Plan Mérida (or Mierda): do as we say, not as we do

I have yet to see any positive reaction in any Mexican media outlet to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s approval of “Plan Merida” — with conditions. While even those who welcome the funding (and equipment– or rather the funds to buy the equipment from favored U.S. contractors) recognize the whole thing is, as “Chaotic Order” rightly labels it in his comment “mierda”, the editorial in Monday’s Jornada is just short of one I saw in an Chilpancingo paper that called Felipe Calderón a “Santa Ana” for giving up Mexican sovereignty to the United States without so much as a peep. Santa Ana at least fought back, when it was convenient.

My translation:

The United States Senate Appropriations Committee has imposed a series of conditions for the approval of funds meant to combat narcotics trafficking and insecurity under the so-called “Mérida Initiative” or “Plan Mexico.” Among the requirements are certification by the State Department of the neighboring country that we have, in our country, begun “legal and judicial reforms”; establishing – under the control of authorities in Washington – a database of Mexican police and military forces to guarantee that … troops and police that receive funds are not involved in human rights violations or corruption.”

Also, the legislation demands that the office headed by Condoleezza Rice certifies that “Mexico is making progress in the prohibition against the judicial use of testimonies obtained by means of torture”. In addition, it requires that special agents of the Office of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives be allowed to operate in Mexico for the purpose of “tracking arms used by drug dealers”..

It is no secret that there is a high level of participation by police and military authorities in serious human rights violations, and it does not escape anyone’s attention that organized crime has manage to infiltrate these corporations to an alarming and scandalous degree. Nor is it unknown that torture continues to be used in our country. .

In that sense, the Senate Finance Committee demands could be morally reasonable, if it was not for their naked attempt to intervene in others’ affairs and the shameless hypocrisy of the thing.

On the one hand, the requirement that a dependency of the Washington government approve or disapprove of the performance of a sovereign nation in a particular area – in this case approving of human rights actions – is a return to the infamous process of “certification”, which was used for many years, by which the State Department rewarded or punished other states’ administrations, not for upholding individual guarantees, or for fighting crime, but for their political and ideological, or as a means to exert interventionist pressures.

The Mexican government always, as a matter of policy, has unequivocally rejected the pretension of the authorities of the neighboring country to apply their laws to other countries. As of now, it would be simply unacceptable for the Calderon administration to allow itself to be put under the scrutiny of, and dependent on, certification from Washington. Calderon’s presidency is seen as a sell-out by diverse sectors in society – especially in regards to its eagerness to transfer entire sectors of the oil industry to multi-national interests — and, given his administration’s questionable legimacy from the beginning, putting his administration under these constraints would entail a serious political cost internally. It is hoped Calderon will come to his own senses, and the sense of the nation in this matter.

To allow to a foreign power, wherever it is, to build a data base designed to “scrutinize” the Mexican armed forces would be an unconscionable abdication of basic national security obligations, unimaginable in any country.. Outside of any other objectionable aspects of the Merida Initiative, this single requirement formulated by the committee is sufficient reason to reject the agreement.

On the other hand, for the United States to verify respect for another nation’s respect for human rights is grotesque and frankly absurd, when one considers that on a global scale, the superpower is the principal violator of these rights. Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo, the CIA’s secret flights, the severe curtailment of their citizen’s liberties and individual guarantees, as well as the un-going crimes against humanity perpertrated in Afghanistan and Iraq – the inescapable conclusion is that the government of the United States has turned to murder, kidnapping, bombing civilians and general terrorism as State policy.

In addition, the administration of George W. Bush has declared that torture is legal, on condition that it is not called as such. With those antecedents, Washington lacks any moral authority to blame or to approve of third parties countries. Our country, given the massive impunity enjoyed by public servants who run rough-shod over citizens, faces a long struggle to guarantee our human rights. But the United States is not, in any sense, the referee of respect and legality in this land.

OUCH!