Romney’s World Tour
The virtual candidate Mitt Romney is planning a tour in the United Kingdom, Germany, Poland and Israel to project an image of foreign policy experience. But his itinerary contains a great error: He should have started his tour here, in Mexico.
A visit to Mexico would not only be a signal that he has not thrown in the towel with respect to Hispanic voters, who, according to surveys, are supporting President Barack Obama by 63 percent, versus 27 percent for Romney. It would also be a signal that Romney understands that some of the major challenges and major opportunities for the United States are in this country.
The next American president, Obama or Romney, will enjoy a rare advantage when it comes to relations between the United States and Mexico: He will start his governing period almost at the same time as the new Mexican president, which will permit both administrations to embark on new and more audacious initiatives.
Judging from what I have heard here from some of the main collaborators of Enrique Pena Nieto, the virtual winner of the recent Mexican elections, the new Mexican government will be anxious to increase bilateral trade with Washington. Among other things [this means] participating in the commercial initiative proposed by the U.S. known as the Trans-Pacific Alliance, which would create the biggest free trade bloc in the world in the Pacific Basin.
Mexico is already the third most important trading partner of the U.S., after Canada and China, buying around $200 billion annually in American exports. To put the number into perspective, the U.S. exports more to Mexico than to the U.K., Germany, France, Italy and Poland put together, according to official data from Washington.
And in a moment when the European economies are growing at a snail’s pace or do not grow at all, Mexico — and Latin America in general — offer an excellent opportunity for American exports, Pena Nieto’s advisors point out.
In fact, Latin America is growing at an average of 4 percent and has grown constantly during the last decade. Since 2003, around 73 million Latin Americans have come out of poverty, according to the World Bank, which is creating a new middle class in the region.
Also, it is probable that the enormous discoveries of oil and natural gas in Mexico and Brazil will convert Latin America into an even bigger source of world energy, reducing therefore the dependency of the United States on Middle Eastern oil. Already around half of the oil imports of the United States come from nations in the American continent.
As if this were not enough, there is also the so-called “negative agenda” — drugs, violence, illegal immigration and environmental contamination — that should place Mexico and the rest of Latin America at the head of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
When I asked why Romney will omit Latin America in his tour, the spokesman for the Romney campaign, Alberto Martinez, told me, “Governor Romney has placed more emphasis on Latin America during his electoral campaign than President Obama has done during his four years as president.”
My opinion: It is true that Obama has not paid much attention to Latin America, nor has he launched any kind of ambitious project to increase regional trade that is comparable to his Trans-Pacific Alliance proposal. Yet, Obama has sealed agreements of free trade with Colombia and Panama and as president has made five trips to the region.
Also, while Romney antagonized many Hispanics with his hard anti-immigrant rhetoric, the recent decision of Obama to stop the deportation of around 800,000 university students who were brought to the U.S. as children has been applauded by the majority of Latin Americans.
There is nothing wrong about Romney doing his much publicized trip around the U.K., Germany, Poland and Israel and his trying to pose before the cameras with foreign leaders to contradict the critics who say he has little foreign policy experience. But the world — and the U.S. electorate — has changed. The Republican candidate should go to his travel agents and ask him to start his world tour in Mexico.
A visit to Mexico would not only be a signal that he has not thrown in the towel with respect to Hispanic voters, who, according to surveys, are supporting President Barack Obama by 63 percent, versus 27 percent for Romney. It would also be a signal that Romney understands that some of the major challenges and major opportunities for the United States are in this country.
The next American president, Obama or Romney, will enjoy a rare advantage when it comes to relations between the United States and Mexico: He will start his governing period almost at the same time as the new Mexican president, which will permit both administrations to embark on new and more audacious initiatives.
Judging from what I have heard here from some of the main collaborators of Enrique Pena Nieto, the virtual winner of the recent Mexican elections, the new Mexican government will be anxious to increase bilateral trade with Washington. Among other things [this means] participating in the commercial initiative proposed by the U.S. known as the Trans-Pacific Alliance, which would create the biggest free trade bloc in the world in the Pacific Basin.
Mexico is already the third most important trading partner of the U.S., after Canada and China, buying around $200 billion annually in American exports. To put the number into perspective, the U.S. exports more to Mexico than to the U.K., Germany, France, Italy and Poland put together, according to official data from Washington.
And in a moment when the European economies are growing at a snail’s pace or do not grow at all, Mexico — and Latin America in general — offer an excellent opportunity for American exports, Pena Nieto’s advisors point out.
In fact, Latin America is growing at an average of 4 percent and has grown constantly during the last decade. Since 2003, around 73 million Latin Americans have come out of poverty, according to the World Bank, which is creating a new middle class in the region.
Also, it is probable that the enormous discoveries of oil and natural gas in Mexico and Brazil will convert Latin America into an even bigger source of world energy, reducing therefore the dependency of the United States on Middle Eastern oil. Already around half of the oil imports of the United States come from nations in the American continent.
As if this were not enough, there is also the so-called “negative agenda” — drugs, violence, illegal immigration and environmental contamination — that should place Mexico and the rest of Latin America at the head of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
When I asked why Romney will omit Latin America in his tour, the spokesman for the Romney campaign, Alberto Martinez, told me, “Governor Romney has placed more emphasis on Latin America during his electoral campaign than President Obama has done during his four years as president.”
My opinion: It is true that Obama has not paid much attention to Latin America, nor has he launched any kind of ambitious project to increase regional trade that is comparable to his Trans-Pacific Alliance proposal. Yet, Obama has sealed agreements of free trade with Colombia and Panama and as president has made five trips to the region.
Also, while Romney antagonized many Hispanics with his hard anti-immigrant rhetoric, the recent decision of Obama to stop the deportation of around 800,000 university students who were brought to the U.S. as children has been applauded by the majority of Latin Americans.
There is nothing wrong about Romney doing his much publicized trip around the U.K., Germany, Poland and Israel and his trying to pose before the cameras with foreign leaders to contradict the critics who say he has little foreign policy experience. But the world — and the U.S. electorate — has changed. The Republican candidate should go to his travel agents and ask him to start his world tour in Mexico.