TIME FOR A RESET IN U.S.-MEXICAN RELATIONS

Mexican President Felipe Calderon will make his first full-fledged
visit to Washington this week since taking office 3 1/2 years ago.
Given the issues facing their countries, Calderon and President Obama
might be tempted to nickel-and-dime their encounter. But the time is
a ripe for a "big idea," not unlike what NAFTA -- warts and all --
was when it was proposed in 1990. Instead of narrowing everything
down to drugs, security and how the United States can best back
Mexico's war, the two countries should "de-narcoticize" their
relationship and make their goal Mexico's development and
transformation into a middle-class society.

Calderon has been battered by the effects of the international
economic crisis at home (Mexico's economy shrank 6.5 percent last
year); by 23,000 deaths in the drug war (257 deaths in early May
constituted the highest weekly toll since 2007); by opposition
intransigence to reforms and institutional gridlock; this past
weekend, by the kidnapping and possible death of the most influential
figure of his party for the past two decades; and by Arizona's new
immigration law, which is seen in Mexico as anti-Mexican. With the
2012 Mexican presidential campaign already underway, Calderon, on his
way to lame-duck status, would probably be content with raising a few
specific issues (trucking, American gun-running into Mexico),
obtaining a categorical restatement of U.S. support for Mexico's
fight against organized crime and one more acknowledgement of U.S.
responsibility for drug use.

Given his own domestic distractions and foreign policy priorities,
Obama would probably also prefer to simply reaffirm that irreflexive
or thoughtless or hasty commitment, repeat a few bromides about
Mexico's importance to the United States and wish his visitor a safe
journey home. It would be a mistake, however, to limit to drugs and
platitudes the first official visit by a Mexican president to
Washington since the eve of Sept. 11, 2001.

The presidents should place their difficult issues -- drugs and the
border, Arizona and immigration, the fragility of economic recovery,
climate change, nuclear proliferation (Mexico's U.N. Security Council
vote on Iranian sanctions will be crucial), Cuba and Venezuela, to
name a few -- in that context. Such challenges can be addressed only
in a larger framework; otherwise, they will become intractable or
collide with each other.

Consider the border. On paper, the two governments want freer flows
of legal goods, services and people but much tighter control over
illicit flows: people and drugs from south to north, guns, chemicals
and "blood money" from north to south. But what about the reality of
Arizona, where the Obama administration may have to send the National
Guard and against which Mexico has issued a travel advisory? Pressure
is also growing on Calderon to legalize marijuana if California does
so in November. Can these contradictory points be dealt with one by one?

What about human rights? After decades of authoritarian rule and a
justifiably poor image, Mexico began to put its house in order and to
promote the defense of human rights abroad, breaking with its
anti-interventionist past. But it faces justified criticism from
nongovernmental organizations, the United Nations, the Inter-American
legal community and the U.S. Senate for human rights violations
committed by its security forces in a war on drugs partly financed --
and otherwise supported -- by the U.S. State Department.

Mexico should propose, and Obama should welcome, a new stage in
bilateral relations whose purpose would be to build what NAFTA left
out and to reduce the development gap -- in income, welfare,
technology, security, rule of law, health and education -- between
Mexico and its wealthier North American partners. The label is
secondary to the substance: The concept must include immigration
reform in the United States; energy reform in Mexico; security
concerns in both countries but also convergence of standards and
regulations; and legitimate security and border issues across the
region, but addressed honestly. For instance, Arizona's crime rates
have dropped since immigration from Mexico began to rise in the late
1990s. It should strive to coordinate policies so that crisis in one
country -- say, swine flu in Mexico or Lehman Brothers in the United
States -- affects the other only proportionately.

A prosperous, democratic and equitable Mexico is greatly in U.S.
interests. If the United States is to rebuild its manufacturing base,
it will need Mexico. If it is going to compensate for its aging
population, enhance security and concentrate on real threats without
worrying about its borders, it will need Mexico. If it hopes to
establish different relationships with less affluent nations, by
preaching through example and constructing one next door, it will need Mexico.

And Mexico needs the United States if it aspires to become a
consolidated middle-class society, achieve needed economic growth,
and provide security and the rule of law for citizens and visitors.
All of this will not be achieved overnight, but it can be
accomplished in less than a generation if we begin today. Calderon's
meeting with Obama could be the "big idea" moment that starts us off.