Mexico is a contrast with Canada in dealing with powerful neighbor

WASHINGTON As a native of Mexico and a citizen of Canada, Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, director of the Mexico project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, knows firsthand about the undercurrent of anti-Americanism in both countries.

Despite long-standing economic, political and cultural ties to the United States, there's a nationalist sentiment in Mexico and Canada particularly among intellectuals portraying a bully that routinely tramples its neighbors' sovereignty.

Yet, as Peschard-Sverdrup watched C-SPAN's telecast of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien leading an emotional ceremony commemorating the anniversary of the terrorist attacks in September 2001, he concluded that the Canadians have learned to mask those sentiments with diplomacy that is sadly lacking in Mexico.

The same morning, one of Mexico's largest newspapers reported on the activities of President Vicente Fox, whose hesitant, tepid expressions of support for the United States immediately after the attacks had stirred resentment in Washington.

The paper said Fox planned to hold a minute of silence "for the Mexicans who died in the attacks and the victims born in other countries, in that order."

Peschard-Sverdrup said Fox downplayed Sept. 11 to placate the anti-American political left in Mexico, but he warned that Washington could interpret the behavior as proof that Mexico can't be trusted at a difficult time.

"The Mexicans don't seem to understand that you can have policy differences and still reach out to your friends," Peschard-Sverdrup said. "The Canadians know . . . much better than the Mexicans . . . that sometimes it's right to argue for their sovereignty and sometimes it's right to express their solidarity."

Mexico's muted show of sympathy and support is widely viewed in diplomatic and academic circles here as the latest manifestation of an increasingly sharp-edged and resentful frustration with the United States.

Mexican leaders are feeling neglected. They are upset at Washington's unwillingness born of preoccupation with terrorism to move forward on immigration reforms Fox pledged to deliver.

"Things are chillier than they have been for some time," said Delal Baer, another Mexico expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Despite Fox's back-slapping friendship with President Bush and the ever-deepening economic integration that has made Mexico the United States' second-ranking trading partner, an influential segment of Mexico's left nurtures the same mistrust of the United States that Mexican author Octavio Paz described half a century ago.

Paz wrote of "the old relationship between the strong and the weak, oscillating between indifference and abuse, lies and cynicism." "The majority of Mexicans have the justified conviction that the treatment our country receives is unjust."

Rafael Fernández de Castro, a leading Mexican scholar of the binational relationship, noted that the left has taunted Fox f or failing to win protections for the estimated 4 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States.

"They say, 'You got very close to Washington, and you're not getting anything in return,' " Fernandez said.

Peschard-Sverdrup said practitioners of this old-style, reflexive anti-Americanism do not understand it is in Mexico's interest to cooperate with the United States on security.

"I don't think it has dawned on many Mexicans how closely integrated the two nations are, and how Mexican national security can't be isolated from U.S. national security," he said.

He noted that Mexico lost hundreds of thousands of export-related jobs because of the U.S. economic downturn after the terrorist attacks.

Fox has said an immigration deal that would remove the stigma of "illegal" from several million Mexicans should be a keystone of the maturing economic relationship. On Sept. 6, 2001, in a dramatic ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House, Fox boldly told President Bush "we must and we can" quickly hammer out the deal.

Then came Sept. 11 and a surprisingly quick disenchantment between Mexico City and Washington.

In the aftermath of the attacks, as nations around the world held ceremonies of condolence and support, Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda made an abortive attempt to stir support for the United States. However, he stirred more nationalistic outrage than cross-border solidarity when he declared Mexico should not "haggle" about the terms for its support.

In Mexico's court of public opinion, Castañeda was promptly convicted of treason. Deep-seated historical grievances suddenly erupted. Castañeda was pounded as a sellout to the United States, a submissive lackey to the treacherous neighbor who in 1848 "snatched" half of Mexico's territory in an action that is still taught to schoolchildren as "the war of North American intervention."

Meanwhile, Interior Minister Santiago Creel was celebrated for defending national honor when he insisted any Mexican reaction to the attacks be based "on Mexico's own interests and sovereignty."

Some leading Mexican intellectuals were outraged at the hostility directed at a wounded neighbor. Lorenzo Meyer lamented the display of "puerile anti-Americanism." Enrique Krauze warned, "Historical grievances do not justify abandonment of moral solidarity" and called on Fox to make "a clear gesture of sympathy for the American people."

Yet Fox, who surged to prominence as a straight-talking, no-nonsense rancher, reacted with uncharacteristic timidity.

"Fox went to the other extreme," the Monterrey newspaper El Norte reported, "and (his reaction) has been characterized by silence and caution."

"We are partners of the Americans, not their lackeys," Fuentes said, prompting a sharp response from Baer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"Yes, we are partners, but our countries are more than partners," Baer wrote. "We are also united by family and cultural ties, by fundamental values, by strategic interests and by a large border of twin cities. The United States doesn't seek lackeys or the submission of anyone. We want worthy allies, strong in their confidence of their own sovereignty."

Robert Leiken, a U.S.-Mexico specialist at the Nixon Center in Washington, said the Mexicans' current insistence on pressing their immigration agenda shows a misreading of Washington's mood and a misunderstanding of how Washington works at a time of crisis.

"I don't think the Mexicans understand how much this country has been shaken and redirected by Sept. 11," said Leiken. "They keep coming back, trying to redirect the agenda. They don't understand how difficult it is for a U.S. administration to take on more than one important issue at one time. I think they just don't get it."

In a column last week in the Mexico City daily Reforma , political analyst Juan Enríquez warned that Mexico's treatment of the United States in recent weeks has been so antagonistic that it "could cost our country for decades."

Although Castañeda backed the United States immediately after Sept. 11, he was behind Mexico's recent withdrawal from a hemispheric security treaty. The move angered U.S. officials. Castañeda appears to have become embittered by the lack of progress on immigration issues.

Accusing Castañeda of "enormous clumsiness" in managing the U.S. relationship, Enríquez wrote, "We are rejecting, angering and losing the confidence of our principal partner."

Then Canada and Mexico have the nerve to refer to us as a bully and complain that we trample on their sovereignty. Sheesh, talk about gratitude.

I was surprised to hear that lib Chretien ranting away when Canada's liberal asylum and immigration policies are among the worst in the world. As for Mexico, that isn't a surprise. What is a surprise is the lack of comment out of DC on those contemptible, meddlesome, obnoxious varmints. They are still mad as hell that we kicked their butts back in 1848. Alas, this nation has a real bad habit of starting things and not finishing them. This always makes things worse for us in the future (if you get my drift). Mexico is not now nor has it ever been a friendly nation. It should have been dealt with once and for all in 1848.

I'd be interested to know just what do the American people recieve in return for 8 million illegal immigrants... besides cheap yardwork.

All of the bills they generate, their gangsters, their language, and their non-stop arrogance.

Speaking of Canada, have you seen this?: Canada risks race riots, study warns - Former diplomat calls for immigration-policy overhaul

Thanks for the link. It made for a very interesting read. Also thanks for your comments in your post #21.

From your link:

"The government's principal reason for promoting high immigration levels in spite of the costs seems to be the belief that most newcomers will vote for the Liberal party in federal elections," writes Mr. Collacott.

"This is particularly true of family-class immigration, which is the least successful category in terms of economic performance and should be significantly curtailed."

Gee, that sounds familiar...

I will be watching for your post.

Do a search. Several of the 9-11 terrorists entered through Canada, none through Mexico.
Yes Mexico's border is problematic, but Canada's is not watched as closely it seems.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.