Mexico and its reconstruction/Chapter 21

Layout 4

 

CHAPTER XXI

MEXICAN-AMERICAN RELATIONS

The foreign relations of Mexico begin with the official recognition of her independence by the United States. The first representative of Mexico was sent to Washington.^[1] With the exception of the period of the Mexican War, the two countries have been at peace officially though differences of opinion have been frequent, acrid, and, at times, threatening. The list of subjects on which amicable adjustments have been arrived at is a long one and a credit to both. They have had frequent recourse to arbitration. In this way they have set the example to other nations, both before and after the foundation of the Hague Tribunal. They have settled the complaints of their citizens by Claims Commissions. After decisions have been definitely made by such Commissions there have been equitable adjustments, when they were called for by the discovery of new evidence.^[2] Boundary claims have been amicably adjusted. Jurisdiction over the shifting bancos or shoals, of the Rio Grande has been arranged by friendly compromise. The Pious Funds dispute was taken to the Hague for settlement and the Chamizal controversy was turned over to arbitrators. Other instances might be cited. The old disputes have passed. They have all gone the same way. The new ones must follow them.

There are few in either country who realize the importance of Mexican-American relations to both countries. American relations will always be the chief element in Mexican foreign policy. That is a fundamental fact, no matter how unwelcome to certain classes in Mexico. Circumstances beyond the control of any government, the geographical position of the country, and the character of its natural resources make it so.

The necessary interrelations of the two countries have made the more timid among the Mexican population feel that geographical unity and unity of economic interest carried with them the danger that political unity might be forced upon the weaker state. They are obsessed by the belief that the United States wants to annex Mexico. They are confident that only the favorable opportunity is lacking. It would astonish them to know how small a part of the people of the United States have any but the vaguest of ideas about the republic and its people and how few of even these would consider annexation a thing to be desired. Those Mexicans who believe that an advance southward will be made as soon as an excuse can be found cannot know the history of their own country. Occasions for action there have been in great number. The United States does not "want" Mexico. To proceed to its annexation would be to act against its political impulses. In fact, as has been repeatedly shown, the United States will endure great provocation rather than come to conflict with the Mexican government. That under no circumstances will forcible action ever be taken nor any Mexican territory annexed is unfortunately a corollary, which some in Mexico have recently come to believe logically follows. Their opinion has unfortunately been given no little support by declarations made by prominent persons in the United States itself. The sooner reliance on any such statements is abandoned the better for the peaceful relations of the two countries. Neither Mexico nor any other state can count on the freedom from responsibility that such a policy would involve. The economic advantage that would result to the United States from annexation as contrasted to that which may follow independence and friendship is doubtful. Mexican trade, both import and export, is already almost inevitably American and investments will be increasingly so.

The United States does want order in Mexico, and for a number of reasons. Order would increase its profitable trade exchange, it would make secure the lives and properties of the many Americans whose interests are bound up with those of the republic and finally it would simplify maintenance of the fundamental principle of American foreign policy—that American states be not interfered with in their development by non-American political influences. Fair treatment for American and other foreign interests in Mexico and friendly adjustment of the questions that must affect the two governments because of their relative position, this is all that the United States wishes from its southern neighbor.

Mexican relations are not the most important factor in American foreign policy. At times they may rise to that prominence, but they can not be so permanently. They are important in themselves always and they are important because they do touch the larger international policy above referred to. In fact, the United States has often held the balance in Mexican foreign affairs, as must be familiar to all acquainted with Mexican history. Far from being a power wishing to overthrow Mexican independence, the United States has been its bulwark. It is certainly open to doubt whether there would exist to-day an independent Mexico if it had not been for the influence of the United States. The policy of America for Americans has meant something because the United States has stood ready to defend the principle.

Frankly speaking, this policy has not been a purely idealistic one. The United States has been moved by altruistic motives, but its own political and economic interests also have influenced its actions. Mexico can count on the continuance of this service in the future whether it recognizes and welcomes the protection or not. Similarly, the desire that Mexico shall remain independent and shall become a strong state able to protect itself, or at least contribute powerfully to its own protection is not only an altruistic desire on the part of the United States. There are many ways, of course, in which no other country can assist in this development. If Mexico is to find the way out of her travail to a worth-while independence, she must do so primarily by her own efforts. There are some ways in which she can be assisted. The granting of such assistance should be a part of the policy of the United States, not only because of its obligations to its neighbor, but also because of its obligation to itself.

Most of the means by which Mexican-American relations can be improved are, contrary to popular opinion, those in which the two governments are involved not at all or in a secondary manner. Greatly to be desired and fundamental, is the establishment of a better appreciation by the people of each republic of the people of the other and of their problems. To this end the government can contribute but little. Americans have known foreign lands so superficially that they have little patience with a foreign point of view. Their increasing touch with world affairs will help to banish their provincialism and make them see things through other men's eyes as they have not in the past. They will learn by contact to assimilate the good in other civilizations and develop a spirit of tolerance not now a striking characteristic. As this change occurs Americans will reach a new estimate of Mexicans.

The vision of Mexicans has not been wider. They also have felt the influence of the foreigner, but they have not come to appreciate him. One of the indirect beneficent results of the revolution will be the broadening of the national point of view, brought about by the return of the many thousands who, during the revolution, have been forced out of their own country into foreign lands, especially the United States. The new perspective, which these people will take back to their home communities, will not fail to have its influence upon the thought of others. They will have lost their short-range vision and will help their countrymen to a new appreciation of the position of Mexico in the world. From such changes of viewpoint the United States will profit.

The American people must hear a call to help Mexico through philanthropic activities. These depend upon the Government of the United States only for such friendly moral support as it may be able to extend. Bad sanitary conditions, poor educational facilities, and other conditions socially disadvantageous—the need for the elimination of these in Mexico should awaken a lively interest on the part of the people of the United States. It has not done so heretofore. In spite of the excellent efforts made, chiefly with church support, all that has been done is only a beginning. The well equipped and efficient philanthropic institutions, which under American management and support are doing such splendid work in the Far East and the Near East, have no counterpart in the nearer south. American philanthropy has not always heeded the injunction "Do the duty that lies nearest thee." It has not given its attention, as it should, to Mexico.

In spite of the evident present unwillingness of Mexico to admit it, there is little doubt that the United States must give financial assistance to the government. This is needed not only to meet the obligations of debts already incurred but to provide money to defray the expenses of the educational and social reforms that the government may very properly undertake for the benefit of the common people. How far this financing can be accomplished through loans made on purely private initiative can not be stated. Even if it could be wholly done thus, it is doubtful whether that standard should be accepted. The United States may very properly do what it can to assure that Mexico be given assistance under conditions that will be easy for her to carry. It may also seek to assure that its own citizens shall not enter speculative governmental contracts, the attempted enforcement of which would be likely to lead to international complications. The alternative which will be offered in Mexican loans will be high rates with poor guarantees for payment or low rates and good guarantees. The recent state of public opinion in Mexico indicates that her governments would prefer the former standard.

It is open to question whether considerations of good friendship permit the only country whose citizens are in a position to refinance Mexico to enter contracts such as Mexico would be glad to accept. Whether the special guarantee, which might be given, should be an hypothecation of certain sources of public income, or the establishment of a special customs service, or some other means that would protect the right of the lender, must be determined by circumstances not yet developed. It seems Mexico will very probably show unwillingness to give any special guarantee in return for financial aid. It may be the part of friendship to wait until such unwillingness disappears, rather than to help her borrow money on conditions which, if fulfilled, may prove a drag upon her economic recovery and, if not fulfilled, a threat to international peace.

But the financing of the obligations of the government is not the only financial assistance Mexico will need. The industries already developed, especially her public services, will need large amounts of capital for their rehabilitation and their further expansion. Natural resources, until now almost untouched, can be brought to contribute to solving the problems of the republic only by assistance from beyond the national boundaries.

These funds can be obtained on advantageous terms only if the foreigner is assured by Mexico and by his home government that the cooperation sought is not one back of which lies a narrow, anti-foreign, illiberal policy. If there is shown a genuine desire on the part of the Mexican government and Mexican people to have the help of foreigners in the development of the republic and if other states make clear to their investing citizens that conditions will not be allowed to arise in which they will find themselves harassed by legislation that will practically confiscate rights worthy of protection, this help, like that to the government itself, will be forthcoming on favorable terms. Mexico will again have the possibility of becoming a strong American state. If, on the other hand, the "nationalization movement" continues to show the characteristics that have marked it heretofore, there is no doubt that the reconstruction of Mexico will be at least greatly retarded. It is at this point, when the financial arrangements to be adopted and the rights of foreigners come under discussion, that the attitude of the Mexican government toward national reconstruction becomes most important. . However great the mistakes of the Diaz régime may have been, there can be little doubt that the effort to improve the condition of the country by bringing about its economic development was wise. The assistance of the foreigner contributed powerfully to the creation of a new Mexico and the assistance of the foreigner may be made equally effective in raising Mexico from the low estate to which she has been brought by the revolution.

Those who now have in charge the destinies of the republic have the high responsibility of bringing that adjustment of material and non-material interests in which they believe their predecessors failed. They must find some means by which they can secure the financial assistance of the foreigner, without falling into the errors for which they criticize those formerly in power.

The economic foundations, upon which may rest the reforms Mexico may adopt, involve no other foreign country as they do the United States. Trade and investments make the interests of the two countries inseparable. These influences will accentuate their economic interdependence and should draw them into closer and more friendly political relations.

For the present there seems to be little prospect for such an entente cordial. The revolution in Mexico and the efforts of certain classes of foreigners during the World War have reawakened the spirit of distrust. which has so long made difficult a political understanding in spite of unity of economic interests. The intense nationalism of the local leaders has misled them. They have been drawn into an anti-foreign campaign, which can not be for the best interests of their country. They have set up the theory that the republic shall keep for itself entire freedom of action in matters political and economic. They seek to put the foreign resident and his property outside the protection of his home government. Those, whether Mexicans or not, who helped to foster this anti-foreign policy were no friends of Mexico.

Financially, whether we consider government obligations or private development enterprises, Mexico cannot be independent in the way some of her recent leaders have desired. The country she has called upon the most heavily for capital in the past has been the United States. The revolution has increased the necessity of that dependence. Mexico must borrow to repair the destruction of the revolution; she must seek an intensive development of her national resources in order to secure means for paying off her increased obligations and for improving the social and industrial life of her people. The World War has made it impossible for her to secure capital on the other side of the Atlantic under any conditions. However much she may desire to spread her borrowings, public and private, among a number of nations, she will find that standard impossible.

Little need be said to show that politically as well as economically Mexico should seek the friendship of the United States. If the principle that non-American states shall not be allowed to extend their control to the American republics be overthrown or abandoned, Mexico would not improbably be one of the first of the new world countries to suffer. The United States is the chief defender of the policy from which Mexico has already, in one instance, profited in a striking manner and by which her independence has now for a century been rendered more secure. Finally, a policy of enmity toward the United States would of itself endanger Mexican independence.

In considering the importance of Mexican-American relations from the point of view of the United States the economic motives are less important in themselves than the consequences that might follow the lack of good understanding. The Mexican import and export trade is of great and growing importance to the United States, as has already been shown. Mexico is a schooling ground for American importers and exporters. The experience acquired in the foreign market near at hand is valuable in the approach to others more distant. Mexico is the most important of the Latin countries as a place for the investment of American capital and it may continue to be so. Nevertheless the interruption of the economic connections between the two countries would bring no such consequences to the United States as it would to Mexico.

Friendship with Mexico is more important to the United States politically than economically. An enemy or an unfriendly power on the southern boundary would be a constant threat to the national safety. So also a country that cannot keep order within its own boundaries and give protection to the lives and property of foreigners is a menace to the United States only slightly less dangerous, because conditions may arise in such a country which, through the steps taken by other powers to defend the interests of their nationals, may draw the United States into international conflicts.

The United States, therefore, is in a position that demands that it shall do all that is within its power to help Mexico establish and maintain the public order upon which her economic salvation depends. Order is essential for the rehabilitation of Mexico and for the protection of the broader foreign policy of the United States; it is the starting point for all the other developments in Mexico that will help to strengthen the position of both countries and assure their good understanding.

The steps it may be necessary to take to assure order, and to impress upon the local government its duty to maintain it, may offend the susceptibilities of those in control in Mexico. In the past America has been frightened too often by such possibilities. There has developed a pallid Pan-Americanism, which has led the United States too often to refuse to do anything for fear of offending a Latin American country, even though by inaction its own just interests were caused to suffer. If that is the price that must be paid for Latin American friendship, it is not worth the price. In fact, no such condition exists. The Latin is moved by the same motives that prompt other peoples. A nation whose foreign policy is characterized by a firm insistence on respect for its citizens' rights never sacrifices the respect of other nations—even the respect of those against whom the action is taken. A national policy that insists upon the prompt and generous fulfillment of international duty in the protection of foreigners and in payment for damages done them is one that will do more to make America respected among the other nations of the New World than will one whose chief feature is the exchange of courtesies in which hard facts are glossed. Its influence will extend beyond our narrower national interests, because it will make those upon whom demands are made conscious of the responsibilities that accompany their international "equality" and spur them on to make it less a fiction.

There is no one element which, in the relations of the two more important republics of North America, is sufficient, if emphasized, to bring the good understanding that should exist between them. Nor can the good understanding be brought through official action only. The people of both countries must forget certain of their prejudices. The stronger nation must feel the call to help the weaker through both private and public initiative. It must help raise Mexico to a condition, social and economic, in which it can help itself. This, Mexico can not do alone. The weaker nation, on its side, must recognize the responsibilities, as well as the privileges, of independence. Toward those who have helped and those who will be called upon in the future to help in the development of the country, the government must show its good will by assuring them effective protection and by respecting the engagements they have entered.

Given a policy with these characteristics, there is no reason to believe that the relations between Mexico and the United States may not become increasingly intimate and friendly. Economic and political cooperation will then be possible in a positive way. It has been possible heretofore only in spite of lack of understanding on the part of both peoples and in spite of failure to realize their unity of interests. Coöperation and interdependence must succeed the distrust and "independence," so prominent, often, in the past. If Mexico is strong and "independent," in the broader sense of that word, she will be a friend of the United States, an ally in the defense of the principles in foreign policy for which the United States stands, and a bulwark against possible attack from the south. These she will be from principle and because her own best interests demand it. For the best interests of the United States no other standard of action is necessary. A friendly, strong, and independent Mexico will bring greater economic advantages than the annexation that certain classes of Mexicans fear and some citizens of the United States desire. It would contribute more to American political security. A friendly neighbor is a better bulwark than a disaffected province.

The arguments for a cordial understanding between Mexico and the United States are so compelling that it is hard to believe that they will be disregarded by those who guide the fortunes of the two republics. Without a strong and safe United States, Mexico can not be strong nor can its independence be assured. If Mexico is a weak and hostile nation, the United States is not safe, and an essential of the foreign policy of all American states is rendered less secure.

1. See discussion in Exposición de la secretaria de hacienda de los estados unidos mexicanos de 15 de enero. . . Mexico, 1879, p. 46.
2. See the discussion of the return to Mexico of money paid to the United States under decisions by the United States and Mexico Claims Commission after production of evidence showing the claims to be fraudulent, in Senate Report, 50th Congress, 2d Session, 1888-9, vol. 4, No. 2705, and in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1900-1, p. 781 et seq. (the Abra Silver Mine Company case), and in ibid., p. 483 (the Weil case).