The Differences Between Mexico and the United States
By Francisco Peyret
After four U.S. citizens disappeared on the border with Tamaulipas during the last few weeks, we have endured a battle of back-and-forth declarations. A series of meetings occurred between the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, his opponents, Republican congressmen, and representatives of the U.S. government. The issue centered on the legislative proposal to declare Mexican cartels as terrorist groups to make way for U.S. Army intervention in Mexican territory. From my point of view, this is pure electoral pyrotechnics from both sides. We must remember that 2024 is a presidential election year for both countries.
This process seems to amuse President López Obrador, who is used to uttering all kinds of expressions and adjectives, such as references to the U.S. State Department as a «little department,» during his «Mañaneras (morning meetings).» Meanwhile, the opposition to the Mexican government is tearing off its clothes, dramatizing each of López Obrador’s statements and his meetings with U.S. authorities.
The fact is that Mexico and the United States are entering into a chain of disputes that have been arising because of a great readjustment during the economic and geopolitical movement that has intensified since the start of the 2022 war between Russia and Ukraine. Putting in force T-MEC, the renewed trade agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico in July 2021, has pushed our countries to consolidate their trade relationship to face what China is weaving with the expansion of the BRICS. Strong trade disputes will arise, given each North American country’s political and business interests. However, nothing will be more important than consolidating an economic bloc. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico concentrate 12% of world trade, 28% of world GDP, and 26% of global foreign direct investment flows.
The United States and Mexico have a long history of encounters and disagreements. It is worth reviewing history for some of the most important and representative moments of the last 170 years. After a long process of independence (1810-1821), Mexico continued to be immersed in a battle to consolidate a nation-state. This process lasted almost fifty years of internal struggles and international conflicts (mainly with the United States, England, Spain, and France). Disputes with Europe related to the Catholic Church, government control, and the protection of European economic interests generated since colonial days.
The United States, on the other hand, was in the process of territorial expansion and economic growth. North American intervention in Mexico began in 1846, when Santa Anna was president, and concluded with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in February 1848. Mexico lost the territories currently occupied by the states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and parts of Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. Mexico had to renounce all claims over Texas, and the border with the U.S. was established at the Rio Grande. The occupation of the North American troops in Mexican territory ended on June 15, 1848.
During the period of Porfirio Diaz in Mexico (1876-1911), the country constructed a national railroad system. At the same time, the Mexican government ceded the exploitation of minerals and oil mainly to English companies. A long dictatorial government and growing social inequalities were enough to provoke the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution (1910). But sovereignty over the nation’s resources was the underlying issue that moved the revolutionary struggle. According to historian Lorenzo Meyer, the intervention of the Americans had two fundamental moments during the revolutionary process. The first occurred when the U.S. embassy supported General Victoriano Huerta’s coup d’état (1913), which ended with the assassination of President Gustavo Madero.
The second moment was related to Article 27 of the promulgated Constitution of 1917, which declared land and water within the national territory’s limits to be national property. Foreigners with interests and properties in Mexico became very nervous. This controversy was alleviated when President Alvaro Obregón signed the Bucareli Treaties (a secret to this day) with the North American government in exchange for their recognition of his government.
A third moment occurred when President Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized Mexican oil in 1938. At that time, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom requested immediate payment, in cash, to the affected companies. According to historian Lorenzo Meyer, Josephus Daniels, at that time U.S, Ambassador to Mexico, never tired of asking the State Department to opt for negotiations and concessions to end the oil conflict. He decided to personally delay the delivery of an order for immediate and effective payment of the debts owed to the foreign companies affected by the takeover. Fortunately for Mexico, one of the small companies accepted the payment in installments. World War came into full swing, and what follows is more history.
In 1985 Mexican drug traffickers assassinated DEA agent Enrique Camarena. The U.S. authorities deployed Operation Legend, a strong device, on the border and went all out to capture drug lords such as Rafael Caro Quintero. For ten years, there was a diplomatic rift between the two countries. The U.S. authorities distrusted the Mexican authorities as corrupt, while Mexico accused its neighbors of encouraging drug consumption within its country.
President Felipe Calderón and his Secretary of Security, Genaro García Luna, headed Plan Mérida and the «Fast and Furious» operation, an action with U.S. resources and weapons that resulted in a real disaster for Mexico. After the trial of García Luna, numerous stories, documents, and testimonies came to light, pointing to a period when the plan originated for this disaster that Mexicans continue to suffer from in terms of public security today.
Surely the coming months will be filled with more media disputes between the different economic and political actors regarding the relationship between Mexico and the United States. Still, we must be attentive to what is happening globally as partners and neighbors. In less than a week, China met Iran with Saudi Arabia, a highly complex arrangement, and a few days later, Xi Jinping visited Vladamir Putin.
Some opinions from our readers
What do you think of the proposal by U.S. congressmen to intervene in Mexico to fight drug trafficking?
«Republican Congressmen Dan Crenshaw and Michael Waltz have no grounds to accuse Mexico as responsible for the fentanyl addiction suffered by thousands of Americans created in the 90’s by the pharmaceutical company Sackler. Besides the fact that their initiative is unconstitutional and against Mexican sovereignty, in the supposed case that the American armed forces would enter this country under the pretext of a war against drug trafficking. Although deep down it seems to me that it is a media trick of the Republicans to win votes in the next elections.”
- Carmen Rioja, Mexican writer.
«U.S. Republicans have a long history of pointing the finger at Mexico for many of the problems in the United States. Imperialism and regional dominance are always at the root of their rhetoric. The threats appear to be new attempts to paint AMLO and Mexico as enemies, probably based on Mexico’s recent embrace of Chinese investment. With the many Latin American regime changes (coups) that the U.S. has been involved in, there is no reason not to take these threats seriously. AMLO’s response is fair although it is easy to assume that he is taking advantage of the situation for his own benefit. In the end, Mexico’s rural and agricultural communities remain under real threats of violence from many angles that seemingly have no end.»
- Diego Guerrero, a civil engineer based in Los Angeles.
«Absolutely, NO. Mexico is a sovereign country and the people are entitled to make a decision… in this case the elected government of Mexico. In my personal opinion, however, if Mexican politicians are serious about removing the Cartels, they should accept assistance from the US government. It can be subtle. I am using the Colombian model from the time of Escobar.»
- David Bossman, activist and member of the Rotary Club.
“I think there is a small group of Congressional Republicans who traditionally have a very strong opposition to Mexico who promote the militarization of the border. They also argue the idea that the Democrats promote a very soft immigration policy to control migration. Already in 2021 they proposed this intervention policy and it did not pass because they did not have a majority in Congress, today they already have that majority, but the proposal has to pass through the Senate and the President, I see it very difficult for this to happen in the short term. From the Mexican side the issue is also politicized, the Mexican government uses it to promote nationalism against the United States. In the end it is a political ball, I don’t think any of this is going to happen soon.»
- Brigham Golden, anthropologist and cultural promoter in San Miguel.
“The U.S should NOT get directly involved in Mexico security matters. While there are obvious issues in Mexico that are affecting the U.S., I think we need to stick with diplomatic channels to address them. While I realize those are less than optimal vehicles of change, intervening directly in Mexico will likely worsen matters. Plus, the U.S. has enough to address within its own borders.”
- Anonymous.
