The United States-Iraq War and Mexican Public Opinion

Abstract

This article analyzes a relationship that has not been carefully studied in literature on US-Mexico relations: link between Mexican public opinion and Mexico's foreign policy.The article has three sections. In first, I discuss antithetic theoretical visions of institutional liberalism and realism in terms of linkage between public opinion and foreign policy. After a brief review of debate, I propose a hypothesis, based on Gabriel Almond's and Walter Lippmann's studies about relationship between foreign policy and public opinion.1 The second section is a study of evolution of perceptions in Mexican public opinion about war on Iraq, based on six national opinion polls. The first of these was carried out on 20 January 2003, before war began, and other five took place between 20 March and 11 April 2003. In final section, I draw some conclusions about hypothesis and role of Mexican public opinion in foreign policy.INSTITUTIONAL LIBERALISM AND REALISMThe liberal institutionalist tradition can be traced back to Kant, who argues in Perpetual Peace that in a republican constitutionthe assent of every citizen is necessary to decide question, Whether war shall be declared or not. But to decree war, would be to citizen to decree against themselves all calamities of war, such as fighting in person, furnishing from their own means towards expense of war; painfully to repair devastations it occasions; and, to fill up measure of evils, load upon themselves weight of a national debt, that would embitter even peace itself, and which on account of constant new wars, can never be liquidated. They will certainly beware of plunging into an enterprise so hazardous. Whereas, in a constitution wherein subjects are not citizens of state, that is to say, a constitution not republican, a declaration of war is a most easy matter to resolve upon, as it does not require of chief, proprietor and not member of state, least sacrifice of his pleasures, either of table, chase, country.... He may therefore resolve on war as on a party of pleasure, for reasons most frivolous, and with perfect indifference leave justification of same, which decency requires, to diplomatic corps, who are ever ready to undertake it.2From argument, several contemporary authors have established a thesis about peace between democracies. According to Jack Levy, the absence of war between democracies is closest thing that we have in international relations to a law.3 Along these same lines, Bruce Russett argues that this is one of most powerful generalizations, not trivial or tautological, that can be made about international relations.4 The idea that theory is one of most significant in international relations is not accepted by everyone. By contrast, for example, Christopher Layne and David E. Spiro have written critical articles against democratic peace thesis.5Without entering that controversy, a central part of argument is that democracies have a tendency to be more peaceful with other democracies due to, inter alia, force of public opinion in formation of foreign policy. The assumption is that democratic nature of a regime limits bellicosity of its leaders. However, proposed peaceful nature of democracies has very clear limits in situations where they face a nondemocratic regime and is reason Woodrow Wilson and other liberals emphasize process of democratization in international relations as a pathway to international peace.The link between public opinion and foreign policy is clear in liberal institutionalism. In words of Elihu Root,When foreign offices were ruled by autocracies or oligarchies danger of war was in sinister purpose. When foreign affairs are ruled by democracies danger of war will be in mistaken beliefs. …