One visit, several readings

 About President Néstor Kirchner’s visit to Mexico

By Eduardo Dimas                                                                 Read Spanish Version

   

Presidents have a habit of visiting each other, of establishing specific relationships (as human beings) that sometimes transcends political or ideological differences or differences in interests. That’s logical. They are people with great responsibilities, achievers (in one way or another) who admire strong personalities similar to theirs.

That is why, after abandoning political life, they generally remain friends. I know of more than one case that would amaze my readers, but — because of the natural reserve that always exists when dealing with the private lives of former presidents — I would rather not talk about that.

Conversely, I know of many instances where former presidents and current presidents who have the same ideology and interests hate each other’s guts. In those cases, I choose to apply the same rule and say nothing. The problem is that I’ve never been president (and never will be) and it may be that the "gossip" that has come to me through third parties is just that — gossip — without quotes.

When the presidents meet, they try to conciliate the interests of the social class they represent, which they present as those of their entire country. Their intelligence services and counselors have advised them and, in general, they are well informed, except for the presidents you and I are aware of. The importance of the visit depends on the objectives and the situation prevailing in the relationships between the two states.

The visit to Mexico last week by Argentine President Néstor Kirchner opens a broad range of questions. Argentina and Mexico, two nations with some of the largest gross domestic product (GDP) in Latin America, butted heads during the administration of Vicente Fox, the standard-bearer for U.S. interests in the region.

Actually, Fox — with his subservience to, and total alignment with, the White House — left a wake of discredit that is hard to beat. Apparently, his successor, Felipe Calderón (who some people say reached the presidency through fraud), is attempting to stanch the wounds his predecessor inflicted. Some observers doubt that this is his true objective, however, because of the president’s origin and the politicians around him, all of them from the Mexican far right.

During his visit, President Kirchner was accompanied by his wife, Mrs. Cristina Fernández, a senator and the Justicialista Party’s candidate in next October’s presidential election. According to surveys, Mrs. Fernández de Kirchner has an 80-percent probability of being elected in the first round.

Therefore, as interpreted by some Mexican analysts, her presence demonstrated that the Argentine government intends to strengthen ties of all kinds with Mexico, in the long run.

I believe it is too early to make predictions. I think it would be abnormal for Latin American nations to not maintain relations of all kinds and to not complement each other.

While in Mexico, President Kirchner delivered several speeches, among them a particularly important one to the houses of Congress in which he condemned the wall being built by the U.S. government along the border with Mexico, which he called "the wall of shame." No nation has the right to direct the life and politics of another, Kirchner said, in a clear allusion to the United States.

Kirchner invited Mexican entrepreneurs to invest in the Argentine economy, which earned him the criticism of some Argentine analysts who reminded him that "Argentina is not a merchandise."

Honestly, I don’t think that was the sense in which the president spoke. While he has not fulfilled all expectations, Kirchner has defended the national interests, especially those of the Argentine bourgeoisie.

Besides, let us remember that in Argentine there is little left to sell. Former President Carlos Menem gave away most of the country’s riches to transnational corporations, amid the neoliberal wave of the 1990s. Fruit of that disaster was the crisis that beset the country between 2000 and 2002, known as the "corralito," or little corral.

Another noted element of Kirchner’s speeches during his visit to Mexico was his promise to fight "to the finish" for Mexico’s admission to the Common Market of the South (Mercosur) as a full member. The statement was hailed and supported by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.

Undoubtedly, if Mexico joined the Mercosur and became part of the scheme of Latin American integration, that would be a step forward, given that country’s economic power and its oil and mineral riches. However, some observers question the good will of the Mexican government. Others question Mexico’s real ability to join the Mercosur, given its almost total dependence on the United States.

Unofficial figures describe that dependence. Eighty-eight percent of Mexico’s foreign trade is with the U.S. Ninety-two percent of the banking capital is in the hands of U.S. and other transnationals, while 89 percent of industry belongs to companies from that country. If this is true, it would be really difficult to talk about economic independence and, by extension, of political independence.

For 13 years, Mexico has maintained a Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and Canada that has caused the ruination of the country’s agriculture, the impoverishment of the peasants and an increase in urban population, as well as an increase in the number of Mexicans who try to emigrate to the United States.

Several political and economic analysts in Mexico have warned that the administrations of presidents Fox and Calderón are preparing the privatization of Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) and what is left of the electric industry in the hands of the state.

If this is so, Mexico would have a situation very similar to that of Argentina, perhaps even worse. So, what keeps Mexico — which still has not privatized its oil — from becoming a member of the Mercosur?

Some time ago, President Chávez, in an address to the members of the Mercosur, pointed that U.S. and other transnationals took part in 80 percent of the commercial exchanges between member countries.

The reasons to question the role that Mexico would play if it joined Mercosur or the Union of Southern Nations vary, and we have referred to them in other articles published in Progreso Weekly.

It is true that, after he became President of Mexico, Felipe Calderón announced that he would try to improve relations with his Latin American neighbors. Accordingly, the Mexican government has carried out a diplomatic offensive that includes those countries with which relations deteriorated during the Fox administration: Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina and Brazil.

Delegations from the Mexican government and Congress have visited Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil looking for new formulas of understanding or, at least, looking to relax the tensions created by Fox. That’s a positive step, no doubt. In it have participated representatives of the main political parties, including the ruling National Action Party (PAN).

However, the PAN has another line of work, which comes from its Christian-democratic affiliation and its links with the International Democratic Center (IDC), the old International Christian Democratic movement, and the Foundation for Social Analysis and Studies (FAES), founded by José María Aznar, an unconditional ally of the White House and the worst causes.

PAN president Manuel Espino, upon inaugurating the Mexican headquarters of the Christian Democrat Organization of the Americas (ODCA), which he also presides, called for an offensive to wipe out the governments he called "populist" and "leftist" in Latin America. And he proclaimed that the first targets of his organization would be Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia; latter targets would be Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Ecuador. The ODCA is a subsidiary of the IDC, whose future president may be Vicente Fox.

The question left hanging in the air is: Will Mexico have two policies, the official one aimed at maintaining cordial relations of cooperation with all other countries, and the unofficial one (controlled by the top leader of the PAN, the ruling party) aimed at achieving the exact opposite of the official policy?

This is all very contradictory, no doubt. Another possibility is that both policies will complement each other. In that case, one has to question the official Mexican policy.

It is known that problems exist between the leadership of the PAN, the traditional right, and Felipe Calderón and his followers, the less-traditional right. Maybe that’s the cause. If so, let us hope that those contradictions will lead to a rupture between the PAN and the current administration.

If that rupture does not occur and the dual policy remains, then you can think all you want. But do think the worst, which is the best way in politics to avoid disappointments.

As I finish writing this article, I learn that President Lula da Silva of Brazil also has gone to Mexico on an official visit, barely four days after Kirchner’s visit. This coincidence is notable, and makes one think about two possible objectives.

The idea is to strengthen Mercosur with the admission of Mexico, for the purpose of proceeding with the integration of Latin America. Or the idea is to strengthen only specific positions within that organization, shall we say, those of the governments that would keep Mercosur as a merely commercial entity, without any objective of integration.

If so, Mexico seems to be a good acquisition. Time will tell.