HELP MEXICO WITH COSTS OF THE DRUG WAR

In Quebec tomorrow, a large U.S. aid package to Mexico -- reportedly
on the order of several hundred million dollars a year -- will be on
the agenda at a North American summit meeting with President Bush,
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe
Calderon. The eight-month-old Calderon government has repeatedly
called for substantial U.S. support to help stem the uncontrolled,
drugfueled violence that is subduing city after city in Mexico. For
the health of our southern neighbor's nascent democracy and the
strengthening of our own border controls, it is fundamental that the
United States and Mexico enhance their cooperation.

Indeed, a failure to heed the appeals for assistance at such a
critical juncture would be not only self-defeating for the United
States but highly irresponsible as well. As Calderon often points
out, the United States bears a significant responsibility for the
spreading violence and criminality in Mexico. U.S. consumption is
largely driving the drug trade, and the inability or, rather,
political unwillingness to control the sale and transport of arms
that end up in the hands of vicious drug gangs, is hard to defend.

But the United States needs to proceed cautiously. For understandable
historical reasons, Mexicans are very sensitive about protecting
their country's sovereignty, particularly from the United States. Not
surprisingly, U.S. military training on Mexican soil is prohibited.
True, such mistrust has declined somewhat in recent years.

Not too long ago, after all, Calderon's request for U.S. support
would have been met with opprobrium in Mexico. But the widespread
disapproval of the U.S. military-centered adventure in Iraq makes any
ratcheting up of anti-drug aid quite delicate.

In addition, the United States should look closely at its seven-year
experience in assisting Colombia in its fight against drug-fueled
violence within the framework of "Plan Colombia." (Predictably,
despite sharp differences between the two cases, the Mexico package
is commonly referred to as "Plan Mexico.") To date, the United States
has spent some $5 billion on that effort, which has yielded mixed
results -- scant progress in reducing drugs but some success in
improving security conditions.

For Mexico, the most relevant policy lesson of Plan Colombia is that
the main objective should be to bolster the legitimate authority of
the state and its capacity to protect citizens from violence, within
the rule of law. That means directing ample support toward improving
the performance of Mexico's police forces and judicial institutions.
To be sure, some military aid is also important to fight the heavily
armed cartels -- especially since this is the linchpin of Calderon's
own approach. But it would be a serious mistake if that element ended
up driving or dominating the U.S. assistance package, possibly
resulting in more human rights violations.

The Bush administration would also be wise to consult widely with
others in the hemisphere. It is worth recalling that such
consultations were not carried out as seriously and thoroughly as
they should have been in advance of Plan Colombia, which provoked
suspicions about U.S. motives that have hurt Colombia's relations
with some of its neighbors.

Though it will be impossible to completely dispel questions about the
aid package, U.S. leaders should seek input from other relevant
governments and explicitly state its intentions.

Risks and difficulties in pursuing such an enterprise abound.

Incompetence and corruption -- on both sides of the border -- should
not be underestimated. Despite their intense and diverse bilateral
relationship, mistrust between the United States and Mexico persists,
which could impede effective intelligence gathering and other
essential cooperative tasks.

But the situation in Mexico is extremely grave -- so far this year
drug-related violence has claimed more than 1500 Mexican lives. Last
year that figure topped 2000, a big jump from 2005. Today the United
States provides a paltry $16 million in counter-narcotics aid. Given
the shared responsibility that the United States must accept for this
tragedy, this country cannot remain on the sidelines.

Struggling to build a strong democracy after decades of authoritarian
rule, Mexico is paying a terrible cost for the U.S. appetite for
illegal drugs and lax gun laws and needs our help to level the
playing field with the well-financed traffickers. Of course even if
the United States and Mexico are able to reach agreement on a deal,
Iraq fatigue, mounting budget pressures and a sour aftertaste from
the NAFTA and immigration debates mean the plan will be a tough sell
in the U.S. Congress. But a well-crafted program could save lives on
both sides of the border and go a long way to repairing strained
bilateral relations.

As Bush rightly said on Sept. 5, 2001, Mexico is "our most important
relationship." Now that country, a close neighbor and ally, is going
through a very bloody period.

The key question is whether the Bush administration and U.S. Congress
will be able to match Calderon's leadership and forge a national consensus.

With so much at stake for both countries, are we prepared to support
Mexico in this struggle?