Revising Criticism

I should point out that whatever my lack of enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton's declarations, the Mexican media was by and large quite positive. CNN en Español gave her several flattering minutes on its nightly broadcast on Mexico. Her remark that there is no piece of Mexican territory that is ungovernable earned a huge headline on the front page of Milenio. El Universal's editorial on her visit was likewise impressed:

The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, admitted yesterday, on Mexican soil, that the "insatiable" demand for drugs in the United States and the sale of arms on that side of the border are the causes of the bloodshed in Mexico by the part of drug cartels. A self-critical speech like never heard before from a high-level American official. The words serve, aside from calming the feelings of the Calderón Administration, to achieve the indispensable objective of carrying out thorough changes in the drug policy of that nation: attracting the attention of the US public opinion.

The principal media sources of our neighbor nation highlighted the declarations of Hillary Clinton beneath only the ongoing discussion of the federal budget. It's not a minor issue; usually Mexico doesn't appear on the screens and in the newspapers of the United States beyond the southern region of the country.

And what does that matter to us? Simple: Mexico is not an obstacle for the government of Barack Obama, if it wants to, truly elaborating an effective anti-drug policy. It's the prevailing dogma of the American people and the anti-Mexican feeling that persist among the population and the systematic refusal of the Congressman to invest more money in this country, whether it's more the purchase of technology or to enact temporary employment programs. A cultural resistance that makes it difficult for any politician to regulate the sale of arms on the other side of the Rio Grande or drive down drug consumption with something more than a simple prohibition.

The government of Barack Obama, in the voice of Hillary Clinton, must convince their people that helping Mexico means helping themselves and that, to accomplish this, making sacrifices is necessary. Otherwise, it will be impossible to do away with the longest lasting war in US history.

As I reconsider all this, I believe that Clinton's direct affirmation of the Mexican state's function deserves more credit than I gave it. Speaking with the voice of the American government, she affirmed her belief in and commitment to the Mexican government, which should overwhelm the mixed messages from the rest of the government, at least for a little while. However, I remain unconvinced that her words on the drug war are going to have much value. I understand the editorial's point about softening up the public, but if El Universal thinks that one comment from Clinton is going to have a measurable impact on American public opinion, it's off the mark. If Mexico is willing to wait for the American public to get behind legalization before its politicians act, that means decades. On the drug policy issues in which public opinion truly matters (i.e. legalization or decriminalization), the government is going to have to be leading the public, or we're all going to have to be really patient. Where public opinion doesn't matter as much (increasing the number of ATF agents to the southwest gun trade, reducing penalties for non-violent drug offenses, ramping up the use of drug courts), speeches are irrelevant; we just need the politicians to get on it.