Taking a stand in U.N.: Mexico stuck in Security Council dilemma that could shape border relations. (Politics).

In a situation unprecedented in Mexican politics, the nation finds itself right in the center of the international stage. Mexico's border with the United States is the second busiest in the world in terms of human traffic, trade and telecommunications, and the countries' bilateral relationship remains strong. The key difference today is that a new ingredient has been added to the mix and threatens to seriously unravel the bonds between the once-close friends.

In the months following the Sept. 11 attacks, Mexico assumed a rotating seat on the U.N. Security Council and, in doing so, became a key player in world geopolitics. This importance was underscored at the end of last year when U.S. President Bush, as part of his effort to secure U.N. backing, asked for Mexico's support in case of a U.S. led war against Iraq.

What are the implications for the Vicente Fox government if it supports the U.S. position? On the other hand, what does it mean for Mexico if it aligns itself with the French-Russian opposition? Whatever the decision, it will come at a price.

Without a doubt, a "yes" vote is the pragmatic choice, aimed at minimizing costs and maximizing the benefits of Mexico's complicated relationship with the United States. A vote in favor of a war with Iraq would strengthen the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the U.S., as well as open the door to renegotiating a long-shelved migration deal.

The downside for the Fox government would be felt internally. Opposition parties, social organizations, and the Chiapas-based Zapatista rebels would wrap themselves in the flag of nationalism and claim Fox's acquiescence strengthens the nation's hyper powerful neighbor. This would put Fox and his conservative National Action Party (PAN) in a difficult position, facing the risk of losing many votes in the crucial mid-term elections on July 6.

Under these circumstances, Fox and the PAN would need to work quickly to convince voters that supporting the U.S. is not backing down in the face of power, but rather an opportunity to attain benefits in an increasingly unstable and complex international climate. Unfortunately for the PAN, the proximity of the upcoming federal elections will limit the chances for the Fox government to minimize the costs of such a decision.

Nationalism and the tradition of Mexico's s non-interventionist foreign policy would be the basis for a decision to oppose the United States position on Iraq and vote against a U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force. Just as a vote in favor would harm Fox internally, a "no" would conversely benefit his party. Fox's main adversaries--and a vast majority of Mexicans--are staunchly opposed to war, and his opponents would be forced to give credit to him for a "no" vote.

This could lead to an increase in votes for the PAN in July's elections. However, many families in Mexico have relatives living and working in the U.S. and could express their disapproval of going against the United States by voting against the PAN. Mexicans in the U. S. fear they will be the first to experience an American backlash stemming from a negative vote by Mexico in the Security Council.

Although retaliation against Mexico--either in an economic form or further delays in regard to the migration accord--is possible, it also may not happen, as top Bush administration officials have repeatedly said no punitive action would be taken against countries that oppose war.

Regardless of the decision taken by the Mexican government--and as of press time a U.N. Security Council vote on Iraq was still pending--the dilemma illustrates that positions of power on an increasingly unstable international stage do not come without risks.

Joel Estudillo Rendon is a member of the board of the Mexican Institute for Political Studies.