Where Iraq is concerned, Mexico's foreign policy doesn't seem to please anyone in Mexico. Opposition groups here applaud President Vincente Fox's recent anti-American stance in the UN Security Council, while Mexican businessmen oppose it. With the US seeking to line up nine votes in the security council in favor of declaring Iraq in "material breach" of Security Council resolution 1441, Mexico's stance toward the US will become vital in the coming days and weeks.

But Mexicans themselves are divided about what to do. Some Mexicans congratulate President Fox for not caving in to US pressure to cast a vote in the Security Council for war, while others argue that he should. The debate over Iraq in Mexico reveals a deep divide between those who seek closer ties with the US, and those wary of that possibility.

These polarized positions reflect an uncomfortable reality. Almost a decade into a free trade agreement that institutionalized integration, most Mexicans still don't know how to behave toward Americans. They don't know whether to love them or hate them, support them or denounce them, foster a close relationship or remain distant neighbors. These opposing postures--and the pressures they bring to bear on President Fox--are place the country in the dilemma of either fighting against or kowtowing to its neighbor to the North.

At the same time, it is apparent that Mexico must redefine the bilateral relationship according to the country's specific needs and interests on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes Mexico should open the door to neighborly requests and sometimes it should refuse them. As in all close relationships, there will be ups and downs, issues that unite and issues that divide. Mexico and the US don't need to be the worst of enemies or the best of friends; they can just be neighbors.

In the Security Council vote on Resolution 1441, Mexico initially supported the French position, and ultimately contributed to moderating America's position. By opposing a resolution that was unacceptable, Mexico helped craft one that was acceptable. In distancing itself from the US, Mexico was able to reach out to the broader world. By rejecting a unilateral stance, Mexico enabled a multilateral outcome. In effect, Mexico told the US: "I can criticize you first, and help you later." However small, however limited, Mexico played a valuable role.

Indeed, Mexico is slowly learning how to carry out a dual task: to defend its national interests and also be part of the international community, to support the US at times and oppose it at others. Many Mexicans--and Americans--find this shift difficult to understand. What Octavio Paz once called Mexico's "labyrinth of solitude" toward the world beyond its borders was built on a sense of inferiority and a propensity for passivity. As he put it: "We are not secure people."

Where the wider world is concerned, this meant that Mexicans were too often afraid to act; they opted for stoicism and resignation instead of planning and action. For many years, Mexico avoided service on the Security Council, thinking that a seat there would entail many costs and few benefits. But Mexico today does have interests--including the price of oil--and being on the Security Council allows it to defend them.

Mexico should use its current position in the Security Council to send a message: the country has matured and its foreign policy has matured with it. If Mexico votes against a US-sponsored resolution pushing for the use of force in Iraq in the next several days, the US shouldn't interpret the decision as a knee-jerk nationalistic response, but rather as a reflection of Mexico's interests.

In this instance, Mexico prefers multilateralism to unilateralism, and peaceful disarmament over military might, because Mexico's interests diverge from those of the US. More broadly, the US must accept that times have changed and that Mexico cannot be simply classified as either an historic antagonist that has to be bought off or an unconditional ally that can be taken for granted.

Nor, of course, should the direction of Mexico's vote ultimately be determined by allegiance to an anti-American axis. Mexican foreign policy must not be driven by the resentments of the past but by the pursuit of concrete interests in the future.

Mexico should show that it is possible to be in favor of multilateralism without being against the US. Mexico has spent the last 150 years defining itself in opposition to America. Now the time has come to think differently. As a democratic state with an elected government, Mexico should feel self-confident enough to fight for its interests as they evolve, independently of American approval or disapproval.

That task is a difficult one, but it is unavoidable. As Paz warned: "We live, as the rest of the planet, a decisive and mortal moment, orphans of the past and with a future to invent."