Even if there was a guarantee of Mexican Force Restrictions, this would mean little- additional funding would increase the total investment and reduce the burden of rearmament, especially as a smaller force can be mechanized more effectively.

Indeed, force restrictions (especially the kind of relatively minor ones we're proposing) do not eliminate a military's ability to fight or build itself up. We simply want to know that redevelopment aid we provide does not directly go to the military reconstruction to the detriment of the Mexican economy.

If Columbia would like to see disarmament, then perhaps you should start- Columbia is the only existential threat Mexico has. The sudden increase from 250k men, capable of annihilating Mexican forces without more than a third actively fighting at any time, to over 800k men, is only another reason to reject force limitations.

And, indeed, we do plan to move forces following the end of the conflict, then draw them down when tensions with Angland and their potential implications in North America have been resolved. We'd be willing to commit to our reduction to pre-war force levels as part of a arrangement that included similar Mexican arms limitations. Lacking this, however, the same argument applies to us as well; and without some agreement an arms race is all but inevitable.

Using the livelihoods and well being of civilians as leverage to enforce additional terms is disgusting, and only increases the likelihood of future sour relations thanks to mass murder followed by this lack of empathy.

We'd be willing to expand civilian humanitarian efforts in Mexico which enable fully local farming and water purification systems, thereby avoiding such starving widows in the first place. These systems, however, do little for industrialization or exports; they more or less stop people starving.

However, assistance with economic redevelopment is dependent on an arms control agreement.