Donald Trump wants to invade Mexico. Historian Edward Shawcross has some advice: don’t.

The Mexico Brief. 25 July 2024.

Photo credit: Sara Strathas.

Donald Trump told Fox News this week that he wants to take unilateral military action inside Mexico against organized crime groups. This is not a new policy from Trump: he has advanced the idea repeatedly over years. He even pushed for it while he was President, but was thwarted by his aides at the time. Now, however, he has support from his running mate, JD Vance, and the broader Republican Party. Enacting this idea would have catastrophic outcomes for both the US and Mexico, as former George W. Bush official David Frum outlined for The Atlantic last year.

As the adage goes, history doesn’t repeat but it rhymes. In 1862 Napoleon III launched a massive, years-long military intervention in Mexico against Benito Juárez’s ascendent liberal republicans. In doing so, Napoleon III attempted to install a monarchy with Maximilian, Archduke of Austria, as Mexico’s emperor. We caught up with British historian Edward Shawcross, whose acclaimed 2023 book The Last Emperor of Mexico details the disastrous, absurdist folly of Napoleon III’s military adventure in Mexico. Given the news, we thought Mr. Shawcross might have some advice for Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

“With recent calls for intervention, Trump seems to share the idea held by many 19th century imperialists that there is a quick military fix to the domestic problems in other nation’s. History suggests otherwise.”
— Edward Shawcross

The Mexico Brief: In your book, 19th century Mexico is portrayed as a battleground between great powers. Are there any similarities with between Mexico during Napoleon III's intervention and Mexico’s geopolitical position today?

Edward Shawcross: There are some similarities… but in some ways the picture in the 19th century was more complex. In the first decades after independence in 1821, there was still a strong Spanish influence, British capital and manufactured products dominated the economy, French culture and political ideas were influential. At the same time, the United States was becoming an increasingly important power with pretentions to regional hegemony. In the midst of these competing interests, Mexican politicians were trying to forge their own distinct national identity.

What transforms Mexico’s relationship to the European powers and United States was the Mexican-American War (1846-48). A disaster for Mexico, US troops occupied Mexico City and, as the price of peace, forced Mexico to sign away nearly half its national territory. Following on from the loss of Texas in 1836, this was a national trauma and humiliation in which European intervention in Mexico has to be understood. For some Mexican politicians, a French-backed monarchy seemed the only alternative to further US dominance or even annexation.

Today, of course, US hegemony is long established, but the similarity is that China can be seen as a counterweight to US supremacy. As in the 19th century, Mexico’s economy, resources and geopolitical situation make it an attractive option for China; however, as with France in the nineteenth century, it is important to be mindful that its own interests are paramount.

  • ES: Neither Maximilian nor Napoleon III did their due diligence. After defeat in civil war, exiles from the Mexican Conservative party spun a narrative that their opponents, Benito Juárez and the Liberal party, were a radical minority oppressing a silent majority of traditional Catholics. Not only were Maximilian and Napoleon III taken in by this, but they also thought that European intervention would be popular in Mexico. Despite warnings to the contrary, they believed what they wanted to believe, namely that the French and imperialistas – as Maximilian’s supporters were known – would be welcomed as liberators. Their views on Mexico were based on assumptions about the country – that it was fabulously wealthy, that it had been misgoverned, that its people would welcome monarchy – rather than meaningful research. There is so much they should have considered prior to intervening in the country, but above all they should have thought about what the Mexican people wanted.

    Trump’s rhetoric taps into prejudices and fears in the United States about Mexico and Mexicans. As with Napoleon III and Maximilian, this is not based on detailed knowledge and careful reflection (to put it mildly!), but rather common narratives and tropes on immigration, violence, drugs etc. With recent calls for intervention, Trump also seems to share the idea held by many a nineteenth-century imperialist that there is a quick military fix to the domestic problems in other nations. History would suggest otherwise.

  • ES: French leaders failed to understand three things. First the depth of support for Benito Juárez and the Mexican republic. The French were convinced that Juárez’s and the Mexican Liberal party had no real base in Mexico; however, most Mexicans rallied behind the president and the Republic. Second, that far from ‘regenerating’ Mexico, the term the French often used to explain what they were doing, the brutal counter-insurgency tactics they used against anyone suspected of helping Juárez bred hatred towards the French. Third, that military intervention and European expertise would easily solve problems in Mexico.

    All three can be seen in the GOP’s posturing towards Mexico. Insulting rhetoric, talk of military intervention and arrogant pronouncements on what Mexicans should do to improve their country – that all sounds very familiar. And as with the French in the 1860s, it will only create further disdain and contempt for those making the argument. In Mexico, of course, there is a long history of anti-Americanism and the GOP’s current posture will only exacerbate this.

  • ES: The simple message would be don’t! Most importantly, it results in terrible suffering, violence and human rights abuses. On top of that, history has shown, and not just the French intervention in the 1860s, but also US interventions during the Mexican Revolution, that using military power rarely achieves the policy goals of those undertaking it. After all, despite the wealth and power that France deployed to overthrow Benito Juárez and found a monarchy, the end result after five years fighting was the consolidation of the Mexican Republic at a terrible human cost, further impoverishing a poor nation.

    Or as the official government newspaper put it more colourfully after the execution of Maximilian in 1867, “the flag of France continues to be covered with filth and blood wherever it flies. The death of the archduke … must weigh heavily on the fraud who seeks to govern the world from the imperial throne of France.”

(Click the + to read more)