How a 176-year-old treaty became the foundation of the strongest global rebuke of American interventionism in decades.

By: Omar Silva I Editor/Publisher

National Perspective Belize I Digital 2025

www.nationalperspectivebz.com

Belize City:  Tuesday 2nd December 2025

I. Introduction: The Treaty That Never Died

In 1848, when Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it was not a diplomatic negotiation; it was an armistice imposed under military occupation.

The treaty ended the U.S.–Mexican War and forced Mexico to surrender roughly 55% of its national territory — from California to New Mexico, from Arizona to Colorado.

The United States called it expansion.

Mexico called it dispossession.

History calls it conquest by force.

Nearly two centuries later, Mexico revived the principles embedded in that historic trauma — not the territorial claims, but the doctrine of sovereignty and the illegitimacy of territorial imposition by powerful states — and brought them before the United Nations.

The result?

**120 nations stood with Mexico.

Only five — all from the Anglosphere — stood against.**

It was one of the clearest global votes against unilateral U.S. power since the Iraq War.

II. What Mexico Brought to the UN: A Legal and Historical Masterstroke

Mexico did not ask the UN to renegotiate Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Mexico argued that:

1. The 1848 invasion and territorial seizure is a textbook case of why the UN Charter exists.

• A powerful state invading a weaker state
• Imposing new borders
• Dictating sovereignty
• Using military strength to rewrite geography

This is precisely what Article 2(4) of the UN Charter forbids:

“The threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

2. Mexico invoked the treaty to demonstrate the dangers of “unilateral military doctrines.”

Specifically, the U.S. doctrine of:

• “Unwilling or Unable”—allowing the U.S. to use military force inside another country without its consent if it claims that country is “unwilling or unable” to stop a threat.

Mexico told the UN:

“This doctrine can justify what was done to us in 1846–1848.

It is incompatible with international law and the UN Charter.”

3. Mexico anchored its argument in the global experience of colonialism.

Most nations — especially in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia — know what it means when powerful states:

• redraw borders,
• intervene under pretexts,
• impose political outcomes,
• violate sovereignty.

Guadalupe Hidalgo became the symbol of that history.

4. Mexico framed the issue as global, not bilateral.

Mexico declared:

“If you accept the U.S. right to intervene in Mexico today,

you accept the right of any powerful country to intervene

in any weaker country tomorrow.”

This is why so many nations immediately sided with Mexico.

III. The Vote: 120 Nations vs. the Anglosphere

Mexico won overwhelming support.

In favour (120 nations):

• All of CELAC (Latin America & the Caribbean)
• All of Africa
• Nearly all of Asia
• Most of the Middle East
• The Non-Aligned Movement

Against (5 nations):

• United States
• United Kingdom
• Canada
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Abstentions: several European states

This exact pattern — Global South vs. Anglosphere — reflects more than a vote.

It reflects a shift in the world order.

The countries that once justified:

• colonial expansion
• territorial acquisition
• unilateral intervention
• regime change
• gunboat diplomacy
• extraterritorial exceptions

were alone, isolated, outvoted, and morally cornered.

IV. Why the World Sided with Mexico

1. Anti-colonial memory

Most UN members gained independence after 1945.

Their borders, sovereignty, and political identity were shaped by:

• colonial wars,
• forced treaties,
• resource extraction,
• racial hierarchy,
• military interventions.

Mexico’s message resonated deeply:

“Sovereignty must never again be conditional or negotiable.”

2. Rejection of American exceptionalism

For decades, the U.S. has claimed a “unique right” to:

• invade (Iraq, Panama, Dominican Republic)
• bomb without consent (Pakistan, Yemen)
• sanction extraterritorially (Cuba, Venezuela)
• operate drone programs in sovereign airspace
• conduct covert operations in Latin America

Mexico told the UN:

“No country, no matter how powerful, should rise above the law.”

The world agreed.

3. Fear of the “unwilling/unable” doctrine

This doctrine is the biggest threat to modern sovereignty because it allows:

• U.S. military operations in Mexico
• France in the Sahel
• Turkey in Syria
• Russia in former republics
• India in Pakistan
• China in Southeast Asia

It turns the UN system into a menu of exceptions for powerful states.

4. CELAC sees intervention as a hemispheric threat

Latin America unanimously supported Mexico because:

• the Monroe Doctrine still haunts the region
• U.S. covert interventions have shaped every modern Latin American history
• external militarization is always tied to economic exploitation

Mexico’s argument protected not only Mexico — but the whole continent.

5. Africa saw its own history in Mexico’s

Africa’s borders were born from:

• Berlin Conference
• colonial partition
• forced treaties
• racist territorial engineering

African states recognized Guadalupe Hidalgo instantly:

“This happened to us too.”

V. The Historical Continuity: American Hegemony Since 1848

1846–1848: Invasion of Mexico → Territorial Empire

U.S. expansion to the Pacific was justified through:

• Manifest Destiny
• racial hierarchy
• “civilizing mission”
• “restoring order”
• “protecting American settlers”

These same narratives later justified:

1898–1934: “Banana Republic” interventions

U.S. invasions and occupations in:

• Cuba
• Puerto Rico
• Panama
• Nicaragua
• Haiti
• Dominican Republic

1947–1991: Cold War excuse

Latin America became ground zero for:

• CIA-backed coups (Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, Argentina)
• anti-communist dictatorships
• military juntas
• death squads

1991–2022: War on Drugs & War on Terror

The doctrines of:

• “national security”,
• “pre-emption”,
• “counter-narcotics”,
• “counter-terrorism”

all allowed unilateral U.S. operations.

2023–2025: Renewed threats of U.S. intervention in Mexico

American politicians openly called for:

• U.S. military strikes in Mexico
• bombing cartel targets
• labeling cartels as “terrorist organizations”

This is why Mexico went to the UN.

This is why the world listened.

VI. Mexico’s Diplomatic Mindset: The Estrada Doctrine Meets Global Law

Mexico has one of the most consistent sovereignty doctrines on earth:

1. Estrada Doctrine (1930)

Non-intervention

Self-determination

Peaceful dispute settlement

Respect for sovereignty

2. Mexican Constitution (Art. 89: Foreign Policy)

Foreign policy must be based on:

peaceful relations

legal equality of states

non-intervention

peaceful dispute resolution

proscription of military force

3. Mexico used its own history as legal evidence.

It said:

“If the world had a UN Charter in 1848,

the invasion of Mexico would have been illegal.

The world must not allow such doctrines to return.”

This argument was unimpeachable.

It was grounded in:

• history,
• law,
• morality,
• and collective memory.

Thus, 120 nations stood with Mexico.

**VII. The Diplomatic Outcome:

A Global Rejection of U.S. Hegemony**

A. The Anglosphere was isolated.

Five nations — all English-speaking, all historically tied to empire — stood alone.

This was symbolic.

It showed:

• the decline of Western diplomatic authority
• the rise of the Global South
• the collapse of U.S. moral leadership

B. Mexico emerged as a global moral voice.

For the first time in decades, Mexico positioned itself as:

• leader of Latin America
• defender of international law
• guardian of sovereignty
• voice of historical justice
• bridge between continents

C. The vote signals a new geopolitical era.

Not bipolar (U.S. vs China)

Not unipolar (U.S.-led)

But:

MULTIPOLAR SOVEREIGN INTERNATIONALISM

Mexico’s victory at the UN was not a diplomatic event.

It was a civilizational moment.

VIII. Conclusion: The Treaty That Became a Warning to the World

Mexico took a treaty from 1848 — a document born of invasion, coercion, and loss — and used it to build one of the strongest global legal arguments against unilateral hegemony in modern history.

The world said:

“What was done to Mexico in 1848

must not be permitted in our century.”

Mexico turned historic pain into modern global leadership.

And the nations of the world agreed.