Posted on 11/9/2002, 1:17:01 AM by John Lenin
M E X I C O C I T Y, Nov. 6 — The U.N. Security Council debate on Iraq has been a coming-out party for Mexico, which after decades on the sidelines is quietly becoming a player in international diplomacy. For the United States, it hasn't always been pretty.
While many Mexicans are delighted with the principled stand Mexico is advocating, some worry their country is sacrificing its close relationship with the United States or alternately, using the vote as leverage to win concessions on key issues like immigration.
President Vicente Fox pledged to give Mexico a greater international voice when his 2000 election ended seven decades of single-party rule. He arranged to host several international summits, and quickly got Mexico a seat on the Security Council.
"It's an important change in our foreign policy, that has to do with making our presence and participation more dynamic everywhere that decisions are made," Fox told The Associated Press recently. "It's much more valuable to be part of the decisions than to be a passive spectator."
Initially, the United States welcomed the greater role for Mexico. After all, Fox and President Bush were the best of friends. Bush made the first foreign trip of his presidency to Fox's ranch, where Fox's mother gave him a plate of cookies.
Soon after Mexico joined the Security Council, it abandoned years of abstentions and voted against Cuba and with the United States in a U.N. resolution on human rights on the communist island.
But after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush backed off the migration reforms Fox wanted, and Fox has faced increasing criticism at home for giving too much to the United States and getting too little.
Relations between the two presidents have grown increasingly colder.
In August, Fox canceled a trip to Texas, which would have included a stop at Bush's ranch, after Texas ignored Fox's pleas and executed a Mexican who Fox said police didn't inform of his right to talk to his consulate. Fox has since said he would like to reschedule; no date has been set.
During a meeting two weeks ago, Fox invited Bush to Mexico for a state visit next year. Bush hasn't responded.
And on the Security Council, Mexico has aligned itself against U.S. positions, although many analysts say its stance has to do more with principles than friction with Washington.
Bush pushed hard for a tough resolution that would give U.N. inspectors more clout to search for weapons of mass destruction, warn Iraq that it faces "serious consequences" if it fails to comply and leave the United States free to act against Saddam Hussein.
Other countries, including Russia, France and China, wanted to give Iraq a chance to cooperate with inspectors, and only authorize the use of force in a second resolution if it doesn't. They're afraid the U.S. draft may trigger a war.
At first it was hard to read where Mexico stood, but its position became clearer with each passing day, and over the last week it has come out strongly in favor of the French and Russian approach.
On Wednesday, the United States presented a revised proposal that made concessions to critics, including Mexico.
Mexico's position has won praise for Fox at home even from some of his most bitter critics. The leftist newspaper La Jornada, which has waged an editorial war with the conservative president, called Fox's Iraq stance "on target."
"After the absurdities, missteps and clumsiness that have characterized this administration's foreign policy, the adoption of the current policy is a point in favor of the president, and should be recognized and supported," the newspaper said.
But many wonder whether Mexico is merely setting up opposition to the United States in an effort to win bilateral concessions on subjects like migration.
One Security Council diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mexico's opposition to declaring Iraq in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions was seen as a bargaining chip.
La Jornada, even as it praised Fox's policy, cautioned: "We can only hope this well-aimed policy on Iraq isn't just a bargaining card."
Others say Mexico may be sacrificing good policy for principle. Mexico's opposition to the United States in the Security Council could hurt its relationship with Washington on issues more important to Mexicans.
"The truth is, this is creating friction with the United States," said Ana Maria Salazar, a professor at Mexico's ITAM institute and a former Pentagon official. "The United States will always hold Mexico up to a different standard, because the close friendship between Bush and Fox created many expectations."
Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Immigration? HAHAHAHA Guess again, they're called Illegals again now. Pretty soon they will be called target practice if Mexico doesn't make a serious attitude adjustment. The American people, and the President have had about all the $hit we're going to take from these banditos south of the border. While we're going great distances to own some Arab oil fields, the ones in Mexico would be like taking candy from a baby. They should remember not to poke the giant when he's sleeping.
Too little? One vote for Cuba in return for food, education, jobs, and medical care for 10 million of your poor, a bailout during the peso crisis, our buying of a majority of Mexican exports, that's too little? It's unbelievable that someone would make that criticism.
"Democrats had every intention of pushing a deal forward, but now we are in the hands of Bush," Fernandez said. "The personal relationship between Fox and Bush is tapped out. We can't expect that to play for anything. Most worrying, Bush may be angry with Fox and Castañeda for not supporting his war with Iraq."
Now, who do you suppose was speaking for the Democrat Party, that told Fox that they would push the "deal" through?
Now, just slow down and 'splain somethin' to me; to my knowledge the only countries we have to make more or less concessions would be the ones with veto power, correctamundo?...USA,China,France,Great Britain and but not least Russia.
Having an extra drink tonight, can anyone tell me slowly and coherently, under what UN resolutions should we even bother to have a discussion about important world affairs with a THIRD World country?...not to mention, discussing meaningfull concessions to them!
I like to have some of that Tequilla they are drinkin.......
From a young age, this is what Mexican schoolchildren are taught. This is reinforced K-12 (or K-7 as the case may be), that we took it away from them and are to be resented for it.
We're their dog in this fight. They intend to work against us so they somehow get the upper hand over us. It's kind of like the parasite working against it's host.
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.