- Group Four: countries with large militaries and economic development whose lack of participation puzzles the international peace operations community: Mexico. The special case: Viet-Nam.
Only two countries belong to Group Four—Mexico and Viet-Nam (as the special case). Viet-Nam is already in negotiations to engage in UN peace operations with the support of the UK, while Mexico is still hesitating about participating. In the case of Mexico, the main reason is its internal political environment reflected by its foreign policy. Mexico is militarily and technically capable of participating. Also, it enjoys a modest economic growth, and is considered one of the ‘giants’ of Latin America. High-level UN officials have spoken to members of congress, and even the EU Minister of Foreign Affairs has encouraged Mexico to engage more actively in international peace. Therefore, Mexico is perhaps the only country that has received much attention for not participating. As a result, Mexico’s lack of participation puzzles the international peace operations community.
In the case of the variables of the data collection process, both countries have a high level of participation in UN/UN peacekeeping policy reform. Perceptions of peacekeeping vary depending on the political wing, the sector of the society, and they have a heavy weight on the internal political issues. With regard to the domestic political environment, both are relatively new democracies, as a result, there are many political parties, and in the case of Mexico, the ideological fight between the “Vieja guardia” (old guard) versus “Nueva guardia” (new guard) is very strong. With regards to economic affairs, both countries are emerging economies with promising economic development, they have signed international trade treaties, and have a regional influence. With regards to military affairs, Mexico and Viet-Nam have large armies that satisfy DPKO requirements for deployment. In the case of Viet-Nam, its foreign policy is influenced by their candidacy to one of the non-permanent seats of the Security Council and the desire to play a greater role in international affairs; Mexico’s, in the other hand, is still heavily influenced by the USA on issues of immigration.
While climate change is an important part of their agendas, it is not a priority. DPKO has been in negotiations with both of them. But it has only produced positive results with Viet-Nam. Many challenges are faced for both countries. In the case of Mexico, the issue of sending troops has not been a seriously debated among the ministers of Defence, Marine, Interior, Foreign Affairs and the Executive. Thus, Mexico is still not addressing this is issue. In the case of Viet-Nam, the issue is having a better trained military force for UN peace operations deployment is already being addressed. On those regards, Viet-Nam is under negotiations with the UK to help then providing support and advice. Viet-Nam believes that this will strengthen its candidacy to one of the non-permanent seats of the Security Council.
The role of superpowers to encourage participation could be very important. In the case of Viet-Nam, with the UK; but in the case of Mexico, it would be difficult to accept the guidance of a superpower, for example, the USA. Most of the Mexican population will consider that its values are being violated if Mexico was involved militarily with the USA. As a result, Mexico will have a higher degree of success (and less political controversy) if another Latin American country (already engaged successfully in peace operations) accepts the role to guide Mexico in this quest.
International organizations can play an important role as well. For Mexico, the OAS; and in the case of Viet-Nam, the ASEAN. Both organizations have included the discussion and/or conduction of peacekeeping operations as part of their agendas, but both with little effect.
