Jeffrey Davidow

Being U.S. ambassador to Mexico has never been easy. The size and complexity of the bilateral agenda can be truly overwhelming: Intricate trade and immigration regulations, as well as drug-trafficking standoffs, are some of the difficult issues involved. The cultural, political and economic differences between countries can appear impossible to manage.

On the Mexican side, history also plays a role in how the U.S. ambassador is perceived. Mexicans have not forgotten the loss of half their territory to the United States in the last century and what they consider to be the overweening egotism of former U.S. ambassadors, including Henry Lane Wilson during the Mexican Revolution and, in the early 1980s, John A. Gavin. Mexican distrust of American ambition lingers long after the demise of Manifest Destiny, the turmoil of the revolution and the get-tough approach of the Reagan years.

Jeffrey Davidow, 55, who has served as ambassador for one year, is well aware of the difficulties inherent in the job. Before this assignment, he spent two years as assistant secretary of state in charge of Latin American affairs, becoming immersed in the region’s politics and culture. Now he is experiencing first-hand the day-to-day pressures of the troubled relationship. Yet, he has managed to earn the respect of a cross-section of the people in both countries.

Davidow is a big man, at 6 feet, 6 inches, who exudes an aura of confidence and reliability. He has spent 30 years in the U.S. foreign service and attests to a lifelong interest in Mexican culture. Indeed, he is knowledgeable about the place, moving with ease in a wide range of social, intellectual and political circles and seemingly unafraid when it comes to voicing strong opinions. One Mexican official describes him as discreet, but capable of talking loud and clear when he has to.”

Davidow is in Mexico during a time of great change. As recently as the 1970s, Mexico was an authoritarian, one-party state; now, it is undergoing a radical political transition into a full-fledged democracy. The many changes often appear tentative and unstable, yet the 2000 presidential election may well be Mexico’s first contested national race. An opposition candidate might actually win.

Mexico’s economy has been transformed over the past three decades as well. It has moved from a statist economic model into a free-market system, largely engineered by the demands of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Yet, the benefits of a modern economy have not trickled down to the majority of the population. Many regions in Mexico remain mired in poverty, while inequality between rich and poor keeps growing.

Davidow makes a point of traveling to many parts of Mexico, both as part of his job and for personal enjoyment. He and Joan, his wife of more than 30 years, have visited many archeological sites and colonial cities throughout the country. They have two adult daughters, who live and work in the U.S.

During a recent visit to Los Angeles, Davidow sat down to talk about the state of the relationship between Mexico and the United States. He was surprisingly optimistic about the emerging democracy next door.

Question: How is the relationship now between Mexico and the United States?

Answer: I think the relationship is very good. On the government-to-government basis, on the daily grind of getting things done for the benefit of both countries, whether it is cooperation on antinarcotics or resolving trade issues or a more mature, serious dialogue on migration matters, we’ve made a lot of progress in recent years. I also believe there is probably a greater level of understanding between the people. We cannot deny that there is a long history of not always happy relations between the two countries. There are heightened sensibilities and sensitivities, I would say more so on the Mexican side than on the U.S. side, but we have to deal with that.

Q: Mexicans complain that, in dealing with the U.S., there are so many agents--for example, the White House, Congress, law enforcement agencies--and their conflicting policies make it difficult for Mexico to manage.

A: I think part of the price of doing business with the U.S. is that one has to recognize that we are a very complex country with a very confusing kind of governmental structure. I would say, though, that although the Mexicans complain, and I do understand why they do, the Mexican government is pretty effective in playing one element of government or public opinion against the other, which is quite legitimate, though.

Q: Let’s deal with some of the sore points in the relationship. For instance, is Mexico cooperating with the U.S. in extraditing criminals?

A: Yes, I think it is. There has been a significant change in the last three years, in which the government of Mexico began authorizing the extradition of its own citizens as well as of citizens of other countries. Now, where difficulties have arisen is that before these people can actually be turned over, they have all the rights of the Mexican judicial system. It is a system which fights itself and which dates from the 19th century and gives every defense possible to the accused. The apparatus to defend the powerless has slowed down the handing over of criminals. Also, there are many judges who believe that people should not be handed over. But the Mexican Supreme Court will settle this issue in the near future.

Q: So, if Sen. Dianne Feinstein were to call you and say we want the Amezcua brothers, Luis and Jesus, here, now, what would you say?

A: What we have to do is to work with the Mexican government to make sure that the people who have committed crimes are punished. Justice moves slowly in both countries, but I think we have to understand that there are procedures that have to be followed. Mexico was very greatly criticized for the length of time it took to extradite an American who killed a woman in the U.S. But he was extradited after he had gone through the entire appeal process.

Q: Is the congressional certification of countries on their cooperation with U.S. antidrug efforts a useful tool?

A: One has to look at certification globally. In some cases, it has been useful because it has gotten the attention of some political leaderships in focusing on the narcotics issue. In the case of Mexico, it has, at the same time, exacerbated relations, because the Mexican government and the Mexican people are very resistant to anything that looks like a report card. So it is a mixed bag. In theory, I see nothing wrong with the U.S. government being able to publicly state which countries are being helpful and which countries are not.

Q: There is a bill being discussed in Congress that would allow the U.S. to confiscate the property of someone suspected of being a drug dealer. Will that create more problems?

A: It is an amplification of the International Economic Emergency Powers, which would publish, after some deliberation, the names of companies overseas that we believe are fronts of narcotics dealings. We did this in Colombia with some 400 companies, and once they were identified, American companies are prohibited from dealing with them. Now, I’ve talked to Mexican officials who are very anxious to cooperate with the U.S. government in identifying front companies. But there is concern in Mexico that this particular utilization of the law could get out of hand. The Mexican government recognizes that the best way to combat narcotics is to go after the money and wants to be helpful, although it has some concerns, which are understandable, about this particular legislation.

Q: Talking to Mexicans, I get the impression that their concern with this piece of legislation and with certification is that both are unilateral moves by the U.S. Congress that deny due process to the other party.

A: That is a legitimate concern, which should be addressed as this legislation goes through Congress and the regulations are written.

Q: You have been assistant secretary of state for Latin American affairs, and you understand the region. How does Mexico compare to Venezuela, another country coping with political change?

A: It is not part of my job to talk about other countries, but let me tell you my concern with Venezuela and why it is interesting to compare Venezuela with Mexico. In Venezuela, starting in 1958, when a democratic system was put into place, two parties pretty much divided up the political system. But those two parties, although they were in competition with each other, were very inflexible. There was a great deal of corruption. The system itself was closed, and, ultimately, it just collapsed because the people got fed up.

In Mexico, what you see is a governmental system that is changing pretty dramatically. The opposition is in control of the lower chamber of Congress, and the PRI [the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party] is holding a primary to elect its candidate for the presidential election.

Mexico is a society in transition; Venezuela is a society in collapse. It is important not to confuse these things. Although sometimes, if one takes a snapshot, things may look the same.

Q: What about Colombia? Is Mexico becoming a Colombia?

A: No. Mexico is a much larger nation, 100 million people. The influence of the narco-traffickers is not as strong. Nevertheless, what has happened in Colombia shows that the only way one can fight against drugs is through a coherent, integrated policy from the top down, dedicated leadership, effective laws, good police and judiciary. It’s a very tough job in any country, including our own.

Q: There is a rumor that some law agencies in the U.S. are considering an Inter-American military force. Is that a good idea?

A: It is not a good idea, and nobody is seriously thinking about it. Period.

Q: Is Mexico a full-fledged democracy?

A: Democracy everywhere is a process in two dimensions. One is to elect leadership to govern. The other is a process to perfect itself. In the U.S., we are still trying to perfect democracy, and so is Mexico. It is a much more open, vibrant, flexible political system than it has ever been in the past.

Q: But is it effective? Isn’t it that there is just plain opposition in Congress?

A: Look, in every democratic system there is the risk of stalemate and gridlock, but it is rarely a permanent condition. What is happening in Mexico is that the old way of doing business has broken down its predominance in legislative bodies. New ways are developing, and there are new alliances and new ways of considering legislation. But this is procedural, and in the meantime the process keeps on moving.

Q: But in this new political environment, with an unprecedented contested presidential election set for July 2000, and with unprecedented internal competition within the PRI, aren’t you concerned that violence may erupt?

A: No, I am not concerned. I don’t think that we will see violence in Mexico. Is there a possibility of a violent act, as we have seen against candidates in our own country? One can never rule out something like that. But I don’t think that we would see in Mexico political violence on a significant scale, with one group of people against another group of people.

Q: For some time now, at the end of every presidential term in Mexico, there is an economic crisis. Do you see that coming next year?

A: No. I don’t see that happening for the following reasons: First, there is much greater transparency in public finances in Mexico, so there is much less chance of being surprised. Secondly, President [Ernesto] Zedillo has demonstrated tremendous iron discipline in financial and fiscal matters. He cut Mexico’s budget three times during the past year, after it had been approved, because of changing international conditions--like the problems in Asia and the oil crisis. Thirdly, Mexico is now more tied into the international community through NAFTA than it has ever been in the past. And fourthly, the Mexican government has, quite wisely, gone out to the international financial community to give itself needed protection with the so-called blindaje economico, or economic shield. This is basically an insurance policy that, if things go bad, they already have lines of credit that they can draw with the World Bank, the U.S. Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Inter-American Development Bank--all of which they never intend to use. *

“We cannot deny that there is a long history of not always happy relations between the two countries. There are heightened sensibilities and sensitivities.”

“Mexican government is pretty effective in playing one element of (U.S.) government or public opinion against the other, whihc is quite legitimate.”

“In the U.S., we are still trying to perfect democracy, and so is Mexico. It is a much more open, vibrant, flexible political system than it has ever been in the past.”