In 2016 Mexico faced a new reality. A U.S. presidential candidate used Mexico and Mexicans as part of his electoral campaign message in a very negative manner. Although the degree of influence of the above mentioned positions to the election result is not clear, the U.S. electorate elected President Trump.
Why did President Trump use Mexico and Mexicans in such manner and not Norwegians for example? A reasonable answer is that he exploited the negative image that the U.S. electorate holds for Mexico and Mexicans together with the American fear of mass immigration. He risked and was rewarded.
But why do U.S. electorate have an unfavorable image for Mexico and Mexicans? Vianovo with two surveys in 2012 and 2016 identifies violence and corrupt government in Mexico as the main reasons for Mexico’s unfavorable image in the U.S. Looking forward the question becomes how Mexico and Mexicans can influence the American public opinion and decision makers and improve their image and thus avoid repetition of the Trump phenomenon?
Some countries use lobbying groups to influence the decision making process and shape U.S. policy in the area of foreign affairs. Some noticeable examples are Armenia, Greece and of course Israel. These countries successfully influenced and shaped U.S. foreign policy through lobbying groups. Their lobbies exert disproportionate power since the bulk of the U.S. population is indifferent to foreign policy issues and policy makers tend to accommodate those who care about an issue.
Mexico faces distinctive issues that pose serious challenges for the success of lobbying groups. One challenge is that some of these issues of interest to Mexico arising in the U.S. political scene are mostly related to local and domestic affairs. Some are of interest to ordinary U.S. citizens such as immigration and security, pocket economy and trade, public health and education, labor, civil and human rights, among others. Another challenge is that these issues may depend both on decisions at the city, county or state level, while others at federal level only. One example of an issue of foreign affairs that affects domestic policies is the collaboration of local law enforcement with federal immigration officials, or otherwise resulting in ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions decided at the local level.
On the other hand, there are over 35.3 million people of Mexican descent in the U.S. and another 22 million of Hispanic descent. This vast reservoir of Hispanics could be the basis from which Mexico can draw the volunteers to create diaspora advocacy groups that could influence U.S. decision makers and public alike on issues of interest to Mexico and Mexicans.
The consular network of Mexico in the United States is the largest a country has in another, with 50 consulates strategically located in fifty cities and metropolitan areas, a majority in utmost populated states by Mexican Americans. The Heads of Missions of these consulates could have organized advocacy groups at local level that will promote the interests of Mexicans and Mexican Americans and educate the English speaking public on issues concerning Mexico and Mexicans and the contributions of the local Mexican Americans to the local community.
These efforts should have started 25-30 years ago. It did not happen and the Foreign Service of Mexico bears part of the responsibility of the current situation. The Mexican Foreign Service was not prepared. The notion that a diplomat arriving from London, Paris, Rome will be an effective Consul General is a fallacy. It is time for a change. It is time to have as Heads of Missions in Consulates, diplomats that are fluent in English, have at least 15 years experience in consulates in the U.S., understand the U.S. political system and are subject to annual evaluations where every year the bottom 20% of the Heads of Missions will be fired if they do not meet their objectives.
The good image of Mexico starts with improvements within Mexico or as President Elect Lopez Obrador said the best foreign policy is a good interior policy. But still the Foreign Service can also advocate and improve the image of Mexico and Mexicans in the U.S. At least it is worth trying. The current status quo will only ensure that the unfavorable image of Mexico and Mexicans will continue to exist and the Mexican Foreign Service will do the Mexican community in the U.S a disservice.
