Posts
In 1911, Col. House, kitchen cabinet advisor to Woodrow Wilson, told the Mexican ambassador, "Your flag will be our flag." That, pretty much, was the blunt of the matter.
But Mexicans had other ideas. The three-pronged popular revolt which is known as the "Mexican Revolution" was not directly a revolt against American imperialism. The industrial laborer in the north of the country revolted against oppressive labor conditions and the government's blind eye toward corporate union busting. The peasants in the south revolted against the encroachment on their lands by large agri-business. The middle class in the national and provincial capitals revolted against an entrenched, closed and ossified political system. But behind all these causes lay the first cause of the United States; for it was American hegemony that kept a perpetual president in power, that gave the economic raison d'etre for the large agricultural estates and that owned the mines in the north... in addition to the railroads everywhere. Despite their internecine and often murderous differences everyone in Mexico understood -- and have always understood -- that behind everything lurks the hand of the colossus to the North. Even boys of 12 understand this, although establishment savants in el Norte are typically clueless.
Back in 2003, I sat in on a working supper of sub-cabinet level officials who had got together to discuss some one or another problem. After the work was done, and over pan dulces and chocolate, the talk turned to the upcoming election: who would be el tapado -- the Inner Cabal's choice. As they went through a list of possibilities what struck me was how often someone countered with "... the Americans will never allow him...." They said this without a blush of embarrassment, as if they were talking of the weather.
Thirty years before the American Embassy hosted a luncheon with a gaggle of U.S. bankers, high officials and economists from Harvard. A group of young up-and-coming Mexican officials were also invited. At a given moment, the ambassador, got up, stood behind the then young Carlos Salinas Gotari and said, "Gentlemen, I introduce to you the future president of Mexico."
In fact, the Mexican Revolution began when Porfirio Diaz indicated that he sought to diversify investment in Mexico and Texas bankers quickly backed another one of their hitherto unknown Champions of Democracy, Francisco Madero whose sudden candidacy for the presidency was what tirggerd the decade long fiasco. At the end of the debacle, Mexico reconstituted itself and reclaimed sovereignty over its railroads, mines, coastal waters, and ultimately oil. Why it even enshrined worker co-ownership in the Constitution!
But, notwithstanding the hysterical reaction in the United States, there was always the fine print, the bottom line of which was to more than adequately recompense American investors and to riddle economic populism with loopholes. More than that, the fine print allowed, indeed encouraged, foreign (read American) investment. Mexico did not really want "independence" -- it could hardly afford it. It wanted respect.
Eventually, the ill mannered, bottom-line bone-heads up north figured it out. It was like teaching basic manners to barbarians. Just observe the niceties and all will be well. F.D.R. got it. J.F.K. got it fantabulously.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) had specified the Rio Bravo ("Grande") as the border between the two countries. Over the course of a century the river naturally changed its course with the result that 600 acres eventually found themselves on the American side. Mexico wanted the acres returned. American Super Patriots resisted the treasonous ceding of "so much as an inch" of sacred Murkan soil. JFK pushed through a settlement that, in the spirit of things, returned the 600 acres to Mexico. He was awarded a hero's welcome such as no Mexican himself had ever received.
J.F.K. was also smart enough not to get unduly upset over Mexico's "independent" foreign policy; in particular its persistent recognition of Castro's Cuba and official opposition to any intervention (by anyone) in the hemisphere. The fact was, Mexico was not a big player on the international geo-political scene, so who really cared? Moreover, it helped the image of the "Free World's" democracies to have an upstart in the room. It also helped when an ostensibly "independent" nation could act as a go-between or proxy for some initiative that was otherwise embarrassing.
But America's short brush with manners began to fade with the "election" of Salinas Gotari and they faded even more after the passage of NAFTA. In the aftermath of 9/11, the fade was near total. The United States demanded and got "cooperation" against terrorist and then against "drug lords." This cooperation included having American agents working Mexican airports and the FBI and DEA working all but autonomously inside the country, American officials learned to use the diplomatic "we" instead of the imperial "we" but the U.S. had achieved an effective penetration into the domestic operations of a sovereign state that no Mexican president prior to 1980 would ever have accepted.
Alas, pride always precipitates a fall... or at least a stumble. The summary arrest of General Cienfuegos, Mexico's former Secretary of Defence, followed by dumping him intp one of the Empire's notorious isolation holes was too much for the Mexican political establishment. It was too much that the U.S. saw fit to spy on them and not just on drug lords. The U.S. was allowed "in" in order to combat criminals not to spy on government officials and government doings.
Of course the American attitude is that a criminal is as a criminal does, regardless of rank and connections. It would be wonderful if it applied that same standard to its own politicians. But if the United States were to apply that same standard to its own officials, it would do on the basis that the Government is the Sovereign Power over all its citizens and over the country itslef. The King is supreme in his own lands.
However, a King is not supreme in a sovereign land. When his agents are invited in to help a fellow, foreign sovereign they become envasalled to their host. They operate at his “behest” and under his ultimate authority and control. When they act outside their brief at their own instance, they are turning the tables. They become pro-consuls and, now, it is the foreign state who is rendered subject to the initiatives and directions of a foreign government's operatives.
So AMLO pulled out the stops. One can only imagine; but the obvious truth of the matter is that he brought sufficient asymmetrical pressure on the U.S. to spring Cienfuegos from Metropolitical Correction Centre.
The New Cry of Mexican Sovereignty is: Our Generals are Our Business!
And more than just "spring." AMLO made Murka eat grass. The official communiqué had it that Cienfuegos was being released into the custody of the Mexican Justice Department to be investigated and prosecuted "as appropriate." Did the United States now feel that Mexico was up to doing what the United States had felt it had not been up to doing before? Or did it simply admit that it had, once again, acted like a total, despotic boor?
One can imagine AMLO saying: "You will not treat us like Iraq." The fact is that the U.S. treats everyone like Iraq but every once and a while someone has just enough of what the U.S. needs to make it observe the goddamn decencies.
But America's short brush with manners began to fade with the "election" of Salinas Gotari and they faded even more after the passage of NAFTA. In the aftermath of 9/11, the fade was near total. The United States demanded and got "cooperation" against terrorist and then against "drug lords." This cooperation included having American agents working Mexican airports and the FBI and DEA working all but autonomously inside the country, American officials learned to use the diplomatic "we" instead of the imperial "we" but the U.S. had achieved an effective penetration into the domestic operations of a sovereign state that no Mexican president prior to 1980 would ever have accepted.
Alas, pride always precipitates a fall... or at least a stumble. The summary arrest of General Cienfuegos, Mexico's former Secretary of Defence, followed by dumping him intp one of the Empire's notorious isolation holes was too much for the Mexican political establishment. It was too much that the U.S. saw fit to spy on them and not just on drug lords. The U.S. was allowed "in" in order to combat criminals not to spy on government officials and government doings.
Of course the American attitude is that a criminal is as a criminal does, regardless of rank and connections. It would be wonderful if it applied that same standard to its own politicians. But if the United States were to apply that same standard to its own officials, it would do on the basis that the Government is the Sovereign Power over all its citizens and over the country itslef. The King is supreme in his own lands.
However, a King is not supreme in a sovereign land. When his agents are invited in to help a fellow, foreign sovereign they become envasalled to their host. They operate at his “behest” and under his ultimate authority and control. When they act outside their brief at their own instance, they are turning the tables. They become pro-consuls and, now, it is the foreign state who is rendered subject to the initiatives and directions of a foreign government's operatives.
So AMLO pulled out the stops. One can only imagine; but the obvious truth of the matter is that he brought sufficient asymmetrical pressure on the U.S. to spring Cienfuegos from Metropolitical Correction Centre.
The New Cry of Mexican Sovereignty is: Our Generals are Our Business!
And more than just "spring." AMLO made Murka eat grass. The official communiqué had it that Cienfuegos was being released into the custody of the Mexican Justice Department to be investigated and prosecuted "as appropriate." Did the United States now feel that Mexico was up to doing what the United States had felt it had not been up to doing before? Or did it simply admit that it had, once again, acted like a total, despotic boor?
One can imagine AMLO saying: "You will not treat us like Iraq." The fact is that the U.S. treats everyone like Iraq but every once and a while someone has just enough of what the U.S. needs to make it observe the goddamn decencies.
No comments:
Post a Comment