Carlos Luken.com

One Man’s opinion.

By Carlos Luken

Many political analysts find incredible that Mexico, a country that won its independence from Spain some two hundred years ago, and is about to celebrate the first centennial of its revolution, is still considered a ‘developing democracy”.

What most fail to understand is that the old adage, “Old habits die hard” is an understatement when referring to Latin American politics.  The region’s history suggest that  several countries and their population have a high degree of tolerance to endure even the most autocratic regimes; you may say that some are  comfortable in that “warm and fuzzy” feeling of an oppressor’s firm control and direction.

Mexico could be a prime illustration.

For centuries Mexico was a country governed by absolute rulers; its people learned to accept the “Take and Give” association that often characterize despots. Although this relationship is never ideal, it is very effective and allows rulers to thwart individual initiative and create dependence in large segments of the population. This symbiotic relationship managed to survive successfully in Mexico under different forms of government until the end of the 20th century when the last autocrats from the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) were democratically ousted.

But after scarcely a decade of uncomfortable transitional adjustments and facing economic and social problems, it appears that many Mexicans are having second thoughts about democracy and are reluctant to pay its price tag; Some, eager to trade  their votes for economic assistance are rejecting the current ruling National Action Party’s (PAN)  severe positions and are  again turning to PRI and democratically electing its candidates; others are eyeing the leftist Democratic Revolutionary Party’s (PRD) candidates and policies.

This shift has not gone unnoticed. Political parties are now attempting to adapt their social programs and candidate campaign rhetoric in order to better accommodate voter’s wishes. However all parties are facing an uphill battle to regain the public’s credibility.

PAN’s top position is faltering. When placed in the uncomfortable situation of incumbency party legislators, officials and candidates are required to support President Calderon’s stringent and at times unpopular measures. Conversely while wholeheartedly supporting the president, PAN has failed to promote a possible successor from its ranks and finds itself at present, an ostensibly united party without any palpable 2012 presidential candidates.

PRD’s woes have diametrically different origins but similar results. Internal feuds and power grabs have split the party in two antagonistic fractions. The Lopez Obrador (AMLO) camp continues its eager quest for power by harassing the party hierarchy at every possible opportunity. The conflicting camp recognized as the “authentic PRD” are obstinately opposing AMLO and his cohort’s every move. Clearly the party at present has no feasible leadership and is in no position to promote any presidential hopeful that can unite its bitter factions.  

Until now PRI has opportunistically taken advantage of these situations and benefiting   from a still sturdy grass root organization and abundant resources, has emerged victorious from several federal and local elections. Back from electoral stupor PRI has recovered and placed itself as congress’s second force (following PAN) holding a very strong position as the present legislative harmonizing force.

However PRI did not achieve this position without major hardships. It also went thru a caustic power struggle in which two major factions locked horns in bitter rivalry. Following the 2000 elections, the self-proclaimed “New PRI” revisionist elements  emerged as a major force; blaming  the “Old  PRI’s” selection process, hand-picked candidates  and campaign organization for their unprecedented  presidential defeat;  they proceeded to gather followers to surpass the monolithic  party organization  by sponsoring  several charismatic and talented young candidates and  winning most local  and federal elections; thus positioning themselves to challenge the party hierarchy.

But the “New PRI” followers made two strategic blunders. First they succumbed to a politician’s eternal nemesis: Hubris  .  They underestimated the “Old Guard’s” staying power, resources and experience and they failed to select a party leader that could coordinate their efforts and harmonize control over other party factions and local organizations. The” Jurassic PRI” seized upon these errors and divisions summarily regaining the party leadership and proceeded to shrewdly influence and sway chosen New PRI hopefuls into their camp by manipulating the 2006 local selection processes managing simultaneously to win over followers and purge their adversaries into oblivion.

Thus in a strange twist of political involution the “Old PRI” transformed  itself into the “New PRI” and is primed to win back  Mexico’s presidency in 2012.

Several names are already being considered as nominees; the “media frontrunner” is undoubtedly the state of Mexico governor Enrique Pena Nieto, a young and appealing (converted) “New PRI” element; also strongly mentioned is former Sonora Governor and senate leader Manlio Fabio Beltrones a long-standing PRI member and boss allegedly backed by former president Carlos Salinas de Gortari.

In my opinion PRI has settled most internal feuds and is demonstrating its traditional strictly controlled harmony; learning from experience it will likely take advantage of its opponent’s weaknesses to make a last-ditch effort to appoint a reliable entrenched candidate that can guarantee the party’s traditional beliefs.   Considering this, I believe that Pena Nieto is only a smoke screen to draw any possible fire and leave a clear path to the Beltrones candidacy and the resurgence of the Jurassic PRI.

One man’s opinion. 

By Carlos Luken

After submitting the government’s 2010 fiscal plan to congress, Mexican president Felipe Calderon and his finance minister Agustin Carstens are presently suffering the heaviest barrage of criticism from every quarter of Mexican society since he took office in December 2006

In an uncommon display of frankness, the fiscal plan recognizes Mexico’s harsh economic reality; facing international economic crisis, rapidly decreasing revenues and progressively increasing social expenditures, the country’s financial situation gradually turned from black to red without having any administration’s willingness to pay the political price for making timely and required adjustments.

Mexico lived trough eight decades of a reality it could not afford;  eighty years  of subsidies for water, power, gas, foodstuffs, preferential interest loans, etc., etc. were coupled with unrealistic monetary policies that did little more than sustain the peso’s exchange rate while subsidizing exports; politically its financially  supported  social programs were used to cover government’s corporative structural costs by benefiting privileged labor unions and business concerns.

While corruption and tax evasion was rampant, Mexico always managed to tap into its seemingly inexhaustible resources from oil exports and use its black color to cover all the financial red ink; this practice was over-exploited to the point where almost 65% of all the oil revenues were taxed in order  to cover expenses. In fact the country was drowning in a pool of oil.

This was “The Mexican dream” and many benefited from it.

Still luck would come to the Mexican Economy’s aid as it stumbled into two timely windfalls; the inexpensive peso helped stimulate a vast tourist boom that produced revenues that were second only to oil and, as the Economy slowly worsened, it created unemployment and sparked a massive migration trend into the U.S. (Ironically in search of “The American dream”); in short time revenues from migrant remittances increased to a point where they surpassed tourism

After spending  most of its  revenue and neglecting infrastructure, modernization and refinery investments, Pemex Mexico’s oil giant ill-equipped to exploit  deep water crude and take advantage of price booms, was pumped dry. Congressional opposition stubbornly continued to block any promise for co-investment with private and foreign interests, and consequently liquidity depleted as fast as oil well capacity.

Making matters worse, the U.S. economic debacle reversed the upward growth trends in tourism and migrant remittance revenues and Mexico’s financial breach deepened.

The administration reacted with a fiscal package that in essence raised taxes and cut federal spending. Calderon closed ministries and in a bold stroke, seized and merged the Federal Central  Power Company (Luz y Fuerza del Centro) with the Federal Electricity Company charging  ineffectiveness,  an audacious move considering their confrontational unions  These unpopular moves were immediately rejected by opposing politicians, many  well to-do capitalists, labor unions  and the general population for being “ill-timed”  and “hard line”.

Yet the current plan is only another limited attempt to rectify a long-standing problem. As with many past administrations Calderon’s is providing aspirin to cure cancer. Regardless of party affiliation or political ideology, every sitting president and legislator has perennially made fiscal decisions with politics in mind; most  have been supported by businessmen ( with profits in mind), but not by the general public who only occasionally benefit from some political decisions but more often suffer their financial consequences.

The whiplash being voiced to this halfhearted plan is so disproportionate that it seems more comical than tragic. Many beneficiaries of Mexico’s failed policies are now articulating what I call “Detached Outrage”; apparently they were oblivious to the consequences of the schemes they were following. In short, many beneficiaries are irritated yet nobody is responsible.

However, instead of looking at the past and pointing fingers, Mexico must look to the future. First it must realize that the precarious present situation is the result of decades of living a comfortable but bogus lifestyle; implementing quick-fix or radical changes is risky, the underprivileged will not endure more hardships; Calderon and congress have the opportunity to devise a comprehensive long-term plan that transcends political term limits and may correct the situation. But Mexico must patiently wait for the solutions 

To do so, political and business leaders and people in general must first become citizens. Instead of criticizing everything while waiting to insert themselves into the corrupt system, they must correct it by involving themselves in their government and search for solutions. If this not done Mexico may soon find that Siesta time is over and awaken from its slumber only to find that the “Mexican dream” turned into a nightmare.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Carlos Luken, Is an independent columnist.  He is also the  author of
the book “300 weeks- Mexico ’s turbulent transition to democracy”
(available from Exlibris publishing Co.orders@xlibris.com,  and  Amazon  www.amazon.com  . Mr. Luken can be reached at his blog via e-mail at http://carlosluken.com

One man’s opinion

By Carlos Luken

Mexican President Felipe Calderon didn’t hold back during his recent nationally televised addresses. His frank conversations acknowledged in no uncertain terms that the country’s current situation was complex, even unfeasible if it continued without major structural and legislative overhaul.

Acknowledging that the fiscal predicament Mexico faces is partly due to a global crisis, he didn’t evade its consequences. In a poor country where a majority of its population survive on subsidies, handouts, underemployment or illegal migration and where only a minority of contributors pay taxes, there is recurrent deficit spending that Mexico habitually managed to balance with oil revenues But income plunged along with oil prices while technological and modernizing infrastructure necessities remained unmet for decades; Calderon conceded that cutting federal spending; raising taxes and major legislation reforms were the only existing alternatives. Partisan opponents replied angrily that instead of implementing a total fiscal renovation which would be unpopular, Calderon’s actions were narrow

He pledged to revamp the executive branch by making “difficult but necessary” cabinet adjustments and streamlining his administration. Calderon promptly followed-up by replacing his agricultural secretary his attorney general and the head of PEMEX (the government owned oil monopoly). The next day just hours before delivering his administration’s 2010 budget to congress, he froze official wages and cut administration expenses by merging the tourism and agrarian reform cabinet posts with other ministries and eliminating the public oversight ministry substituting it with an executive controller’s department.   

Although fiscal issues are important, they only represent part of the complexities Mexico faces; Calderon’s adjustments emphasize his commitment to transform the country and are the beginnings of what he called “a path of no return”, expectantly setting the stage for congress to follow suit by authorizing many vital overdue reform initiatives.

Until now, populism and partisanship prevented the passing of fiscal, energy, justice, communications, political, labor, and social, legislative initiatives, thus the country remained rigid while an unstable environment shook its foundation.

Mexico’s recent midterm election resulted in a topsy-turvy restructuring shift in the congressional composition which may possibly define the country’s future stability; PRI’s significant electoral gains catapulted it from its third place position to a clear majority and relegated PAN the ruling party’s previous prominence to the second spot; while the formerly emergent PRD fizzled as results placed it in an irrelevant minority position.

As with all other legislation, reforms will now require heavy bartering between congress’s main forces (PRI and PAN); the pivoting factor will surely be PRI’s much coveted political reform initiatives which are partially directed at modernizing the country’s political structure but mainly intended at curbing presidential power.

In my opinion Calderon’s measures are still incomplete and only represent a good   start; but in order to revitalize the country from its present complex conditions and tackle its basic requirements, fundamental comprehensive legislative reforms are necessary in most areas particularly in the political arena.

Once Mexico attained democracy it became mandatory to transform its imperial presidential organization into a working power balanced government structure; but a mixture of inexperience and malicious partisanship stonewalled central advances placing the country at the dead end it now faces.

The political reform package must be comprehensive.

The first fundamental modification must be Re-election of public officials as a means to demand from them professionalism and citizen accountability.  The logical following reform initiative is their Recall from office by popular mandate.

Another essential reform should consider that Mexico once was compelled to dictate laws to induce political diversity by allowing parties to designate officials in a “proportional ballot” basis; since democratic plurality has now been achieved, those laws are unnecessary therefore must be repealed to allow   Reducing congress’s size   by eliminating unelected party designated legislators (which currently amount for almost half of both chambers

Considering Mexico’s lack of credible democratic venues to reach accords and its prevalent reformation need, the idea of implementing Referendums to amend laws should also be deliberated as a legitimate and democratic alternative

Other important topics that need serious reviewing are the   Reassessment of executive, congressional and political party accountability regulations and practices; also Redefining  foreign policy strategies, Ratification  of key presidential cabinet members and ambassadorial nominees;   Re-evaluation of fundamental justice and social programs; and establishing a modern  presidential succession process.

Calderon opened a trail, but the questions now are: Will he persist and will congress follow him or will politicians continue their stubborn “politics as usual” populism and partisan obstructionism of progress? Mexico is already on its tipping point, the path is intricate and time is short.

One man’s opinion

By Carlos Luken

Political pundits believe that Mexico’s turbulent transition to democracy began in the 2000 elections when the country’s first democratically elected president, abruptly ousted the  autocratic PRI party that had dominated Mexican politics  for almost a century. This notion was reinforced in 2006 when the PAN party again narrowly won a bitterly challenged democratically held election that thrust Felipe Calderon as Mexico’s current president.

Vicente Fox’s 2000 victory was considered the cornerstone of Mexico’s advance to modernity. Hopes ran high as Fox’s success also brought an unprecedented opposition majority to congress.  For many everything was in place to advance the country into a contemporary political era and set the stage for Latin America’s evolution from repressive regimes to democratic governments.

But something went off track! After seven decades of being ruled by absolute power, many Mexicans were baffled by the prospect of an accessible president willing to share his presidency with was until then, a token  legislative body  whose sole function was to rubberstamp the president’s imperial edicts.

Fox’s outlandish campaign promises and ingenuousness coupled with the public’s confusion and overanxious expectations proved to be the unraveling of the new administration. In the following mid-term elections, Pan’s congressional majority shank significantly and signaled an unexpected return for the previously expelled PRI.

Felipe Calderon’s well run campaign and image  again raised citizen expectations, but on this occasion voters probed to be cautious and gave Calderon a tight victory over a left leaning opposing candidate, but the electorate split their ballots by not selecting a PAN congressional majority; they in turn divided their votes resulting in an unprecedented three party minority gridlock.

It was expected that initiatives and bills would need be discussed and negotiated among opposing parties.

Upon taking office congressional leaders began negotiating their power arrangement confronting the president’s previously unchallenged position. Overly ambitious partisanship gave way to gridlock and to unfortunate public debates; party ideals were forsaken as bartering took hold of the legislative process, citizens were incredulous to witness former adversaries voting on the same side in order to broaden congress’s’ influence and trim any existing oversight authority over them.

Citizen disappointment developed and increased as the 2009 mid-term elections came; A citizen motivated crusade took national proportions as the “White vote” (Nonpartisan and independent candidates) was encouraged and threatened political party power.

As a result Election Day brought high absenteeism (As much as 70% in some states) and the white (or nullified) votes grew into millions from a traditional 2-3% average to a whopping 7%.

The election results were surprising in other ways; The 2006 results were overturned, Calderon’s ruling party (PAN) 2006 first congressional minority status of 206 congressmen shrank significantly to 144 as it was retreated to second place and the surprisingly durable PRI whose 2006 third minority status with 106 legislators unexpectedly took over the PAN’s previous position by capturing a near majority with 238 congressional seats. But the electorate’s backlash went further as they unseated 58 congressmen from the leftist PRD party and relegated the previously second minority hopeful to third place with only 69 congressmen. A unexpected showing by the Green party (PVEM) jumped from 17 to 22 seats.

Almost immediately after the election PRI and the Greens announced a congressional alliance that gave PRI-PVEM the clear majority with over 250 votes (Considering several minor party congressmen that already offered to join the new coalition).

The first casualty to fall in the election’s was PAN party head German Martinez, a Calderon favorite who took all the flak from the administration by declaring himself personally responsible for the election results. Understandably PAN is now in disarray as it prepares to convene an executive committee convention and select its new party leader. With mixed results in different states, there is confusion and many factions are contemplating their bid ; Another casualty was PRD whose very public internal feuds and disorganized campaign alliances did little to reassure voters of their once hopeful prospects.

Sadly the biggest loser by far is Mexico. Despite president Calderon’s call for solidarity and responsibility, the new congressional composition offers little hope of reasonable negotiations between the administration and the legislative body; important legislative reform initiatives will likely become political bargaining chips in one of Mexico’s most critical times. With the need for vital political reform, tackling   uncertain economic expectations, unemployment and heavy education, energy and communications infrastructure investment requirements, and a widespread crime wave; it appears that citizens will have to tolerantly wait as two political forces eventually reach an understanding.

Carlos Luken, Is an independent columnist.  He is also the  author of
the book “300 weeks- Mexico ’s turbulent transition to democracy”
(available from Exlibris publishing Co.orders@xlibris.com,  Amazon  www.amazon.com  and  Barnes and Noble . Mr. Luken can be reached at his blog via e-mail at http://carlosluken.com

One man’s opinion

By Carlos Luken

I had the fortunate hardship of being sick in bed for almost a week.

Although food poisoning is nothing to be delighted about (Specially the nausea that comes with it); I found that bed was both restful and entertaining. Entertaining? You may ask; yes!! for a very brief of time in recent years I found that coverage of the news of the world were more interesting than the standard and predictable bombardment of obnoxious reality shows unrelenting  soap operas, stupid game shows, unendurable celebrity shows and over-hyped situation comedies and programs..

While in bed, I had at my disposal almost 24 hour coverage of events that really interested me because they had meaning and consequences, they were important. Whatever my choice of cable news channel or morning, midday and nighttime news, I was actually informed enough to decide by myself about the many topics impacting the world.

The Middle Eastern conflict was winding down as Iraqi forces were about to take over their country’s security, while the Afghan war was beginning to gain momentum; Iran’s post-election results were very much in doubt (As 2 of 3 candidates declared their victories)  demonstrations and riots were  still raging in Teheran as the Ayatollah had warned of violent crackdowns on protesters, North-Korean sable  rattling had taken a very dangerous course as the rogue nation did away with their diplomacy and proceeded to make a UN-defying  nuclear test while announcing they would resume their missile agenda (Aiming in the vicinity of Japan or Hawaii).

Then there was the saga of a suspicious ship that departed from a North-Korean harbor allegedly containing nuclear arms, atomic reactor parts and supplies or any other prohibitive materials in its hold. The mile by mile voyage was shadowed by a U.S. destroyer and the world was held on edge as North Korean’s leaders threatened all-out war if the vessel’s mysterious journey was, in any way, upset..

A new Swine (Or Human) Flu string was starting to reappear as health authorities were baffled as to its severity or consequences.

In more serene news there was a great debate in the U.S. regarding healthcare reform and taxes. Mexico was apparently winning many more drug war battles and crime was decreasing. Europe and South America was starting to come to grips with the economic crises

The U.S. had begun a new effort to advance technology and place men in the moon by launching a new space mission.

And then, Michael Jackson died and with him, so did the news.

I can agree that Jackson was a gifted talented entertainer but regardless of what the media’s overzealous almost god-like reflection tells us about him, his contributions to society were trivial, he was certainly not Bob Hope, nor was he a role model.

I now find myself listening to nonstop thoughtless interviews with Jackson’s relatives, groupies and handlers while pondering what will happen to Jackson’s fortune and children (This is the order the media is giving, not mine) or how his doctor treated him during his apparent heart attack. I frankly reply, who cares? Jackson’s death though tragic is a private matter and it should be treated as such with respect and decorum not as the circus it has become.

On the other hand I wonder if the death of the news is a staged maneuver to divert the public’s attention from meaningful and important matters to frivolity. I don’t know the answer but all evidence sure points that way. Why?, By whom? I haven’t a clue.

By the way can anybody inform me what happened to the North-Korean ship and if the spacecraft made it to the moon??, I’m dying to know.

One man’s opinion

By Carlos Luken

 I once thought that George Orwell’s novel “1984” relating to civilization’s future was a dreadful and feasible premonition. Then to our respite the year came and went and most sighed an air of relief convincing ourselves that, “After all it was only a science fiction novel!”…….. But was it?

By 1919 and as a result of “The Great War” the era of autocratic monarchies and empires had vanished along with their dynastic rulers; but the reminiscences of living under the King’s, Sultan’s or Emperor’s “constrained order” were not too distant (And in some cases not distasteful) for the surviving population, In those years the simplicity of one individual holding absolute power was not unlikely.

 By the 30’s, the early years of the rise of fascism in Europe and Asia, Orwell realized that humankind was in serious danger of falling prey to dictatorships that offered material well being and protection in exchange for oppression, repression and censure. His novel forecasted such fate 50 years into its future. Orwell’s intuition   missed his target by 25 years; he also missed by over-simplifying that humanity’s weakness in forsaking individualism and liberty in exchange for a rigid social order that offered conformity and welfare to only one man, the notorious “Big Brother” in only one country (Oceania).

 Still with its myopic view now a quarter of a century later we see that his book may have been farsighted. If you alternate “1984” to our current “2009” and substitute “Big Brother” with “Big Government” and “Oceania” to most of the world’s nations , you may understand my concern.

 Orwell also failed to consider that regardless  of the head of state (Autocratic or Democratic), there has  always been a “system” that runs governments; at times  referred to as Court Officialdom , Eunuchs, Caliphs, Civil Servants and various  other terms. Their sole responsibility was to the best of their abilities carry out the duties of State while balancing the ruler’s (And indirectly their) permanence. Generally this system was incorporated by skilled officials that rose in rank through the echelons of government by a tedious yet fair meritocracy system. Mostly they identified with no political ideologies other than assuring the level running of affairs of State.

 Once democracies emerged and elected heads of state were regularly substituted, “the system” devolved, Professional civil servant’s once undeviating priorities changed constantly at the leader’s political whim.  Political appointees where unceremoniously imbedded into the system circumventing traditional status and merit conventions. This distorted and ultimately decimated the system; in time it was natural to expect civil servants to transform their career objectives from meritorious service to political survival. Thus bureaucrats came to be.

 Unlike career civil servants, like Siamese twins bureaucrat’s priorities mirror their political chief’s..…” do anything necessary to stay in power”. Bureaucrats are for Big Government (which serves their particular interests) and make an opportunity of any crisis to magnify it to calamitous extremes; as they do they purposely position government as the only possible solution and willingly dwarf any individual initiative by civil society (Which translates to less government and is contrary to their existence)..

 The term “Anything necessary” is as dangerous as it is ambiguous. Few can deny for the past number of years most of the world’s modern societies have assumed this steadily growing and worrisome tendency.  Regardless of ideological principles the world’s governments at some degree have a central inclination to magnify their importance while minimizing the individuals’.  

Thus Orwell’s Lilliputian “Big Brother” grew to “Big Government”. Reality and the novel have eerie similitudes that are too notable to ignore.  

To begin with “Big Government” uses all possible means at its disposal (force, political power, government indulgence, official regulations, taxes, labor unions, censorship and of course. money) and with the willing (or coerced) help of allies in the “entertainment” industry promotes the gradual  deterioration of individual intelligence and creativity (Doublethink) ; ”BG” also proceeds to use the same resources and with the aide of the mainstream media makes systematic and massive  effort to control of data and education, misinform to the civil society in order to advance its agenda (Newspeak), thus “The Ministry of Truth” appears. By demonizing private production with fabricated charges “Big Government” also seizes control for most economic goods and rations and controls prices for most domestic goods; “The Ministry of Plenty” then makes outlandish claims of alleged increases in the  standard of living  to a population that is constantly feeling inferior.        

Finally “Big Government” utilizes all its (current or future) financial and fiscal resources to position itself as society’s vital solution to all its problems, by creating massive welfare and populist programs it becomes their ultimate benefactor this develops into “The Ministry of Love”.

 Up to now most “Big Governments” have succeeded in positioning themselves as the ultimate solution to their society’s problems; in doing so they have managed to perpetuate their existence.

 But for how long ?, massive spending for populist goals have already taken their toll on many of the global economies , misinformation and lying only lead to a cynical society that quickly looses faith in government and turns against it crafting its downfall.

If modern societies are to survive and thrive, individuals must assume their responsibilities and obligations; acknowledging Ronal Reagan’s famous quotation “Government is not the solution, it is the problem”, this implies that a strong civil society is not only necessary but mandatory.

 Carlos Luken, Is an independent columnist.  He is also the  author of
the book “300 weeks- Mexico ’s turbulent transition to democracy”
(available from Exlibris publishing Co.orders@xlibris.com,  Amazon  www.amazon.com  and  Barnes and Noble . Mr. Luken can be reached at his blog via e-mail at http://carlosluken.com

 >

One Man´s Opinion

By Carlos Luken

Mexico City was in a virtual state of siege as it prepared for U.S. president Barak Obama’s first official visit to Mexican president Felipe Calderon.

Mexican press reported that a 4,500 member protection task force was deployed from all local and federal police agencies, the Mexican Army and president Calderon’s personal military escort guard (Estado Mayor Presidencial) . This small army was tied to dozens of Mr. Obama’s secret service personnel; part of these agents aside from their support in providing intelligence and coordination, also took over most security measures in the Hotel where the Obamas would stay.

What was somewhat uncharacteristic was the presence of U.S. Marines and helicopters flying over the president’s scheduled route and the ominous presence of what has been described as “the tank like presidential vehicle” dully dubbed “The Beast”.

I suppose that in normal times, security is always an important concern by any nation having a foreign dignitary on an official visit to its soil. But these are far from normal times and Obama is far more than “a foreign official”.

As everyone realizes there is a grave insecurity atmosphere in Mexico that makes taking added protection measures not only intelligent but mandatory.

As soon as Air Force One touched down in Mexico City ’s International airport, it was taken to the cover of Mexico ’s presidential hangar. From there Obama boarded a helicopter and was flown directly to Campo Marte, one of Mexico ’s major military facilities a very short distance from “Los Pinos” Mexico ’s presidential manor.

It was very hard for me not to be reminiscent and compare the visit’s contrast to another highly popular and charismatic U.S. president in the sixties;   JFK and his wife were paraded in an open car in Mexico City as thousands cheered their presence, Mrs. Kennedy’s charm and behavior shinned in her visit to Mexico’s Anthropological museum and her answers in near perfect Spanish during a nationally aired TV interview endeared her to the whole country. The Kennedy’s were the national attraction period!; the media had a field day reporting their every move as a success; they were wined and dined and always demonstrated great charisma. When the visit ended all Mexico was talking about Jackie and “her husband’s” visit as the highlight of the year..

 At this point I think it appropriate to explain that I am not comparing the Kennedys visit with the Obama’s . In reality both couples share many outstanding attributes: Youth, charisma and intelligence being among the most notable. But JFK’s visit was in the days of Camelot and these are the dark ages.

In truth Obama’s day long visit was a very demanding affair. He was sheltered from mass events or public appearances. His schedule was overflowing with meetings with Calderon and both their cabinet members and a staff, it would be a understatement to say that their agenda was occupied with vital and critical issues.

After nearly a decade of U.S. near neglect for the region, the unattended “deep-rooted problems” had blow up into shattering crises. As would be expected the list of concerns was topped by the joint strategies to be implemented to fight against drug cartel expanding operations and violence on both sides of our border. As well, in the middle of rising unemployment and economic downturn, illegal immigration continues to be a growing, unsettled and sensitive dilemma to both countries; The United State ’s recent preparation to swing to protectionist trade policies and allegedly revise the NAFTA accords was certainly another important part of their agenda.

Even the traditional state dinner was a highly selective solemn affair in which reportedly only 100 official guests were invited.

As was expected, not all issues were resolved and even those that were will be viewed as unsatisfactory by some. It’s only natural, the agenda and hopes were too demanding and sensitive to both nations. But in my opinion, the most substantial objective was reached and that is that once more, two neighbors sat down to talk about their common problems, shared solutions and past mistakes. This is something to build on.

As an essayist I can understand that this visit was a working stopover. But as Mexican I wish that Mr. Obama’s visit had been a more affable, festive and ceremonial state visit. The prospect of having another charismatic couple capture the world’s media attention and the opportunity of sharing our abundant folklore, stunning locations and fascinating culture, I hope was not lost… but merely postponed for better times in the near future.

+++++++++++++++++

Carlos Luken, a Mexico-based businessman, is the principal in I.L.C.
Corporate Real Estate, a project development firm, and I.L.C. Corporate
Services, a consulting practice that provides business management,
consultancy, lobbying, translations and cultural interphase services to
global corporations and government agencies.  He is also the  author of
the new book “300 weeks- Mexico ’s turbulent transition to democracy”
(available from Exlibris publishing Co.orders@xlibris.com,  Amazon  www.amazon.com  and  Barnes and Noble . Mr. Luken can be reached at his blog via e-mail at http://carlosluken.com

 One Man’s opinion

By Carlos Luken

It has been written that the United States “often tends to first underestimate and then overestimate enemies”. Not surprisingly it sometimes does the same and also reacts impulsively when crafting its foreign policy strategies.  

By world standards the United States is still an adolescent nation struggling to balance its power and vitality with the maturity required in foreign affairs.

While behaving in this manner the U.S.  Has been consistent and at times successful, although there are times where U.S. policy toward a nation or region has shifted erratically between rashness, condescension or disregard. Because of this, American actions frequently create confusion or distrust and every so often even failure.

The recent example appears to be occurring with Mexico.

For nearly a decade the U.S. chose to underestimate Latin America in general and Mexico in particular By neglecting the rising narcotic activities and trade in the region and the drug/arms trafficking along its border; instead of concentrating in the cartel’s violent and undermining effects and the local consequences caused by drug proliferation, it preferred to divert its focus and pay token attention to the immigration quandary. 

Immigration and the critical problems it created are by no means unimportant, but it is a commonly implicit fact that its “residual effects” have helped resolve an economic problem in the U.S. workforce that is caused by the  demographic consequences of declining birth rates.

Now with a rapidly weakening economy and rising unemployment, immigration once more  becomes a problem that the new administration cannot ignore, so a policy shift is required………. Again!.

 Like a water pump, the American public is being “Primed” to accept the new policy. “National security” is about to replace “illegal immigration concerns”.

 Hastily U.S. government officials and the media have discovered Mexico’s drug trade and cartel violence. Some authorities are now appalled to concede that there is a colossal exchange trade going on in its borders, drugs for arms.

 News of cartel violence seeping into U.S. cities seems now commonplace. Phoenix, El Paso, Laredo and even Atlanta have been made showcases of the “Mexican cartel’s invasion”. The recent capture of over 700 “Mexican drug cartel members” murdering rival gangs, kidnapping persons and distributing drugs in the U.S. made front page and prime time news. I remember when these individuals were once referred to simply as “criminals” or “a pusher”, who’s nationality, was never an issue.

Along with the prevailing fear that now exist in many Mexican cities, the climate of violence has created another ominous notion; an ever-growing catch phrase has been fashioned and seems to be part of  several U.S. officials  and media commentator’s agendas it has  also been accepted as a new thrust of most Mexican political opponents to the Calderon administration……. “The Failed State” refers to the suggestion of Mexico’s alleged inability to continue to exist as a nation because of the threat that the drug cartels have imposed on the Mexican government and its institutions.

 Nobody can deny that Mexico has a massive security dilemma; it’s a fact that the drug cartels have retaliated against government law enforcement actions and pressures to curb their illegal drug activities; with the aid of vast funds, smuggled high-tech weapons and communications equipment   and a very intricate web of corruption, drug gangs  have felt powerful enough to challenge local law-enforcement  authorities  by creating a wave of widespread and indiscriminate violence against the general population.

This provoked President Felipe Calderon to reform, purge and restructure local crime fighting organizations and while doing so, federalize the crime fighting actions by deputizing the Mexican army to coordinate anti-cartel executive strategies.  By pitting the army against the drug gangs, the regrettable term “Drug wars” began being used to label all crime fighting strategies and activities; unfortunately some maliciously intended persons now confuse the war on drugs as a civil war.

Apparently this misconception coupled with the “Failed State” conjecture appear to be oozing into some U.S. officials, legislators and media pundits thinking and are being received at face value as basis for new policy considerations.

 But the notion of a “Failed State” is defined by “The Fund for Peace” (A Washington D.C. based think tank) ,”….. as a country on the verge of collapse and  as one in which the government does not have effective control of its territory, is not perceived as legitimate by a significant portion of its population, does not provide domestic security or basic public services to its citizens, and lacks a monopoly on the use of force”. Twenty eight “most vulnerable” nations appear on its list, among them Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Haiti, North Korea, Lebanon, Yemen, Nepal, Iraq and Pakistan; obviously the term applies to countries were  organizations or institutions are either nonexistent or dysfunctional.

 Mexico is not even on the list basically because its territory remains intact, it has a legitimate elected president, it has all three branches of government working together; it has centralized and loyal military forces who recognize president Calderon as their only commander in chief;  legislative initiatives are presented and laws are passed normally  by the legislative branches; open elections are being held nationwide with different  political parties actively and peacefully contending with each other; Mexico’s food and energy production, oil extraction, education and healthcare institutions though with faults, are working  daily benefiting many millions; even in these troubled times Mexico  still has a stable economy and sound financial institutions.

Some political analysts allege that despite recent campaign promises made to the Latino community, it now appears that along with stricter border surveillance, funding for law enforcement officials and a National Guard presence along the U.S.-Mexico are being prearranged.

After years of evidence to support the notion that the greater part of the drug market is in the United States and that “drugs for arms” trade is an ongoing practice, it now appears that the US is conveniently willing to admit its responsibility and take action.

However it would be a huge (and very naive) blunder and insult to attempt to fix the cyclical  immigration dilemma by using the enduring drug trafficking problem as an excuse to use heavy handed tactics to shut the border or to provide “advisors” of any kind on Mexican soil.

 This month’s stopover by Secretary of state Clinton and April’s announced state visit by President Obama will be both interesting and challenging affairs, let’s hope rationale prevails and that viable, comprehensive and officially acceptable solutions are reached for the benefit of both nations.

++++++++++++++++

Carlos Luken, a Mexico-based businessman, is the principal in I.L.C.
Corporate Real Estate, a project development firm, and I.L.C. Corporate
Services, a consulting practice that provides business management,
consultancy, lobbying, translations and cultural interphase services to
global corporations and government agencies.  He is also the  author of
the new book “300 weeks- Mexico ’s turbulent transition to democracy”
(available from Exlibris publishing Co.orders@xlibris.com,  Amazon  www.amazon.com  and  Barnes and Noble . Mr. Luken can be reached at his blog via e-mail at http://carlosluken.com