- What
do we want?
-
By Macario Schettino,
-
El Diario
(Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua)
-
April 18, 2009
We are
more than 120 million Mexicans. A hundred, or a bit
more, in Mexico, and 20 in the rest of the
world. Almost all in the
United States. In the
next 20 years, we’ll possibly be 120 million just in the
country, and perhaps 35 million outside. Together with
other Latin American immigrants, Mexicans will
constitute the largest minority in the
United States, with a
voting power near 20%. In a country where the presidency
is decided by some few percentage points.
In those
20 years, the
United States
will continue to be the world’s leading power. And it’s
possible that it will not have a contender in
geo-strategic issues for another 20, though perhaps it
might no longer be the world’s leading economy. Many
things are going to happen in the next two decades, but
it’s not very probable that what I have just mentioned
will be otherwise. It matters little what we think, but
the United States
will continue to be the center of the world, the
Mexicans will continue to migrate there, and they will
be ever more important, as much economically as in
politics.
Forty
years ago it wasn’t so. Almost all we Mexicans lived in Mexico, and the world had two
apparently comparable powers. The rest of the world
grouped itself around those two poles, and the residue
was called the third world, although in reality there
was never any residual, all was bipolar.
In the
world of 40 years ago,
Mexico
had a certain logic that ended up becoming a failure. We
were leaders of that third world, according to us, and
we had our own way of organizing our economy and our
politics. We told ourselves that it was good enough to
administer our abundance, and we didn’t want anything
other than the advancement of the Revolution , properly
represented by this country’s only party. That was 40
years ago. Twenty later, the world ceased being bipolar,
we were already in a practically permanent economic
crisis and the collapse of the revolutionary regime was
starting. By then the flow of Mexicans toward the United States
was significant.
But today
we go on not knowing what to do with our country, and
for the same reason we cannot set forth an adequate
relation with the United States. That logic of
“self-determination and no intervention” which above all
served to avoid scrutinies about our authoritarian
political system, does not seem to make much sense in
this XXI century. I don’t mean to say that national
sovereignty must be surrendered, much to the contrary.
What I mean is that in this century sovereignty doesn’t
have much to do with self determination and non
intervention, but with globalism and mutual
responsibility. And we are not understanding that.
Mexicans
are more and more no longer only
Mexico. With each
passing year, Mexicans are also
United States citizens who elect
mayors and governors in their place of residence, which
is the United States. And that thing about
self determination doesn’t help them one bit.
The importance of the
Hispanic vote, as they call it there, is growing, and
U.S.
politicians will seek it out. And for that reason they
are going to want a migratory reform, to straighten out
the 12 to 15 million illegal migrants, and the wave of
at least more than a million immigrants a year that will
arrive in the following two decades. Mexicans compose
half of that.
(Emphasis added)
The failed
policies to promote the internal market provoked the
great emigration we’ve had. The disastrous educational
system we have condemns those migrants to arrive there
to obtain the worst jobs. Our permanent hostility toward
the United States government, our most haughty demand
that we be well treated while we abuse the Central
Americans, our hidden hate for those who wrenched away
from us half of the national territory condemn those
migrants to a hostility, abuse and hatred of the same
magnitude.
If it is clear that 15 million Mexicans will move to the
neighbor country in the next 20 years. If it is clear
that they, besides those who today live there, will be
the determinant factor in the internal elections in many
states and even of the president of the United States.
(Emphasis added)
If
it is clear that there will not be another world power
in the world than our neighbor. If all this is clear,
couldn’t we build an agenda that would allow us to
benefit to the maximum from these events?
Because
what is not going to happen is that the world will
return to what it was 40 years ago, despite the
clamoring from nostalgic persons who believe that the
economic crisis is a preamble for a new status and
protectionist era. And it isn’t going to happen that
Mexico
will have an abundance to administer, or a single party
to govern itself, nor a way to feed its 120 million
sons, who today are scattered around the world. There
are things that can happen and things that cannot. To
prepare for what is not going to happen is absurd.
We are
more than 120 million Mexicans. A hundred, or a bit
more, in Mexico, and 20 in the rest of the
world. Almost all in the
United States. In the
next 20 years, we’ll possibly be 120 million just in the
country, and perhaps 35 million outside. Together with
other Latin American immigrants, Mexicans will
constitute the largest minority in the
United States, with a
voting power near 20%. In a country where the presidency
is decided by some few percentage points.
In those
20 years, the
United States
will continue to be the world’s leading power. And it’s
possible that it will not have a contender in
geo-strategic issues for another 20, though perhaps it
might no longer be the world’s leading economy. Many
things are going to happen in the next two decades, but
it’s not very probable that what I have just mentioned
will be otherwise. It matters little what we think, but
the United States
will continue to be the center of the world, the
Mexicans will continue to migrate there, and they will
be ever more important, as much economically as in
politics.
Forty
years ago it wasn’t so. Almost all we Mexicans lived in Mexico, and the world had two
apparently comparable powers. The rest of the world
grouped itself around those two poles, and the residue
was called the third world, although in reality there
was never any residual, all was bipolar.
In the
world of 40 years ago,
Mexico
had a certain logic that ended up becoming a failure. We
were leaders of that third world, according to us, and
we had our own way of organizing our economy and our
politics. We told ourselves that it was good enough to
administer our abundance, and we didn’t want anything
other than the advancement of the Revolution , properly
represented by this country’s only party. That was 40
years ago. Twenty later, the world ceased being bipolar,
we were already in a practically permanent economic
crisis and the collapse of the revolutionary regime was
starting. By then the flow of Mexicans toward the United States
was significant.
But today
we go on not knowing what to do with our country, and
for the same reason we cannot set forth an adequate
relation with the United States. That logic of
“self-determination and no intervention” which above all
served to avoid scrutinies about our authoritarian
political system, does not seem to make much sense in
this XXI century. I don’t mean to say that national
sovereignty must be surrendered, much to the contrary.
What I mean is that in this century sovereignty doesn’t
have much to do with self determination and non
intervention, but with globalism and mutual
responsibility. And we are not understanding that.
Mexicans
are more and more no longer only
Mexico. With each
passing year, Mexicans are also
United States citizens who elect
mayors and governors in their place of residence, which
is the United States. And that thing about
self determination doesn’t help them one bit.
The importance of the
Hispanic vote, as they call it there, is growing, and
U.S.
politicians will seek it out. And for that reason they
are going to want a migratory reform, to straighten out
the 12 to 15 million illegal migrants, and the wave of
at least more than a million immigrants a year that will
arrive in the following two decades. Mexicans compose
half of that.
(Emphasis added)
The failed
policies to promote the internal market provoked the
great emigration we’ve had. The disastrous educational
system we have condemns those migrants to arrive there
to obtain the worst jobs. Our permanent hostility toward
the United States government, our most haughty demand
that we be well treated while we abuse the Central
Americans, our hidden hate for those who wrenched away
from us half of the national territory condemn those
migrants to a hostility, abuse and hatred of the same
magnitude.
If it is clear that 15 million Mexicans will move to the
neighbor country in the next 20 years. If it is clear
that they, besides those who today live there, will be
the determinant factor in the internal elections in many
states and even of the president of the United States.
(Emphasis added)
If
it is clear that there will not be another world power
in the world than our neighbor. If all this is clear,
couldn’t we build an agenda that would allow us to
benefit to the maximum from these events?
-
Because what is not going to happen is that the
world will return to what it was 40 years ago,
despite the clamoring from nostalgic persons who
believe that the economic crisis is a preamble for a
new status and protectionist era. And it isn’t going
to happen that
Mexico
will have an abundance to administer, or a single
party to govern itself, nor a way to feed its 120
million sons, who today are scattered around the
world. There are things that can happen and things
that cannot. To prepare for what is not going to
happen is absurd.
-
______________________
- Op-Ed was translated from Spanish and submitted
to subscribers of M3 Report
