It's Time to Redefine North America

Despite reports that Mexico played an important role in forging a consensus in the United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq last Friday, Mexican officials badly misjudged President Bush's determination on the issue.

In supporting France's initial position of requiring two separate Security Council actions before permitting the use of force against Iraq, Mexican President Vicente Fox burned bridges he sorely needs to make any significant progress on his international and domestic agendas. Incredulously, he did this over an issue that essentially has no impact on Mexico or its global interests. Moreover, Mexico sits on the Security Council largely because of U.S. efforts to secure it one of the 10 rotating non-permanent seats. This gives Mexico a voice in U.N. affairs that would have been unthinkable five years ago.

The results of the meeting a couple of weeks ago between Fox and Bush at the Asia-Pacific Economic Council Summit in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, is a clear indication of a failing relationship. A relationship born of exceptional good will on both sides of the border just two years ago, the relationship that is by far the most important to Mexico, is on the rocks largely because of miscommunication and hubris on the part of senior officials in both governments.

In the case of Iraq, Mexican officials did not think to gauge the strength of U.S. feelings on the issue and U.S. officials simply took Mexican support for granted. That there was a unanimous vote for the compromise resolution (even the Syrians, who support Middle East terrorist organizations, voted for it) is beside the point. Without clear U.S. and British resolve, this outcome would not have been achieved.

Mexico did nothing to help project solidarity at a crucial moment in world history. This unhealthy, and in the case of Mexico, perilous, situation cannot be allowed to degenerate even further. A new type of dialogue is required to help get the relationship back on track and to keep it there.

If geography alone is destiny, the U.S. fight against terrorism is also Canada's and Mexico's. Combating terrorism at home should include a trilateral approach to tightening external border controls for Canada, Mexico and the United States.

At the same time, the Bush administration's new trade authority recently granted by Congress could promote freer movement of citizens among the three countries. Only by working together in partnership can these two seemingly conflicting goals be realized.

These two issues demand a new dialogue about, and a redefinition of, North America as a single economic and social entity. Canada, Mexico and the United States share a common destiny based on history, borders and interests.

It is also evident that much needs to be done to take advantage of the great synergies that these three nations bring to the table: vast natural resources, the best agricultural and industrial base in the world, highly skilled and low cost labor, a young and vibrant population and a great educational system.

In an interview he gave this past September, President Fox urged President Bush not to lose sight of working together on our common interests, including border security and immigration reform. "I believe that work can be done on security, in combating terrorism," Fox said. "But at the same time, the world must continue advancing, and even more our bilateral relations with the United States."

One step toward a more unified continent was taken through the negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement that came into force in 1995. However, in some areas such as illegal immigration and border environmental pollution, there have been very negative consequences. It is necessary to note only the sorry state of the New River in Imperial County and the recent deaths of illegal Mexican immigrants in a sealed rail car in Iowa for these points to hit home.

When President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox came into office together almost two years ago, each country was at the top of the other's foreign policy agenda. Unfortunately, the tragedies of Sept. 11, 2001 dramatically changed that agenda.

Now, as the U.S. steps up its efforts to combat terrorism at home and abroad, we must not lose sight of how the new trade authority can be a powerful tool in strengthening our national defense in partnership with our closest neighbors.

The creation of a nonpartisan North American Dialogue between representatives of government, business, investors and academics from the three countries would be a significant first step toward defining and promoting an economic and security agenda for North America that both strengthens and transcends national boundaries. Such a process, which goes beyond issues of trade and investment to issues such as energy, fiscal policy, immigration, water, environmental regulation and worker rights, would provide a useful framework within which to negotiate between the three countries of North America, as well as between us and the rest of the Americas. Without this the benefits of freer trade and of globalization might not be fully realized by all the citizens of the continent.

America's perception of the world and its role in it changed on Sept. 11, 2001. However, it remains clear that a more democratic Mexico fueled by a strong economic partnership with the United States and Canada is in everyone's best interest. A North American dialogue will help ensure that success.