I heard on the radio today that at present, Manuel Lopez Obrador (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrés_Manuel_López_Obrador), the former mayor of Mexico City, who will be running next year as the left-wing PRD candidate for the Mexican presidency, is enjoying a popularity rating of nearly 70%. Now, a lot could change between now and the election, but for the moment he is clearly the front-runner. Which might have W scared shitless, despite Obrador’s recent assurances that he will not substantially change Mexico’s NAFTA commitments. I mean, having a leftist like Hugo Chavez as president of Venezuela is bad enough, but a leftist president of Mexico? One of the U.S.’ most important trading partners? One of our nearest two neighbors? I’m thinking that’s the kind of possibility that might provoke the Bush Admin into . . . well, use your imagination. Will next year’s Mexican election be allowed to proceed as planned without foreign interference? And, if so, will Obrador be allowed to (live long enough to*) take office?
*Old joke: Jesse Jackson arrives at the Pearly Gates.
St. Peter: What did you achieve during your time on Earth?
Jackson: I was the first African-American ever elected president of the United States!
Obrador is an asshole and would be a disaster. But if he’s the man Mexicans choose, Bush will hold his nose and deal with him. Obrador wouldn’t be in charge more than 6 years anyway.
And what could Bush do to stop Sr. Obrador from getting electing? Any behind the scenes attempt to interfear in Mexico’s election would backfire horribly. A more active approach (invasion) is unthinkable.
Haven’t such tactics worked in previous cases? If I knew more of recent American history, I’d give cites, but I’ve heard it stated as fact on several occasions that the CIA have interfered with democratic processes in other coutries in the past.
My imagination is failing me. Are you seriously suggesting that in 2005, the US would try to depose the elected leader of a major trading partner? That’s a far more serious thing than replacing the head of Guatemala or Panama, and I daresay things have changed a bit since the Cold War.
A better question is will certain elements in the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) or the National Action Party (PAN) allow it? Neither Murrieta nor Sedillo were killed by the US’s CIA AFAIK.
We did the same thing in 2002, didn’t we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chavez#Coup_attempt_against_Ch.C3.A1vez It was a home-grown coup attempt, but the U.S. sure as shit gave the plotters aid and comfort. Wouldn’t be that difficult for the CIA to set up something similar in Mexico, or else to prevent Obrador from becoming president in the first place by arranging an accident.
Not everybody. Read the thread again. Furthermore, those who insist Chavez has been/will be a disaster – Sam Stone, ale, Brutus – offer nothing of substance to back it up. Sam says:
Only, when did the Venezuelan economy collapse? There was a 7.2% contraction in 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela), but it wasn’t the Great Depression. Venezuela seems to be thriving now. The only poster in the thread who actually comes from Venezuela is gsilvau – and while he/she insists Chavez’ policies are not a good model for developing countries, he/she can point to no actual instance where those policies have been a disaster for the economy. Yet. Of course, it may be too soon to tell.
As for Chavez’ human rights record, I repeat what I said there: Chavez did prison time for his coup attempt in 1992. But most of the people who tried to overthrow Chavez in 2002 are – astonishingly and even disturbingly – still free. They would not be, if it had happened in practically any other Latin American country, or in the United States.
So, I repeat: Hugo Chavez, much further left (in rhetoric, at least) than Obrador, has not been a disaster for Venezuela. So why does astorian assume Obrador would be a disaster for Mexico?
Who are Murietta and Sedillo? If you mean ex-president Zedillo. he wasn´t killed by anyone; he´s still alive although he avoids the spotlight, mostly, which is what retired Mexican presidents are traditionally supposed to do. Murietta? There was an outlaw in California named Joaquin Murietta who was, maybe, killed by the California equivalent of the Texas Rangers, but that was in 1853.
I share Mapache’s perplexity on this point, and, moreover, I have never heard of the PRI or PAN being implicated, even by rumor, in any political assassination. Do you have any examples (with more info)?
Whenever a Latin American government comes under the control of a government that the United States doesn’t like, the United States attempts to remove that government and replaces it with a dictatorship. Besides the examples already mentioned, there’s also Chile, obviously, as well as less direct U.S. interference elsewhere. The attempted coup in Venezuela was in 2002, so the end of the Cold War certainly did not alter the policy.
On the other hand, it’s true that Mexico is larger, wealthier, and closer to home than any of the other countries where America-backed coups have taken place. So would the U.S. actually overthrow the Mexican government?
In my opinion, they would. In the past, CIA-backed governments have tortured and murdered thousands of people (Chile and Guatemala), so clearly moral scruples will not get in the way. And regardless of what crimes are committed, there has never been the slightest danger that the United States will be held accountable for its policy; a gigantic military means never having to say you’re sorry. So clearly the U.S. could overthrow the Mexican government and has little reason to refrain from doing so. The only question is whether the Bushies actually view the rise of a left-wing government as a big enough concern to take action.
Big picture: capitalist policies have failed across much of Latin America. As a result, people in many countries are rising up and challenging pro free-market dictators, and supporting democratically-elected socialist governments. It happened in Venezuela. It happened in Ecuador. It happened in Bolivia. It is happening in Mexico. It will happen in other countries as well. Needless to say, this makes the neocons very unhappy. Reading ‘The Economist’ or ‘Forbes’, they try to portray the changes in the worst possible lights. The corrupt politicians who get deposed become heroes of democracy, the legitimate democratic movements become bands of violent thugs. The neocons do not really support democracy, except in those cases where the people will elect politicians that the neocons approve of. And as a result, the neocons see nothing wrong with calling in the CIA (or worse) to topple these newly created democracies.
Bush is gone in 2009. Are we further suggesting that he would engineer a coup in Mexico to avoid 2-3 years of dealing with a left-wing President of Mexico who has promised not to change major economic policies?
