Mexico, seen from the perspective of Washington, is a growing security problem but about which little can be done
Question
On day 19, after completing the session devoted to discussing the status of Relations between Mexico and the United States at the Hammer Forum in Los Angeles, someone asked: "And what America can do to improve relations with Mexico." A simple question can only answer: not much.
One way to elaborate further on the issue is to see Mexico from Washington. It made from the only interest that matters to any nation is itself, as the international community relations are based on power politics. Properly understood, this policy may sacrifice immediate profit in exchange for a larger or lower cost in another place or time, but that will never be confused with sympathy or altruism.
When the internal disaster in Mexico was a great opportunity for the United States
The origin of the relationship between the United States and New Spain turned into an independent nation, the interest of the former was well served by instability and political turmoil of the second. From Washington, looked at southern neighbor as a viable country, with room to spare, with the wrong religion, the Catholic, with wrong-racial mixing was the indigenous majority and the minority was of poor quality European (English) - and an interesting population density, strong at center and far too weak in the U.S. where it mattered: in the common border.
Americans represented a "Manifest Destiny" encouraged them to expand their civilization across North America by God and therefore had no qualms about taking advantage or promote political crisis Mexico, either encouraged the secession of Texas, demanding that the Texas border was the Rio Grande and the Nueces not, declaring the war to the neighbor when he was mired in internal disputes and, already defeated, take advantage of their disunity to offer assistance to Liberals in exchange for transfer of Tehuantepec (McLane-Ocampo Treaty) or press the weak conservative government headed by Santa Anna to force him to yield, at least, La Mesilla. If Mexico did not lose more territory was thanks to the U.S. internal contradiction: the north would not provide further opportunities for expansion to the south.
When the internal disaster in Mexico became a problem for Washington
With its national unity strengthened by the triumph of the North over the South in 1865, the United States and was not interested in territorial expansion but continue to focus their efforts to material growth and to promote and protect its economic interest in the outside world. Under these conditions, the lack of order in Mexico was no longer benefit to become a problem: smuggling, theft of cattle in Texas or Indian raids. Hence the mixture of threats and support the government of Porfirio Diaz to put an order in the common border. Once stabilized the country Díaz, Washington supported him regardless of its dictatorial nature and will even tolerate some degree of independence.
The Mexican Revolution was a challenge to imperialism which ultimately benefit the U.S.. On the one hand, the more revolutionary nationalism affected European interests, in particular the British, the Americans. And is that the two world wars the United States became a superpower that could be recovered in a few areas that the Mexican Revolution took off in others, oil, agricultural property or the railways, but the Europeans, weakened by these conflicts, had neither the resources nor the opportunities to rebuild its position in Mexico. By the time he started the Cold War, Mexico was, in terms of international politics, an area of \u200b\u200binfluence Washington exclusive. On the other hand, the Mexican Revolution led to an authoritarian regime much stronger and efficient than Porfirio Díaz. Mexican conservative stability. That played into the American interest. So the U.S. never bothered by an obvious contradiction: no problem accepting an undemocratic regime in Mexico even though the battle flag of Washington against the Soviet Union was political democracy. And is that the PRI regime was, without fanfare, a guarantee of stability and anti-cash.
what to do from the north when the foundations of stability in the South are weak?
When in 1989 fell the Berlin Wall, anti lost its reason for being at the center of Washington's foreign policy, but in Mexico worsened the contradictions and dysfunctions of the PRI system and the faults of the neighbor began to affect American interests. When the Mexican economic model failed and the country seemed to get into a crisis without a solution, United States, to avoid instabilities close, accepted to Mexico to further integrate its economy via neo-liberalism and the Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA .) However, against the prevailing economic assumptions, the policy did not produce the expected result to the point that today Mexico's economy is less dynamic in Latin America. The fall of Mexico's GDP is much higher than the U.S., making it impossible to create in Mexico more than a million new jobs needed each year and yes, however, be the largest source of undocumented migrants to the United States, drug trafficking organizations has exceeded all structures and Mexican police have taken root in 230 cities north of the Rio Grande. Finally, the end of the political regime of the PRI was not replaced by a stronger, less corrupt and more efficient than before, which has weakened the foundations of stability across the U.S. southern border.
few days before the attacks of Al Qaeda to the United States in September 2001, the U.S. president said that his country's relationship with Mexico was the most important. However, because of what happened then, Mexico was no longer a priority for Washington. Today, some circles in America are aware that their neighbor to the south is in serious trouble, because although still not exactly a failed state, its state is failing all: its economy, its political, security, justice, education, etcetera. However, despite knowing that without a substantive growth poor neighbor can become a serious problem, the White House can do little about it. And the U.S. government already has a highly charged domestic agenda by their own economic crisis and an outer very complicated, because it is involved in two invasions, to do well for them, has, among other things, to rebuild a state that turned-failed-Iraq and another who is unsuccessful long-Afghanistan. Under these conditions, and unless a catastrophe, it is almost impossible for Congress and U.S. public opinion to accept engage seriously in Mexico.
If, despite everything and depending on the security of its large southern border, Washington is proposing to Mexico to help reverse its involution, there is much that I could really do for your neighbor is the comfortable uncomfortable Canada. Currently the most important part of the scheme of the US-Mexico partnership is the "Merida Initiative" (IM). This program is a real bomberazo, product idea and the impotence of Felipe Calderon to tackle the myriad problems besetting the government. The IM seeks to allow Americans to enter the dark labyrinths of the security apparatuses and justice in Mexico to make them responsible for what happens there, but that is not comparable to NAFTA Carlos Salinas, in turn, and despite last year involved a bilateral trade by almost 400 billion dollars, never was able to get to Mexico's economic precipice that fell since 1982. The
today are difficult times for the relationship between South and North America but may worsen. The current accumulation of failures in Mexico is a threat to the U.S., but as is the country's political agenda is little you can do about it: no support for an expanded NAFTA can not be expected to demand drugs, barely more control over the export of weapons and not to aggravate the situation with walls, crackdowns on illegal or violations of NAFTA. The list is not much, given how much is at stake in both countries, but that's the reality.
