Cuba and Haiti in Mexico's Foreign Policy
| Date | 01 September 2006 |
| Published date | 01 September 2006 |
| Author | Ana Covarrubias |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070200606100309 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Ana Covarrubias
Cuba and Haiti in
Mexico’s foreign
policy
| International Journal | Summer 2006 | 661 |
The principles of Mexico’s foreign policy remained essentially unchanged
during the Cold War and into the early post-Cold War period. The most vig-
orous discussion concerning change—or even rupture—in Mexican for-
eign policy were prompted by the negotiations for the North American free
trade agreement (NAFTA), and Mexico’s internal political opening towards
the end of the 1990s. This paper will examine Mexican policy towards Cuba
and Haiti to assess the extent of change and continuity in Mexican foreign
policy in a post-Cold War and post-September 11th context.
For some time during the 1990s, Mexican governments resisted inter-
national trends towards the active promotion of democracy and human
rights, although they enthusiastically endorsed goals such as economic lib-
eralization and free trade. In time, however, Mexican governments recog-
nized they could no longer ignore the importance of democracy and human
rights, not only because of the influence of the international agenda, but also
because of rapid social and political transformations domestically. Thus, as
President Vicente Fox took office in 2000, the promotion of democracy and
human rights became a key element in Mexico’s foreign policy and the dis-
cussion about Mexican foreign policy change deepened. As a country that
had traditionally defended the principle of non-intervention and the right to
Ana Covarrubias teaches at El Colegio de México.
| Ana Covarrubias |
| 662 | International Journal | Summer 2006 |
self-determination, Mexico was now taking forceful positions in favour of
democracy and respect of human rights everywhere in the world. The two
cases examined here, Cuba and Haiti, are related to Mexico’s new attitude
towards international politics. The promotion of democracy and human
rights was a consideration in Mexican policy towards both Cuba and Haiti,
and yet its approach differed significantly in each case. With respect to
Cuba, Mexican policy changed significantly from what it had been since
1959 by including an explicit position in favour of the adoption of democ-
racy and the protection of human rights in Cuba. In other words, the
Mexican government has taken a stand for political change in Cuba, thereby
leaving aside principles such as non-intervention and the right to self-deter-
mination. This new policy, coupled with Cuba’s resistance to change, led to
a deterioration in bilateral relations not seen since the Cuban revolution.
The Haitian case, on the other hand, illustrates the limits of Mexico’s
support for democracy and human rights abroad. The Mexican government
agreed on the need to encourage democracy and the protection of human
rights in Haiti through multilateral mechanisms, but rejected the use of
force and refused to join United Nations efforts to stabilize Haiti. Thus, the
Cuban case illustrates change in Mexican foreign policy whereas the
Haitian case reflects continuity. In both cases, Mexico acted in accordance
with a regional agenda that privileged democracy and human rights but, as
this paper will argue, only when domestic circumstances benefited from it.
REGIONAL SECURITY, DEMOCRACY, AND THE UNITED STATES
The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks have been taken as the end of the
post-Cold War era and the beginning of the antiterror era. Although they
did not mean a complete rupture in the international structure and dynam-
ics—international politics is always composed of a series of continuities
and changes—the terrorist attacks did give a more specific meaning to the
idea of a security threat in US foreign policy.
As US foreign policy did not have a clear regional enemy or security
threat once the Soviet bloc disintegrated and Nicaragua and El Salvador
joined most Latin American countries in embracing democracy, issues
such as drug trafficking and organized crime were given an important posi-
tion in the US foreign policy agenda, and were even considered security
threats not only to the United States, but to the region as a whole. This did
not occur in a straightforward way, however, with all hemispheric countries
agreeing on a “new” security agenda.
To continue reading
Request your trial