Mexico and the responsibility to protect: from non-intervention to active engagement.

The United Nations (UN) member states' support for the responsibility to protect (R2P) norm is arranged within a spectrum that spans from those who are detractors of the concept to those who have taken a proactive position and, as such, have assembled a Group of Friends. There have been countries that have moved from the former category to the latter and Mexico is one of them. In 1999, its position regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombings against Serbia was based on a very strict interpretation of the non-intervention principle, however, it has recently become a committed member of the Group of Friends of the R2P norm. Therefore the question that arises is: what were the conditions that made possible this shift? The argument proposed in this article is that the transition to democracy brought changes in Mexico's foreign policy in general, and towards human rights -specifically to mass atrocities- in particular. However, this does not mean that Mexico has embraced the "three-pillar" strategy proposed by the Secretary-General (SG) in his report Implementing the responsibility to protect uncritically and in a vacuum. In order to understand Mexico's position towards R2P it is indispensable to contextualize the foreign policy shift experienced since the end of the 1990s in the framework of other Mexican experiences in foreign policy. These include, amongst others, an active role in the search of a lasting peace for the protracted conflicts in Central America, and a pattern of interventions by the United States in the region. Thus, it is safe to say that the recent changes in foreign policy, including the position towards R2P, are limited or bolstered by previous events. Additionally, this piece will also suggest that there is a domestic limit to the active role of Mexico in the promotion of this norm, namely, the battle against drug-trafficking. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]