[Marxism] Re: The Latin American-US Realignment

["Tony Abdo" <gojack10@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

A reply here to some of Julio's comments.  Nestor had referred to Vicente
Fox as being from the 'north' of Mexico, and this does not fit the bill as
to how most Mexicans divide their country, which is most usually into
northern states, central states, and southern states.  But another way of
seeing the diivsion of the country is simply that that part that is to the
north of Mexico City as being the North, and that part which is to the south
of it being the South.  And Guanajuato, Fox's home turf, is to the north of
DF.

And while it is true that it may seem strange to a Mexican to throw Acapulco
into an outer reach of a Caribean belt, in fact it is not so strange at all
if one considers the Blacks of the Costa Chica region in Mexico as being
connected by history with those Blacks of Verzacruz.  Here is some brief
introduction to info regarding this hidden history of Mexican Blacks
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=17042002-083205-6062r

I feel that Julio tends to see too much internal Mexican politics in the
international battle that has arisen out of Fox's withdrawal of Cuba's
anbassador.  It should not be forgotten that Peru did the exact same thing
at the exact same time as Fox did. This has all the appearance of both
Mexico and Peru adding themselves to a coordianted US offensive against
Cuba, and cannot just be written off as being an idiot independent move on
Fox's part, which is what Julio does.   See below for more info on this.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/05/02/444971-ap.html

Tony Abdo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some of Julio's comments from last 2 posts below...

Nestor-
> Maybe we could find an answer by reading the figures of economic realities.
>  Isn't Mexico today a split country, where the North (and Fox comes from
> the North) has become a giant maquila, a giant American sweatshop, while
> the South has been given the order to recede into barbarism and get lost
> (save for some touristic enclaves, which range from the Zapatista guerrilla
> sites to Cancún)?

Julio- Fox doesn't come from the North.  He is from Guanajuato, a central
state:

<www.worldatlas.com>

We should definitely read "the figures of economic realities" (and look at
maps) to avoid categorical, but ignorant, clichés.

In 1990, maquiladora value added was only 1% of total Mexico's GDP.  In
2000, at its peak, it was less than 3%.  In 1990, maquiladoras employed less
than 1% of the labor force; in 2000, about 2%.  Yes, assembly-line,
foreign-owned, for-export manufacturing (so-called "maquiladoras," although
the maquiladora in-bond regime was phased out since 1994) grew very rapidly
in the 1990s, particularly in the late 1990s.  But as shown, it is still a
small portion of manufacturing and general economic activity in Mexico.

In general, the economies of Mexico City/metropolitan zone, the services and
manufacturing belt in the central states of the Estado de México, Tlaxcala,
Hidalgo, Querétaro y Puebla, as well as the northern-border states (that is,
the areas with the greatest concentration of "maquiladoras") have proved to
be economically robust.  These areas are the most integrated to the U.S.
economy via trade and investment, yet they withstood well a severe recession
in the U.S.  During 2001-2003, as a result of the decline in U.S. demand,
unemployment in some of these areas increased abruptly.  But a good deal of
people switched to activities oriented towards the domestic market, poverty
was kept in check, and overall employment rebounded in the last year or so.
Usually, when unemployment hits hard, poverty indices increase.  It didn't
happen this time around.

and

, Creel, and Derbez had no idea whom they were dealing with.  The
devolution of Ahumada and then Fidel's scathing critique of Mexico's vote in
Geneva (May 1 speech) seemed to take them by surprise.  They probably
thought that the speech was a clear signal that Cuba would expose Fox &
Creel's anti-PRD plot.  Cuba's diplomatic note on Ahumada's deportation made
it clear that Ahumada had been exhaustively interrogated in Cuba and that he
had declared on the record that underlying the scandal was a political plot,
clearly pointing to Fox and Creel.  IMO, this scared the hell out of them.
And they overreacted.  They overreacted because Cuba also made it clear that
in the diplomatic note that this was an issue for Mexicans to sort out -- a
domestic affair.

If I'm allowed to speculate on the personal dynamics, I think that Creel
pushed Fox and Derbez to recall their ambassador in Havana, expel Cuban
diplomats, and demand that the Cuban ambassador leave the country, thus
effectively threatening to end 45 years of a fairly respectful and even
friendly relation between Mexico and Cuba.  It was obviously (to me at
least) a rushed decision.  Derbez lacked the wits and the backbone to oppose
the idea.  And the idiots thought it'd be cheap for them.  This really shows
to me that they had little idea of what they were doing or that they were
really scared, or both.

Come the Creel-Derbez's press conference on Thursday.  Creel didn't need to
be there, because his role is not of chancellor, but of interior minister.
So, chances are he forced himself there just to make sure Derbez didn't
chicken out.  Why?  Because, on Wednesday (if I remember correctly), Derbez
made public the offer of a truce to Cuba, apparently with Fox's OK.  Creel
didn't like the idea a bit (perhaps because he's deepest in the shit of the
PRD-Ahumada plot).  In the press conference Creel was adamant at minimizing
the truce offer and effectively tried to sabotage it repeating the charges
against Cuba, that Cuba was intervening in Mexico's internal affairs. :-)
In the press conference, Derbez tried to hint that he wasn't as
ideologically anti-Cuba as the other idiot and that the truce was serious,
but he obviously didn't have the guts to stand up to Creel.

So it's a mess.  No coherent plan.

The reaction in Mexico against all this was swift and came from a very broad
array of political forces with virtually nobody from the PAN side doing
damage control.  The virtual consensus is, "It's stupid to break up with
Cuba.  Fox is just trying to please Washington and/or prevent the Ahumada
affair from blowing in his face."  Then yesterday, Fox learned about Bush's
speech against Cuba.  Derbez and Fox rushed immediately to criticize
Washington and the measures, mark distance, and claim that they condemn any
attempt by the U.S. to intervene in Cuba, etc. etc.

Does Bush have a plan to attack Cuba and distract people from the Iraqi
debacle?  Is Mexico playing the role of enabler or accomplice?  Well, Cuba
has every reason to ponder worst-case scenarios and be prepared in any case.
 But it seems to me that the main motivation behind Bush's demagoguery is
Karl Rove's advise to buy a few cheap Florida votes, even though the
tightening of the blockade will likely hurt a lot of Cubans in Florida and
won't work.  So, in spite of the "future wars" anticipated by the Pentagon
bureaucrats, I am under the impression that Bush is not very eager to invade
any other country any time soon -- particularly not Cuba, who fights (and
wins!).

And behind Fox's erratic political behavior?  Well, I don't think Mexico's
government is leading any significant realignment in its relationship with
the U.S., Cuba, or the rest of Latin America.  They are just idiots.  That's
my Occam's Razor conjecture on these events.

Julio

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today -
it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism