Battleground states: could Mexico be the next Florida?

The United States is going back to the UN Security Council to win final approval for its war against Iraq. The newest resolution, drafted in cooperation with Britain and Spain, declares that Iraq "remains in material breech of its obligations" and that it must now face "serious consequences." But given the irreconcilable differences among the members of the Security Council, unanimous approval of this resolution seems unlikely at best. Therefore, UN backing of military action against Iraq may very well depend on whether or not the United States can get at least 9 out of 15 votes in the Council, assuming China, Russia and France would waive their veto powers.

Getting the required votes will certainly not be an easy task. The Council is currently divided in three camps. The pro-war faction includes the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. The anti-war faction is composed of France, Germany, Russia, China and Syria. The last group is made up of six key undecided nations: Chile, Pakistan, Mexico, Angola, Cameroon and Guinea. The votes of the members of the first two camps are easily predictable. However, the votes of the undecided nations are up in the air. In much the same manner as the 2000 presidential election, where the Battleground states (Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, etc.) determined its outcome, the undecided nations in the Security Council could determine the future of this new resolution. Their votes may indeed determine the future of the Middle East.

The United States can count so far with the favorable votes of three nations, so it must seek five additional votes to get its resolution passed. Unless there is some unexpected development that sways the opinion of the anti-war camp, these votes will have to come from the undecided camp.

Despite their fortuitous position of influence, the situation of these battleground nations is hardly enviable. These reluctant protagonists face enormous pressure from all sides to vote one way or the other. On the one hand, American diplomatic muscle corners these countries' policymakers. Bush threatens them: "you are either with us or against us," with all the political implications that such a statement carries. On the other hand, domestic political forces leave little room for maneuverability. Public opinion in these countries stands mostly against military action in Iraq, so voting in favor of the resolution would in many cases be equivalent to political suicide. Thus, the leaders of these nations have to play a tough balancing act between hegemonic pressures and domestic considerations.

Take Mexico's case. Under the presidency of Vicente Fox, Mexico has sought a more proactive role in international relations, and consequently joined the UN Security Council last year. Fox also pushed for better relations with his American neighbors in the areas of migration, drugs and trade. Fox's approach seemed to work, that is until Sept. 11. All the warmness and coziness of the Mexico-US relationship quickly evaporated as America's national priorities suddenly took a drastic turn. And of course, Mexico's jump into the international political arena turned out to be a nightmare that no one could have anticipated.

Today Mexico faces a dilemma. Should it vote in favor of the new resolution? If so, the defunct Mexican-American agenda could resurrect with this friendly gesture, or at least Mexico could avoid Bush's anger. But, given Fox's idealistic international values, his recent pro-peace rhetoric and the Mexican public's overwhelming rejection of this war, voting in favor would amount to a political hara-kiri. So, should Mexico vote instead against military action? If so, Fox would be vindicated, domestic political forces would be appeased, and maybe war could be avoided. But at what cost? Is it worth risking Mexico's relationship with the US over Iraq? After all, the US is Mexico's biggest commercial partner, and Mexico's economy is largely dependent on its neighbor's. The most important question Mexican policymakers are trying to answer is how would the US react to a vote against war. The last option is to abstain, but it is hardly a good option. An abstention would provoke the same criticisms, only this time they would come from both sides of the spectrum.

Mexico is clearly in a tough position. But one thing is for certain: whichever way it goes, Mexico's vote can be decisive. Fox and the other leaders of the ambivalent nations have to weigh all their options and decide for the least unfavorable course of action. And they have to do so quickly. According to national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, a vote on the new resolution can be expected shortly after Hans Blix's March 7 report on Iraqi compliance. Will the Battleground States vote for war or peace? Will they vote out of sympathy or fear of retaliation? Will they stand up for their values or will they compromise them? We do not know, but if this vote turns out to be half as interesting as the 2000 election, I wouldn't want to miss it.