"There is very little difference," he told international relations students at the Universidad Iberoamericana last Monday, "because the themes central to the U.S.Mexico relationship are now clearly placed on the table ? and the solutions continue to be the same." Unlike the past few U.S. presidential campaigns in which NAFTA and immigration played prominent roles, Mexico has rated barely a mention in this year's contest. In the first debate, Kerry quipped that "invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor." That bad joke was the only mention of Mexico.

Cognizant of the sizeable Latino communities to which they have to appeal, both candidates are trying to show they care about the Americas. Kerry issued a press release on the day following the first debate, acknowledging that Iraq had unfortunately overshadowed the countries closer to home. He highlighted the importance of those countries to the United States, and called for a new, caring "Community of the Americas."

"I will be a president who knows where Latin America is," he declared. He actually singled out Mexico, with whom relations, he said, would be a priority "in order to best address economic, environmental and social issues of mutual concern." Bush checked in a few days later, stressing his "Mexican roots": that he grew up in Texas, home to many Mexican-Americans; that he had a Mexican sister-in law; and that he was raised by a Mexican nanny whom he "learned to love as a second mother."

He could have probably added that while his own sense of geography may be hazy, his military commanders know very well "where Latin America is," having developed a national security policy called "Effective Sovereignty" that aids Latin America's militaries in gaining control of the "ungoverned spaces" urban as well as remote areas within their sovereign territories.

There is a worrisome meshing of civil and military roles here, both in Washington where the military has hands-on control of this program, and in the broader region, where militaries are once again encouraged to involve themselves in politics. A cogent report on this phenomenon on the Website of the Washington-based Center for International Policy, http://ciponline.org/facts/0410btl.htm, makes for sobering reading. The Kerry-Edwards team has yet to indicate whether a tough Effective Sovereignty program would play a role in a caring Community of the Americas.

Toughness is still an issue in this campaign: We can do anything, any time we want if it's in our interest, argues Bush. For Kerry, the U.S. has the right to intervene in the affairs of other countries, but should do so more intelligently, in accord with the good opinion of U.S. allies. Bush has ridiculed this as the "Kerry Doctrine," that we poll our allies before defending ourselves. The campaign has devolved into a debate over who is tough enough to manage the empire. On that score, Bush is the winner. But it is on the question of "who is intelligent enough" that Kerry is beginning to carry the day.

But he hasn't let go of the toughness. He says he will "reclaim and strengthen America's role as a global leader ? pursu[ing] policies based on a vision of an America truly stronger and truly respected in the world." In the context of Effective Sovereignty, this is worrisome for the Americas, even for stable Mexico.

The traditional issues, free trade and migration, haven't gone away. Though Kerry offers little new for U.S.-Mexico relations, he has promised to renegotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement with an eye toward adding some labor and environmental protections. That may be a sign that he acknowledges that markets cannot do it all. If so, it may be good news for future agreements with Mexico.

On immigration, Bush has been pushing a program of temporary work permits while Kerry has called for a program of documentation leading to citizenship. Linking immigration to security, they have both proposed versions of a North American Security Perimeter (Kerry's term), within which Mexico (and Canada) would be completely integrated.

Foreign Secretary Derbez is right: The negotiating agenda on free trade and migration remains the same no matter who wins the U.S. election. But for Mexicans worried about the blind imperial reach of this U.S. administration and the effects it may have on Mexico there are plenty of reasons to root for a winner.

Fred Rosen frosen@terra.com.mx