The Foreign Service Journal, April 2006

were soon dashed by political reali- ties including, but not limited to, the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the next Mexican president will have a more measured appreciation of the com- plexities involved in addressing the many thorny issues in the bilateral relationship. That lesson points to four key facts worth bearing in mind when analyzing U.S.-Mexican relations. First, who is elected in July will, of course, matter; but in the end, polit- ical and economic realities will severely limit what he can accomplish. Second, personnel and policy changes at the top of each government do not necessarily translate into changes throughout the bureaucratic apparatus, where the critical day-to-day relations are handled. Third, just as relations with Mexico weren’t a factor in the 2004 U.S. presidential election, relations with Washington aren’t a focus in this year’s presidential race in Mexico. And fourth, the two countries have different priorities for the bilateral relationship. Although some trade disputes — sugar and trucking being the most notable examples — periodically flare up as high-profile irritants, they are no longer a defining issue on the bilateral agenda, thanks to the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Of course, protection of intellectual-property rights and regulation of markets such as telecommunications (which, while open to foreign competition, still effectively enjoy a large measure of pro- tection) will continue to require diplomatic attention. Drug trafficking is another issue of concern for the U.S. But the really critical questions fromWashington’s per- spective center on border security and stemming illegal immigration— as shown by such ludicrous and needlessly offensive proposals as the construction of a 700-mile-long wall along parts of the border. Whether the Senate approves construction of the wall or not, the possibility has, regrettably, already damaged the relationship. The Importance of Immigration For Mexico, too, immigration is the top item on the bilateral agenda, as well as representing one of the few issues that unite the country’s otherwise quarreling par- ties. But the Mexican focus is on protecting the rights of its citizens in the U.S., legal or otherwise, not limiting their movement north, a policy known as “non-interven- tion.” That concern reflects the reality that migration is a social and political safety valve for Mexico, as well as a very large and reliable source of foreign exchange. While precision is impossible, by most estimates there are at least seven millionMexican illegal immigrants in the U.S. (the Mexican government prefers the term “undocu- mented workers”). There are entire villages in Mexico whose male population is almost non-existent. The money sent home by Mexicans working in the U.S., legal- ly and illegally, has become almost as important as petro- leum revenues, constituting the main source of revenue for states such as Zacatecas and Michoacan. In 2000, according to Mexico’s central bank, those remittances totaled $7 billion; last year, they were nearly triple that level, reaching $20.5 billion. Remittances have also helped to deliver macro-eco- nomic stability, a sine qua non of sustainable growth. (And, as any politician knows, economic growth translates into votes.) Not only has this income been the mainstay of millions of families back home, it has also played an important role in limiting the size of Mexico’s current account deficit, the trigger of the balance-of-payments crises and economic instability that plagued the country for the quarter-century prior to the election of President Fox in 2000. For example, in 2004 remittances totaled $17 billion; without them, the current account deficit would have been three times what it actually was and equivalent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product. F O C U S 40 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 6 Deborah L. Riner, editor of Mexletter , a monthly newsletter on Mexico, has been the chief economist of the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico since 1993. She holds a Ph.D. in political economy from Princeton University, and has been a guest fellow at the Overseas Development Council in Washington, the Brookings Institution, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (London), Universidad Catolica (Santiago), and the Center for the Study of the State and Economy (Buenos Aires). She has also held fellowships from the Social Science Research Council and the Organization of American States, among other institutions. Just as Mexico was not a factor in the 2004 U.S. election, relations with Washington aren’t a focus in this year’s presidential race.