Modern Mexico Task Force The Center for Hemispheric Policy receives financial support from the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State. Mexamerica: Twenty Years of U.S.-Mexico Integration by Agustín Barrios Gómez Partner, Estrategias Creativas Mexico City August 7, 2012 Among foreign-policy specialists interested in U.S.-Mexico relations, the lack of big-ticket binational policies is a source of much handwringing. American presidents are accused of lacking leadership on the issue and Mexican policymakers are seen as incapable of engaging the United States in such a way as to further their country s interests. Even when our leaders are seen to be working toward a more visionary approach, external circumstances often frustrate their efforts, as was the case when Presidents George W. Bush and Vicente Fox talked seriously about resolving issues related to immigration three days before 9/11. The lack of progress has continued during President Barack Obama s first term. A divided U.S. Congress has not even attempted to pass a comprehensive immigration reform because of opposition to such legislation in both houses of Congress, even during President Obama s first two years, when his party controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The main exception to the general absence of important binational policies has been the $1.2 billion-dollar Mérida Initiative, begun under President George W. Bush and continued by President Obama, which channels equipment and know-how to Mexico in its fight against the drug cartels. The fact that the initiative dealt with perceived threats to Mexico s overall stability undoubtedly helps explain bilateral support for the program.
Despite the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, and other big binational initiatives that are not related to security issues, however, Mexico and the United States have already become substantially integrated. This happened while most of us were not paying attention. But in every area of significance: security, demographics, culture, trade and industry, Mexicans and Americans share a unique symbiosis - more so than any two sovereign nations in the world. The facts tell the story, and they are impressive. To cite just a few: we have the most-traversed border in the world, both legally and illegally. Furthermore, our two countries have experienced the largest human diaspora in the shortest period of time in human history, with more than 31 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans now living in the United States. Approximately 21 million have U.S. citizenship, about six million are legal residents and five million are undocumented immigrants. With Canada s full participation, Mexico and the United States have implemented the seamless integration of the automobile industry, which is the most important provider of manufacturing jobs in both our countries. At the same time, migration has not just been a story of Mexicans flocking to the United States. As the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico, Mexican-American Tony Garza, repeatedly reminded us, between one and three million Americans are in Mexico at any given time. The number of U.S. citizens living in Canada, the second-most important destination for U.S. expatriates, is about 250,000. Fortunately, like worker bees oblivious to the trials and tribulations of their keepers, the U.S. and Mexican bureaucracies slog it out every day without regard to the vicissitudes of politics. The foot soldiers at the U.S. Department of State did not need the Mérida Initiative to create, in Mexico City, the only embassy where every major U.S.-government dependency is represented. It is also the embassy that issues more visas than any other diplomatic mission in the world. At the same time, Mexico s Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not need a pro-american president to establish the largest consular presence of any country anywhere, with more than 50 official representations throughout the United States. The Foreign Ministry did it simply because it had to serve the Mexican diaspora in the United States. In line with this reality, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security knows that Mexicans are the second-largest group of foreign nationals to enter the United States, both for tourism and for business. This means that channeling Mexicans through trusted traveler programs radically reduces the workload of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers at all ports of entry without compromising security or risking undocumented immigration. This is why, thanks to the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) and Global Entry programs, preapproved Mexicans, like our pre-screened Canadian counterparts, can enter the United States without having to be questioned by a CBP officer. Citizens of most other countries have no access to these privileges, mainly because the number of travelers that visit the United States from other countries is a fraction of the number coming from Canada and Mexico. There is also a lot of asphalt to cement our de facto integration. At the San Diego-Tijuana port of entry, over $600 million dollars are turning the 24-lane San Ysidro (already the world s busiest 2
border crossing) into a 60-lane behemoth that will help fuse California with Baja California. Business is also taking note: real estate mogul Sam Zell has blueprints and permits to build a San Diego terminal for Tijuana s airport, so that Southern Californians will be able to fly directly to Asia and multiple destinations in Latin America from their sister city in Mexico, thereby overcoming the limits to the expansion of the San Diego airport. Whether one judges this historical reality from an economic or a cultural perspective, the integration of the United States and Mexico has benefited North America. Wal-Mart, for example, plans to continue building one new store in Mexico every day. The Mexican and Mexican-American population of the United States is not going to fall from its current level of about 10% of the total U.S. population anytime soon. Border communities in Texas are not suddenly going to shun the billions of Mexican pesos they depend on for their livelihoods. In fact, there is so much at stake that the United States and Mexico should be trying even harder to harmonize their relationship. Many Mexicans believe that Americans often take Mexico for granted. Canadians also know a little something about this, but they have been able to humor their big neighbor, while establishing lasting mechanisms of cooperation that put them on an equal footing when dealing with the United States. Whether fighting shoulder-to-shoulder in wars, or being a part of NATO and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), Canadians have identified those spaces that give them a seat at the table and, to be fair, they have invested a considerable amount of time, resources and conviction to achieve this. Ever the victims of the historical mistrust that was born out of having lost half of their territory to their northern neighbors, Mexicans have not taken these initiatives. As a fundamentally pacifist country that shares the same Judeo-Christian values that most Americans profess, the benefits that Mexico offers the United States are more subtle than those offered by Canada. We do not speak the same language and our racial and socioeconomic differences make us more other than Canadians. But Mexico is a good neighbor. It is much richer than Iran and already has nuclear technology. But instead of being hell-bent on creating weapons of mass destruction, the most important nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the hemisphere, the Treaty of Tlatelolco, was named for, and signed in, a Mexico City neighborhood. Similarly, whereas China has a huge historical chip on its shoulder and world-power ambitions that already nudge up against American interests in places like Taiwan and Japan, Mexico just seeks respect and prosperity by diligently trying to find a way to consolidate its democracy and close the income gap with its northern neighbor. These differences are significant. When Americans do business in emerging Asia, they are often nurturing their future competitors, some largely owned by dictators. In Mexico there is no hidden geopolitical agenda, no devil-take-the-hindmost scramble to buy up natural resources. Our interests are not at odds with those of the United States. In fact, as Canadian political scientist Stephen Clarkson points out in his book Dependent America?, Canada and Mexico have been significant contributors to American prosperity and hegemony. 3
Among experts in the field of North American policy and trade, the so-called North American Project, initiated by NAFTA, is at an impasse. NAFTA has now existed for more than 18 years, as of January 2012. The Agreement was supposed to be a stepping-stone towards further integration. Experts, such as Robert Pastor of American University, have been deeply disappointed by statistics that show us moving backwards. They cite the fact that intra-north American trade, as a proportion of world trade, has fallen from its lofty heights in the 1990s. Proponents of North American integration are also worried about the shrill anti-mexican rhetoric that has surfaced in the United States, mainly surrounding the immigration issue. If we are to move forward, we need to focus our attention on building what is possible, instead of putting forward impractical goals, such as creating supranational institutions or a common market for labor, which cannot be reached in the foreseeable future. Under Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper s Conservative government, Canada has turned its back on Mexico, imposing visa restrictions and ignoring demographic and trade links. Canada s only think tank for the Western Hemisphere, the government-supported Canadian Foundation for the Americas (FOCAL), was allowed to fold at the same time as its Asian counterpart thrived. Even more damaging, Canadians have taken American attitudes towards security on their border, as well as the petty protectionism that invariably crops up when dealing with Washington on imports such as Canadian softwood lumber, personally. As a result, they are trying to hedge their North American bets. In the most recent of these instances, with President Obama s decision to block a large Canadian pipeline project into the United States, Prime Minister Harper was very specific in pointing out that if the United States did not want Canada s oil, the Chinese would be happy to have it. Despite such backsliding, our profound interdependence in strategic areas such as manufacturing, oil, security and demographics means that North America s ties run much deeper than most people think. The status quo is therefore secure, but the missed opportunities for our three countries development are legion. In Robert Pastor s view, the mistake lies in not developing a trust born of seeing ourselves as North American. For every dollar that the United States imports from Mexico (or Canada, for that matter), more than fifty cents worth of its content is American. And, given the fact that the large majority of Mexico s imports come from the United States, every percentage point s worth of growth south of the border immediately translates into American jobs. Trade with Asia or Europe does not come with these collateral benefits. Furthermore, a strong Mexico is clearly in the interest of all Americans, both in terms of reducing undocumented immigration and in terms of national security and international cooperation. Americans take too lightly the very real ideological differences that are going to give them huge headaches in the future. In the case of China, it is not just the ethical concerns of dealing with self-proclaimed Communist autocrats who still celebrate people like Mao on their currency. It is also about the fact that many of these state capitalists (that is, proponents of economic, but not political freedom) see money and power as a zero-sum game. In contrast, by and large, 4
Americans are proud of trying to create win-win situations, where commerce is seen as mutually beneficial. Canadians also see themselves as being guided by this idea, as do democratic Mexicans. Among the BRIC countries, Russia and China are especially antagonistic to American ideals. But even democratic Brazil and India are making us wonder about their intentions. The former has developed an aggressive realpolitik foreign policy, trying to amass power and influence by cozying up with Iran and becoming obsessed with establishing a sphere of influence in South America. And India flaunted international rules to become a nuclear power that aims its weapons towards Pakistan, a key U.S. ally. A strong North America that is able to compete successfully and profitably with the rest of the world is in the interest of all three NAFTA countries. Skeptics of the North American idea ignore the tens of millions of our citizens who travel back and forth, and the fact that around 700 million border crossings occur on our continent each year. They do not appreciate the benefits that just-in-time manufacturing (a production model in which items are created to meet demand only) gives to our trade relationships. Only by understanding where we are in our interdependent bilateral and trilateral relationship can we make intelligent decisions with respect to our future, for the benefit of the more than 450 million North Americans. In this respect, Mexicans have been just as negligent as their U.S. neighbor, failing, for example, to reach out to the local organizations that could act as a bridge to American communities dealing with an influx of immigrants. Worse, we do not have a permanent presence in the media, and when the media do focus on Mexico the images of the drug war are allowed to pass without comment. This presents a stark contrast to countries like Israel, who consistently and coherently explain themselves and their policies to the American public. Policy analysts like to think that Los Pinos, (the presidential residence and office in Mexico) and the White House are the main drivers of public policy. But the reality is that only efforts that have the public s support are truly effective. Given the currently negative image of Mexico in the United States, driven in part by the immigration issues and in part by the high levels of violence in Mexico, there is very little that even a well-meaning member of Congress or the president can do. Despite Mexico s great importance to the United States, there is no coalition of U.S. voters and opinion leaders able to communicate a convincing narrative that emphasizes the positive aspects of our interdependence. Mexico today is much more important to Americans than it was in the early 1990s because of the successes of NAFTA. While there is no longer one single issue backed by the White House that can galvanize a wide variety of interests (like there was in 1992-1993 for the passage of NAFTA), there are a whole host of other issues where Mexico has become much more important, including national security (on the border), demography, trade, industry, tourism and culture. The same thing has occurred on the Mexican side of the border, as our country has adopted so much from the pool of American values, from democracy to the consumer culture. Because of a 5
tradition of centralism, Mexicans have been guilty of ignoring the reality of their fellow citizens who live a symbiotic life vis-à-vis the United States. Whether you are talking about the millions of Mexicans who live on money that is sent from migrant family members in the United States, or the enormous amount of Mexicans who live in border cities that include some of Mexico s largest, like Tijuana and Ciudad Juárez, we ignore the importance of the United States to our peril. The high degree of de facto integration that already exists between Mexico and the United States (and between Canada and the United States) argues for a bottom-up approach for moving NAFTA to the next stage. Each sector of society within each of our countries that is relevant to accomplishing this goal needs to be approached. For labor, this means making the millions of American workers whose jobs depend on NAFTA aware of this fact, and having them become allies of their North American partners. In terms of the education establishment, most major U.S. universities have a Mexican or Latin American studies department. These are natural fora for a network of academics to educate people about NAFTA in general and Mexico in particular. The same thing applies to the media. For every story about the drug war south of the border, there should be a Mexican expert to put it into context (e.g., Mexico is not in any danger of becoming a failed state, the violence is concentrated in specific parts of a large country, while places like Mexico City are safer than they have been in a generation, etc.). In terms of culture, a coordinated effort to disseminate Mexico s enormous wealth in terms of history, music, literature and cuisine would find multiple outlets and enormous opportunities for outreach. Finally, there is the Mexican-American community. It needs to be informed of the many ways in which it benefits, and can benefit even more, from the strengthening of NAFTA. Many members of the community come from rural poverty and know very little about Mexico other than the rituals and folklore they learned from their parents. Educating them about Mexico and giving them the tools to feel proud about their heritage would make them better Americans and would help strengthen our bi-national relationship. Fortunately for our continent, Mexico is becoming more fundamentally competitive in manufacturing, which should continue to fuel growth. Six years ago the wage differential between China and Mexico was about five-to-one. Today, it is almost one-to-one, in part because China s wages have increased. Add to that the perennially high cost of fuel for transportation and the demands of just-in-time manufacturing and Mexico becomes even more attractive. In addition, our undocumented immigration is now net zero. Stricter enforcement on the American side of the border, in conjunction with a reduced U.S. demand for labor and more opportunities at home, have meant a dramatic turnaround in Mexican immigration numbers. The rate of acceptance for Mexicans applying for U.S. visas for tourism and business also has gone from 65% to 82%. Investor, or E series visas, have been issued in record numbers for wealthy Mexicans from northern cities looking to flee the violence in their hometowns. The San Antonio, Texas, press often highlights the fact that affluent Mexican buyers sustain their local housing market. 6
All of this means that the socioeconomic makeup of Mexican immigration is changing. Whether this will lead to a change in perception of the social status for the entire group is too early to tell, but the day-to-day relationship between Mexicans and Americans in the United States is likely to improve, as there are fewer undocumented migrants and more middle-class professionals. Finally, as Mexico s population ages, its population pyramid is inverting. Whereas the average Mexican woman had a little over six children in the 1970s, today s birth rate is hovering around 2.1 children, which is the so-called replacement rate for a society. This means that, independent of Mexico s development and American law enforcement, the pool of potential immigrant laborers will shrink over the coming decades. All these developments add up to a bigger and better balanced Mexamerica, as the social problems related to large-scale immigration subside. A little more planning and attention by our governments and the millions of Mexicans and Americans who live on both sides of the border could mean more opportunities for all of our citizens. Agustín Barrios Gómez lives in Mexico City and is founding partner at Estrategias Creativas, a consultancy and public relations agency specializing in the public sector, and co-founder of SolutionsAbroad.com, a website for English-speaking individuals interested in Mexico. In July, he was elected to the Chamber of Deputies of the 62 nd Mexican Congress. All statements of fact or expression of opinion contained in this publication are the responsibility of the author. 7