A new US - Mexico security agreement in the making
A US Department of Homeland Security helicopter, carrying DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, flying over the US-Mexico border. Image credit: American Photo Archive / Alamy.
by Gerónimo Gutiérrez. Ambassador Gutiérrez served as Mexico’s Ambassador to the United States and as Mexico’s Deputy Secretary for Governance and Homeland Security.
—
Last week tensions between the US and Mexico governments surfaced again. President Sheinbaum denied the existence of an agreement between the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Mexican government. Her comments were directed towards a press release from the DEA announcing the launch of a “bold bilateral initiative to dismantle cartel gatekeepers and combat synthetic drug trafficking”. In my view, the rebuttal appears to be more the result of miscommunication than of the lack of willingness on both sides to strengthen cooperation. In fact, Sheinbaum confirmed that some form of security agreement is in the making and could be formalized in the next few weeks during a visit to Mexico of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This was overlooked and could potentially be good news. Here are four takeaways of last week’s episode.
Often the DEA has ruffled the feathers of Mexican authorities. The latter dislike the agency’s gun-ho style and resent its unwillingness to communicate and coordinate even when operating in Mexican territory. The former also has its share of grievances. Top among them is the torture and assassination of agent Enrique Camarena in 1985 at the hands of Mexican drug traffickers in the State of Jalisco, something that happen with the consent if not assistance of public officials. As of this date, how high did the involvement of Mexican officials reached remains a matter of debate. During the six years of the López Obrador administration, the dynamic of mutual mistrust was exacerbated. With the DEA in mind, the Mexican Government reformed the National Security Law in 2021 to tighten the scope and increase the regulations for foreign security officials accredited in Mexico. Nevertheless, the tone of the DEA´s recent press release was rather mild – even positive – considering statements of Trump administration’s security officials over the year. Mexico should bear in mind that the agency will remain a key player, not only in Trump´s administration antinarcotics efforts, but also in bilateral security affairs. The DEA, in turn, would be wise not to forget an old and useful “no surprises policy” that has served well the bilateral relationship over the decades.
The Sheinbaum and Trump administrations are likely to formalize soon a security agreement. As discussed, the leading agencies will likely be Mexico’s Foreign Ministry (SRE) and the US State Department (DOS). To be sure neither of them is a security agency. However, the DOS has traditionally used the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) to support U.S. security cooperation efforts, while SRE has had an ad hoc area devoted to security matters with the U.S. In the past, having SRE and DOS involved served to achieve at least some level of interagency coordination and a political buffer on a thorny subject. Both things are welcomed in the present context. In fact, a 2021 executive order places SRE as lead agency of the High-Level Security Groups with other governments. The new agreement could take the form of a joint statement which defines a set principles and broad objectives – as with 2022 Bicentennial Understanding that substituted the Merida Initiative, or an inter-institutional agreement that is signed by the Executive branches, but does not require congressional approval. We can assume that the US will prioritize fentanyl trafficking and Mexico weapons smuggling, and that it will involve increased intelligence sharing and training. It is not clear, however, how far could it go in terms of coordinated or joint operations — a possibility which President Sheinbaum has pretty much discarded.
Over the last months there has been plenty of speculation about the possibility of the US undertaking unilateral military action in Mexican territory against drug cartels, which were designated as international terrorist organizations by the Trump administration on its first day. This speculation is fueled by an extraordinarily pointed narrative on the part of the US government, including a comment by President Trump about Mexican authorities being “petrified” because of the cartel’s “tremendous grip”, by the increased presence of US air and sea vessels near Mexican space and waters and, more recently, by the deployment US naval forces in the South Caribbean – and very close to Venezuela – after Trump signed a still-secret directive instructing the Pentagon to use military force against some Latin American drug cartels. President Sheinbaum has all but dismissed this possibility and resort to equally harsh language in return. The probability of direct military unilateral action by the US against Mexican cartels is low, but it has probably never been as high as now. Such measure might serve the Trump administration to score some good political points domestically, and even result is tactical operational successes. Nevertheless, I believe, it would be a strategic mistake of historic proportions that would send the bilateral relationship into the “dark ages.” Security cooperation between both countries does require a serious revamp; and a new agreement and framework might just be enough to deter unilateral action.
The new security agreement could provide stability to the overall relationship and a better context on which to discuss other topics in the agenda – particularly trade and the review of the United States, Mexico and Canada Agreement (USMCA). Yet, it must not be seen by Mexico as an end but as a means to achieve results in security conditions and cooperation. Also, the Trump administrations made an unprecedented statement about drug trafficking organizations having “an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico.” This could very well mean that, even security cooperation improves, and metrics show progress (i.e. drug interdiction, fentanyl overdoses, extraditions), the real test for the Sheinbaum administration is seriously going after “big fish” which in the view of US authorities have been compromised by organized crime at best or have worked for them worst.