Mr. President: Calderón Is Not Mexico

President Obama's visit to Mexico produced vague and contradictory statements, centered on worn-out strategies. Many people who had hoped for a new approach that would seek to redress the inequities of the binational relationship will find little in these declarations to pin their hopes on.

Obama began by enthusiastically endorsing President Calderón. He expressed his "admiration" for Calderon's "courage" in the increasingly bloody drug war and went so far as to promote Calderon's bid to host the next UN Climate Change meeting.

These overtures no doubt served to decrease tensions between the two governments that built up following U.S. statements of the Mexico as a near "failed state" that was losing a grip on its own territory to drug cartels, and a potential national security threat. But by focusing the trip on the person of Calderón and seeking to bolster his leadership rating, Obama forgets that Calderón is a polemical president in a deeply divided nation as a result of both his rightwing policies and the doubts of legitimacy that hang over his presidency.

Obviously, Calderón is Obama's formal counterpart but the unnecessary accolades rankle among the 50% of the population who felt defrauded by his court-determined ascendency to office. Note that Calderón did not spend time praising the person of Obama who, in fact, was not his preferred candidate in the 2008 elections.

The proposals held forth by the two presidents for the most part were either too vague to evaluate or did not respond to the needs of their respective publics. Calderón offered proposals to deepen NAFTA by building infrastructure on the border to increase economic flows, reforms in customs rules and elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers. In doing so, he fell back on the debunked argument that by competing as a bloc in an unregulated global economy, both countries will someday enjoy prosperity. This at a time when that model has collapsed, leaving millions of people out of work on both sides of the border.

Meanwhile, Mexican peasant farmers who have been forced off their land by U.S imports staged a demonstration to call for renegotiation of the agricultural chapter of the agreement.

As predicted, both presidents confirmed their commitment to a militarized and unsuccessful "war on drugs" in Mexico. Obama did state that the binational relationship should not be defined only by security issues, but in terms of real programs--of putting one's money where one's mouth is--that remains the case. The Merida Initiative increased aid to Mexico tenfold in one are: security. This model, which employs the army to cut off the supply of illegal drugs, has no record of success in any part of the world. On the other hand, we know it causes extensive environmental damage, violence, displacement, violation of human rights and curtailment of civil liberties.

The energy and "green jobs" proposals were unclear. Mexicans are wary of proposals to commit energy resources in the way that the Canadians have had to under NAFTA and there is also considerable criticism of carbon markets as a market-based alternative to needed regulation on polluting emissions.

The bright spot on the horizon of this troubled US-Mexico relations is immigration. Obama reiterated his commitment to legalization of Mexican undocumented workers established north of the border, while paying some penalties. Recent news stories indicate that he is moving on this commitment. Calderón offered no concrete proposals to generate or preserve jobs in areas of high expulsion nor did Obama offer proposals in this crucial area.

Up to now, both have avoided controversial issues--the renegotiation of NAFTA, corruption, inequality or measures to address the economic crisis. They did not speak of specific programs to generate employment in Mexico or alleviate the crushing poverty that affects millions of Mexican families.

The involvement of the U.S. government in Mexico's national security apparatus, advanced through the Merida Initiative--designed by the Bush administration and funded by Congress FY2008 and 2009--raises sensitive issues of sovereignty. Tagging on measures within the U.S. does not erase those fears or the ill-conceived emphasis on Mexico's part of the transnational problem.

Likewise, good intentions and empty declarations do not resolve the problem of the profound asymmetries and inequalities locked in by NAFTA that feed migration from Mexico to the United States.

These issues will be a part of the agenda at the Summit of the Americas. There, the alternatives to corporate-led globalization that are being developed throughout the hemisphere will have a central place, putting into relief the failure of the old models.

Presidents Obama and Calderon have an obligation to revise their proposals and seek a "new era" that really responds to the multiple crises--economic, financial, environmental, social and security--that characterize this moment in the binational relationship.

Comments

[anarchistoutpost]

Thanks for the great post. The tie between the swine flu scare, drugs, and the election indicates that the United States is served, as much as Calderon is, by his attempts to make an immense power grab and destroy civil liberty protections in the Constitution if he can get the mid-term election to go his way. We must be ever alert to this problem. I wrote a similar piece that is posted here: http://www.anarchistoutpost.com/2009/05/whos-interested-in-mexicos-failure.html. I think you will enjoy it. We must not let Calderon get away with exploiting his ties to the U.S., the investment by the U.S. in the drug war, or the media scare about swine flu excuse Calderon's attempts to make Mexico an authoritarian state for the near future.

[Laura Carlsen - Huffpost Blogger]

Mexitli, Thanks much for the compliments and for the comment. I really appreciate both.

You´ve opened up two enormous issues in your brief comment, which merit long discussions, preferably collective ones. The first is the economic model. I didn´t socialism here though, I talked about a renegotiation of NAFTA. I did say the current model has failed and led to the economic crisis. I stand by that 100%.

But the idea that we only have a choice between free trade and some ill-defined is false. Nations all over Latin America are looking at how to modify free trade and markets to reduce the terrible inequality and poverty it has caused but recognize that international trade is necessary. I think looking at ways to remake and regulate their economies--without turning back the clock on more open international trade-- is "taking the bull by the horns".

We can´t get rid of drug cartels in the short term. However, there are lots of alternatives to the "drug war" model of putting the military in the streets. Regulated legalization of marijuana, to take away their biggest market, should be studied as a serious option. Poverty reduction and job generation so young people are not so easily recruited and don´t fall into dangerous additions, sustainable livelihoods for small farmers to grow food crops, community-based programs and reliable police forces. These go to the roots of the problem and can lead to more lasting, less bloody solutions.

[amsanvel]

Ms Carlson
I believe that countries in Latin America that continue to embrace protectionism only cause more poverty, protectionism is not sustainable in the long term, the problem is not free trade, which should be a given, free trade is fair to all, and generate jobs, the problem is corruption at all levels. Government is not a good administrator, I agree there should be more aid and development programs for farmers and small businesses, women, etc. but ONGs are better at that... that won´t be a result of tariffs for imports...

[Mexitli]

I know , Laura.

You're absolutely right. Using the military to do police work is never a good idea. And I'm well aware of what the Mexican military did the last time the U.S. gave them weapons - they used them on the Zapatistas. I guess I'm just part exasperated and part frustrated when it comes to the cartels. Now dead bodies are turning up in Juarez and the locals are blaming the military.

As for the economy, once Salinas de Gortari ended the Ejido system things got very bad and they were not that good to begin with. As you know he did this to appease the world Bank and the IMF in order to qualify Mexico for NAFTA. The Ejido system was started by the Aztecs hundreds of years before the Europeans landed to keep the poorest people fed. And the Ejido system worked for hundreds of years.

Salinas ended it with the stroke of a pen.

As you know, this displaced hundreds of thousands of small Mexican farmers.

Then the U.S. subsidized its Maize farmers and now Monsanto has been given the green light to sell its GMO/GME Frankencorn in Mexico.

We can subsidize the small farmer in Mexico. But more importantly I believe we should open up the border and allow the free flow of labor so that the small farmers who become displaced can seek opportunity in the U.S.

Thank you for your reply.

Respectfully,

Daniel Maldonado

[Mexitli]

Laura Carlson is one of the few writers about Mexico that I respect.

I read America's Updater religiously.

But she is wrong on economics. The failed system is the socialist system. And Mexicans do not want it either. I was at a political fair in Mexico City a few years back where every party was represented. The communist's booth had just 2 people and one worked there handing out leaflets. Hardly a show of support when there are 10,000 people at the fair.

Laura Carlson knows her stuff and she is first class.

But free(r) trade is here to stay. We can either take this bull by the horns or we can bury our heads in the sand and let all the other countries whoop us.

Even China, thanks to Deng Xiaoping, has opened up to market forces and much of Brazil's growth is due to the same.

Also, Ms. Carlson offers no alternative plan to using the military to rid Mexico of the drug cartels. Doing nothing is simply not acceptable any longer.