Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
points out, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the United States and Mexico re-
duced banditry on the border through binational cooperation. From 1881 to 1910, Mexican
president Porfirio Díaz joined with American presidents to jointly patrol the border. Mex-
ican
rurales
rode with Texas Rangers in pursuing the Comanche. In Arizona, Mexican and
American soldiers mounted joint campaigns against Apaches. Today, the job of thwarting
drug cartels in rugged and remote terrain in the mountains and steppe reaching back from
Ciudad Juárez is a job for the military, quietly assisting Mexican authorities, but the leg-
al framework for such cooperation does not exist, partly because of strict interpretation of
of billions of dollars to affect historical outcomes in Eurasia, we are curiously passive about
what is happening to a country with which we share a long land border, that verges on dis-
order, and whose population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Surely, one can argue that, with Herculean border controls, a functional and nationalist
America can coexist alongside a dysfunctional and partially chaotic Mexico. But that is
mainly true in the short run. In the long run, looking deep into the twenty-first century
and beyond, again, as Toynbee notes, a border between a highly developed society and a
less highly developed society will not attain an equilibrium, but will advance in the more
backward society's favor. In other words, the preservation of American nationalism to the
degree that would satisfy Huntington is unachievable unless Mexico reaches First World
status. And if Mexico does reach First World status, then it might become less of a threat,
and the melding of the two societies only quickens. Either way, because of the facts that
the map imposes, we are headed for a conjoining of Mexico and America in some form;
though, of course, the actions of policymakers on both sides of the border can determine on
what terms and under what circumstances that occurs. Here is Toynbee:
The erection of a [Roman]
limes
sets in motion a play of social forces which
is bound to end disastrously for the builders. A policy of non-intercourse with
the barbarians beyond is quite impracticable. Whatever the imperial government
may decide, the interests of traders, pioneers, adventurers, and so forth will inev-
itably draw them beyond the frontier.
34
Toynbee also writes that “a universal state is imposed by its founders, and accepted by
its subjects, as a panacea for the ills of a Time of Troubles.” He mentions “Middle Empire”
Egypt, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, Achaemenid Persia, the Seleucid Monarchy, the Ro-
man Peace, and the
Pax Hanica
in the Sinic world as all examples of essentially universal
states in which different peoples and confessions coexisted for mutual benefit. Rome, in
particular, mastered the vexing issue of dual loyalty, with citizenship of the world-city of
