Mexico

Members of the Senate have declared that the Mexican Center for Research and National Security (CISEN) has been spying on them. According to some Senators, the executive branch, through the CISEN, has been gathering information about them without authorization. The Senators’ outrage comes from three sources. First, information about them was collected without permission. Second, it was discovered that the Center did not collect the information itself, but hired a private company to do so. Third, the director of the company in charge of collecting the information happens to be closely linked to the ruling National Action Party. With this evidence in hand, it is not surprising or completely unreasonable that the Senate has asked for the dismissal of Guillermo Valdés Castellanos, director of the CISEN.

Of course, the appointment and dismissal of high ranking public officials is a prerogative of the President and not of the Senate. This was clearly stated by the Ministry of the Interior in a response to the agreement reached at the Senate. In the press release, the Ministry of the Interior denies any accusations of espionage and makes a reference to the outstanding record of Valdés Castellanos as head of the CISEN. In spite of this clear demonstration of support, it seems that members of the Senate will continue to keep this event as an issue in Mexican politics.

Manlio Fabio Beltrones, Senator from Sonora, has formally placed an accusation of espionage at the Attorney General’s Office. This is quite a turn of events for Beltrones, a former high ranking official linked to the political police that was part of the PRI-led administration that ruled Mexico for more than 70 years. Beltrones, a fomer governor of Sonora, was accused by American intelligence of having ties to drug traffickers in the late 1990s. Today, Beltrones is the PRI leader at the Senate.

So for this month’s scandal, the intelligence services hired a consulting company to collect information about members of Congress. The consulting company came up with a fictitious form that Senators had to fill out for the purposes of publishing an academic book. Naïve and not-so-naïve members of Congress fell for the trick. Once they found out they were subject to an unauthorized collection of information—espionage for short, according to them—they have asked for the resignation of the head of intelligence services.

If Valdés Castellanos becomes a political liability, Calderón is likely to remove him regardless of his past record as head of intelligence. Unlike Valdés Castellanos, who can be removed quickly, Beltrones and other Senators can only be removed—or in fact prevented from reaching office—by their electorates. This usually takes up to 6 years. For better or worse, that is how fixed terms work.

Mexico is one of the largest exporters of corn. Nevertheless, it also imports almost half of what it consumes. In a world of skyrocketing food prices, this dependency is becoming a national security problem.

In order to reduce pressure over rising food prices, President Felipe Calderón has launched an initiative that promises to improve the situation of farmers and consumers. The initiative is composed of three elements. The first element will facilitate access to basic foods produced in the international markets. The second component attempts to enhance production and productivity in the agricultural sector. Finally, the initiative will try to protect the income of poor families against inflation. In May 26th the Mexican government cut food import tariffs. This measure will immediately reduce the costs of importing corn, wheat, and rice. Additionally, the government agreed to provide a monthly cash payment to some of its poorest citizens.

These measures will reduce some of the pressure over food prices in Mexico, but only temporarily. The program launched by the Presidency does not seem to address structural problems in the Mexican country side such as migration to urban areas—or to the US for that case. The structural problems are so severe that the Minister of Agriculture has stated that Mexico will not be able to produce enough basic foods for the country’s population. Thus the importance of reducing food import tariffs.

These problems fill the Mexican headlines almost 15 years after the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) entered into force. In the early 1990s, several groups and organizations warned that Mexico would not be able to compete with its partners and that agriculture would be the economic sector most affected by trade. It seems that the Mexican country side—and with it the Mexican population—has been not only affected by trade in North America, but also by the powerful trends of a global economy. Hopefully, Mexico will also learn how to benefit from it.

While oil prices continue to rise, Mexico is debating how to maximize oil profits and modernize its aging oil industry. The oil industry, nationalized in 1938, is one of the pillars of the Mexican economy and an icon in Mexican history. In spite of this, the industry has experienced operative, technological, and financial problems that have placed Mexico, an oil-rich country, in a position of energy dependence. The state-run company, Mexican Petroleum (PEMEX), requires significant restructuring. The debate resides on how to do so.

The prelude to the debate started in early April, when President Felipe Calderón presented a bill that was considered a major reform to the Mexican oil industry. Two days after the bill was presented, opposition legislators closed the podiums in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. Indeed, the initiative presented by the executive branch generated much controversy and the closure of Congress caused strong reactions that resulted in a political crisis. Nevertheless, major political actors—the presidents of the parties, leaders of opposition groups, key legislators, and high-ranking public officials—agreed to a process of deliberation through a democratic and inclusive debate.

The Senate is now hosting a series of debates that started on May 13th and that will last 71 days. During these debates, the most influential political actors in the country will present their positions to Congress—the institution in charge of actually making the necessary changes, including Constitutional reforms. They will be joined by experts, academics, and other leaders of Mexican society.

The results of the debate must be closely followed. Indeed, Mexico is one of the world’s major suppliers of oil and several countries, including the United States, might have something to gain— or lose—from any reform to the Mexican oil industry.

This morning’s killing of Mexico’s Acting Chief of Federal Police, Edgar Millán Gómez, has put the emphasis back on the Bush Administration’s Plan Mérida. Millán Gómez was the highest-ranking official to be killed since President Felipe Calderón began the crackdown on Mexican drug cartels in 2007.

His death highlights the gravity of the war on drugs in Mexico. Shortly after his election, Calderón deployed 30,000 federal police to combat drug cartels. Despite this, over 2,000 Mexicans have been killed in drug-related violence. President Calderón was attending the funeral of another high-ranking police official when he learned of the death of Millán Gómez.

To aid our Southern neighbor, the Bush administration proposed Plan Mérida, a 3-year, $1.5 billion program to train, equip, and fund antinarcotics and anticorruption police and legal forces. Despite the plan’s importance and dollar amount, the Bush administration has been rather tight lipped about the details of the plan. When it was revealed last fall, Congress was shocked that few members had been consulted in negotiations and were expected to fund $500 million in the first year.

With the concurrent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is unlikely that Congress will fully approve the Administration’s request. The ranking Republican on the House Armed Services committee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California) is a case in point. This morning, Hunter wrote President Bush to argue the plan paled in importance to the global war on terrorism. Similarly, Democrats argue that providing $500 million to the Mexican government is unrealistic.

Whether or not the full amount will be delivered by Congress, it is important that President Bush work with, not against, Congress to bolster anti-drug forces in Mexico. A comprehensive strategy is needed to address the drugs problem that not only affects Mexico and undermines the rule of law, but also funds gangs in the United States and destroys areas affected by illicit drug use.

On April 10th 2008, opposition legislators closed the podiums in both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. This action effectively forced the remaining members of Congress to take legislative action elsewhere and prevented a fast track approval of a key energy reform that affects the most precious natural resource in Mexico: oil. Between 2001 and 2006, on average, oil revenues constituted 7.9 % of Mexico’s GDP and over 34 % of the income of the federal government.

Two days before the storming of both chambers of Congress, President Felipe Calderón presented a bill that is considered a major reform to the antiquated oil industry in Mexico. The oil industry has been controlled by the State since 1938 and is considered a pillar of Mexican sovereignty. Based on this popular belief, members of Congress from a coalition of leftist parties literally closed Congress in order to “defend the nation” from foreign interests that would take over the oil industry if the bill is approved. The legislators demanded a broad and public debate on oil reform.

Once again, the response from this sector of the Left, led by former Presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has polarized not only Mexican society, but has also weakened the Left. A strong, coherent, and broadly supported Left is needed in a country that is mainly controlled by conservative sectors of society. For instance, a private organization called “Better Society, Better Government” (Mejor Sociedad, Mejor Gobierno) launched an advertising campaign that caused national controversy by comparing López Obrador with Adolf Hitler and other infamous heads of government.

After more than two weeks of negotiations on a national debate over oil reform, the podiums were liberated on April 26th. While this sector of the Left achieved its short term objectives, once again liberal democracy in Mexico lost another battle to political polarization. Yet, the war for a moderate political system has not been lost. Future battlegrounds like the State of the Union Address in September, and national elections in 2009, will constitute some of the major tests to Mexico’s evolving democracy. Hopefully, the Left will not have weakened more political institutions by then.