Main Index of the Weekly Forecast & Review
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
© Copyright 2010, The Ultrapolis Project – May be used freely with proper attribution. All other rights reserved.
The Truth About Mexico’s Relationship to the United States
What Americans Should Expect from Their Southern Neighbors
Mexican President Cordial, Honest, and
Mistaken
In his
speech to the Congress of the United States of America on May 20, the earnest
and polished President of the Mexican United States (Mexico’s official name)
Felipe Calderon appealed to the American public directly, by speaking in
English instead of Spanish. In a cordial
and even friendly manner, he covered wide range of issues, from drug
trafficking to assault weapons trade to, of course, immigration, and other
issues of importance to both countries. While
the bulk of the speech was tempered as he clearly, and very reasonably put
forth Mexico’s point of view on the above subjects, much has been made of the
President Calderon’s criticism of Arizona’s recently-adopted controversial law
attempting to address the problem of illegal immigration. The president said:
However, I strongly disagree with the recently
adopted law in Arizona. It is a law that not only ignores a reality that cannot be erased by
decree, but also introduces a terrible idea of using
racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement. And that is why I agree, I
agree with the President when he says that this new law carries a great amount
of risk when core values we all care about are breached. I do not want to deepen the gap in feelings
and emotions between our countries and between our peoples.
Of course, the president was factually incorrect in saying that the law
“introduces” the idea of using racial profiling. In fact, it expressly forbids the use of race
entirely in its application, while federal law still permits it in this
context. What the law actually introduces
is the notion of state-directed enforcement of immigration laws. That the Mexican president respectfully
criticized this law of an American state is not particularly outrageous or even
unusual. What is unusual is that
Democratic representatives of the people of the United States of America openly
sided in their applause with a foreign leader against one of their own states,
not to mention the overwhelming majority of Americans who support the Arizona
law.
Mexican
Leader Speaks for Mexicans in the World, Who Does for Americans?
At another point, President Calderon spoke in Spanish, addressing his
expatriates in the U.S., assuring them he would fight for their rights. The Democrats gave him a standing ovation. This reaction raises a couple of
questions. The first is just how many
congressional representatives are bilingual and actually understood what he
said at that moment? The second is who
do they think he is ‘fighting’ in that context?
The Mexican president articulated clearly, appropriately, and with
dignity, that while he sought cooperation and friendship with the U.S., he was
determined to advance and protect the interests and welfare of his people. Perhaps the Democrats in Congress could
benefit from a civics lesson taught by the Mexican leader.
On the other hand, Republicans ought to be careful about making too much
out of Calderon’s legitimate complaints on the assault-weapons coming from the
US. The fact is, President Calderon is
about as good and reliable friend as the U.S. can expect to have in Mexico. The
Mexican president has every right, and in fact, it is his obligation, to point
out the damage the influx of assault weapons is doing to the social and
political fabric of Mexico, the effects of which are already bleeding back into
the U.S. He is not obligated to care
about our second amendment issues, which he politely acknowledged. A flood of weapons coming from the U.S. has
been followed by a wave of murders across Mexico, with 26,000 dead so far. What do they expect him to say? Those who claim to have religious or
otherwise moral views that call upon them to care for their fellow man have a
moral obligation to fix this problem.
Mexican President’s Honest Hypocrisy
In a
surprising, honest admission of hypocrisy, in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on
CNN, Calderon admitted that Mexico has enforcement policies similar to those of
American border states. He did add that
Mexico decriminalized illegal immigration into Mexico from its own southern
border (Mexico has long had a problem with illegal immigrants from Central
America) in just the last year, whereby it is no longer a felony. Nevertheless, he openly acknowledged that
what Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona are trying to do to control illegal
immigration is the same thing Mexico does along its own southern border, saying
“I know. And that is a very powerful argument.
But that is one of the reasons why we are trying to change our policy.”
Past Grievance Colors Mexican View of
All Things American
So, what
can we expect from Mexico? The reality
is that Mexico’s leadership has to answer to the sentiments of the Mexican
public. And that sentiment is a complex
mixture of admiration, envy, and deep resentment of the United States that
traces its roots back to the Mexican-American War, when Mexico lost so much to
the United States. During the 1820’s and
1830’s, Anglo settlers began to migrate into what were then Mexican lands. Soon, they outnumbered the Mexicans
themselves. Mexico had abolished
slavery, but the Anglos, many of them from southern U.S. states, wanted to
bring them into Mexico with them. Mexico
grew alarmed at the influx of Anglo immigrants, and tried to halt it. Mexico feared, correctly, that American
expansionism was eyeing Mexican lands, and they would lose control to the
growing number of Anglos moving in.
Eventually, the clash of cultural, political and social interests,
combined with Mexico’s internal instability, resulted in Mexico’s worst fears
realized. Since then, Mexico proceeded
down a path of political turmoil and economic regression, while its northern,
victorious neighbor proceeded on a path of ever-greater prosperity and power.
The
attitude of Mexicans towards the United States is not unlike that of a younger
brother who was pushed around and taken advantage of by a bigger older brother,
who then went on to become rich and powerful, leaving the younger in his
shadow. Just as that younger sibling would
experience a mixed range of emotions that would produce a feeling of
inferiority, a bristling resentment, and a sometimes neurotic response to even
well-meaning actions from the elder brother, so it is with Mexico and the
United States. Even educated Mexicans
wrestle with those emotions when dealing with Americans. Uneducated ones, especially those lacking
economic success and whose sense of worth is largely dependent on nationalistic
identification, revel in dreams of “la reconquista,” the notion of a Mexican
re-taking of the lost lands in 1836 and 1848.
When they
see Americans self-flagellate, it does not make them more conciliatory or less
demanding – it feeds their sense of self-righteousness and entitlement. The task of forging a mutually beneficial and
working relationship with Mexico requires a delicate balance between showing
respect for Mexico and its interests, while maintaining unapologetic self-respect
that discourages Mexican indulgence of intransigence and self-pity. Unfortunately, just as Republican
conservatives seem unable to see beyond immediate national self-interest for
the sake of a broader more beneficial international relationships, Democrats
appear unable to master the art of national self-respect which is essential for
all successful international negotiations (to wit: Assistant Secretary of State
Michael Posner admitting that he
brought up to the Chinese our ‘short-comings’ in human rights issues in Arizona
“early and often.” Today, we read that
nothing of substance was gained in the China summit. More on this next week).
For that
reason, it will be a long, long time, before Mexicans are pre-disposed to
acknowledge gratefulness or appreciation for anything the Americans do, no
matter how benevolent or generous, or self-effacing (setting aside that often
our actions are anything but), or to give Americans any benefit of the doubt; and
why they will delight in pointing out any moral, economic, or political failure
they perceive, no matter how unfair or unsubstantiated, and no matter what is
true of themselves.
