Constructivist social theory argues that the influence human consciousness has on international relations cannot go ignored. Identity matters, and plays a large role in the government and public’s motives. One aspect of identity that exemplifies constructivist theory is race, and the trilateral relationship between the United States, Mexico, and Canada is a prime case study for constructivist theory in regards to race. The U.S. has a notably different relationship with Canada than it does with Mexico, and constructivists could argue that this is due to the difference in race between the majority of white Canadians and darker skinned Mexicans. The discrepancy between the U.S.’s relationship with Canada and its relationship with Mexico became more evident after border security measures were increased post- September 11th. The post-9/11 race to heighten security on US borders accentuated racist ideologies and beliefs embedded in American history, which greatly influence the more positive US-Canada relationship and the more negative US-Mexico dynamic.
The type of belief that plays the largest role in shaping the distinct US-Canada, US-Mexico relationships are causal beliefs. The intensification of border security after September 11th exemplified the way in which the US government interprets its citizens’ views of the cause and effect of security. After September 11th, there was a “20 percent increase in border delays crossing” from Mexico to the US, and only a “12 percent increase in delays” from Canada into the US (Pastor). As a nation sandwiched between Mexico and Canada, it is evident that the government perceives that the public feels more of a threat from Mexicans than Canadians. Both borders had to be “thickened” in order to make for a more secure US, but Mexico received most of the patrolling, including 2006 legislation calling for the “construction of 700 miles of border fence between Texas and California” (Ackleson)(Ridgeway). These strong measures against Mexico were enacted for security purposes, but also because of the US government’s perception that US citizens have causal beliefs that border insecurity is due to a lack of protection against Mexican immigrants, not Canadian immigrants. The government’s belief that the American public craves protection in response to Mexicans and not Canadians comes from a history of US racism, and constructivism points to this possibility that US policy towards Mexico and Canada differs due to a racist belief system.
Policy prescription also factors into the historical as well as post-9/11 American view of Mexico and Canada. The US, Canada, and Mexico are partners in different organizations and institutions together, but a “North American Union” remains inconceivable due to the unequal treatment of Mexico by the US (Wagner). NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, was established in 1994 as a way to reduce trading barriers and tariffs between the US, Canada, and Mexico ("North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)"). Although the fusing of economies between these three states is important for positive relations, key factors were left out, quite possibly due to inherent degradation of Mexico engrained in Americans’ consciousness. For instance, how can NAFTA work fairly when the gap between Mexico’s income and the US and Canada’s income is so extreme (Pastor)? In order to create a more equal playing field, the American and Canadian focus should turn to immigration reform and lowering the income gap between the Northern States and Mexico.
Yet, in order to adopt policies that yield greater economic equality between the three nations, the US government and public must relinquish their conscious (or subconscious) views that Mexico is “less than.” The US, especially after 9/11, viewed the border with Mexico as more of a threat than the border of Canada. However, by improving Mexico’s economy and making it more comparable to that of the US and Canada, issues on the border would slow because life in Mexico would improve. The betterment of Mexico will only create economic progress that NAFTA will also benefit from. However, for this progress to come about, the US government will have to give up some of its sovereignty in order to obtain a more “symmetrical” relationship between Canada and Mexico (Pastor).
Under the umbrella of American racism also fall normative beliefs. Normative beliefs are a states’ view of what is right versus what is wrong. In regards to post-9/11 society, fear shapes much of the American public’s attitudes toward foreign affairs. The news of drug and gang warfare in Mexico and on the US-Mexico border has instilled in Americans a fear of Mexicans in general, as drug lords and gangsters are seen as types of terrorists that the US does not negotiate with. Thus, passing legislation, such as immigration or economic reform, to make for more of a North American community is quite difficult. In certain cases, the opposite of positive reform has occurred because post-September 11th border patrol and an increasing violence in Mexico have led to stricter laws against Mexican immigration. In Arizona, laws were passed that allowed for police to stop anyone they assume to be an illegal immigrant ("North American Free Trade Agreement - News"). This policy is backed by racism and normative beliefs, as judging by looks alone, the police draw conclusions as to what the right and wrong races are in their state. While a Canadian illegal immigrant could be driving down the road, the police officer is more likely to ignore the white, illegal Canadian, and pullover a legal Mexican-American solely due to assumptions regarding identity—a prime example of constructivism in post-9/11 society fueled by historical racism.
Furthermore, in 1994, Bill Clinton hastily “adopted” NAFTA in hopes that the ideological and income discrepancies between the US, Mexico, and Canada would disappear due to this trade and economic system that linked the three nations’ capitalistic ideologies. The “disparities” between the nations that Clinton ignored “made Nafta the boldest gamble ever on the proposition that free trade could benefit all.” According to constructivism, material policies do not overcome a state and society’s ideology and beliefs. The idealist goal of NAFTA, to bring “three hugely different economies” under one “canopy,” and “create millions of good jobs, curb illegal immigration and raise living standards” was faulty because it assumed materialism would conquer human consciousness ("North American Free Trade Agreement - News"). The US racial, normative, and political bias that erupted after September 11th fuels its intensive border policies against Mexico and keeps Mexico’s economy down, creating an unbalanced relationship between the US and Mexico and the US and Canada. Because of the history of racism in the US, the chance for the creation of a peaceful, balanced, and strong North American Union is bleak.
References:
Ackleson, Jason. "From “Thin” to “Thick” (and Back Again?): The Politics and Policies
of the Contemporary US-Canada Border." American Review of Canadian Studies 39.4 (2009): 336-351. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 5 Oct. 2011.
"North American Free Trade Agreement - News." Times Topics - The New York Times.
21 Apr. 2009. Web. 06 Oct. 2011.
"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) —." USDA Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS). United States Department of Agriculture, 04 Apr. 2004. Web. 06
Oct. 2011.
Pastor, Robert A. "The Future of North America." Foreign Affairs 87.4 (2008): 84-98.
Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 5 Oct. 2011.
Ridgeway, James. "A Chink in the US-Mexico Border Fence | World News |
Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. The Guardian, 15 Oct. 2008. Web. 06 Oct. 2011.
Wagner, Bernadette. "FORTRESS JELLYBEAN." Canadian Dimension 41.6 (2007): 18-
20. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 5 Oct. 2011.
I find your post realy interesting and useful. Afterwards, I searched more about NAFTA and it was written that it was created as North American version of European Union. But then we can applied what we discuss in class today. European Union's integration process was going from governments to lower level, but NAFTA has opposite way - from desire to cooperate on microlevel, like between American and Canadian corporations, to integration on macrolevel. But if to talk about national level - quit a lot of people have hegative attitude, because of racism, increased trade of drugs and increased crime. Also when the US and Canadian economy are almost on the same level, Mexican is far behind, and Mexica feels like the US have much more benefits. At the same time Mexican people thinks than the US have more influence on them than Mexican President does.
ReplyDeleteU.S. and Mexican pressure groups appeared to be more nimble on the implementation of their action than it was expected by governments. The threat of usage of mass sentiments, using the concept of sovereignty lies in the fact that the outcome of events may disrupt the growing relationship between the two countries. Making concessions to these pressure groups the government to virtually "encourage" their activities.
Victoria,
ReplyDeleteYou are right on. The US has to be very careful in its relations with Mexico. The US cannot endanger US citizens by being too loose about drug and gang warfare on the US-Mexico border, but at the same time the US does not want to appear to be degrading Mexican citizens. Finding the balance between strict policy and appealing to human consciousness and emotion is difficult, but this balance exists in almost all political affairs, and that is why I think US-Mexico issues connect so well to constructivism.
'The government’s belief that the American public craves protection in response to Mexicans and not Canadians comes from a history of US racism, and constructivism points to this possibility that US policy towards Mexico and Canada differs due to a racist belief system.'
ReplyDeleteIs it just racism though? The standard of life in Canada for many exceed those that live in Mexico. There is less of an incentive for working class Canadians to become illegal aliens in the United States than working class Mexicans. Cant the reason that we crave protection on the Mexico border is not because of differences in race but rather because of the knowledge that more Mexicans are willing to risk their life crossing the border illegally than Canadians?
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point. There are indeed fewer Canadians moving into the US both legally and illegally, making the US put more emphasis on protecting their border with Mexico than Canada. However, rather than building a wall to keep Mexicans out, wouldn’t it make more sense for the US to try to help better Mexico’s economy as a way to decrease immigration rates?
The US uses less physical means of interaction with Canada than with Mexico, in part due to numbers, but I think, also due to ideology. This type of dialogue with Mexico instead of the use of a wall that explicitly say, “Keep out,” would be proof of less of a racism belief system in the US.