Engel Holds Hearing On $1.4 Billion Security Assistance Package For Mexico And Central America

Statement

Engel Holds Hearing On $1.4 Billion Security Assistance Package For Mexico And Central America

Congressman Eliot Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, is chairing a hearing today on the Bush Administration's $1.4 billion request for security assistance to combat drugs and drug-related violence in Mexico and Central America. Witnesses at the hearing include Jess Ford (Director of International Affairs and Trade at the Government Accountability Office), Ambassador Jim Jones (a former member of Congress and U.S. Ambassador to Mexico), Joy Olson (Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America), John Bailey (Professor of Government from Georgetown University) and Armand Peschard-Sverdrup (CEO of Peschard-Sverdrup and Associates and a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies).

The following is Chairman Engel's opening statement at today's hearing:

"It is my pleasure to welcome you to today's hearing on U.S. security assistance to Mexico. On Monday, the Bush Administration asked Congress to approve $1.4 billion over the next three years to help the Mexican government fight drug traffickers. The President has asked for the quick appropriation of $500 million for Mexico and an additional $50 million for Central America. I look forward to reviewing his proposal but let me be clear from the start: Congress was in no way consulted as this counter-narcotics package was developed. This is not a good way to kick off such an important bilateral effort to combat drug trafficking and drug-related violence in Mexico. Since my colleagues and I had no opportunity to be briefed on this aid package before it was released, we will have to carefully comb over every detail of the President's request in the coming weeks and months.

The U.S. inter-agency counter-narcotics community estimates that 90% of the cocaine that went from South America to the United States transited through Mexico in 2004 and 2005. And drug-related violence has left more than 4,000 Mexicans dead in the last two years. No one can deny the severity of this problem. Something must be done and as a country that consumes most of the drugs coming from Mexico, the United States has a moral responsibility to play a constructive role.

But in considering foreign assistance to Mexico, we must first think carefully about our goals. Is our goal to curb the amount of drugs entering the United States or is it to help Mexico and communities on the U.S.-Mexico border to improve their security? I believe both are noble goals. But if our goal is to curb drugs entering the United States, I hope we have learned by now that supply-side drug reduction strategies when executed alone are not enough. Mexico increased its transit capacity when the major drug cartels in Medellin and Cali, Colombia shut down. The closure of cocaine trafficking routes through Florida also pushed greater drug flows to Mexico. We should not be so naïve as to think that the defeat of Mexico's drug cartels alone will significantly reduce drug consumption in the United States. Drug traffickers can easily pick up once again and move on to new routes.

Even if we are successful in Mexico and Central America, experience tells us that this will not end drug production or trafficking. It will merely go elsewhere, and the logical place seems to be the Caribbean. Will the Merida Initiative merely steer the drug flows to the Caribbean, and particularly to Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere with the smallest capacity to handle the problem?

Colombia can serve as a helpful example. I believe that Plan Colombia has had a major impact in reducing homicides, kidnappings and massacres in Colombia. I just returned from Colombia where I saw the impressive results of President Alvaro Uribe's efforts to reduce violence throughout his country. But if we are to judge Plan Colombia on its originally intended purpose - to curb the illegal flow of drugs into the United States - it would not receive very high marks.

If we are really serious about reducing the amount of drugs on the streets and in the hands of our nation's children, then I believe we must develop a nationwide drug demand reduction strategy to complement our efforts on the supply side. I was pleased that the joint U.S. - Mexico statement on our security cooperation efforts noted that "the U.S. will intensify its efforts to address all aspects of drug trafficking, including demand-related portions." My staff saw the foreign assistance portion of the plan yesterday and asked what additional steps were proposed for demand reduction, but they did not receive a clear answer. I want to know from the Administration how they intend to meet this commitment to "intensify" demand reduction efforts in the United States.

In addition to reducing the demand for drugs here at home, one of the most important things we can do to help our neighbor to the south is to stop the flow of arms from the United States into Mexico. Mexican authorities estimate that more than 90% of the weapons that they confiscate were originally purchased in the United States. While U.S. - Mexican cooperation on arms sales has improved, gun laws in border states like Arizona, New Mexico and Texas do not limit the number of handguns and assault weapons one can purchase and make it easy for weapons to flow south of our border. The State Department tells us that the United States has signed and is in compliance with the Inter-American Convention against Arms Trafficking. I would like to know if that is true and, if so, why the Senate has not ratified the treaty.

Let me now say that I do believe it is critical for the U.S. to assist Mexico in combating its drug cartels which are responsible for far too much violence in Mexico and along the U.S. - Mexico border. As Maureen Meyer from the Washington Office on Latin America recently reported, the most alarming characteristic in the surge of drug-related violence in Mexico is not the sheer numbers of killings, but the brutal tactics adopted by drug traffickers. In recent years, this has included torture, execution and burning of rivals, severed heads being set on stakes in front of public buildings and in one instance being rolled across a dance floor in a nightclub.

I am also concerned about the harsh impact that drug violence has had on journalists in Mexico. Because of the risks associated with reporting on narco-trafficking, Mexico was recently ranked as the second most dangerous country in the world for journalists, after only Iraq. For instance, I am aware of the killing of Brad Will, a U.S. journalist and documentary filmmaker, who was shot on October 27, 2006 in Mexico. I would like an update from U.S. and Mexican authorities on the investigation into his death.

I am pleased that our counternarcotics program for Mexico includes technical and anti-corruption assistance for the justice system and vetting of Mexico's police. In the past, fear of corrupt Mexico security personnel has impeded cooperation between our countries. In that vein, I hope that we do not simply provide short-term assistance for a few elite police or military units. There are 24,000 federal police and over 425,000 state and local law enforcement officers in Mexico. Any police professionalization or anti-corruption training must be widespread, and the focus should be on long-term improvement of the entire police force.

I would be remiss not to discuss the $50 million in assistance requested for Central America. This Subcommittee has focused intensively on violence in Central America, and I am pleased to see that Central America is included in the President's request. I am also pleased to have learned that the assistance for Central America will include investments in youth gang prevention programs and the justice system, two areas that I believe are fundamental.

Finally, as I mentioned earlier, we must learn from the lessons of Colombia as we embark on this new campaign. Will the Merida Initiative be a multi-year, seemingly never-ending flow of hundreds of millions of dollars per year or is there an exit strategy? Is this only a security program or will we and the Mexicans follow security operations immediately with social assistance as the Mayor of Medellin, Colombia did so successfully when he demobilized the Escobar cartel is his city? And while we fight the drug trade in Colombia, and now Mexico and Central America, we must think about where the traffickers will go next, so that in the future we'll be better prepared.

I am honored to now introduce our distinguished witnesses who are joining us here today. On our first panel, Jess Ford, the Director for International Affairs and Trade at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will discuss his August 2007 report on U.S. counter-narcotics assistance to Mexico.

On the second panel, we are particularly pleased to be joined by a former colleague. Jim Jones represented Oklahoma here in Congress from 1973 to 1987 and also served as U.S. Ambassador to Mexico from 1993 to 1997. He is currently Co-Chairman and CEO of Manatt Jones Global Strategies. Joy Olson is the Executive Director of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) and we are pleased to welcome her back to the subcommittee. John Bailey is a Professor of Government at Georgetown University. And finally, Armand Peschard-Sverdrup is the Chief Executive Officer of Peschard-Sverdrup and Associates and a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. We are delighted to have such a distinguished group with us here today.

Thank you. I am pleased to call on Ranking Member Burton for his opening statement."

Source