Why the U.S. Supports Russian Reunification but Not the Return of Mexican Land

Introduction to US Foreign Policy

Foreign policy is a complex and multifaceted issue that involves the relationship between a nation and other nations or international entities. Two prominent examples that often come to the forefront are the U.S. stance on returning Texas and other Mexican land to Mexico and its support for the reunification of Russian territory, such as Crimea. While the U.S. government currently does not advocate for the return of US-gained territories to Mexico, it does support the peaceful reunification of Crimea with Russia if Ukraine agrees. This article will explore why these positions exist and the underlying reasons behind them.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Historical Context

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed on February 2, 1848, formally ended the Mexican–American War. Through this treaty, the U.S. gained control over vast territories that are now the states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and parts of Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma. This land was obtained through a mutually agreed upon treaty by both parties. Currently, Mexico does not claim these territories and is unlikely to do so. The U.S. has effectively gained control of these lands through international recognition, legal treaties, and Mexican acceptance of the treaty terms.

Russian Annexation of Crimea: An Unjust Invasion

In 2014, the Russian Federation annexed Crimea from Ukraine through a dubious referendum that violated international rules and treaties. Unlike the case with Mexican land, Russia's action was not a peaceful reunification but an illegal invasion. The U.S. and its allies strongly oppose this annexation, and Ukraine still claims Crimea as an autonomous republic. Only a few countries, such as North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Sudan, have supported Russia's actions, making it an isolated stance in the international community.

Why the U.S. Does Not Support the Return of Mexican Land

The U.S. government does not support the return of its citizens and territories to Mexico for several reasons. First, the acquisition of these lands was through a treaty that both parties agreed to. Second, the lands were ceded by Mexico, and it has never contested the sovereignty of the U.S. in these territories. The U.S. also won the rights to these lands fairly and square in the Mexican–American War. Lastly, historical context plays a significant role; in the 19th century, expansion was seen as a positive aspect of growth, whereas in the 21st century, territorial expansion is often viewed as destructive.

International Recognition and Sovereignty

Both cases of land acquisition highlight the importance of international recognition and sovereignty. In the U.S. case, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and Mexican acceptance of the 1848 treaty terms have solidified U.S. control over these territories. Similarly, the U.S. has maintained its control over Alaska and Florida, and while Russia has territorial disputes with other countries like Georgia and Ukraine, the international community generally recognizes the sovereignty of these lands.

Conclusion: Peaceful Reunification vs. Unilateral Acts

While the U.S. may support the reunification of Russia and Crimea, this support is predicated on the territory being annexed through peaceful means and with the agreement of the affected party. In the case of Mexican land, however, the U.S. maintains its legal and historical claim to these territories, which are currently under its control and recognized by international law. Therefore, the difference in U.S. policies reflects the importance of international recognition, peaceful negotiations, and respect for international laws and treaties.