Opinion Archive

What to Make of the Worst Case Scenario

May 28, 2008

Most of Mexico is safe, welcoming and pleasant. Millions of middle and upper-class Mexicans and Americans live very well south of the border, prospering or relaxing in what is, in this correspondent’s view, one of the best places to live in the world.

But Mexico’s institutions are being threatened by a war that is, in part, being waged on behalf of a United States that demands drugs, and the policies of both governments that insist on criminalizing their use. The upshot is that criminal gangs are posing a serious threat to Mexico’s stability, which ought to frighten even the most cynical US legislator. But the discussion regarding the Mérida Initiative in the US Congress shows that the nature of the threat has not been understood.

If Mexico were to become a failed state, the results would be catastrophic for everyone. The prospect of unbridled chaos south of the border, although unlikely, is currently real. And it was raised during the discussion of the Mérida Initiative in the US Congress, backed by a “helpful” report from Stratfor, an intelligence consulting firm, titled: “Mexico: How a Failed State Might Come to Pass”.

You don’t know what you’ve got, until you lose it

For all of its weakness, Mexico’s government has been effective in keeping terrorists from its northern border through draconian visa requirements for Arabs, tailor-made for the US. It has imposed macroeconomic stability, and it supports a significant middle class in a $1 trillion dollar economy, keeping tens of millions more Mexicans from crossing the border illegally. These all-important activities should not be taken for granted. If the Mexican government’s delicate balancing act were to be upset, the consequences for North America would be disasterous and immediate, both in terms of US national security and in the flood of refugees this country would generate.

Unfortunately, America’s legislators didn’t get it. When Senator Patrick Leahy talks about attaching conditions to granting military aid based on subjective evaluations of corruption and human rights, he is missing the point. Mexico has tremendous human rights and corruption issues, but the worst way to help is for the US Congress to be seen as meddling in the country’s internal affairs. The democratically elected, pro-US, Calderón regime needs the full support of Congress in what is very much America’s drug war. Then, concerned senators could pressure the Bush administration to work with its Mexican counterparts to implement specific programs, trainings, and reforms that would actually help fix human rights and corruption abuses. Here, as in so many international issues, pontification alienates.

For the US, the biggest danger doesn’t come either from the possibility of military action from a rogue Mexican regime (nuclear technology notwithstanding), or from enemies lobbing bombs into San Diego, à la Israel and Gaza. It comes from the possibility that those things, or infiltration by terrorist groups, could force the US into military intervention. The last time the US took Mexico City, in 1847, the country’s population was 7 million, mostly living in the center of the country, with poor transporation links. Mexico’s current 106 million people and its geographic attachment to the entire US southwest would bring consequences to the American homeland that would be dramatic and immediate; very different from the far-away theater of Iraq (population: 27 million, distance: 7,000 miles).

Fortunately, all of these scenarios are highly speculative. But they are not unthinkable. Mexico is especially vulnerable to a presidential assassination, for example, because it has neither a vice president, or a clear line of succession (ironically because of worries about the underlings’ incentives to kill their president). That is just one way that things could spiral out of control.

The 'decider' gets it right

In the case of Mexico, President Bush’s black and white attitude towards international affairs served him well. He recognized the danger and acted, albeit with a plan that has many shortcomings and is not particularly well thought out. Nevertheless, Congress decided to kick the most important part of the plan: its symbolism. With 27 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans already in the US, major oil imports, massive trade, and a symbiotic relationship between sister cities along a 2,000 mile border, Congress’ cavalier attitude towards violence in Mexico (perpetrated with US-bought guns, by the way) is irresponsible, to say the least.

President Calderón has shown that he doesn’t understand politics in the US. Mexico should have begun a public charm offensive and lobbying efforts at the beginning of his administration. But Congress has been reckless in antagonizing America’s few friends: icing the Colombian free trade agreement and now insulting the Calderón administration. Should the worst come to pass, it is very clear what type of political grandstanding will have “lost Mexico”.

For the latest thought-provoking article by Agustin Barrios Gomez please go to our Opinion Column page

Return to top