April 14, 2003
Memo From Mexico, By
Allan Wall
Subversion Salsa With Your Freedom Fries?
There is much going on in Mexico regarding the Iraq
war, almost all of it ignored in the U.S. media. An
update for VDARE.COM readers:
THE CANNON FODDER ARGUMENT
The Mexican media has presented the U.S. prosecution
of the Iraq war in the
worst light possible, continually impugning U.S.
motives and military practice.
A favorite theme: the cannon fodder argument – that
the U.S. is utilizing Mexicans to fight in Iraq.
This perception is reinforced in several ways. When
Mexican journalists visit U.S. military camps and
vessels, they seek out Spanish-speaking service members
to interview. And the Mexican media publicizes (and
keeps a running count of) all
Mexican-origin soldiers who die in the war.
Then there’s TV Azteca’s
Ramon Fregoso, a white Mexican journalist who is
serving as anchor man while the regular anchor, Javier
Alatorre, broadcasts from the Middle East.
Fregoso recently informed his audience that the U.S.
military was still recruiting new soldiers – and guess
who recruitment efforts are directed at? Viewers were
then treated to a replay of a U.S. Army recruiting
commercial - in
Spanish. When the commercial ended, Fregoso smugly
commented: “Van por los mexicanos” – “They
go for the Mexicans.”
Ironically, the Mexican elite constantly celebrates
the growing prominence of Spanish in the U.S., correctly
seeing it as a
conquest. They constantly demand that the U.S.
provide education and other services in Spanish. Then
they complain about recruiting commercials in Spanish!
The following night, Fregoso recounted the plight of
Mexican soldiers in the U.S: military who are not
citizens of the U.S. They can’t even vote in the U.S.,
Fregoso told viewers, but they are fighting. His
implication was that it was a great injustice.
Of course, every single member of the U.S. military,
citizen or
legal resident, is there because they
voluntarily enlisted.
Mexico’s elite wants to
export their poor and have Americans provide them
with all sorts of government benefits. But if these
immigrants
voluntarily join the military, they are derided.
DIRECT NEGOTIATION WITH BAGHDAD OVER DUAL CITIZENS?
Opponents of
dual citizenship sometimes pose this question –
“What would you do if the U.S. and Mexico went to war
with each other?” The Iraq war demonstrates that it’s
not even necessary to posit this extreme. If the U.S.
goes to war with any country, dual U.S.-Mexican
citizenship is part of the equation.
In a previous VDARE.COM article, I
reported how the Fox administration was compiling a
list of all Mexican and Mexican-descended personnel in
the U.S. military, regardless of citizenship.
Only three days later, Mexican Foreign Secretary
Derbez made the rather startling announcement that
Mexico was considering direct negotiations with the
Saddam regime over U.S. soldiers who are dual citizens
of the U.S. and Mexico!
According to “Reforma” (Analizan defender a
soldados mexicans, March 31st, 2003)
“The legal department of
the SRE [Mexican Foreign Ministry] is analyzing
the viability of Mexico’s intercession before the
government of Iraq for Mexican soldiers imprisoned in
that country.”
(El departamento Jurídico de la Secretaria de
Relaciones Exteriores analiza la viabilidad de que
México interceda ante el Gobierno de Iraq por los
soldados mexicanos presos en ese Pais.)
“Chancellor Luis Ernesto
Derbez said...that the department is studying the
possibility of an appeal to the Geneva Convention
concerning prisoners of war in the case of soldiers who
have the two citizenships (U.S. and Mexican) and of
military personnel who have Mexican citizenship and U.S.
residence....”
(El canciller Luis Ernesto Derbez dijo la tarde de
este lunes que la dependencia a su cargo estudia si es
posible apela a la Convención de Ginebra sobre presos de
guerra en el caso de los soldados que tengan las dos
ciudadanías, así como de los militares que cuentan con
la ciudadanía mexicana y la residencia estadounidense y
con bases en el Ejército de Estados Unidos.)
“....Derbez emphasized
that México will make it clear, that if the petition is
carried out, that it will be done without being part of
the military conflict.”
(En conference, Derbez destacó que México dejará
en clare, si llega a realizar la petición, que lo hace
sin ser parte del conflicto militar.)
So the Mexican government was willing to negotiate
with Saddam over dual citizen prisoners-of-war - but it
had to make clear it wasn’t supporting the United
States!
Now that Baghdad has been taken, the Mexicans have to
give up negotiating with the regime. But we know they
were working on it. Which is one possible use of that
census of Mexican-origin U.S. soldiers I
wrote about earlier.
And demonstrates the inevitable complications of dual
citizenship.
PROCLAIMING PACIFIST PRINCIPLES, HUSTLING GRINGO
CA$H
On April 2nd, 2003, Vicente Fox met with
visiting Mexican residents of the U.S., and
self-righteously slammed the U.S. war effort,
emphatically declaring that “¡estamos contra la
guerra!” – “We are against the war!” (Proceso,
April 2nd, 2003)
The same day a Mexican tourism convention in Acapulco
was addressed (in a pre-recorded video) by the Mexican
president. Fox told them that the war was an opportunity
for Mexican tourism! (His reasoning: Americans would
want to travel to safer and nearer destinations).
(“Puede guerra ser fuente de oportunidades para
turism en Mexico: Fox,”
El Universal, April 2nd, 2003
INTERESTING POLLING DATA
According to polls taken in early April, 75% of
Hispanics born in the U.S. support the war - but 52% of
Hispanics residing in the U.S. but born abroad reject
it. Furthermore, 86% of Hispanics who watch
English-language news media thought the war’s progress
was going well. But 59% of those who watch
Spanish-language TV thought it wasn’t.
(“Divide a latinos de EU tema de la guerra en Irak,” El Universal, April 8th, 2003,)
FOX, BUSH, AND THE BIG PICTURE
How will Fox’s rejection of the
Iraq war affect U.S.-Mexican relations and the
exaggerated “relationship” Bush apparently thought he
had with Fox?
Bush is said to value personal loyalty. Will he
understand that Fox does not feel (and
never has felt) the same about Bush as Bush feels
about him?
Yes, it’s a sad story of unrequited love.
Since the Iraq war has begun, Fox and Bush have only
spoken once by phone. And Bush uncharacteristically took
4 days to return the call!
Now that Baghdad is taken, it appears Fox is
attempting to repair fences. Last week, Fox stated his
confidence that “once the armed conflict is
concluded, the bilateral relationship can be
reconstructed.”
(“Reconoce
Fox decepción de EU hacia México”, Universal,
April 9th, 2003)
Fox is here referring to Mexico’s distinction between
its bilateral relationship with the U.S., and its
multilateral relationship centered on the UN (and
Mexico now heads the UN Security Council). The Mexican
government view is that its multilateral UN-type
diplomacy won’t effect its bilateral relationship with
the U.S.
Translation: Mexico expects the U.S. to open its
border with Mexico. But don’t expect Mexico to back the
U.S. at the UN or any other international forum. That
would be too embarrassing!
Will the U.S. and Mexico get back to business as
usual – the
systematic deconstruction of U.S. sovereignty in
favor of a Mexican veto over U.S. immigration policy?
Or does George W. Bush, having been burned by his
“amigo,” now have a more realistic view?
American citizen Allan Wall lives and works legally in
Mexico, where he holds an FM-2 residency and work
permit, but serves six weeks a year with the Texas Army
National Guard, in a unit composed almost entirely of
Americans of Mexican ancestry. His VDARE.COM articles
are archived
here; his
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM articles are archived
here; his
website is
here. Readers
can contact Allan Wall at
allan39@prodigy.net.mx.
