Kidnaping Shows U.S. at Lawless Worst : Mexico: The actions of the court and the DEA indicate that for America, its southern neighbor is little more than a territory.

Recent American legal decisions and actions make one wonder whether the United States has something new in store for Mexico. The implication of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in February is that American law-enforcement agents are not required to follow due-process standards when operating in Mexico.

After the decision, American politicians and State Department officials politely attempted to stave off the outrage that erupted in Mexico by indicating that U.S. policy was not going to be based on the violation of the laws of other countries. Less than two months later, on April 3, the Drug Enforcement Administration staged the kidnaping of Dr. Humberto Alvarez Machain, a Mexican citizen. Alvarez, wanted by the American government in the 1985 murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena, was taken to the United States, where he was arrested. The agency claims that DEA personnel weren’t involved until the victim reached the United States, but that’s hardly a defense for what their henchmen accomplished. The DEA never made a formal request for extradition.

Comparisons are often unfair, but one wonders about the case of Panama’s Manuel A. Noriega. Is the U.S. government initiating a process against Mexico that will end like the Noriega case? Is it preparing the groundwork for an invasion of Mexico? The questions may sound ludicrous, but the issue is not: The above incidents are specific examples of U.S. actions that violate Mexico’s laws. The U.S. Supreme Court decision amounts to an indictment not of an individual, but of the Mexican legal system. There is no doubt that Mexico’s legal system is faulty, but that is hardly a reason for the United States to act as though Mexico is part of its back yard.

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision calls for a much wider debate on how the Americans define their territory. A Mexican senator who happened to be in Washington when that decision was handed down called it a “legal absurdity.” With the kidnaping of a Mexican citizen in Mexico by people in the service of a U.S. law-enforcement agency, the court’s decision has suddenly raised the legal relationship between the two countries to a radically different dimension. It was indeed ludicrous for the court to make such a decision, but for the American people--represented by their Supreme Court and by their law-enforcement agencies--to assume that Mexico is a lawless country amounts to a return to the age of the cave man.

Furthermore, the debate on the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws has now acquired a new meaning. It appears that for the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Mexico, not even U.S. laws are necessary; for U.S. law-enforcement agencies, the “law of the West” is more than sufficient. Not a very promising foundation for the new relationship that the two governments have strongly committed themselves to developing. The Mexican government has acted strongly on issues critical to the United States, particularly on the issue of drugs, often at a punitive political, economic and human cost. By carrying out these types of actions, the United States risks much more than just upsetting Mexicans for a few days. Maintenance of the broader policy of cooperation from which both nations benefit greatly is at stake.

The United States and Mexico have for many years been immersed in a process of ever closer interdependence. The economies are increasingly linked and dependent; our societies have growing ties. More recently we have begun negotiations to eliminate all remaining trade barriers; those negotiations are going to involve more than discussion of tariffs, quotas and dispute-settlement issues. Both nations will have to develop a level of trust that allows the negotiating process to function and to be successful. The United States cannot expect Mexico to trust it if the United States does not trust Mexico.

We Mexicans do not expect the Americans to like everything Mexican, just like most Mexicans do not like everything American. But we all have a vested interest in maintaining a strong and cordial relationship based on mutual respect. The court decision and the actions of the DEA in this case do not signal much respect for my country. Mexicans do not want to be Americans, just as Americans do not want to be Mexicans. We can nonetheless develop strong ties among two peoples who respect each other. Can the Americans bear this responsibility?

There are many Mexicans--and, for that matter, many Latin Americans--who believe that the United States has only one purpose in mind: to exploit Latin America and, whenever convenient, to invade its nations. Chauvinism runs deep in these nations, which have not always perceived or seen much respect from the powerful neighbor to the north. When the United States invaded Panama, Mexicans reacted strongly against the attitude of self-righteousness by the United States; the invasion may have been popular in Panama--and one has to respect that--but for many Mexicans, it was just another thread of evidence to prove the “real” intentions of the United States in Mexico. The United States is obviously free to choose its ways with regards to Mexico, but lawlessness is neither a very promising start nor, for that matter, a very American trait.