To be or not to be: Has Mexico got what it takes to be an emerging power?

Abstract

Mexico has the material resources to be considered an emerging power, given the size of its economy, population, geography and other aspects. However, the country has displayed a limited capacity to project leadership, both at the international and at the regional level. Drawing on a number of comparisons with Brazil (the largest economy in Latin America) and other BRICS countries, this paper shows how Mexico has failed to use its existing resources to become more influential in multilateral institutions, particularly within the United Nations. This paper argues that not only Mexican diplomats but also the economic and political elites in the country have been reluctant for the country to act as an emerging power on the world stage. Unlike Brazil, with its strong international identity, Mexico is conditioned by its proximity to and economic dependence on the US. It has failed to position itself as a bridge between the South and the North and it has lacked a coherent long-term foreign policy. In addition, a weak Secretariat of Foreign Affairs and a poorly coordinated, decentralised diplomatic corps with insufficient personnel and resources have also undermined Mexico's international performance.

Keywords:

• Mexico
• emerging powers
• BRICS, MIKTA, Brazil

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Guadalupe González and Dr. Olga Pellicer for their assistance in writing this article.

Note on contributor

Dr Hernán F. Gómez Bruera is a postdoctoral fellow at the Public Policy Doctoral Programme, Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE), Mexico.

Notes

1. Cooper A, ‘Middle powers: Squeezed out or adaptative?’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, 2, 2009, pp. 29–34; González G, ‘Incertidumbres de una potencia media regional, Las nuevas dimensiones de la política exterior Mexicana’, in Pellicer O (ed.), La política exterior de México: desafíos en los ochenta. México: CIDE, 1983, pp. 15–82; Pellicer O, ‘Mexico – A reluctant middle power?’, Briefing Papers. Ciudad de Mexico: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. June 2006; Sotomayor A, Latin America's Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE, 2006; Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009.

2. Among others see de Icaza C & E Sandoval, ‘México, actor con responsabilidad global: jugador en nuevos tableros’, Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, 100, 2014, pp. 9–48; Maihold G, ‘Brics, mist, mikta: México entre poderes emergentes, potencias medias y responsabilidad global’, Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, 100, 2014, pp. 63–79.

3. As defined by Young O, ‘Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society’, in Martin L & B Simmons (eds) International Institutions: An International Organization Reader. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001, pp. 14–27.

4. This bargaining leverage can be exercised by deploying threats and promises, rewards and even payments. The conversion of structural power, as Young also tell us, is in great part a matter of forming ‘effective coalitions’ and ‘taking appropriate measures to prevent the emergence of blocking or counter coalitions’. Young O, ‘Political leadership and regime formation: On the development of institutions in international society’, in Martin L & B Simmons (eds), International Institutions: An International Organization Reader. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2001, pp. 16 and 19.

5. Nabers D, ‘Power, leadership and hegemony in international politics’, Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, p. 56.

6. Desai R, ‘Dreaming in technicolour?, India as a BRIC economy’, International Journal, 62.4, 2007, pp. 781–804; Hurrell A, ‘Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers?’, International Affairs, 82.1, 2006, pp. 1–19; Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009; MacFarlane N, ‘The “R” in BRICS: Is Russia an emerging power?’, International Affairs, 82.1, 2006, pp. 41–57; Sotero P & L Elliot, ‘Brazil: To be or not to be a BRIC?’, Asian Perspective 31.4, 2007, pp. 43–70.

7. Armijo LE, ‘The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as analytical category: Mirage or insight?’, Asian Perspective, 31.4, 2007, p. 38.

8. Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009.

9. According to the literature, these countries have some peculiarities that may distinguish them from the BRICS. They are smaller countries, they tend to embrace free market policies enthusiastically (in spite of the fact that they are not equally open markets), they are strong in services and industrial sectors and they rank higher in competitive indexes than the BRICS (Icaza C & E Sandoval, ‘México, actor con responsabilidad global: jugador en nuevos tableros’, Revista Mexicana de Política Exterior, 100, 2014, pp. 9–48).

10. Hurrell A, ‘Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers?’, International Affairs, 82.1, 2006, pp. 1–19, p. 2.

11. Huelsz C, Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009, p. 68.

12. Armijo LE, Armijo LE, ‘The BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) as analytical category: Mirage or insight?’, Asian Perspective, 31.4, 2007, p. 12.

13. Huelsz C, Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009, p. 15.

14. Hurrell A, ‘Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers?’, International Affairs, 82.1, 2006, pp. 1–19, p. 2.

15. Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009, p. 210.

16. Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009, p. 75.

17. Hurrell A, ‘Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers?’, International Affairs, 82.1, 2006, pp. 1–19, p. 2.

18. Nel P & S Mathew, ‘The foreign economic policies of regional powers in the developing world’, in Flemes D (ed.) Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010.

19. Hurrell A, Hurrell A, ‘Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers?’, International Affairs, 82.1, 2006, pp. 1–19, p. 3.

20. Nel P & S Mathew, ‘The foreign economic policies of regional powers in the developing world’, in Flemes D (ed.) Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, p. 71.

21. Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009, p. 16.

22. This view is contested. Some authors have argued that it is possible to be powerful in international relations without being powerful in one´s own region (see among others Spektor M, ‘Brazil: Underlying ideas of regional policies’, in Flemes D (ed.) Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, p. 199).

23. Hurrell A, ‘Hegemony, liberalism and global order: What space for would-be great powers?’, International Affairs, 82.1, 2006, pp. 1–19, p. 8.

24. Flemes, D, Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, p. 6.

25. Nabers D, ‘Power, leadership and hegemony in international politics’, Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, p. 68.

26. Flemes, D, Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, p. 6.

27. Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009, p. 212.

28. Cooper A, ‘Middle powers: Squeezed out or adaptative?’, Public Diplomacy Magazine, 2, 2009, pp. 29–34, p. 33.

29. See the CIA World Fact Book rankings, based on GDP (Purchasing Power Parity), www.cia.gov (accessed 21 November 2014).

30. See the CIA World Fact Book rankings, based on GDP (Purchasing Power Parity), www.cia.gov (accessed 21 November 2014).

31. González G, ‘México en América Latina: entre el norte y el sur o el difícil juego del equilibrista’, in Lagos R (ed.) América Latina: ¿Integración o Fragmentación? Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2008, p. 115; González G, ‘Incertidumbres de una potencia media regional, Las nuevas dimensiones de la política exterior Mexicana’, in Pellicer O (ed.) La política exterior de México: desafíos en los ochenta. México: CIDE, 1983, pp. 15–82; Sotomayor A, Latin America's Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE, 2006, p. 5. González G, ‘Foreign policy strategies in a globalized world: The case of Mexico’, in Tulchin JS & Espach RH (eds) Latin America in the International System. Boulder CO: Lynne Rienner and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2001, pp. 141–81.

32. Olivié I, M Gracia & C García-Calvo, Elcano Global Presence Report 2014. Madrid: Real Instituto Elcano, 2014, p. 11.

33. Global presence is divided into three areas (economy, defence and soft presence), and the indicators considered within these areas are as follows. Economic presence is measured through the flow of exports of energy products, primary goods, manufactures, and services, as well as through foreign direct investment. Military presence is measured on the basis of the troops deployed in international missions and bases overseas together with military projection equipment. Soft presence is measured through migration, tourism, performance in international sports competitions, exports of audio visual services, the projection of information on the Internet, the number of international patents, the articles published in scientific journals, foreign students in domestic universities, and finally, the gross flows of development assistance. See Olivié I, M Gracia & C García-Calvo, Elcano Global Presence Report 2014. Madrid: Real Instituto Elcano, 2014, p. 11.

34. World Bank 2014 cited in González G, ‘La política exterior de México: entre la retórica y la realidad’, presented at the seminar Construyendo el Nuevo orden mundial desde América Latina, División de Estudios Internacionales. Ciudad de México: CIDE, 2014.

35. Figueroa B & J Schiavon, ‘Brasil y México: Inversión y Capacidades en Política Exterior’, Foreign Policy Edición Mexicana, 4.15, 2014, p. 15; González G, ‘La política exterior de México: entre la retórica y la realidad’, presented at the seminar Construyendo el Nuevo orden mundial desde América Latina, División de Estudios Internacionales. Ciudad de México: CIDE, 2014.

36. Sotomayor A, Latin America's Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE 2006; Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009; Figueroa B & J Schiavon, ‘Brasil y México: Inversión y Capacidades en Política Exterior’, Foreign Policy Edición Mexicana, 4.15, 2014, pp. 12–15.

37. Sotomayor A, Latin America's Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE 2006; Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009; Figueroa B & J Schiavon, ‘Brasil y México: Inversión y Capacidades en Política Exterior’, Foreign Policy Edición Mexicana, 4.15, 2014, p. 13.

38. Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009, p. 16.

39. Figueroa B & J Schiavon, ‘Brasil y México: Inversión y Capacidades en Política Exterior’, Foreign Policy Edición Mexicana, 4.15, 2014, p. 15.

40. This influence is also due to the fact that Itamaraty has so many career diplomats that they often fill key positions in other ministries, state enterprises and the president's office. Please see Sotomayor A, Latin America’s Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE, 2006.

41. Neto A & J Schiavon, ‘Institucioes internas y política exterior de Brasil y México’, in Ortiz Mena A & R Fernández de Castro (eds) Brasil y México: Encuentros y desencuentros. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores and Instituto Matías Romero, 2005, pp. 177–8, 187–8.

42. Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009.

43. Pellicer O, ‘Mexico – A reluctant middle power?’, Briefing Papers. Ciudad de México, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2006, p. 2.

44. Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009.

45. Serrano M & P Kenny, ‘Iraq and world order: A Latin American perspective’, in Thakur R & WPS Sidhu (eds) The Iraq Crisis and World Order, Volume 1: Structural and Normative Challenges. New York: United Nations University Press and International Peace Academy, 2006; Domínguez J & R Fernández de Castro, The US and Mexico: Between Partnership and Conflict. New York: Routledge, 2001.

46. Others argue, however, that Mexico could make an explicit alliance with the US and cooperate with Washington, DC and still play an active role in world affairs in the way that a country like Canada has done. Based on this country, for instance, Sotomayor argues that, indeed, proximity to powerful states and geography does not provide a good explanation for not playing a major role in the UNSC because ‘the presence of a near-by hegemon can boost a nation's ambition to play a more active role in world affairs’. Please see Sotomayor A, Latin America’s Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE, 2006, p. 9.

47. Ojeda M, ‘Alcances y límites de la política exterior de México’, Ciudad de México, El Colegio de México, 1981, p. 93.

48. Smith P, ‘Mexico’, in Chase R, E Hill & P Kennedy (eds) The Pivotal States. A New Framework for US Policy in the Developing World. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1999, p. 217.

49. Smith P, ‘Mexico’, in Chase R, E Hill & P Kennedy (eds) The Pivotal States. A New Framework for US Policy in the Developing World. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1999, p. 217.

50. A Mexican scholar and former diplomat, declared during an interview at that time: ‘If we participate in the Security Council we should have something to say. However, we lack … clear positions in the most important issues … The main problem is that Mexican presence in the Security Council does not form part of a larger foreign policy destined to conquer more presence and space in international politics’ (Gómez H, ‘México en el Consejo de Seguridad, ¿Para qué?’, El Universal, 24 July 2010; Gómez H, ‘The development cooperation policy as an instrument of foreign policy: The case of Brazil’, paper delivered at the seminar Mexico-Brazil Initiative, organised by the Latin American and the Caribbean Centre, Miami, FL, FIU and the Centro de Estudios y Programas Interamericanos del ITAM, 13 May 2010).

51. Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009.

52. http://www.un.int/brazil/book/conselhoSecuranca_index.html (accessed 17 November 2014).

53. Fernández L, ‘La Coordinación de la Política Exterior: Estudio Comparado México – Brasil’ (MA thesis). Ciudad de México, CIDE, 2009; Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009.

54. Fernández de Castro R & MR Soares de Lima, ‘Las Aspiraciones de Brasil y México en Política Exterior’, in Ortiz Mena A & R Fernández de Castro (eds) Brasil y México: Encuentros y desencuentros. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores and Instituto Matías Romero, 2005, p. 116.

55. Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009.

56. Child J, ‘Geopolitics and Conflict in South America: Quarrels Among Neighbors’, New York, Praeger, 1985, p. 34.

57. Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009, p. 25.

58. González G, J Schiavon, G Maldonado, R Morales & D Crow, México, las Américas y el Mundo 2012–2013, Política Exterior: Opinión pública y líderes. Ciudad de México: CIDE, 2013, p. 92.

59. Tavares MH, J Onuki & L Piket, Brasil, as Américas e o mundo, Opinião Pública e Política Externa 2010–2011. Sao Paulo: Instituto de Relacoes Internacionais, Universidade de Sao Paulo, 2012; González G, J Schiavon & D Crow, Las Américas y el Mundo 2010–2011, Opinión pública y política exterior en Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, México y Perú. Ciudad de México: CIDE, 2011.

60. Prado JP, ‘La Cooperacion Internacional para el Desarrollo en la Politica Exterior del presidente Calderon’, in Garza H, J Schiavon & R Velazquez (eds) Balance y Perspectivas de la Politica Exterior de Mexico 2006–2012. Ciudad de Mexico: Colmex, CIDE, 2014, p. 422.

61. amexcid.gob.mx (accessed 14 November 2014).

62. Prado JP, La (política de) cooperación internacional para el desarrollo de México como herramienta de su política exterior. Paper delivered at the seminar Mexico–Brazil Initiative, Miami, FL, Conference organised by the Latin American and the Caribbean Centre at FIU and the Centro de Estudios y Programas Interamericanos del ITAM, 13 May 2010.

63. It occurred in 2005, for instance, when, the Mexican government promoted a candidate to the General-Secretariat of the Organization of American States (OAS) – the candidacy of its Foreign Affairs Minister, Luis Ernesto Derbez. Mexico provided humanitarian aid, scholarships and implemented other IDC initiatives in a number of Caribbean countries in order to secure the necessary votes. In any case, the strategy failed, as Chile had already secured major support for its candidate, Jose Miguel Insulsa, among its South American neighbours (Prado JP, La (política de) cooperación internacional para el desarrollo de México como herramienta de su política exterior. Paper delivered at the seminar Mexico–Brazil Initiative, Miami, FL, conference organised by the Latin American and the Caribbean Centre at FIU and the Centro de Estudios y Programas Interamericanos del ITAM, 13 May 2010; Prado JP, ‘La Cooperacion Internacional para el Desarrollo en la Politica Exterior del presidente Calderon’, in in Garza H, J Schiavon & R Velazquez (eds) Balance y Perspectivas de la Politica Exterior de Mexico 2006–2012. Ciudad de Mexico: Colmex, CIDE, 201, p. 419).

64. Costa I, B Suyama, L Trajber Waisbich & M Pomero, ‘Brazil’s engagement in international development cooperation: The state of the debate’, Evidence Report no. 59, Rising Powers in International Development. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, 2014.

65. González et al., ‘Mexico y el mundo: Global views 2004, Mexican public opinion and foreign policy’ (2004) in Sotomayor A, Latin America’s Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE, 2006, p. 11; de Souza, 2002: 5.

66. González G, ‘La política exterior de México: entre la retórica y la realidad’, presented at the seminar Construyendo el Nuevo orden mundial desde América Latina, División de Estudios Internacionales. Ciudad de México: CIDE, 2014.

67. Gobierno de la República, Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2013–2018. Ciudad de México: Méxicand Government, 2013.

68. Neto A & J Schiavon, ‘Institucioes internas y política exterior de Brasil y México’, in Ortiz Mena A & R Fernández de Castro (eds), Brasil y México: Encuentros y desencuentros. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores and Instituto Matías Romero, 2005, pp. 167–99; Fernández de Castro R & MR Soares de Lima, ‘Las Aspiraciones de Brasil y México en Política Exterior’, in Ortiz Mena A & R Fernández de Castro (eds) Brasil y México: Encuentros y desencuentros. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores and Instituto Matías Romero, 2005, pp. 201–57.

69. The foreign policy community in Brazil has historically been divided between two different groups, which have been influential in different periods. One of them is associated with a developmentalist approach, known as ‘the autonomists’. The other group has been more favourable to globalisation and liberalisation. Both groups have advanced different ideologies and visions of the world order, but they both share an aspiration to exercise a greater role in world affairs.

70. Fernández de Castro R & MR Soares de Lima, ‘Las Aspiraciones de Brasil y México en Política Exterior’, in Ortiz Mena A & R Fernández de Castro (eds) Brasil y México: Encuentros y desencuentros. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores and Instituto Matías Romero, 2005, p. 161.

71. Riding A, Distant Neighbors: A Portrait of the Mexicans. New York, NY: Vintage, 1989, p. 19.

72. Huelsz C, Huelsz C, ‘Middle power theories and emerging powers in international political economy: A case study of Brazil’ (PhD thesis). University of Manchester, School of Social Sciences, 2009, p. 75.

73. Sotomayor A, Latin America’s Middle Powers in the United Nations: Brazil and Mexico in Comparative Perspective. Working Paper, 144. Ciudad de México, Mexico: CIDE, 2006, p. 10.

74. Hakim, P, ‘Two ways to go global’, Foreign Affairs, 81.1, 2000, p. 248.

75. Pellicer O, ‘Mexico – A reluctant middle power?’, Briefing Papers. Ciudad de México, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2006, p. 2.

76. Pellicer O, ‘Mexico – A reluctant middle power?’, Briefing Papers. Ciudad de México, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2006, p. 3.

77. González G, J Schiavon, G Maldonado, R Morales & D Crow, México, las Américas y el Mundo 2012–2013, Política Exterior: Opinión pública y líderes. Ciudad de México: CIDE, 2013.

78. CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html (accessed 7 June 2015).

79. Pellicer O, ‘Mexico – A reluctant middle power?’ Briefing Papers. Ciudad de México, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2006, p. 4.

80. Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009, p. 39.

81. Pellicer O, ‘Mexico – A reluctant middle power?’, Briefing Papers. Ciudad de México, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2006, pp. 4–5.

82. Sotomayor clearly puts it in Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009, p. 37.

83. Sotomayor clearly puts it in Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009, p. 32.

84. Sotomayor clearly puts it in Sotomayor A & S Mushkin, ‘Mexico and economic governance’ (manuscript). Monterrey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, 2009, p. 32.

85. CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html (accessed 7 June 2015).

86. CIA World Fact Book, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html (accessed 7 June 2015).

87. González G, ‘México en América Latina: entre el norte y el sur o el difícil juego del equilibrista’, Lagos R (ed.) América Latina: ¿Integración o Fragmentación? Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2008, p. 115.

88. González G, ‘México en América Latina: entre el norte y el sur o el difícil juego del equilibrista’, Lagos R (ed.) América Latina: ¿Integración o Fragmentación? Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2008, pp. 114.

89. Cosío Villegas, D. ‘Vida azarosa de la Doctrina Estrada’, Problemas con América en México, Clío/El Colegio Nacional, 1997, p. 341.

90. González G, ‘México en América Latina: entre el norte y el sur o el difícil juego del equilibrista’, Lagos R (ed.) América Latina: ¿Integración o Fragmentación? Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2008, pp. 137.

91. González G, ‘México en América Latina: entre el norte y el sur o el difícil juego del equilibrista’, Lagos R (ed.) América Latina: ¿Integración o Fragmentación? Buenos Aires: Edhasa, 2008, p. 139.

92. Pellicer O, ‘Balance y Perspectivas de la política exterior de México 2006–2012’, Ciudad de México, El Colegio de México, 2014, p. 494.

93. Pellicer O, ‘Mexico – A reluctant middle power?’, Briefing Papers. Ciudad de México, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, June 2006, p. 4.

94. González G, J Schiavon & D Crow, Las Américas y el Mundo 2010–2011, Opinión pública y política exterior en Brasil, Colombia, Ecuador, México y Perú. Ciudad de México: CIDE, 2011, pp. 91–2.

95. Spektor M, ‘Brazil: Underlying ideas of regional policies’, in Flemes D (ed.) Regional Leadership in the Global System: Ideas, Interests and Strategies of Regional Powers. Farnham: Ashgate, 2010, p. 192.