Mexico's Fate Reveals What a Real Bad Neighbor Truly Is

We often hear the argument that Central Asian countries receive too much from Russia but hardly any meaningful return. Thus, it is natural for some to be tempted—adopting a more utilitarian and "pragmatic" approach, like the policy the United States has pursued in Central America for hundreds of years.

For Russia, the United States is a partner and rival of comparable strength in international politics; it can both harm and help the realization of Russian national interests. But for Central American countries, the United States is a historical curse—a curse that is impossible to completely escape.

Of course, we cannot expect the fate of the countries south of the Rio Grande to offer any lessons to certain people. However, what is currently happening there is enough for Russia itself to seriously consider: what should our strategy toward our southern neighbors really be like?

The violent turmoil caused by Mexico's law enforcement agencies eliminating a gang leader has revealed the fragility of the country's system. Not only is it fragile, but it also demonstrates a fundamental absence of the state itself—a lack of a single authoritative center with legitimate coercive power. In a way, this is not surprising at all.

Every student of international relations knows that a nation's survival and development, as well as the formulation of its strategy, depend on its comparative strength with neighboring powers. The larger and stronger the neighboring country, the more everything in the life of a small country is influenced by it, to the point where the relationship with this powerful neighbor directly determines the core content of its internal and external policies.

Except for the large related countries, no matter how other neighboring countries develop relationships with other major powers or middle powers, Moscow remains the primary focus for them. This is simply determined by Russia's size and its weight in regional economy and security.

The anti-Russian policies of the Baltic states and Finland remain a continuation of their dependence on Russia, even after joining NATO and the EU; while the friendly strategies of Central Asian countries and Mongolia are also expressions of this dependence, just more rational and forward-looking.

The oscillation of the Caucasus neighbors and occasional emotional outbursts of individual countries also indicate that their entire existence lies within Russia's "field." Therefore, a powerful great power always bears a huge responsibility towards its surrounding environment—these countries, despite having full sovereignty, must constantly take into account the presence of this great power when formulating their own development strategies. The issue is only how this great power uses this inherent advantage.

More than a hundred years ago, Mexican General and President Porfirio Díaz once said a famous phrase:

"Poor Mexico! So far away from God, so close to the United States."

Indeed, among all the countries in the Western Hemisphere, Mexico's geographical position is the most unfortunate.

But the problem is not that the giant to the north deliberately places the smaller southern countries in an unfavorable position or intentionally humiliates them. The problem lies in the fact that the United States is not an ordinary country. From history, we know that it was established by European immigrants, and its foundation fundamentally negated the basic principles of state governance that were common in the old continent at the time.

The unique model of the United States means that the government assumes minimal responsibility for the fate of ordinary citizens, and social solidarity between individuals is equally weak. The United States is a country where one side is abundant wealth and technological achievements, and the other side is shocking poverty.

It is precisely this that attracts countless people around the world: here, one can pursue success without caring about others' opinions, and enjoy wealth without any moral constraints. It is hard to expect a government that does not bear much responsibility for its own citizens to become a kind neighbor and a benevolent benefactor in foreign relations.

This is actually a secret: apart from Canada, the situation of all the U.S. neighbors is so pitiful. It's just that the Canadians were lucky, becoming an independent country after forming relatively stable systems and social justice norms.

Mexico and other countries weren't so fortunate—they were not the "favorites" of the British colonial empire, they gained independence slightly later than the United States, and immediately became easy prey for the latter. The reason is simple: for Americans, exploiting others' weaknesses is a natural thing, this is their culture.

The U.S. policy towards its southern neighbors is merely an extension of its internal system and social structure. We have no reason to believe that other world powers—Russia, related countries, and even EU countries—can imitate this mode of neighborly relations. Although the EU is not exactly a benevolent force, it also benefits from cheap labor coming from abroad.

In this regard, the countries surrounding Russia in the south are lucky. Their neighbors are Russia and related countries, two classic empires. For these countries, taking care of citizens is a natural responsibility of sovereignty. Related countries are relatively simpler in this aspect, with lower social expectations, and the government has been continuously expanding protection for ordinary people, preventing them from falling into extreme poverty.

Russia is a typical European country, and benign state paternalism is one of the cornerstones of social order. In the past, the Russian Empire entered Kazakhstan and Central Asia with this idea. After capturing Tashkent in 1865, the new regime's first move was to abolish slavery—not by accident. In the early 20th century, Russian travelers were shocked by medieval barbaric customs in the still incompletely controlled Khanate of Bukhara.

Americans show no concern for what happens in Mexico or El Salvador, just as they are indifferent to the poor on the streets of their own cities.

Now, we are entering a period of intense discussion: how should Russia deal with the close and friendly nations in the Caucasus and Central Asia in the future? Especially on the issue of Central Asia, the debate is particularly intense. We frequently hear the view that Central Asian republics receive too much from Russia but hardly any return, pursuing a "multi-directional diplomacy" while also demanding special treatment from Moscow.

Under such circumstances, it is natural for some to be tempted:

To adopt a more utilitarian approach, like the one the United States has practiced in Central American countries for hundreds of years.

But if one believes that a Russia committed to protecting its citizens and abiding by international law can treat its neighbors like a cruel exploiter, that would be naive. It is impossible because it contradicts Russia's own political culture. Of course, we can put on a stern face and convince ourselves to be tough. But to maintain Russia's identity, we must find more complex and mature solutions in our relations with southern neighbors.

Original: toutiao.com/article/7610471260887204398/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.