Take Mexico Instead

The way most Arab writers and commentators spoke of the Anglo-American war against Iraq one might almost have thought that it was a gift from heaven, so well did it fit with their views on the nature of the current global order and their belief that the Arab nation is being pushed into a corner by mighty and devious powers. In invading and occupying Iraq, so their premise goes, America has revived traditional colonial expansionism, in part, at least, in order to make a grab for Iraq's vast resources, most notably its oil.

Unfortunately, the claim is marred by a number of logical inconsistencies. If the US had embarked on a project of colonial expansion in accordance with 19th century traditions it should rather have invaded Mexico, lying just to the south. US forces could enter the country at any point along the 3,141-kilometre border, which certainly seems easier than transporting 200,000 soldiers plus equipment across the seas to Iraq.

If the US had invaded Mexico, perhaps few would blame it. On the one hand, its colonial project for 2003 would have been regarded as a completion of what it had in fact begun in the 19th century, when, during the American-Mexican war of 1848, it invaded and seized Mexican territories in what are present-day Texas and California. At the same time it would also have been regarded as little more than an extension of America's movement of territorial expansion, the evidence of which can still be seen in the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Guam, Jarvis, Midway and other lands near, or adjacent, to the US mainland, which in less than two centuries had grown from 13 to 50 states, making it the third largest country in the world after Russia and Canada. On the other hand, Mexico, at least according to some Americans, presents a permanent threat to US national security. Mexican history books harp incessantly on American expansion into Mexico.

Somewhat more tangibly, Mexico is a crossing point for, and sometimes a producer of, narcotics, such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana, various designer drugs and hallucinogens that may be the cause of death for many Americans every year. Nor will the Americans forget that Mexico is the biggest centre of money laundering for ill-gotten profits made in the US. Or that Mexico refused to vote in Washington's favour in the lead up to the war against Iraq, in spite of the many incentives offered, such as the readiness to facilitate the immigration to the US of class-A Mexicans, and a sincere willingness to import unlimited tonnes of fajitas, guacamole, chili and tacos.

Your average colonial power, history has shown, does not have to justify its actions. However, by all economic standards, an American invasion of Mexico would not only be far less costly, due to geographical proximity and the fact that Mexican armed forces are less numerous and less equipped than Iraqi forces were even after the 1991 Gulf War and more than a decade of sanctions, and would probably perform no better or worse than their Iraqi counterparts. At the same time, the conquest of Mexico offers a far greater prize than Iraq. With an area of two million square kilometres -- four times that of Iraq -- Mexico straddles the Atlantic and Pacific. Unlike Iraq, which has one narrow waterway to the sea in Shatt Al-Arab, Mexico has 9,330 kilometres of coastline and numerous ports, not to mention enchanting cities of the likes of Cancun and Acapulco in which people live free of the direct or indirect scrutiny of Islamist movements of both the armed and unarmed varieties.

If Iraq is an oil producer, so too is Mexico, which, in addition, has huge quantities of silver, gold, copper, lead, zinc and natural gas. While it may be argued that Iraq's petroleum reserves are far vaster than those of Mexico, the crucial issue is that as a traditional colonising power, the US would be taking that oil for itself and not guarding it on behalf of the world. Then, should Mexico's reserves prove insufficient for the next five decades, the US can always invade nearby Venezuela and meet its oil needs for the entire century. More importantly, Mexico is a much wealthier country than Iraq. Its GDP of $400 billion equals two-thirds of the GDP of the Arab countries combined, regardless of whether their systems of government are revolutionary, conservative or otherwise. It also has quite a respectable consumer market, with 90 per cent of the population having attained at least an elementary school education and a per capita purchasing power of $9,000.

If Washington invaded Iraq simply because it could, because the military, economic and technological balances were weighted so heavily in America's favour, the same would be the case with Mexico. The US is five times larger than its southern neighbour, its population is 280 million versus 103 million, and it spends some $355 billion a year on its armed forces in direct allocations as opposed to Mexico's paltry $4 billion. With such odds, a US victory over Mexico would be a foregone conclusion. If the war against Iraq took three weeks, an American-Mexican war would probably take even less time, and promise greater rewards at the end.

So was it a cultural and religious divide that prompted the US invasion of Iraq? But then the same could be said of Mexico. The Americans are primarily of European origin, the Mexicans deeply rooted in an ancient Aztec culture. There are obvious differences in language and culture. Spanish is a Latin language and the Spanish spoken in Mexico has been heavily fortified with picante native spices. Only a colonial enterprise could narrow the cultural distance between the two countries and render the Mexican language as palatable to American tastes as Mexican cuisine, after it had been watered down and tamed to the American tongue.

One would think, then, that a colonialist adventure against Mexico would have a great allure. The country has enormous riches and the people are infatuated with the US. So, as long as Mexicans want to go to America, might it not be better for all to bring America to them?

Apparently, however, the matter is not so simple. Since the end of the Mexican-American war in 1848, the question of borders has been settled. The Americans were not willing to spread their empire to the Hispanic race and allow it, over time, to become the majority. As their detractors would have it, they wanted to keep their country a preserve for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. However, if that is the case, why go to Iraq which Saddam had stripped of all vestiges of any Anglo-Saxon connection? Or better yet, why not go to Canada with its population that is overwhelmingly of Anglo Saxon origin? If Mexico would lead America to the hotter climes of the south, Canada would take it to the frigid polar circle and, more importantly, connect the US to Alaska and end once and for all that geographic division of the US mainland.

Perhaps a more tempting reason for the US to invade Canada lies in an old cause for a vendetta. In 1812, the Franco-British contest over Europe jeopardised neutral American trans-Atlantic commerce. Closer to home, some 40,000 Americans, loyal to the British crown and opposed to independence, had rallied in Canada where they prepared for the promised day when America would be restored to the reunited British Empire. Because of this immediate threat to American national security, Washington declared war on Britain on 18 June. As B-52s had not yet been invented, US forces moved by land into Canada, then still a British colony, in an attempt, firstly, to break the British hold on the North American continent and, secondly, to expand northwards, now, after two decades of western and southern expansion. Perhaps, too, the invasion aimed to destroy the American opposition that had taken Canada as its base. In all events, the invasion proved an enormous disaster. The Canadians were not prepared to abandon their allegiance to the British crown and the British crown was not prepared to lose any more of its colonies in North America. The British-Canadian reply was swift, massive and decisive. After destroying the entire American fleet, imperial forces drove the Americans out of Canada and even further southwards, and, moreover, laid siege to Washington and burned it to the ground. Those who believe that Bin Laden was the first to attack the US capital, by bombing the Pentagon, are mistaken. He was preceded by almost 200 years by the British and Canadians.

The Americans have never avenged themselves for that defeat. True, the Canadians fought on their side in all subsequent wars on the European continent. However, that alone does not furnish solid proof that Canada is friendly territory, especially given that Quebec had not joined the Anglo-Saxon alliance against Iraq. At the same time, revenge does not a colonialist project make. If the US was prepared to transport its forces thousands of miles in order to colonise Iraq, why not just move them northwards across its border with Canada, which can be easily penetrated from any point? If Iraq's mere 400,000 square kilometres were tempting, what about Canada's 10 million, which make it the second largest country in the world and 20 times larger than Iraq? And, whatever might be said about the sea of oil Iraq is sitting on, apart from that it possesses nothing but dates. Canada, on the other hand, in addition to large quantities of oil and natural gas, is also sitting on a lengthy list of other sources of natural wealth: iron, nickel, copper, gold, silver, coal and abundant fish. It also possesses an educated population, estimated at 31 million, who speak English fluently and many of whom also speak French fluently. More importantly, the GDP, in terms of purchasing power, stands at $933 billion -- $200 billion more than the GDP of Arab countries put together -- and the average per capita income is $29,400.

What greater incentives did the US need to invade Canada instead of Iraq? Certainly, too, Washington would not have to fear a renewed British intervention on the side of Canada, especially now that London is so ready and willing to ally itself with Washington on all issues and in all wars. Nor is the Americans' reluctance to advance their armies to the North Pole and patrol Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver due to fear of Canadian reprisals or of its possession of weapons of mass destruction. Again, the strategic balances of power are weighted in Washington's favour. The disparity is not only to be seen in military allocations -- 1.1 per cent of the Canadian GNP versus 3.5 per cent of the US GNP, or $7.7 billion versus $350 billion -- but also in the relative size of their armed forces: 750,000 troops versus America's 1.4 million.

What has been holding America back all this time? Why has it not invaded and occupied Canada, taken control of all its resources, avenged itself of that ignominious defeat of 1814 and, in the bargain, solved all those problems with regard to fishing rights which the Canadians keep harping on about? Such questions and others had not occurred to those Arabs who are fond of theorising about the revival of old-fashion colonialism.