1

CONTAINING BRAZIL: MEXICO’S RESPONSE TO THE RISE OF BRAZIL

DRAFT. PLEASE DO NOT QUOTE

ANA COVARRUBIAS*

Relations between Mexico and Brazil became the subject for discussion since the so called

“rise of Brazil”. Historically, bilateral relations have been characterised as distant, difficult

some times and good on few occasions.1 In the words of historian Guillermo Palacios,

relations between the two countries have been a “chain of conflicts and reconciliation”.2 Over

the last few years, as the 21st Century began, media and academic articles have suggested

rivalry and competition between the two countries both in terms of economic development

models and, more importantly, of foreign policy and international projection. Brazil and

Mexico appeared as two democratic countries, economically stable and willing to actively

participate in international politics, but they understood differently how to develop

economically, and how to act in the world. A quick look at the titles of some writings on

Brazil and Mexico over the period may illustrate the tone of the discussion: “Mexico v.

Brazil”,3 “Mexico-Brazil rivalry”,4 “Mexico and Brazil: opposite paths”,5 “Mexico v. Brazil

* I wish to thank all the diplomats and high governmental officials who accepted to discuss with me the subject

of this chapter, either in interviews or by answering questionnaires. My deepest gratitude to all of them for their

generosity. I assume however all responsibility for mistakes and misinterpretations in this work. I also want to

thank Erika Uribe and José Luis Rodríguez Aquino for their invaluable help in finding press and academic

articles, and official documents, and in translating some sources. 1 For the best account of Mexican-Brazilian relations by a Mexican author see Guillermo Palacios, “Brasil y

México: su relaciones 1822-1992”, in Antonio Ortiz Mena L.N., Octavio Amorim Neto and Rafael Fernández

de Castro (eds.), Brasil y México: encuentros y desencuentros, Mexico, Instituto Matías Romero-SRE, 2005,

pp. 23-109, and Intimidades, conflictos y reconciliaciones. México y Brasil, 1822-1993, Mexico, SRE-

Dirección General del Acervo Histórico, 2001. 2 Palacios, “Brasil y México”, op. cit., p. 108. 3 Luis Rubio, “¿México vs. Brasil?”, Terra Noticias, March 11, 2012, http://noticias.terra.com.mx/mexico/luis-

rubio-mexico-vs-brasil. 29864029e1206310VgnVCM4000009bf154d0RCRD.html, accessed December 2,

2013. 4 Jorge Castañeda, “La rivalidad México-Brasil”, El País, March 2, 2012,

http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/02/28/opinion/1330453013_778328.html, accessed December 2, 2013. 5 Mario Ojeda Gómez, “México y Brasil: caminos opuestos”, Milenio, November 17, 2009,

http://eurolat.blogspot.mx/2009/11/opinion-mexico-y-brasil-caminos.html, accessed December 2, 2013.

2

contest not decided yet”,6 “Mexico and Brazil: Good Enemies or Mortal Friends?”,7 “The

distant brother: Mexican perceptions of Lula’s foreign policy”,8 “Two ways to go global”,9

“Brazil and Mexico: Latin America in-between”,10 “Shifting Fortunes: Brazil and Mexico in

a Transformed Region”.11

There is no doubt that the rise of Brazil influenced Mexican perceptions of the

country, bilateral relations, and Mexican foreign policy. There is a general sense that there

was competition and rivalry between Mexico and Brazil, or that Mexico resented Brazil’s

domestic and international performance. This chapter will demonstrate that relations

remained difficult over the period, more so during the government of President Vicente Fox

(2000-2006), mostly because of a problematic relationship between the two Foreign

Ministers, and due to both countries’ opposite positions concerning the UN Security Council

reform. President Felipe Calderón (2006-2012), in turn, tried to improve relations, but

Brazil’s decision not to comply with the Economic Complementation Agreement (ECA) 55

complicated once again the bilateral relationship.

Classical balance of power theory maintains that countries will ally to confront —

balance— a potential growing power who seeks dominance in the system. Whether Brazil

sought dominance in the system is the subject for discussion, but its emergence as a regional

6 John Authers, The Financial Times, June 23, 2011, available at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-

business/international-business/latin-american-business/mexico-v-brasil-contest-not-decided-

yet/article584240/, accessed December 2, 2013. 7 María Cristina Rosas, “México y Brasil: ¿Buenos enemigos o amigos mortales?”, Mosaico, vol. 1, no. 1,

January-June 2008, pp. 87-105. 8 Rafael Fernández de Castro, “El hermano distante: la percepción mexicana de la política exterior de Lula”, in

Wilhelm Hofmeister, Francisco Rojas and Luis Guillermo Solís (comps.), La percepción de Brasil en el

contexto internacional: perspectivas y desafíos, Mexico, FLACSO-Secretaría General/Konrad Adenauer

Stiftung, 2007, pp. 39-46. 9 Peter Hakim, “Two Ways to Go Global”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 81, no. 1, January-February 2002, pp. 148-162. 10 Pedro Seabra, “Brazil and Mexico: Latin America in-between”, IPRIS Viewpoints, May, 2012, pp. 1-5. 11 Michael Shifter and Cameron Combs, “Shifting Fortunes: Brazil and Mexico in a Transformed Region”,

Current History, February 2013, pp. 49-55.

3

and global player may be analysed in terms of power changes especially in South America.

Mexico reacted to Brazil’s rising fundamentally in one paradoxical way: by approaching it.12

The Mexican government tried to engage Brazil in dialogue and negotiations but always in

terms of its own objectives; it did not implement a balance of power policy by promoting

alliances, it did not take a bandwagoning position, nor did it consistently confront Brazil, or

aligned with it.13 Only in the case of the Security Council reform did Mexico pursue a soft

balancing policy by joining other countries to defend its initiatives.14

The chapter will consider roughly the two PAN governments in Mexico and Lula’s

two presidential terms. It is divided into two main sections: the first will examine Mexico

and Brazil in the international and regional arena. Global and regional initiatives will

illustrate divergent interests between Mexico and Brazil, and their capacity to reach

agreement, or not. The second part will analyse Mexico’s and Brazil’s attempts at

rapprochement, and difficulties arising from trade agreements. Distance between the two

countries diminished somewhat but the persistence of conflict led to friction again.

A note of caution on methodology: this work has tried to reconstruct Brazilian-

Mexican relations relying mostly on Mexican sources. There are few academic writings that

examine the last 15 years of the bilateral relationship so this chapter uses press reports and

official documents, and includes information from interviews to Mexican diplomats (some

12 A Mexican diplomat who wishes to remain anonymous maintains that Mexico’s position was to look for

convergence, complementarities and alliances. Questionnaire elaborated by the author to be answered by

Mexican diplomat C through e-mail. Date received: April 15, 2014. 13 Most interviewees denied that Mexico searched for allies in the region, or that regional countries approached

Mexico. They recognised that Uruguay and Chile see Mexico as a counterweight to Brazil; Colombia and

Paraguay, even Argentina, might be interested to include Mexico in regional affairs as a way of managing their

relations with Brazil. All recognised, however, that Mexico had no clear strategy towards these countries, or

indeed towards Brazil. 14 T.V. Paul, “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy”, International Security, vol. 30, no. 1, Summer 2005,

pp. 46-71.

4

of which asked to remain anonymous), and high governmental officials. Thus, Brazil’s

positions, and the bilateral relationship itself are interpreted through Mexican lenses.

THE MULTILATERAL ARENA: DISAGREEMENT AND ACCOMMODATION

As the 21st Century began, the PAN government in Mexico and the first Lula government in

Brazil intended to implement a foreign policy that would place them as influential actors in

international and regional affairs. The UN reform was an opportunity for Brazil and Mexico

to work towards such influence. Their positions, however, did not always coincide; one of

their main differences concerned the enlargement of the Security Council, and it became one

of the most visible disagreements in the bilateral relationship. Mexico’s and Brazil’s

positions must be understood in a wider context of very complex relations influenced, to a

great extent, by personal antagonism between Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto

Derbez and Brazil Foreign Minister Celso Amorim. According to Derbez, animosity between

himself and Amorim developed during the WTO 5th Ministerial Conference in Cancún in

2003, when his position prevailed over Amorim’s. The result was the beginning of a personal

rivalry that would affect the subsequent development of bilateral relations.15

In the region, Brazil was particularly active in launching diverse initiatives, in

addition to Mercosur (Common Southern Market), Unasur (South American Nations Union)

and CALC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean Countries) stand out. Mexico, in

15 In Derbez’s words, he “ran over” Amorim who opposed Mexico’s position which was closer to that of the

United States and Europe. At the time, Amorim was Brazil’s representative to the UN and International

Organisations in Geneva, not Foreign Minister. Thus, by the time he became Foreign Minister, personal

relations were very complicated. Luis Ernesto Derbez. Interview, Estado de México, May 7, 2014. Mexico and

Brazil have traditionally had different interests in various areas dealt with at the WTO. See Antonio Ortiz Mena

L.N. and Ricardo Sennes, “Brasil y México en la economía política internacional”, in Ortiz Mena L.N., Amorim

Neto and Fernández de Castro (eds.), Brasil y México, op. cit., pp. 244-245.

5

turn, had difficult relations with some Latin American countries during Fox’s government,16

so that his successor, Felipe Calderón implemented a policy to “restore and normalise”

relations with the region. Both Fox’s and Calderón’s governments reacted to Brazil’s

initiatives: Fox by applying to become an associate member of Mercosur, and Calderón by

promoting CELAC. 17

The UN Security Council reform: irreconcilable differences

The enlargement of the Security Council was one of the most controversial issues in the

debater about the UN reform. Mexico and Brazil held opposite views: Mexico, as a member

of the Uniting for Consensus Group,18 refused to accept new permanent seats on the Council,

while Brazil actually promoted the initiative, together with Germany, Japan and India, —the

Group of Four (G4). Publicly, the Mexican and Brazilian presidents tried to minimise their

divergent positions: during Lula’s visit to Mexico in September 2003, both presidents

16 See Guillermo Guajardo Soto, “Viejos puentes y nuevos acervos. La relación de México con América Latina

y el Caribe durante el sexenio de Vicente Fox”, Foro Internacional, vol. 48, nos. 1-2 (191-192), January-July

2008, pp. 268-296, and Ana Covarrubias, Cambio de siglo: la política exterior de la apertura económica y

política. México y el mundo. Historia de sus relaciones exteriores (coord. by Blanca Torres), Mexico, El

Colegio de México, 2010, pp. 148-160.

17An initiative not examined in this section is the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) for it is not

clear how important it was in Brazilian-Mexican relations. Ambassador Andrés Valencia considers that

Mexico’s promotion of the FTAA was definitely an element of controversy between the two countries whereas

former Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez considers that it was not an issue. To Derbez, Brazil did not support nor

attack the FTAA. Lula and Fox did not care about it; it was Néstor Kirchner who finally buried the initiative in

Mar del Plata, in 2005. Interviews. Mexico City, May 8, 2014, and Estado de México, May 7, 2014. Ortiz Mena

and Senner agree that neither Mexico nor Brazil were interested in the FTAA although for different reasons:

Mexico had privileged access to the U.S. market and did not want to erode its tariff preferences while Brazil

had doubts about the kind of openness proposed by the United Sates, and implemented a very defensive role in

the negotiations. Nevertheless, Brazil and Mexico did not formulate a common position, Mexico being more

moderate than Brazil. Ortiz Mena L.N. and Senner, “Brasil y México en la economía política internacional”,

op. cit. pp. 240-241. Mexico had trouble with some Latin American countries regarding the FTAA, —

Venezuela and Argentina, but not Brazil. See Guajardo, “Viejos puentes y nuevos acervos”, op. cit., and

Covarrubias, Cambio de siglo, op. cit., pp. 157-158. In the press review made for this chapter, the FTAA is

seldom a topic in bilateral relations.

18 A group created in the 1990s to oppose the G4’s intention to enlarge the Security Council

6

decided to “iron their differences”.19 Lula declared that he would not listen to “media

intrigues” about an alleged fight [between Brazil and Mexico] for a seat on the Security

Council. “Calm down, [the Security Council discussion] will not affect relations with

president Fox and the Mexican people”.20 Interestingly, in an interview given to the Folha

de São Paulo before his visit to Brazil in 2004, Fox not only avoided recognising the

discrepancies between Mexico and Brazil, but also declared that Mexico did not rule out

supporting Brazil for a permanent seat on the Security Council. Fox added that the idea was

to have wide representation, regional and democratic, to strengthen the Security Council, and

the participation of one country did not exclude the other.21

Mexican diplomats tell a different story. A former member of the Mexican delegation

at the United Nations, Mexican diplomat A, mentions that 2004 and 2005 were the most

difficult years regarding the Security Council reform, and that it certainly was a divisive topic

in Mexican-Brazilian relations. Conflicting views, however, have to be understood from a

historical perspective: Mexico has historically opposed the veto system in the Security

Council, and Brazil has historically searched for a permanent seat on it. In her view, two

historical trajectories openly clashed.22 Former Mexican representative to the United Nations,

Enrique Berruga, explains Mexico’s proposal: consecutive re-election of non-permanent

members in the Council. Brazil, he adds, advocated regional representation, and this was

unacceptable to Mexico. Berruga recognises that Brazil was a regional power at the time, but

19 “Liman asperezas Fox y Lula da Silva”, Proceso, September 26, 2003,

http://www.proceso.com.mx/?P=256367, accessed March 31, 2014. 20 Idem. 21 Fabiano Maisonnave, “Fox cree que México dará aliento al Mercosur”, Folha de São Paulo, July 6, 2004, p.

A9, Acervo Folha, http://acervo.folha.com.br/fsp/2004/07/06/2/, accessed April 10, 2014. 22 Interview. Mexico City, April 7, 2014.

7

there was no certainty that it would continue to be so in the future, so there was no reason to

make it a permanent member.23

An inevitable question is whether the Mexican government was reacting specifically

to Brazil, or was defending a general position. According to Berruga, Mexico was interested

in a systemic reform, and was not only addressing Brazil. 24 Mexican diplomat A agrees that

the idea of regional representation was the problem, and the Mexican government could not

accept that anyone would unilaterally take on the status of Latin American representative. If

representation was to be the criterion, a regional process should take place before deciding

who would play such role. Mexico would not be happy that Brazil —or any other country—

became a permanent member.25 These two sources affirm that Mexico’s representative to the

UN, Berruga, tried to approach the Brazilian representative to invite him to talk their

positions over but Brazil did not respond and avoided any dialogue.26

Former Secretary Derbez has his own version that actually explains Fox’s declaration

concerning potential support for Brazil for a permanent seat on the Council. According to

Derbez, he proposed Amorim the creation of a Latin American seat: Brazil would be the

“spokesperson” but all decisions would be taken by the group (i.e. the Latin American

countries). In other words, Brazil would always be the region’s representative but would not

take any decision unilaterally. This was the only way in which Mexico could accept that

Brazil had a seat on the Security Council; otherwise Mexico would not allow it. Derbez was

very clear in his mind that Mexico must oppose, and that it should do anything to avoid

23 Interview. Mexico City, April 25, 2014. 24 Interview. Mexico City, April 25, 2014. 25 Interview. Mexico City, April 7, 2014. 26 Interviews. Mexico City, April 7 and 25, 2014.

8

Brazil’s from gaining a permanent seat. 27 Derbez justifies his position in terms of Mexico-

U.S. relations: the Security Council was essential for the United States, and it was a place

where Mexico could negotiate with it multilateral issues that could be linked to bilateral

affairs. If Brazil were the only Latin American member in the Council with influence on

multilateral affairs, Mexico would lose capacity to negotiate with the United States.28

Despite the fact that the Mexican government was defending a general position,

discrepancies concerning the Security Council reform contaminated the bilateral relationship.

There clearly was antagonism between the two countries, thus complicating the possibility

of bilateral dialogue.29 Other diplomats agree that the subject was very problematic: Mexico

cannot easily accept Brazil’s desire for global leadership, especially when Mexican interests

or principles are affected.30 Cassio Luiselli, in turn, has a more qualified view and maintains

that it is a “background noise” in the bilateral relationship.31 Moreover, to Ambassador Jorge

Eduardo Navarrete, Mexico and Brazil can very well live with their differences concerning

the Security Council reform. Mexico’s opposition to more permanent members in the

Council does not increase or decrease Brazil’s possibilities to become one of them; it is the

five permanent members who may decide to accept more permanent seats, not Brazil or

Mexico. It is very unlikely that the reform as proposed by Brazil —and the G4— will

materialise. Disagreement between Mexico and Brazil is superficial and it does not affect the

27 Interview. Estado de México, May 7, 2014. “This is how the fight (pleito) developed”, according to Derbez. 28 Interview. Estado de México, May 7, 2014. According to Berruga and Mexican diplomat B, if Brazil obtains

a permanent seat on the Council, Mexico will remain in the “second League” forever. Interview. Mexico City,

April 25, 2014; telephone conversation, June 3, 2014. 29 Interviews. Mexico City, April 7 and 25, 2014. 30 Víctor Arriaga. Interview. Mexico City, April 5, 2014. 31 Interview. Mexico City, April 3, 2014.

9

bilateral relationship; the big differences refer to trade, finance and economics, and the

Security Council reform is not to blame for them.32

The Security Council’s reform therefore illustrates Brazil’s intention to become a

global power in a juncture where BRICS became extremely visible in international politics,

and Mexico’s reaction to it. Mexico adopted a clear policy of opposing such ambition

partially supported by the Uniting for Consensus group.

Regional initiatives: contested accommodation

Perhaps the most visible divide between Mexico and Brazil in regional terms was Mexico’s

decision to negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) in the early 1990s.33

Although Mercosur was already in force since 1991, Brazil and other Latin American

countries reacted to Nafta by declaring that Mexico was opting for the North at the expense

of the South. This perception grew stronger when Mexico became full member of the OECD

and abandoned the G-77 in 1994. Even an American academic, Abraham Lowenthal, agreed

that Mexico had made a choice and, if it continued along that path, it would become

increasingly different in structure, approach and international perspective from the South

American countries.34 Palacios, however, argues that Mercosur and Nafta notwithstanding

32 Interview. Mexico City, April 11, 2014. 33 This is Ambassador Navarrete’s view: Nafta certainly was the turning point for it gave the impression that

Mexico was turning its back on Latin America. Brazil reacted with a very strong argument: by signing Nafta,

Mexico was violating the Treaty of Montevideo (i.e. the rules of the Latin American Integration Association,

ALADI). Interview. Mexico City, April 11, 2014. According to Sergio de Abreu e Lima Florêncio by joining

Nafta, Mexico reduced the efficacy of trade preferences that ALADI members have in the Mexican market. The

preferences that Mexico granted the United States, resulted in a reduction of the advantages to its Latin

American partners. Quoted by Palacios, “Brasil y México”, op. cit., p. 103. The Mexican government did not

accept Brazil’s interpretation of artilcles 5, 44 y 48 of ALADI and offered to negotiate free trade agreements

with whoever was interested. Brazil did not accept that position, but Uruguay did. Ortiz Mena L.N. and Sennes,

“Brasil y México en la economía política internacional”, op. cit., p. 230. 34 Abraham Lowenthal, “Os Estados Unidos e América Latina na década de 90: interesses e política norte-

americanas em mudança num mundo novo”, Política Externa, vol. 1, no. 3, December 1992-February 1993,

pp. 162-163, quoted by Palacios, “Brasil y México”, op. cit., p. 104.

10

Mexico and Brazil’s official language adjusted to the circumstances and relations between

them began one of its best periods.35 Nafta and Mercosur, however, did reflect a new regional

order, and possibly indicated that the two big Latin American countries had opted for distinct

strategies in different geographical regions.

Significantly, the Mexican government decided to apply to become an associate

member in Mercosur in 2004, during Fox’s visit to Brazil and Argentina. According to Fox,

Mexico’s presence would give Mercosur vitality and energy. No one could speak like Mexico

about the advantages of free trade —continued the Mexican President— and the first step

regarding Mercosur was to become an associate member to subsequently explore the

possibility of a trade agreement Mexico-Mercosur. The reason behind Mexico’s strategy was

to integrate more Latin America, “to be closer to our trade partners in the south”, and to form

a great Latin American bloc.36 Foreign Secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, in turn, argued that

Mexico’s presence in Mercosur would offer its members a “bridge” to the United States and

Canada, as well as access to the Mexican market.37

Ambassador Navarrete maintains that Mexico’s desire to become an associate

member was a symbolic political gesture to demonstrate that Mexico was not turning its back

on Latin America, and underlines that Mercosur’s founding treaty did not foresee what

Mexico was asking for.38 Derbez agrees that Mexico could not join Mercosur because it was

a customs union, and it would have implied to match tariffs, something that the Nafta did not

allow. Nevertheless, Mexico wanted to send the message that it was interested in Mercosur,

35 Palacios, “Brasil and Mexico”, op. cit., pp. 104-105. 36 Maisonnave, “Fox cree que México le dará aliento al Mercosur”, loc. cit. 37 “Acompañará Fox a Lula a cumbre Mercosur”, El Universal, June 30, 2004,

www.eluniversal.com.mx/noticias/231631.html, accessed April 7, 2014. 38 Interview. Mexico City, April 11, 2014.

11

and wanted the same treatment given to Chile and —then— Venezuela. The message was

that Mexico “was not angry”, and that approaching Mercosur was part of Mexico’s Latin

American strategy. Mexico’s participation in Mercosur would also prevent any attacks on its

foreign policy.39

It is evident that the rationale behind the Mexican government’s decision to apply for

the status of observer in Mercousr was political, not economic. Therefore, the official

explanation seems to be accurate: it was a strategy to demonstrate its willingness to approach

Latin America, and to underline its presence in the region. In so doing, the government would

be responding to domestic and foreign criticism that Mexico neglected Latin America. It is

also significant that Mexico decided to “be in Brazil’s space” knowing that Brazil would not

enter “Mexico’s space”: the Nafta.

In its inaugural speech as Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorim declared that

South America would be Lula’s government priority: [A] politically stable, socially just and

economically prosperous South America is a goal that must be pursued not just from a natural

sense of solidarity, but also for the benefit of our progress and well-being.40 Although authors

such as Andrés Malamud question the success of Brazil as a regional leader,41 the fact is that

Brazil launched a series of regional initiatives that gave the impression of a determined Brazil

39 Interview. Estado de México, May 7, 2014. 40 Celso Amorim, “Discurso proferido pelo Embaixador Celso Amorim por ocasião da transmissão do Cargo

de Ministro de Estado das Relações Exteriores”, Brasília, January 1, 2003,

http://mundorama.net/2003/01/01/discurso-proferido-pelo-embaixador-celso-amorim-por-ocasiao-da-

trnsmissao-do-cargo-de-ministro-de-estado-das-relacoes-exteriores-brasilia-brasil-01012003, quoted by

Andrés Malamud, “A Leader Without Followers? The Growing Divergence Between the Regional and Global

Performance of Brazilian Foreign Policy”, Latin American Politics and Society, vol. 53, no. 3, Fall 2011, p. 7. 41 Malamud, “A Leader Without Followers?”, op. cit., pp. 1-24. For a cautious view of Brazil’s rising see

Andrew Hurrell, “Brasil y la tormenta que se avecina”, Foreign Affairs Latinoamérica, vol. 9, no. 2, 2009, pp.

43-54.

12

willing to consolidate South America as its sphere of influence. Two such initiatives were

the South American Community (2004), later Unasur (2008), and CALC (2008).

There seems to be consensus that the Mexican government resented the creation of

Unasur. According to Luiselli, Unasur was a blow to Mexico;42 Arriaga and Valencia agree

that it was a mechanism that formally excluded Mexico from South America’s dynamics.43

Valencia considers that Unasur was the only case that led the Mexican government to

perceive Brazil’s rise as a threat.44 There is no consensus, however, as to whether CELAC

was a reaction to Unasur. Luiselli considers that CELAC was a “band aid” for Mexico, after

the establishment of Unasur. Arriaga disagrees and affirms that it was a kind of compromise

between Brazil and Mexico (Brazil and Mexico “playing” not to concede to any one’s terms,

but to include the interests of the two countries). Mexican diplomat B traces the origins of

CELAC to the XX Rio Group Meeting in Santo Domingo in March 2008, when presidents

Calderón and Leonel Fernández (Lula did not attend) brought about reconciliation between

Ecuador and Colombia. Calderón realised that Latin Americans could resolve their own

disputes, and proposed a Latin American organisation. The Mexican Ministry of Foreign

Affairs worked on the project and presented a proposal for a Latin American organisation

(including Caribbean countries) for political coordination and dialogue to Brazil, Argentina,

Chile, Colombia, Peru, Jamaica, and the Dominican Republic. In May 2009, however, Brazil

42 Interview. Mexico City, April 3, 2014. To Luiselli Fernández and Rodríguez Minor the South American

Community clearly excluded Mexico. Brazil seemed to have formulated a “tropical Monroe Doctrine”: “South

America for the Brazilians”. Luiselli and Rodríguez agree that the main problem in Mexico-Brazilian relations

was Brazil’s projection in South America and in some multilateral fora. Cassio Luiselli Fernández and Rebeca

Rodríguez Minor, “México y América Latina: al encuentro de la comunidad perdida”, in Jorge Eduardo

Navarrete (coord.), La reconstrucción de la política exterior de México: principios, ámbitos, acciones, Mexico,

UNAM-Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, 2006, pp. 286-290. 43 Interviews. Mexico City, April 5 and May 8, 2014. A good example of Mexico’s absence in regional politics

was the autonomist threats in Bolivia in 2008, when the Mexican government had no participation at all. It was

Unasur who supported Evo Morales. Arriaga. Interview. Mexico City, April 5, 2014. 44 Interview. Mexico City, May 8, 2014.

13

organised a Summit including 33 countries to create an organisation for development and

integration: CALC. Brazil, therefore, took away the Mexican initiative. The Mexican

government insisted that the new organisation should merge CALC and the Rio Group, but

Brazil resisted, defending CALC and marginalising the Rio Group.45 Mexico offered to host

the second CALC in December 2009, but decided to delay the meeting until February, when

Mexico’s period as Pro Témpore Secretary of the Rio Group ended. The result was the Unity

Summit that took place in Cancún, Mexico, in February 2010, when the creation of CELAC

was announced. The Unity Summit revealed Mexico’s capacity to convene the region’s heads

of state, and it reinforced its presence in the region. Moreover, CELAC was a victory for

Mexican diplomacy since CALC did not survive. Did the creation of CELAC evidence

shared interests between Mexico and Brazil? Was Mexico reacting to Brazil? According to

Arriaga, the two countries seem to have found a space for agreement; to Mexican diplomat

C, CELAC was the logical consequence of the convergence of two instances where Mexico

was an important protagonist: CALC and the Rio Group.46 The conclusion seems to be that

once the idea of a Latin American organisation was in the air, Brazil and Mexico fought for

their own projects; the organisation was a common interest but each country envisioned it

differently. Whether Mexico was originally reacting to Brazil, or Unasur, is difficult to say,

it is perhaps safer to argue that, as the region was concerned, Mexico had its own initiative

and defended it. In the end, however, agreement was possible, and Mexico performed a

protagonist role.

THE BILATERAL RELATIONSHIP

45 Mexican diplomat B. Telephone conversation, June 3, 2014. 46 Víctor Arriaga. Interview. Mexico City, April 5, 2014; questionnaire Mexican diplomat C.

14

One of President Calderón’s foreign policy objectives was to improve relations with Latin

American countries. Brazil and Mexico put behind the question of the Security Council

reform, and established a Bilateral Commission to facilitate communication and negotiation

of the various issues involved in the bilateral relationship. The official discourse was that of

good disposition and understanding, and both countries finally supported CELAC, but

relations were strained again when the Brazilian government announced its intention to

renounce the ECA 55. Although both countries were able to settle their differences, their

divergent views on trade and economic development became evident.

Change in the Mexican government: a new beginning?

Change in the Mexican government appeared as a good opportunity to improve relations with

Brazil. Ambassador Andrés Valencia emphasises the importance of Calderón’s visit, as

president-elect, to Brazil in October 2006 as a gesture to ameliorate relations, and Brazil

expressed it interest in closer relations with Mexico.47 On occasion of his visit to Mexico in

2007, President Lula wrote an article for the Mexican newspaper El Universal, and

underlined the need to “reinforce an association that acquires economic density and deepens

the dialogue between our societies”.48 This was, apparently, the purpose of the two

presidents, who claimed to be willing to start afresh a new bilateral relationship:49 “I return

to Mexico with the hope that we are entering a new moment in our relations, to give them

better quality [sic]”. 50

47 Interview. Mexico City, May 8, 2014. 48 Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, “Brasil-México: una asociación necesaria”, El Universal, August 5 2007,

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nación/153072.html, accessed April 23, 2014. 49 Andrés Valencia. Interview. Mexico City, May 8, 2014. 50 Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, “Brasil-México: una asociación necesaria”, op. cit.

15

A clear example of Mexico’s willingness to improve relations with Brazil was the

Binational Commission proposed by Valencia.51 The first Binational Commission took place

in Brasilia in March 2007. It was a high level meeting headed by the Ministers of Foreign

Relations, Patricia Espinosa and Celso Amorim, and it covered a wide range of issues in the

bilateral relationship. To Minister Amorim it was a promising occasion to deepen the bilateral

relationship, and that it was perfectly normal that friends like Brazil and Mexico should not

fully coincide in all topics of the (international) agenda. Nevertheless, he added, it was

important to consider that the two countries coincided in the evaluation of the values and

principles that should govern international politics: the primacy of international law,

multilateralism, the promotion of solidarity, social justice and the democratisation of

international instances. Brazil and Mexico had a specific weight in the region: “[T]here is no

reason to talk about competition for leadership”, and the margins for cooperation in regional

matters were wide. 52

The Joint Declaration underlined both governments’ determination to “give a new

impulse to the political dialogue and cooperation between Mexico and Brazil”.53 The

Commission would encourage the bilateral relationship in all areas, and would promote

51 Valencia considered that it was essential to start again the political dialogue between Mexico and Brazil, to

encourage visits by heads of State and Ministers, and “given the regional and global importance of Brazil, it

would be desirable to create a Binational Commission”. “Segundo Receso Comisión Permanente, LIX

Legislatura, Miércoles 21 de junio de 2006, Diario 8. Ratificación de nombramientos diplomáticos”,

http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=sp&mn=3&sm=2&lg=59&ano=3&id=18061, accessed May 8,

2014. 52 Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Assessoria de Imprensa do Gabinete, “Entrevista concedida pelo Ministro

das Relações Exteriores, Embaiador Celso Amorim, ao Jornal “Reforma”, do México – Cidade do México,

28/03/2007”, http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/discursos-artigos-entrevistas-e-outras-

comunicacoes/ministro-estado-relacoes-exteriores/632745565601-entrevista-concedida-pelo-ministro-das-

relacoes/, accessed April 3, 2014. 53 “Establecen México y Brasil una Comisión Binacional con el propósito de intensificar sus relaciones”, March

29, 2007, Mexico, SRE, http://www.sre.gob.mx/csocial_viejo/contenido/comunicados/2007/mar/cp_084.html,

accessed April 7, 2014.

16

dialogue on various topics of common interest in the regional and international agenda. The

Declaration underlined the “mutual recognition of the important role played by Mexico and

Brazil” in regional and world affairs, as well as convergences in international politics matters.

The document stressed the importance of trade and investment, and the possibilities of

cooperation in the energy sector by scientific and technological exchanges between Pemex

and Petrobras to explore and exploit hydrocarbons in deep waters.54 Concerning regional

politics, Mexico and Brazil reaffirmed their commitment to Latin American and Caribbean

integration, “without detriment of the priority of regional processes in which each country

participate, given the shared conviction that such processes should converge in the final and

wider purpose of integration”.55 With reference to the UN, Mexico and Brazil expressed their

willingness to work in a close and coordinated way in matters such as the reform of the

Secretariat, the coherence of the system, and the reform of the Security Council.56

The Joint Communiqué also referred to a very delicate issue in the bilateral

relationship: the visa requirement. In 2005, the Mexican government revoked a bilateral

agreement for visa exemption and started requesting visas to Brazilian nationals as a

consequence of the increasing number of Brazilians travelling to Mexico to cross the northern

border into the United States illegally. The Brazilian government acted in reciprocity and

requested visas to Mexican nationals. The visa requirement thus became a very problematic

question in relations between Mexico and Brazil. The Communiqué indicated that the

Mexican government had the disposition to facilitate visas as long as the requirement was

54 Idem. 55 Idem. 56 Idem.

17

not eliminated, and recognised the Mexican government’s efforts in shortening the period to

grant visas, although there still was “a long way to go” on the subject.57

President Lula visited Mexico two months after the Binational Commission, and his

main interest was to give an economic content to the new relationship. The Brazilian goal

was to sign a trade agreement, and to collaborate closely in the energy sector: that Petrobras

could explore and exploit hydrocarbons in Mexico.58 Lula underlined the economic

importance of Brazil and Mexico in the region, and to each other, and emphasised the need

to strengthen the bilateral economic relationship. In the energy sector, he added, there were

“wide possibilities of cooperation for the technological development in the area of

exploration and production of oil and natural gas in deep waters. In the area of biofuels,

Brazil expects to count on Mexico in a campaign to establish a world market for cleaner

cheaper and renewable fuels”. 59 Lula favoured the competitive insertion of the region in a

globalised economy: “That is why I have defended the construction in South America of an

economically integrated space, based on social solidarity and politically democratic…I know

that Mexico is also developing an integration project with its neighbours to the south…”60

Lula urged Mexico and Brazil to occupy a place as dynamic poles since “[T]he international

community increasingly sees our countries as fundamental interlocutors in a global scenario

of complexity and uncertainty. We are called to take responsibilities to create new consensus

57 Arriaga. Interview. Mexico City, April 5, 2014, and Comunicado de prensa conjunto, “Establecen México y

Brasil una Comisión Nacional con el propósito de intensificar sus relaciones”, Brasilia, Brazil, March 28, 2007,

http://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/saopaulo/index.php/noticias/239-comision-

binacional?tmpl=component&print=1&page=, accessed April 7, 2014. Mexico and Brazil announced the

elimination of the visa requirement in March 2013 as a result of the agreements reached by presidents Dilma

Rousseff and Enrique Peña Nieto at the CELAC meeting in Santiago de Chile in January 2013. 58 Andrés Valencia. Interview, Mexico City, May 8, 2014. 59 Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, “Brasil-México: una asociación necesaria”, op. cit. 60 Idem.

18

on essential topics of the international agenda”.61 Lula recognised that Mexico and Brazil

had a different approach to the UN reform, but underlined Mexico and Brazil’s coincidence

in the G20 to eliminate subsides in trade, and acknowledged Mexico’s participation in

reconstructing Haiti, where Brazil was heading the stabilisation mission.62

The second meeting of the Binational Commission took place in July 2009.63 The

Joint Communiqué once again underlined the mutual recognition of the important role that

Mexico and Brazil played in the region and the world, and in their coincidences in topics of

international politics. In a very similar tone to that of the first Binational Commission, and

dealing with practically the same issues, the document reviewed the bilateral relationship in

its different aspects: economic, commercial and financial; consular issues; education and

cultural cooperation; technical, scientific and technological cooperation; regional and

multilateral affairs, and health issues. Secretary Espinosa thanked the various demonstrations

of solidarity of the Brazilian government and people during the A/H1N1 influenza epidemic

in Mexico.64 Lula, in turn, thanked Mexico’s support for Brazil’s candidacy for a non-

permanent seat on the Security Council.65

In August 2009 President Calderón visited Brazil. Publicly, his main purpose was to

promote a free trade agreement (FTA) between the two countries: “We want to be partners

with Brazil because we know that in Latin America the strongest, largest and most powerful

61 Idem. 62 Idem. 63 According to Ambassador Valencia, it was not a high-level meeting like the first one. It was really a

consulting meeting. Interview. Mexico City, May 8, 2014. 64 Brazil did not suspended air communication with Mexico during the epidemic, unlike Argentina, Ecuador,

Perú and Cuba. 65“Comunicado conjunto de la visita de Estado a Brasil del Presidente de México, Felipe Calderón Hinojosa”,

August 17, 2009, Comunicado CGCS-132, http://calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/2009/08/comunicado-conjunto-

de-la-visita-de-estado-a-brasl-del-presidente-de-mexico-felipe-calderon-hinojosa, accessed March 31, 2014.

19

economies are ours…imagine what we can do together”.66 Calderón recognised that the

subject of a trade agreement was difficult and complex but he offered to take the message of

Brazilian businessmen interested in the agreement to the diverse economic sectors and

political and social groups in Mexico.67 Lula and Calderón called on the private sectors of

Mexico and Brazil to join the initiative.68 Calderón repeated that Mexican-Brazilian relations

were in a “new era”, and even suggested that Mexico and Brazil should go beyond the G20

and create a “great Latin American G2…that allows this promising relationship to flourish”.69

He expressed his conviction that Mexico and Brazil should establish a powerful and efficient

alliance that contributed to Mexico’s, Brazil’s and Latin America’s welfare.70

The energy sector was once again an important matter for discussion, the Brazilian

side being more interested in an association in the field. According to the BBC, Lula proposed

that Pemex and Petrobras acted together in third countries; Calderón, in turn, reiterated his

hope that Pemex would benefit from the successful experience of Petrobras. Brazilian sources

also indicated that cooperation might extend to renewable fuels, an area where Brazil could

assist Mexico.71

Good intentions, the Binational Commission, CELAC, and an optimistic official

language, however, did not solve the visa requirement problem, and the strongest opportunity

66 Sergio Javier Jiménez, “Calderón llega a Brasil en busca de un TLC”, El Universal, August 16, 2009,

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nación/170671.html, accessed April 23, 2014. 67 Idem. 68 “México y Brasil impulsan comercio e inversión”, El Universal, August 17, 2009,

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/619955.html, accessed April 23, 2014. 69 Valeria Perasso, “Brasil y México por la integración petrolera”, BBC Mundo, Cono Sur, August 2009,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/economia/2009/08/090817_0155_mexico_brasil_petroleo_gm.shtml, accessed

May 8, 2014. 70 Idem. 71 Idem.

20

to improve relations, trade and economics, would soon fade away, as the next section will

prove.

ECA 55 and the Economic Integration Strategic Agreement (EISA): the end of the new

relationship

Historically, trade between Mexico and Brazil has not been significant to each other.

Geographical distance, Mexico’s traditional concentration on the U.S. market, and Brazil’s

preference to trade with Europe, Latin American countries in Mercosur, —and more recently

China and India—, plus little complementarity between the two economies explain why trade

has not been an important component of bilateral relations.72 In the period under study,

however, trade became an issue, especially since the conclusion of the ECA 53 and 55, and

the discussions of a possible economic integration strategic agreement, or free trade

agreement. Trade figures between Mexico and Brazil changed since the coming into force of

the ECAs in 2003, although in relative terms commercial and financial transactions remained

relatively small compared to other partners.73

72 Ma. Esther Morales, Pablo Mejía, Raúl de Jesús Gutiérrez, Miguel Ángel Díaz, and Reyna Vergara,

“Interacciones económico-financieras Brasil-México: ¿cuál es su grado de integración?, Perfiles

Latinoamericanos 39, January-June 2012, pp. 119-120. Historically, European countries were also some of

Brazil’s most significant trade partners. 73 Ibid., p. 117. ECA 53 was signed only with Brazil whereas ECA 55 was signed with Mercosur. ECA 53

establishes the norms for economic and commercial relations, and to stimulate investment. Lack of space does

not allow for a full analysis of Mexican-Brazilian trade relations. During the period (figures from 1993 to

January-December 2014 as presented by the Economics Ministry), however, trade expanded significantly

although Mexico experienced a deficit in its trade balance until 2011. In 2000 total trade was 2,320 million

USD, and in 2012 it was 10 152 million USD. As a percentage of total trade, however, the figure remains low:

Brazil’s trade with Mexico is only 1.4% of Mexico’s total trade, while Mexico’s is 2.2% of Brazil’s total trade.

Brazil is Mexico’s 8th trade partner in the world, and the first in Latin America and the Caribbean; Mexico is

Brazil’s 10th trade partner in the world, and the second in the region, after Argentina. Trade includes products

such as automobiles, auto-parts, telephones, chemical products, and machinery, among others.

http://www.economia.gob.mx/comunidad-negocios/comercio-exterior/informacion-estadistica-y-arancelaria,

accessed May 2, 2014. According to the new Mexican Ambassador to Brazil, Beatriz Paredes, Mexican

investment in Brazil is today more than 30 000 million USD, although Brazilian investment in Mexico is barely

8 000 million USD. Considering the size of both economies, bilateral trade is also low: 9 000 million USD.

Alberto Armendáriz, “Pueden México y Brasil ser equipo”, Reforma.com, March 5, 2013,

http://www.reforma.com/nacional/articulo/691/1381515/default.asp?Param=4&PlazaCon, accessed March 5,

2013. Brazil is the first destiny for Mexican investment in the region, and it is the 18th investor in Mexico. The

most important Mexican firms investing in Brazil are América Móvil, Telmex, Coca Cola-Femsa, Nemak

21

Derbez explains that the automobile industry approached him when he was

Economics Secretary to express their interest in sectorial integration with Latin America.

Derbez is very emphatic in underlining that the automobile industry (including U.S. firms)

pressed for the ECA 55; it was not originally a governmental initiative.74 Negotiations took

place within the framework of ALADI, by sector, and not pretending economic integration

in general (which was not possible because of the Nafta). Although the Mexican government

foresaw that Mexico would initially lose economically by signing ECA 55, authorities

thought that it was convenient to go ahead anyway. 75

ECA 55 was signed to promote free trade in the automobile sector, integration and

productive complementation of the automobile sectors.76 The export of Mexican vehicles to

Brazil increased from 31.5% in 2006 to 38.5% in 2009. In five years, the value of exports to

Brazil multiplied by 26, from 35 million USD in 2004 to 938 in 2009; its maximum value

was reached in 2008, with 1518 million USD.77 The vehicles that Mexico exports to Brazil

are medium and large size, with more aggregated value; those exported by Brazil to Mexico

are compact, fabricated mostly by European subsidiary companies.78

The idea of a free trade agreement, as mentioned in the previous section, was formally

proposed during Calderón’s visit to Brazil in 2009. In February 2010, Presidents Lula and

Calderón informed the beginning of discussions to evaluate the viability of an Economic

Aluminio, Mexichem, Mabe, Bimbo, Caesar Park Hotel, Mabesa and Coppel. See also Morales et. al.,

“Interacciones económico-financieras Brasil-México”, op. cit., and Carlos Federico Domínguez Ávila, “El

jaguar y el águila: un estudio de las relaciones bilaterales brasileño-mexicanas en los primeros años del siglo

XXI”, Revista de relaciones internacionales de la UNAM, no. 103, January-April, 2009, pp. 45-58. 74 Interview. Estado de México, May 7, 2014. 75 Interview. Estado de México, May 7, 2014. 76 Morales et. al., “Interacciones económico-financieras Brasil-México”, op. cit., p. 124, footnote. 77 Ibid., p. 126. According to a CEPAL report, quoted by the Morales et. al., Brazil and Mexico concentrate

90% of Latin American production of vehicles. 78 Ibid., p. 127.

22

Integration Strategic Agreement (EISA) that might turn into a free trade agreement.79 In May,

the Economics Secretary made public the terms of reference of the agreement, and in

November, in a joint communiqué the Brazilian and Mexican governments announced the

beginning of negotiations.80 By February 2011, when the first round of negotiations should

have begun, different economic sectors in Mexico expressed their positions on the agreement:

the chemical, electronic, perfume, cosmetics, automobile, auto-parts and services sectors

were interested in the agreement whereas sectors such as agriculture and the shoe industry

openly rejected it. The Confederation of Industrial Chambers (CONCAMIN) claimed that

the agreement would place its members in a disadvantageous position regarding tariffs.81

Consequently, the first round of negotiations was cancelled.82 In December, Secretary

Espinosa and Minister Antonio Patriota announced that the round of negotiations would start,

but it was cancelled again, on this occasion because of Brazil’s announcement, in early 2012,

of its intention to unilaterally renounce ECA 55, claiming a growing deficit in its trade

balance of vehicles and auto-parts with Mexico. Both governments initiated a series of

meetings to find an acceptable solution, and in March 2012 they signed an Additional

Protocol to the Bilateral Appendix. The Protocol establishes annual importation quotas for

light vehicles, as a temporary measure, and an increase of regional content of light vehicles

79 Omar Brito, “Brasil y México pactan acuerdo estratégico”, El Economista, February 24, 2010,

http://eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2010/02/23/mexico-brasil-avanzan-complementacion-economica,

accessed April 25, 2012. 80 Secretaría de Economía, “Acuerdo Estratégico de Integración Económica México-Brasil. Anuncio inicio de

negociaciones”, November 8, 2010, http://www.ina.og.mx/archivos/Comunicados/AEIE%20M%C3%A9xico-

Brasil%20anuncio%20inicio%20de%20negociaciones%20-%20Noviembre%208%202010.pdf, accessed

April 25, 2012. 81 Eduardo Camacho, “México y Brasil, el impacto de un acuerdo comercial”, El Universal, Cartera, February

7, 2011, http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/finanzas/84491,html, accessed April 25, 2012. 82 Lilia González, “México y Brasil aplazan negociaciones”, El Economista, February 25, 2011,

http://www.eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2011/02/25/mexico-brasil-aplazan-negociaciones, accessed April

25, 2012. See also, Luz Elena Mota, “Aún no hay TLC con Brasil: COMCE”, Organización Editorial Mexicana,

June 1, 2011, http://www.oem.com.mx/laprensa/notas/n2092712.htm, accessed April 25, 2012.

23

from 30 to 35% the first year, and 40% from the fifth year on. Consultations regarding heavy

vehicles would continue to guarantee reciprocal access and parity of environmental norms

and techniques.83

The Economics Secretary declared that talks about a free trade agreement would take

place only when trust returned to markets and businessmen in both countries.84 Secretary

Espinosa, in turn, reiterated Mexico’s strong position against protectionism, and assured that

restrictive commercial measures undermined competitiveness and hindered investment.85

President Calderón, in turn, expressed that it was vital for Mexico to reach a free trade

agreement with Brazil, but there was an opposing tendency in that country”.86

In brief, as Luiselli clearly states, “ECA 55 killed the FTA”.87 According to Arriaga,

the Mexican government had the political will to conclude it despite resistance by certain

economic sectors. Mexican diplomat C, in turn, questions Brazil’s deficit argument: the first

eight years since 2003 the deficit was on the Mexican side.88 She argues that Brazil did not

approach Mexico to negotiate or consult beforehand, and communicated its decision almost

83 The Mexican Association of the Automobile Industry declared that Mexico would be willing to negotiate

temporary limits to the export of Mexican vehicles as long as Brazil would agree to respect the free trade

agreement once the transition period finished. Lilia González, Leonor Flores and Pedro Suárez, “México

aceptaría recortar envío de autos a Brasil”, El Economista, March 13, 2012,

http://eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2012/03/13/brasil-espera-cerrar-acuerdo-mexico, accessed April 25,

2012.

84 Lilia González, “El TLC con Brasil está enterrado: Ferrari”, El Economista, March 18, 2012,

http://eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2012/03/16/brasil-perdio-confianza-tlc-ferrari, accessed April 25, 2012. 85 “«Congelan» TLC con Brasil”, El Informador, March 17, 2012, http://www.informador.com.mx/economia

/2012/364071/6/congelan-tlc-con-brasil-htm, accessed April 25, 2012. 86 Jorge Ramps and José Vales, “Calderón fustiga a Brasil por su proteccionismo”, El Universal, April 14, 2012,

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/internacional/77411.html, accessed April 25, 2012. 87 Interview. Mexico City, April 3, 2014 88 Mexican diplomat C. Questionnaire. The Economist also reported that the agreement had favoured Brazil for

the first decade but that in 2011 Mexico’s exports grew by 40% to 2 billion USD, while Brazil’s exports reached

only 372 million USD. Brazil, then, questioned the agreement. “Brazil, Mexico and trade. Two ways to make

a car”, March 10th, 2012.

24

casually. Mexico immediately tried to build bridges and the Protocol was signed.89 One of

the results of Brazil’s actions was to generate distrust in Mexican businessmen towards Brazil

as a trade partner or investment destiny.90 Mexico and Brazil’s most important common goal

that justified rapprochement did not materialise; instead, essential differences in perspectives

—irreconcilable positions?— became evident, and despite their disposition to negotiate,

distance and distrust returned to characterise their bilateral relationship.

It is significant that Brazil and Mexico so clearly expressed their intention to improve

bilateral relations during Calderón’s presidential term. The official discourse was careful to

place both countries at the same level in terms of regional and global importance. What is

more interesting, perhaps, is the identification of precise areas for cooperation and exchange.

This indicates the potential for closer and substantive relations: Mexico was interested mostly

in trade and investment, Brazil in the energy sector. Despite good intentions, however,

difficulties arose again, but so did the two governments’ capacity to negotiate. There is no

doubt that Brazil’s decision to renounce ECA 55 was very damaging to the bilateral

relationship, and although both countries reached a solution, it probably put an end to

rapprochement, initiating a new period of distance.

BRAZIL AND MEXICO: A FORCED RELATIONSHIP?

For the last ten years, Mexican-Brazilian relations seem to have followed the same historical

pattern identified by Palacios: a combination of distance, rapprochement, conflicts,

negotiation and —strained— reconciliation. Conflict was particularly evident on the subject

of the Security Council reform and ECA 55. In the former case, reconciliation of interests

89 Mexican diplomat C. Questionnaire. 90 Mexican diplomat C. Quesionnaire.

25

was not possible, despite Mexico’s attempts at approaching Brazil; in the latter, both parties

were willing to find a mutually acceptable solution. Rapprochement was clear at the

beginning of Calderón’s presidential term, and tense accommodation of interests led to the

creation of CELAC. Does this mean that Brazil’s rise made no difference to a historically

determined relationship? No: there is no doubt that Mexico resented Brazil’s emergence as a

regional and potential global power that produced new conflicts and complicated situations.

The Security Council reform and the creation of Unasur and CALC are the most obvious

examples. Mexico was not happy witnessing Brazil’s increasing international importance and

influence, but it did not confront it directly; on the contrary, Mexican governments tried to

approach Brazil not to “let it go alone”, and contain its international projection. They also

sought to engage it in negotiations and mechanisms to make the bilateral relationship work

better. Mexico was searching for recognition as an equal and influential actor. Foreign policy

was therefore the area where Mexico felt most deeply Brazil’s rise.

The case of Mexican-Brazilian relations reminds us of a familiar question in

international relations: does geography matter? Yes and no: it is true, as Palacios

demonstrates, that geographical distance has influenced Mexican-Brazilian relations

historically;91 they are not only far from each other, but they relate to the world according to

their contrasting geopolitical positions.92 Relations, therefore, have been generally distant,

shaped by a lack of knowledge of each other. Can the weight of geography be overcome?

91 Palacios, “Brasil y México”, op. cit. 92 Cecilia Soto, “México y Brasil: ¿podemos cooperar?”, in Rafael Fernández de Castro (coord.), En la frontera

del imperio, Mexico, Ariel, 2003, pp. 227-237. Soto emphasises that policy-makers in both countries do not

know each other, they misunderstand each other, or they act on the basis of stereotypes, and idea shared by

some interviewees like Mexican diplomats A and C. Palacios also underlines the lack of knowledge of each

other. Mexican diplomat C. Questionnaire; Mexican diplomat A. Interview. Mexico City, April 7, 2014, and

Palacios, “Brasil y México”, op. cit. See also, Cassio Luiselli Fernández, “Brasil y México: el acercamiento

necesario”, Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, no. 90, October, 2010, pp. 9-50.

26

Yes, and a good example is precisely Brazil’s rise, and Mexico’s reaction to it. Brazil’s rise

produced conflicts in the bilateral relationship, but also Mexico’s willingness to approach

Brazil. Divergences notwithstanding, Mexico and Brazil found common interests in the

period under study, besides the ECAs: there was good technical cooperation in areas such as

water, health, education and social development, trade continued to grow despite many

difficulties, and cooperation in energy expanded.93 At the WTO, Brazil and Mexico

supported the idea that the United States and the European Union should reduce excessive

subsidies in agriculture; in Doha, Mexico backed Brazil’s proposal on medication patents in

cases of sanitary emergencies such as HIV/AIDS. At the OAS, Brazil proposed that Mexico

and Chile joined the Group of Friends for Venezuela.94

Most sources agree that Mexico and Brazil should join forces to act in the region and

the world. If Mexico and Brazil could cooperate and find common positions both countries

and Latin America will greatly benefit. So far, Mexico has not welcomed Brazil’s aspirations

to become a global power, and it is unlikely that Brazil will renounce this traditional

objective. If this divergence is overcome, or managed effectively, then Mexico and Brazil

may find shared interests for joint action knowing full well that they support two different

development models, and relate differently to the world. Is this viable?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Acompañará Fox a Lula a cumbre Mercosur”, El Universal, June 30, 2004,

www.eluniversal.com.mx/noticias/231631.html, accessed April 7, 2014.

93 Mexican diplomat C. Questionnaire. 94 Soto, “México y Brasil”, op. cit., p. 237.

27

Armendáriz, Alberto, “Pueden México y Brasil ser equipo”, Reforma.com, March 5, 2013,

http://www.reforma.com/nacional/articulo/691/1381515/default.asp?Param=4&Plaz

aCon, accessed March 5, 2013.

Arriola, Salvador, “La integración regional: una responsabilidad compartida entre Brasil y

México”, Foreign Affairs Latinoamérica, vol. 9, no. 2, 2009, pp. 55-66.

Authers, John, The Financial Times, June 23, 2011,

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/latin-

american-business/mexico-v-brasil-contes-not-decided-yet/article584240/, accessed

December 2, 2013.

“Brazil, Mexico and trade. Two ways to make a car”, The Economist, March 10th, 2012.

Brito, Omar “Brasil y México pactan acuerdo estratégico”, El Economista, February 24,

2010, http://eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2010/02/23/mexico-brasil-avanzan-

complementacion-economica, accessed April 25, 2012.

Camacho, Eduardo, “México y Brasil, el impacto de un acuerdo comercial”, El Universal,

Cartera, February 7, 2011, http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/finanzas/84491,html,

accessed April 25, 2012.

Castañeda, Jorge, “La rivalidad México-Brasil”, El País, March 2, 2012,

http://elpais.com/elpais/2012/02/28/opinion/1330453013_778328.html, accessed

December 2, 2013.

“Comunicado conjunto de la visita de Estado a Brasil del Presidente de México, Felipe

Calderón Hinojosa”, August 17, 2009, Comunicado CGCS-132,

http://calderon.presidencia.gob.mx/2009/08/comunicado-conjunto-de-la-visita-de-

estado-a-brasl-del-presidente-de-mexico-felipe-calderon-hinojosa, accessed March

31, 2014.

“«Congelan» TLC con Brasil”, El Informador, March 17, 2012,

http://www.informador.com.mx/economia /2012/364071/6/congelan-tlc-con-brasil-

htm, accessed April 25, 2012.

Covarrubias Velasco, Ana, Cambio de siglo: la política exterior de la apertura económica y

política. México y el mundo. Historia de sus relaciones exteriores (coord. by Blanca

Torres), Mexico, El Colegio de México, 2010.

“Da Brasil bienvenida a la candidatura de Carstens al FMI, sin otorgar apoyo”, La Jornada,

June 2, 2011, p. 30, http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/06/02/economia/030n2eco,

accessed April 3, 2014

Da Silva, Luiz Inacio, “Brasil-México: una asociación necesaria”, El Universal, August 5

2007, http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nación/153072.html, accessed April 23, 2014.

28

Domínguez Ávila, Carlos Federico, “El jaguar y el águila: un estudio de las relaciones

bilaterales brasileño-mexicanas en los primeros años del siglo XXI”, Revista de

relaciones internacionales de la UNAM, no. 103, January-April, 2009, pp. 45-58.

“Establecen México y Brasil una Comisión Nacional con el propósito de intensificar sus

relaciones”, Brasilia, Brazil, March 28, 2007,

http://consulmex.sre.gob.mx/saopaulo/index.php/noticias/239-comision-

binacional?tmpl=component&print=1&page=, accessed April 7, 2014.

Fernández de Castro, Rafael, “El hermano distante: la percepción mexicana de la política

exterior de Lula”, in Wilhelm Hofmeister, Francisco Rojas and Luis Guillermo Solís

(comps.), La percepción de Brasil en el contexto internacional: perspectivas y

desafíos, Mexico, FLACSO-Secretaría General/Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, 2007, pp.

39-46.

Fernández de Castro, Rafael and Maria Regina Soares de Lima, “Las aspiraciones

internacionales de Brasil y México en política exterior”, in Antonio Ortiz Mena L.N.,

Octavio Amorim Neto and Rafael Fenández de Castro (eds.), Brasil y México:

encuentros y desencuentros, Mexico, Instituto Matías Romero-SRE, 2005, pp. 111-

166.

González, Lilia, “El TLC con Brasil está enterrado: Ferrari”, El Economista, March 18, 2012,

http://eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2012/03/16/brasil-perdio-confianza-tlc-

ferrari, accessed April 25, 2012.

González, Lilia, “México y Brasil aplazan negociaciones”, El Economista, February 25,

2011, http://www.eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2011/02/25/mexico-brasil-

aplazan-negociaciones, accessed April 25, 2012.

González, Lilia, Leonor Flores and Pedro Suárez, “México aceptaría recortar envío de autos

a Brasil”, El Economista, March 13, 2012,

http://eleconomista.com.mx/industrias/2012/03/13/brasil-espera-cerrar-acuerdo-

mexico, accessed April 25, 2012.

Gratius, Susanne, “Brazil in the Americas: A Regional Peace Broker?”, FRIDE, Working

Paper 35, April 2007, www.fride.org, accessed May 1, 2014.

Guajardo Soto, Guillermo, “Viejos puentes y nuevos acervos. La relación de México con

América Latina y el Caribe durante el sexenio de Vicente Fox”, Foro Internacional,

vol. 48, nos. 1-2 (191-192), January-July 2008, pp. 268-296

Hakim, Peter, “Two Ways to Go Global”, Foreign Affairs, vol. 81, no. 1, January-February

2002, pp. 148-162.

Hurrell, Andrew, “Brasil y la tormenta que se avecina”, Foreign Affairs Latinoamérica, vol.

9, no. 2, 2009, pp. 43-54.

29

Jiménez, Sergio Javier, “Calderón llega a Brasil en busca de un TLC”, El Universal, August

16, 2009, http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/nación/170671.html, accessed April 23,

2014.

“Liman asperezas Fox y Lula da Silva”, Proceso, September 26, 2003,

http://www.proceso.com.mx/?P=256367, accessed March 31, 2014.

Luiselli Fernández, Cassio, “Brasil y México: el acercamiento necesario”, Revista Mexicana

de Política Exterior, no. 90, October, 2010, pp. 9-50.

Luiselli Fernández, Cassio and Rebeca Rodríguez Minor, “México y América Latina: al

encuentro de la comunidad perdida”, in Jorge Eduardo Navarrete (coord.), La

reconstrucción de la política exterior de México: principios, ámbitos, acciones,

Mexico, UNAM-Centro de Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y

Humanidades, 2006, pp. 286-290.

Maisonnave, Fabiano, “Fox cree que México dará aliento al Mercosur”, Folha de São Paulo,

July 6, 2004, p. A9, Acervo Folha, http://acervo.folha.com.br/fsp/2004/07/06/2/,

accessed April 10, 2014.

Malamud, Andrés, “A Leader Without Followers? The Growing Divergence Between the

Regional and Global Performance of Brazilian Foreign Policy”, Latin American

Politics and Society, vol. 53, no. 3, Fall 2011, pp. 1-24.

México otorga su apoyo a Miguel Ángel Moratinos para ocupar el cargo de Director General

de la FAO”, SRE, June 13, 2011, Comunicado 204,

http://saladeprensa.sre.gob.mx/index.php./es/comunicados/162-204, accessed April

3, 2014.

“México y Brasil impulsan comercio e inversión”, El Universal, August 17, 2009,

http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/notas/619955.html, accessed April 23, 2014.

Ministério das Relações Exteriores. Assessoria de Imprensa do Gabinete, “Entrevista

concedida pelo Ministro das Relações Exteriores, Embaiador Celso Amorim, ao

Jornal “Reforma”, do México – Cidade do México, 28/03/2007”,

http://www.itamaraty.gov.br/sala-de-imprensa/discursos-artigos-entrevistas-e-

outras-comunicacoes/ministro-estado-relacoes-exteriores/632745565601-entrevista-

concedida-pelo-ministro-das-relacoes/, accessed April 3, 2014.

Morales, María Esther, Pablo Mejía, Raúl de Jesús Gutiérrez, Miguel Ángel Díaz, and Reyna

Vergara, “Interacciones económico-financieras Brasil-México: ¿cuál es su grado de

integración?, Perfiles Latinoamericanos 39, January-June 2012, pp. 119-120

Mota, Luz Elena, “Aún no hay TLC con Brasil: COMCE”, Organización Editorial

Mexicana, June 1, 2011, http://www.oem.com.mx/laprensa/notas/n2092712.htm,

accessed April 25, 2012.

30

Ojeda Gómez, Mario, “México y Brasil: caminos opuestos”, Milenio, November 17, 2009,

http://eurolat.blogspot.mx/2009/11/opinion-mexico-y-brasil-caminos.html, accessed

December 2, 2013.

Ortiz Mena L.N., Antonio and Ricardo Sennes, “Brasil y México en la economía política

internacional”, in Ortiz Mena L.N., Amorim Neto and Fernández de Castro (eds.),

Brasil y México: encuentros y desencuentros, Mexico, Instituto Matías Romero-SRE,

2005, pp. 201-257.

Palacios, Guillermo, “Brasil y México: su relaciones 1822-1992”, in Antonio Ortiz Mena

L.N., Octavio Amorim Neto and Rafael Fernández de Castro (eds.), Brasil y México:

encuentros y desencuentros, Mexico, Instituto Matías Romero-SRE, 2005, pp. 23-

109.

Palacios, Guillermo, Intimidades, conflictos y reconciliaciones. México y Brasil, 1822-1993,

Mexico, SRE-Dirección General del Acervo Histórico, 2001.

Paul, T.V., “Soft Balancing in the Age of U.S. Primacy”, International Security, vol. 30, no.

1, Summer 2005, pp. 46-71.

Perasso, Valeria, “Brasil y México por la integración petrolera”, BBC Mundo, Cono Sur,

August 2009,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/economia/2009/08/090817_0155_mexico_brasil_petr

oleo_gm.shtml, accessed May 8, 2014.

Ramps, Jorge and José Vales, “Calderón fustiga a Brasil por su proteccionismo”, El

Universal, April 14, 2012, http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/internacional/77411.html,

accessed April 25, 2012.

Rodríguez Minor, Rebeca, “Brasil y México: viabilidad de una alianza estratégica conjunta

por la integración latinoamericana”, International Review of Business Research

Papers, vol. 9, no. 2, February 2013, Special Spanish Issue, pp. 183-199.

“Segundo Receso Comisión Permanente, LIX Legislatura, Miércoles 21 de junio de 2006,

Diario 8. Ratificación de nombramientos diplomáticos”,

http://www.senado.gob.mx/index.php?ver=sp&mn=3&sm=2&lg=59&ano=3&id=1

8061, accessed May 7, 2014.

Rosas, María Cristina, “México y Brasil: ¿Buenos enemigos o amigos mortales?”, Mosaico,

vol. 1, no. 1, January-June 2008, pp. 87-105.

Rubio, Luis, “¿México vs. Brasil?”, Terra Noticias, March 11, 2012,

http://noticias.terra.com.mx/mexico/luis-rubio-mexico-vs-brasil.

29864029e1206310VgnVCM4000009bf154d0RCRD.html, accessed December 2,

2013.

31

Seabra, Pedro, “Brazil and Mexico: Latin America in-between”, IPRIS Viewpoints, May

2012, pp. 1-5.

Secretaría de Economía, “Acuerdo Estratégico de Integración Económica México-Brasil.

Anuncio inicio de negociaciones”, November 8, 2010,

http://www.ina.og.mx/archivos/Comunicados/AEIE%20M%C3%A9xico-

Brasil%20anuncio%20inicio%20de%20negociaciones%20-

%20Noviembre%208%202010.pdf, accessed April 25, 2012.

Shifter, Michael and Cameron Combs, “Shifting Fortunes: Brazil and Mexico in a

Transformed Region”, Current History, February 2013, pp. 49-55.

Soares de Lima, Maria Regina, “Brazil Rising. The country’s new status means reconciling

divergent interests with the North, the South, and its neighbors”, IP Journal, German

council on Foreign Relations, July 1, 2008, https://ip-

journal.dgap.org/en/article/20388/print, accessed May 1, 2014.

Soriano, Juan Pablo, “Brasil en la política exterior de México: la búsqueda de una relación

más dinámica”, Real Instituto Elcano, ARI, no. 94, 2007, pp. 1-7.

Soto, Cecilia, “México y Brasil: ¿podemos cooperar?”, in Rafael Fernández de Castro

(coord.), En la frontera del imperio, Mexico, Ariel, 2003, pp. 227-237.

WTO, Summary of 14 September 2003, “Day 5: conference ends without consensus”,

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/mino3_14sept_e.htm, accessed May

17, 2014.

Interviews

Arriaga, Víctor, Director for South America 2008-2013, and coordinator of advisors,

Undersecretary for Latin America and the Caribbean, 2013. Mexico City, April 5,

2014.

Berruga, Enrique, Mexican permanent representative at the UN 2003-2007. Mexico City,

April 25, 2014.

Derbez, Luis Ernesto, Mexican Foreign Minister, 2003-2006. Estado de México, May 7,

2014.

Luiselli Fernández, Cassio, Ambassador to Uruguay and ALADI, 2007-2013. Mexico City,

April 2, 2014.

Mexican diplomat A. Interview, Mexico City, April 7, 2014.

Mexican diplomat B. Telephone conversation, June 3, 2014.

Mexican diplomat C. Questionnaire received April 15, 2014.

Navarrete, Jorge Eduardo, Ambassador to Brazil 1997-2000. Mexico City, April 11, 2014.

32

Valencia, Andrés, Ambassador to Brazil 2006-2010 April 15, 2014. Mexico City, May 8,

2014.

Web pages

http://www.economia.gob.mx/comunidad-negocios/comercio-exterior/informacion-

estadistica-y-arancelaria

http://sre.gob.mx