MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICY: MEXICO AND NAFTA - Université de ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICY:
MEXICO AND NAFTA
Jorge A. Schiavon
Professor and Director
International Studies Department
Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)
Université d’eté sur l’intégration et les relations
transfrontalières nord-américanes,
Université de Sherbrooke, August 16-20, 2010Structure of the Presentation
I. A general view of Mexico’s foreign policy
II. Transformation of Mexican foreign policy
Domestic
¾ Causes
International
III. Special relation with the US
IV. NAFTA
ALWAYS COMPARE TO CANADA (VERY SIMILAR)I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy Survive (and benefit) from hegemony (U.S.) Leadership in Latin America: area of influence (Central America), balancing (Brasil, in South America), and third border (Caribbean) Multilateral activity (legalistic and variable) Limited relations with Europe, East Asia, Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and South Pacific.
I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy Mexico in the world (rule of 10s) GDP: +1,000,000 million USD Population: + 100,000 million GDP p.c.: +10,000 USD (unequal) Between 10-15 place worldwide (territory, population, GDP, trade): G-5, G-20 Territory: 2,000 million sq. km. US Border: 3,000 k.m.
I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy
North America (geography and economics)
Canada, U.S. and Mexico
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)
Latin America (history, culture, language)
Latin-American concept
GRULAC, Ibero-America
OAS, FTAA, Rio Group
NAFTA, Mercosur, Andean Pact, CACM,
Caricom, G3, bilateralI. Mexico’s Foreign Policy
Foreign policy definition:
State’s public policy towards the exterior
Main function:
Protect independence Maximize sovereignty
and territorial integrity = (internal, external,
(Dictionary of Diplomacy) absolute, and equality)
In democracy, it must represent and defend the
interest of the majority = welfare (political
stability and economic development)I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy Mexico has always understood by sovereignty, the power to maintain its territorial integrity and to define its domestic policies in a free, autonomous and independent way, with no pressure or external interference (especially from the US), its form of government its domestic policies its foreign policy
I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy
US is the most important international relation for Mexico.
The rest of the bilateral, regional, hemispheric, multilateral
and global relations are tied directly or indirectly to this
relation.
To understand Mexican Foreign Policy it is fundamental to
understand its bilateral relation with its northern neighbor.
When we talk about relations with Latin America, Europe, or
Asia, of participation in international or regional organisms,
of the definition co concepts such as sovereignty, nation,
principles, interests, of negotiation on topics such as security,
trade, investment or immigration, the obliged reference of
Mexico’s international relations has always been, and is, with
the United States.I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy • The level of attention to the relation with the US has always been really high; on the contrary, the relations with other countries, regions, and international organisms are varied, inconsistent and selective, for which one cannot really talk about general policies towards Latin America, Europe, Asia, or regional or global organizations (such as UN, OAS, IMF, or WB). • Mexico tries to use these relations to balance, diversify, and neutralize the negative effects of the concentration in the relation with the US.
I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy Thereis a lack of an explicit and sustained will to project Mexico’s power at regional and global level; even in its natural area of influence, Central and Latin America, the Mexican participation has been limited and selective in time and space. Givenits limited relative power in front of other world powers, the participation of Mexico in multilateral organizations tend to have a legal nature, trying to defend the value of international law over the power and use of force in the international system (asymmetry of power vis a vis U.S.).
I. Mexico’s Foreign Policy History: surviving asymmetry 1848, 1898, 1945, 1989, 2008? Penetration of U.S. system Executive diplomacy Administrative diplomacy (Bi-national Commission) Parliamentary diplomacy + lobby Local diplomacy (Consulates) Diaspora diplomacy (IME) Regional diplomacy (NAFTA) Societal diplomacy (MNC, NGOs, academia, family)
II. Changes in Mexican Foreign Policy
International
system: globalization and
interdependence
Domestic system: economic opening, structural
reforms, democratization and decentralizationII. Changes in Mexican Foreign Policy According to the Constitution, Mexico is a democratic system: presidential, strong bicameralism (symmetric and incongruent chambers), and federal, in other words, in terms of institutional division of powers, it is one of the cases with the highest degree of division Interms of foreign policy, in the Mexican political system, the sovereign power is shared by the three branches of government (conduction / revision and approval/ application)
II. Changes in Mexican Foreign Policy
70 years of PRI hegemony = one of the most centralized
in the world
Merger between federal Executive and Official Party
Mexican president = main actor with enormous meta-
constitutional powers (presidentialism)
Indisputable leader
Whose party had majority in both legislative
chambers and controlled all state governments (until
1989)
Highly disciplined partyII. Changes in Mexican Foreign Policy
7. Division of
purpose between
3. Federal government
division of orders
power
6. Division of purpose between chambers
2. Legislative division of power
1.
Constitutional
division of
powers
8. División de propósito en partidos
5. Division of
purpose
between
powers
Executive 4. Party fragmentation
LegislativoII. Changes in Mexican Foreign Policy
Variable 1982 Erosion starts 2000
Constitutional Presidential No institutional change Presidential
division of powers
Legislative Strong bicameralism No institutional change Strong bicameralism (symmetric
division of powers (symmetric and incongruent and incongruent chambers)
chambers)
Federal division of Federalism No institutional change Federalism
powers
Attributions in the Conduction by the executive No institutional change Conduction by the executive
conduction of (with analysis of foreign (with analysis of foreign policy,
foreign policy policy, ratification of treaties, ratification of treaties,
ambassadors, and consuls by ambassadors, and consuls by the
the Senate, and absences from Senate, and absences from
national territory by Congress) national territory by Congress)
Fragmentation of Low fragmentation Fragmentation increases Medium fragmentation
parties NEP Deputies: 1.720 in elections 1988 NEP Deputies: 2.769
NEP Senators: 1.032 NEP Senators: 2.786
Division of Unified government PRI looses presidency in Divided government
purpose among Presidency: PRI 2000 Presidency: PAN
powers Absolute majority in Absolute majority in chambers:
chambers: PRI no partyII. Changes in Mexican Foreign Policy
Variable 1982 Erosion starts 2000
Division of purpose Legislative unity PRI looses majority of Legislative Division
among chambers PRI Deputies: 74.8% deputies in 1997 and of PRI Deputies: 42.2%
PRI Senators: 98.4% Senators in 2000 PRI Senators: 46.1%
Division of purpose Unitary government PRI looses first state Juxtaposed government
among levels of Governors from PRI: 100% government (Baja Governors for PAN: 25.0%
government California) in 1989
Division of purpose Total discipline Indiscipline starts in PRI Declining discipline
among parties Discipline Index: and PAN in Zedillo’s Discipline Index:
Nearly 100% administration (electoral 80-90% approximately
reform and Fobaproa)
CONDUCTION TOTAL CONTROL BY THE EXECUTIVE CONTROL (WITH
OF FOREIGN EXECUTIVE (WITHOUT QUESTIONINGS AND
POLICY QUESTIONING OR THE INCREASING
PREDICTION PARTICIPATION OF THE PARTICIPATION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE OR THE LEGISLATIVE AND THE
STATES) STATES)Special relation with the US
EXPORTS AND IMPORTS ACCORDING TO THE REGION OF DESTINY AND
ORIGIN, IN TERMS OF TOTAL MEXICAN EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
Porcentaje
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2001
Año
AMÉRICA DEL NORTE % Imp o rtación
AMÉRICA DEL NORTE % Exp o rtación
AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE % Imp o rtación
AMÉRICA LATINA Y EL CARIBE % Exp o rtación
UNIÓN EUROPEA % Imp o rtaciónSpecial relation with the US 85% of exports 70% of imports 2/3 of FDI 30 million Mexicans in US 15 million born in Mexico 7.5 million illegal 25,000 million USD remittances 3,000 k.m. border Tijuana-San Diego: most important international crossing
Special relation with the US
Priority
in Mexican foreign policy = containment
of US hegemony
Priorityin US foreign policy towards Mexico =
stability and security of southern border
Since the end of World War II, the US-Mexico
relations have been characterized as a common
interest on minimizing frictions and privilege
cooperation for the solution of bilateral affairs.Special relation with the US Thishas resulted in a “special relation” between the two countries that has allowed wide margins of autonomy to Mexico in its management of its internal and external policies in moment of international stability, but at the same time, it has required discrete alignment with the US in moments of crisis.
Special relation with the US
Coincidence in voting with the United States in the
United Nations General Assembly
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
Year
1985 1989 1994 1999
Mexico Canada United Nations
Source: G. González (2001)NAFTA OBJECTIVES
Free trade area (goods, services and capital); no
CET or migration
Increase competitiveness
Lock in economic reforms at domestic level (before and
after NAFTA):
% of GDP
Oil vs manufactures
Regional vs open integration / one vs. many FTAs
23Huge increase in exports
Mexico is the third most important exporter and importer vis a vis the US:
+ 600 % increase in less than 20 years 241.7
Exportaciones de México a EE.UU. y Canadá
1990-2008
(Miles de millones de dólares)
44.4
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008*
Exp. Petroleras Exp. No petroleras
*Cifras preliminares para 2008 24
Fuente: Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores con datos de Banco de MéxicoFDI
Inversión Extranjera Directa (IED) en México
(acumulada 1994-2008, miles de millones de dólares)
994
de 1
273,5
255,9
de s
ce s
228,8
1 8 ve 18 6 , 4
2 0 1. 0
16 2 , 9
14 6 , 6
12 2 , 9
93,2
75,2
6 1, 4
49,0
34,8
15 , 1 24,7
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
* Para el año de 2008 la inversión extranjera directa esta reportada hasta el mes de septiembre
25Convergence
México EE.UU.
40%
35%
30% Inflación promedio anual (2000=100)
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Fuente: OECD 26México (EMBI+)
04/16/1998
Fuente: JP Morgan
08/11/1998
12/08/1998
04/07/1999
08/02/1999
11/29/1999
03/24/2000
07/20/2000
11/14/2000
03/14/2001
07/10/2001
11/07/2001
03/08/2002
07/03/2002
10/29/2002
02/27/2003
06/24/2003
10/20/2003
02/18/2004
06/14/2004
10/07/2004
02/04/2005
06/02/2005
09/27/2005
01/26/2006
05/23/2006
09/18/2006
01/16/2007
05/11/2007
09/06/2007
01/04/2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
27
Country risk
Puntos base sobre USTAgriculture
COMERCIO AGROALIMENTARIO Y PESQUERO MÉXICO-MUNDO
(Millones de dólares)
19,000
18,000
TMAC 1994-2008
17,000
16,000
X: 10.6%
15,000
Acuerdos Bilaterales M: 7.1%
14,000
13,000
TMAC 1986-1994
12,000
TMAC 1980-1986 X: 5.3%
11,000
X: 4.7% M: 22.7%
10,000
9,000 M: -12.6%
Adhesión de
8,000
7,000
México al GATT
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Fuente: Banco de México 28
Exportaciones = X Importaciones = MMexico is the second exporter to the US
Exportaciones de México a la región TLCAN
12.000
(millones de dólares)
10.000 1993-2008**
Agroalimentario 286%
8.000
Agropecuario 188%
6.000
Agroindustrial 566%
4.000
2.000
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008*
Agroalimentarias Agropecuario Agroindustrial
* Agroalimentarios es la suma de los agropecuarios y los agroindustriales.
** Cifras en el año de 2008 acumulado (enero-octubre) 29
Fuente: Secretaría de Economía con datos de Banco de México.Net importer of grains
Balanza comercial agroalimentaria con Estados Unidos y Canadá, 1990 – 2007 1/
(millones de dólares)
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
0
-500 -413
-662 -723 -678,7
-1000
Valores
-1500 -1427
-1447
-1565
-1763 -1816
-2000 -1884
-1958 -2021 -2045
-2500 -2420
-2571
-2773
-3000
-2963
-3068
-3500
Años
1/ Cifras disponibles a junio
Fuente: Secretaría de Economía con datos de Banco de México. 30Evaluation of NAFTA
¾ Has changed face of Mexican economic model and
development strategy
¾ Lightning rod effect: positive and negative
¾ Trade concentration with US (dangerous)
¾ Macro and microeconomic consequences (growth vs
inequality)
¾ Renegotiation impossible: it has already happened
¾ Limited to goods, services and capital; next step?
¾ Compatible with other FTAs and global liberalization?
31Between Regions and countries • 51% believe more attention to Latin America is needed • 24% consider Europe a priority • Asia does not exist: only 3% think Mexico should give it more attention, and 38% that the economic competition in this region is a big problem for Mexico • Have more favorable opinion regarding European and Asian countries than for their Latin American neighbors
Mexico and America • Mexicans do not want to be part of the north or the south, but the bridge between them. • Believe that there will be further economic and political integration with the North America (67% y 61%) y and with Latin America (72% y 64%) • Don’t want Mexico to act as a leader n the region, but as equals (59%) • A minority prefer regional leadership from Mexico (22%)
Contact:
Jorge A. Schiavon
Professor and Director
International Studies Department
CIDE
jorge.schiavon@cide.eduYou can also read
