By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday Page A32

MEXICO CITY, Sept. 20 -- Two weeks ago, President Bush stood on the White House lawn and told the arriving Mexican president, Vicente Fox, that the United
States has "no more important relationship in the world than the one we have with Mexico." Now, as America readies for an anti-terrorism campaign and Bush's
agenda is filled top to bottom with security matters, the ringing statements of friendship with Mexico suddenly seem like nostalgia.

Immigration reform, once the hottest topic in Mexico City, now seems like a debate that could happen only in the luxury of peacetime. It has been put on hold as the
United States focuses on its response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. And Mexico, like many U.S. allies, is trying to adjust to a new
relationship.

That has meant a wrenching national debate here about how to support the widely expected U.S. military response. The argument pits Fox and those who want
Mexico to be an active player, standing with Washington, against those who hew to Mexico's traditional position that its national interests are contained within its
borders.

"Some voices are saying that this is not our battle, that Mexico should remain at a distance and not take sides," said Andres Rozental, a former ambassador to the
United Nations. "For me, Mexico has little choice. U.S. public opinion, government, society have said, 'You're either my friend or my enemy; you're either with me
or against me.' . . . And I say we have to be with them."

Rozental, who remains a high-ranking diplomat, represented Mexico at this week's meetings of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Washington. Yet, in
an indication of how sensitive the issue is here, Rozental stressed that he was speaking as a private citizen, not a government official.

The Mexican government, with Fox, Foreign Minister Jorge Castaneda and Congress out front, has offered strong words of support. Mexico also voted with other
OAS members on Wednesday to activate a hemispheric mutual defense treaty, but not without some squirming.

In a speech at the OAS just before the Sept. 11 attacks, Fox said he thought that the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, known as the Rio Treaty,
was "obsolete and useless" and suggested that Mexico would probably pull out of it. But Castaneda said in an interview that Mexico joined the vote to invoke the
treaty, despite its misgivings, at the request of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and because it was so important to the United States.

The Foreign Ministry took out full-page ads in local newspapers to outline the government's position. The statement was careful to note Mexico's doubts about the
Rio Treaty -- to be consistent with Fox's speech -- and to say that Mexico supports it anyway -- to accommodate Washington. That juggling act is typical of the fine
line that Fox's government is trying to walk, supporting Bush without explicitly endorsing military force in a country that has a long history of non-intervention in
conflicts beyond its borders.

"Mexico's vital interests are not at stake in Afghanistan," wrote columnist Augustin Gutierrez Canet in El Universal newspaper.

Shortly after the attacks, Castaneda told Congress that the United States had every right to seek "reprisals." He said Mexico should support Washington or risk
having the United States hold it against Mexico "for not having been with them during very difficult moments."

The comments set off a barrage of criticism, illustrated by the headline on a column by one of Mexico's leading political analysts: "The secretary wants to see blood."
Castaneda was blasted by critics, many from Mexico's intellectual left, who traditionally equate cooperation with the United States with serving Big Brother. Several
have demanded the foreign minister's resignation.

Since then, Mexican officials have been careful to say that while Mexico strongly supports Washington, it always prefers diplomatic solutions. They also have been
careful to say that the participation of Mexican troops in any military action has not been requested and would never be considered.

"We absolutely feel more comfortable if the United States moves within the framework of the United Nations or other multilateral organizations," said one
high-ranking official in Fox's government. "President Fox feels very strongly that the United States has been terribly attacked in a way that can't be ignored. But we
must find a way for this to be handled within the framework of our traditions."

Since taking office in December, Fox has pledged to make Mexico more of a player on the world stage and has aggressively pursued a seat for his country on the
U.N. Security Council. The current crisis is the first real test of whether Fox can rally Mexico out of the past. So far, it is proving to be difficult.

"It's a tremendous dilemma for Mexico," said Delal Baer, a Mexico specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "If Mexico wants
to play a leading role on the global stage, it's got to face some ugly realities."

Baer said Mexico will have to come to terms with the reality that not all conflicts can be solved by negotiation. And she said Mexico will have to overcome critics
who still adhere to "the old psychology equating cooperation with the United States as submission to it."

Suspicion about the United States is deeply rooted in Mexico, dating to the mid-1800s when, the Mexican view holds, the United States stole territory stretching
from Texas to Oregon. It grew over the last 150 years as the United States evolved into an economic giant and global leader while Mexico, mired in poverty and
corruption, largely ignored world events and kept its focus at home.

Fox's attempt to break out of that thinking has made some Mexicans uncomfortable, most notably legislators from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI,
which controlled Mexico for 71 years until Fox took office. Many still believe Mexico should not become so involved in issues abroad.

In a panel discussion this week at Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico (ITAM), students listened silently as panelists including Rozental and Jorge
Montano, a former ambassador to the United States, outlined their views that Mexico must support the United States because of the two countries' close economic,
political, geographic and security links.

"Mexico can't bury its head in the sand, because the safety and integrity of Mexico depends on the United States making the right decisions and vice versa," said Ana
Maria Salazar, a Mexican American who was a high-ranking defense official in the Clinton administration and now teaches at ITAM.

Salazar, whose old office in the Pentagon was destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack, said that although immigration reform has slipped on the list of priorities, Mexico
now has the opportunity to cooperate with Washington in new ways on border security.

The students remained silent. But when an ITAM professor said that the United States was a bully that didn't deserve Mexico's support, they burst into sustained
applause. Afterward, Rozental said the students' sentiments reflected the collective "weight of history" in Mexico. "This historical baggage, if we continue to abide by
it, will get us nowhere," he said.

                                               © 2001 The Washington Post Company