The United States and Mexico share a long and complex border. Although each nation has its own priorities in the
bilateral agenda as well as its own vision as to how the relationship as a whole, and the border in particular, should
evolve and develop, both have proven capable of working on the complex and often controversial issues that are a
daily reality of such a diverse vicinity. It is probably not surprising that the respective nations have proven less
competent at dealing with the strategic, more contentious issues that each sees as crucial to a closer understanding,
namely migration and security. It is these issues that will make or break the possibility that economic integration
proceeds at a fast pace while enhancing cooperation and success on the key front of security. Ultimately, and in one
of the great peculiarities of the bilateral relationship, although the United States is the more powerful partner, it is
Mexico that tends to define both the direction and the speed of interaction. At present, Mexicans appear incapable
of engaging in a deeper commitment, largely because Mexico’s politicians want European-style benefits without
integration.
Migration has become Mexico’s number one foreign policy priority. In a country where there is little agreement on
anything these days, legalizing Mexicans living in the United States and liberalizing the (legal) flow of Mexicans to
the United States have become undisputed tenets of nationhood. The analytical argument in favor of liberalizing
migration flows stems from the compatible nature of each nation’s demographics. The political and moral argument
stems from the abuse that some illegal, or undocumented, Mexicans face while entering the United States or in its
territory once they have crossed. Mexicans see immigration to the United States as a right (or, at the very least, an
“inescapable need” for reasons of economic and political stability) and thus expect the U.S. government to make
strides on this front as a priority area in the bilateral relationship. In the recent past, Mexican authorities have taken
the position that it is either everything or nothing when it comes to a migration agreement. However, the reality
suggests that there are many ways to cut the issue into manageable pieces that would be acceptable to both sides,
though neither has appeared willing to move in this direction.
Security is an equally relevant issue, and both sides agree, at least on a conceptual level, of what this entails.
Mexico’s government wants to secure the country’s borders to guarantee the safety of Americans living in Mexico
and to ensure that no terrorist enters the United States via Mexico. There is further agreement on the means
necessary to implement this broad objective, and the Mexican government has made great strides on this front,
particularly on immigration controls. A key issue that remains is whether Mexico, like Canada, would be
incorporated into the proposed “North American security perimeter”, or whether it would be left out. Many
Mexicans dispute the need, and even the potential benefits, of closer security ties, and may well become a
significant source of domestic opposition to security cooperation in the future.
At heart, the bilateral relationship is uniquely complex for two reasons: the number and diversity of issues and
problems involved, and the contrasting levels of development and wealth. Although the national governments have
been relatively skillful at dealing with the sometimes complex day-to-day issues, the underlying concerns will not
diminish in complexity or difficulty until Mexico transforms itself and succeeds in raising the income levels of its
population. Immigration and security may be the issues that loom ever larger on the horizon, and they do so for
obvious reasons. However, the truly relevant issue is long-term development, for that has the potential to transform
the relationship into a more normal, symmetrical one, marked by mutual confidence. Thus, what the bilateral
relationship needs is a U.S. administration willing to think “outside the box” on how to help Mexico help itself on
its way to development, and a Mexican government and polity willing and capable of getting their house in order,
thinking beyond historical determinism, and, especially, short term political gain.
Both the immediate and the long term issues need to be addressed. But success in the immediate term is unlikely
unless the longer term challenge–development–is brought to the forefront of the agenda
La reproducción total de este contenido no está permitida sin autorización previa de CIDAC. Para su reproducción parcial se requiere agregar el link a la publicación en cidac.org. Todas las imágenes, gráficos y videos pueden retomarse con el crédito correspondiente, sin modificaciones y con un link a la publicación original en cidac.org
