Differences Dogged U.S.-Mexico Summit : Despite Reagan-De la Madrid Neighborliness, Friction Persisted

Despite their frequent expressions of neighborliness, the leaders of the United States and Mexico were dogged by important differences during last week’s presidential summit here.

President Reagan’s meeting with President Miguel de la Madrid produced U.S. commitments to help Mexico overcome its economic problems and, from both sides, promises of renewed efforts to curb cross-border drug traffic from Mexico. Everything was couched in such terms as “reconciliation,” “friendship” and “cooperation.”

Unresolved conflicts persisted, however, with friction in some cases developing over methods of achieving agreed-upon goals rather than over the goals themselves.

Some senior Mexican officials left this border town irritated with U.S. pressure on them to make foreign and domestic policy changes. This irritation reflected the often uneven relationship between the two countries: In U.S.-Mexican face-offs, it is usually the United States that makes suggestions and Mexico that fends them off.

The most evident and, for the time being, insurmountable difference between the two nations concerns Central America, where the Reagan Administration supports right wing rebels trying to overthrow the Marxist-led government of Nicaragua. Mexico opposes U.S. backing for the so-called contra guerrillas.

Mexican Leader’s Own Words

Publicly, Reagan tried to put De la Madrid on the spot by recalling some of the Mexican leader’s own words in support of democracy and against dictatorships.

“Mexico and the U.S. can and should stand shoulder to shoulder in support of democracy in this hemisphere,” the U.S. President said.

Privately, Administration officials said that the two sides “agreed to disagree” about Central America.

Senior Mexican officials viewed as hypocritical Reagan’s admonishing De la Madrid to support democracies over dictatorships.

“If Reagan meant what he said, then (Gen. Augusto) Pinochet should be very worried,” said one official, refering to the Chilean dictator whose government receives little criticism from Reagan and no active opposition.

Yet in comparison with the past, De la Madrid played down Central America, confirming only Mexico’s longtime support for a negotiated settlement of conflicts in the region.

Asked to explain the de-emphasis of Central America during the talks, Mexican officials said that economic issues have become more acute and therefore required more attention. They rejected suggestions that Mexico is abandoning Nicaragua in the face of U.S. hostility.

“It is offensive to Latin America that the United States finances the overthrow of a Latin American government,” a senior Mexican official said.

The joint Mexican-U.S. drive against narcotics traffic produced the summit’s only public, if modest, new agreement. The governments agreed to hold a hemispheric conference of top level justice officials to coordinate anti-smuggling campaigns.

The decision was another step in smoothing over what had become one of the most aggravating issues dividing the two countries.

Drugs erupted as a bilateral diplomatic problem last spring when U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency officer Enrique S. Caramena was tortured and murdered in Mexico. Initial Mexican bungling of the case, in part due to widespread corruption, angered Reagan Administration officials.

Unhappy Mexican Officials

On the eve of the summit, U.S. officials asserted that narcotics could quickly erode Mexico’s political stability. Mexican officials were unhappy at this suggestion that Mexico is somehow on the verge of chaos and the larger implication that Mexico bears the main responsibility for the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

Privately, Mexican officials were scornful of U.S. pressure on Mexico to crack down on narcotics smuggling because they see the use of marijuana, cocaine and heroin going virtually unpunished north of the border.

“The lack of control of consumption provokes worry in Mexico,” a high-ranking official said. “Without a brake on consumption, other efforts to control traffic are not effective.”

Publicly, De la Madrid echoed the call of other Latin officials that the United States should try harder to curb consumption of drugs.

By all accounts, Mexico’s economic problems got a sympathetic hearing from Reagan. The United States is expected to help Mexico arrange new loans this year to prop up Mexico’s deteriorating economy. Even in this area there were conflicts, however.

Mexico’s Inflation

The U.S. side emphasized that Mexico has far to go toward controlling inflation and public spending. In response, De la Madrid reminded Reagan how difficult it has been for his Administration to reduce its own budget deficits.

Disagreement broke out over the receptiveness of Mexico to foreign investment, a favorite theme of U.S. officials.

The Administration believes Mexico should permit more foreign investment, seeing that as an efficient way to stimulate the economy.

Before the summit, an American official criticized Mexico’s expressed fears about foreign economic domination, pointing out that foreign holdings at present account for no more than 4% of the Mexican economy. De la Madrid countered during the summit by saying that Mexico is indeed open to foreign investment and that it compares favorably with such countries as Brazil in the number of new foreign companies it has recently allowed to enter.

Mexican officials said that U.S. figures on foreign investment are misleading. The 4% figure is correct, they said, but does not take into account the share of foreign ownership of firms in the manufacturing sector of the economy.