US-Mexico Relations: An Evaluation
Source: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/reports/2017/01/30/297187/preserving-and-strengthening-the-u-s-mexico-relationship/
By: Marco García
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.
The Mexico-US bilateral relationship is one filled with complex multiculturalism, ever-changing challenges, and an occasionally violent history. It can be tempting to judge the content of this history based on films, documentaries, or perhaps what Hollywood deems suitable for the public to see. In Mexico however, one quickly finds a particular take on this bilateral relationship: the United States is a difficult, overbearing, and rarely cooperative neighbour. Nonetheless, Mexico’s unrecognized yet historic diplomatic drive with its northern neighbour has raised the question of whether the US owes its southern neighbour some reconsideration. To answer this question, it is imperative to explore the historical and economic ties that bind these two great nations.
Firstly, to understand the complex dynamics between these countries, it is worth considering the Mexican-American War of the 1840s. It has left a traumatic wound amongst Mexicans that has managed to scar after almost 200 years of bilateral relationship building – a wound that the outgoing American President Donald Trump has torn wide open again. Donald Trump has successfully deranged the United States’ bond with Mexico with unsparing rhetoric to the point where the popularity of his lies seems to supersede the fact that there have been 200 years of relative peace between the two countries – a span that very few countries that share a border can claim. These historical damages are certainly not minor: Mexico lost more than half its territory in a war waged by the United States upon a new, and weaker, nation. It is important to remember that Mexico was arguably the first victim of an American imperialism that many nations would later claim to have fallen victim to. Indeed, the conflict between Mexico and the United States had all the characteristics of a war fuelled by imperialistic idiosyncrasies and propaganda. The United States, tied to the idea of “Manifest Destiny”, carried out an attack against Mexico when the latter refused to sell or cede what, at that time, were Mexico's northernmost territories.
Portrayals of an extremely unbalanced bilateral relationship with Mexico – with the United States as the injured party – are fuelled by President Trump and his supporters who passionately decry the damages performed by Mexico upon their nation. In the eyes of much of the wider political community, however, these simply contradict history and political reality. It is important to "reclaim” the facts to demonstrate the political magnitude and contemporary impact of the Mexican-American War, a war launched and promoted by an American President who deemed Mexicans to be “inferior”. Such ideals have unfortunately continued into the present day, represented in Trump’s frequent attacks on Mexican immigrants in the United States. Over 13,000 American soldiers died in the war while the Mexican government estimates around 25,000 killed and wounded on their side. To add insult to injury, Mexico – with its capital, customs stations and ports occupied by American soldiers – was forced to sign the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 giving up over half its territory. The size of this lost territory should not be underestimated: the current Mexican state already occupies almost two million square kilometres - about five Germanies or eight United Kingdoms - but the Northern territories would have made it almost twice as big as this. The war was so traumatic that it became the basis of the Mexican national anthem and launched a firm sentiment of nationalism across the republic which affects the present US-Mexico relationship. Interestingly, upon closer observation it is evident that it is not only Mexicans who hold some degree of indignation over the Mexican American War. It is surprising to observe American historical figures condemning the incident as well. It was Ulysses S. Grant, then a young army officer during the war, who wrote in his memoirs, ‘I do not think there was ever a more wicked war than the one waged by the United States on Mexico.’ He maintained that the bitterness and bloodshed that came with the Civil War was God’s punishment for America’s sins.
It is also worth noting that subsequent American interests in the region arguably postponed democracy in Mexico for about 90 years. Mexico was remarkably conciliatory however, welcoming American investment and supporting the Union in the American Civil War. In 1911, Mexico elected Francisco Madero President in a landmark for democracy in the country. Nonetheless, this democratic experiment would be nipped in the bud by the US as its Ambassador to Mexico, Henry Lane Wilson, orchestrated a coup against Madero only two years later. Indeed, one official in Washington wrote apropos Wilson’s conduct; ‘Dearing Mexico needs a good punch and so I think it’s right to soak in a good dose.’ This led to Madero's assassination and plunged Mexico into what would come to be known as the Mexican Revolution.
The flourishing of democracy in Mexico became a dream ever more distant.
It can be quite remarkable to observe the lack of resentment from Mexico after these two serious grievances. Mexico cooperated with Roosevelt on his Good Neighbour Policy, declared war on the Axis powers during the Second World War, and attracted many American artists, writers, and businessmen. However, many experts still question how directly Mexico should respond when dealing with the United States. Historian Enrique Krauze raises an interesting questionworth discussing: ‘how much of the historic prosperity of the United States of America stems from the development of territories originally inhabited by Mexicans and ripped away from Mexico through an invasion and a war of territorial conquest?’
By contrast, Mexico and the United States are now intertwined in virtually every sense. Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into force, the bilateral trade has increased 556 percent (over a billion dollars’ worth of trade every day). The largest population of Americans living abroad reside in Mexico – and vice versa – and the day to day relationship with Mexico creates over 6 million jobs in the United States. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration appears discontent with the current balance of relations with Mexico. While perhaps not directly equal, Mexico’s economic and diplomatic position has grown far beyond its vulnerabilities of 1846. Simply put, what Trump fails to see is that Mexico is not the defenceless country it was in 1846.
How about immigration? Infamously, Trump claimed that when Mexico sends its people, that they are not sending their best – they are bringing crime, they are rapists, and so on. US data shows that this could not be further from the truth. According to the United States Department of Commerce Projections, Mexico became the number one origin of visitors to the United States in 2016, with over 20 million Mexican tourists visiting the US every year and spending over 20 billion USD in the US’s economy. To signify the importance of this: in 2014 the USA welcomed more Mexican tourists than British, Brazilian, Chinese, German, and French tourists combined. It is undeniable that there has been a significant amount of Mexican immigration towards the United States – there are over 35 million Mexican-Americans today. But it is also important to remember that, out of every five Mexicans in the United States, four are legal residents.
If Trump fears immigration from Mexico, then his fears are arguably groundless, irrational, and contested at best. In 2009, more Mexicans left the United States than entered the country. Between 2009 and 2014, over one million Mexican immigrants moved back to Mexico from the US voluntarily. And in present times, out of every two Mexicans that immigrate to the US, one comes back voluntarily. It is interesting to see the argument from another perspective, and to observe the willingness of the United States to throw their neighbour under the bus for political point-scoring.
In present times, Biden’s recent election is a unique opportunity for a "détente", the establishment of a bilateral relationship that appreciates and understands the historical wounds between the countries. Hollywood and US media could perhaps take a leading role in shaping American historical consciousness on this issue. They should, at the very least, portray an honest reconsideration of the US’s first imperial war. Mexicans seek an atonement for past wrongs - wrongs triggered by racial prejudices and an aggressive approach to territory on the part of the United States.
Who is the victim of the US-Mexico bilateral relationship? Although it has in many ways been a relatively inequitable relationship, no one necessarily has to be the “victim”. The Mexican-American War taught Mexico a valuable lesson and gave it a strong sense of nationalism, but the country never rose back from that war like Japan or Germany did after WWII. In many senses, Mexico still has not risen from that war. It can be quite tempting to conclude that Mexico has more than enough grounds to turn on its northern neighbour – but the current political landscape shows a more conciliatory Mexican foreign policy approach towards its neighbour. Puzzled American and Mexican thinkers alike have struggled for generations to answer this question, with Walt Whitman addressing it nicely: ‘Mexico, the only one to whom we have ever really done wrong, are now the only one who prays for us and for our triumph, with genuine prayer. Is it not indeed strange?’
Marco is a 3rd Year International Relations at the University of Edinburgh. Originally from Mexico, he has a keen interest in multilateral organisations, trade, and Latin American affairs.