“Geography is destiny” or “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war

(Also on Substack)

https://mexfiles.substack.com/

Whether anything useful or not (and it’s doubtful) from the meeting in Jeddah to discuss a peace plan for Ukraine, there was a brief mention the other night from one of those “international affairs analysts” that have popped up all over the internet lately, that the first country to turn down the invitation to the meeting was Mexico. Which, incidentally, was also the first country to suggest a peace proposal… naive as it might have been (under which a settlement would be negotiated under the auspices of the Indian Pirme Minister, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the Pope).

The Mexican position was that there was no point in the meeting if Russia was not invited, and the “peace plan” under discussion just seems designed to strongarm, or persuade, neutral states to sign on to the Ukrainian “all or nothing” position, or… for those states that lean towards the Russians, to at least take a neutral position.

A shame in a way… Mexico could provide a model for a – if not peaceful – then less bellicose future for Ukraine. The analogy is far from perfect, but one worth considering. If nothing else, it makes sense of the Mexican position and … more relevant to the present situation . . . a model of a defeated nation that preserves its own values, cultural identity and for the most part, independence.

Both Mexico and Ukraine are victims of their own geography, neighbored by huge, aggressive, military and economic powers. Both have lost territory… or are losing territory… to aggressive neighbors, whose causa belli was ostensibly the supposed mistreatment of their own ethnoc-religious brethern (in reality – like all wars – economic advantages).

Both Mexico in the mid 19^th century, and Ukraine now, are largely agrian nations, politically unstable, and with large armies that at the start of their wars appeared to be in a strong position. At the outbreak of the US-Mexican war, the Duke of Wellington (Britains Prime Minister at the time) predicted Mexico would prevail, given the ineptitude shown by the US Army in its recent Seminole War, the size of Mexico’s army, and because it was fighting a defensive war. But, as we known, the Mexican Army had its successes and its soldiers often performed well, it was a rout. While Ukraine has done much better, and had some limited sucesses in repelling the Russians, no independent analyst (and even several pro-Ukrainian ones) see their army as “winning” so much as deteriorating slower than expected.

A minor point of comparison… one I have to take on the word of people who understand such things… is that the Russians, like the United States in the 1840s, has much, much better artillery and supplies than the Ukrainians. Certainly, advanced foreign weaponry is flowing into Ukraine whereas Mexico had only surplus Napoleonic War artillery on hand, but it looks to be too little, too late.

No doubt then and now, the aggressor committed more than their share of atrocities, nor that the defenders (including under-trained, under-supplied conscripts) fought bravely and (to use an old fashioned virtue) nobly gave their all for their country. And Mexico, its capital occupied, was forced into a treaty in which it could only negotiate the most minor, and humiliating concessions… many of which, like the rights of Mexican citizens in territory ceded to the United States would be largely ignored. One hopes it doesn’t come to that point with Ukraine, but the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo at a minimum would ironically solidify Mexico’s national identity and independence.

At some point the “realists” take over… no one in Mexico was seriously wanted, as the line in the Himno Nacional has it,”every son a hero’s grave” any more than anyone wants to “fight to the last Ukrainian”. The United States took massive swathes of Mexican territory, but despite those calling for total annexation, it was obvious the costs would outweigh the benefits. The Russians are likely to demand territory as well… although not half (lightly populated) as opposed to about 20 percent. But, in an odd way, it made the United States something of a guarantor of Mexican independence.

When one reads, “How would the US like it if the Chinese set up a base in Tijuana” or whatever, in response to those alleged to be pro-Russian for taking seriously Russian concerns about NATO on their doorstep, the response is “Of course, the United States would object. And it’s not going to happen. The Mexicans are well aware of their limitations, and have no interest in becoming a target for their more powerful neighbor.” When various US based “filibustros” did attempt to invade, the United States government was unsupportive. Even when there were Mexicans on the US side of the border seeking to foment armed conflict in Mexico, the US used its government to stem the action. Even when both the United States and Mexico were being torn apart by civil wars (the American Civil War and the Mexican Reforma Wars) which led to an attempted intevention by an overseas power (France), the United States was instrumental in preserving Mexican independence, providing material, diplomatic and intelligence support (the French puppet state’s diplomatic correspondence passing through the United States was being turned over to the Republican government, while US diplomats were leaking negative gossip about Maximilian and his court to the European and American press, as well as transferring seized Confederate arms across the border).

This is not to say there haven’t been any number of “cross-border incursions” (generally from the north, a few from the South, especially during the Revolution). However, the United States has always been careful to legitimize them as protecting whatever government the Mexicans had at the time. Although it wasn’t on the “right side of history”, in the early 20^th century, Mogonistas iand other anarchists planning revolution in Mexico were hunted down and persecuted by US authorities for the benefit of the then-entrenched Diaz administration. During the counter-revolutionary Cristero War of the late 1920s, which saw massive support in the United States for both the Mexican government and the insurgent Cristeros, the Cooldge Adminstration was instrumental in ending the slaughter despite the general view in the United States of the Mexican government as “Bolshevek Mexico”.

While Mexico has had “stable” relations with the United States since 1848, and its motives have been in its own interests rather than Mexico’s (“Plan Merida” and the slaughter-house “war on drugs” comes to mind), in general Mexico has avoided becoming a “satellite” of the United States. Don Porfirio in the later 19th century had excellent relations with the European states unfriendly to, or rivals of (like Germany) the United States, and throughout the 20^th, continually took positions directly at odds with US interests… recognizing the Soviet Union early, selling oil despite a US embargo to Germany and Italy in the late 1930s, while simultenously supporting the Spanish Republic (while officially neutral, the US leaned towards the Francoistas) and providing assistance to both the 1930s “Sandinistas” and their later incarnation. It also, for all the good it did, in the league of Nations, stood alone in supporting the less than democratic nations of Ethiopia and Austria, when both were abandoned to their fates. And refused to go alonh with the US boycott of Cuba, maintaining relations going back to the colonial era, regardless of the government of that island.

And, it provided refuge and assistance to people considered “non grata” in the United States for their political or cultural affiliations… Spanish Republicans, European Jews in the 1930s and 40s, Latin American leftists during the so-called “dirty wars of the 1970s and 80s (in spite of its own domestic “dirty war”) and otherwise refusing to simply kowtow to whatever the United States policy happens to be at the time.

Not to say the United States doesn’t resort to economic blackmail at times. Again, geography is destiny, and The United States remains overwhelmingly Mexico’s main trading partner although, much to the consternation of the United States, China and Brazil are growing in importance. And… Russia… which is its main fertilizer supplier (meaning, in a round-about way, that the US market for Mexican agricultural products depends on Russian exports)

Obviously, Mexico’s neutrality is limited, and history of US subversion, bribery and double-dealing (not to mention attempts at economic blackmail, like the present dispute over corn imports… the US demanding Mexico buy corn treated with glyphosphate, despite its own health and food safety regulations), but as a nation and minor power it has been able to more than hold its own weight in the world. It enjoys a fairly stable export market, something Ukraine would continue to have, going both east and west. It most likely will continue to be under the thumb of its oligarchs (as does Mexico in many respects) and Russian oligarchs will probably swoop in should Ukraine continue to push the neo-liberal policies proposed by those offering to “assist” in reconstruction. And, it will suffer from mass emigration and remittances will be an important revenue source… but the same is true about Mexico although Ukrainians have more choices on which direction to head if they leave.

Despite that, Mexico has more freedom of action, and doesn’t automatically have to ask “how high?” when the US says “jump!”. There’s some flexibility in how much pressure is put on “dissident factions”. The so-called “drug war” and its intensity depends on how much interest not the United States, but the Mexican administration at the time puts into it, and how much the United States is willing to concede in return. During the Calderón Adminstration, it was largely viewed as a way of legitimizing a stolen election (and, given recent revelations of the involvement of high officials in “coahoots” with various cartels) as politically expedient, and a revenue source. The present administration’s “abrazos no balazos” policies, with only partially implremented while the “mano duro” approach with pitched battles continue, the present adminstration is forcing the US to make concessions regarding its own out of control gun running problem. Mexico can… and does… vehemently criticize the United Stares, have economic and political ties with governments not acceptable to the “Colossus of the North”, and largely conduct its own internal policies as it sees fit … keeping in mind the limitations of a massive military power on their border.

For Ukraine, for Mexico, for any of us… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depends first of all on staying alive.

Comment if you must, but comments will be monitored, and “Fuck you, Ivan” or “NATO tool!” types will be deleted.