This course has taught me many things about U.S.-Mexico relations and the important role drugs plays in the two country’s relationships. Since its early days as a republic, Mexico has struggled to maintain an autonomous nature from the United States. Relations between the two countries have often been stressed and unfriendly rather than cooperative. In fact, in from 1846-1848 the two countries were at war with Mexico losing half of its territory to the United States. Furthermore, U.S. diplomatic and military intervention in Mexico during the early 20th century and resulting in Mexico nationalizing U.S. interests in the country have contributed to the feelings of mistrust.
Mexico’s long history of political instability have not allowed the country to truly become a developed country as it often lags behind its Western neighbors. Since becoming fully independent in 1821, Mexico has had three different constitutions with the last one coming in 1917. The common thread that allowed Mexico to relatively prosper throughout these last two hundred years is the reliance on a third party to enforce the rules (such as property rights) that make it possible to do business.
For example, early Mexican banking systems operated more as an investment club. Local businessmen would loan money to one another to finance companies while trade shares in a mutually managed bank to attract outside capital to their businesses. These businessmen would also distribute shares of the bank to the state governor or made a loan to the local state government with the understanding that it most likely would not be repaid. Now the local government of the state would have an economic stake in the business and therefore power in renegotiating trade deals. If the federal government tried to unilaterally renegotiate a deal it could cause the collapse of the local government.
Because the relatively weak structure of Mexico’s government, the country’s independence from Spain in 1821 and the creation of a fully sovereign was viewed with interest in Washington. The United States remained neutral during Mexico’s War of Independence and sough to establish friendly diplomatic relations after the war. As early as 1829, the United States had displayed public interest in Texas and had made repeated offers to purchase the territory. The Mexican government consistently rebuffed the United States’ offers.
The U.S.-Mexican War was a turning point in relations between the two countries. Not only did Mexico lose more than 50 percent of its territory and 50,000 lives to war, compared to 13,000 U.S. lives, Mexico lost hope of ever achieving a place as an equal to the United States. The U.S.’s dominance in the region could not be questioned. The growing disparity between the two countries was emphasized as the U.S. was showed clear military and economic power as well as political unity that Mexico lacked. From then on, Mexico’s attitude toward the U.S. was one of resentment.
In recent years, the two countries relations have been dominated and strained by immigration and drug trafficking. The United States has largely been irritated by the Mexican government’s lack of cooperation in curtailing the increasing number of Mexicans and Hispanics entering the United States illegally. The U.S. has responded by imposing economic sanctions against employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens and increasing security along its southern border.
The drug issue has been less straightforwardly confronted. Isaac Campos’ Home Grown provided an analysis on the origins of marijuana prohibition in Mexico and the United States. Prevailing historical and social research on drugs describes the War on Drugs as the “American War on Drugs.” Whereas the term “America” pertains only to the United States, which then spread its counter-narcotic policies to a submissive Mexico and Central America. In fact, this class has taught me the exact inverse; Mexico initiated the War on Drugs in the 1920 and played an active role in forming the negative opinions of marijuana in the United States. By the time the United States prohibited marijuana in 1937, the views that linked marijuana to madness and violence had long been established in Mexico. Although, the War on Drugs may have started with marijuana it has quickly spread to several other narcotics.
The War on Drugs presents many problems for both Mexico and the United States. The war is extremely costly and has been going on for decades with almost no end in sight. Blame may lie on both sides as Mexico has done little to curtail the trafficking of narcotics by cartels into the United States. Conversely, the Mexican government argues the United States has done very little to decrease its consumer demands for drugs. Broadly, the drug problem resists easy answers as there is no one size fits all solution for it. But, I feel that this course has broadened my horizons on marijuana legalization.
I firmly believe marijuana should be legalized in the United States with conditions and that the government should end a major portion of the War on Drugs. But, I had only ever looked at it from an American consumer standpoint, not from an international political standpoint. The United States’ assertive supply-side tactic to the issue of targeting drugs at their source, while Mexican officials continued to drag their heels or argue that the real problem was the insatiable demand for drugs in the United States.
In America, marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug, behind only alcohol and tobacco. Millions of Americans smoke marijuana every day and the sheer amount of people arrested for usage puts a great strain on our legal and prison system. Marijuana prohibition causes more problems than it prevents. Americans believed for decades that total prohibition was the best form of regulation, but total prohibition is essentially the absence of regulation. Because there are no regulations, Americans were using a potentially dangerous drug that could have been laced with other drugs. Whereas if marijuana was controlled by say the Food and Drug Administration, consumers could be using a safe strand from a legal resource. Of course, marijuana should be legalized with conditions. Even if it were regulated by the FDA, it still is not safe for children, adolescents, or should be used while driving. Therefore, it should be regulated like alcohol where only people of a certain age can use and you cannot be intoxicated in public.
But legalized marijuana could greatly benefit U.S.-Mexican relations because of its reduction against drug cartels in Mexico. Legalizing marijuana has done something the War on Drugs had never done: reducing profits of cartels. Better availability in the United States has caused the price of illegal marijuana to go down. As noted in lecture, the amount of marijuana seized by the U.S. Border Control has rapidly decreased due to the increased domestic production. Additionally, the quality of Mexican marijuana is thought to be inferior to domestically grown marijuana in the United States allowing recreational users to consume a safer product. The drug cartels are having a much tougher time competing with American growers, weakening their overall profits and therefore their influence on U.S.-Mexican relations. Everything about the drug trade is a business. A situation where governments are able to properly regulate the drugs for human safety and take in tax revenue is the best solution. If this issue eventually becomes moot and both sides are able to contain the illegal drug trafficking, then both countries can move on to other pressing issues like trade.
Foreign trade is essential to a thriving economy. Through class lectures and the repeated topic during the 2016 United States Presidential Election, I have learned more about NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, than I have known before. Since NAFTA was enacted in 1994, its results have been very mixed. The agreement succeeded in lowering barriers to trade and investment. NAFTA created a huge wave of foreign investment in Mexico’s manufacturing sector caused some economic boons, but overall the countries prosperity has been mixed.
Foreign direct investment is no alternative for domestic investment in healthcare, education, and social welfare programs. Mexico’s incredibly low taxation rate does not allow for the country to be as prosperous as an American border state. The lack of social programs available has sustained to create a sort of two-tiered society in Mexico. The wealthy are able to access whatever they would like, while the poor continue to flounder.
Joined together by a long border and trade, the US and Mexico are separated by language, cultural differences, and wealth disparity. These differences created long lasting misunderstandings and feuds. Furthermore, U.S. meddling in Mexican affairs since its independence including, the US-Mexican War and the annexation of half of Mexico’s territory have left scars on the Mexican psyche. At other times though, the two countries relations have been more than amicable and cooperative. But often times not overcoming Mexico’s deep mistrust of the United States have created strife.
The inevitably close relationship between Mexico and the United Sates makes the need for sensible policy essential. Both countries heavily rely on each other for stability and prosperity. This class leaves me with a lingering question though: will the United States and Mexico will be able to face their shared challenges of economic development, immigration, and drug violence by finding shared answers that benefit both countries.