 |
|
|
 Editorials | Issues | April 2007 
What Relationship Should Mexico have with the United States, Mr. Ambassador?
 Marcela Sanchez - Washington Post
Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico’s new ambassador to the United States, is working hard to manage expectations about U.S.-Mexico relations for a very good reason: promising too much and demanding too much has served neither country well in the past six years.
Sarukhan is careful to keep hopes focused on what is mutually beneficial and palatable to both Washington and Mexico City.
Fighting drugs and organized crime, enhancing border security while easing bureaucratic red tape for legal crossings, and helping Latin America successfully confront the challenges of globalization — these are, according to the diplomat, the areas where both nations can progress together during President Bush’s final two years and the first two of Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s six-year term.
What’s missing here, of course, is immigration reform. Sarukhan doesn’t avoid the topic, but in a conversation recently with Washington Post editors and reporters, it was not a do-or-die issue. He maintained only that he is "guardedly optimistic" that some form of immigration reform would be passed by the U.S. Congress this year.
Unlike the case during President Vicente Fox’s first months in office in 2001, keeping expectations low appears to be an early theme of Calderon’s administration.
Fox’s personal connections with Bush led many to expect a substantial U.S. immigration overhaul. The high hopes turned into overconfidence typified by an ultimatum issued by Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda in 2001 — "It’s the whole enchilada or nothing," Castaneda proclaimed, implying that Mexico would not sign any immigration accord with the United States that did not give those Mexicans here illegally a chance to become legal.
At the time, many U.S. analysts welcomed the Castaneda-esque diplomacy — after all, good neighbors ought to be able to speak frankly with each other — and expected that Mexico’s emergence as a multiparty democracy marked a new era for bilateral relations. That, of course, never came to be. Instead of seeking a common future, leaders in both countries succumbed to internal political pressures that drove the nations apart.
Over the Past few years, Bush and Congress allowed the most virulent anti-immigration forces to hijack the immigration debate. The terrorist attacks on 9/11 and subsequent security concerns became the perfect excuse to drive a wedge between the two nations and scare U.S. politicians away from supporting a more comprehensive and reasonable solution, supporting instead the construction of a 700-mile fence along the border.
Meanwhile, Bush’s good friend Fox also let political calculations get the best of him. He was slow to express solidarity with Washington in the wake of 9/11. Then the subsequent invasion of Iraq and the U.S. clampdown on immigration made it even more difficult for Fox and other Mexican politicians to build bridges to the United States.
To Sarukhan, both countries must undermine these divisive forces through public diplomacy. "We have failed to explain to our people the importance of our relationship," he said.
For his part, the ambassador plans to use the extended network of 49 Mexican consulates throughout the United States to attempt to show the benefits of deeper U.S.-Mexico integration.
The harder work will be internal. By improving security, Calderon is hoping to attract significant sums of foreign investment to create jobs and spur economic growth. Through this process he is massaging Washington’s interests, in recognition that there is a cost to good relations.
"Before the hugs, before the fireworks, (Calderon) actually needs to be able to prove to the Americans and to Mexicans that he has the ability to put the goods on the table," said Sarukhan.
That’s how it should be. Two neighboring nations facing the immigration challenges of the United States and Mexico will need to "give something of value in order to gain something that is a higher value" — a meaningful immigration agreement, said immigration expert Demetrios Papademetriou of the Washington-based Migration Policy Institute.
The problem, he added, is that instead of engaging Mexico in an active partnership, the United States has chosen to pursue the issue in an "aggressively unilateral way."
It’s hard to believe that it was only six years ago that the debate on U.S. immigration reform began as part of U.S.-Mexican discussions toward a bilateral agreement. Since then Mexico has turned into just another spectator, requiring its envoy to Washington to make sure no toes are stepped on, no feelings are hurt — lest someone here think that the border fence needs to be a few inches higher.
Marcela Sanchez is a columnist for The Washington Post, 1150 15th St. NW, Washington, DC 20071. Send email to desdewash@washpost.com. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us