Unequal Partners: The United States and Mexico (review)

The grisly drug-related violence near the Mexican border and the continuing inflammatory debate on illegal migration has brought Mexico back to the front pages of U.S. newspapers. The headlines lead Americans to blame Mexico for corruption or incompetence, and to conclude that the United States should distance itself from its neighbor. The view that these are Mexico’s issues rather than shared problems is symptomatic of a deeper crisis in the relationship stemming from a “dominant-dependent relationship,” according to Sidney Weintraub, the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Weintraub has been a student of Mexico since he first served in the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City in the 1950s. After leaving the government, he has been a professor at the University of Texas and an astute and prolific writer on Mexico and its relationship with the United States. In this book, he seeks to apply a thesis—that the nature of U.S.-Mexican relations is fundamentally a dominant-dependent relationship—to the areas of trade, foreign investment, drugs, energy, migration, and the border. He brings us up to date on the state of each of these issues, attributes blame where it is deserved, and assesses the prospects for change. Although the subjects are often technical, Weintraub writes clearly, and his analysis is always sensible and constructive.

On trade and investment, he shows how Mexico’s historical defensiveness melted in the face of financial crises in 1982 and 1994 and transformed the economy from one dependent on oil and an internal market to an economy that produces a wide range of manufactured goods. From 1982 to 2005, the percentage of Mexico’s exports attributed to oil declined from 70 percent to 15 percent, while manufactured goods increased from 25 percent to 81 percent. In 1982, Mexico nationalized virtually all of its banks. Today, more than 80 percent of all banking assets in Mexico are owned by foreign banks. Mexico is a different country.

On drugs and energy, the United States has been the demander, insisting that Mexico crack down on drug trafficking and open its energy sector to foreign investment. Mexico has resented U.S. pressure, but it has understood that drugs are a challenge it could not avoid for its own reasons. On the other hand, it seems clear to most people that the strategy is failing, and the political will needed to try an alternative approach is not evident in either country. On energy, Mexico has taught the United States to be subtle and patient—two of the hardest lessons for Americans to learn. On immigration, the United States has been slow to realize that Mexico has genuine interests, but that is partly because the issue tears all Americans and leaves them collectively polarized and paralyzed. Finally, on the border, both countries were close to finding a common language when the 9/11 terrorists struck and transformed a chaotic but relatively passable transit into a rigid barrier that penalizes legitimate traffic and is simply an inconvenience to the criminals. On all of these huge challenges, little progress is evident, and although the Obama Administration has insisted on “shared responsibility,” it has been slow in turning that phrase into policy.

By the conclusion, Weintraub’s facts seem to impugn his thesis. Being a true scholar, he acknowledges that while the historical dominant-dependent relationship is still visible, most of the relationship and the issues have changed in fundamental ways. Both sides have a capacity to veto the other’s request, but both understand that their interests are not served by attacking the other. Crises have expedited changes and might still do so on energy, though it is harder to see how a crisis would have a constructive effect on the migration, drug, or border issues. It is possible that the inclusion of Canada might reduce the asymmetry and make progress possible, but the politics...