The Mex Files

I expect we’ll be hearing some more about the Bush famil y’s 98,000 acre spread in Paraguay in the coming months. Neil Bush (last month) and First Drunk Daughter Jenna (in October 2006) both made mysterious trips to the otherwise forgotten country in recent months.

Down With Tyranny has been one of the few widely read news blogs to follow the story, and actually went to Paraguay to investigate:

…I was hoping to track down the humongous Bush estate in the most remote part of Latin America’s least known country. I never did manage to get anywhere near the Bush estate– it was meant to be remote for a reason and the only way to get there is by private plane and then you need permission to land on their airstrip– but I did take note of a certain backwardness that might make it very alluring not just to Bush but to many of the potential war crimes defendants from his regime. They were actually selling Nazi memorabilia on the streets of Asuncion.

Well, Paraguay is in the news this morning– and not in a way likely to please the Bushes. The fascistic-oriented ruling party was deposed yesterday. Fernando Lugo, a former Roman Catholic Bishop– the “bishop of the poor”– and the leader of a left-of-center coalition of unions, Indians and poor farmers, beat Blanca Ovelar, who headed the very corrupt far right Colorado Party, widely considered to be in Bush’s pocket.

President-Elect Lugo, and his party, are promising to redistribute land in the last country in Latin America (like the United States, most agricultural land is held by corporate interests. Unlike the U.S., most Paraguayans are farmers). The Bush family lands are said to be investments in soya (Paraguay’s largest legal export) though there are rumors the Bush’s were interested in capturing water drilling rights in expectation that neo-liberal policies in the Southern Cone would lead to privatizing water distribution within those countries. However, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia and Uruguay have all elected social democratic leaders who have rejected neo-liberalism, leaving Paraguay as the last hope for making a fortune from these privatized natural resources.

Then again, maybe some of the more sinister suggestions about the Bush compound are true, and water isn’t their main concern. Paraguay was, of course, best known as the refuge of Nazi war criminals and other nasty types. There are those who believe the Bushs are planning for their eventual exile somewhere beyond the jurisdiction of the United States and international courts. If even slightly true, the Bushs may have to start asking “Is it safe?” before they pack their bags.

Fernando Lugo’s election in Paraguay is also more proof, if any is needed, of my own hare-brained theory that the Bush family are working for Castro... think of it. Since Chinese Commie lovin’ George W. Bush was “elected” — with the help of Cubans in Florida (where his brother was conveniently Governor), Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Guatemala, ,Panama ,Nicaragua, Suriname, Venezuela and Uruguay, have all moved to the left. the fractured Mexican left united — and Bush’s handler, Fidel Castro, having achieved his goal of a leftist Latin America, could finally retire.

.

Maria Esthella Martinez de Peron, Argentina (1974-79)

Lidia Gueler Tejada, Bolivia (1979-1980)

Violetta Barrios de Chamorro, Nicaragua (1999-1997)

Mireya Moscosa Rodríguez de Aria, Panama (1999-2004)

Michelle Bachelet Jeria, Chile (2006-)

Christia Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina (2007-)

USA (200

I was semi-amused, and semi-appalled when the anti-immigration folks hit on Iraqi “illegals” as a convenient way of lumping “terrorists” and “illegal aliens” together. They turned out to be Chaldeans (somewhat protected by the equal opportunity dictator Saddam Hussein and persecuted as a result of our “crusade) headed for Detroit and a future saying “Cheeseburger, cheeseburger, cheeseburger. Pepsi, no Coke.” You know, model illegals.

It worked out OK for those particular guys (a Mexican law from the 1930s gives automatic refugee status to people fleeing Fascist regimes, and Saddam’s regime fit the definition… plus Carlos Slim — of Lebanese Catholic heritage — picked up the tab for a few good lawyers). And, yeah, a lot of Arabs fleeing crappy conditions at home are coming to Mexico. Some are moving on to the United States, and not always on proper documentation. Try getting a green card in Egypt or Syria.

Back in the early 20th century, when the U.S. started restricting immigration to northern Europeans, people getting the hell out of the collapsing Ottoman Empire were not completely S.O.L. “Coming to America” didn’t always means the United States of. The Central American states and Argentina were favored destinations for middle-easterners, though a good number (especially Iraqis and Lebanese) ended up in Mexico. And prospered.

Cindy Casares, at Guanabee (”media, pop culture and entertainment for the spicy Latino in you” — and for the not so boring academic in you as well), notes that one particular Mexican-Iraqi had a huge impact on Mexican culture:

Here’s something those of you who enjoy tacos de trompo are not going to believe. Tacos de trompo or tacos arabes as they’re called in Mexico, (where taco filling is shaved off a beehive shaped lump of meat), were invented by an Iraqi immigrant in Mexico in the 1930’s! Says The Big Apple:

The dish was supposedly first served in the city of Puebla, Mexico, in the 1930s, when an Iraqi immigrant named Jorge Tabe opened an eatery that advertised both “tacos arabes” and “tacos estilo Doneraky.” However, the term “al pastor (shepherd style) [the term used in Texas] pre-dates the 1930s.

“Doneraky” somehow translates to döner kebab which comes from Turkey, another country that’s currently housing a lot of our service people. Can you tell the difference in these pictures? That’s döner kebab on the left. Trompo on the right.

We forget how much “Hispanic” culture and “Arab” culture have in common. The Spanish only showed up in the New World because they were bored after driving the Moors off the Iberian peninsula.

And, in case you haven’t noticed, a disproportionate number of U.S. soldiers have names like Gonzales and Ortega, AND, U.S. culture is slowing assimilating Latin culture. Cindy’s complete “Guide To Latino Cultural Survival in Iraq” puts it all together, and throws in a little salsa — and merangue, and cumbia….

The Seven Old White Dwarves — Sleazy, Dopey, Preachy, Nasty, Floppy, Wacky and Clueless — tortured Univsion viewers last night for several hours.

I’m not sure why, other than to show off that none of them speak much Spanish. Clueless managed to refer to KING Juan-Carlos of Spain as “Prince” Juan-Carlos. Um… Juan-Carlos has been the King for the last thirty plus years. OK, so Clueless is a bit long in the tooth, and was out of circulation for a few years back then. Geeze, you’d think he’d catch up by now. Clueless was speaking in reference to the King’s rejoinder to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The King told the President to “shut up” recently — which Kings aren’t supposed to do, never mind that the Venezuelans really don’t appreciate their former colonial “master” telling them anything. And, seeing the audience were American citizens, I’m not sure what it has to do with anything, other than raising some bribes (oops… “campaign contributions”) from Venezuelans who can’t steal their own country’s wealth any more and took off for the riper pickings of Miami.

Wacky — to his credit — said that we’d have to at least talk to Hugo Chavez. You know, like Presidents are supposed to do. Alas, Wacky is running for the Presidency of the wrong country. About the only politician he seems to resemble is Juan Domingo Peron – and Argentina just picked a fine new president and isn’t in the market for another.

Think about it… Wacky is a right-wing anarchist (what we call “libertarian” in the U.S.), trying to simultaneously appeal to the far right and the left. Sure, I might approve of his anti-corporatist, non-interventionist stance… but his fascist supporters (and his own reflexive racism) are pretty scary. Not to mention his immigration policy, support of the “Minutemen”. One difference is that Peron was very much a 20th century man. Wacky would drag us back to the 18th: I’ve never heard anyone after 1830 or so speaking in favor of “Letters of Marque” — piracy as state policy. Come to think of it, wouldn’t that be a job for Blackwater?

Floppy, one of Blackwater’s biggest boosters (or rather bribees), like Sleazy and Preachy, tried to win over their audience of aging, right-wing Cubans by speaking out of both sides of their mouths: all three of them tried to somehow blame “illegal immigrants” for anti-immigrant know-nothingism. In other words — if THOSE brown folks hadn’t crossed the border, we’d be more open to YOU brown folks.

Sleazy and Nasty should have done better. Sleazy fits the image of an old Latin American pol…Carlos Menim of Argentina, who threw his wife out of the Presidential Palace, or Jose Lopez-Portillo of Mexico who tried to make his mistress Minister of Tourism, say.

Nasty at least has some cognizance of his audience. They’re Cubans, and he has managed to praise Cuba — or rather OUR corner of it, Guantanamo, where “They’ve got health care that’s better than most HMOs. And they got something else that no Democrat politician in America has: They live in a place called Guantanamo, where not one person has ever been murdered”. Admittedly he said this a couple of months ago, but then Nasty doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Miami of going anywhere. Too bad: I was hoping Nasty and Dopey would be the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. I looked forward to “Hunter-Thompson: Fear and Loathing for America” bumper stickers.

I’m still not sure why these guys even bothered.

A study released last week by the nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center showed that inroads the party made with Hispanics during the Bush years have been more than wiped out. Hispanic voters are now overwhelmingly Democrats – 57 percent, compared to 23 percent Republicans, a bigger gap than in 1999.

Hispanics are the nation’s largest and fastest-growing minority group, with 46 million people and about 15 percent of the U.S. population, and they are expected to hold outsize clout in key battlegrounds next year, including four states President Bush carried by less than 5 percentage points in 2004: New Mexico, where they are 37 percent of voters; Florida (14 percent); Nevada (12 percent); and Colorado (12 percent).

In Arizona and Iowa, the Hispanic vote is bigger than Mr. Bush’s last margin of victory.

And, when you come down to it, the “Hispanics” who are likely to vote for one of the seven dwarves are usually second or third — or tenth or twelvth generation immigrants who don’t use Spanish as their first language anyway.

Preachy, Dopey, Floppy, Sleazy, Wacky, Clueless and Nasty.

Not pictured: Whiney.

Even Argentines know Argentines are arrogant jerks, but once in a while they have to broadcast it to the world…

The pPasty-looking bald guy with the scraggly beard at left is Jorge Lafauci.  He’s a judge on one of those witless “Dancing for Dinero” shows that TV networks sell when they run out of creative ideas.  For what it’s worth, the Argentine network must have run out of ideas for names of shows too… “el show” is called “Esta el show”.  

Lafauci was overheard on Argentine national television saying “Mexicans are the ugliest people in the world, and they don’t know how to dress.”

On the second point, I have to sometimes agree.

Nov. 16 (Bloomberg) — Mexico’s economic growth accelerated in the third quarter, spurred by construction projects and U.S. demand for manufactured exports such as automobiles.Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country’s output of goods and services, grew 3.7 percent from a year earlier, the fastest pace this year, after expanding 2.8 percent in the second quarter, the government said. Mexico’s growth has quickened for two straight quarters, reversing a slowdown that began last year.“Mexico’s economy is strong,” Omar Borla, a senior Latin America economist with Dresdner Kleinwort in New York, said in an interview. “The third quarter shows a good recovery led by manufacturing and construction.”

Normally, “when the U.S. catches a cold, Mexico gets pneumonia,” but the Mexican economy has been developing an immunity to U.S. downturns over the last few years — becoming less dependent on U.S. trade.

Mexico’s economy is better positioned to withstand a slowing U.S. economy in part because of rising sales to Europe and Latin America, said Gray Newman, senior Latin America economist at Morgan Stanley.

Mexico’s sales to the U.S. as a percentage of total exports peaked at about 90 percent in 2001 and since have fallen to about 80 percent, according to the statistics ministry.

According to a Morgan Stanley report published Oct. 22, the U.S. accounted for 41 percent of Mexico’s total export growth in the first eight months of the year. Europe and Latin America accounted for 43 percent. In 2000, before the U.S. and Mexico went into recession, the U.S. accounted for more than 90 percent of Mexico’s export growth, according to the report.

“There has been a decoupling of sorts if you look at the rate of growth of Mexican exports to non-us destinations, Newman said. “It’s pretty striking.”

Growth in U.S. consumer spending and more domestic infrastructure spending also accounts for the relatively good Mexican economy. Mexican economic growth is still lagging behind other Latin America nations — specifically those that have turned their backs on “neo-liberalism” — Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay — all considered “leftist-populist” governments, with policies similar to the PRD’s.

Neither Calderón, nor Finance Secretary  Augustín Carstens are stupid.  They recognize, like every other Latin American leader, that the present “Free Trade Agreements” aren’t “free trade” and don’t lead to growth.  With a falling U.S. dollar and less sales (outside of Mexican made “American” automobiles) to the U.S., there isn’t much for the Bush administration to sell except rhetoric:

Politicians find it exceedingly difficult to explain free trade’s virtues without drowning the listener in a torrent of common coinage. For a recent example of this, take President Bush’s speech in Miami, designed to shore up flagging congressional support for pending free-trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia and Panama. Echoing those all-too-familiar Bush bromides, he insisted that approving these FTAs would fortify “freedom,” strengthen “democracy,” and increase “prosperity” in Latin America.

As I’ve said before, PAN sort of won the Presidency, but the left won the election (after all, 2/3rds of Mexican voters chose socialist or social-democratic parties in 2006). With a string on PRI and PRD victories of late in state elections, and more cooperation between the two “revolutionary” parties (on a symbolic issue — secularism — PRI is supporting a PRD initiative, which is something of a change), I expect there will even less reliance on U.S. based policies in the future, and even under Felipe Calderón, an economic policy more in line with the other Latin countries.

This COULD (at the outside) include changes to NAFTA, if Mexico seeks closer ties to Mercosur. Both in the U.S. and in Latin America there is less and less support for the U.S. based “free trade agreements” and development funds… and more support for the regional economic blocs. Even the die-hard neo-liberals know a dollar ain’t a dollar any more.

Remember George W. Bush’s Magical Mystery Latin American Tour?  The magical part was that he didn’t end up getting Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Guatemala and Mexico to declare war.  The mystery was what he thought to accomplish.

Ah… the Bush Administration.  Latin America’s best friend since… oh… Calvin Coolidge or maybe John Quincey Adams was in the White House.

¡Que bárbaro! (from “The Hill”, Washington)

Bush loss, Starbucks gain

By Daphne Retter

October 18, 2007

President Bush has long advocated for immigration reform to make this country more welcoming to Hispanics. But at a Rose Garden ceremony last Wednesday to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month, Bush ended up locking a group of foreign Hispanic leaders out on the street.

“Mr. Fisk reached out and made apologies to those in the diplomatic corps who were invited and affected,” said National Security Council spokeswoman Kate Starr. “No insult was intended and we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.”

 Our Prez at the diplomatic reception

I’m not sure why, but the 40th anniversary of Che Guevara’s murder, assasination, execution… death… passed unnoticed here in Alpine, Texas.

It’s been rumored for years that a local worthy is retired CIA (probably true), and that he was involved in whatever it was exactly that went down in La Higuera, Bolivia 9 October 1967.  By legend, our small town civic leader chopped off Che’s hands and took them back in his flight bag to Washington.

Maybe, maybe not.  Che certainly is dead, however.  But, still relevant.  I realize it’s easy to romanticize the guy (and there aren’t a lot of handsome revolutionaries to make tee shirts out of.  Lenin and Mao never struck anyone as fashion icons) or to forget that he was — after all — a failure, but he still resonates today.

Che, like Simon Bolivar a hundred years earlier, and Hugo Chavez,  Evo Morales,  Rafael Correa — and to some extent, Mexico’s AMLO — all sought an intergrated Latin America. Whether it was done through military conquest (like Bolivar), revolution (like Che) or the ballot box and trade agreements (Chavez, Moreles, Correa, Lopez Obradór) the goal is the same:  uniting the varied peoples of the Americas in one big happy Raza.

It’s we English speakers who miss the boat here. In English, “race” is a word used to separate us into small, competitive groups.  In Spanish, “raza” is a uniting concept — a way of grouping peoples together.

It was a blunder, but the Italian sailor who brought us all together is also remembered this week.  Edmundo, at ¡Para justicia y libertad! says things much better than I can:

Today, youth across the nation are told by our government that Christopher Columbus merits honor and celebration because it marks the arrival of Columbus to the Americas. Most nations of the Americas observe this holiday on October 12, but in the United States the annual observance takes place on the second Monday in October. It was Franklin Roosevelt who first suggested in 1934 that all states adopt October 12 as Columbus Day, later in 1971, under Richard Nixon; the second Monday of October officially became established as a federal holiday to honor the explorer.

The October 12th celebration is commonly known in many countries in Latin America as Día de la Raza, a holiday that is comparatively recent. Before I go on, it is important to address the meaning of “la raza” because I can already hear the complaints how the name of the holiday is just more proof raza means “race.” The Spanish the word raza carries the meaning of an extended community bound by cultural ties in addition to those carrying similar physical traits. During that time, the word raza was used in a cultural sense to reference the contended affinity between Spanish-speaking peoples on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. However, one must also be aware that during the early 20th century it was not surprising to find intellectuals employ racist theories because this was also the height of the eugenics movement.

The origin of Día de la Raza or Fiesta de la Raza goes back to the beginning of last century. In 1913, Faustino Rodriguez San Pedro, Chairman of Iberoamerican Union, proposed that 12th October be called Fiesta de la Raza and be celebrated throughout Spain and Latin America. Spain would later change the rename the holiday to Fiesta de la Hispanidad. In Costa Rica it is called Día de las Culturas and in the Bahamas it is called Discovery Day.

For better or worse, we’re all on the landmass.  We should be one people, but that may be asking a bit too much…

Happy… whatever… day:

Mexicans with drive, ambition and a willingness to take risks sneak across the border to the U.S. But they don’t just come for jobs. They also come for the capital. When these immigrants arrive they don’t just sell their labor, many start small businesses in the food, construction, maintenance and landscaping trades. When those businesses are launched, illegal Mexican immigrants hire other illegal Mexican immigrants. A great deal of Mexico’s job creation takes place inside the U.S.

So writes Joel Kurtzman in a source I very seldom quote – the Wall Street Journal. I agree with much of Kurtzman’s analysis of the problem, the impossibility of obtaining credit and capital for investment :

Mexico’s financial and economic structures fail at providing entrepreneurs with the capital they need to create jobs. The economy is too concentrated, with nearly half of it controlled by a single family — that of the billionaire Carlos Slim. A handful of other families own the bulk of Mexico’s remaining wealth. Mexico’s legal and business structures effectively fence off from competition whole sectors of the economy. In telecommunications, petroleum and much of the real-estate and tourism sectors, real competition is restricted. Mexico could jumpstart its job-creation engine by opening these sectors of its economy to real competition.

…

Mexico’s financial system is to entrepreneurship what sharks are to a swimmer’s beach. Banking, which is conservative and risk-averse, dominates Mexico’s financial system, accounting for about 55% of all financial assets, compared with just 24% of all financial assets in the U.S. In the U.S., the capital markets and a diverse array of funds provide most of the capital. If that weren’t enough, Mexico’s top three banks control 60% of all banking assets. If entrepreneurs are turned down by the first bank, they really have only two more places to apply. For a country its size, Mexico’s stock and bond markets are hugely underdeveloped when measured as a percentage of GDP.

Household credit is also scarce in Mexico and amounts to only about 5% of GDP, versus 65% in the U.S. Without access to credit, Mexico’s consumer and retail sectors have not grown sufficiently. These sectors could be vibrant job-creation engines if Mexicans had wider access to credit.

I disagree with his solution – allowing foreigners access to PEMEX, and markets. It’s exactly what the Fox and Calderón administrations have been trying to do, and what NAFTA was supposed to do, during which time emigration has skyrocketed.

Kurtzman complains that Mexican businesses are too concentrated. Agreed, but this was in the Wall Street Journal, after all. You get the sense that his idea of competition is Exxon v PEMEX or WalMart v Grupo Electra, not “Aborotes El Toro” v “Aborotes Guadalupe”. One thing he fails to note is that the emigrant remittances are largely responsible for those real competitive businesses. Remittances largely go either to education or to financing those very changaros and “biznes” ventures that create jobs and build a stable middle class.

It’s not that the giant businesses don’t have their uses. The U.S. press paid attention when Wal Mart de Mexico started offering banking services, though Grupo Electra’s Banco Azteca and chain-store banks throughout Latin America have been around for years.

Sure, I agree – monopolistic practices are under scrutiny now. Telecommunications will change in the next few years after the Supreme Court cleared the way for broader access to the airwaves. Mexico City’s investment in district-wide WiFi access is going to shake up the computer industry.

Ironically, it is the left that’s pushing the Calderón administration to start talking about correcting the monopolistic practices of the past and about changing the laws to make credit more widely available. Of course, access to credit means coming up with money. But, there’s no reason to suppose the investments must come from the usual foreign sources. Argentina’s president just in Mexico last week with an important trade agreement on automotive parts. Brazil’s Lula da Silva on a sales trip this week, peddling Brazilian ethanol. Lula is reported NOT discussing Mercosur, saying Mexico tied itself to North America, but there too, the left’s proposal to renegotiate NAFTA, and the recognition that some ties outside Mercosur (most likely through Banco del Sur).

I see more and more that the Mexican left ’s prescriptions for economic improvement – expanded ties to South America, more credit for small business and a focus on internal markets — are what is likely to be followed.

From the International Herald Tribune:

Mexico and Argentina said Monday they are negotiating a free trade accord for vehicles and car parts that would make foreign car companies with factories in those countries more efficient.

“It’s an agreement we know will benefit both countries enormously,” President Felipe Calderon said in a news conference with Argentina’s leader, Nestor Kirchner. “We could have a huge potential for growth in this area.”

We don’t think about how important the Mexican auto industry is to the United States, but an agreement on auto parts isn’t likely to get people interested. When the Argentine President said that the proposed Great Wall of the Rio Grande is an affront to all Latin Americas the usual suspects commented (and, no I’m not going to bother linking all over the place to every anti-immigration “fuck you Argies” site). It’s a standard AP article on Latin America. Except for one overlooked phrase:

Kirchner also said he would personally help Mexico improve relations with leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and that Mexico has an open invitation to join the South American trade bloc Mercosur.

Some negative reference to Hugo Chavez is de rigur in AP-landia these days, but that’s not what I’m talking about. Mexico is being openly courted to get out of NAFTA and join Latin America. THAT IS IMPORTANT…

We don’t hear much in the U.S. about Mercosur (hell, we don’t hear much about Latin America in general), though it is likely to be extremely important to the futures of all the Americas. Mercosur is still feeling its way around (but then, the European Community took 50 years to develop, and Mercosur has only been around for the last ten), and – if we hear anything – it’s only that Venezuela hasn’t quite joined yet. Or, as the U.S. press puts it, Hugo Chavez hasn’t joined – much to our relief. WE (and Canada) were counting on a U.S. led “Free Trade Area of the Americas”, and blame Chavez for killing OUR plan – and instead opting for the existing (though far from united at this point) Mercosur.

The Mercosur countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay) and the “associate states” (Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru) and semi-member Venezuela (there’s a diplomatic spat holding up Venezuelan membership) have been paying down their debts to the big foreign lenders like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Interamerican Development Bank. Hugo Chavez has his own ideas about development, but is in agreement, and likely to work with, what Mercosur itself has been organizing – Banco del Sur, a self-financed development bank.

The Global Policy Forum describes the problem with just one of the existing development banks this way:

The World Bank, based in Washington, is a multilateral institution that lends money to governments and government agencies for development projects. For more than twenty years, the Bank has imposed stringent conditions, known as “Structural Adjustment Programs,” on recipient countries, forcing them to adopt reforms such as deregulation of capital markets, privatization of state companies, and downsizing of public programs for social welfare. Privatization of water supplies, fees for public schools and hospitals, and privatization of public pensions are among the most controversial Bank reforms. While the Bank insists that “fighting poverty” is its first priority, many critics believe instead that it is responsible for rising poverty. Many also criticize its cozy relationship with Wall Street and the United States Treasury Department. The stormy resignation of World Bank Vice President and Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz in late 1999, and his subsequent public comments, suggest that the Bank is not as benign as it claims to be.

Yeah. There were riots in Argentina over privatizing water systems (and the country went through a couple of presidents in a couple of months), Bolivia nearly had a coup and Mexico is roiled over “suggestions” that various public utilities be privatized. Even the most conservative proposals for Banco del Sur will take into account peasant economies and state services. Right now, Banco del Sur is mostly Brazilian and Argentine money. Their economies are recovering from the tender mercies of IMF and World Bank concern (fun fact – every Latin American country with a president or treasury secretary with a graduate degree from the U.S. universities that turn out the bankers who run the development funds over the 40 years went broke, or had to restructure their currency).

And this is where Mexico comes in. Mexico has been losing ground economically since joining NAFTA. Mercosur requires single membership (in other words, countries like Bolivia would have to pull out of the Andean Pact to join, though the two trade groups may merge, or Mercosur may make special rules for Bolivia). NAFTA was originally pushed by PRI President Carlos Salinas de Goutari, though PRI has lost much of its original enthusiasm for the trading bloc since then. The PRD and the smaller left-wing parties never liked it, and have been pushing for more pan-Latin economic intergration. ONLY PAN, and only the wing of the party to which Calderón belongs, have been cheerleaders for the status quo development plans.

Although the announced agreements between Mexico and Argentina only cover auto parts, Mexico has expressed real interest in Banco del Sur. The country won’t be pulling out of NAFTA any time soon, but under pressure from the “left”, it has been considering renegotiation of the treaty, and it would not have to join Mercosur (where it is already an “observer”) to become a member of Banco del Sur. Once Venezuela works out it’s differences with Brazil, that’s going to change the whole pan-Latin development picture… and our economic ties to Mexico.

I’m not an economist, nor a banker. Nancy Davis, at Narco News isn’t either. She writes about the existing development project in Mexico (Plan Puebla-Panama). Even skipping over the Marxo-academic phrasing, it sounds as if the locals are getting screwed. They’d probably still get screwed by developments funded by Banco del Sur, though there’s a better chance of their being included in the plans.

The Canadian economics website, Angus Reed Report, blames Mercosur for killing the “Free Trade Area of the Americas” (which would benefit Canada), but notes that “free trade” conceptually is salable to the Latin American voter:

Investors’ Business Daily wonders whether “WE will clear Latin America for Takeoff” and misses the point that the Latin Americans may not give a shit what we think about it.

In January 2006, Laura Carlsen speculated in an article for the Center for International Policy on Mexican participation in Mercosur. At the time, she saw the Fox Aministration as likely to act as a “trojan horse” for their northern neighbors, but that appears to be changing now.

The Bank Information Center sees Banco del Sur as “direct challenge to the Northern based IFIs [International Financial Institutions] struggling to remain relevant to the region.”

I was able to get into subscription only “The Banker” for an in-house look at the effects of Banco del Sur on international lending. At the time the article was published (in May) Hugo Chavez was the big worry. The link may or may not get you in, so I’ll try posting my copy somewhere accessible.