MEXICO - U.S. RELATIONS

WHOSE SCREWING WHO?

Property ownership in Mexico mirrors the multitude of differences in comparing a highly technical and institutionalized U.S. vs a developing Mexico. In summary: a property owner in the states enjoys the security of a highly structured approach to "property rights" and the transfer of those rights. In Mexico property possession and ownership is less structured, less resale driven, and reflects distinct cultural and historical traditions.

The differences of maturity and wealth are significant between the two countries and many travelers from North of the border criticize Mexico unfairly; comparing this undeveloped, young nation to the United States. Yankees often see Mexico as simply being "ALL SCREWED UP". What they describe as being wrong with México is distorted by cultural bias due to a different set of social norms and laws. To further hinder an objective view of Mexico is an ethnocentrism that gringos are famous for around the world. An attitude that shouts - The United States is better than all other nations and why aren't they more like us? Another unknown to Gringos is how Mexicanos view their own nation. The view that Mexico is screwed up, for example, is acknowledged by Mexicanos. Mexican media is replete with editorials openly discussing the laundry list of what's wrong and the importance of change, both governmental and social.

At times, frustrated with México, I ask myself why am I more comfortable living in a nation which significantly lags behind the United State's superior technological and governmental structures? Why did I leave and continue to live outside of a country that does a much better a job at guaranteeing its citizen's rights and providing opportunities to earn a decent livelihood? I prefer México because it is not so "advanced". When describing to friends what I like about living here I use a time dimension. Moving here was like turning the clock back forty years.

Entering the 1980's, in the states, I longed for the 1950's . The U.S. was more primitive in the 50's, less organized and regulated - life was simpler. A time when, like current day Mexico, a lawsuit among neighbors or business associates was rare. In México you can still drink beer on the beach, walk your dog without a leash and in Baja California still get fresh: crab, abalone, clams and shrimp that are affordable. In Mexico what you do for a living is not the first question people ask when meeting for the first time. It is still a country where you work to live not live to work. A country in which the extended family is not only intact but living together in the same home; here in México familial generations still live together.

I am embarrassed by the arrogance of my fellow gringos when they disparage this country that they know so little about. The relationship between México and the United States reflects a lack of understanding that belies the proximity of these two countries. Alan Riding, former New York Times correspondent, calls México THE DISTANT NEIGHBOR; also the title of his superb book.

Anyone who must deal with Mexican bureaucracy, as I and other foreign investment consultants do daily, will tell you México's systems, including those of the private sector, are in fact screwed up. Once you have a phone or bank account in Mexico you begin to understand how "screwed up" things are. Mexico's political history of a pork barrel, patronage style, single party rule, has promulgated a system that is three times more cumbersome than the U.S. system of managing a nation's bureaucracy.

Why do I use a multiple of three? I measure a bureaucracy's inefficiency by the number of bureaucrats employed and México has three times the per capita number of government employees when compared to the United States. México's historical system of government places first prioritiy on the protection of the bureaucrat's job followed by serving the interests of political allies and finally the needs of the people.

The United States gets blamed for everything else that's wrong in the world so lets look at our role vis a vis the Mexican ruling party, in power since 1921.

México's political history is full of examples of how the centralist, autocratic and brashly undemocratic government (a single party rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party "PRI") would have fallen if the U.S. government had not stepped in to bail out the troubled nation when its leadership plunged the country into one economic disaster after another. The United States has made huge loans and investments to "assist" the Mexican government. These loans were often renegotiated at a fraction of their original worth.

When Carlos Salinas became president he negotiated a fifty cents on the dollar repayment. Uncle Sam has historically bailed out Mexico's despotic PRI administrations; despite México's poor repayment record and documented pillaring of the nation's treasury by corrupt officials, especially past presidents of the republic.

The United States has looked the other way on election fraud and human rights abuses in Mexico since the republic's inception. A consistent policy of Washington ignoring the realities of a totalitarian regime masquerading as a democracy. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have propped up a system that has used a corrupt federal police force to keep its citizens in line. A nation where election fraud has been obvious to U.S. officials. The most recent example - the 1990 presidential election of Carlos Salinas which, if not lost by the declared winner, was fraught with corruption and electoral abuse. The 1994 peso debacle was the most recent and flagrant example of economic fraud to perpetuate political power. It resulted again with the U.S. bailing out this troubled nation and continuing the reign of the PRI party and its choke hold on the nation.

I am not blaming the U.S. for doing everything it could to maintain stability on its southern border. The United States has pursued a policy of self interest, a practical and geopolitically realistic position. However, U.S. citizens have allowed their government to preach democracy while supporting totalitarianism. Therefore, we should understand the anger of many Mexicanos who indict Washington for maintaining policies that have stabilized Mexico at the expense of the country's best hopes for democracy. It is an undeniable fact that Washington has consistently supported an undemocratic form of government that will not relinquish a failing, centralist, autocratic, single party rule. Had not the United States bailed out Mexico time and again the PRI would have fallen is the well founded belief.

Who knows what would have happened had not the U.S. continually propped up México? Would Mexico be worse or better off? Would there be a military dictatorship with even more resistance to an open and democratic process? What is important for good relations is that U.S. citizens do not smugly proclaim that we have served the best interests of Mexicanos or that Mexicanos should somehow be grateful to the United States. Why should they be thankful for our helping keep the heel of totalitarianism on their necks?

Mexico, at long last, is moving toward a more democratic and open process. In the past few years we have seen tremendous strides: the pace of democratic reform is increasing and more opposition partiy candidates are winning state and municipal elections.

Gringos should also realize that the U.S. press generally do not report what the average Mexicano is thinking about binational policies and agreements. NAFTA was presented in the U.S. by its opponents as a boondoggle for Mexico and yet a majority of Mexicanos were also opposed to NAFTA. The 1995 loan made to Mexico was also a major concern to Mexicano's.

The fears surrounding "the bailout" are being realized; the enormous debt repayment has compromised Mexico's ability to invest in her nation's future, free of foreign intervention. Mexico's indebtedness is the largest in Latin American history. The debt service on these loans represents 15% of Mexico's GDP. That Mexico is becoming a product factory for U.S. multinationals, at a loss of her sovereignty, is not an unfounded notion. Eighty percent of all Mexican exports consist of imported components.

I don't believe U.S. citizens should feel guilty about Mexico. I do believe that it would be in every American's best interest (North or South of the U.S. border) if they knew and understood as much about Mexico and Mexicanos as Mexicanos know about Estadodenses (U.S. citizens). That an informed U.S. electorate utilize understanding to influence elected representatives in developing, for the first time in our history, a sane and humane U.S./ Mexico policy. In the process of studying Mexico, perhaps we could absorb some of Mexico's family and humanistic values. Mexico's cultural riches might help fix what is "screwed up" in the United States.

It is an objective view of Mexico that gringos need to hear in order to understand Mexico's political and economic history. An objective Mexican's viewpoint. The best one I can offer comes from an astute rebel - a man who knows the system well - Lic. Ernesto Ruffo Appel, first opposition party candidate to win a governorship, by serving winning the office in Baja California.