mexico roots out America's drug
suppliers. Van der Horst despicably goes further by suggesting that
the American response should be to drive violence back into Mexico,
where Mexicans already have died by the thousands. Surely he can
recognize that by increasing its efforts to fight drug cartels, the
United States is working toward a future in which neither country has
to live in fear of drug violence.

It is admirable that he seeks increased protection for Americans, but
his proposed solution runs the risk of exposing the United States even
more, and in any case it is naive to think that this country could be
home to such a large population of drug consumers without the
occasional brush with violence.

To be sure, Mexico has many improvements to make if it wants to be rid
of drug cartels, but like it or not, this is an international problem
with steps to be taken individually and jointly by both countries. I,
for one, am grateful that the Obama administration has dutifully
recognized this reality.

Salvador Rizzo

Class of 2009.