Opinion Archive

What to Make of 3 Approaches to International Relations

December 12, 2007 

During his recent visit to Mexico City, Mohammad Khatami was invited to breakfast at the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations. The actual conversations were off the record, as is always the case at the Council, but Iran is an interesting point of reference for an analysis of how countries deal with each other.

Specifically, Mexico, the United States and Iran offer three completely different approaches to international relations. Each country “grew up” in a different world neighborhood, subject to differing foreign pressures and interventions. As a result, each has learned contrasting lessons from history, which leads them to act in opposite ways despite the forces of convergence driving 21st century globalization.

Three Destinies Manifest

After a brief spell in the rough-and-tumble neighborhood of independence and early wars with the British and their Canadian colonies, the United States grew up in the suburbs. Its privileged position as a consolidated country in a large and sparsely populated North America kept it from being pushed around by anybody. Further, the US had idealistic parents who left it a strong ideological and institutional trust fund. What Americans learned from history was that great national ideas, such as liberal (in a British sense) democracy, have legs. So, the US grew up to be a neighborhood “Mr. Fix It.” International problems were there to be solved and, with trillions of dollars worth of firepower, by golly they were going to solve them. The US has never been about conquest, which is why the “empire” label is off-target. That is why, except for the “elbow room” wars with Mexico (which were more about consolidation than about conquest), the US does not colonize the countries it invades.

Mexico, on the other hand, grew up in the Projects. Unable to “get it together” in its infancy, it was always being told what to do by European powers (Spain and France). Later, the bully next door took over half of its house and then left it to lick its wounds. So, Mexico decided to stop going to the playground. When President Benito Juárez said that “to respect another's rights is to live in peace,” he was expressing a hope as much as an ideal. Mexico learned that it was best to mind its own business and hope that others would do the same.

Iran grew up in the international equivalent of a crack house in Compton. Gang-like world powers harrassed it constantly. Religious fanatics of different persuasions forced it into dysfunctional relationships. As Persian Shiites surrounded by Sunni Arabs, Communists, Turks and an assortment of despots, it is impressive that it was able to avoid even more wars and achieve a modicum of democracy. The street fighter learned that offence is the best defence and that you can’t trust anyone. Worst, it came to absorb some of the intoxicating fumes of Islam’s absolutist undercurrents. As a result, it is itching for a fight with Israel, which is the rich guy with powerful friends who constantly “disses” the brothers. With this attitude, it naturally runs up against the global village Mr. Fix It, who has the biggest stake in the status quo.

Nature vs. Nurture

In terms of economic and social development, Mexico and Iran are very similar. They occupy similarly-sized pieces of land (2 million square kilometers versus 1.65 million for Iran), their populations are 100 million versus 70 million and Mexico’s GDP is a mere 15% higher per capita GDP. Even their flags are alike, using the same green, white and red.

Both countries have nuclear technology, but Mexico gave the world the Tlatelolco Treaty of nuclear non-proliferation in the Americas, while Iran savors the cold sweat of its rivals that its nuclear hide-and-seek elicits.

Part of the difference in outlook has to do with the US itself. Americans have engaged Mexico with a respectful “hands off” approach since the 1910 Revolution. They accepted some basic anti-American decisions, such as the nationalization of the oil industry in the 1930s, in large part because the cost of causing major social unrest on their doorstep was considered too high. Iran, with its remote geographic location and fiery religious anti-American rhetoric, was ostracized and told it was evil.

Jaw Jaw vs. War War

Which is the best approach for dealing with the Iranian street fighter? The US Mr. Fix It approach, or Mexico’s “loner” attitude? At the risk of oversimplifying a complicated issue, perhaps the best approach is a little of both. Paraphrasing Winston Churchill, the idea is to “jaw jaw” backed up by “war war” firepower. What the loner does understand better than Mr. Fix It is the need for the street fighter to feel that he is being respected. Just like in the ‘hood, a misspoken word, or gesture, can lead to a gunfight. In a world where people prefer to make their point than to be happy (to the point of committing suicidal murder), maybe the loner is not so dumb, after all.

Return to top