A New Agenda to Study the Guatemala–Mexico/Mexico–Guatemala Border(Lands) Region

ABSTRACT

This paper introduces a proposal to reconsider the way the Mexico–Guatemala border(lands) region is conceived. The border(lands) expanse is usually portrayed as a uniform entity. Generalizations are made from a single locality, thus obscuring the diversity of the area. Also, the Mexican viewpoint has prevailed in the reading of this border(lands) region, instead of adopting a compound perspective that takes into account the Guatemalan angle. These and other issues are discussed at length along with ideas to redress existing shortcomings. The use of a regional approach is advanced as an analytical tool and a planning policy instrument to overcome this problematic. A sub-regional classification will reveal, for instance, the heterogeneous conditions that prevail across the international boundary. This typology is meant as a starting point to plan and implement further collaborative research agendas and integrated policy initiatives that respond to the idiosyncrasy of the border(lands) region.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Of course there are other localized developments at work that deserve close attention. For example, in Tapachula issues that have been investigated but require further work include the situation of underage street Guatemalan vendors (Rivera 2014), Central American female sex work (Aguirre 2017), and assessments of migrant advocacy organizations active in that city (Camas 2010; Rivas 2008). There are emerging themes as well, such as the (recent) influx of African nationals who enter Mexico through Chiapas on their way to the United States, and the increasing flow of migrants from the LGBTII community who pass thorough (and sometimes settle) at the Soconusco, to mention but two examples. The field office of UNHCR based in Tapachula has taken special interest on both issues; this organization has hired staff to tend to the first topic and funded research to explore the latter (see Winton 2017). Yet, sometimes research on these matters make up part of the so-called gray literature, or go unpublished, or circulate only within certain spheres. Last but not least, other kind of developments, notably social organizing around transborder and human mobility issues at the bi-national level, require closer academic scrutiny. Again, these efforts concentrate mostly in the Chiapas-San Marcos/Huehuetenango portion, the most salient ones being a Transborder Forum that has brought together consular representatives, UN entities (UNHCR, IMO), academics and NGOs from both Guatemala and Mexico, and the coming together of indigenous populations that live on both sides of the border, notably the Mam, who claim a common identity above Mexican and Guatemalan national allegiances, and who have set up fora to discuss this and other issues (see Gardner and Richards 2017).

2 There is no official count of Coatepeque’s population. According to the local government (municipality’s town hall), the number was close to 40,000 c. 2014. See p. 1 of “Monografía de Coatepeque” at http://municoatepeque.gob.gt/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/MONOGRAFIADECOATEPEQUE.pdf. Quetzaltenango is one of Guatemala’s 23 departamentos, the political-administrative units in the country; Guatemala is a centralized presidential republic. There is no precise translation for the word departamento. From a political standpoint departamento is not comparable to a state in Mexico, a federal constitutional republic. States have their own autonomous government, departamentos do not. The departamentos next to Mexico are, from south to north: San Marcos, Huehuetenango, El Quiché, and El Petén. Three states are next to Guatemala: Chiapas, Tabasco, and Campeche.

3 Manero (2011) offers examples of disputes over natural “stocks” in border areas of Latin America.

4 According to linguist Otto Schumann, there is a cultural continuum between adjacent territories in Guatemala and Mexico, with common, but no identical, elements (1992, 92), specifically in the portion corresponding to the San Marcos, Huehuetenango-Chiapas adjacency. The demarcation of the international border between Guatemala and Mexico, at the end of the 19th century, separated, adds Schumman (1992), five linguistic groups, namely the mam, jacalteco (properly poptí), chuj, kanjobal, tapachulteco. The first four are Mayan-descent languages. They are still spoken. The last one belongs to the mixe-zoque family, one that has vanished.

5 This was a development plan implemented by the central government in communities located along the Mexico-Guatemala border, and located in the municipalities of Tenosique and Balancan. The plan intended to “modernize the tropics” via thorough planning of agricultural and cattle-raising production activities. See Casco (1980) and Tudela (1989).

6 Fábregas and González’s article (2014) aspired to provide a dual perspective on the situation at the border through a review of the literature on the Mexico–Guatemala border, and a review of the literature on the Guatemala–Mexico border, a goal half-met as the piece lacked a broader territorial scope and up-to-date information.

7 Notwithstanding, Fábregas and González do acknowledge that there is a need for in-depth studies of “rainforest municipalities” near the border (Fábregas and González 2014, 18) to expand our understanding of processes elsewhere at the border(lands).

8 I am aware that the lack of a historical framework undermines a more refined account of present-day developments anywhere within the border(lands) region, notably the role that the US has played in Mexico’s and Guatemala’s politics. Of course, the so-called Cold War also shaped events in the area of interest in recent times. However, the reader should keep in mind that the intent of this paper is not historical per se. Such approach requires extensive elaboration and discussion, a task that will be tackled in the future, as indicated in the main body of the article.

9 The UNDP introduced the notion of human security about two decades ago (UNDP 1994), putting an emphasis on human well-being over state concerns. There is an on-going debate about the usefulness of this perspective, one not exempt from criticism. See, for instance: Bellamy and McDonald (2002); Buzan, Waever, and Wilde (1998); McCormack (2008); Nef (1999); Ryerson (2008). Newman (2016) rightly points out that human security is an appealing normative construct; the challenge lies on how to operationalize this paradigm.

10 This is a simple definition: “ … state formation is a process of formation and reformation based on the changing nature of societies within the state and the international system of states” (Gruhn 2015, 353). Dunkerley (2002, 1) offers a discussion of the term in connection with the Latin American context.