Mexico versus Argentina

The title says it all, an epic match between the perennial champions and the all-time underdogs, two prideful Latin footballer nations that play at full volume but whose matches invariably fade into background notes.

I know nothing about soccer. But I'm aware enough to get worried every time Mexico wins a World Cup match. At the Angel of Independence several blocks from where I live, kilometers of cars break out with honks and deafening music until sunrise. The street becomes an alcoholic sports-orgy in the heart of the Mexican republic. I can't sleep until 630 or 7 AM.
 
Yesterday I watched the US-Ghana game in a local cantina and felt the pent-up rage Mexicans feel toward the US (team), at once passing, fleeting and superficial (isn't everyone supposed to root against the gringos?) but at the same time, an antagonistic clash of opposites.
 
Although soccer inspires cheap nationalism, it's also a lightning rod for true-felt pride and emotions that surge in the heat of competition. The masks come off when your home team is in the World Cup. Everyone becomes a nationalist. Which is what makes it so cathartic and real, a cheap yet spot-on catalyst that cuts sharply all ways.
 
Or perhaps this isn't really about soccer, or at least not winning soccer. After all, why would a country that loses so many soccer matches have so many delirious soccer celebrations? In South Africa's World Cup, the Mexican fans, one of the biggest delegations, are the loudest, most ardent and colorful in the stadium.
 
Is it just a game? When the Tri plays abroad, the rhythm and ordinariness of life is broken. In the capital and every provincial Mexican city, the world fills with mayhem and shouts of solidarity.
 
I witness what I call "breakDown" every time the Selección Mexicana wins a major match, which thankfully isn't often. After the last winning World Cup game with France, over 60 teenagers were arrested at the Angel for smashing bottles ecstatically.
 
Mariachi sing "The King"
 
The famous mariachi Son de San Pedro arrived last week in Plaza Garibaldi in Mexico City on the day of the Uruguay match to sing El Rey to thousands of delirious fans. This is the romance of triumph, a ritual performed each year with lots of cold beer, music and pageantry. 
 
An obsession with being number one.
 
Mexico lost the march 1-0. But since the team moved to the second round anyway, over 70,000 fans gathered at the Angel and Zócalo where they screamed and frenetically waved Mexican flags. Over 70,000 strong, with 23 arrests for vandalism and 7 injured police officers.
 
Thank god there was no real party.
 
Keeping the faith
 
Maybe there isn't much deep meaning here, just tumult and a going to extremes; a release of fierce and noble feelings repressed by the frustration of too much ordinariness.
 
Or perhaps this frenzy is something larger, a violent outpouring in which "the Mexican, drunk with his own self, is aware at last, in a mortal embrace, of his fellow Mexican".
 
All I can say is: Viva el Tri!
 
 
 
* all quotes are from Octavio Paz, Labyrinth of Solitude.
Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   Argentina   fiesta   football   Mexico   soccer   World Cup  

Comments [0]

Arizona and the Untruth

On April 23, 2010, governor Jan Brewer, an Arizona Republican, signed what is probably the toughest legislation in the US against illegal immigrants. It shall take effect on July 29 pending several legal challenges and a formal review by the Justice Department.

Under the law, police investigating an incident or crime will be required to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also prohibits solicitation of day-labor work on the state's streets and makes being in Arizona without papers a misdemeanor.
 
The law is supposed to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and discourage them from making the journey. It has outraged civil rights groups, drawn rebuke from the Obama administration and led to mass protests by people on both sides of the issue.
 
The law's backers say that Congress has failed to reform federal immigration policy, so the state has been forced to address the issue.
 
Why'd they do it?
 
What were Arizona citizens' motives?
 
Many cite major budget shortfalls, overcrowded hospitals and public schools with thousands of extra kids and no money. In sum, the economy is a mess.
 
Another reason is security, fear of the daily narco killings right over the border and even terrorism. A third reason is law and order or, rather, the uniquely American way in which Arizonans think about the law. 
 
In many towns across the state, up to 50% of residents don't have papers. They speak a different language and live on the outskirts. Few from the community know who they are.
 
And of course, there are racists.
 
The Race Card
 
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund recently predicted that the law would create “a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”
 
For these reasons (and others), this law is deeply flawed.
 
But there are untruths, exaggerations and omissions about why it happened, as well as a strong dose of hypocrisy, in Mexico and elsewhere.
 
Let's start with race. This argument alleges that the law is racist because (a) it overwhelmingly "discriminates" against Latinos; and (b) it involves judging people based on their physical appearance (what many call "racial profiling").
 
Are these arguments valid?
 
Maybe. But if they are, wouldn't ANY law that restricts illegal immigration be considered racist by definition?
 
Would nations lose their right to secure their borders because of possible racial discrimination?
 
Loss of perspective
 
The race card can always be used at its wielder's convenience. When it involves different races or ethnicities, nationalism itself becomes a type of racism.
 
And if the authorities judge people based on physical appearance, it becomes by definition a form of racism ("racial profiling").
 
Yet in a sense, aren't we all racists? If I presume that someone is Mexican because "he looks Mexican," isn't this a (benign) form of racism?
 
We all judge others based on how they look.
 
And yes, there are hard-core racists among those opposed to open borders.
 
But just because a law affects one ethnic group over another doesn't necessarily make it racist. 
 
Put differently, if there were hundreds of thousands of poor foreigners who spoke a different language and pledged allegiance to a different flag streaming each year over an insecure border, would the locals not complain just because they were of the same race?
 
Clearly, we need to put things in perspective.
 
As Time magazine recently said: "Just because there are some racists influencing the debate doesn't mean anyone who is for immigration control is a racist."
 
Shadow of hypocrisy
 
In April 2010, Amnesty International issued a report which urged Mexico to adopt procedures to protect the human rights of Central Americans in the country illegally.
 
The document, titled "Invisible Victims: Immigrants and Movement in Mexico" describes tens of thousands of kidnappings, torture, rape and other forms of abuse committed every year by Mexican police, border officials and citizens against Central Americans.
 
"Migrants in Mexico are facing a major human rights crisis," said Rupert Knox, Mexico Researcher at Amnesty International. 
 
"Persistent failure by the authorities to tackle abuses carried out against irregular migrants has made their journey through Mexico one of the most dangerous in the world."
 
Kidnappings of illegal immigrants in Mexico is now at an all-time high. The National Human Rights Commission reported that in 2009, nearly 10,000 people were abducted in a six month period, nearly half of them involving public officials.
 
Another report describes frequent anti-immigrant round-ups in Chiapas and southeast Mexico. Central Americans are often held for years in municipal jails and subject to torture, extortion and other abuse. 
 
Why?
 
The answer is simple: under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms.
 
In addition, the General Law on Population enacted in April 2000 requires federal, local and municipal police to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the arrests of illegals.
 
Which all means that Central Americans in Mexico are prey. They are hunted down based on their physical appearance. They are rounded up and sent to prison. They are extorted, beaten and abused.
 
In 2009, an estimated six out of 10 Central American women who illegally crossed the Mexican border were sexually abused.
 
The report calls the problem an "immigration holocaust".
 
Convenient omissions
 
This detail is rarely mentioned by Mexican officials (or average Mexicans) in the clamor inspired by Arizona. But isn't it relevant?
 
Let's suppose the Mexican economy started booming and thousands of workers came flooding into Mexico City. 
 
After 4 or 5 good years, more than half a million illegal immigrants were living in the Mexico City metropolitan area, most of them from Central America.
 
Suddenly, the economy tanks.
 
What would the Mexican government do about poor Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans (including many blacks) who registered their children in public schools now in crisis? How would Mexican officials react to overcrowded hospitals and public deficits?
 
According to Article 125 of the General Law on Population, the authorities would be required to arrest and deport them en masse.
 
Yet in the sunami against Arizona, politicians from every Mexican political party build careers on deriding the US for human rights abuse against Mexicans.
 
Is there a solution?
 
The Arizona law is a forced, narrowly-crafted attempt to address a pressing problem plainly outside the state's jurisdiction.
 
But if there's a human rights component of this law, it isn't racism: it's desperation.
 
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said, "a better solution is comprehensive immigration reform."
Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   Arizona   immigration   law   Mexico  

Comments [0]

In Mexico, the Law Bites the Shoeless

What happens when a nation's elite no longer values the truth for its own sake? What happens when the custom of "sayings things as they are" becomes rude?

Last week Marco Sánchez Ruiz, a businessman from Sonora with a Texas can-do attitude, was sworn in as the new director of the Business Coordination Advisory Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, the most prestigious business organization in Mexico.
 
Before legislators, ministers, labor leaders and governors, not to mention the crème de la crème of Mexican business society, Mr. Sánchez claimed that nearly every problem the nation faced (i.e., corruption, poverty, unemployment and violence) all had one root: unlawfulness.
 
According to Mr. Sánchez, the nation's only hope was "if everybody transformed their own personal vision".
 
"In Mexico nearly all our problems start with illegality: piracy, tax evasion, vote rigging, abuse of the public trust and even failure to respect small rules".
 
What a breath of fresh air! A northerner with a sharp tongue in Mexico City telling it like it is to the seasoned political class.
 
"We Mexicans must once and for all confront illegality" warned Mr. Sánchez. 
 
In Mexico, every rat has a tail
 
In fact, most of the politicians and execs in that room owed their success (at least in part) to their abilities to bypass, skirt or simply break the law.
 
But there was something else even more important that people rarely mentioned: Mexicans (especially ambitious ones) considered breaking the law as an affirmation of who they are, an expression of a deeply sustained way of life that derives from principles rooted in how things are in Mexico.
 
Why this is true is beyond the scope of this entry. But it always begins when people sense deep, unresolved ambiguity in their surroundings.
 
Ironically, none of the elected officials in the room were required under law to pay income taxes. They were all corrupt (to speak only of minor offenses) yet protected by fuero, a legal shield used extensively by Mexican politicians to avoid prosecution.
 
In other words, they were legally immune.
 
The businessmen and corporate execs in the room, among the richest in Latin America, enjoyed what citizens of any modern nation would call class impunity; nearly any legal complication was fix-able on the basis of contacts and money.
 
But these are trifles, common knowledge that ordinary Mexicans take for granted.
 
The real truth was that none of what Mr. Sanchez said was even thinkable unless everyone in that room - members of a deeply elitist society - were willing to renounce privileges that defined a fundamental part of who they were and what they were about.
 
Any takers?
 
Although Mr. Sanchez is a businessman, he knew well enough to speak as a politician. His language was earnest (just like Sonora!) yet concealed, provocative without being in any way too specific (taboo at such a gathering in the capital).
 
"Nearly every difficulty we Mexicans face as a nation starts with illegality," he resounded.
 
"Si Señor!" responded the crowd. Most in the room - politicians, corporate execs and so-called juniors with perks and impunity that would astound their 1st world counterparts - clapped heartily.
Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   corruption   elitism   hypocrisy   Mexico   politics  

Comments [0]

San Judas: The Cult

In Mexico in the year 2010, San Judas Tadeo (San Juditas, as he's called by followers) is the most popular male saint in Mexico.
 
Millions of followers - more than for any besides the Guadalupe - now celebrate the patron saint of lost causes.
 
Santa Muerte
 
San Juditas, Malverde, Santa Muerte... a canon of holy figures recruited by petty thieves, prostitutes and drug dealers. 
 
The downtrodden and oppressed, the ones without hope.
 
San Judas is the wretched street urchin who vomits his guts in a dark alley, an impoverished teenage streetwalker with bad ovaries and bulging veins. 
 
San Judas is the worst it gets and yet - after you've been down - you realize that the journey wasn't for naught. 
 
The Character
 
San Judas was the man who brothered Jesus Christ, close friend and servant. 
 
Perhaps "son of god" is beyond human connection, for Christ is the Other.
 
Perhaps the Jews in their own abstract way avoided something Christians couldn't: raw embrace of the downtrodden.
 
In Mexico this intimacy is the most a saint can offer, which explains why millions of young followers arrive each month from the far corners of the country carrying sculptures of Juditas which they adorn with necklaces, stamps and flower rings. 
 
And red roses, always red roses.
 
In the church of San Hipólite in the capital, and in chapels throughout the north, the alter has been adopted by San Judas, its walls and urns flush with requests, promises and thank you notes.
 
All too human
 
On the street hope is submerged where children abandoned by addict mothers live like rats in sewers.
 
San Judas is where the government never goes. 
 
Someone who knew (like many here "know") that it's better to stare injustice in the face.
 
To see ourselves as we are: weak, greedy and unrepentant. 
 
Whether a name for religion or spiritism or whatever else you call it - Juditas is what many Mexicans feel again after all hope has been taken. 
Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   Mexico   narcos   religion   saints  

Comments [0]

Televisa & Azteca Show Their Hands

On Sunday April 4, 2010 Mexicali was the epicenter of a 7.2 magnitude earthquake. Its effects were felt as far north as Phoenix and Los Angeles.

Over 900,00 people live in the Mexicali metropolitan area.

If you include nearby towns in Baja California, over 1 million people in Mexican territory felt the quake, the largest to hit northern Mexico in over 40 years. 

While it happened, however, no mention of it appeared on the nation's airwaves.

In fact, not until the end of regular programming - long after rescue efforts had begun - did either major network report the event.

Awkward Silence

Without a passing text across the screen on either network, the non-reaction seemed strangely in sync.

Milenio Online wondered: "What can TV viewers like you and I do? More importantly, what are Televisa and TV Azteca going to do?

The answer is probably nothing - at least not for the foreseeable future. 

Tenochtitlan, Mexico City

The event provides a telling glimpse into a deeply embedded bias in a deeply centralized nation. 

The roots for centralized rule in Mesoamerica result from hundreds of years of orders from above and always from the same place. 

Despite a population of nearly 110 million, Mexico currently has only two national TV channels. Yet the fear of relinquishing the broadcast media's role as an instrument of control makes reform practically impossible.

Mexican political parties already have their hands full of feisty newspaper editors and the internet to worry about another TV channel. 

And why permit decisionmaking in Torreon or Mérida when the oligarchs live in the capital? In this case, power does trump money.

On the Ball?

Maybe Televisa and Azteca believed that their audience wouldn't be interested in tremors up north. Or perhaps they just didn't care enough to interupt a "classic" match between Chivas and América (Televisa) or a musical reality show (Azteca). 

We'll probably never know the details. The lapse was nonetheless a lucid reminder of what nearly everyone already knows, a rare moment when the oligarchs showed their hand. 

For a couple of days, it seemed sharp Mexicans in the national newsroom were genuinely startled. 

Maybe that in itself means something.

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   broadcast   media   Mexico   oligopoly  

Comments [0]

A Note About the Unnamable

In Mexico, he's rarely referred to in public (at least not negatively) because if you mention "Carlos Slim" at a gathering or in the press, influential people listen way too closely.
 
Mr. Slim is linked to just about everything Mexican: banks, railroads, retail, parking, highways, real estate and of course telecommunications. 
 
His company, Telmex, is the owner of 92% of Mexican phone lines nearly 20 years after privatization. Its sister company, América Móvil, is Latin America's top mobile carrier and owns nearly 3/4 of the Mexican cell phone market.
 
Later this year, Mr. Slim plans to merge both companies into a single corporate unit. He and his advisors anticipate no opposition from Mexican lawmakers.
 
The Other Carlos
 
The "Unnamable" also refers to Mr. Carlos Salinas de Gortari, the ex-president of Mexico and NAFTA co-signer who cut "THE DEAL" with Mr. Slim. 
 
Although American and European critics often question the ethics of this arrangment, few understand its political and social dynamic.
 
For starters, the accusation that Mr. Slim was a prestanombres (name lender) amounts to a non-issue, as "borrowing" someone else's name has always been a common and widely accepted business practice in Mexico.
 
If the deal was indeed "murky", it was no different than any other Mexican presidential accord. Besides, Mexican politicians have rarely been required or expected to make their finances public. 
 
In a word, privacy in Mexico (as it is in many places) is worth more than transparency.
 
In the end, Messrs. Salinas and Slim pulled off one of the great politico-business deals of the late 20th century, rivaling even the Russian government petro firesale of the 1990's.
 
Which is to say that Mr. Slim is not only a shrewd businessman but also a highly astute politico.
 
Model Citizen
 
At closer look, Mr. Slim's thrift, family values and unvarnished patriotism also make him an ideal Mexican role model. 
 
The fact that his company continues to operate as a monopoly and he owns a disproportionate share of his nation's economy (at one point, nearly 40% of Mexican stocks) is not a critique of the man per se but rather the politics and culture in which he lives.
 
When in Rome, do as the Romans.
 
Many of his supporters cite the trickle down effect, emphasizing the benefits of capital concentration to infrastructure and industrial development. But this doesn't seem to have happened, at least not to an extent tangible to most Mexicans.
 
Besides, economists have argued that certain social, cultural and economic conditions must be present (e.g., a middle class, access to capital, social mobility) for the benefits from capital concentration to accrue. 
 
In Mexico, wealth has been amassed in relatively few hands throughout its history, so the returns have already diminished.
 
This fact has not been lost on Mexican leaders. The majority of federal legislators are aware that Telmex's rates are among the highest in the world. They understand that legislation enacted 20 years ago was supposed to break up a monopoly, not extend it. 
 
Yet nothing meaningful to curb Mr. Slim's grip on Mexican telecommunications has been achieved.
 
That's the real story of the Slim fortune: omissions of the Mexican political elite who in practice continue to condone (many would even say protect) Mr. Slim's oligopolic industrial might.
 
The Daily Toll
 
Out of public earshot, Mr. Slim is called many things, most reflecting how people instinctively feel about the idea of a single man owning so much. (At last official count, he owned over 6% of Mexican GDP - surely an underestimate).
 
"Do you know what Slim means in Arabic?" asks one Mexican to another. (Mr. Slim's forebears are from Lebanon).
 
"No, what?" asks the other.
 
"Salinas!"
 
These names invariably mirror the inequity of vast resources concentrated in the hands of so few.
 
A report issued last year by the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) revealed that Mexico had the worst level of income inequality and poverty among the group’s 30 member states.
 
But this critique is not about Mr. Slim; it's about how he got there and how his monopolies continue to operate.
 
Every day, Mexicans invest a considerable share of their daily allowance to Mr. Slim's holdings: bank fees, tolls, parking, coffee, pastries, clothing, hotels, electronics, Internet access and of course every phone call made via land or cell through Telmex, Telcel, ATT and any other Mexico-based carrier.
 
Mr. Slim (and Mr. Salinas, no doubt) get a piece of it all.
 
Shadow Wealth
 
Although Mr. Salinas has never made the Fortune list, he continues to be one of Latin America's richest men. In Mexico, where he also remains at the epicenter of politics, few know (or openly question) where his wealth comes from. 
 
Before the Telmex deal was struck in 1990, Mr. Slim was already a major contributor to Mr. Salinas' campaigns.
 
In his book Bordering on Chaos, journalist Andrés Oppenheimer describes a dinner organized by Mr. Slim at which Mr. Salinas solicited contributions from 30 prominent Mexican businessmen. 
 
Although Mr. Slim reportedly "wished the funds had been collected privately, rather than at a dinner, because publicity over the banquet could 'turn into a political scandal'", the tycoons at the gathering contributed an average of $25 million apiece. 
 
Favors like this don't take place every day: one dinner, 750 million dollars.
 
"He made his billions because of an extremely close and advantageous relationship with the Salinas government," says professor George W. Grayson, a Mexican policy expert at the College of William & Mary. 
 
Nobody will ever know the details of "THE DEAL", but that's how things work in Mexico (and much of the world). Recently Slim has been investing in all major political parties, ideology aside, a common practice among Mexico's super rich. 
 
The Slim Legacy
 
At a recent dinner in New York City, Mr. Slim was presented with an award from the World Education and Development Fund for his work on infrastructure in the developing world. At the event, Mr. Slim told the audience: "Many people want to leave a better world for their children. I'm trying to leave better children for my world."
 
At first, people weren't sure they heard the word "my", but in retrospect, what a fitting way to describe it. 
 
Mr. Slim has indeed created his own world, a $150 billion business empire whose shadowy government dealings and spectacular growth has turned him into the world's richest man.
Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   economics   Mexico   monopoly   social injustice   Telmex  

Comments [0]

La Jornada is a Party Organ

Last week Orlando Zapata Tamayo, a Cuban political prisoner encarcerated since 2003, died at Havana's Combinado del Este prison after 85 days on hunger strike.

Mr. Zapata, 42, was arrested on charges of "disrespecting authority" and sentenced to 3 years behind bars. This sentence was later increased to 25 years because of his protests at jail conditions.

His death marks the first time in nearly 40 years a Cuban activist starved himself to death in protest against government abuses.

Since Mr. Zapata had been declared a "prisoner of conscience" by Amnesty International, the news of his death appeared in nearly every major world publication (including every Mexican daily) with the exception of one: La Jornada.

The Principled Left

On the La Jornada web site, a banner daily appears called "Reflexiones de Fidel Castro", a link which takes you to a chronological listing of every public event, directive and utterance made by the great Cuban leader. 

The banner has graced the publication's site since it first went online and represents the moral imperative (in a sense, the soul) of the publication.

In Mr. Zapata's case, the reasoning goes like this: since the Castro brothers officially deny the existence of any political prisoner on Cuban soil (except in Guantánamo), there's no reason for La Jornada (or any Cuban publication) to mention Zapata's death. 

The fact that the story appeared in every other Mexican news channel only makes the omission more principled.

Politics over Journalism

Mr. Zapata's mother, Reina Luisa Tamayo, told the Miami newspaper El Nuevo Herald that her son had been "murdered" by Cuba's authorities. "They managed to do what they wanted," she said. "They ended the life of a fighter for human rights.''

Laura Pollan, a dissident from the group known as Ladies in White, told the BBC: "He wasn't a murderer. He wasn't a thief. He wasn't a rapist. He was simply a young man who wanted a better future for Cuba."

But Castro's neo-Stalinist regime and (of course) La Jornada claim otherwise. How can prisoners be mistreated if they don't exist? 

Most La Jornada readers would consider Mr. Zapata and Cuban human rights activists in general to be CIA stooges. Somehow - though without apparent explanation - they blame Mr. Zapata's death on the U.S.

The fact that Mr. Zapata's trial - and the trials of 74 other dissidents jailed in 2003 for "disrespecting authority" - was closed to the public is merely a yanqui distraction, a convenient capitalist ploy neatly contained (and rendered inert) by neo-Marxist theory.

What was Mr. Zapata's real "crime"? Perhaps he made contact with the U.S. Office of Exterior Affairs in Havana, or received letters from Miami-based compatriots.

The bottom line is that the gringos once tortured suspected terrorists in Guantánamo - ergo anything used by Cuba or La Jornada can be justified.

Whether law abiding citizens are jailed and tortured by the Cuban authorities for expressing their opinions is a trifle in the context of the Great Revolution and all it (still) represents to left-wing Mexican "intellectuals".
Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   Cuba   journalism   liberty   Mexico   politics  

Comments [0]

The Temptation of Friendship: The Latin America Unity Summit

This week Latin American leaders were in Cancun for the Latin America Summit, a major gathering focused on Latin American affairs and featuring the Mexican president seated smack between Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez. 

Just before the meeting got under way, Mr. Chavez burst into the room with his left hand held high, shouting "Viva Mexico". Minutes later he approached Mr. Calderon with his arms open wide, singing at the top of his lungs México lindo y querido.

The Venezuelan leader then grabbed his Mexican counterpart by the lapels and smothered him in a friendly bear hug. 

Mr. Calderon was all smiles.

At long last, the sister Republics were together - a fraternity of 33 nations representing the largest geographical bloc in the world. And Mr. Calderon, the host, basked in the warmth and flavor that only a gathering of Latins and Caribeans could provide. 

Jorge Castaneda, Mexico's former foreign minister, commented that Mr. Calderon was finally in his mero mole

Gone from memory were the images Mr. Calderon used in his campaign to vilify Mr. Chavez (and win the presidency). Gone was the perennial power dispute between Brazil and Mexico. 

For Mexico is first and foremost a Latin nation - a land of hard-working merchants and festive markets; of pre-Hispanic ruins and sunny beaches and warm embraces. Latin America fervently needs Mexico... and Mexico is an historic part of Latin America.

Yet Mexico is also a hybrid, a country whose economic strength is firmly linked to its North American location. Without these links, would it really be thinkable to compare it to Brazil, an immense nation with a homegrown airplane industry and nuclear manufacturing facilities?

"Felipe!" exclaimed Lula da Silva before the two men embraced effusively. Mr. Calderon was ecstatic, swept by the camaraderie of his compatriots.

So when he later stood proudly to announce the formation of a new bloc of Latin and Caribbean nations that would exclude the US and Canada (and include Cuba), most commentators  - at least in Mexico - immediately interpreted it as an affront to his NAFTA partners. 

Yet images of Mr. Calderon - a conservative churchgoing Mexican - belied this image: he beamed self-confidence and bonhomie. Keep in mind that Mr. Calderon is a "friend" of the US - a stalwart ally in the fight against crime. 

What's wrong with this picture? I thought.

Where's Uncle Sam?

Today an article appeared in the NYT that described the gathering as a "diplomatic success". I could only think: "Brilliant!", the official announcement of a new block that excludes the U.S. made in America's backyard by a conservative U.S. ally. 

Which means that Mr. Calderon - with the backing of his North American partners - went to Cancun to "snub his nose" at the Anglos. 

In sum, he got his cake and ate it too, the perfect combination for a Mexican politician, a true believer in Friendship and Dialogue.

Perhaps for this reason, the Mexican leader felt in his mole: the back slaps, embraces, animated gestures and of course the warm body language that only Latins on a sunny beach could deliver. The "rude guys" from the south - Correa, Chavez, Evo and Ortega - were playing nice, at least for now.

"Today marks the day when Mexico," said Hugo Chavez "this profound, heroic nation, has given re-birth to Bolívar's great dream".

Mr. Calderon smiled broadly, firmly in his element.
Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   diplomacy   foreign relations   Latin America   Mexico   politics  

Comments [0]

The Mexican Untouchables

In Mexico, the rich and powerful enjoy privileges that common people in most nations couldn't imagine.

Where else could the governor of a state smaller than Rhode Island (Queretero) receive a bigger salary than the British prime minister?

Inequality, of course, goes beyond economics: according to a first-of-its-kind study, Mexicans recently discovered that governors and state executives can steal, embezzle and defraud taxpayer money without any possibility of prosecution.

The 2009 federal evaluation, "Public Servants’ Responsibility at the State Level", revealed that only 7 out of 32 states have laws in place that penalize governors (and their executive staff) for embezzlement, stealing or any other type of misappropriation.

As one newspaper recently stated: "Mexican governors perform their duties with complete impunity. They arise each morning knowing that they're untouchable".

Which is why in Mexico, the rich and powerful really are above the law.

The study also claimed that only 3 states - Hidalgo, Puebla and Quintano Roo - sanction the misappropriation of state funds, meaning that in 29 states, governors are immune from prosecution for stealing any type of government money.

PAN party leader Manuel Clouthier recently complained that Mexican state authorities are "totally exempt from prosecution: there's neither transparency nor accountability".

In Mexico, impunity starts at the top and permeates every niche and cranny of society.

It's part of the culture, something people "naturally" expect. Like the Aztec kings who ruled on the basis of divine right, Mexican leaders act with the knowledge that they can steal, blackmail and threaten (among other so-called "crimes") without ever being held accountable. Governors, mayors, union leaders, police officials, bureaucrats and federal politicos are all - in their own way - simply above the law.

For governors (as it turns out), there is no law!

That's the history of the nation and it continues today unabated.

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   corruption   government   Mexico   politics  

Comments [0]

The Poor Taxista

In Polanco along Mazarik, I climbed into a taxi driven by a diminutive man resembling an Indian of the lowest caste with wide creases in his face and ragged clothes. If he wasn't driving the taxi I'd have mistaken him for a homeless person.

It was before 8 am on a Sunday morning, and as I settled into the back seat, he began talking with quiet urgency about how the rich suffered and how things flow in cycles. Imagine an impoverished man talking about the ebb and flow of wealth at 8 am in the morning!

I tried changing the conversation, but he always turned it back to the wealthy. At the corner of Reforma and Río Tiber, he pointed to the front entrance of the St. Regis, the newest (and perhaps most exclusive) residential development in the city.

"What will happen if they can't fill up this place?" he asked, almost to himself.

As he spoke I peered at his reflection in the rear view mirror. I asked him about his childhood.

"Oh yeah, my boss had it tough alright..., my dad left when I was 2," he said. "I remember how it felt when I had to leave my friends at school". His "boss" couldn't afford to eat without removing her kids from elementary school, so he and his siblings did hard labor each day for 12 hours. "I started when I was about 7," he said. "And I've been working all day ever since".

Although in his 50's, he appeared much older, with deep creases in his forehead and practically no teeth, a thinker without education, reflecting calmly on the trials and tribulations of the well-to-do.

I looked down at my clothing: worn denims, a Levi's shirt, faded sneakers.

We met in Polanco, the swanky part of town. He spoke to me with calm intensity, broken in body but lucid in mind.

As I left the taxi, I couldn't help but remember a Buddhist phrase about cycles of "conditioned existence"; about people who understand the noble truth that causes both suffering and the way leading to its end. 

Somehow this poor man - in his own fashion - had discovered the way out. 

Loading mentions Retweet

Filed under  //   economics   Mexico   society   spirituality  

Comments [0]

About

Mine was a clamorous New York childhood spent on boardwalks and in delis between the south shore and the teeming Metropolis. Since childhood, I've strolled with Sicilians and strutted with Latins. Which explains nothing about life in a big Latin American metropolis. Cheers to a big world!