More on Mexico

by Cliopatria

Today's Times features a peculiar editorial from NYU professor Greg Grandin, who urges the United States to refrain from recognizing the declared winner in Mexico's recent election, Felipe Calderón. Instead, Grandin wants Washington to call for Mexico to hold the recount advocated by the runner-up leftist candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. That Grandin describes López Obrador as a" center-left candidate" (on that ideological spectrum, Hillary Clinton would be a reactionary conservative) gives a sense of where he's coming from ideologically.

There are sometimes, close elections in democracies: EU observers, at the very least, detected no signs of improprieties in the Mexican contest. One wonders if, a few months back, the United States similarly should have avoided recognizing Romano Prodi after his razor-thin victory over Silvio Berlusconi. The reactions (and political temperaments) of Berlusconi and López Obrador seem quite alike. Both have strong authoritarian streaks; both seem to have preferred making unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud to accepting legitimate, if heartbreakingly narrow, defeats. But somehow I doubt that Grandin was in Berlusconi's camp a few months back.

Moreover, some might consider it a vestige of imperialism for the United States to demand that Mexico ignore its own electoral code (which allows retabulation of reported vote totals by the nonpartisan electoral commission, but forbids opening the ballot boxes to recount the ballots unless the challengers can demonstrate an impropriety) and simply push ahead with López Obrador's demand for a recount of all ballots.

The bulk of Grandin's essay, in any event, involves not the election but an anti-globalization critique of NAFTA, which he sees as disastrous for Mexican agriculture. He faults NAFTA for not delivering the"prosperity its advocates promised" (since the adoption of NAFTA, Mexico's exports nearly doubled as a percent of GDP, from 16.8 percent to 29.9 percent, from 1994-2005). Grandin calls for the Bush administration to renegotiate NAFTA on terms more favorable to Mexico, apparently to allow Mexico to set tariffs on agricultural imports at whatever level it desires. Whether or not this concept makes sense economically (while Mexico's economy clearly isn't robust, it's hard to see how protectionism will help it revive), the recommendation is wildly unrealistic from a political standpoint.

The Mexican election, as Oscar recently noted, poses a lot of challenging questions for Americans. The Times could do better in trying to inform its readers about these issues than it did today.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

E. J. Bell - 7/11/2006

As has been pointed out elsewhere, the rise in Mexican exports often credited to NAFTA should not be taken at face value. This Grandin indirectly points out when he mentions that "one in three Mexican tortillas" are made with heavily-subsidized American corn. Indeed, so much of Mexico's domestic production is either controlled by foreign capital or is reliant on cheap raw materials from the US that any rise in exports must be viewed as more or less superficial. The material benefit to Mexico in such an arrangement is superceded by the large chunk of profit that makes its way into foreign coffers - either at the end of the line, or during stages of production. Furthermore, while NAFTA seeks to prohibit "trade barriers" (including agricultural subsidies), the US apparently has no intention itself of ever abiding by this central provision of the agreement, instead using it to strongarm its way into the Mexican agricultural and industrial markets. The consequences have indeed been "disastrous." Thus, it should go without challenge that the agreement needs to be renegotiated, if not scrapped altogether.
Likewise, it should also be accepted that the election does indeed revolve around NAFTA and globalization; Grandin is right to frame it this way. Anyone who has paid any attention to Mexico for the past decade knows well that economic policy is a major political issue for all sectors of Mexican society - including the poor, who can see quite clearly how such policies directly (most often, adversely) affect their lives. I know it's hard for us Americans to imagine a nation full of people that understand economics and pay attention to trade agreements, but that is very much a reality in places like Mexico where such matters are directly related to the struggle for survival. It is a mistake to write off Lopez Obrador and the like as "protectionists" for questioning American economic orthodoxy, especially since nearly all such orthodoxies are not self-observed in the US.
Forgive the tangent, but to speak of a "vestige of [American] imperialism" is almost laughable, especially as a potential downside to following diplomatic norms such as withholding official recognition. You will have to trust the people of Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, and yes even Mexico herself that American Imperialism is hardly vestigial. Nor is it subtle. It is a shame that we cannot see ourselves as the world sees us.

Greg James Robinson - 7/9/2006

It night be worth noting in this context that the Bush administration waited 11 days before recognizing Berlusconi's narrow defeat in Italy, and that not even the top court's ruling in favor of Prodi moved the President to call with his congratulations until two days later, long after all European government leaders had recognized the results.

Jonathan Dresner - 7/9/2006

That Grandin describes López Obrador as a "center-left candidate" (on that ideological spectrum, Hillary Clinton would be a reactionary conservative) gives a sense of where he's coming from ideologically.

I would describe Clinton as a very moderate liberal, more of a centrist than a leftist. She's not a socialist; she's not even really in the center of the Democratic Party.

I remember my European friends in college being very amused -- a reaction I now tend to echo myself -- by the extremely narrow range of political views offered by US national politics, particularly on the left. On a political spectrum which puts Communists on the left instead of progressive Democrats, Socialists a bit more towards the middle instead of DLC hacks, and moderate liberals and classical conservatives in the center -- which is entirely justified -- Grandin is entirely correct.

It's not a matter of Grandin's ideology, but of his having a perspective somewhat wider than the 1.5 party system we currently enjoy...