Analysis : Mexico’s Arrest of DEA Agent Raises Doubts on Joint Anti-Drug Efforts

Charges that Mexican police tortured a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent whom they arrested not long ago in Guadalajara have introduced a substantial note of discord into recent attempts to harmonize anti-drug cooperation between the United States and Mexico.

It is difficult to predict the ultimate consequences of the controversy, but in at least one area--the presence of DEA agents in Mexico--the future level of bilateral cooperation has been thrown into question.

On Saturday, Mexican Atty. Gen. Sergio Garcia Ramirez said that DEA activities here may have to be changed.

“This is something we have to review with U.S. authorities,” he declared, echoing comments made earlier by the Mexican Foreign Ministry and other officials here.

Just over two weeks ago, Garcia and U.S. Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III met in Washington to pledge cooperation against drug trafficking. On Saturday, Garcia Ramirez said he would soon be in touch with Meese to discuss not the new programs but problems supposedly brought about by the DEA presence in Mexico.

The conflict erupted when U.S. officials charged that Jalisco state police in Guadalajara tortured DEA agent Victor Cortez Jr. on Aug. 13. The immediate Mexican response was evasive and defensive, but eventually, 11 policemen were charged with abuse of authority and inflicting bodily injury, though not with torture.

However, the Mexican response also brought to light displeasure with perceived U.S. bullying of Mexico.

In answer to official U.S. complaints over the treatment of Cortez, the Foreign Ministry complained last week that the United States, through “unauthorized” activities of the DEA, was trampling Mexican sovereignty.

In a diplomatic note, the Foreign Ministry treated as a new and disturbing discovery reports that DEA agents in Mexico carry out investigations of drug trafficking.

Such activity has been common knowledge at least since the murder of DEA agent Enrique S. Camarena in early 1985. Camarena is believed by the U.S. authorities to have been tortured and killed by Guadalajara-based drug traffickers. U.S. officials accused elements of the Jalisco state police of a role in kidnaping Camerena and delivering him to his killers.

Last week’s Foreign Ministry note asserted that DEA activities are specifically limited to “exchange of information” with Mexican federal police. Mexico will take care of the rest, the note added.

The note charged that DEA agents, by going beyond the scope of authorized activities, “may be giving room to tensions between the two governments” and purposefully sabotaging U.S.-Mexican cooperation.

In addition, the Foreign Ministry went to some lengths to to discredit Cortez.

The note said that Cortez, who carried no identification when arrested, was traveling in a car with a known criminal. The car bore improper license plates and contained illegal weapons, the note said. Such behavior, the note suggested, was not appropriate to a foreigner accredited as a consular diplomat, which is the official status of DEA agents working in Mexico.

Sensitivity about the DEA appears in part to reflect unhappiness here with a recent flood of comments in the United States about high-level corruption in Mexico linked to drug traffic.

Among other things, U.S. officials testified at a recent series of U.S. Senate hearings that Mexico is riddled by corruption and that hardly any law enforcement official can be trusted. The governor of one state in Mexico was accused of growing opium and marijuana, and a relative of Mexican President Miguel de la Madrid was cited as having ties to drug smuggling.

None of the allegations were greeted with joy in Mexico. The DEA is considered the source of the charges, hence the complaint in the Foreign Ministry’s note about inaccuracies and exaggerations.

Privately, U.S. officials here considered the remarks about DEA activities in general, and about Cortez in particular, to be a smoke screen.

They were displeased that the Mexican government decided to divert attention from the fundamental issue of whether or not Cortez was tortured. The Cortez case, U.S. officials felt, was an opportunity for Mexican law enforcement officials to probe connections between police in Guadalajara and drug traffickers.

U.S. officials also scoffed at assertions that DEA agents in Mexico have overstepped their authorized bounds by investigating drug smuggling. They rejected the idea that, because DEA agents are listed as consular officials, the agents should not roam Mexican streets gathering information.

“What does the Mexican government want the agents to do?” one U.S. official asked. “Sit in their offices and hand out visas?”

Should Mexico decide to limit the DEA to strict “exchange of information” and forbid DEA investigations, it would probably result in a reduction of their number in Mexico, now estimated at 30.

Even if Mexico takes no direct action against the DEA, U.S. officials are concerned that the rhetorical give-and-take may chill relations between DEA and Mexican agents and thereby knock out a good part of day-to-day cooperation at a time when the two countries are supposed to step up joint anti-drug efforts.