Hope of Healing Lies in Tiny Victories

WASHINGTON — Whatever happened to the vaunted political love affair between Mexico’s President Vicente Fox and President Bush?

Recently, Fox canceled two trips to Texas, one in a pique over border water disputes and another to protest the refusal of Texas Gov. Rick Perry to stay the execution of a Mexican national convicted of murder. With these and other signs of tension visible on the anniversary of Fox’s September 2001 visit to Washington, some worry that relations between the two countries are stalled, at best, and on a collision course, at worst.

Overheated expectations are partly to blame for the current predicament. Swept up in the euphoria after Fox’s historic electoral triumph, Mexico unilaterally made a high-stakes gamble that Washington could be convinced to make sweeping changes in immigration policy and to transform the North American Free Trade Agreement along the lines of the European Union, complete with open borders and large development funds. “It was an act of audacity,” one former Mexican diplomat said.

Unfortunately, the entire relationship has come to be judged by a single issue--whether or not the U.S. legalizes millions of Mexicans residing illegally in the country. “Mexico has ‘migratized’ the relationship,” observed a senior U.S. diplomat, who remembers with irony how Washington “narcotized” the relationship in the 1990s.

Predictably, Mexico is frustrated by the lack of action in the U.S. Congress and by the events of Sept. 11, which have sidelined the immigration issue. “They got themselves out on that limb, and they can get themselves off it,” said one U.S. official, who added that Mexico was warned that a huge rewriting of migration policy would be politically difficult to achieve.

But Mexico may find it hard to back off the immigration limb and may resort to a little Yankee-bashing under pressure from critics who argue that Fox invested too much in the U.S. and received too little in return.

The irony is that real achievements have been obscured by the immigration obsession. Direct foreign investment in Mexico has never been higher, anti-drug efforts have never been better and security cooperation has never been closer. The two presidents have committed to the Partnership for Prosperity, the most ambitious effort to alleviate poverty since President John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress. Even on migration there are modest achievements, including tacit U.S. acceptance of Mexico’s issuance of consular identity cards to illegal immigrants. Clearly, the U.S. and Mexico are not on a collision course, and bilateral relations never should be made contingent upon a single issue.

So what can be done to get the relationship on track?

First, the two governments could do a better job of picking the low-lying fruit in bilateral relations. While waiting for Congress to pass a grand immigration bill, why not increase the number of temporary agricultural visas issued through already existing programs? About 27,000 such visas are handed out annually, and U.S. agricultural labor needs are surely greater. American jobs are not threatened by Mexican agricultural labor, making such visas politically neutral. Many of those who die in the desert trying to cross the border illegally are agricultural workers, so an expansion of the agricultural-visa program would have a humanitarian benefit. Fox would have a victory to take home, and the U.S. would fill its need for farm workers.

Second, both governments could do a better job of turning untoward twists of fate to their advantage. The national interests of the U.S. and Mexico are complementary when it comes to homeland defense. Millions of Mexicans and Mexican Americans reside in U.S. cities, and they are as vulnerable to terrorist attack as any U.S. citizen. A contagious bioterrorist attack on the U.S. would strike deep in the heart of Mexico. The case for a North American security partnership should resonate in both countries.

Finally, more thought should be devoted to the post-NAFTA paradigm. The Fox government’s interest in a European model of integration drives its push for free movement of labor and social development funds. The Bush administration expected a partner more interested in increasing private investment. Until these leaders have a heart-to-heart about the post-NAFTA roadmap, they may continue to pursue incompatible goals. Such a discussion may sound like a hopelessly academic exercise, but it is not, and it may well prevent future tensions, as well as provide an opportunity to explore new horizons of North American policy.