HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Washington - 20 January 1979 - Number 1766 - The "No Cost" Approach

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Patrick

Hanson's Latin American letter from Washington dated 20 January 1979 argues that U.S.-Mexico policy rhetoric substitutes for substance in trade and energy relations. The text challenges the emphasis on the “price of gas” and exposes misconceptions about U.S. interests and Mexico’s response. It criticizes proposals such as big loans for handling illegal immigration, contrasts approach toward China, and contends that a “no-cost” deal is unacceptable and historically harmful.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

The “No Cost” Approach

U.S. rhetoric and the “price of gas”

Misconceptions and the limits of loans

Domestic politics, immigration concerns, and trade comparisons

HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER WASHINGTON 20 January 1979 Number 1766 Dear Sir; "It makes sense to say to Mexico: 'We dohave a unique relationship with you.Andtherefore it seems appropriate to give youa unique access to our market for yourgoods. Because of this unique relationship,we will therefore lower our barriers,to youragricultural and manufactured goods.!!...Congressman James H.Scheuer,Chairman,Select Committee on Population. U.S.Trade with Mexico in billions of dollars: U.S.Exports U.S.Imports There is a curious,perhaps unintentional,arrogance on the part of theTHE PRICE OFUnited States -whether press,or the public or the White House-as theGAS DOES NOTmeeting of President Carter with the President of Mexico approaches.TheDEFINE THEinterest of the United States is identified as the price of gas.And itINTEREST OFis assumed that this also defines the interest of Mexico.MEXICO Nothing could be more remote from reality.Nothing more competely de-monstrates the attempt to substitute rhetoric for substance,And therecould be no greater mistake than to believe that the Mexicans are so unsophisticatedas to accept this. Typically,the Washington Post,second most influential newspaper in theABSENCEUnited States,editorializes to the point that the identifiable issue toOFbe resolved by the two presidents is the price of gas.And it joins thisREALITYerror with another,namely,that "the lesson of Iran"is the demonstra-tion of the value of "peace and stability"in Mexico. But "the lesson of Iran"is that something more than immediate accelera-WHAT WAS THEtion of oil production so as to maximize returns from exports immediately"LESSON OFis required for "the peace and stability"that the United States nowIRAN?"seeks in oil-producing nations. And as Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson notes so well,the lesson of Iranis that "the simple thesis that progress mutes discontent simply will not wash."Andhe reminds us that the rise in real wages in Iran had been so spectacular as to beunmatched in American history. In the mounting concern with the illegal Mexican aliens entering theMISCONCEPTIONUnited States,there has been a single solution thrown up -big loans.ON THEBut quite correctly,the Select Committee on Population through itsTRADITIONALchairman has dismissed this traditional instrument of U.S.diplomacyINSTRUMENT OFas a total misconception in the present Mexican-American relationship.U.S.DIPLOMACYChairman Scheuer asked that we abandon this nonsense in favor of accept- ing the view that "you cannot talk to Mexicans about economic developmentwithout being willing to take some of the products of their development."For reasons of domestic politics,the White House has self-satisfiedly # THE "NO cOST" APPROACH insisted that rhetoric can make a no-cost-to-the-United States deal withMexico acceptable to the Mexicans,This is the same no-cost preachingthat has destroyed the U.S.energy position,almost destroyed the dollar,and createda world political situation even more dangerous than that of Cuban missile crisis days. Congressman Scheuer's thesis is that the Mexican-American relationshipTHERE IS Atoday requires on the part of the United States a price tag domestically,PRICE TAGa price tag admittedly enveloped in domestic politics,and that theDOMESTICALLYchallenge of the moment is to be frank with the American people,"toraise the consciousness of the American people and of the Congress tothe fact that there is a price tag or a cost tag(to use a better term)to any succesful resolution of difficulties involved in relationships with Mexico today."And that that price tag is "increasing access to the American market for Mexican agrí-cultural products and Mexican manufactured goods," It is,the Congressman goes on,at least an "identifiable price tag"and the adjective is important because the alternative is an uncontrollable flood ofimmigration illegally for which we would pay a terrible price,the exact proportionsof which we do no

FAQs

What does the letter claim is wrong with the U.S. approach to Mexico?

It argues that U.S. policymakers rely on rhetoric rather than substance, especially as President Carter approaches the Mexican president.

How does the letter describe the “price of gas” argument?

It says the “price of gas” is treated as the defining interest, but insists this identification with reality is mistaken.

What alternative to big loans does the letter emphasize?

It references Congressman Scheuer’s view that U.S. economic development discussions must be paired with willingness to accept products of Mexico’s development.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Patrick