Which Doors To Knock On?

The outline taking shape of Donald Trump’s foreign policy will require significant changes and adjustments in Mexico’s government. Throughout the confirmation hearings of the new administration’s cabinet members, it became clear that Mexican interests will not be a priority and will not be addressed by the Department of State, as was done in the past, but rather by the Department of Homeland Security.

What this means is that if Chancellor Luis Videgaray knocks on the door of his U.S. counterpart, engineer Rex Tillerson, he will walk away from meetings without addressing the most delicate issues for the future of Mexico. Conversely, if he turns up at the office of Gen. John Kelly, secretary of Homeland Security, he will be able to work through all outstanding matters for our country other than trade issues. This implies that if Videgaray clings to protocol and formal diplomacy, his effectiveness as chancellor will be markedly impaired. On the other hand, if he starts knocking on the doors that he has to knock on, such those of Homeland Security and the Department of Commerce, he will be encroaching on the responsibilities of the Mexican secretariat of the interior and the Mexican secretariat of economy, but he will still be able to negotiate the core issues of the bilateral agenda.

In theory and hopefully in practice, Mexico’s secretary of foreign affairs should be the one leading an overarching strategy toward the new U.S. government. But if this happens, it should include a clear mandate from our president so that the puzzle pieces line up with a master plan for Mexico.

Two key figures for Mexico from the new U.S. government will be Gen. Kelly and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, another Army soldier. Gen. Kelly will handle crucial issues for Mexico such as border protection (i.e., the wall) and immigration. He will also be in charge of addressing the drug trade, influx of weapons and efforts to counter terrorism.

For now, Kelly is the central piece in Trump’s government as far as Mexico is concerned.

Traditionally, the natural counterpart for Kelly in Mexico is the secretary of the interior, who is also in charge of immigration and security on our side. But herein is the challenge and the secret for Mexico: if the Interior Department takes over negotiations with Homeland Security, there will be no other way to bring up issues of trade, finance, investment or geopolitical matters concerning both our countries. However, if our secretary of foreign affairs is confined to the orbit of the U.S. State Department, he will get little attention and few results. Tillerson’s main tasks deal with the Middle East, radical Islam, China, Russia, and North Korea’s nuclear program, along with NATO which is already on edge.

Trump’s worldview starts with the center of the world, or as he sees it, from the U.S. looking outward. Topics that matter most to his administration regarding the rest of the planet are those that directly touch the lives of Americans. Hence the curse that has befallen Mexico, because our country has the greatest influence on the daily lives of our neighbors in the United States.

Mexico is present in the culture, food, immigration, drugs, millions of products, construction, agriculture, and even in housekeeping services. Unfortunately, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans have little influence on U.S. national politics. Mexicans are organized in local associations, state federations, and civil organizations that cultivate traditions such as Mexican Independence Day and Our Lady of Guadalupe celebrations. But unlike the Jews, the Italians or the Irish, Mexicans have not been able to exert any meaningful political pressure to defend their interests much less those of their native country.

In addition to Mexico, which I cannot overstate is seen by Washington as a prominently domestic matter, the Trump administration will place emphasis on China. The real estate magnate knows that the Asian giant is their major international competitor in manufacturing and finance. Here the challenge is different: for Mexico, the North American market represents 85 percent of our exports, while for the Chinese it is merely 9 percent. China can survive without the United States (except for the huge amount of Treasury bonds it holds) while for Mexico, replacing the U.S. as a business partner is not a realistic option either in the short term or medium term.

In order to negotiate with China from a position of strength, the Trump team has found a strong ally in Russia. The global game is actually confined to these three powers. If Washington and Moscow forge an alliance, China will be the country most politically affected. In Russia’s hands, Trump can kill two birds with one stone by dealing a serious blow not only to China, but also to their country’s No. 1 enemy: radical Islam.

The closeness between Russia and the U.S. will be the most relevant story to follow in the coming years for global politics. New possibilities could emerge from this dichotomy to pacify Syria, combat terrorism and reduce nuclear threats. Nevertheless, there are very real risks behind this alliance. In the spirit of friendship, Russia could feel free to continue with its policy of expansion. After Crimea and parts of Georgia, it could continue right through small Baltic countries and some of the former Soviet satellites in Asia Minor. How would the U.S. respond in the face of such annexations?

In this scenario, and Mexico likely being the country most affected by Trump’s arrival, options for our country’s foreign policy will open wide if we know how to capitalize on them. We can forge interesting and productive alliances with other “orphans” of the world such as European countries and some key Asian nations such as Japan and Korea. But that will depend on the most important decision facing our foreign policy: whether we continue to focus our international ties on the U.S. or if we venture out to discover the rest of the world.