1
For the first time, since the collapse of the Argentine economy in 2002, it is now evident that
there are only two giants in Latin America, Brazil and Mexico. The two regional powers have
structural similarities: large populations, territorial density, massive poverty coexisting with high
concentrations of wealth, immense unprofessional armies, analogous economic indicators,
industrial capacity, and regional influence (Brazil in the Southern Cone of South America and
Mexico in Central America and the Caribbean.) Yet, Latin America’s giants practice very
different international roles and have dissimilar foreign policies. Nowhere are these differences
more evident than in the multilateral arena, where both Brazil and Mexico have followed very
different paths. For instance, Brazil has been very active in the United Nations, sending
peacekeeping forces to East Timor and Haiti and demanding a permanent seat in the Security
Council. Conversely, Mexico has been resistant to engage its armed forces in any international
operation under the UN flag and, since 2003, when it last occupy a non-permanent seat in the
Security Council, it has retrenched from world politics. In fact, Mexico, unlike Brazil, does not
aspire to have a permanent seat in the exclusive council, nor does it overtly reject Brazil’s
aspiration to be among a handful of chosen permanent members in the UN high security body.
What explains these differences? If the two countries have similar domestic conditions and face
analogous international constrains (US hegemony), what then explains their divergent policies in
security institutions, such as the UN?
A number of explanations are available in the international relations and comparative
politics literature. Indeed, three main explanations can be identified. First, an explanation based
on hegemonic theory would argue that Mexico’s choices have been influenced by the fact that it
is located in the shadow of the world’s richest and most powerful nation; thus constraining its
behavior in international fora, such as the UN. Brazil, in contrast, is less exposed to the
American hegemony, due to its geographic location and its highly diversified economy.
Convention