Luis Rubio
The relationship with the United States will always be complex due to the enormous differences between the two nations, which are so historically, culturally, and economically in contrast to each other. However, that has not hindered the neighborhood from becoming a source of enormous opportunities. Once the Americans have elected a new president, the Mexican government must determine what it expects from its neighbor and how it will relate with its new government. Most importantly, the real issue for Mexico is how it will deal with its deficiencies, which is the true question at heart.
There are three dimensions that must be appreciated. Before anything else, the depth and, above all, the transcendence of the economic interaction. It is perhaps the most dynamic borderland crossing in the world (with more than three million dollars in goods being traded every minute), and the exports that Mexico sends north constitute the main engine of growth of the Mexican economy. In short, there is no way to minimize the relevance and transcendence of this relationship.
A second focus is the fact, evidenced in this election, of the enormous change, even convulsion, that the American society is experiencing both internally and with respect to the rest of the world. The U.S. is undergoing a complex adjustment process facing deep domestic polarization, a change in the international order, the emergence of China as a transformative factor, and the return to geopolitics in a changing world. Its history has always been thus: as Churchill said about them, “Americans will always do the right thing only after they have tried everything else.”
Third, more directly regarding the new reality after the Trump victory, the bilateral relationship will return to a transactional structure where the exchanges will frequently be asymmetrical but always transparent. In contrast with more traditional governments, Trump is clear and direct and entertains simple preferences, even though his delivery might be aggressive. Not everything in his repertoire is about Mexico: his vision is brusque but not always wrong, and only a blind person would argue that all is well in Mexico. Perhaps it would be high time to act in a preventive manner by directly and clearly addressing the issues plaguing Mexico regarding security, education, energy, and, more generally, development.
For Mexico, all this is summed up in just one thing: how does the government of Claudia Sheinbaum see the U.S. and whether she understands the opportunities and consequences of its potential options? In an era of isolated economies, it was possible to pretend distance and independence, two artifices that, in the age of economic integration (and the immense importance of the exports for the functioning of the internal economy), are irrelevant, if not counterproductive.
In an ideal world, each country would define its interests, objectives, opportunities, and preferences in the abstract to seek the best way to achieve them later. In the real world, the options are limited, and the consequences of erring are multiple. That does not imply that Mexico should yield to the demands of the U.S., but it should indeed call for admitting the deficiencies that the country confronts; these are the very ones that gave rise to the reality in which the country finds itself today. In a word, the only way to guarantee sovereignty lies in having a strong economy and a developed society. Nothing surpasses that. The question is whether the new Mexican government will be willing to assume what that implies.
Geography generated immense opportunities for Mexico, but Mexico has been negligent in bringing about conditions for the physical connection with its neighbors to the north so that these could convert into a lever for the country’s integral development. Mexicans may appreciate or despise the North Americans, but the vicinity offers extraordinary opportunities should Mexico learn how to seize them.
And the deficiencies remit to decisions that have come to be made, or not made, throughout the decades in crucial areas such as education (where the development of individuals to their maximal potential is what is most distant from governmental projects); health (where instead of favoring an efficient and generalized system the options are closed, especially for the neediest); mistaken priorities (or inexistent ones) in matters of infrastructure to facilitate economic activity; absurd trade conflicts; and a legal regime, and now a judicial one, which today engages more in frightening off and diminishing investment than in promoting the country’s development.
The problem is not Trump or the Americans. It is, rather, Mexicans’ own mythologies that have been the real hindrance to development. Exports show one avenue, but success depends on realizing and accepting that Mexico broke into two nations: the open, competitive Mexico and the poor, struggling, violent, and extorted Mexico. And both Mexicos live next to each other. That is the true complaint that Trump brings to the table, and he is not wrong…
The U.S. presidential succession anticipates a complex stage, but one cannot lose sight that interdependence is a two-way street. If Mexicans were to confront the Americans instead of getting our act together, it would end badly. The simultaneous beginning of two administrations is an excellent opportunity to change the national vectors toward development.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: