Details, details… or where there’s a way, there’s a Will

The United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate have approved spending bills that are specifically for the U.S. wars against Afghanistan and Iraq… and — oh yeah — Mexico (er, Mexican suppliers of agricultural products the United States government would rather not enter the country). The two bills need to be reconciled before passage.

Two points. It’s not unusual for spending bills in the United States Congress to include issues not related to the main point, but including Mexican anti-narcotics spending in a bill related to two wars undercuts the loudly applauded (in the United States) that there is “light at the end of the tunnel” in the so-called “War on Drugs”. Iraq and Afganistan are, at least, countries that you can find on a map. Is this money for a “war” on drugs… or on Mexico?

The Senate version is up-front about using these funds to support U.S. industry:

The Senate bill would prohibit the use of U.S. funds to provide fuel or logistical support for aircraft Mexico has purchased with its own money. It would require that communications equipment provided to Mexico be compatible with equipment used by U.S. agencies.

Second point: It’s a contradiction for a bill that provides for lethal equipment to also insist on certain human rights concerns: it’s a given that if you sell someone a gun (or helicopters or “forensics and nonintrusive inspection equipment, computers, training and fixed and rotary wing aircraft”) they’re going to be used, against whomever the “enemy” is at the time. And I think the Mexicans — from all political persuasions — who initially objected to U.S. attempts to put strings on the military assistance under the guise of “human rights” on the grounds that it also compromised Mexican national security had a valid point.

Still, given that the United States is forcing this “war” on Mexico, it is not unreasonable to try to keep the equipment used by the Mexicans limited to the U.S. objective. While one could (but I won’t) point out this means the United States expects to use the Mexican forces as a contractor in its own now officially non-existent “war on drugs”, the Senate version specifically requires the Mexican government to “do something” about completely unrelated issues.

… it would require the State Department … to support a thorough, independent, and credible investigation of the murder of American citizen Bradley Roland Will.” Will, an independent journalist, was shot and killed while covering a crackdown on protests in Oaxaca, Mexico, in 2006.

While Will’s death (I hesitate to call it “murder” because it may have been — but probably wasn’t — an accident) should be investigated, pressure on the Federal government to investigate a state police action during a political demonstration has nothing to do with narcotics sales and distribution. It does, however, have everything to do with people in the United States DEMANDING the Mexican Federal Government over-ride its own legal and political system (modeled on the United States Constitution, by the way) and demanding special rights for U.S. citizens at the expense of Mexican civil rights.

I don’t doubt that the “Friends of Brad Will” have the best interests of Mexico in mind.  I question whether convincing the United States Senate to include investigations into the demise of an unaccredited journalist who was illegally intruding in Mexican political affairs doesn’t also justify the same “special rights” for well-connected foreigners that was at the heart of that demonstration… and of a lot of other human rights abuses in Mexico.