# Mexico and its reconstruction/Chapter 1

Layout 4
MEXICO AND ITS RECONSTRUCTION
CHAPTER I
WHY MEXICO IS A PROBLEM
A generation ago few Americans recognized that Mexico was a problem and still fewer that it was one that deeply concerned the United States. For more than a half century it had been a country in which civil dissension was seldom absent. It was a land almost unknown, one in which the stagnation of the Spanish colonial system of government had been succeeded by the stagnation which comes from lack of enterprise, lack of education, and lack of intelligent and efficient government. The dictatorship which had been set up recently had shown signs of strength, it is true, greater than its short-lived predecessors, and railway building had made a promising beginning but the outside world still looked upon Mexico as a problem to itself and a matter of comparative indifference to others.
But the past generation has seen an internationalizing of the affairs of the world that has made it impossible for any state to remain isolated from the affairs of its neighbors. Strictly speaking, of course, national interests are not bounded by national frontiers and they ​never have been. They are less so now than ever before. As communication and commercial interchanges develop international contacts become more important. As emigration from one country to another increases the obligations of countries to protect the rights of resident foreigners increase. Independence is replaced by an interlocking of interests that demands a recognition of the fact that no state can longer be independent as it was in times past.
The emphasis of duties of this sort does not greatly increase the burdens of the stronger powers nor those of the lesser states that have created orderly governments capable of protecting life and property. Weaker nations are able to give a less effective guarantee to foreigners and to their own citizens. As a result, in spite of the theory of equality of states, in practice the more advanced states exercise a constant pressure upon the weaker to assure that they exert themselves to guarantee safety for life and property. The pressure may be veiled but it is none the less real. If the responsibility is not assumed, there is always the possibility of recourse to force. Many examples could be cited. The demands made upon Venezuela in the opening years of the century and the claims for indemnities arising from the Boxer rebellion in China are illustrations of the ways in which reparations may be sought. That there is possibility of abuse in such circumstances is beyond dispute, but the alternative—to allow the weaker state a free hand in the persecution of foreigners—would be a policy even less endurable. Such a policy is intolerable under modern conditions when both population and capital ​pass frontiers in normal times with insignificant difficulties and do so in response to invitation and even solicitation by foreign countries and their citizens.
All around the world the problems of the weak states promise to hold the front of international attention during the coming decade. In fact the elimination of "unredeemed lands" and the efforts to exploit resources now undeveloped will emphasize the international importance of unprotected interests in disordered states. Though it does not greatly increase their domestic problems the passing of the day when each state was a law into itself creates new international responsibilities for the stronger nations toward the weaker.
The regions of the world in which the problem of the protection of foreign interests promises to be most important are three. In eastern Europe and the Near East it is evident that the settlements following the World War cannot set up states that will at once be able to discharge easily all the responsibilities toward their neighbors and toward resident foreigners that the great powers will wish to have assumed. The Far East will have important problems of adjustment.
Finally there is the unstable area in America—extending from the Rio Grande to northern South America. Africa will probably be less important in matters of this sort because, but for Abyssinia and Liberia, it has ceased to be a region in which there are so-called sovereign states and its other native peoples under European influence, except in Egypt and Morocco, have shown no nationalistic aspirations or aptitudes.
In the American area control by the most powerful ​American state over its weaker neighbors has been growing steadily for two decades. The responsibilities assumed in Cuba and Panama have been followed by others, which now include practical protectorates over all of the West Indian republics and a complex of responsibilities in Central America.
Although this extension of influence has been steady it has not been the result of any well thought out plan, indeed, to a very large degree, it has been a product of circumstances rather than of policy. It is not an increase of control which the government or people of the United States has actively desired and it is not one which either wishes to see further extended. Nevertheless it can but be evident that the circumstances that are developing in the world will make the policy to be followed toward the countries encircling the Caribbean one of the leading factors in American foreign policy in the immediate future.
One of the most important problems that American statesmen will have to face and one of the most difficult of the adjustments that must be made during the period of reconstruction following the World War involves the relations of the United States and Mexico. The foreign policy adopted toward this, the most important of the Latin republics of North America, may be the outstanding factor in American international policy in the next decade. The solution arrived at will be important for the world at large, and especially for the United States, for a large number of reasons.
1. From the broadest international viewpoint it will be significant because it will show what standard is ​found practical by a power that has prominently declared its altruistic motives in its actions toward weaker nations. Though the United States has a better perspective in such matters now than at the beginning of the century, it is still less experienced in dealing with weaker peoples than Great Britain and France, the chief European powers that in the near future will be called upon to deal with similar situations. As a consequence the United States approaches the Mexican problem with perhaps greater possibility of error but less bound by precedent.
2. Contrasts in civilization are present in high degree in the Mexican problem. Anglo-Saxon and Latin customs and languages meet. Within Mexico itself there are many contrasts and conflicts arising out of the native elements of the population and the lack of communication between the various districts of the country. From a cultural standpoint these have kept the republic, to a great degree, a collection of units rather than a single state and will make a satisfactory solution of Mexican relations difficult.
3. The great natural wealth of Mexico makes it a region in which the adjustment of its political and economic relations with the rest of the world is of great importance.
4. What may be called the resident international interests within Mexico emphasize the fact that arrangements concerning its government are not merely of local concern. During the Diaz period of orderly government an inflow of foreign capital occurred that makes what happens to the investments in the country a ​matter of unusual international interest. Of the investments made those representing American capital are by far the most important.
5. Its international trade exchange makes a country of importance in international affairs. The economic development of Mexico since the '80s of the past century has made it one of the most important of the American republics in foreign commerce. In both the imports and exports of Mexico the United States plays a part far more important than any other power.
6. Mexican affairs are of special interest to the United States, furthermore, because Mexico is the nearest of foreign countries. The two republics are neighbors with adjoining properties and what affects one must have an effect upon the other.
7. The developments that occur in Mexico will have a wider influence on American foreign policy than appears at first sight, for Mexican relations are in a peculiar way a thermometer for Pan-American relations. Whether the assumption is justified or not, any measure adopted toward Mexico is apt to be taken by other Latin American states as a measure of what may be expected for themselves, however different the conditions to be met in the two cases may be. This is unfortunate but true. Obviously that which may be demanded from Haiti for the protection of the rights of the United States would be unnecessary in a country of the orderly character of Argentina or Chile. Nevertheless the Latin American countries consider themselves a group with common interests and a step that affects one is looked upon as indicating a policy toward the rest. There can ​be no doubt that whatever is done by the United States in Mexico will have a very clear repercussion on the Pan-Americanism of which the United States has been an exponent and defender. What the policy has meant has never been definitely stated. The idea greatly needs clarifying. Pan-Americanism of the sort that has been popular in some quarters in the past will become more and more difficult to maintain. The actual developments in world affairs promise little for any policy that can be interpreted as inconsistent with a recognition that "independence" carries great and increasing responsibilities toward foreign states and individuals.
8. The relations of the United States and Mexico have an interest not limited to America. In dealing with Mexico the northern republic will have a complex problem involving contrasting civilizations and the meeting of a people with wide experience in democratic institutions with one almost unexperienced in popular government, though nominally devoted to its ideals. Its policy will be influenced by the measures taken to develop the latent natural resources and the already important foreign trade and investments. Mexico is the greatest and wealthiest of the weak states of predominantly aboriginal population that lie near to a great Western power. Obviously the political and economic adjustments that are found possible under such circumstances cannot fail to be of interest to all the world and especially to those powers which have close contact with the less developed independent nations.
9. Finally, the Mexican problem is one that has unusual interest for the world and especially for the ​United States because it seems sure to have a rapid development. Had not the World War absorbed the attention of the world, the conditions that have developed south of the Rio Grande would almost surely have been followed before now by international action. The interests of the United States would have prompted it but, even if the desire not to offend the susceptibilities of the other Latin American states had delayed action, and even if those who believe that the government owes no responsibility to its citizens who invest their lives and property in foreign lands had been able to hold back the hand of the administration, some forward step would almost certainly have been found necessary.
Even if the United States had been willing to suffer and wait, it seems little likely that other powers would have been content to do so. That they would not have, been willing is indicated by the action taken by European powers toward Haiti in the days immediately preceding the World War. The larger interests held by the citizens of European governments in Mexico would have prompted them to take measures to protect their interests there if the United States would not. A threat to do so is the easiest way to force the American hand.
As in civil society, so in international affairs, the shortcomings of the weak are the problems of the strong. As the period of reconstruction progresses, Mexican affairs will again assume importance not only in American international policy but in that of all the great powers. There must be created within the republic a government that can establish order, that will respect individual rights, put the great resources of the nation again at the ​service of those living within its borders, and enable it to contribute its due share to the maintenance of the family of nations. To make that possible all true friends of Mexico and all true friends of the United States must strive.