The White House Makes a Bad Habit of One-Way Foreign Policy
Unveiling new immigration guidelines on February 21st, the Department of Homeland Security broadly expanded the eligibility qualifications, as well as the government’s means, for deportations of undocumented immigrants. In doing so, the Trump administration is once again making a by now familiar and problematic mistake: presuming other sovereign parties affected by its policies have no say in the matter.
Specifically, the government of Mexico bucked on a provision in the guidelines to deport non-Mexican citizens who had crossed from Mexico back across the border, rather than to their countries of origin. With Mexico the main transit route for Central American migrants, many of whom are fleeing some of the world’s most violent countries, these prospective numbers are massive.
Responding to the DHS announcement, Mexican foreign minister Luis Videgaray firmly insisted his government would not accept the “unilateral” proposal from Washington. To state the obvious, this matters a lot.
The international system of nation-states is anarchic; in geopolitics, each country’s ultimate authority, structurally speaking, is its own internal governance apparatus. Mexico, like all states, but also hardly small or powerless, has the agency and ability to refuse such impositions on its sovereignty. It is not just unreasonable then to expect our southern neighbor to acquiesce to every decree issued from the White House but, additionally, ill-considered policy on the part of the administration (an ironic one too, considering Donald Trump’s obsession with border inviolability).
For Mexico, opposing a massive dumping of non-citizen deportees is not simply a moral stance but one borne of humanitarian and financial concerns. Already, the country apprehends tens of thousands of Central American migrants annually. In 2015, following a surge of migrant arrivals which resulted in increased cross-border cooperation, including additional financial aid from Washington, Mexico was apprehending more migrants from Central America than the U.S. The arrival of thousands of extra non-citizens in Mexico for it to sort out would only increase pressure on Mexican national agencies and finances. It is a non-starter.
Attempting to force unilateral policy proposals onto Mexico, proposals which run counter to Mexican national interests and are sure to be rebuffed, present the likelihood of negative consequences for the United States. With the Trump administration intent on mass round ups of undocumented immigrants, a Mexican government refusal to allow the deportation to the country of non-citizens would leave American immigration authorities responsible for large numbers of detained persons. What would amount to mass detention camps in the United States would not only be wildly expensive, at approximately $164 a day per person, but a policy further undermining American moral authority when challenging other countries’ questionable authoritarian activities.
This says nothing of other policies currently advocated for by the White House regarding the U.S.-Mexico relationship such as import tariffs, the border wall, or the President’s request, attached to the recent immigration proposal, to review all U.S. aid to Mexico. Starting a trade war with the United States’ second largest export market through a unilateral tariff imposition (expect retaliatory Mexican tariffs) is foolishly injurious to robust cross-border trade accounting for nearly $600 billion annually. Meanwhile, the Wall and threats to, if not curtailment of, financial aid to Mexico only works to damage the important relationship between Washington and Mexico City, disincentivizing the Mexican government both diplomatically and financially to prioritize cooperation on issues like immigration, exacerbating the very issue with which the White House is so concerned in the first place.
Such policies continue a habit by this administration to approach geopolitical relations through the perspective of unilateral policy imposition. Much of this, the exaggeratedly over-the-top proposals in particular, may very well be about gaining leverage for negotiation rather than serious ideas. As a businessman, Donald Trump was fond of making extreme, all-or-nothing opening demands — a tactic aimed at scaring his adversary into giving up more rather than risk losing out on the deal altogether. Countries are not companies, however, and the words of national leaders bear more consequence than those of CEOs.
Whether sincere or strategic bluster, negative outcomes of the policy proposals regarding Mexico are, at least, manageable (if difficultly). In other instances, though, demands and threats could elicit more perilous responses from foreign governments making security considerations. When a president speaks it must be considered their words carry the power of military force.
This is of particular importance in the case of China, for instance. Unlike Mexico, China is a nuclear-armed, rising great power with ambitions of major international player status and competing interests with the United States in the region. Beijing, already wary of the American military presence in East and Southeast Asia, is very serious about protecting these growing interests. Here, aggressive imposition of unilateral policy or bullying rhetoric from the administration, whether sincere or intended to strengthen its position, comes with a risk of a potential Chinese calculation for preemptive action. Not good.
Making geopolitical policy under the hubristic presumption of omnipotence is not just counterproductive but potentially dangerous. While such a strong-armed approach may have worked for Donald Trump the businessman, as President he will find it less successful. Foreign governments will always assert their national interests, attempting to impose American policy unilaterally merely creates all new problems with which the United States must then address while likely doing little or nothing to move forward on the initial issue. The administration should quickly recognize that international relations is not a one-way street before it finds itself in a head on collision.
