The Mex Files

Fidel Castro (remember him?) says the “trumpets of war” have sounded in the Americas, as the result of the Colombian incursion into Ecuador.

As may not be clearly reported in the U.S. press, there has been a low-level civil war in Colombia since the 1950s. FARC, the largest of the guerrilla insurgent groups, is supposedly under the leadership of Secretary General Manuel Marulanda.

According to Colombian official sources, the “#2 man”, public spokesman “Raul Reyes” and several others was located just over the Ecuadorian border and killed in a raid – along with several others.

Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa immediately broke off diplomatic relations with the aggressor nation and Venezuela has called up its troops to the Venezuelan-Colombian border in anticipation of possible incursions into their country.

The U.S. media talks about “Hugo Chavez threatening Colombia”, but Venezuela is discussing protecting its own sovereignty… and as a functioning democracy, there is opposition to the military build-up.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The Colombians are claiming a laptop recovered from Reyes tells of FARC drug deals involving President Correa, Mexican narcos and possible military assistance to Hugo Chavez in case of an attack by the United States. The laptop also supposedly contains a message from Secretary General Maralanda. That latter fact in itself is suspicious. As far as I can tell, Maralanda hasn’t been seen since about 2002, and – if he’s even alive – he’d be in his late 80s. Correa, and the Ecuadorian government, labeled the supposed documents fakes. President Bachelet of Chile – who was not named in the documents – has also questioned the validity of the charges, and may break relations with Colombiaover their aggression against a fellow Andean Pact state.

And, to make things even more complicated, Reyes was acting as a go-between with the French and Venezuelan governments in their efforts to free Ingrid Betancourt, a dual French-Colombian national (and one time Colombian presidential candidate) taken hostage by FARC several years ago. One reason for the recent breakdown in Colombian-Venezuelan relations has been the Colombian governments’ interference in the Franco-Venezuelan-FARC negotiations.

The United States denies any involvement in the matter, though the Colombians admit receiving assistance from U.S. intelligence operatives. Even if the latter is still denied in Washington, there’s no getting over the fact that the U.S.had offered a Five Million Dollar reward for killing Reyes — which means they definitely interested in this outcome.

A couple of points worth pondering:Colombia’s rightist government is a U.S. client state, which puts that government at odds just about all the Americas, except for the United States and Mexico. Mexico does not face an organized leftist insurgency, but there are leftist movements within the country, similar to those that have come to power (democratically, one might add) throughout the region – most prominently in Venezuela (and very nearly did in Mexico, though the left probably was not “allowed” to win the 2006 elections).

That’s plausible, but not likely. Venezuela, with its oil wealth, has been able to invest in modernizing its air force and army. Colombia – with the infusion of United States aid supposedly meant to interdict the narcotics bought by U.S. consumers – has also been beefing up its security. Like all other Colombian paramilitary groups (and the government itself) – left and right – FARC was involved in the narcotics trade, and taking out a narcotics kingpin is a legitimate POLICE action.

However, the military assistance Colombia has been receiving since the Clinton Administration has never been really expected to be used for narcotics control. After “terrorism” became the cause de jour in 2002, FARC was re-christened as a “terrorist organization,” at least by the Colombians and the United States. But not by oil rich Venezuela, semi-oil rich Ecuador — nor, for that matter, by very many nations except those that almost automatically accept U.S. designations for this sort of thing… like Canada. Within Colombia itself, right-wing guerrilla groups were considered “paramilitaries,” not “insurgents” nor “terrorists” even though they also dealt in narcotics, hostage taking and murder. Of course, a number of the right-wing killers were tied to the Uribe government.

The whole purpose of “Plan Colombia” was always about propping up the friendly rightist government, and only incidentally about drug control. Which brings me back to Mexico…

“Plan Merida” channels “anti-drug” money from the U.S.government to the Mexican military for hardware and training resources (i.e., subsidizing U.S. based suppliers. The danger has always been – and continues to be – that governments will use the equipment to bolster their own interests, and not – as intended – to combat narcotics shipments to the United States.

What will be interesting to watch (and I admit these are just notes, not having a grasp of the whole situation, not really enough to go on yet) is how Mexico reacts. Besides having to deal with the fall-out of Mexican citizens (or at least one citizen) having been wounded in the Ecuadorian incursion  and the believability of the supposed laptop memos on Mexican involvement, the Calderon administration is Colombia’s only friend in Latin America. Given the Calderon Administration’s clear tilt towards the United States (and its eagerness to upgrade military equipment through “Plan Merida” funding) this will be a test of the Juarez Doctrine – staying the hell out of their neighbor’s business.

For a backgrounder on PEMEX, I was forwarded a rough machine translation of an interview with Raúl Muñoz Leos posted on Catholic.net.  That seems an odd place to read about the workings of a major oil company, but remember, that PEMEX was nationalized back in 1938, among other reasons, to fund social development.  The Church-connected website is a natural for this.  

More surprising, in a way, is finding Andrés Manuel López Obrador in the pages of the conservative daily Reforma.  Reforma is paid-subscription only.

¿Qué Queremos Ser los Mexicanos, País o Colonia?: AMLO (Diario Reforma, 18-Feb-2008,) was reprinted in the lively “legitimate government” virtual resistance movement — Blogotitlan

Unlike the right wing and their technocrats, we think that we can move the country forward, while cutting out the corruption which nourishes the political and economic power in this country.

Furthermore, we think it indispensable for the transformation of the nation, that we develop an economic model that is based on the advantages of our own people’s abilities and the rational use of our natural resources – especially our energy resources

I will not deal at this time with the problem of political corruption and the benefits that we would obtain by with eradicating it. Nor will I speak of the substantial business interests presently favored by the state, such as the sale of gas to the Spanish company Repsol for 15 billion dollars, sold without bids, or of the gas extracted by that company in Peru, and resold to the Federal Electrical Commission at the highest possible price.

Nor, will I talk about how much we would benefit by liberating Mexican workers from their oppression, the cancellation of their future in this country, which has forced them to emigrate, sending their talents and labor abroad. 

Instead, my intention in this article is to emphasize the strategic importance of petroleum and to discuss ways we can turn it to our advantage for our national development.  The energy sector’s relevance extends from the extraction of crude oil and gas to refining, petrochemicals and electrical generation.  The products of these industries are engines that drive yet other industries, and of great economic value.  In addition to the energy generating industries are massive amounts of goods and services depending on them, all serving to fortify internal markets. 

On the other hand, all projections indicate that energy demand will continue to grow regardless of anything else.  Estimates for the year 2020 show a 50 percent increase over this year.  That is to say, even as we continue to investigate other sources of energy, for the next several decades, hydrocarbons will sustain world-wide economic development. 

With these developments on the horizon, Mexico enjoys an invaluable possibility for development.  Our country can count of reserves of crude oil sufficient to produce gas and petrochemicals, and, furthermore, we possess great quantities of natural gay which, over time, will be used more and more for electrical generation. 

Why then, given the economic potential of petroleum resources to foment industrialization, generate power and has Mexico not become an energy power?  The answer, although seems incredible, has to do with an idea that has prevailed for the last 25 years, to privatize the electrical and petroleum industry.  And, of course, behind this thinking are those interests who seek control of those resources which are the property of the nation and the Mexican..

The only explanation is that from 1983 onward, instead of modernizing the oil industry and driving national development, all neoliberal governments have chosen – deliberately – to ruin the industry, giving a pretext to sell it and turn it to private businesses…

During this period, our energy policy has been handled inn a perversely irresponsible way, with a suprising lack of vision and common sense.  The only thing that has mattered has been a drive to sell crude oil to foreigners while neglecting the search for new deposits and abandoning the refining and petrochemical industries

Direct public investment in Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) has fallen from 2.9 percent of GNP in 1982 to 0.57 percent in 2007.  Investment in electricity has gone from 1.2 percent in 1982 to 0.31 percent in 2007.  That is to say, during this period, total public investment in the energy sector fell from 4.12 to 0.88 percent of GNP.

And, for the past two decades, production has depended primarily on fields opened in the seventies: mainly the Cantarell deposits in the Sea of Campeche, and Chiapas and Tabasco wells.

With respect to the gas, the technocrats have never comprehended the strategic importance of this power source.  And, as to refineries and petrochemical plants, they have been starved of resources for expansion and modernization.  No refineries have been built in over 25 years.  As a result, we are importing 307 thousand barrels of gasoline daily, which could be produced in our own country, generating employment for Mexicans. 

It is completely absurd that this year will spend 10 billion dollars to buy gasoline from abroad, exactly what it would cost to build three refineries, which would make the country self-sufficient in this fuel.  The energy sector has not been a government priority, and as a result Mexico has become an exporter of crude oil, and an importer of products with an added value. .

This leaves us in a seriously dependent state.  We pay dearly to foreigners for a quarter of the gas we need, and 40 percent of the gasoline we consume.  buy from foreigners dear All this has taken to a very serious situation of dependency. One buys expensive in the outside the fourth part of the gas which we needed in the country and the 40 percent of the gasoline that we consumed.

Outside Mexico, gas and electricity are more expensive for both consumers and industrial users than in the United States and other countries.  In December 2007, we paid 8.74 pesos for a liter of gasoline.  Compare this to other oil producers.  In Russia, a liter of gasoline cost 8.48;  in the United States, 7.51; in China 7.16; in Nigeria, 5.28; in the Arab Emirates, 4.99; in Ecuador, 4.34; in Iraq, 3.49; in Kuwait, 2.32; in Saudi Arabia, 1.32; in Iran, 0.97 and in Venezuela 50 centavos per liter. 

Facing the panorama of issues caused by lack of economic and technical resources, the usurping government [a reference to Felipe Calderón’s administration] tries to compound their misdeeds by privatizing the nation’s wealth, and to spread our oil revenue with foreign companies.

They must know that PEMEX, in spite of corruption mismanagement, generates an annual surplus of over 60 billion dollars, more than six percent of the GNP.  It is the most profitable company in the country (extracting a barrel of oil for four dollars, and selling it for 80 dollars). .

In terms of cash flow, PEMEX is the second largest oil company in the world.  The taxes paid last year were 60 billion dollars, equivalent to 38 percent of the federal budget and more than three times the amount of taxes paid by all other private companies in the country.  If PEMEX lacks investment funding, it is because the government confiscates everything.   

As far as technology goes, it is a mistake to assume that we must irremediably associate with foreign companies, and cannot contract what we need.  In addition there are many experienced Mexican workers, technicians and petroleum engineers with much experience.

We have not forgotten that, despite all prognostications by foreign companies in 1938, do not forget that, against all the prognoses of the foreign companies, Petróleos Mexicanos forged ahead with operations, and can continue to do so now.  We know, and they know, they can still do it.  is we all know, and we know they are ready to contribute.     

Only those technocrats with a neurotic need to sell out their country can argue that today’s PEMEX cannot survive, and that it’s delivery to the private sector – foreign or national – is the only way of salvation.  complex and sell mother countries, can argue that today PEMEX cannot and that its delivery to the deprived sector, national or foreign, it is the only salvation.

The strengthened energy policy we propose would not require opening the energy sector to neither foreign nor domestic private capital.  The first phase would be the immediate investment of 400 billion pesos for exploring new fields, developing natural gas deposits, perforating new wells, constructing three new refineries, modernizing and expanding petrochemical plants and research and technology development (including alternative energy plants) and maintaining existing oil facilities

A logical question is to ask where the money would come from.  Our proposal is based on funding from two sources.  First, we propose to reduce the current government operational costs by 200 billion pesos

This implies, among other things, cutting off the budget guarantees to high bureaucrats, one of the most privileged castes in the world.  I would emphasize that budget cuts would not reduce investments, not reduce the salaries of lower paid workers nor public works, but only to reduce those bureaucratic operating expenses and salaries in the public sector where there have been enormous increases. 

The current cost of the public sector, from 2000 to the present, has increased by 714 billion pesos to one trillion, 466 billion.  That is to say, it doubled. 

The second funding source we propose is that all excess profits over the actual price of petroleum approved by the Chamber of Deputies, be reserved for energy sector development. 

To give an idea of the potential revenue: if the present international price for petroleum remained constant for a year, the excess revenue would be more than 200 billion pesos. 

With respect to these numbers, remember that during the Fox administration, we received 10 billion dollars annually between 2004 and 2006 because of excess returns from the high price of oil. Our misfortune was – and continues to be – that this money was not destined to modernize PEMEX, nor to promote Mexican development, nor to guarantee the well-being of the people, but was wasted on benefits for the high bureaucracy or disappeared down the sewer of corruption.

So the answer is yes.  Yes, there is an alternative proposal to confront the robbery of our Mexico which would leave the people without future development.  Let us celebrate the 70th anniversary of oil expropriation by turning our backs on the right and their allies within the PRI who would return us to the Porfiriate and leave us a colony. 

(Diario Reforma, 18-02-2008)

With oil prices today at $100.01 per barrel, it isn’t only the Mexican left looking at their natural resources in a new light.  Edmundo Rocha (Xicanopwr.com) analyzes the recent dustup over ExxonMobile’s suit against Venezuala’s PDVSA (also a funding source for social programs), and reaction by Hugo Chavez, as well as a new player in the oil market, Iran’s Oil Bourse.

In case anyone is keeping score, since George W. Bush was “elected” in 2000, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Panama, Suriname, Uruguary, and Venezuela have all elected leftist or social-democratic leaders. Add Guatemala to the list.

Alvaro Colom, a social-democrat, was elected on the UNE ticket, seems to offer a program similar to that offered by Mexico’s not-elected (by 0.05 percent) Andres Manuel López Obradór: expanded social spending and integration with Latin America, and attacking crime by going after the root causes — poverty and corruption — rather than the approach favored by both Colom and AMLO’s main rivals — the hard hand.

Colom is an intriguing figure. His uncle was the martyred mayor of Guatamala City, Manuel Colom, who was one of a spate of left-leaning democrats murdered after Guatelemala supposedly returned to Democracy. The new president’s background as a business executive and social services administrator (the big scandal in the election involved supposedly diverted funds from his campaign going to social services — even if true better than the other way around) is about what you’d expect for the president of a small country. One other interesting piece of trivia: those a “ladino” (a Guatemalan of non-indigenous ancestry) he is a Mayan priest.

Other than bananas (and workers) Guatemala doesn’t have much in the way of resources — no oil to make the election caputure the attention of the U.S. It has already signed on to CAFTA (the Central American Free Trade Agreement) which hopes to repeat the mistakes of NAFTA over a wider area.

Under the Spanish, Guatemala was a “vice-viceroyalty” of Nueva España, and until the 1820s, its history is Mexican history. Chiapas was once part of Guatemala and is a slightly better-off version of conditions in Guatemala. The Revolution never having reached Guatemala, it’s indigenous population has never had the advantages of legal equality.

Though, both in Mexico and Guatemala, Mayans have been treated as less than human, and often denied their civil rights, Mexican Mayans could at least get an education, vote and a wider economic and social sphere than their relations across the border. In 1954, Jacabo Arbenz, a rare democratically elected president, was overthrown in a bloody coup. His “crime” was attempting to nationalize the banana industry, and reform agriculture, modeled on Lazaro Cardenás’ nationalizations in 1930s Mexico. Unfortunately, the foreign entity controlling Guatemalan bananas was the United Fruit Company. One of the directors of United Fruit was Alan Dulles, the director of the CIA.

Arbenz was painted as a “Communist” (much as Venezuela’s elected left-wing leader, Hugo Chavez, is) and overthrown in a not-very-covert — though very bloody — coup. Guatemala remained under military dictatorships until the 1980s, democracy sacrificed for bananas . The bat-shit crazy Guatemalan dictator of the 80s, Efríam Rios Montt, was …well… bananas.

With no legitimate route to change, Guatemala had been in the middle of an on-and-off civil war since Arbenz was tossed out. Rios Montt launched a “scorched earth” campaign against his own people — or rather, the Mayans. Allegedly putting down Communists, Rios Montt was of the theory that he should “kill em all and let the Lord sort ‘em out.” Like Colom, Rios Montt was also a minister… though in his case, it was a California-based Fundamentalist Christian sect that won his allegiance.

A Mexican brokered peace agreement ended the “official” civil war in 1996. While largely a forgotten step-child of Mexico, foreign reaction to Guatemalan events influences Mexican actions. After the 1954 CIA-sponsored coup, Mexico foreign policy turned conservative and did not seek to challenge the United States. The “socialist” PRI began repressing leftist challenges where before Mexican leaders coopted them, or made space for them within the system.

Rios Montt and the odious right-wing dictatorships that were only slightly better sent waves of Guatemalan refugees into Mexico… When the United States began withdrawing its support for the Guatemalan dictators, Mexico began making space within the system for indigenous groups and paying more attention to indigenous affairs. In many ways the latest in a long string of Mayan uprisings (the Zapatista movement) was a indirect result of the Guatemalan situation. The Mexican Army would not have been in a confrontation with the Mayans had it not been for the refugees, nor would there have been a push to identify Mayan dissent with the left if it hadn’t been for the U.S.-backed regimes in Guatemala.

And, while you are already starting to hear rumbles on the right that Guatemala may be “going left” (well, it is… but “going commie” has lost its cachet and now countries “fall under the sphere of influence of Hugo Chavez”) I’d expect Mexico is going to recognize that the U.S. is losing its hegonomy in the region, or — at least — is starting to recognize that social democrats are not a threat.

( A bit off topic, but I don’t know how to insert a footnote when writing directly on “wordpress”: Paraguay is also likely to join the left-list — and, there too, it is likely to elect a clergyman as president. Though Fernando Lugo Méndez is more what you expect a Latin American clergyman/leader to be: he is — or was — a Roman Catholic bishop).

Richard Nixon may have said that about Latin America, but some people care very much.  Australian film-maker John Pilger’s “The War on Democracy” (sombrero tip to Roman Cotera, the “Amazing Mexican” ) doesn’t have much specifically to do with Mexico, but well worth watching — and I seriously doubt it will be showing on U.S. TV stations any time soon .  Pilger is one of the few “Western” journalists who supported Hugo Chavez’ administration’s decision to cancel the license of Radio Caracas Televisión, arguing that any television station that overtly called to overthorw any government would expect to have their broadcast license pulled.

Even if you’re not sold on Hugo, you’ll want to watch this — unless, of course, you’re a Dick.

The second ever post on MexFiles was about my (accidental) meeting with Juan-Carlos II of Spain.  His Most Catholic Majesty does have a tendency to act in rather unregal ways (which makes the guy human, not a jerk).  Asking Hugo Chavez “why don’t you shut up?” probably was taken out of context, but c’mon… Hugo is one of the windier politicos around, and he does tend to go on... and on… and on… about almost anything.

Mexican politicos too are being told to shut up, though in Mexico, which isn’t such a bad thing at all.  A new election law prohibits paid political advertising... which means Mexican political journalists, unlike those in the U.S. will actually have to talk about what the politicos are proposing, and stop farting around wasting everyone’s time talking about who has how much money to spend.  In Mexico, where they’re a little more realistic about things, that kind of money is called by it’s proper name — bribes.

Our political writers will also have a hard time with another reform… no political campaigning until 90 days before the election (which has been the law for some time now… just that the rules have been strengthened).  This means avoiding all those meaningless “debates” between 7 or 8 party pre-candidates and endless agonizing over which of several people who won’t be running for president to support (er… bribe).

And, in a really radical reform, it looks like Mexican politicans are going to have to hire people who do work, not “spin” their accomplishments. No more burying facts in some hagiography of your local politician.  In the U.S., you get used to letters from your local congressman saying “Congressman Bilgewater announced today that he is in favor of mom, apple pie and homeland security…” After you read all about Congressman Bilgewater, you learn that a congressional committee considered a proposal to add funds to some obscure budget line item to fund more hay for Border Patrol horses.

Official propaganda (and that is the correct word for information from the State)  can no longer even suggest being presented for the benefit of any individual or political party.  WOW!  Maybe these congressional aides, city assistant liaisons and so on and so forth will have to find real jobs. One can only hope they’ll be replaced by people who actually do stuff.

The people speak…

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:

…

Though George W. Bush and Felipe Calderón – both presidents thanks to some shady mathematical votecounting – think otherwise.

The U.S. Administration managed to bamboozle the New York Times with tales of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to provide mass distraction for their misdirected attack on Iraq (sort of like Woodrow Wilson attacking Colombia because Pancho Villa attacked Columbus, New Mexico. And, just as an aside, Pancho’s raid killed a much higher percentage of New Mexicans than Osama bin Ladin did of New Yorkers). It’s just too damn convenient for the probably unelected U.S. President though, NOT to have some kind of external enemy to justify stifling dissent.

Mexico, not having the luxury of external threats, but with a similarly dubious president, needs to look internally for threats. They too, appear to be bamboozling the New York Times.

James C. Mckinley Jr. and Antonio Betancourt write at length in the 26 Sepember Times about

The shadowy Marxist rebel group that has rattled Mexico three times in recent months by bombing natural gas pipelines has a long history of financing its operations with the kidnappings of businessmen, prosecutors say.

For different reasons, Robert Canasco (in a posting on the Oaxaca Study Action Group site) and I have problems with the whole “shadowy Marxist rebel group” claim. Canasco writes:

I found the choice of the word ‘motive’ strange in the last passage of the article. Mr. Canseco - guerilla-turned-lefty-politician - uses it in a strange way. Was ‘pretext’ what he was saying?

Mr. Canseco said he worried that the government would use the bombings as an excuse to harass peaceful left-wing organizations, like his group, the Democratic Popular Left, a collection of former guerrillas trying to participate as a political party.

“These bombings make it clear that after 40 years the military insurgents continue to exist and that they have become strong,” he said.. “More than anything else, this gives the government a motive to start up the dirty war again.”‘

These bombings - in early July (around july 4th?) and on spt. 10th (hmm just a day before 9/11) - seem ill-timed as the u.s. congress considers whether or not to send much counter-narcotics and law enforcement resources to the mexican police and, even, the military.

Is this ’shadowy leftist group’ for real? Is anyone working against u.s.g. providing unconditioned military/police aid to a very brutal, corrupt Mexican govt.?

I had some of the same thoughts. I’d written before that I didn’t think the EPR was that serious a threat (by my reckoning, it’s a couple cranky geezers back in the hills), Despite the recent publicity (and I still haven’t seen anything to convince me that the alleged bombings of oil pipelines were anything but accidents – there had been a series of pipeline explosions just before the supposed bombings), EPR has not been taken seriously in years.

And, I question how seriously to take the New York Times. McKinnley writes that

… the rebels’ main base of operations is not in the mountains of southern Mexico, but in the teeming slums of Xochimilco and Tláhuac in Mexico City. Active members are believed to number no more than 100, officials say.

What? If Xochimilco and Tláhuac are “teeming slums” a hundred people is not a huge threat. I suspect McKinnley has never been in either place. I have. Both are semi-rural “delegaciones” of the Federal District… i.e., suburbia. Both have some rough urban neighborhoods, but they also include farms and ejitals. I once watched a cattle roundup in Xochimilco. Admittedly, the cowboys were living in high-rise apartments across from their farms (on chinapas), but if I”ve learned anything in far west Texas, it is to recognize real cowboys when I see ‘em. I worked in Tláhuac (teaching English in a CD jewel case factory) and used to go there twice a week. Yeah, there are some very poor neighborhoods (there was a ciudad perdida — a shanty-town) behind the factory, like you find in other semi-rural communities, and some highly built up working class areas, but no “teaming slums.”

Sounds like the Times is depending on press releases again, and the copy editors are asleep (or lazy).

So, I believe is Austin Reed – a wargamer website operator who has some following as a military analyst in right wing circles – makes the “threat” into something more palatable for fear-mongering gringos: Lopez Obrador (the mild-mannered leftist sold to us as “a fiery leftist” — and the probably winner in the last presidential election) and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Mexican media claimed that a shadowy organization called “Mexican Movement Bolivariano” (MMB) helps finance, train and arm the Revolutionary Popular Army (EPR). The MMB is allegedly tied to Venezuela. Follow the dots and that leads to Hugo Chavez. Allegations like this are common in the media; a conspiracy involving big personalities (celebrities, leaders) thrills almost everyone and Mexico is especially fertile ground for political conspiracy theories. Current President Felipe Calderon made political hay out of contacts between PRD candidate Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador and Chavez. Mexico is in the middle of a huge counter-insurgency operation — attacking drug gangs and corruption simultaneously. The Mexican government has had some success in its battle. Sidetracking Calderon’s Mexican government would be an attractive operation to a leftist caudillo like Chavez. In a recent statement following the September 10 bombing attack, the EPR called the Calderon government “illegitimate” and “fascist.” The illegitimate accusation certainly echoes the claims of Lopez-Obrador and his supporters, but these are common propaganda themes from the left and can be read as a pitch for internal support in Mexico. The EPR’s targeting has improved dramatically, but an alternative explanation for this improvement (and one far more likely) is that drug cartels are giving the EPR money and intelligence. The cartelistas certainly have contacts in PEMEX and could acquire very detailed information on Mexican pipelines. For a character like Chavez, riling Mexico is probably a bad move in the long term. Mexican intelligence can return the favor—they play dirty. Chavez isn’t stupid, but he is bombastic and at times believes his own bombast. Chavez just might take the risk. That’s why this is an interesting rumor, though currently it’s a rumor without real facts.

What all this comes down to is that the weak Calderón Administration is desperately trying to increase the internal security budget. They’ve managed to keep Lopez Obrador out of this media, but now they want to create a climate where dissent is equated with treason (as the Bush Administration almost did).

The “counter-insurgency” that Reed so lovingly fumulates over was supposed to be a war on narcos (no real objections from anyone), but — like our “War on Terror” — can be stretched to cover any dissenter you want. Living on the border, you almost come to accept the “security checks” on the highway as normal.

Fabiola Martínez, Roberto Garduño and Enrique Méndez in Jornada wrote about congressional opposition to increasing the CISEN (the Mexican equivalent of the CIA) budget, and using more CISEN operatives internally, as have all the Mexican dailies. But, then, I don’t think Austin Reed or James McKinnley bother to read Mexican papers.

Hugo Chavez, please. While some backers of Lopez Obrador also support Hugo Chavez (and why not?), the only evidence of any connection between the two was from the spin-machine of Dick Morris and other propagandists (er, “political advertisers”) for PAN in the last Presidential election. What? Hugo’s backing a bunch of old farts to bomb gas lines so that he can up the price of Chevron in the U.S.?

I smell bullshit — and for a change think the Oaxaca Study Action Group guys are on to something.

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.

The defense of Miss U.S.A., Rachel Smith, have been coming mostly from the “usual suspects,” trying to spin some anti-immigrant message into her tribulations (Smith’s costume — an homage to Elvis — and a pratfall on stage made her a joke to the Mexican press, and she was loudly booed during the event). Smith’s defenders have used the incident to justify their own anti-Mexican prejudices (”see, the folks who paid money to attend some silly event — broadcast mostly in English — and who didn’t like this particular contestant, or, like most of the planet, doesn’t care for the U.S. administration, were rude. Therefore it follows that Latin Americans are a lesser breed”… or some such nonsense).

Hardy Brown, the publisher of Black Voice News On-Line (Riverside, California), picked up a deeper, more serious, undercurrent to the dissing of Ms. Smith, one I never really thought about until I read his excellent editorial on the event.

This booing of Miss Universe has not sit well with many Blacks who have called and voiced outrage against the booing as well as the illegal immigration issue currently before congress. Some have expressed opinions like if that is the way some feel then we should finish the “Berlin Wall” on the Mexico border. Some have said if they feel this way about Black people now what do you think they will feel once they become a citizen. Some expressed reservations that many Black have expressed in the past and that is many Mexicans want to vote and only for their own. Some voiced concerns over the fact that many of the Black elected officials have remained silent on this issue and believe Blacks will suffer greatly from this legalization of between 12 and 20 million illegal citizens.

Brown is the dean of black newspaper publishers, and knows a hell of a lot more American race issues than I do, so I’ve got to give his words serious consideration. I didn’t pay much attention to the contest anyway, other than noticing that the out-going (abdicating?) Miss Universe rode a bike with Mexico City’s mayor one morning to publicize the city’s alternative transportation campaign.

Until I read his Brown’s editorial, it never crossed my mind that the Panamanian born Ms. Smith was presented as a black contestant. Nor am I certain that the Mexican audience saw her as one. The Miss Universe on a bike, Zuleika Rivera is Puerto Rican. It’s a given folks from the Caribbean and other parts of Latin America are at least of some African ancestry, and no one really thinks much about it. An African-American teacher working in Merida once told me she was more often taken for Brazilian, or assumed to be from Veracruz (until they heard her gringo accent).

Mexicans don’t seem particularly bothered by African ancestry, and I’ve written before on some Afro-Mexican heroes: Morelos, Alvarez and Vicente Guerrero. The “go to guy” on Afro-Mexicans, Ted Vincent, has written extensively on others, including Lazaro Cardenas, whose grandson, Lazaro Cardenas Batel — the present governor of Michoacán — is married to Mayra Coffigny, an Afro-Cuban.

When Cardenas Batel was a candidate for Governor in 2002, his PAN opponent tried to make an issue of Coffingy, who took an unusually activist role in her spouse’s campaign. Not because she is black (though the New York Times reported it as “racism”) but because she had been a member of the Cuban Communist Party and — the PANista appealing to the conservative Catholic vote — because Cubans have strange and unMexican religious practices. He may very well have been ham-handedly trying to use a code phrase for “black”, but it didn’t play out very well, and only the U.S. press saw it that way. In the Mexican press, the guy was a joke. And lost overwhelmingly — running against a Cardenas in Michoacán is like running against a Kennedy in Massachusetts.

An Ecuadorian I knew — being an extremely handsome guy — was used to receiving a lot of attention from foreigners in the gay friendly Zona Rosa cafe where he worked. He found it highly amusing that a would be gringo admirer tried wooing him with tales of his love of … and admiration for … Haitian! By color he was “negro,” though his face was Indigenous and his build the classic Greco-Roman European ideal… but to some silly gringo, all black, non-English speakers must be Haitians. To himself, and to his clients, his “raza” was Ecudoriano (and, if it matters, his sexual orientation was “straight”).

Our English-speaking, Protestant culture makes racial distinctions that are unnatural to “la raza” (which I dearly wish right-wing commentators would look up in a decent Spanish dictionary. It means “peoples,” and not “race.”). Mexican-American racism is an unfortunate by-product of assimilating to OUR ways and attitudes, at least partially.

None of which means that Mexicans — or Latin Americans in general — are totally and blissfully unawares of “race”, just that its not seen the same way it is in English-speaking countries.

Certainly, in places where there is a clear color difference, like Venezuela, or Cuba, race matters, though it’s only a part of class consciousness. The darker people tend to be the poorer people, and — according to the bigots, the deservedly poorer. Opposition propaganda in Venezuela makes no bones about suggesting Hugo Chavez — because he is black — is subhuman. And I’ve criticized the Cuban government for having a nearly all-white leadership. But, then again, the folks who were on top tend to stay on top, and it’s still a huge deal in this country when a non-white person — Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Condaleeza Rice — reaches a responsible leadership position.

In Mexico, for historical reasons, there are very few identifiably “black” Mexicans. Some, like in Veracruz or Tabasco State are blacker than others, but outside of a small community in Guerrero State, and more recent immigrants from the Caribbean or Brazil (or Africa… I’ll come to that in a minute), nobody you can say is black in our understanding of the term. The Guerrero Afro-Mexicans do claim discrimination, and do make a good case, but the discrimination is based more on their being an isolated, rural, under-served community with the same complaints of similar isolated pockets of rural indigenous communities (which the Mexican statistician consider the Guerrero community… who are said to be descended from runaway slaves during the War of Independence).

Of course, I can’t say that persons of African descent are immune to discrimination. I lived in a Mexico City neighborhood that has always attracted foreign immigrants. Spanish refugees from Franco, Jews fleeing Hitler, Argentines and Chileans during the 70s and now, Brazilians, Jamaicans, Cubans, Russians (!), Congolese, Kenyans and even a few Ethiopians. One of my neighbors made a few remarks to me about the “bad Negroes” in the area, but to this day I’m not sure if he was talking about the Jamaicans who rented my apartment before I did, or blacks in general. He’d had a problem with the Jamaicans who apparently were unkind to his little dogs, and got a bad reputation in the neighborhood for hanging out on the street smoking marijuana and drinking beer (respectable Mexicans smoke marijuana inside or at the park!). His dislike did extend to the Congolese guy who ran the Internet cafe down the street, but if I heard anything about the Africans, it had to do with their relative exoticism.

When Mexicans are using racist language, you’re more likely to hear references to Indians than anything. I’ve told the story many times of hearing a very European looking drunk called “indio sucio” by very Aztec looking people expressing disgust not with his “race”, but with his filthy, low-class ways (Basically, the term was used the way people in the U.S. use “white trash”… declasse, in-bred, stupid people).

I once tried following up the story of a British doctor who claimed she was pulled off a bus in the Yucatan because she is black. She very well could have been pulled off a bus, but it may have been that she was taken for Belizian or Honduran, and suspected of being either a smuggler or an illegal alien. And, I had serious doubts about the doctor when she started making claims about the same treatment in Atlanta and California. They could be true, but I had nothing to go on.

Black foreigners working in Mexico have told me they thought they were more likely to be questioned by immigration than I was, but those of us with mostly European features just don’t stand out from the crowd the way an Ethiopian or Kenyan does.

But, Hardy is responding to not Latin American, but North American concerns. His readers raises serious, and important concerns about African-Americans and Mexican-Americans.

Race certainly matters in the United States. Though writing about his more common “Indian” heritage than multi-racialism, Californian Richard Rodriguez catches the essential difference between Mexican and U.S. concepts of race when he writes in Days of Obligation (1992, Penguin):

In New England the European and the Indian drew apart to regard each other with suspicion over centuries. Miscegenation was a sin against Protestant individualism. In Mexico the European and Indian consorted. The ravishment of fabulous Tenochtitlán ended in a marriage of blood — a “cosmic race,” the Mexico philosopher José Vasconcelos has called it.

I always feel obliged add a “footnote” about Vasconcelos. He ended his career as an apologist for Hitler and was a thoroughgoing anti-Semite. In Raza cosmica, though, Vasconcelos was speaking of the spiritual value of Latin American “race mixing” in general, and not just the majority Euro-Indigenous Mex-Mix.

Our culture… and the Black Voice News readers… values racial identity. When Hardy reports that his readers worry that “many Mexicans want to vote and only for their own,” I’m wondering if this is any different than ethnic politics as it’s been played out in American elections forever.

And certainly, our sense of racial identity is used to divide people who otherwise share class interests… keeping poor blacks and poor whites from voting for their common interests in the former Confederacy for example.

I speculated elsewhere (privately) that African-American fears of Mexican immigrants (and Mexican fears of African-Americans) are manipulated for economic reasons. The infamous Memín Pinguín incident was more than a little convenient for the Bush Administration, seeking to head off a possible “black-brown” opposition.

T here’s no getting around the fact that Memín is offensive to African-Americans. The NAACP was understandably outraged when it a Mexican domestic postage stamp featured the popular cartoon character (a Cuban boy with the exaggerated features common in 1930s African-American cartoon characters) was brought to their attention.

The Mexican Ambassador at the time couldn’t understand the issue, pointing out that Speedy Gonzales is thoroughly enjoyed by Mexicans. Mexican-Americans may find him an offensive stereotype, but Mexicans love el raton rapido. I was on a long bus ride where the driver was asked to replace the video he’d popped in (a really awful low-budget cop movie, with a lot of gore and sex) because there were children on the bus. He replaced the video with one of old cartoons… everybody likes Bugs Bunny and Pepe le Pew, but the whole bus started cheering and applauding when Speedy came on.

The upshot of the Memín affair was that Jesse Jackson DEMANDED a meeting with President Fox — and got one. Jackson is no fool, but I think he was used. To the U.S., it was presented as a righteous response to racism. To Mexicans, it played as another gringo interfering in Mexican affairs, and — perhaps worse — another in a long line of meddling puritanical northerners. Not standing up to demands from a private citizen of the U.S. was the start of Fox’s skid in Mexican opinion polls.

For the Bush administration, it was an easy victory: Under assault for its own racial and class insensitivities — and faced with the very real prospect of an organized push by civil rights organizations and labor unions to organize multi-racial class-based actions, presidential press comments to the press, and demands for a response from the Mexican government, and expressed outrage from a U.S. Ambassador who’d never shown any interest in his career in African-American issues is disinguenous.

The irony is that the people who booed Rachel Smith were wealthy, well-educated people, unlikely to emigrate. They have probably read Vasconcelos, but still treat their dark-skinned maid as a lesser being. It’s the dark-skinned maids relations, who probably read Mimín who leave.

The tragedy is that they go to a country where race matters very much, and where sophisticated, thoughtful people feel a need to react to the symptoms and not the disease — racism, inequality and poverty. And puritanism.

Some of my best resources are the folks who “get it wrong”… or, rather, just don’t “get it”. Not so much that I enjoy playing the pedantic know-it-all (though I do), as they make my work a lot easier, alerting me to trends and issues I would otherwise miss.

I’m not talking about right-wing cranks like the Minutemen and VDARE.com, though I check them out regularly for the latest in anti-immigration “spin” (which is dangerous, since it is so avidly regurgitated by “respectable” sources – folks who are looking for a rationale for their feelings, and just assume a site that appears scholarly (like VDARE) is something other than what it is (I don’t even link to them anymore, since it’s such a hassle to put up a “hate group” warning every time).

What I’m talking about are otherwise legitimate sites that are focused on something else, and try to fit a Mexican event into it, but miss the connection.

Bloggings by Boz is an excellent resource for mainstream U.S.-based reporting from and about Latin America in general. I recommend it, though I disagree with Boz’ conclusions about various things, especially in regard to the Venezuelan administration.

Mark in Mexico, which I also regularly read, is sometimes useful. It has done some decent reporting on Oaxaca, but has — whether out of unconscious ideological bias, or simply to cover up obvious facts — been completely wrong on a few occasions, but it is sometimes useful for knowing what to look for in the news from Oaxaca.

I don’t list it as a Mexican or Mexico-based website because it focuses on the U.S. Republican Party , and only incidentally on where it is physically located (much as I consider myself a Mexican website, though physically, I’m 150 Km north of Ojinaga, Chihuahua).

Mark gets more than a little “snarky” about the APPO and the leftist opposition to Oaxaca’s despised governor, Ulises Ruiz and his henchmen. Mark apparently runs some kind of English tutorial service in that city, and sells trinkets, so I suppose he has a better right to carp than those of us outside the community. And the opposition aren’t saints, but neither is the Republican Party. But what caught my attention was his post on APPO defense lawyers making the claim that they are not being protected from death threats.

Boz, in a post on press freedoms (or lack thereof) in Venezuela, also mentions the threats posed by gangsters to the Mexican press, specifically the problems at Cambio Sonora and Tabasco Hoy!. Both papers have shuttered their doors because of intimidation by gangsters, but Boz quotes from the Washington Post:

President Felipe Calderón has called the intimidation of journalists “an unacceptable situation,” promised to protect journalists and discussed possible legislation to achieve that goal.

I don’t know if the two read each other’s sites. They have different goals and audiences, so there’s no reason they should. But I sense a theme here. A commentator on Boz’ site asked “Where is Calderon and his new emphasis on law enforcement in all of this?” and of course I left my own “snarky” response before I’d taken a look at Mark’s site. I said “You’re assuming the Calderón administration wants to protect a free press. Given his Porfirian tendencies, and willingness to use “una mano dura” towards dissenters AND criminals, I don’t see him lifting a finger to protect regional papers, which are among his harshest critics.”

In regard to the Oaxacan lawyers, I’d make the same comment.

I think the foreign press is misreading Calderón’s use of the Army in police matters as a reform. The Mexican media, and Mexican observers don’t see it as progressive, but as a dangerous threat to democracy and civil society. We’re buying the excuse that a military solution to a civil problem (a gang war) is somehow necessary, overlooking the use of equally ham-handed response to dissent.

Qui bono?

I have said more than once (at least twice) that Calderón’s administration resembles Porfirio Diaz’s more than most administrations do. While other administrations have used the army to put down dissent (notably Diaz Ordaz and Echeverria) and others have courted foreign investors (Carlos Salinas et. passum), they haven’t been coordinated like this in at least the last 100 years.

Not to say that Calderón has a free hand – congress, the Supreme Court, the Human Rights commission and the independent media (not to mention the free and lively blogosphero) all limit the president’s power. But, having even less legitimacy than Don Porfirio (who at least was a modernizer and nationalist), I think we’re looking at the wrong Latin American country if we want to see a closet dictator. Hugo Chavez was undoubtedly elected, and his programs, like them or not, are what the Venezuelan voters want. Felipe Calderón may or may have not have been elected, and much of his goals are NOT those wanted by the Mexicans.