Monday, June 26, 2006
Challenges for a Postelection Mexico
Issues for U.S. Policy
Author: Pamela K. Starr
Council on Foreign Relations Press
June 2006
POSSIBLE MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICIES Of the three leading candidates for the presidency, PAN candidate Felipe Calderón is the least likely to make marked changes to Mexico’s current foreign policy approach. He would continue to prioritize national interests over policy principles, promote international trade, and participate actively in international institutions such as the UN Security Council. The difference Calderón would bring to foreign policy is one of tone. Unlike his predecessor, Calderón promises a Zedillo-like preference for close cooperation with the United States, but without a warm public embrace, and he is likely to renew Mexico’s courtship of its cultural cousins in Latin America. The PRI’s Roberto Madrazo calls for a return to Mexico’s historically nationalist and principled approach to foreign policy coupled with careful attention to the country’s fundamentally important relationship with the United States. Like Calderón, he would reprioritize Latin America in Mexican foreign policy, but would go further than Calderón and include improved ties with Cuba. A PRI administration would take Mexico out of the UN Security Council (but would otherwise continue Mexico’s active participation in international institutions), demand a revision of NAFTA’s agricultural chapter to prevent free trade in beans and corn, which is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2008, and end Mexico’s support for a free trade area of the Americas. His foreign policy promises to be a return to tradition, albeit adjusted to the realities of a new international context. The PRD’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador has shown little interest in foreign affairs. What drives him as a politician is a lifelong desire to improve the lot of Mexico’s poor. Since the solutions to this problem typically lie in the domestic realm, foreign policy would take a low profile. His foreign policy would be based on the principles of self-determination, nonintervention, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, but without aggressively promoting these principles. Mexico would withdraw from the UN Security Council and reduce its overall profile in international organizations. López Obrador is also very unlikely to embrace Hugo Chávez. To the contrary, he is the only Mexican presidential candidate in memory from the left who has not employed anti-American rhetoric. He is likely to normalize relations with Venezuela and Cuba in order to placate the supporters of Chávez and Castro within his party. But given the fundamental
17
importance of good relations with the United States to his domestic economic project, López Obrador will do little more. There is an exception to low-profile foreign policy, however: NAFTA. López Obrador has no interest in pulling Mexico out of NAFTA, but he does believe the treaty could be refined to better serve Mexican interests. He proposes expanding NAFTA to include a chapter on development assistance and promises to prevent the scheduled opening of the North American corn and bean market in 2008, due to the social and economic disruptions that it would cause in many rural communities. He would like to reopen discussions on trade in sugar, citrus, and brooms, and on land transport, and he is apt to use safeguards when required to protect Mexican national production. Although López Obrador is not a great fan of free trade treaties, he is unlikely to pull Mexico out of its existing trade agreements with the European Union, Japan, Chile, and other countries. But a López Obrador presidency is not likely to continue its predecessors’ support for a Free Trade Area for the Americas. Finally, López Obrador’s nationalism, his sensitivity to criticism, and his tendency to speak his mind freely will make him a prickly partner who is susceptible to perceived slights by the United States or its representatives, a historically common source of tension in the bilateral relationship
Author: Pamela K. Starr
Council on Foreign Relations Press
June 2006
POSSIBLE MEXICAN FOREIGN POLICIES Of the three leading candidates for the presidency, PAN candidate Felipe Calderón is the least likely to make marked changes to Mexico’s current foreign policy approach. He would continue to prioritize national interests over policy principles, promote international trade, and participate actively in international institutions such as the UN Security Council. The difference Calderón would bring to foreign policy is one of tone. Unlike his predecessor, Calderón promises a Zedillo-like preference for close cooperation with the United States, but without a warm public embrace, and he is likely to renew Mexico’s courtship of its cultural cousins in Latin America. The PRI’s Roberto Madrazo calls for a return to Mexico’s historically nationalist and principled approach to foreign policy coupled with careful attention to the country’s fundamentally important relationship with the United States. Like Calderón, he would reprioritize Latin America in Mexican foreign policy, but would go further than Calderón and include improved ties with Cuba. A PRI administration would take Mexico out of the UN Security Council (but would otherwise continue Mexico’s active participation in international institutions), demand a revision of NAFTA’s agricultural chapter to prevent free trade in beans and corn, which is scheduled to begin on January 1, 2008, and end Mexico’s support for a free trade area of the Americas. His foreign policy promises to be a return to tradition, albeit adjusted to the realities of a new international context. The PRD’s Andrés Manuel López Obrador has shown little interest in foreign affairs. What drives him as a politician is a lifelong desire to improve the lot of Mexico’s poor. Since the solutions to this problem typically lie in the domestic realm, foreign policy would take a low profile. His foreign policy would be based on the principles of self-determination, nonintervention, and the peaceful resolution of disputes, but without aggressively promoting these principles. Mexico would withdraw from the UN Security Council and reduce its overall profile in international organizations. López Obrador is also very unlikely to embrace Hugo Chávez. To the contrary, he is the only Mexican presidential candidate in memory from the left who has not employed anti-American rhetoric. He is likely to normalize relations with Venezuela and Cuba in order to placate the supporters of Chávez and Castro within his party. But given the fundamental
17
importance of good relations with the United States to his domestic economic project, López Obrador will do little more. There is an exception to low-profile foreign policy, however: NAFTA. López Obrador has no interest in pulling Mexico out of NAFTA, but he does believe the treaty could be refined to better serve Mexican interests. He proposes expanding NAFTA to include a chapter on development assistance and promises to prevent the scheduled opening of the North American corn and bean market in 2008, due to the social and economic disruptions that it would cause in many rural communities. He would like to reopen discussions on trade in sugar, citrus, and brooms, and on land transport, and he is apt to use safeguards when required to protect Mexican national production. Although López Obrador is not a great fan of free trade treaties, he is unlikely to pull Mexico out of its existing trade agreements with the European Union, Japan, Chile, and other countries. But a López Obrador presidency is not likely to continue its predecessors’ support for a Free Trade Area for the Americas. Finally, López Obrador’s nationalism, his sensitivity to criticism, and his tendency to speak his mind freely will make him a prickly partner who is susceptible to perceived slights by the United States or its representatives, a historically common source of tension in the bilateral relationship
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Washington Post Article
Using FDR as Model, Presidential Hopeful Out to Build New Deal for Mexico
By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 23, 2006; A18
QUERETARO, Mexico -- Presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is often compared with South American leftists, has found a model in an icon from the north: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
López Obrador's economics team has developed a blueprint for what they call the "Mexican New Deal." Their modern version of Depression-era populism is an ambitious program to create millions of jobs and stem migration by undertaking huge public works projects, including a railroad network, vast housing developments, ports and timber replanting.
"Roosevelt didn't solve all of America's problems, but he gave American society a sense that they were on the right track," Manuel Camacho Sol?s, one of López Obrador's top advisers, said in an interview. "Andrés Manuel López Obrador can represent something like that for Mexico."
López Obrador's proposals to stimulate Mexico's economy are part of a far-reaching agenda that would alter some of the touchstones of the government. He has advanced symbolic proposals -- such as moving out of the luxurious presidential compound known as Los Pinos and into the National Palace on Mexico City's downtown square. And he has suggested significant structural changes, such as chopping Mexico's six-year presidential term in half by holding a referendum after three years on whether the president should remain in office.
López Obrador, a member of the Democratic Revolutionary Party, has been the focal point of Mexico's upcoming presidential contest for two years. For most of that time, the 52-year-old former Mexico City mayor has been the runaway favorite. But after various shifts in the polls, he is now in a tight race with Felipe Calderón, of Mexican President Vicente Fox's National Action Party.
The massive scope of López Obrador's economic proposals has come to define his candidacy. And while he has drawn legions of admirers captivated by his signature line -- "For the good of all, first the poor," -- he has also inspired a roster of detractors. Enrique Krauze, one of Mexico's most respected historians, dismissed López Obrador's proposals as "wonderful dreams."
"Many of his plans are simply unfeasible," Krauze said.
A López Obrador presidency would begin with a government-subsidized push to build between 600,000 and 1 million homes that would be sold or rented at low prices to the poor, his advisers say. José Maria Peréz Gay, a former Mexican diplomat who advises the campaign, predicted in an interview that the home-building effort would lessen migration to the United States -- now as many 1 million Mexicans per year -- by 10 to 15 percent.
The home-building projects would be followed by construction of major railroad lines to connect Mexico City with the U.S. border and speed transport of goods to shipping lines in the Pacific and the Yucatan Peninsula. The third step would be a gigantic timber planting operation to stimulate the lumber industry and encourage Mexicans not to leave. "He who plants a tree on his land stays on his land," Peréz Gay said. The workers for these projects would come from government labor stations strategically positioned to intercept migrants before they leave for the United States. The home construction project, in particular, would "kill two birds with one stone" by providing homes and jobs, Peréz Gay said.
"We can only do this if we launch a Roosevelt-style New Deal," he said.
López Obrador's campaign team draws parallels between the Roosevelt-era United States, with its high unemployment and foundering economy, and present-day Mexico, which Perez Gay says is "swimming in a sea of inequality."
"If it wasn't for Roosevelt there would have been great social unrest in the U.S. We have the same situation here," Camacho said.
The big question concerns where López Obrador would get the money for his building proposals, as well as to back his promises to increase pensions and lower gas and electric bills. López Obrador has assured voters that he won't raise taxes, and that he will pay for his projects by cutting what he calls unnecessary government. He is counting on loans from the United States and Canada. But he also needs support from the private sector, made up of the business community he has spent much of his campaign railing against as beneficiaries of preferential treatment from Fox's government.
"The problem is that, at the end of the day, it's simply a case of fuzzy math," Arturo Sarukhan, a strategist for Calderón, said in an interview. "He calls bankers 'parasites,' tells businessmen they will see their 'unfair advantages' end, then he expects their help."
López Obrador has taken steps to repair his relationship with Mexico's business leaders. He recently told an audience in Queretaro, a picturesque colonial town northeast of Mexico City, that "we're not against business people as they say," referring to allegations made against him by Calderón. "We are against those who traffic in influence and are corrupt."
Still, the prospect of a López Obrador presidency has made some international investors jittery. He has already taken a position sure to anger American lawmakers, saying he would not honor Mexico's commitment under the North American Free Trade Agreement to eliminate tariffs on U.S. corn and beans. In a recent report, the investment firm Barclays Capital noted "market pessimism about Mexico's July presidential election and the possibility of a L?pez Obrador victory," though his track record as mayor of Mexico City from 2000 to 2005 "does not appear worrisome."
While he was mayor, López Obrador -- known as "Amlo" in Mexico City street slang, a name derived from his initials -- was a prolific builder. He oversaw the renovation of the city's crumbling downtown historic district and added an expensive second deck to an interior highway, which critics say has done little to alleviate the monumental traffic problem in one of the world's largest metropolises.
Kathleen Bruhn, author of "Taking on Goliath: Emergence of a New Left Party and the Struggle for Democracy in Mexico," said L?pez Obrador might encounter resistance from a divided legislature. But she said he may still be able to accomplish some of his goals by applying techniques he employed while he was mayor, such as cutting government salaries and saving money by awarding some service contracts to non-union firms.
"Some of [his proposals] he can certainly pull off," Bruhn said. "In Mexico City he pulled off a lot of things people did not expect him to do."
Calderón has attacked López Obrador throughout the campaign for increasing Mexico City's debt to $3.8 billion by the time he resigned in 2005 to run for president. But Laura Barrientos, an analyst with the credit-rating agency Moody's, said previous mayors had raised the debt more than López Obrador and that his administration did "a decent job of living within their means."
Still, Barrientos said, there is a general uneasiness among investors that a L?pez Obrador presidency would continue "the leftist movement of Venezuela and Bolivia."
"Should López Obrador win," she said, "there may be a lull in investing in Mexico until the market sees what he's doing."
Ever confident, López Obrador is not waiting for the election to woo Wall Street. Not long ago, he sent Camacho on the road for a fancy dinner with investment executives at New York's 21 Club. His mission: persuade America that Mexico can make a New Deal, too.
By Manuel Roig-Franzia
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 23, 2006; A18
QUERETARO, Mexico -- Presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is often compared with South American leftists, has found a model in an icon from the north: Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
López Obrador's economics team has developed a blueprint for what they call the "Mexican New Deal." Their modern version of Depression-era populism is an ambitious program to create millions of jobs and stem migration by undertaking huge public works projects, including a railroad network, vast housing developments, ports and timber replanting.
"Roosevelt didn't solve all of America's problems, but he gave American society a sense that they were on the right track," Manuel Camacho Sol?s, one of López Obrador's top advisers, said in an interview. "Andrés Manuel López Obrador can represent something like that for Mexico."
López Obrador's proposals to stimulate Mexico's economy are part of a far-reaching agenda that would alter some of the touchstones of the government. He has advanced symbolic proposals -- such as moving out of the luxurious presidential compound known as Los Pinos and into the National Palace on Mexico City's downtown square. And he has suggested significant structural changes, such as chopping Mexico's six-year presidential term in half by holding a referendum after three years on whether the president should remain in office.
López Obrador, a member of the Democratic Revolutionary Party, has been the focal point of Mexico's upcoming presidential contest for two years. For most of that time, the 52-year-old former Mexico City mayor has been the runaway favorite. But after various shifts in the polls, he is now in a tight race with Felipe Calderón, of Mexican President Vicente Fox's National Action Party.
The massive scope of López Obrador's economic proposals has come to define his candidacy. And while he has drawn legions of admirers captivated by his signature line -- "For the good of all, first the poor," -- he has also inspired a roster of detractors. Enrique Krauze, one of Mexico's most respected historians, dismissed López Obrador's proposals as "wonderful dreams."
"Many of his plans are simply unfeasible," Krauze said.
A López Obrador presidency would begin with a government-subsidized push to build between 600,000 and 1 million homes that would be sold or rented at low prices to the poor, his advisers say. José Maria Peréz Gay, a former Mexican diplomat who advises the campaign, predicted in an interview that the home-building effort would lessen migration to the United States -- now as many 1 million Mexicans per year -- by 10 to 15 percent.
The home-building projects would be followed by construction of major railroad lines to connect Mexico City with the U.S. border and speed transport of goods to shipping lines in the Pacific and the Yucatan Peninsula. The third step would be a gigantic timber planting operation to stimulate the lumber industry and encourage Mexicans not to leave. "He who plants a tree on his land stays on his land," Peréz Gay said. The workers for these projects would come from government labor stations strategically positioned to intercept migrants before they leave for the United States. The home construction project, in particular, would "kill two birds with one stone" by providing homes and jobs, Peréz Gay said.
"We can only do this if we launch a Roosevelt-style New Deal," he said.
López Obrador's campaign team draws parallels between the Roosevelt-era United States, with its high unemployment and foundering economy, and present-day Mexico, which Perez Gay says is "swimming in a sea of inequality."
"If it wasn't for Roosevelt there would have been great social unrest in the U.S. We have the same situation here," Camacho said.
The big question concerns where López Obrador would get the money for his building proposals, as well as to back his promises to increase pensions and lower gas and electric bills. López Obrador has assured voters that he won't raise taxes, and that he will pay for his projects by cutting what he calls unnecessary government. He is counting on loans from the United States and Canada. But he also needs support from the private sector, made up of the business community he has spent much of his campaign railing against as beneficiaries of preferential treatment from Fox's government.
"The problem is that, at the end of the day, it's simply a case of fuzzy math," Arturo Sarukhan, a strategist for Calderón, said in an interview. "He calls bankers 'parasites,' tells businessmen they will see their 'unfair advantages' end, then he expects their help."
López Obrador has taken steps to repair his relationship with Mexico's business leaders. He recently told an audience in Queretaro, a picturesque colonial town northeast of Mexico City, that "we're not against business people as they say," referring to allegations made against him by Calderón. "We are against those who traffic in influence and are corrupt."
Still, the prospect of a López Obrador presidency has made some international investors jittery. He has already taken a position sure to anger American lawmakers, saying he would not honor Mexico's commitment under the North American Free Trade Agreement to eliminate tariffs on U.S. corn and beans. In a recent report, the investment firm Barclays Capital noted "market pessimism about Mexico's July presidential election and the possibility of a L?pez Obrador victory," though his track record as mayor of Mexico City from 2000 to 2005 "does not appear worrisome."
While he was mayor, López Obrador -- known as "Amlo" in Mexico City street slang, a name derived from his initials -- was a prolific builder. He oversaw the renovation of the city's crumbling downtown historic district and added an expensive second deck to an interior highway, which critics say has done little to alleviate the monumental traffic problem in one of the world's largest metropolises.
Kathleen Bruhn, author of "Taking on Goliath: Emergence of a New Left Party and the Struggle for Democracy in Mexico," said L?pez Obrador might encounter resistance from a divided legislature. But she said he may still be able to accomplish some of his goals by applying techniques he employed while he was mayor, such as cutting government salaries and saving money by awarding some service contracts to non-union firms.
"Some of [his proposals] he can certainly pull off," Bruhn said. "In Mexico City he pulled off a lot of things people did not expect him to do."
Calderón has attacked López Obrador throughout the campaign for increasing Mexico City's debt to $3.8 billion by the time he resigned in 2005 to run for president. But Laura Barrientos, an analyst with the credit-rating agency Moody's, said previous mayors had raised the debt more than López Obrador and that his administration did "a decent job of living within their means."
Still, Barrientos said, there is a general uneasiness among investors that a L?pez Obrador presidency would continue "the leftist movement of Venezuela and Bolivia."
"Should López Obrador win," she said, "there may be a lull in investing in Mexico until the market sees what he's doing."
Ever confident, López Obrador is not waiting for the election to woo Wall Street. Not long ago, he sent Camacho on the road for a fancy dinner with investment executives at New York's 21 Club. His mission: persuade America that Mexico can make a New Deal, too.
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Open Letter to President Vicente Fox Quezada:
H. President Vicente Fox Quezada:
We the Mexican citizens currently living abroad, respectfully address you in times when important issues are been debated in our country:
First of all, we wish to look at the current situation of the Mexican people who, due to economic and political reasons are exiled in Unites States, Canada and Europe in the so called developed countries, looking for better opportunities and protection for their families. In this case Mexicans, as it has never seen before in history, are facing a tremendous attack that criminalizes their honest work, their unity and family solidarity.
For that reason in the case of United States and other parts of the world, we have gone out on the streets, to fight for the full recognition of our fundamental rights we are entitled to. These are our rights, we want them in full, for that reason we do not accept a partial solution that only contemplate temporary workers that are nothing but modern contracts of slavery. In this type of labor arrangement people do not have the right to have their family close, nor to have the right of a residence or citizenship in their host country.
We are not compliant with that course of events; we are going to continue to fight if we are not given back our rights. For that reason we request you that you do not accept this kind of arrangements and the least, not to thank the US government given the installment of their offensive wall and the militarization of the Mexican-US border.
This is our fight and we are the ones that should be invite to discuss and negotiate, not the Mexican government that represents the one who expelled us because of the lack of employment or due to the systematic persecution of radical groups such as “El Yunque”, that do not accept diversity impelling thousands of Mexicans to exit their country and to request asylum out of their country.
Another priority of ours is the current political situation of Mexico. We are observing alarming actions of the Mexican government with its intromission in the union’s activities, the murders in Lazaro, Cardenas, Michoacan, the murdered people in Atenco and its flagrant manipulation of the electoral process. The protests of Mexicans abroad denouncing the rapes suffered by the women in Atenco are expanding around the world, events that are not only sad, but also an embarrassment for our country.
It is very disturbing to witness the “dirty war” in the media, the waste of the nations resources and migrant’s remittances, used in the media to attack their rival candidates. It is clear that we do not learn from experience. Civil society, with independence of their electoral preference, is not going to allow the abuse, partiality and fraud.
For the very last time, and despite of the severe misdoings of your government, we give you the benefit of the doubt. In 2000 we supported you, because we considered you a democrat. We are concern you prove us wrong.
We are expecting a federal government respectful of the democratic decision of its people. We want a government that stops the “dirty war” in the media that acts with transparency and one avoiding the misuse of the police forces against workers, women and children.
We will be very attentive to the coming event in Mexico, we hope you actions reflect the enormous responsibility that is required and we will be as always, unconditionally supportive of the Mexican nation and its decisions. We will do whatever we consider necessary to keep the democratic progress in our country.
Sincerely,
The Exiles of Poverty, Liberty and Diversity
We the Mexican citizens currently living abroad, respectfully address you in times when important issues are been debated in our country:
First of all, we wish to look at the current situation of the Mexican people who, due to economic and political reasons are exiled in Unites States, Canada and Europe in the so called developed countries, looking for better opportunities and protection for their families. In this case Mexicans, as it has never seen before in history, are facing a tremendous attack that criminalizes their honest work, their unity and family solidarity.
For that reason in the case of United States and other parts of the world, we have gone out on the streets, to fight for the full recognition of our fundamental rights we are entitled to. These are our rights, we want them in full, for that reason we do not accept a partial solution that only contemplate temporary workers that are nothing but modern contracts of slavery. In this type of labor arrangement people do not have the right to have their family close, nor to have the right of a residence or citizenship in their host country.
We are not compliant with that course of events; we are going to continue to fight if we are not given back our rights. For that reason we request you that you do not accept this kind of arrangements and the least, not to thank the US government given the installment of their offensive wall and the militarization of the Mexican-US border.
This is our fight and we are the ones that should be invite to discuss and negotiate, not the Mexican government that represents the one who expelled us because of the lack of employment or due to the systematic persecution of radical groups such as “El Yunque”, that do not accept diversity impelling thousands of Mexicans to exit their country and to request asylum out of their country.
Another priority of ours is the current political situation of Mexico. We are observing alarming actions of the Mexican government with its intromission in the union’s activities, the murders in Lazaro, Cardenas, Michoacan, the murdered people in Atenco and its flagrant manipulation of the electoral process. The protests of Mexicans abroad denouncing the rapes suffered by the women in Atenco are expanding around the world, events that are not only sad, but also an embarrassment for our country.
It is very disturbing to witness the “dirty war” in the media, the waste of the nations resources and migrant’s remittances, used in the media to attack their rival candidates. It is clear that we do not learn from experience. Civil society, with independence of their electoral preference, is not going to allow the abuse, partiality and fraud.
For the very last time, and despite of the severe misdoings of your government, we give you the benefit of the doubt. In 2000 we supported you, because we considered you a democrat. We are concern you prove us wrong.
We are expecting a federal government respectful of the democratic decision of its people. We want a government that stops the “dirty war” in the media that acts with transparency and one avoiding the misuse of the police forces against workers, women and children.
We will be very attentive to the coming event in Mexico, we hope you actions reflect the enormous responsibility that is required and we will be as always, unconditionally supportive of the Mexican nation and its decisions. We will do whatever we consider necessary to keep the democratic progress in our country.
Sincerely,
The Exiles of Poverty, Liberty and Diversity
