Arturo Sarukhan, Mexico's ambassador to the United States, reacted this week to Texas governor Rick Perry's suggestion about deploying US soldiers to combat organized crime in Mexico. Sarukhan's reaction (and thereby the Mexican government's) was predictable: out of the question, as much as Perry made explicit that such a cooperation would be in full concert with the Mexican government.
American soldiers on Mexican soil are very unwelcome, as the old story goes, after the war of the 1840's, when Mexico lost half of its territory to the United States. It is mentioned often, but never really elaborated. Mosts analysts and journalists simply assume it's true, even though I haven't seen a single poll in recent years about what the Mexicans really think on the issue.
US army presence aside, there have been some suggestions on more foreign involvement in the drug war. A group of businessmen in Ciudad Juárez petitioned the United Nations to station peacekeeping troops in the city last year, which the UN politely declined. Rightly so: even though the UN's mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) has as one of its core tasks the protection of law and order, Haiti is a failed state with no military and no functioning police. Mexico is no failed state (really, it's not!) and the role of a UN mission in Mexico would be problematic from the start (think only of the 'respect' powerful criminal groups would show to a group of blue helmets with a limited mandate).
In general foreign military presence has never been a real issue. The powerful Estado Mayor de la Republica, Mexico's general staff, would be very much against sharing its power with a foreign force and has sufficient leverage over the presidency and congress to stop any such proposal from solidifying in the country's legislation. And political parties in Mexico would not risk seriously considering such a hot political piece of iron with elections coming up next year.
Analysts know that, and therefore no serious discussion over Perry's remarks has materialized. Latin America watcher James Bosworth warned on his blog not to be too quick on criticizing Perry though:
"The first instinct of many other analysts is to criticize the statement. I'll avoid criticism of a plan without details and want to hear more about Perry's plan and what the other GOP contenders think. Journalists need to follow up with Perry at future events or at debates about the details of what he wants to do."
Bosworth is right to take the issue seriously. Not because it would raise a lot of noise in Mexico, but because it might do in the US, for example in the Republican primaries.
There has been a lot of (mostly unjustified) talk on spill-over violence in the Border Region, and mr. Perry is one of the strongest contenders for a Republican ticket in 2012. He is a law enforcement candidate with a love for guns obviously taking into account the genuine fears in states like Texas for the violence in Mexico spilling over.
It would certainly be interesting to see if mr. Perry's remarks are just a whim of the moment, or if they could play a bigger role in the Republican primaries in the near future and as such become an actual issue on a national level in the US. Consequently, if such would happen, it would be even more interesting to see how Mexico would react to such a discussion.