Throughout its history, Mexico has had an ambivalent love-hate relationship with its northern neighbor. “Nationalist rhetoric continuously highlights the loss of one-half of Mexico’s territory and natural resources to the United States in the 1800s. Even at times when United States-Mexican relations have been at their best, this loss is still present in Mexican rhetoric.
During the Rio Group summit in September 1994, for example, President Salinas commented on the United Nations-sponsored United States intervention in Haiti, “Having suffered an external intervention by the United States, in which we lost more than half of our territory, Mexico cannot accept any proposal for intervention by any nation of the region. “(Library of Congress) The department of state calls it rhetoric but Mexico’s allegations of territory theft are quite in order according to international law that was applicable in the 19th century as it is today.
Since then the US have invaded other countries for different reasons and have violated constitutional rights of its own people but have maintained at least an appearance of legality and thank to the constitution and the legal system the people of the US have accomplished many civil freedoms that were constitutional but denied in practice. Since the 19th century, the relation of the two countries had its ups and downs. The immigration problem gets worse every day while the two governments try and cope with many problems in the economic field.
On 17 December 2008, Mexico requested consultations with the United States concerning the mandatory country of origin labeling (COOL) provisions in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended by the Farm, Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, and as implemented through the regulations published as 7 CFR Parts 60 and 65. According to Mexico, in the case of certain products, the determination of their nationality deviates considerably form international country of origin labeling standards, a situation which has not been justified as necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective.
(WTO) The US incentive is due to the fact that the Obama administration is trying to push forward a safer food labeling method, specially due to the fact that many Chinese unsafe products pass by, but this directly affects Mexico and violates an agreement that is confirmed by the WTO and as such must be upheld as much as the international law should. Therefore those that are critic of US policies in Mexico and the rest of the world say that this is another trick by the US in order to bend and/or avoid an obligation that is specified by the agreement.
On 30 December 2008, Canada requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, the United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Canada to join the consultations. (WTO) Nobody is really certain how and when this issue between the three North American countries will end but it is certain that the US, if they want to restore some of the respect that they had before the Bush Administration, must find a way to effectively protect their citizens from low quality foods while respecting all the international agreements.
Works Cited: U. S. Library of Congress, Relations with the United States, Mexico: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1996. WTO Website, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS386. United States — Certain Country of Origin Labeling Requirements. Retrieved from: http://www. wto. org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds386_e. htm