Hillary in Mexico: Why Did She Come?

The Obama administration is coming to the Americas. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began 2011 in Latin America. On Jan. 1 she attended the inauguration of the President of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff. Today she returns to Mexico. It is her third trip to the country during this administration. At the same time, her Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Arturo Valenzuela, began a regional tour in Argentina and Brazil.

What does the U.S. seek in Latin America? What are its interests? Undoubtedly, and as Secretary Clinton said, we are one of the most dynamic and diverse regions of the world. After the financial crisis of 2008, we have growth and economic resilience never seen before — Greater than the United States. We have dynamic civil societies, and we seek to increase and strengthen democratic systems. We are, thus, appealing.

The interests of the U.S. are many. Among the most important: 1) increase a spirit of shared responsibility in the face of mutual challenges; 2) build a greater effort of bilateral and regional cooperation; 3) control and eliminate transnational criminal organizations; 4) encourage the development of institutions for specific issues; 5) plan with Mexico a 21st century border; 6) contribute to the effective exchange of goods and persons; 7) define transnational responses for issues such as climate change and sustainability.

As countries of the Western Hemisphere, Argentina, Brazil, Canada and Mexico participate in the G20 as well as the United States. All seek to develop an international financial system that is more secure and equitable. Moreover, we just experienced a successful organization on Mexico’s part of the COP16, where it highlighted its leadership with respect to climate change. It is also clear that there is growing cooperation — unprecedented among the countries of the Americas — to contain transnational violence.

America’s interests in the region are clear, and with Mexico even more so. We are neighbors, business partners, and we share a complicated border. We aren’t discussing here the problems known by all: Violence, security, crime and drug trafficking are without doubt important issues, but they are not the only ones in this bilateral meeting. We would like to know what Mexico’s interests are. If the Americans have a clear strategy with us, we want to know how the Mexican representatives respond. Do they have clarity in their interests? Do they have a national strategy in their relationship with the United States? What does Mexico seek from a meeting with Secretary Clinton?

The issues are not new. Mexico and the U.S. experience common realities that they manage every day, including aspects of trade, transport, energy, water, migration, health, environment, new technologies and intelligence systems, among others. They are concerns that are addressed daily and continuously. To act wisely on all of these, it is essential to have clarity in our national agenda. How do we define what Mexico seeks? How do we present our interests to the Americans? How do we make constructive proposals that meet the needs of Mexicans? In what manner do we speak about our concerns? Do we reconcile what we want from our bilateral relationship?

It is not the time to expect that they will decide what we must do. We will see the answers to these questions in the coming weeks and with concrete results from specific actions. We will not obtain the solutions in one visit from Hillary lasting five hours in the city of Guanajuato. No. It is a meeting as short as the previous two, at the beginning of 2009 and in 2010.

We hope we’ll be informed of results beyond the visit. We urge our representatives not to carry on only with spectacular acts. Indeed, every time that they arrest a “big boss,” we applaud the deed with great fanfare. Both sides of the border congratulate each other. Both sides celebrate. However, the applause does not correspond to fundamental solutions. It is only a palliative that denotes the absence of a strategy with clear interests. There is much to do in Mexico and in our relationship with the United States. The time has arrived to implement a different type of measure. The Hollywood spectacles have nothing to do with fundamental solutions. As long as we accept mere bilateral applause, we do not respond to our needs. As long as we remain quiet about our interests, the bilateral meetings will be of little use.