Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mexico. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Strange bedfellows: Mexican millionaire Carlos Slim and The New York Times

New York Times
(Courtesy of Scott Wilbur. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.)


El Universal has announced that Mexican businessman Carlos Slim has acquired 6.4 per cent of Class A actions of The New York Times.The newspaper adds that the move makes Slim the third largest holder behind the Sulzberger family.

Slim's intentions in this deal are not clear, according to the same paper. Slim has declared his investment follows strictly financial reasons and that this is not part of a strategic maneuver to influence the media across the Mexican border. He declined to state how much he paid for his share of NYT actions or if he has any plans to increase his holdings.

Slim owns TELMEX, the national telephone company in Mexico, a quasi-monopoly sold by the state in a questionable privatization dealing during the Carlos Salinas administration. The company has since profited from the lack of competition. Currently, Mexicans pay some of the highest telephone and mobile rates while Slim has become the second richest person in the world.

Unlike U.S. billionaires Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, Slim has not been particularly keen to share his wealth through grand scale philanthropic efforts. Neither has he attached himself to any progressive causes in the Mexican political landscape. On the contrary, he has been active in defending the de facto and legal privileges that allow his company to thrive in one of the most unequal countries in the hemisphere. Slim's political views in Mexico would mostly resemble those of many conservatives in the United States. Up until now he has made clear his support to a Mexican state strong enough to protect his vested interests but, at the same time, weak in responding to the demands of the majority.

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Mexican president endorses McCain

Does it even matter? Hispanic network Univision announces Mexican president Felipe Calderon has endorsed Republican candidate John McCain. This should not come as any surprise. Calderon's party, the PAN (National Action Party- conservative) has for long held close relations with the Republican party.

According to the AP article, Calderon believes that McCain "knows the Mexican reality better" even though he acknowledges that Obama is being supported by many Mexican-Americans. Calderon said Obama's plans regarding NAFTA could entail a "return to protectionism" which would be damaging to the bilateral relationship. He added that McCain has supported "the most advanced immigration proposal."

Calderon's public endorsement is logical. He does not want NAFTA to be unilateraly renegotiated and demanding a humane and fair treatment of Mexican immigrants abroad is part of the mandate of any Mexican president. But does it matter whom he endorses? Will his declarations have any impact on the electoral preferences of Mexican-Americans?

The answer is... hardly. Most immigrants crossed the border to escape from a vicious circle of poverty and exclusion. Some risked their lives in the process. Many have encountered racism and denigrating treatment in their search for better opportunities. Not one of them is under any obligation to heed Calderon's opinion on how to cast their vote.

Calderon might have some influence if his own record as Mexican president was different. A reform minded Mexican Executive, willing and able to address effectively Mexico's problems of inequality, corruption and violence could expect the sympathies of those who were forced to flee from the status-quo. Such a president Calderon is not and his opinions regarding the candidates are not only uncalled for but also irrelevant.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Repairing a damaged image

In his address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, former U.S. President Bill Clinton argued that two questions will have to be answered by voters when deciding whom to elect: who can restore confidence in the attainability of the American dream at home and who can restore America's world leadership.

Whether the response of the American electorate is Barack Obama or John McCain, one thing is certain: the demise of the Bush administration will entail an opportunity for the United States to repair its damaged international relations and improve the bargaining position of that country in the world arena.

The unilateral decision to invade Iraq as part of a strategy to win the war on terrorism was met in the rest of the world with positions ranging from criticism to outright rejection. Some of the governments, like Spain and Great Britain, that initially joined the coalition of the willing were later forced by the pressure of their internal electorates to reconsider their full support to the Bush strategy.

Most Latin American countries were not sold on the Bush doctrine. Mexico and Chile, members of the UN Security Council, chose not to support the United States representation in its demand for a UN sanctioned intervention on Iraq. In Mexico, the decision was not made by President Vicente Fox but by public opinion. Although Fox himself might have been willing to disregard Mexico's own historical experience as an invaded country in exchange for Bush's support to his plan on a bilateral immigration agreement, Mexican voters overwhelmingly condemned the Iraq war. In the midst of midterm elections, Fox was forced to go against his own inclinations to increase his party's chances at winning a majority.

The weak Latin American representation in the coalition of the willing gave the Bush administration enough of a reason to continue ignoring the region. That is, if any reason was needed to justify the non-strategy towards Latin America. Regional issues such as drug trafficking, immigration and economic development were to be addressed unilaterally by the United States or not at all.

Latin America's views on the United States can be divided between aspirational and resentful. On the one hand, Latin American societies admire American democracy, economic might and the rights and opportunities enjoyed by United States citizens. On the other, many Latin Americans resent the intermitent drive of United States administrations to push other countries around in order to further their interests, while making a mockery of the values and principles they uphold at home.

As Bill Clinton stated at Denver, the United States position in the world has been weakened by too much unilateralism and too little cooperation and by a failure to consistently use the power of diplomacy. In regards to the hemisphere's shared challenges, the end of the Bush administration will represent a unique opportunity for the United States to repair its relations with Latin American countries. A cooperative approach will resonate with Latin American societies and directly promote the aspirational view of the United States. This in turn will surely foster Latin American countries willingness to share responsibilities and efforts with the United States in providing solution to regional and world problems.