Kurt Hackbarth, a contributor to the Jacobin, has been a consistent defender of AMLO, which is contrary to the all the shrieks of horror emanating from the various defenders of the democracy in Mexico (Denise Dresser, in particular, comes to mind). One could say that AMLO has failed to generate high levels of economic growth and reduce violence in Mexico. Hackbarth’s reply is that AMLO has in fact managed to stabilize the Mexican economy in the wake of the pandemic, which is impressive in comparison with how other developing countries have fared. Below is a chart from the Dallas Federal Reserve:
The information reported here indicates how Mexico has bounced back from the pandemic. There might be reason to believe that Mexico has benefited economically from the pandemic by becoming a haven for digital nomads during the pandemic and by attracting investment that would have otherwise gone to China because China continues to be strongly affected by the pandemic. In other words, Mexico is a beneficiary of the restructuring of corporate supply chains. A recent New York Times article, Why Chinese Companies are Investing Billions in Mexico, notes:
"The interest of Chinese manufacturers in Mexico is part of a broader trend known as nearshoring. International companies are moving production closer to customers to limit their vulnerability to shipping problems and geopolitical tensions."
"The participation of Chinese companies in this shift attests to the deepening assumption that the breach dividing the United States and China will be an enduring feature of the next phase of globalization. Yet it also reveals something more fundamental: Whatever the political strains, the commercial forces linking the United States and China are even more powerful."
"Chinese companies have no intention of forsaking the American economy, still the largest on earth. Instead, they are setting up operations inside the North American trading bloc as a way to supply Americans with goods, from electronics to clothing to furniture."
Given these economic developments, it is significant that AMLO oversaw a 20% increase in Mexico’s minimum wage. Meanwhile Mexico’s level of unemployment has fallen to its lowest levels since 2005. Inflation in Mexico has remained moderate and the exchange rate between the peso and the dollar has held steady, in spite of the Federal Reserve in the United States increasing interest rates in the United States to tame inflation there. Partially on the basis of these economic indicators, AMLO remains strong and the Morena candidate, whoever they may be, remains in a strong position to win the next presidential election in 2024.
Hackbarth also points to the successes of AMLO’s policies of economic nationalism. He has limited the privatization of the Mexican oil industry, something Hackbarth does not address here. But what about his major infrastructure project - the Olmeca Refinery at Dos Bocas in Tabasco, intended to produce gasoline for Mexican consumption and reduce import dependency. There have been cost overruns with Dos Bocas and the refinery is now operating at 50% capacity. Another area of economic nationalism has been CFE (Comision Federal de Electricidad) where AMLO has been attempting to nationalize electricity production rather than open Mexico’s market for foreign energy utilities. How successful has this been? Hackbarth points out that Mexico nationalized its stocks of lithium in order to extract benefits from the shift to from fossil fuels to renewable energy.
In terms of foreign policy, AMLO sat out the last Summit of the Americas because Cuba was not invited. The Mexican government criticized the removal of Pedro Castillo from office in Peru and then provided him with sanctuary in Mexico, similar to the treatment Mexico accorded to Evo Morales when he was ousted from power in Bolivia. AMLO has also struck a discordant view on the conflict in Ukraine, suggesting that the war is really being fought in the interests of the weapons industry. But this stands in odd relief to AMLO acceding to increased military spending in Mexico and giving the military more control over decidedly non-military governmental functions.
Hackbarth recognizes, however, that in spite of AMLO’s successes, the basic structure of economic domination in Mexico remains in place. The press and academia continue to be dominated by conservatives, who would be eager to depose AMLO in some sort of soft coup (similar to such transitions in Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru). But at the same time, AMLO has not really challenged the power of the dominant classes - aside from name calling (they are fifis!). He has not increased their taxes, for example, which leads to another problem with AMLO’s government: the impacts of so-called “republican austerity” on social spending programs in Mexico, which led to significant cutbacks with respect to health and educational services. Another point to add to the ledger of governmental policies that are none too progressive is AMLO’s dismissive attitude toward indigenous groups and their rights in Mexico, which are being sacrificed to the pursuit of the economic growth via the Tren Maya and infrastructure development in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, as well as various other major infrastructure projects.
Finally, there are the problems of organized crime and security in Mexico, which, of course, remain severe. But AMLO, to his credit, I think, has sought to curtail the role of the DEA in Mexico. On the other hand, narco-trafficking from Mexico to the United States is becoming an increasingly lethal process with the increase in fentanyl which is causing more deaths from drug abuse in the United States. This is one border issue. Another immigration from Mexico to the United States by foreign nationals and, increasingly, Mexicans. These problems are contributing to the view among Republicans in the United States that Mexico is a security problem that must be addressed through some form of military intervention. I do not think this is necessarily relevant to the question of AMLO’s success in Mexico as war for the United States is generally linked to the maintenance of American identity (Hixson). And this remains, in fact, a very distant and unlikely prospect.
Comments
Post a Comment