Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

The Domino Theory Returns: Will Mexico Fall?

by ManfromMiddletown Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 05:14:52 AM EST

Promoted from diaries by whataboutbob

The Domino Theory Returns.

Latin America is in the throws of a democratic revolution, that has driven right wing governments from office, and left a rising tide of Bolivarian sentiment sweeping over the continent. In its wake the Latin left has been brought to power in Argentina, Urugay, and Bolivia.

The metallic tang of panic was evident in Washington, even before polls opened there was talk about who "lost Bolivia".  The victory of the indigenous leftist leader Evo Morales, and his subsequent trips to Caracas and Havana to celebrate his victory has created fear that Morales has fallen under the sway of Chavez and Castro and the the rise of a Latin Bloc opposed to the United States is imminent.


That this "Bloc" results from popular discontent ,democratic elections , and a record that includes economic growth and IMF debt repayment seems lost upon those who cling to the discredited policies of the Washington Consensus. The muted panic encountered in the wake of Morale's victory has the potential to grow to a deafening roar that will have a tremendous impact on midterm elections in the US should Mexican leftist leader Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador be brought to power in the presidential election to be held in July of this year.
The most recent poll shows Lopez Obrador (PRD) with a commanding (yet shrinking) lead at 35%, with the candidate of current President Fox's party,  Felipe Calderon (PAN), following at 24%, with Roberto Madrazo (PRI) trailing at 16%.  While there have been large differences in the results of recent polls, all have shown Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, commonly referred to by his intials, AMLO with varying margins over his opponents.  The desparation of the once hegemonic PRI is illusteaed by the recent deal to conclude an electoral alliance conducted between Madrazo  (PRI) and the local "Green" party (PVEM). It's still 6 months until Mexico votes, but AMLO appears to be destined for victory, and the Latin Left looks to count another amongst its numbers come July.

AMLO has a reputation as a class warrior, but all indications that his politics are more akin to Brazil's Lula than Venezuela's Chavez:

Lopez Obrador's popular image is that of a relentless champion of the downtrodden, a class warrior railing against the corrupt elite. He has carefully crafted that image, living in a modest apartment and driving a beat-up sedan. Upon being elected mayor in 2000, he promptly cut his own salary.

Two years later, in a typical gesture, he evicted several millionaires from sprawling properties that had illegally encroached on Chapultepec Park, the beloved green space and popular picnic spot at the heart of Mexico City.

"We don't owe anything to any special interest group -- not businessmen, not journalists, not bankers, not politicians. . . . We don't have to lick anyone's boots," he told reporters at the time. "We just have to deliver to the people."

In nearly every speech, Lopez Obrador mentions the gap between Mexico's rich and poor. He has said the country needs an "alternative" to the current economic model pursued by President Vicente Fox, but economic analysts said he has not made it clear what policies he would follow if elected. He has started one urban welfare program after another, raising the city's debt in the process.

The mayor's message has alarmed many business leaders, sending chills through the country's political and economic establishment. Some critics call him Mexico's version of Hugo Chavez, the populist Venezuelan president whose giveaways to the poor have slowed economic progress.

"He's a man who likes to call attention to himself, but he doesn't have the background to be president," said Efrain Garcia Mora, head of a business association in Tabasco state.

Aides to Lopez Obrador, however, assert that he has proved to be a solid partner with private business and has attracted sizable foreign investment to the capital. They say he does not oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement championed by Washington, and they reject any comparison with Chavez, suggesting that Lopez Obrador has more in common with moderate, center-left leaders in Brazil and Chile.

While AMLO is not the firebrand that Chavez, the common thread that unites the rise of the Latin Left, and frightens Washington and the the White House is a rejection of the economic policies that the Bush administration has tried to bring home in the last 5 years.

What these leaders share is a strong emphasis on social egalitarianism and a determination to rely less on the approach known as the Washington Consensus, which emphasizes privatization, open markets, fiscal discipline and a follow-the-dollar impulse, and is favored by the I.M.F. and United States officials.

"You cannot throw them all in the same bag, but this is understood as a left with much more sensitivity toward the social," said Augusto Ramírez Ocampo, a former Colombian government minister who last year helped write a United Nations report on the state of Latin American democracy. "The people believe these movements can resolve problems, since Latin American countries have seen that the Washington Consensus has not been able to deal with poverty."

Despite the best efforts of the PRI and PAN to keep AMLO off the ballot using trumped up charges, he now appears on the path to power.  Ironically,  the most vitriolic opposition to AMLO is likely to come from his left, with Subcommandante Marcos, leader of the Zapatistas denouncing AMLO as a traitor:

The pipe-smoking, balaclava-wearing, but no longer gun-toting leader of Mexico's Zapatista rebel group, subcomandante Marcos, emerged from his jungle hideout yesterday for a six-month nationwide tour to promote a new, non-violent political movement.

Latin America's best-known modern guerrilla left the Zapatistas' base in the southern state of Chiapas on a black motorcycle with a Mexican flag fixed to the back and headed for the mountain city of San Cristobal de las Casas, where hundreds of sympathisers had gathered for a rally to cheer him on......

The aim of the tour is, according to a recent communique, to "build a national programme of anti-capitalist and leftwing struggle". By dubbing his caravan "The Other Campaign", Marcos made it clear that much of the strategy hinges on rubbishing the July presidential election.

In a series of preparatory meetings in the jungle in August and September, Marcos reserved particular venom for the front-runner, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, calling him a traitor who would "give it to all of us" if he won. This alienated former fans in the intelligentsia who see Mr Lopez Obrador's candidacy as an unprecedented opportunity for the left.

The government has made little comment on his tour plans. But should the authorities decide to arrest the rebel leader and outlaw, identified by the government in 1995 as former university teacher Rafael Guillén, Marcos instructed his supporters in a communique not to resist. "Run away and spread the word," he wrote, "and bring me tobacco."

Subcommandante Marcos has been the recipient of much adoration from the left in the US and Europe, and the allure of the man is obvious, he strives to be the essence of just struggle, in his own words:

His first words said in the new persona were: "Through me speaks the will of the Zapatista National Liberation Army." Further subjugating himself, Marcos says that he is not a leader to those who seek him out, but that his black mask is a mirror, reflecting each of their own struggles; that a Zapatista is anyone anywhere fighting injustice, that "We are you". He once said, "Marcos is gay in San Francisco, black in South Africa, an Asian in Europe, a Chicano in San Ysidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, a Mayan Indian in the streets of San Cristobal, a Jew in Germany, a Gypsy in Poland, a Mohawk in Quebec, a pacifist in Bosnia, a single woman on the Metro at 10pm, a peasant without land, a gang member in the slums, an unemployed worker, an unhappy student and, of course, a Zapatista in the mountains."

While intoxication, Marco's brand of ideological purity is also infuriating in that it emanates from the strain of 1968 that refuses to make peace with authority and power no matter how reasonable the propostions being put forward are.  He belongs to that  sect of ideologue that gains identity not for what they believe but for what they reject. This is far from unique, I can think of movements closer to home that lurk at the cusp of negative identity, however Marcos and the Zapatistas are the heirs of Tlatelolco Massacre in which hundreds of students were killed in 1968.  While the true idenitity of Marcos is unclear, it's almost certain that he was part of the student movement that was put down so brutally  at  Tlatelolco, and this presumably explains at least in part the fundamental rejection of political participation that underlies much of what Marcos and the Zapatistas have to say.  

While the Zapatistas have their origin in 1968,  the formative event for AMLO and the PDR is the theft of the 1988 Mexican election.  In 1988, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, the son of the populist Mexican president Lazaro Cardenas, split from the PRI, the party that had dominated Mexican politics since the Mexican Revolution, and with the support of several smaller left wing parties nearly overturned decades of rule by PRI.  Convinced that they would lose the PRI announced the the computer system counting the votes crashed, later changing the votes of PDR to show that they voted for the PRI.  

The only eveidence of the fraud, the paper ballots, were ordered to be burned with the consent of the PRI and PAN.  The outgoing president would later confess to the fraud in an autobiography published in 2004. The PRD didn't take to the jungle, they perservered, and in the 2000 election that President Fox and the PAN to power nationally, brought AMLO into office as the president of the Federal District, ie "mayor" of Mexico City.

AMLO now stands at the cusp of victory, Subcommandante Marcos wields no power save the ability to play the Che card,  going around the country on his black motorcycle hoping to stir a "social movement". The PDR and AMLO stand to implement their 50 Promises (Spanish) with real hope that they can improve Mexican's lives while Marcos and the Zapatistas cling to notions of ideological purity.  While AMLO is no Chavez, there's plenty in his poltical program to piss off Washignton: A program to support economic autarchy for local communities,  opposition to the lifting of tarrifs on US corn and beans as required under NAFTA,  opposition to the privatization of state owned oil and electric companies, and extending NAFTA to include development aid and the free transit of labor.  While hardly a radical manifesto, elements of AMLO's platform asre likely to cause panic in Washington, notably the sections dealing with tarrifs on US corn and beans, the proposal to include development aid in NAFTA, and allow Mexican workers to cross the border freely.

With the Republican party so thoroughly discredited by the culture of corruption that permeates the White House and Congress like stink on shit, few issues offer the potential gains that a hard line on immigrantion a la Tancredo open for the Republicans.  The irony to this is that AMLO presents a plan to halt the destruction of real wage growth that has occurred in Mexico since the implementation of policies consistent with the Washington Consenus, and offers opportunities to workers in Mexico that would make it possible for them to make a living at home in Mexico.  The lure of a latter day "southern strategy", militarizing the border, and demonizing AMLO as a Communist will likely prove enticing to Bush and the rest of the GOP in the 2006 midterms. Militarizing the border will do nothing to deal with the nearly 11 million Mexicans now resident in the US, however it will serve to drive our southern neighbors into the embrace of Chavez, and the politicized MERCOSUR he envisions.  For the GOP faithful, this takes on shades of a real life Red Dawn.

Washington is already abuzz with talk of who "lost Bolivia", the victory of AMLO  would open the door for talk about who "lost Mexico".  With the allegations being made that the US has constructed a secret air base in Paraguay to invade Bolivia should
Morales act to agressively with ragards to the natural gas concessions in the country, it should be remembered that Mexico supplies more oil to the US than Saudi Arabia. It can only be hoped that the American people have more sense than to be sucked into the mythology of domino theories and monolithic threats, but the historical record on the use of armed force is not encouraging.  The US occupied Veracruz in 1914, and throughout the latter half of that decase expeditionary raids were regularly launched against Mexico.  

Seizing Mexican oil fields seems insane, and is unlikely. However, underestimating the insanity of the Bush Administration is a dangerous game, and the rise of the Latin Left is leading to a confrontation.  The Bush adminstration's unwillingness to accept compromise creates the serious danger that minor disagreements could esclate into something much more serious.  In order to defuse this risk it is essential that the resurgent myth of the domino theory and its corollary of doctrine of the monolithic threat be confronted by progressives lest we to are crushed beneath the consequences of the domino theory.

Poll
Will an AMLO victory have consequences for US elections?
. Yes 42%
. No 57%

Votes: 7
Results | Other Polls
Display:
The normal cavet applies.  Crossposted from Dkos, written from an American perspective.  Nontheless, intensely relevant to Europe.   The whole world is going to have to accustome themselves the the rise of the Latin Left.  As I said at Dkos:

We ignore the rise of the Latin Left at our own peril.  With forethought and compromise the ambitions and desires of our southern neighbors can be accomodated.  We have to be the voice for coexistence or we will reap a harvest of fear and loathing.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 02:11:09 AM EST
So, what is the European perspective to this story?

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying
by RogueTrooper on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 06:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Very strange interpretation of 1968... and Subcommandante Marcos.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 09:19:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How so?

I'm no expert on Mexico, but I think that there's a strong argument to be made that Marcos is a product of 1968, and that the rejection of the poltical process comes (understandably) from the trauma of the Tlatelolco Massacre.  

I'm a firm believer that governments who deny their people the ballot will force them into the path of the bullet to have their say.

Political movements are in large part organic responses to the circumstances of their birth.  Marcos is part of the generation that went to the streets and were shot down (literally),  they were denied the ballot and the public square, so they embraced the bullet and the revolution.  The formative experience of people's have a tremendous impact on their poltical cultures, see the ingrained mistrust of authority that lingers in the countries of the Warsaw Bloc till this day.

What I have no tolerance for is those who refuse to lay down arms when they can have their say at the polls.  Marcos says that he's laid down arms, but if he doesn't get what he wants if AMLO is elected is he going to be back out in the jungle stirring shit up?

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 11:56:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that there's a strong argument to be made that Marcos is a product of 1968

No no, that wasn't what I meant. I see I need to write the long version :-)

First I was responding to the following from an European viewpoint:

...the strain of 1968 that refuses to make peace with authority and power no matter how reasonable the propostions being put forward are.

I wouldn't characterise 1968 as a revolt of uncompromising truebelievers. The later Red Brigades and Red Army Fraction (which you may know under the misleading 'Baader-Meinhof gang' name) would fit that description, but 1968 was a broad rebellion on real issues that for example crippled France for a month - and many onetime leading participants became leading politicians today.

Regarding Marcos, what I found strange was that you made him appear an ideologue, kind of reality-removed. But the 'Zapatistas' did much more in Chiapas than political philosophy - whatever one thinks on the value of these, they created autonomous village communities and effected land redistribution.

The current propaganda tour by Marcos also aims at spreading these autonomous communities across Mexico, to get people to self-organise. Such organisation is a mainstay of leftism, voting for a President is just not enough, the líder--followers model is not a lasting one. Speaking of elections, let me offer you this alternative view on the Zapatistas: on one hand, by not competing in the elections, they are in fact giving AMLO & PRD more of a chance (contrast that with the hard left in say Chile); on the other hand, should an elected government roll over regional interests, those hit hard have every right to resist.

But back to the uncompromising truebeliever/ideologue theme. Wanting one party on the Left, centrism and this form of dismissal has a long tradition in the USA, but it is one I'm not at all fond of. (Disclaimer: I may be motivated here by having lived through the nineties when Europe was dominated by centre-left parties, which squandered every chance for implementing any significant lasting reforms in their direction - unlike their rightist counterparts.)

This dismissal sounds as if ideological debate is only academic, and not also a very real and cutting-into-the-flesh policy debate. Criticism of a moderate reform policy package is not necessarily motivated by philosophy department longing for dogmatic purity, but differing-from-your views that those reforms are not reasonable - but (a) insignificant, or (b) counterbalanced by other policies or lack of reforms in other fields, or (c) could backfire later or not achieve lasting change.

In Latin America, my emphasis would be on the last: lasting change. In the US, redistribution and expropriations are anathema, but with the perhaps more encroached and unfair ownership structures in 19th/early20th century Europe and today's Latin America, they are very much on the agenda (or were sometime in the last two centuries). Money for the poor just won't do it in itself, and certainly not a mere election victory.

Let's review the political spectrum: AMLO doesn't like to be compared to Chávez. But, apart from fiery rhetoric, as I made the case in an earlier diary, Chávez's economic policies are relatively tame - far away from Castro's command economy, and tamer than say the Atlee government's reforms in post-war Britain. López Obrador more likes comparison with Brazil's Lula. But Lula, while cutting some ties with the Washington Consensus, can't be said to having ditched neoliberalism altogether (the pro-agribusiness permit of GM food is one indication), and shied away from land reform. Back to López Obrador, his lack of rejection of NAFTA indicates to me that even less far left than Lula, Mexico won't be part of a Latin American (economic) block opposed to the USA. To come finally to Subcommandante Marcos, he is from a long-running Latin American tradition (which didn't start with 1968 or Che, and which is not as fringe there as in the USA) that is clearly to the left of Chávez.

I think these are very real differences, and the disagreements stemming from it can't be put down to hotheadism. And while I don't share the view that the Chilean far left's irresponsible impatience was crucial for Allende's downfall, still I would make the point that the Zapatistas vs. PRD doesn't compare - they neither depend on nor directly compete with each other.

As a closing note, my own view on the standoff (which, if you read carefully, I haven't expressed in the above!) is to bet on both horses: I wish López Obrador to be elected, and I wish Marcos to inspire rural grassroots organisation and to be around to egg AMLO on from the Left, and to be around as a credible candidate for the Left should AMLO fail to deliver.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jan 6th, 2006 at 06:04:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and America starts acting real, everybody is going to know when the shit goes down.

Europe has large investments in South and Central America, and in particlar the econony of the Iberian pensinsuls is deeply tied to Latin America. Where Britain's colonial past has lingering repercussions for it's former colonies (If the US had been a French colony that emereged as a francophone state would the Anglo-American alliance have the impact it does now on world and European politics.)  Spain and Latin America are joined together in Hispanidad the common cultural heritage that includes the Castillian language and  the legacy of Spanish law on the continent.

The emerging Latin Bloc will have an impact on world poltics, Europe will feel the impact.    The closure of American borders would only serve to increase the flow of Latin Americans to Europe's shores. Spain has been the recipient of large scale immigration from Ecuador in recent years,  If Mexicans can no longer go to Chicago it's likely they'll end up in Madrid.  I think the AMLO can stem the flow of immigrants from Mexico, but there's such a push out of the country here that migration will be a fact for many years to come.

There's a strain of thought that argues that Stalin more than Jean monnet deserves the credit for European integration.  George Bush seems to be playing the same role for Latin America.  The Bush Administration shows little patience for the Bolivarian sentiement in South America, and they've shown themselves more than willing to engage in hostilities less than war against the countries of Latin America.  Chavez has been the recipient of US funded coup attempts, and the base at Manta in Ecuador and Mariscal Estigbarria in Paraguay are part of an effort to create an American military presence in the region.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 12:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Cheers MfMM. That was a very informative post. I had not thought about the effects of this new Bolivarian consiousness in terms of immigration into Europe.

Money is a sign of Poverty - Culture Saying
by RogueTrooper on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 12:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The closure of American borders would only serve to increase the flow of Latin Americans to Europe's shores.

I think that will be less significant (not reaching the levels of immigration from Africa) - mainly due to geographic and connected money limitations; while illegal immigration to the USA just can't be stopped (closing borders only creates a lucrative black market).

There's a strain of thought that argues that Stalin more than Jean monnet deserves the credit for European integration.

I prefer a third strain of thought - not wanting to repeat the run-ups to WWI and WWII.

BTW, I see I again do this - responding only to disagreements and not applauding agreed parts... So better late then never, ManfromMiddletown, great diary and informative comments!

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jan 6th, 2006 at 06:17:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think that will be less significant (not reaching the levels of immigration from Africa) - mainly due to geographic and connected money limitations; while illegal immigration to the USA just can't be stopped (closing borders only creates a lucrative black market).

It's true that  geography is an impediment here, but the large numbers of Ecuadorians in Madrid show it can happen.  If the US border is militarized I think it would at least slow immigration into the US.   I'm all for solutions that address immigration that work by creating opportunity in immigrant's home countries, but I have to say that I think I'm glad us Americans have an immigrant class that's shares a smiliar cultural background and religion to the peple already here.  There are problems but we don't have jihad in the dykes like happenened in the Netherlands recently with Theo Van Gogh.  

I've always found it curious that Europeans haven't shown a preference and encouragement to Latin immigrants o ver Arabs for this reason.  Of course until recently South America was where Europeans went to make their money then come home.

I prefer a third strain of thought - not wanting to repeat the run-ups to WWI and WWII.

There was never a WWIII. I'm a strong believer in the idea that forces over time change how societies think and act, and that what's happening now isn't a guarantee that things will be the same in the future.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Jan 6th, 2006 at 08:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... from Business Week (of all places): a piece named "Of Management and Morality", about Swiss-based management thinker Fredmund Malik (read the whole think, it's worth it).

To Malik, the strength of the German economy lies with family-run enterprises such as media company Bertelsmann, chainsaw maker Stihl, or cake-mix and frozen-pizza maker Dr. Oetker. "That's what's really decisive in Germany. They are entrepreneurially led enterprises. Shareholder value, stakeholder value -- they were never infected by these terms," Malik says.

He even defends Germany's much-maligned social welfare system. Only by paying generous benefits to laid-off factory workers can Germany avoid social unrest, Malik maintains. "You can't make a steelworker into a computer operator. That doesn't work," he says. "The problem [of unemployment] has to be absorbed politically. Society must pay benefits to the unemployed, or we will repeat the 1930s."


Another sign of the widening chasm between GOP's America and what was for a long time the closest US ally in Europe. If you thought, it's only the French...
by Bernard (bernard) on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 04:24:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, Malik is someone who should be heard more. He is a qualified voice against the neoliberal consensus, and against economic propaganda for the so-called Anglo-Saxon model (misnomer for the Nottingham Sheriff model).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jan 6th, 2006 at 06:09:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bravo. Superb diary. This could change the course of US foreign policy for many years. And that will have an impact on Europe.

Do not feel safe. The poet remembers.
Czeslaw Milosz
by Chris Kulczycki on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 09:52:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another great diary, MfM.  I wish the US would just leave Latin America the hell alone and stop fucking around in its political systems.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 11:51:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
always pleased to see your posts here, mfm...I watch this particular election with interest...how will the US react, so close to their borders?

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 04:16:45 AM EST
by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 10:05:39 AM EST
Interesting diary about something I think on a lot, but about which I know very little.
Our immigration from Latin America is exacerbated by both Bush's lax immigration policies, and by the dysfunctional social structure in the originating countries. By getting a huge influx of both legal and illegal Latinos, we have acquired a thriving economy based on their low wage requirements and high productivity. If, by some chance, all those workers felt that their chances for a sustainable life were equal at home, they would likely prefer to stay there and our economy would start coasting downward. Europe would be more likely to gain wealthy Hispanics who have language and cultural connections with Spain and are nervous of the leftists. Both of these trends would eventually have economic repercussions.
I did not answer the poll in the positive though, because even in Texas most non-Hispanics are clueless about Mexican politics. I get all my election news off the Beeb.
   
by northsylvania on Thu Jan 5th, 2006 at 06:14:58 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]