From Xico

Some Estherbabble in Response to (sort of) Mexfiles

  I keep trying to be a Responsible Employee (well, independent contractor, really) and avoid this blog till after my last deadline of January 7 in my again unsuccessful (my fault) efforts to retire from indexing (which I took up after retiring from psychiatric social work, a job both much more exhausting and mostly much more interesting...I thought I wanted quiet. Well, in a way I did.  But I, as they say, digress.)

Anyway, here is my failure to avoid the blog, tied in a way to my current indexing job as well as to Mexfiles and my previous comments about Obama and his Mexico policy. In his Mexfiles post, Richard referred to me as "left-ier" than most gringos in Mexico. Where we live here in Veracruz, there aren't all that many gringos, and the political tendencies are rather varied, more so I surmise in the more gringofied lands of Mexico, though there are definitely who are considerably "right-ier" than I am and more than I would have imagined would live here.  I'm always surprised at the un-graciousness of people making their homes here who would disparage their hosts.  The "right-ierness" (of the few here who are that way) is often accompanied by outright racism.

Anyway, what I wanted to add here is that one reason I like (but don't love) Obama is that he seems to be subtle.  He seems to understand that the US's proclivity to swing wildly from left to right and back, to frame stuff in Manichean terms, to breaathlessly await the next hyping of the news (read crotch bomber) isn't doing us any good.

Which brings up my indexing job.  Since the book isn't published yet, I won't be specific, but I will say that one of the contentions of the author is that national leaders (not just US) are terribly swayed by perceptions rather than a close analysis of reality.  Some of the perceptions are framed by short, pithy and practically meaningless statements that are dearly held.  Leaders act on these statements, to our detriment.

So anyway, back to Obama.  There is an excellent article in The New York Review of Books by Rory Stewart mostly supporting but also offering insightful criticism of Obama's Afghanistan policy.  Stewart points out the cliche-driven consequences of our foreign policy and most of all praises Obama for seeing past the cliches.  It is very definitely worth reading.  For instance, he says we've been operating on the following assumptions-turned-truths:

    Afghanistan is an existential threat. It is the epicenter of international terrorism and the epitome of a failed state. We must fight in Afghanistan for six reasons: (1) to protect the United States and the rest of NATO from terrorist attack; (2) to protect Pakistan and the region; (3) to protect the credibility of the United States and NATO; (4) to protect the Afghan people; (5) to defeat the Taliban; and (6)to create an effective, legitimate, stable state.

And now back to me: yes, I'm left-iesh, but really, not.  I grew up in NYC. When I became aware of politics there,  the Dems were in COMPLETE and UTTER and CORRUPT control.  THEN a knight n shining armor named John Lindsay, a REPUBLICAN, came along.  My crowd (whatever) voted for HIM...although I was too young, my friends and I worked for him.  Later, I voted for Jacob Javitz.  Nelson Rockefeller had crossover appeal.  When we lived in Missouri, we got to know John Danforth.  There is no man finer.  If I disagree with some of his approaches, I can say I can't imagine they'd take him to a bad place.  I voted for him. 

Here are a few of my lefty ideas, only partly thought out (otherwise known as estherbabble):

• Human beings may be an evolutionary "mistake" that can't last because we find it so easy to lie to ourselves, so easy to destroy while we are thinking we are "only doing what's right" or "if we didn't do it, someone else would," or "I deserve this" or "if we don't cream them, they'll cream us" or "they're poor because they're not as good as we are" or "we're rational economic beings" or, on a different tack, "technology will take care of it" or "global warming isn't happening" or if it is "it's good because you can make more money in warmer climates." You get the idea.  If we weren't so capable of [self-serving] denial
• • We'd put our extraordinary knowledge, technical and theoretical, to use providing all people on the planet with at least a minimally decent material life: enough food, health care, shelter, employment while NOT destroying the planet.  We would recognize the essential nature of social connections and of community and wouldn't set up systems that destroy these in the name of a minimally decent material life. 
  • We would recognize that some things should be done locally and that some stuff should be in the hands of ordinary people: for instance, perhaps agriculture, perhaps education, and a lot of government. AND that things we all depend on shouldn't be in the hands of multinational or even ruthless national corporations.
  • We'd recognize that people in groups are capable of becoming quite hateful and not only stepping on the rights of minorities among them but killing them; of scapegoating individuals; of demanding excessive conformity; of demanding money, and so forth.  This is when exterior watchdogs are important in small communities. But if things aren't at a criminal level, rather than a bunch of bureaucrats and bureaucratic rules imposed from outside, above, wherever, we need places for arbitration and appeal. 
  • We'd acknowledge that we are corruptible.  Easily.  This is another reason it's good to have exterior watchdogs.   
  • We'd recognize that some people among us are driven by a desire for power of one sort or another.  Sometimes these people in fact make excellent leaders, but we need to exercise controls over them. 
  • I think the genius of the US Constitution and our Revolution's thinkers lies in their understanding of our corruptibility, our meanness in groups and our thirst for power.  

  I also think (for what it's worth)

• That we can do a whole lot of stuff that leads to comfortable, satisfying lives for a lot of us without destroying the planet and we need to realize this FAST:
• That we've kind of swallowed the notion that there have to be monetary rewards, that profits are the measure of success, etc. etc. without thinking about them.  Kind of like propaganda.  We should recognize that there are things people would be done for the honor of helping people and saving the planet, for the satisfaction of insatiable curiosity, and because we have obligations to each other.  The creation of new and necessary drugs should NOT be at the mercy of making money, for instance.
• That services in a nation or a community shouldn't always have to make money by themselves.  Some services make for healthier and better-educated and happier communities and citizens even if they themselves don't make money. Health care should be one of these things. It boggles my mind that insurance companies should make money gambling on people's health.Transportation is another area. Education is another.  Police protection and military stuff fit in here.  NOBODY should have a business that makes its owners rich through military adventurism. Not that people in these fields shouldn't make a decent living.
• There are some truly bad guys -- we need police and military.
• There shouldn't be an incredible gap between the highest and the lowest incomes.
• We need to learn that the world is mostly gray, not black and white.  That there's not complete security in life.  That we can't guarantee our well-being completely.  There's no miracle cure for life and death.
• Now I have to get back to work

Islam in Chiapas

The Spanish invaded Mexico as triumphant, with the intensity of born-again Catholics, in the early 16th century.  They had defeated the Arabs who had dominated southern Spain for seven hundred years or so.  But as is obvious, Arab influence remained in language and art and architecture, in the styles brought over to Mexico.  Now Islam itself is making at least a small place for itself according to an article from Radio Netherland which appears in Corresponsales Indigenas.

It says (my translation):

More and more indigenous Maya and Tzotzil are converting to Islam.  Fifteen years after the Zapatista revolt, profound changes have occurred in the region.

One of them is the appearance of Islam as a new religion.  The Muslim community, the majority of them being indigenous Maya and Tzotzil, is making gains.

Molino de los Arcos is one of the poorest neighborhoods of San Cristóbal de las Casas, the second biggest city of Chiapas....The population is almost completely of indigenous origin and the Maya and Tzotzil languages dominate.

However, on Fridays, one can hear the slow and monotonous Arab chant of Islamic prayer.  In a wooden cabin decorated with Islamic prayers in Arabic, some twenty Tzotzil families have created a little mosque.

Imam Salvador López López told us:

"Here we purify our spirits and pray to Allah....Our community is still small, we are some two hundred, but little by little we are growing.

....

"In Chiapas there's much ignorance about Islam.  No one really knows what it is about, and at the beginning, not even I was sure if it was for me.  My family was against it at the beginning.  It was hard. [But] Islam gives me something I don't find in Christianity."

Alternative to capitalism

There've always been Muslims in Mexico, but they were immigrants from Islamic countries in Africa and the Middle East.  Starting in 1995, when Spanish Muslims under the direction of Aureliano Pérez arrived in Mexico to spread the word of Allah, Mexicans themselves began to convert to Islam.  The arrival of the Spanish is directly related to the revolt of the Zapatista rebels in Chiapas in 1994.  They considered the impoverished state to be fertile ground for spreading the principles of Islam.

From the time of the Spanish Conquest in the Sixteenth Century, the Maya and Tzotzil have been continuously marginalized.  They live in extreme poverty, are exploited by corrupt governments nd are victims of racism on the part of whites and mestizos.  Among the indigenous there are many problems with alcoholism.

The Maya and Tzotzil are part of the Murabitun movement which is part of Sunni Islam.  It completely prohibits the consumption of alcohol and the charging of interest for loans.

For many people in Chiapas, this religion offers an attractive alternative to capitalism. However, Muhammad Amin insists that Islam is not only for the indigenous of Chiapas

"Allah makes no distinction among peoples.  Everyone is welcome."

Chapatista Muslims

However, the social component of Islam has surged for a long time in Chiapaneco [an area that corresponds to the city of Chiapa de Corzo in Chiapas], since the Muslims under the leadership of the Spanish missionary Muhammad Nafia (called Aureliano Pérez before his convesion) offered their support to the Zapatista rebels under Subcomandante Marcos.

Many Zapatistas who fought for the rights of the indigenous population and for agrarian report are Tzotziles.  Some converted to Islam, although Subcomandante Marcos adopted a vacillating position at the beginning.

The Mexican government was alarmed and began to monitor the presence of Islam in the region.  Ex-president Vicente Fox even accused them of having relations with Al Qaeda, but this accusation was never proven.

Muhammad Amin laughs at this accusation:  "We don't have any type of link with foreign Islamic groups, nor do we have problems here with other religions.  Islam signifies peace, and we respect all of them."

This does not mean that the Christians are disposed to be positive in the face of their new competition.  Andrés Ferrer, who now is called Muyahid, converted to Islam in 1998 and had to overcome a lot of prejudice:

"Many people reacted badly, because they had no idea what Islam is.  Some called us terrorists.  My own family thought I was crazy."

Islamic Pizzeria

In spite of opposition, Islam is prospering in Chiapas.  Muslims have created a madrasa, or school for the study of the Koran; an Islamic mission, a carpentry store and a pizzeria.

There are classes in Arabic for new converts and trips are organized for participation in the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca which many indigenous Muslims have already made.

Iman López says that Islam is growing slowly but surely: "In our little mosque alone we already have seventeen families.  Little by little, more people are opening themselves to the message of Allah.  Yes, I think we've arrived to stay."

Obama and Latin America: Response to Grabman Comment

I pretty much agree with Richard Grabman's analysis of Obama in Latin America. He said:

I don't know what inspired this post  [in which I said I thought Obama was doing fine], but from some of the e-mail I get from my readers/viewers, I can guess. While my Labrador Retriever would have been an improvement over the previous White House resident, Obama has done a better job than expected... EXCEPT in Latin American policy. And, those of use, like Esther, who write from Latin America can't be expected to overlook what is, in some ways, a reactionary and dangerous start to his presidency.

  BUT I guess I think that, given the realities of Obama's situation, I don't think we can expect more at this moment. I don't think Obama has contact with anyone knowledgeable about Latin America in his administration that isn't a reactionary type. The Clinton connections are terrible, and they seem to be the main democratic input. His plate is overflowing with all kinds of rot. God only knows why he even wanted to be President, BUT the guy finds himself working with a right-wing, bloated, corporate-dominated octopus with its tentacles wrapped around stuff all over the world, not to mention the nuts on the right which have penetrated to the core of the government. He also probably finds himself with far less power than we think he has. He is, after all, a politician who learned how to operate in Chicago and is probably good at figuring out his odds for political survival and making changes -- and sees that as more important than idealism.

The Mexican connection....it seems on autopilot. Probably better than actively ramping stuff up, not good as any kind of positive activity.

I translated an interview for Americas Program between Laura Carlsen and Carlos Álvarez, the head of Mercosur conducted in April of this year. Carlsen asked if Álvarez expected any change under Obama in Latin American policy. Älvarez was not optimistic. He said, in fact, that he thought Latin America would do best if the US ignored it. (Here is a link ot Americas Program -- can't find article link right now: http://americas.irc-online.org )
So I guess this is all to say that I think Obama is doing fine, all things considered. I think our job is to find a way to hook into somebody in the administration with some new information.

I just want to say that I think Obama is doing fine. I have been up and down on him, but when I look at what he inherited, the opposition he faces from left and right, the messy and tragic situation in the Middle East, the climate problems, etc. etc., I think his steady hand is what we need.

Gay Marriage Drug Use and Cold Weather in Mexico

Richard Grabman has a nice discussion of the new gay marriage law in Mexico City on Mexfiles here.  You folks up in the US just have to understand this is very different place from the US or from what you think it is.  Here's another link from Grabman's blog discussing attitudes here towards drug use.

The norte has passed.  This morning we woke up to glorious blue skies and sunshine.  I could see my breath early, but hey, a little nip in the air on a day like today just makes it better.

Here is a picture of a dinner for representatives of the state department of transportation in Coatepec given at the height (or depths) of the norte.  I'm posting it so you can see just how chilly it was (and what ummm non-warm expressions the people sharing the dais with Governor Herrera Beltrán wore on their faces.  You'll notice the woman on the left has gloves on.  The woman on the right seems to have put beauty before comfort. The governor, in case you can't tell, had a muffler wrapped around his neck.

 

¡Si se puede! Gay Marriage is legalized in Mexico City!

Mexico City Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Foto stolen from La Jornada online today:

 

Article via AP, NY Times and Reuters.

Daniel Aguilar/Reuters

 MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexico City lawmakers on Monday made the city the first in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage, a change that will give homosexual couples more rights, including allowing them to adopt children.
The bill passed the capital's local assembly 39-20 to the cheers of supporters who yelled: "Yes, we could! Yes, we could!"Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard of the Democratic Revolution Party was widely expected to sign the measure into law.
Mexico City's left-led assembly has made several decisions unpopular elsewhere in this deeply Roman Catholic country, including legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. That decision sparked a backlash, with the majority of Mexico's other 32 states enacting legislation declaring life begins at conception.
The conservative National Action Party of President Felipe Calderon has vowed to challenge the gay marriage law in the courts. However, homosexuality is increasingly accepted in Mexico, with gay couples openly holding hands in parts of the capital and the annual gay pride parade drawing tens of thousands.
The bill calls for changing the definition of marriage in the city's civil code. Marriage is currently defined as the union of a man and a woman. The new definition will be "the free uniting of two people."
The change would allow same-sex couples to adopt children, apply for bank loans together, inherit wealth and be included in the insurance policies of their spouse, rights they were denied under civil unions allowed in the city.
"We are so happy," said Temistocles Villanueva, a 23-year-old film student who celebrated by passionately kissing his boyfriend outside the city's assembly.Only seven countries allow gay marriages: Canada, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands and Belgium. U.S. states that permit same-sex marriage are Iowa, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut and New Hampshire.
Argentina's capital became the first Latin American city to legalize same-sex civil unions in 2002 for gay and lesbian couples. Four other Argentine cities later did the same, and as did Mexico City in 2007 and some Mexican and Brazilian states. Uruguay alone has legalized civil unions nationwide.
Buenos Aires lawmakers introduced a bill for legalizing gay marriage in the national Congress in October but it has stalled without a vote, and officials in the South American city have blocked same-sex wedding because of conflicting judicial rulings.
Many people in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America remain opposed to gay marriage, and the dominant Roman Catholic Church has announced its opposition."They have given Mexicans the most bitter Christmas," said Armando Martinez, the president of the College of Catholic Attorneys. "They are permitting adoption (by gay couples) and in one stroke of the pen have erased the term 'mother' and 'father."'
City lawmaker Victor Romo, a member of the mayor's leftist party, called it a historic day."For centuries unjust laws banned marriage between blacks and whites or Indians and Europeans," he said. "Today all barriers have disappeared."

Christmas Time in Ursulo Galván and Nearby: Getting the tree

 We lie blanketed under a norte or frente frio or, as they say on the other side, a cold front.  This time of year, we get a lot of them.  The sky turns a heavy, unremitting gray.  If it isn't raining, it is drizzling or misting.  The temperatures sink to the low fifties at night and the low sixties during the day where we live.  Up at higher altitudes, it is often close to one side or the other of freezing.  For most people here, it ranges from uncomfortable to miserable.  The man who built our house installed a small Scandinavian wood stove made of iron.  Last year, the chimney plugged up. Jim made a yeoman (that's the word indicating major, right?) effort to clear it without success.  We huddled and snuggled a lot.  Yesterday morning, he tried again and after several hours had managed to disassemble what had seemed permanently glued together and unload buckets of creosote and ash and not a little rust.  Yesterday afternoon, with some bundled-up friends visiting he lit a successful fire. We all smiled and thawed out.  The temperature in the living room rose to 70.  Aaaah.  

Just so you know, we are using wood from a tree Guillermo cut down in our yard because (he told us) it needed to be cut down.  We have more wood seasoning right now from a tree that had to be cut down on a neighbor's street.  And our stove is supposed to use wood efficiently.  A lot of folks here use wood that comes from drastically pruning coffee bushes which they do every year.  They also use wood which they probably shouldn't, though around here it's unusual to see any thick limbs that look like valuable trees have been cut down. We see kids and old ladies and men walking home with wood stacked up on their backs as well as leading burros carrying it in mounds carefully piled on their backs.

We drove up to just past Guillermo's family rancho to the outskirts of a small pueblo called Coxmatla to buy a Christmas tree a few days ago.  There you can find a reforestation project where Christmas trees are planted in plots interspersed with newly-planted forest trees.  All the Christmas trees are to be replaced after they are cut down as well.  We went there a couple of years ago for a tree and the guy told us that a lot of big stores like Chedraui buy them in quantity.

Not Christmas trees but some goats in their house that we saw on our way up.

 

The path down to the Christmas trees.

 

The horse I think one of the workers uses to commute to the farm.

 

You can camp and picnic at the Christmas tree farm.  Jim is reading the very politely worded rules for people doing those things so they don't harm the environment.

 

 

The tree up front and center is the one we chose.

We also bought a tree for someone in our neighbor's family. Christmas trees are becoming muy popular around here, as are Christmas lights.

Here is the worker at the farm tying up the tree for our neighbors.

 

We hope to put our tree up this afternoon.

 
 
 
 
 

Veracruz in Copenhagen and In Your Face Climate Change

Our state of Veracruz is potentially a major and tragic victim of climate change.  If you look at the map below, you can easily see that it is a long, narrow place nestled against the Gulf of Mexico.  You can click on it to enlarge it.  Xalapa, the capital, is marked with a star in a circle.  Coatepec is just under Xalapa, and we are just under Coatepec.  Our friends and neighbors notice how the climate is changing. Whether all is due to Climate Change with capital "Cs" or not, it is hard to ignore. And since most people have heard of the threat of Climate Change, they frown when discussing how weirdly warm is in December, and shake their heads in dismay when their crops are pounded by too-hard-falling rains. Nowadays we get many more torrential downpours where we live and in the summer longer dry spells between them.  There are fewer of the previously typical light rains and chipi-chipi, or mist and fog in fall and winter.  We have higher temperatures: people complain of heat where they never used to.  More irrigation is needed because the rain is not as steady and regular. As I've posted on the blog, landslides and flooding are common up here in the mountains.  Flooding inland and along river banks is, too.

 

Predictions for Veracruz include loss not only of coastline but of coastal cities, including the city of Veracruz; massive flooding and rains for some inland areas, including ours as well as the coast and, on the other hand, desertification in already-dry areas.  Our governor, Fidel Herrera Beltrán, although not always celebrated here, made a powerful presentation in Copenhagen as the respresentative of The National Conference of [Mexican] Governors on the threat of climate change.

According to an article in EnlaceVeracruz 212, the governor "insisted that it was time to pass from words to actions to put a break on climate change.

"He supported the idea that climate change and poverty were tightly related and said that climate change was one of the symptoms of the exhaustion of the economic system governed by the laws of the market which dominates the world and which has benefited only a few at the cost of the well-being of the majority.  

"He said that this system seeks greatest benefits [for its leaders] with lowest costs, no matter what.  That cost includes ignoring the limited capacity of the planet to support the unprecedented looting and pollution to which this system subjects it.

"He denounced the fact that this system promotes competition solely to gain markets, ignoring the possibility of undertaking projects for common growth which would benefit all.

"He maintained that this system has conceptualized progress as the pursuit of the accumulation of material goods, and that it tries, deceptively, to associaiate its products with a distorted concept of happiness.

"Governor Fidel Herrera Beltrán said, 'We are privileged because we've had the fruitfulness of the earth, until today; we have believed ourselves masters of the planet, but we have ignored that  the first thing [responsible] masters do is to take care of their property: disgracefully, nothing good comes of  one person taking care of where they live if the neighbor, no matter how far away, doesn't, take care of his property.'"

"He indicated that today nature has sent us the bill, and we are facing a critical crossroads: to continue on the present course, which will lead us irreversibly to famine, to inability to goverment, to ecological disaster, to chaos; or it we can follow a new vision of the world and find the will to accept new values such as shared culture and solidarity with all the living beings of the planet.

"He called on us to understand that we are interdependent and that what we do or what we leave undone will affect all of us in one way or another. 

"'Unfortunately, starting in the 1970s with the so-called Washington Consensus it was agreed upon to restrict the state to its smallest role.  The fever of neoliberalism and monetarism overcame the world with a blind faith in the market and its ability to automatically regulate the economy and society itself.'

"He said that this world acceptance of neoliberalism ignored, disgracefully, the need to preserve the environment by means of sustainable growth and development.

"He argued that it is not an exaggeration to affirm that the major failure of the market is the poverty which millions of human beings suffer, and above all, the accelerated degradation of our only dwelling place.

THE CASE OF VERACRUZ

"Governor Herrera Beltrán referred in his speech to the concrete example of his state, which has more than 700 kilometers of shoreline and large mountainous zones and is the state through which flows more than 30 percent of the runoff of the Republic of Mexico's fresh water.

"He revealed that according to a World Bank study, "Development with less Carbon: Latin American Answers to the Challenge of Climate Change" published in December of 2008, the coastal strip of the Gulf of Mexico where Veracruz is located is one of the most vulnerable of the continent, together with glaciers of the Andes, part of he Aazon and the coral reefs of the Carribean.

"He described the worsening impacts each time there are rains and droughts, which represent an enormous challenge for health and civil protection systems, as well as the high costs of maintaining and restoring damaged infrastructure rains and droughts have caused.

"The governor listed actions which his government has undertaken to contribute to the mitigation of the damaging effects of climate change.

"He emphasized the Veracruzano Program in the face of Climate Change, to whose development the National Institute of Ecology, the University of Veracruz, the Center of Atmospheric Sciences of UNAM [National Autonomous University of Mexico, the oldest university in the hemisphere], the Institute of Ecology, A: C: and the Fund for Global Opportunities of the United Kingdom, contributed.

"He also mentioned the Initiative ABC for the Sustainable Development  of Veracruz, which [created?] a Fund for the Conservation, Restoration and Management of Water, Forests and Basins of the State of Veracruz.

"In addition, he described the Project for the Integration and Development of Central America, originally known as the Plan Puebla-Panama, a mechanism for dialogue and coordination which defines efforts for cooperation, development and integration among Central American countries with the object of improving the quality of life of the inhabitants of the region.

He let it be known that in his state, work is being done on a project for the planting of 20,000 hectares of bamboo, which in three years would capture  1.4 tons of carbon annually, and said that there is now a program called "You Decide" to answer urgent environmental problems.

"'In sum," he said, 'We resent the effects of cimate change and we assume responsibility and our obligation to see to guarantee the well being not only of those of us who presently live on the planet but also of future generations, of our children and those who will come after them.'"

 

Why Is Mexico in Such a Mess? Neoliberal Economics and NAFTA

I wake up around 7 every morning, in time, on clear days, to watch blue strengthen and wash away the gray of dawn. Fhe sun land in sparkles on trees outside our windows.  As I've said, from our windows we see a lush place, brilliant colors against a rich, deep-green carpet. 

To the side and back of our house, beyond  our wall, the mostly small houses of wood or concrete, line the streets around a raggedy park.  Most of the people here are not poor in the sense of a bureaucrat's definition of poor, most I would say are no more unhappy than the same number of people in a working class neighborhood in the US would be, though they clearly have less: less healthcare, less education (though that is open to discussion), less stuff, including stuff like dishwashers and refrigerators and electric stoves.  Like people in the US, they are probably more anxious than they used to be, but they are more worried than Americans (who are indeed also more worried than they used to be) because of La Crisis. As Mexicans, they live in the country in the hemisphere most affected by the recession in the US, one that appears to be slipping faster in health care, education and poverty. In addition to decline, inflation continues, so prices are going up at the same time people have less money. [Here is a link to a brief summary of Mexico's overall economic status. Here is a link to poverty and standard of living projections.] You may remember reading on this blog about our neighbor's son's health problems.  I can add now that Juan Pablo had an asthmatic crisis. He was admitted to the seguro popular hospital in Coatepec for treatment overnight. They were not charged for that, but his family could not pay for the prescribed inhalation therapy at discharge.  We paid for it.  It cost about $50.00.  You can imagine how many people there are in the informal economy with kids with asthma and other conditions who simply cannot afford treatment now. And everywhere, there are people trying to sell bits of things on busy highways and street corners.  Kids who used to juggle for pesos are now blowing fire from mouthfuls of gasoline.  We saw an indigenous woman, her baby tied on her back, trying to get some cash by trying hard (and not succeeding) to juggle two balls.

La Crisis  has grim consequences in Mexico.  For a detailed look at the numbers, you can look at this analysis.  But La Crisis as it is called here is does not mark a huge shift from prosperity to despair but rather big dip at the end of a long slide which began, for ordinary people, even before NAFTA when the Mexican government decided to go for an orthodox neoliberal approach to economic development a la the Washington Consensus. * This meant the elimination of government subsidies, taxes, tariffs, planning, etc. which were meant to help local economic development in favor of throwing development into the winds of free markets which Mexico did with much more fervor than did the US where farm subsidies still reign. It would have been so much better all around if the US and Canada had approached NAFTA as the wealthier European countries approached the creation of the European Union.  They supported infrastructure and other development which gave Portugal and Spain and other countries a leg up so they could actually benefit from membership in the European Union.  Mexico was comparable to Portugal at one point in the not too distant past.

An outstanding analysis of Mexico's situation  is presented in Rethinking Trade Policy for Development: Lessons from Mexico under NAFTA written by Eduardo Zepeda, Timothy Wise and Kevin Gallagher under the auspices of The Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University.  I have butchered it, probably, in my efforts to try to present the highlights below in note form.  I hope the authors, should they ever come across this post, forgive me both for the butchering and for the sometimes direct quotes that creep in without being identified by quotation marks.

Here is why Mexico went the Washington Consensus route:

• Lack of interest in Mexico on the part of Europe.
• Special interests in both countries were dominant and stood to gain.
• Strategic issues.
• Ideological commitment to Washington Consensus by US-trained Mexican politicos and economists.

NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, entrenched and hardened this approach.

Of course not all of Mexico's problems can be attributed to NAFTA, but a review of NAFTA's effects reveals that it has underlain many of the economic, social and environmental problems of recent years.  My interests are primarily in the effects on agriculture, employment/social issues/immigration and the environment, but in this post, I look at the bigger picture.  

Here are what the purported benefits were to be:

• Access to "huge" US markets.
• Dramatic expansion of exports and increasing manufacturing.

This was to lead to growing employment in Mexico and a consequent improvement in the economy and a decrease in migration to the US.

Here is what actually happened:

Overall economic growth did not happen. Gains in one area were wiped out by losses in others.

• Free-market policies were locked into place which caused more problems than they solved.
• These policies could not be reversed because of NAFTA rules.
• Mexico eliminated agricultural subsidies but the US did not.

When people say that NAFTA has been a success, this is what they are looking at:

• Growth of exports between 1993 and 2007 of 311%.
• Growth of non-oil exports of 283%
• Growth of exports to US of around 280%
• Manufacturing exports grew from 43% of total exports in 1993 to 77% in 2007.
• Agricultural exports doubled in the same time frame.
• Foreign Direct Investment more than tripled from 1992-2006, with 58% coming from the US.
• Efforts to establish macroeconomic stability through tightening of fiscal, monetary policies a success. 
• Productivity/efficiency gains of about 80%.

HOWEVER, the inherent assumption that the achievements listed above would automatically lead to dynamic economic growth and that this would translate into improved standards of living proved to be FALSE.

Assumptions of standard economic theory:

• Opening of the economy leads to increased trade and foreign investment.
• Demand for exports will fuel growth.
• Reduced protectionism will permit Mexico to find true comparative advantage.
• Foreign investment will stimulate economic growth and increase productivity.
• Domestic firms will benefit from the above.
• Employment and wages will increase.
• Country will enter a period of dynamic growth.

BUT in spite of faithful adherence to the principles of neoliberal economic policy, this is what happened between 1994 and 2007 with NAFTA in effect:

• Sluggish economic growth
• Low level of investment
• Vulnerability to macroeconomic shocks remained high because of 
• • fiscal dependence on oil revenues
  • Reliance on overvalued currency
• Job creation was limited even in growth sectors.
• Competition from imports eliminated many jobs, especially in agriculture (remember, the US continued subsidies to farmers)
• Wages remained low and fell further behind the US.
• Although poverty decreased, inequality remained high.
• Ecological costs of economic growth were high.

Let's look at this further.

Sluggish economic growth:

• Mexico's economy grew at a annually at a per capita rate of only 1.6% between 1992-2007, only half the growth rate of the years between 1960-1979.
• • Low rate by developing country standards.
  • One of the lowest growth rates in all of Latin America.
  • Countries that refused to follow "orthodox" trade and development policies such as those demanded by NAFTA grew much faster.  These countries include Brazil, China and India.
  • Mexico emphasized deficit reduction whereas Brazil, India and China emphasized pro-growth policies with high levels of public investment to maximize growth-stimulus of expanding trade.  They did the OPPOSITE of Mexico whom the US praised mightily for its orthodox neoliberal fiscal policies.
  • Rapid growth of imports diminished impact of exports. 
  • Mexico's exports often used imported components which minimized the value of those exports.
  • NAFTA preferences given to Mexico have been eroded by US trade agreements with other countries.
  • CHINA has moved ahead of Mexico as exporter to the US.
  • It is estimated that over half of Mexican exports are threatened by Chinese exports. 
  • Manufacturing trade between Mexico and US declining in importance since 2001.
  • Current economic crisis has erased any significant advantage from NAFTA.  The recession has particularly hit the automobile industry in Mexico.
• Low levels of investment in Mexico -- Neoliberal doctrine for foreign direct investment (FDI) assumes an automatic virtuous cycle: FDI brings capital and technology which raises productivity and increases efficiency resulting in spillover effects in domestic economy and thus more foreign firms buying their stuff from domestic companies thus stimulating further growth.
• • NAFTA has not translated into increasing overall investment rates in Mexico.  
  • Money has been going to CHINA instead.
  • Poor infrastructure, lack of credit caused many domestic firms to go out of business due to pressure from imports.  (THIS is what a European Union approach and a less rigid monetary policy might have at least minimized)
  • Foreign investors bought domestic firms rather than establishing new facilities (Wal-Mart buying Superama, for instance)
  • Foreign Direct Investment in manufacturing has been concentrated in operations like Maquiladoras which add little domestic value.  That is, these companies use imported rather than domestic parts so little is bought in Mexico.
  • Mexican firms have had difficulty linking with foreign companies to stimulate local economies.
  • Efforts to reduce the deficit (tight monetary policy) led to collapse of public investment.
  • Mexico strictly adhered to NAFTA (many things China does are illegal under NAFTA) and this model failed to lead into increased investment.
  • NAFTA prohibited practices effective in converting foreign investment into domestic activity.

Macroeconomic vulnerability

• Tight fiscal policies have slowed domestic economic growth.
• Tight monetar policies have led to overvalued currency.  This means, I think, that Mexican products are expensive vis-a-vis other countries' products.
• Financial services sector is weak.
• Not much bank lending to private firms compared to international practices, at least before the crisis.
• Problems because of oil.
• • Oil masks true trade deficit.
  • Oil revenues supplement what in other countries would be provided by taxes.
  • Oil revenues go to support the government instead of taking care of oil production issues.
• Mexico is way too tied to US.  More vulnerable to US downturns than other Latin American countries because of US as its market and because of dependence on remittances from Mexicans in US, down in this crisis.

Weak job growth

• Only small games in manufacturing ad service sectors, large losses in agriculture.
• Mexico's no-maquiladora section had less employment in 2008 than in 1994 except in the informal economy. Of course the number of jobs in the informal economy which offers nothing in the way of protections and benefits, etc. always grows in downturns.
• Jobs in both the maquiladora and non-maqiladora sectors have been declining since 2000-2001.
• Increased productivity has reduced the number of jobs.  There are few new plants (sounds like the US).
• Jobs have increased in: business, financial services; tourism (until this year); malls and supermarkets, education. Has obviously been downturn this year.
• Jobs have been lost in agriculture to such an extent that they have taken away gains in other areas.  Employment has fallen s significantly from 190 through the second quarter of 2008.

Consequences of Mexico's unilateral liberalization --ahead of NAFTA schedules. 

• Imports of US-subsidized grains and oilseeds have surpassed Mexican non-subsidized produce exports to the US.  Mexico's products now are not subsidized.
• US INCREASED farm subsidies as Mexico reduced them, further burdening Mexican farming.
• Mexico's trade balance in agricultural goods with the US has remained negative SINCE NAFTA:
• Little (if any) employment increase in export crops.  These crops are grown mostly in industrialized fashion which means FEWER jobs than traditional agriculture produces.
• Seasonal only agricultural practices have increased drawing internal migrants. These practices also diminish the jobs formerly available in traditional forms of agriculture.
• Great losses among small-scale farmers producing staples...especially and very significantly corn which had been classified as a "sensitive product," meaning not subject to the rapid removal of subsidies.  AND Mexico removed its subsidies ahead of schedule.  CORN is a huge issue and I will talk about it soon (as I am fond of saying).
• INFORMAL employment in 2004 57% of the economically active population vs. 52% in 1992.  NOT the direction it was supposed to go in. It has obviously worsened this year. 

Continuing low wages

• In the face of a big growth in productivity, wages have remained stagnant or only risen slightly.
• NAFTA was supposed to lift wages for Mexico, but instead, they have fallen further behind US levels.  In 1993, average wages for manufacturing workers in the US was 5.6 times the Mexican wage.  In 2007, it was 5.8 times the Mexican wages.  Agricultural wages are LOWER than they were pre-NAFTA.
• Minimum wages in Mexico has FALLEN 25% since NAFTA.
• Benefits have declined since NAFTA.  In the formal sector, half of post-NAFTA formal economy jobs have not offered basic benefits even though required by law.
• Low-wage policies were set to attract foreign investment, but CHINA's low wage policy means even lower wages than in Mexico.  Low wages have not brought Mexico more jobs.

Persistent poverty and inequality

• Poverty was reduced from 1992 to 2006, from 53% to 43%.  Extreme poverty fell from 21% to 14%.  The introduction of the program Oportunidades  helped considerably in this.
• BUT in 2008, poverty increased to over 50%. 2009 promises to be even worse, with estimates of a rate of 53+%.
• Rural poverty in 2006 was at 55% with 25% in extreme poverty.  Extreme poverty means not being able to get enough to eat.
• Poverty rates are high for what has been a middle-income contry.
• Poverty is worse in southern than in northern Mexico.  NAFTA contributed to this geographical inequality.

Migration during NAFTA

• Migration has increased dramatically during NAFTA for reasons discernible in the above data.
• Militarization of the border has increased the number of migrants who stay in the US from fear of the border crossing.
• The country has grown dependent on remittances from the US which have declined significantly during the present crisis.

Environmental costs of NAFTA

• NAFTA has weakened Mexico's commitment to environmental protection.
• Restructuring of agriculture to an agro-industrial model has resulted in increase water use, especially in export sectors in water-stressed regions.  You can see this when you drive through the desert and near-desert areas of northern Mexico: huge fields abloom through irrigation which draws from non-renewable water tables.
• Agroindustry has led to soil being loaded with nitrogen and other agrochemicals.
• Industrial raising of animals has led to significant water and soil pollution.
• Economic pressures on poor farmers, particularly maize farmers, has contributed to loss of maize biodiversity.
• Deforestation from unsustainable exploitation of marginal lands has occurred as poor farmers have pursued survival strategies.

The authors of Rethinking Trade Policy for Development: Lessons from Mexico under NAFTA conclude:

• THe Mexican economic model, which hinged significantly on strict adherence to free-market policies backed by a trade agreement wit the US and Canada (NAFTA) has largely been a disappointment for Mexico.
• It is in both the short- and log-run interests of the US to develop trading relations with less-developed partners that stimulate those partners' economic development.
• Mexico's key mistakes:
• • 
    Overemphasis on tight fiscal policy instead of exchange rate competitiveness and economic growth.
  • Weak tax collection.
  • Falling public investment.
  • Abandonment of public investment and research in oil and other industries.
  • Failure to develop government-led programs to correct for critical failures in credit markets. 
• What to avoid in trade agreements with the US:
• • Avoid NAFTA's prohibitions on policies for industrial competitiveness which favor the US such as selective promotion of industries, temporary preferences to national entrepreneurs in particular areas, etc.
  • Avoid conditions which prevent the government from being a strategic partner in economic development.  The Mexican government needs to be a strategic partner to help steer and to stimulate dynamic domestic activities. NAFTA's limits on such policies meant that growth in exports and foreign investments could not be channeled into areas that could yield long-term benefits to the Mexican economy.
  • AVOID liberalization of sensitive food-producing sectors.  IF this is done at all, it should be well-coordinated with employment-creating reforms and with continued investments in rural development and agriculture productivity.  
  • AVOID being victimized by highly subsidized US agriculture.  EMPLOY tariffs, quotas, voluntary export restraints and whatever other means are necessary so that Mexican agriculture is not crushed in this highly unequal situation.
• What to insist on in future agreements:
• • 
    Benchmark standards for labor and the environment.
  • Provisions which include funding for development to bring Mexico to a position where it could realistically compete with the US and Canada.
• MEXICO should NOT look to trade agreements to provide a coherent national economic development strategy.  THEY WON'T.  Countries that have succeeded in recent years have not only resisted the limitations imposed by NAFTA-style trade agreements, they have generated and followed active and coherent economic development policies to ensure that there are domestic benefits from expanding trade.    

*Just in case I have some readers stuck in the past, I am not about to launch into a socialism vs. capitalism diatribe.  Things are way too complicated for any such simplistic approach.

    

Crime vs. Employment in Mexico

According to a new poll released by Latinobarómetro, Mexicans did not top the list of nationalities who viewed crime as a major problem in their country.  According to the poll results cited in Just theFacts,

Seven countries found delinquency to be the most important problem facing the country: Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Uruguay, Chile, and Guatemala. The two countries that receive the highest amount of military and police assistance from the United States - Colombia and Mexico - viewed unemployment and the economy as the most important problems. Only 7% of Colombians and 18% of Mexicans found delinquency to be a problem.

The authors also note the discrepancy in responses in both Mexico and Venezuela. For instance, in Mexico, 38% of those surveyed responded that they had been victims of delinquency, yet only 18% view delinquency as an important problem. In Venezuela, while the percentage of those who had been a victim of delinquency dropped substantially from 2008 to 2009 (53% to 39%), 55% of those surveyed still viewed it as an important problem in the country.