Speak Softly or Carry a Big Stick?

By John Kohan

Reagan and De la Madrid agree to disagree on Central America

However perplexing the problems in other parts of the globe, President Reagan has always seemed at ease in dealing with Mexico. Shortly before his Inauguration, the former California Governor signaled that Mexico would be at the top of his foreign policy agenda by making a courtesy call on Jose Lopez Portillo, who was then President. Reagan made a second trip south of the border to offer neighborly greetings to Lopez Portillo's successor, Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado. But when the President traveled to Mexico for a return visit with De la Madrid last week, all of that good will was put to the test. The reason: profound disagreement between the U.S. and Mexico over how to handle the crisis in Central America.

Arriving at the rain-drenched airport near La Paz, a quiet resort in Southern Baja California, Reagan shook hands with De la Madrid and then positioned himself to receive a Mexican abrazo. But De la Madrid firmly caught Reagan by the lower arm and avoided the traditional Latin hug. "We want to appear more serious, more dignified, not folkloric," a Mexican aide later explained. Diplomats described the subsequent talks as "useful," but although there were signs of movement behind the scenes on a number of issues, both sides apparently agreed to disagree about Central America.

Without specifically mentioning the U.S. decision to send a naval flotilla to the coast of Nicaragua and some 5,000 troops to participate in military exercises in Honduras, De la Madrid warned the U.S. that regional stability might be endangered "by shows of force that threaten to touch off a conflagration." Reagan, who was dressed in a blue guayabera, reaffirmed the tough U.S. policy in Central America. "We believe people should be able to determine their own solutions," he declared, "and that's why we've responded to calls for help from certain of our Latin American neighbors."

The two leaders signed an agreement to protect their 2,000-mile common border from pollution. Reagan announced that the U.S. would extend commodity credits so that Mexico could buy more American agricultural produce during the current drought. But foreign policy seemed to overshadow everything else. Playing down the differences, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz said that both countries were in agreement "at the level of general principle," but held divergent views about "particular tactical moves." The debate, essentially, is about whether to speak softly or carry a big stick.

Mexico has expressed far more interest than the U.S. in pursuing the path of negotiations. In 1981 Mexico joined France in a declaration that recognized the leftist insurgents in El Salvador as a "representative political force" that should be invited to join in negotiations with the government. Mexico is also a founding member of the Contadora group, named for the Panamanian island on which the foreign ministers of Colombia, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela first met last January to search for a solution to Central America's problems.

So far, the Reagan Administration has given only tepid endorsement to the Contadora group's efforts. On July 17, after a meeting in the Mexican resort of Cancun, the Presidents of the four nations in the group proposed a peace plan that called for the removal of all foreign military bases and advisers, the creation of demilitarized zones in the region, and an end to the arms traffic. The announcement was overshadowed by President Reagan's decision to dispatch the fleet to Central America. Mexican officials noted with some annoyance that even if Shultz spoke favorably of Mexico's peace efforts, Reagan failed to mention the Contadora group during his meetings in La Paz last week.

The reason, according to U.S. officials, is that the President is impatient over the lack of any tangible results from negotiations and concerned that peace initiatives will serve only to give Nicaragua's leftist Sandinista government worldwide respectability. The White House has also taken exception to the Contadora group's guiding principles, which give greater weight to reaching a negotiated settlement and removing foreign forces from the region than to bolstering democracy in Central America.

Mexico's view of the region is rooted in its own history. If some Americans draw analogies between Viet Nam and Central America, Mexicans hark back to the 19th century, when they lost about half of their territory to the "colossus of the North," and to the first half of the 20th century, when U.S. intervention in Central America's republics was as predictable as the banana harvest. Mexicans, consequently, fear that the Reagan Administration is intent on seeking a military solution to the current crisis. They are concerned about the growing U.S. military presence in Honduras and covert U.S. support for the contra guerrillas who are fighting the Sandinistas along the Nicaraguan border. Says Mexican Writer Octavio Paz: "The unrest in Central America is not only the consequence of Cuban and Soviet intrusion, but also of social problems, among them the bad influences of the oligarchs and of military dictatorships, which have often been supported by the U.S."

Although their political system has been stable, not to say calcified, for half a century, Mexicans persist in the notion that they are a revolutionary nation. Speaking proudly of the revolution of 1910 that brought down a regime dominated by wealthy landowners, many Mexicans are convinced that history is on the side of "popular revolution." Hence they support the current regimes in Cuba and Nicaragua, whatever their excesses. Drawing from their own experience as a "guided" democracy with essentially one-party rule, Mexicans have doubts about U.S. efforts to establish American-style representative governments in the region. Says a Washington analyst: "What smacks of progressive government in Mexico is Marxism-Leninism to Reagan."

Mexican governments, furthermore, have a strong domestic motive for paying lip service to revolutions in the region. The country's stability, remarkable by Latin American standards, has been achieved through astute bargaining among various power groups. By stressing Mexico's revolutionary credentials in foreign policy, the government co-opts leftist parties that might be opposed to its more conservative policies at home. Says Mexican Social Democrat Luis Sanchez Aguilar: "When the left applauds the external policy of Mexico, it has an excuse to forget the rightist policies inside."

Particularly galling to many Mexicans are the efforts by some Administration officials to invoke the domino theory to justify U.S. policy in Central America. Despite a crippling economic crisis that has produced triple-digit inflation and a foreign debt of nearly $90 billion, Mexico does not see itself as the final battleground if the U.S. does not draw the line against Marxist advances elsewhere in the region. They resent the implication that they too are a banana republic, and suspect that talk of Mexico as the ultimate domino is only a smokescreen. As Foreign Minister Bernardo Sepulveda Amor told TIME in an interview last week, "I do not think the main purpose of U.S. Central American policy is to protect Mexico. The U.S. has a different perspective related to what some people in the Administration regard as a vital strategic and political interest: to assert U.S. hegemony in the region."

Yet for all its diplomatic nonchalance, there is little doubt that Mexico is concerned about the trends south of its border. Neighboring Guatemala's campaign against leftist insurgents in its northern region has driven an estimated 80,000 Indians across the Mexican border and into refugee camps in the impoverished state of Chiapas.

Mexico has used its Contadora connection to put quiet pressure on the Nicaraguan regime. It was probably no coincidence that Nicaraguan Junta Coordinator Daniel Ortega Saavedra waited only two days to express support for the Contadora group's July 17 declaration. Mexico, which had been providing Nicaragua with crude oil at 100% credit, recently told Nicaragua that it will now have to start paying off its oil bill.

Reagan told De la Madrid last week that the U.S. would welcome further diplomatic assistance in the region. Mexico's quiet diplomacy was helpful in arranging the meeting between U.S. Ambassador Richard Stone and exiled Salvadoran Opposition Leader Ruben Zamora in Colombia last month. Sepulveda has hinted that the same communication lines are still open to broaden U.S. contacts with other Salvadoran guerrilla leaders. Whatever the differences that divide, Mexico will have to play a role commensurate with its size and prominence.

-- By John Kohan

Reported by Laura Lopez/La Paz and Johanna McGeary/Washington

With reporting by Laura Lopez, Johanna McGeary This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.