The holes of the American Empire and the blindness of its Mexican follower.

In stark contrast to countries as Brazil, Kazakhstan and Turkey that are taking advantage of multidirectional diplomacies, the over reliant on the US Mexico is refusing in every possible way to play in the new geopolitical market place, essentially defined by the rise of China as a global player. In this May 2009, when the world is busy with other matters (the swine flu, the new North Korean crisis), it’s easy to forget that for the rest of this century the most crucial factor in world politics is the comprehensive stability or rivalry between the US and China. And just because of that, it’s still impossible to know whether the Mexican government is right or wrong in its decision of following the US in everything and refusing to elevate its ties with China to a higher level. If one day in the future the US-China rivalry gets out of control and the US imposes itself in a confrontation, Mexicans will thank its government it decided to be always on the US side. But if in the future, as I anticipate, there’s no major conflict between China and the US and as a consequence the global balance of power is further altered in China’s favor, we Mexicans will have all the right to criticize the refusal of our government to get to the new geostrategic market place, as Brazil or Turkey, in the search of the benefits resulting from the rising power of China.

Although the Mexican foreign policy has historically had as a principle “never putting all the eggs on the American basket”, Mexico has never been so materially dependent on the US as it is now. What is worse is that our government has never been so little interested in models different to those absorbed from the US and it has never been so psychologically dependent to the notion that the US is going to be always the master of the world. The other side of this coin now is that in contrast to other large developing countries, the Mexican government is exhibiting a staunchly antagonistic China foreign policy, as it was demonstrated during the past crisis caused for the supposed mistreatment of Mexicans in China during the outbreak of the swine flu.

The standing of Mexico is in this regard at odds with most of the world. Europe and China are linked by a strategic dialogue; in South America, Brazil is not the only country that is adapting to the rise of China: Chile signed a free trade agreement, Peru is trying to sign one of its own, Argentina has in China one of its main export markets and Venezuela is already exporting oil to China. Likewise, Canada, Australia and New Zealand enjoy a very productive relationship with China and every country from Asia to Africa has expanded its trade and dealings with China.

Clearly, one of the consequences of the Mexican standing is that the country is practically out from all of the streams of Chinese investment in the world (highways in South America, pipelines in Central Asia, mines and harbors in Africa). I am not going to say here if this is good or bad in the long term for Mexico. What strikes me is that Mexico is behaving with a myopia that makes me think it believes its US partner will always be the master and the model for the world and in my opinion this psychological loyalty to that notion is mistaken. I think it would be wiser to look beyond the US and start playing in the new geostrategic market place, just like every body else is doing.

Looking in detail to the US standing in the world nowadays makes me skeptical of that reliance of Mexico on the US.

The US is still the most powerful country in the world, but in many regions is no longer the master. From Eastern Europe to Eastern Asia all across Africa and the Indian Ocean, there are new processes and tendencies that the US is unable to control or decide. The Russian invasion of Georgia last year, the North Korean nuclear test of two days ago, the existence of Hugo Chavez as disturbing factor in South America but especially the underway strategic rivalry between China and the US in the Pacific, convinces me of the strategic devaluation of the US over the last years. Is Mexico thinking or doing any preparation for the event of a Pacific Ocean not monopolistically dominated by the US? Is Mexican government aware of that relative strategic devaluation of the US?

In tandem with this, the political, economic and social model preached by the US is not perfect and the developing world is noticing. Throughout its history and with special intensity in the post Cold War, the US has promoted to the developing world political democracy, pluralism, small government and free market but this recipe has not had in most of the world the desired effects. Instances for this are abundant. As a result the American model is being increasingly questioned, especially in East Asia, where Asean plus China, Korea and Japan are resolute to replace the IMF in this region and where American style politics and social model have never been well regarded.

And it has also become clear for many countries that the US, with its high inequality and crime, its “crumbling” infrastructure and its poor basic education is not necessarily the best country to live or the best model to emulate. In a number of instances, as Parag Khanna says, for countries as Germany or Japan, the American life represents a “step down”. There are some countries, like China, that instead of importing American standards are more interested in European alternatives.

That’s why many countries in the developing world are adapting their foreign policies to the rise of China and Europe and are increasingly attentive to political, social and economic models different from the one preached by the US. Again, Brazil for instance, is trying to play in the new geopolitical stage and other countries are clearly giving attention and credit to alternative models.

We don’t know how the world is going to look like in the middle of the 21st century, but based on the trends underway, it’s very likely that the world becomes geopolitically and ideologically more pluralistic. If that´s the case, would it be still wise for Mexico relying as it is doing now on its American partner and at the same time overlooking all the benefits implicit in playing in this new geostrategic market place? My logic tells me it’s not.