U.S. ELECTION: Kerry or Bush: Does it Matter to Mexico?

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Diego Cevallos

MEXICO CITY, Oct 26 2004 (IPS) - When the United States sneezes, Mexico catches a cold. It’s a well-worn metaphor used to describe the relations between the two countries. But in the case of the upcoming presidential elections in the United States, many believe the outcome will have no effect whatsoever on its ties with Mexico.

Whether Democratic candidate John Kerry or Republican incumbent George W. Bush wins out on Nov. 2, observers are not expecting any significant changes in U.S. policy towards Mexico.

And hopes are particularly slim for a migration accord with the United States, home to some 10 million Mexican-born immigrants and another 15 million people of Mexican descent.

For Mexico, immigration is a key issue in bilateral relations, because over half of the Mexicans working in the United States do not have work or residence permits, and subsequently face a multitude of problems and violations of their rights.

And every year, another 400,000 Mexican immigrants arrive in the United States, most of them undocumented, while dozens lose their lives attempting to make it across the border.

The United States, which accounts for over 90 percent of Mexico’s foreign trade, deports an average of 5,000 Mexicans daily, but those who manage to stay in the country send home over 12 billion dollars a year in remittances to their families.

Neither Bush nor Kerry has paid much attention to the subject of immigration during this election campaign. According to Adolfo Aguilar, a former Mexican ambassador to the United Nations Security Council, this is because Mexico is of little importance to U.S. politicians.

In one of the recent televised debates between the candidates, Bush advocated the granting of temporary work permits to guest workers for specific jobs, “so long as there’s not an American willing to do that job.” For his part, Kerry has proposed that illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least five years and have clean criminal records should be given “a path to citizenship.”

There is no guarantee, however, that either plan would be approved by the U.S. Congress, since most legislators place priority on providing employment for U.S. citizens and would thus be unlikely to back such initiatives.

According to Jorge Chabat, an international affairs analyst at Mexico’s Centre for Economic Research and Education, the dynamics of U.S.-Mexican relations do not generally change when there are elections in the United States.

There may be subtle modifications in the area of trade or on other issues, but the course of the overall relationship remains the same, he said in an interview with IPS.

For the government of Mexican President Vicente Fox, its relationship with its neighbour to the north is a top priority. But what happens in Mexico is of little concern to the United States, unless it leads to a disaster or an economic problem that directly affects U.S. citizens, Chabat explained.

Columnist Miguel Granados from the Mexican daily Reforma spoke in even blunter terms, declaring that the Mexican government and people “should not expect anything from the United States” or any of its presidential candidates with regard to immigration. The United States is a country that does not have friends, “only interests,” he stated.

Mexican Foreign Minister Ernesto Derbez told the press that the bilateral agenda will not be altered in any way by the elections in the United States or their outcome.

Mexico has placed the issue of immigration on the discussion table and it is ready to continue talks with any U.S. president, he said. It neither supports a specific candidate nor feels any “great concern” regarding the results, he added.

As far back as mid-2001, Fox announced that a migration accord with the United States was close at hand. The agreement would legalise the status of millions of Mexicans living there illegally, and establish regulations for subsequent migrant workers.

Optimism reigned, and Fox, who prided himself on his close friendship with Bush, congratulated himself for placing the immigration issue at the front and centre of the bilateral agenda, while others applauded his leadership and strategy in this key area.

At the time, Bush went so far as to declare that Fox was one of the principal leaders of Latin America, and that no other relationship was as important to the United States as the one it shared with Mexico, which is why it would work towards a migration accord.

But hopes were soon dashed, first by the events and repercussions of Sep. 11, 2001 and then Mexico’s refusal to support the United States in the invasion of Iraq.

Granados argues that a migration accord was never close at hand, despite Mexico’s optimism, because it is far more convenient for the United States to maintain the status quo in this regard.

Nevertheless, there are some who disagree. According to Mexican writer Carlos Fuentes, there could in fact be changes in bilateral relations if Bush is defeated, because Kerry is far more likely to move forward with negotiations on the immigration issue, which would clearly benefit Mexico.

Christopher Woodruff, the director of the Centre for U.S.-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego, also believes that a Kerry victory would be preferable for Mexico, because the Democratic candidate seems predisposed to working more closely with other countries, and therefore, on the surface at least, relations would be much less tense than at present.

For Woodruff, one of the most noteworthy things about the current presidential campaign is precisely the lack of attention paid to Mexico and Mexican issues, but he nonetheless believes that there is a potential for improved relations after the elections.

In addition to immigration, Mexico will want to address other issues with whoever is elected president on Nov. 2, including trade, the environment and human rights.

The Fox administration has even called for a review of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico, in effect since January 1994.

Since signing the agreement, Mexico’s foreign trade has grown from 92 billion dollars annually to more than 300 billion.

The Mexican government’s idea is to develop NAFTA into “a strategic bloc, with common policies that will promote greater regional competitiveness and allow the three countries to compete with the growing Asian presence,” explained Derbez.