Posted on 12/28/2005 2:33:48 AM PST by DumpsterDiver
Earlier this month, U.S. Treasury Secretary John Snow paid a friendly visit to Mexico. He met with his Mexican counterpart, Secretary of Hacienda Francisco Gil Díaz, and the two issued a communiqué of mutual cooperation at the end of their talks.
They talked about generating private financing for Mexican development, mainly by way of a proposal that would have the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) increase its lending to private investors for projects that had previously been considered and in Snow's country still are considered the responsibility of the public sector, projects like roads, ports and bridges. The privatization of public activity and the creation of openings for U.S. investors remain high on the agenda of U.S. policymakers, especially when they are policymaking for other countries.
In a joint press conference held by the two secretaries, Snow was asked about the significance of a possible leftist victory in Mexico's upcoming presidential elections. The secretary replied much like Secretary Condoleezza Rice did on her visit a few months ago that his government's support "depends on the continuation of good policies, and if they continue, as I hope will be the case, then Mexico will continue to enjoy the benefits of financial stability."
This, of course, is standard advice imparted by traveling U.S. cabinet members. It is advice combined with an implicit warning: Do what you want, but if you value our friendship, do what we say, even if you call yourself a leftist.
But when Snow and Gil Díaz met to promote private markets, the elephant in the room was not the possible triumph of the center-left Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), but The Wall just approved by the U.S. House of Representatives. The Wall, which would stretch along the most traversed parts of the U.S.-Mexican border, represents a very big exception to the U.S. conception of free markets, excluding from its guidebook to "economic freedom" the free movement of the factor of production called labor.
In the context of The Wall, it must have been a bit awkward for Snow and Gil Díaz to talk about the importance to Mexico of the earnings remitted to home communities and families by migrants in the United States. The two secretaries announced that they had reinforced their commitment to reduce the costs and to facilitate the sending of those family remittances. Snow said that success hinged on the introduction of private competition to the remittance market, which had reduced the cost of sending money from the U.S. to Mexico by two-thirds since 1999.
But Snow must have felt somewhat ill-at-ease promising to expedite the sending of remittances at the same time that the U.S. Congress was approving measures to keep remittance-senders out or send them home. And regardless of how he felt, the awkwardness is spreading. Emissaries like Snow carry the message of the virtue of "free markets," but more and more Latin Americans are hearing a second, unstated part of Washington's message. Part I says, "we believe in free markets." Part II says, "when it is in our own interest."
For the past quarter century, being on good terms with Washington and with U.S.-based financial and policymaking institutions has been the road to political success in Latin America. The slightest signal from Washington has had enormous influence in the continent. Now even pro-U.S., pro-market politicians like Vicente Fox are finding themselves opposing Washington simply to maintain their own credibility. This, combined with U.S. distractions in other parts of the world, has decreased U.S. credibility and influence in the hemisphere.
On December 20, just five days after the Snow-Gil Díaz communiqué of mutual cooperation, President Fox and his foreign secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez, issued a public call for a hemispheric repudiation of The Wall. They were proposing, said Derbez, that "the countries most affected by the punitive policy should raise one common voice" in protest.
He told a press conference in Mexico that his government had used a regional energy meeting held in Cancún last week as a forum in which to propose to the leaders of the participating governments, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and the Central American countries, that they take one unified position against the building of The Wall.
This is as pro-U.S. a bunch of leaders as can be found in the Americas, but they are in a bind. Citizens of their countries have seen their livelihoods adversely affected by the free movement of goods and capital, as "more efficient" transnationals continue to displace local producers. Now those displaced individuals are being told they cannot "respond to market signals" by migrating to higher-paying (or just plain paying) employment in the North.
Wall or no wall, that migration will continue, but the signals emanating from Washington are disconcerting, especially to its friends.
Fred Rosen: frosen@terra.com.mx http://www2.eluniversal.com.mx/pls/impreso/web_columnas_sup.detalle?var=27479
Disconcerting is putting it mildly.
And wasn't it nice to hear that Scretary Snow is working to make it cheaper for Mexicans to send their remittances home?
ping
Mexico is a an enemy nation. Why do we kiss ass with this 3rd world pit?
No, the elephant in the room is the culture of corruption that riddles these banana republics. The corruption that makes it impossible for investors and entrpreneurs to take their opportunities seriously. The corruption that exists by the very nature of who is running these nations.
"Why do we kiss ass with this 3rd world pit?"
The question of the decade!!
You have it down cold! Start looking for property in Montana. I just bought there.
"Start looking for property in Montana. I just bought there."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...........
except for having some remote areas what is it about Montana that recommends it to you?
"Now those displaced individuals are being told they cannot "respond to market signals" by migrating to higher-paying (or just plain paying) employment in the North."
Not true at all, the're just being told that if they need to migrate here they should do it LEGALLY.
Montana does not pander to illegals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.