Editorials

I n these times, when the superpower is indifferent, it is not a bad thing that someone from the northern part of the hemisphere pays attention to the southern part of the Americas.This should perhaps, however, be done with all due caution and reservation because the United States' emphasis on its hemispheric agenda's security issues since 2001 -a return to the warrior mentality-has gravely distracted from topics fundamental to the area.Mexico has also fallen into the trap of this "distraction," not without the influence of vested interests.Economic progress and democracy have been sacrificed, and today they must be dealt with in a new way if we want to make sure that the twenty-first century does not bring our nations new cycles of crises.Recently there has been a heated debate about the routes to be followed to deal with issues pending in the hemisphere.The road has not been easy and the climate of the debate has had its ups and downs, caused largely by the United States' confusing policies in the region.For better or worse, we find ourselves in a region that has been part of the U.S. sphere of influence.From that perspective, our region -mainly Mexico and Central America-has been treated like the "American Mediterranean."This analogy, conceived by Alfred Mahan, the first U.S. geo-politician, established a strong parallel between the strategic importance of the Mediterranean Sea for the great nineteenth-century European powers and that of the Caribbean Sea and Central America for the United States in the early twentieth century.Certainly, a country's geographical position favors the concentration of its power and gives it a greater possible strategic advantage vis-à-vis its rivals.This is the basis for Washington's persistent quest for hegemony, its reiterated blindness and its permanent tendency to intervene in other countries' affairs even if it is not justified, which has caused a lasting paralysis in the formulation of U.S. policy toward its southern neighbors, let alone those placed in other distant regions of the world.The U.S. vision of its "near abroad" has had a negative impact on its historic interaction with the countries in the region.This is not only because it has not wanted to understand the Latin American situation, but because the U.S. has an ethnocentric vision that imposes and constructs reality through the prism from which this nation projects itself.The indisputable fact that the United States is the dominant power does not excuse it from facing the unexpected in the region or from helping to search for real solutions to the many problems we share.Never theless, the weight of the new circumstances in Latin America has not led Washington to adjust its policies to the new winds blowing in the hemisphere.It still behaves like a neo-colonial nation, insensitive to the region's problems in that they do not involve its security problems, and imposes Cold War policies, with their negative impact on the microclimates of regional political struggles.It is not clear whether the United States is prepared to understand how much the hemisphere' s political and economic circumstances are changing beyond imposing -and making sure Latin America follows-these policies stemming with mathematical certainty from its geographic position and power.In this complex scenario, against the current of today's objective conditions of its geo-political location, Mexico seems to be undertaking a journey to the south.Some political actors and analysts talk of the need for Mexico to recover what it apparently has lost in its relations with Latin America.Felipe Calderón's recent trip to Central and South America shows Mexico's primordially political desire to recover its closeness to the region.Are we being realistic by undertaking closer relations?Is this attempt not more political than economic?What implications will this change in direction have in the preservation of Mexico's priority interests?We think it is fundamental to debate exactly what and whom we are going to get close to with our new strategy in the hemisphere.For Mexico, Honduras is not the same as Brazil, Chile or Guatemala; Paraguay has no parallel with Mexico's relations with Argentina, Colombia or Nicaragua.Our common topics with each of the Latin American countries are not only specific to each, but also have different importance and problems.What should be done?With what countries and sub-region should we strengthen our foreign relations?To accompany these questions, we should analyze the figures on trade with our neighbors.According to the Ministry of the Economy, so far this year Mexico has sold U.S.$125 billion in North America, of which 90 percent corresponds to exports to the United States and 10 percent to Canada.By contrast, we have exported to Ve n ezuela, Colombia and Brazil U.S.$660 million, U.S.$631 million and U.S.$423 million, respectively, and a total of U.S.$3.3 billion to the Latin American Integration Association (Aladi) region.Mexico exports only U.S.$1.5 billion to Central America where our main buyers are Guatemala, Nicaragua and Costa Rica, with U.S.$442 million, U.S.$320 million and U.S.$270 million respectively.These are brutal figures that testify to the enormous asymmetry of Mexico's relationship with North and South.An objective analysis of these figures demands a serious debate of aspects of our integration that pose several problems and challenges.In the first place, we experience a disparity in the hemisphere corresponding to the last century's center-periphery relationship.Mexico has lived with this disadvantageous reality, reflected in

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.