Tag Archives: politics

AMLO and the Press: From the Mañaneras to Murder?

By Deborah Van Hoewyk

When Andrés Manuel López Obrador, better known as AMLO, was elected president of Mexico in 2018, he promised to “fix” many things – from government corruption to cartel violence, from income equality to uneven development. Some have seen progress, some have not.

AMLO keeps Mexicans apprised of his progress with five-day-a-week press conferences that start at 7 am and last 2 hours on average – these are called his mañaneras. Let’s just set aside the question of how the president of the world’s 10th largest population, 12th largest economy, and the 14th largest area, has that much time to spend talking rather than doing. What do the mañaneras contribute to AMLO’s agenda for governing Mexico?

At his daily press conference, AMLO would in theory be discussing the most important issues facing the country, responding to questions from reporters. This represents a sharp departure from previous presidents, who were mostly seen at formal public events if at all – Enrique Peña Nieto, the last president, in particular.

The Mañaneras – How – and What – AMLO Communicates

According to Francisco José de Andrea Sánchez, who holds a doctorate of law from UNAM and serves as principal investigator for UNAM’s Institute for Legal Research, the mañaneras “are the cornerstone of [AMLO’s] communication” with his followers, the people of Mexico, and even members of the government. The mañaneras are a logical outcome of the way AMLO achieved the presidency. Without social media, Andrea Sánchez argues, AMLO would not have been elected – he used social networks to get around “the media monopoly” that would not have argued his case.

The daily press conferences “avoid that same monopoly,” in a way that no other president of a major democracy has managed to do. Andrea Sánchez argues that AMLO’s two previous defeats in the presidential election led him to look for “non-censorable direct communication alternatives” to get around the “monopoly of the written and electronic mass media” that covers Mexican elections. (Earlier, AMLO had staged frequent press conferences as mayor of Mexico City, carried by BBC Mundo.)

In an interview with the LatAm Journalism Review in March of this year, Javier Garza Ramos, an independent Mexican journalist who specializes in security and protection, said the mañaneras “started as an exercise with a lot of promise, a promise of transparency where we hoped that the president would be open and answer questions from the media about important issues. But really within a few months we realized that it had become a propaganda exercise.”

Garza Ramos now describes the mañaneras as “useless,” because they are being used as a “tool of government.” For example, AMLO can put topics on the agenda that turn out “to be so frivolous” that “they absorb a lot of discussion that sometimes we don’t turn to see more important things” – like recent news about corruption or violence: “The president uses [the mañanera] to divert attention” from what he doesn’t want to talk about.

Article 19, an international organization that works to protect freedom of expression, has its hub for Mexico and Central America in Mexico City. They find that the key factor undermining the nature of the morning press conferences is that AMLO only answers questions from journalists seen as favoring his administration.

A Space to Attack Journalists

And what happens when AMLO encounters journalists who ask, when and if they get a chance, critical questions? The mañaneras are widely seen as “favorable spaces for attacking media and journalists, and even for the spread of disinformation.” When a reporter does manage to ask a question that makes AMLO uncomfortable, he is likely to reply “You are vendidos (sell-outs), you are corrupt,” or “You are plotting against the government,” or “You are attacking the government.” He describes his responses as defending the government’s honor and public power.

One of AMLO’s “defense strategies” is “doxing” journalists – that is, he approves of the release of information from personal documents (“dox”), identifying information that, in the case of journalists, encourages harassment and worse. In January of this year, information on all the journalists who attend the mañaneras was released. AMLO said the database was hacked. The New York Times said it was “a troubling and unacceptable tactic from a world leader at a time when threats against journalists are on the rise.”

In 2022, Reuters – in an undignified headline, “Mexican president names salary of critical journalist in row over reporting” – reported that AMLO said the increase from 2021 to 2022 in journalist Carlos Loret de Mola’s salary was because he was paid to do “hatchet jobs” on AMLO personally and his government. Doxing Loret de Mola was a defense of his “political project of ending injustice and corruption … This is not a personal matter. My conscience is clear.”

This winter, on Friday, February 23, AMLO doxed Natalie Kitroeff, bureau chief of The New York Times for Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. The doxing came in tandem with the publication in the Times of an article headlined “U.S. Examined Allegations of Cartel Ties to Allies of Mexico’s President”; note that, although the U.S. spent years on the investigation, they declined to investigate AMLO himself, as (according to unauthorized anonymous sources) the “government had little appetite to pursue allegations against the leader of one of America’s top allies.”

When queried as to whether he was endangering Kitroeff and had broken Mexico’s law of Federal Protection of Personal Data, AMLO said the doxing was not a mistake. He would do it again “when it comes to a matter where the dignity of the president of Mexico is at stake. The political and moral authority of the president of Mexico is above that.” Although he has come very close, even former U.S. President Donald Trump has not said he is above the law.

AMLO went on to say that murders of journalists were overstated, and that critical media outlets and journalists were seeking “economic and political power.” According to the LatAm Journalism Review, he said to the assembled journalists: “You feel you are embroidered by hand, like a divine, privileged race, you can slander with impunity as you have done with us … and one cannot touch you even with the petal of a rose.” One might wonder whether AMLO’s hostility to the press is a matter of deep-seated personal psychology.

Article 19 analysis also focuses on AMLO’s use of disinformation in the mañaneras. The group asked for corroboration on 34 statements AMLO made at the mañaneras or in public speeches; 32 of the 34 statements were not corroborated.

Violence against Mexican Journalists in 2023

The Mexican press, according to, among others, The Guardian (a global English-language news outlet), believes that attacks against the country’s journalists stem directly from AMLO’s mañaneras, which are an “invitation to violence.” Reporting on an open letter from Mexican journalists after an assassination attempt on news anchor Ciro Gómez Leyva in December of 2022, The Guardian asserts that conditions for journalists, which weren’t great when AMLO took office, “have deteriorated dramatically” since then. Although AMLO apparently condemned the assassination attempt, “just 24 hours earlier [he] had been publicly denigrating the journalist, warning Mexicans that if they listened to such people too much they risked developing brain tumours.”

In its 2023 report on violence against the Mexican Press, Violencia contra la prensa en México en 2023: ¿cambio o continuidad? (Violence against the press in Mexico in 2023: Change or continuation?), Article 19 defined three kinds of attacks: direct intimidation and harassment; the illegitimate use of public power to stigmatize or use judicial processes to harass; physical and digital threats. AMLO’s behavior in his mañeras is the second type, the abuse of public power. (According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, part of the John S. and James L. Knight Press Freedom Center in New York City, AMLO has accused Article 19 of “being funded by the U.S. government” to work against AMLO, thus “violating our sovereignty” – he made these accusations on World Press Freedom Day, May 3, 2023).

Article 19 found that there were fewer attacks on journalists and media outlets in 2022, which saw 561 attacks on the press, including 5 murders and 1 disappearance of journalists, than in 2023, when there were 696 attacks on the press and 12 murders.

Of the 561 attacks in 2023, 224 (40%) comprised intimidation, harassment, and threats, while 106 (19%) were abuse of public power. The remaining 41% of attacks were divided into 13 categories, with blocking or changing journalistic content, physical attacks, hacking, destruction of property, and false arrest making up 33% of the total.

Over half the attacks on the press were committed by “officials” – public employees, police, national guard, and other armed forces. The remaining attacks were carried out by individuals (actores particulares, including AMLO in his mañaneras), the cartels (10%), political parties, and unidentified attackers.

Attacks on the press appear to be related to the topics reporters cover: 53% of attacks were on those who report on politics and corruption; 24% on reporters on security and justice; and just under 10% each on those who report on protests/social movements or human rights. About 54% of attacks were on men, 30% on women, and 16% on media outlets.

The reduction in overall attacks between 2022 to 2023 is about 20%, but Article 19 still asks whether this is a real change, or merely a matter of fewer reports of violence. The report covers the next-to-last year of AMLO’s term of office, but Article 19 cites a similar reduction in attacks on the press in the next-to-last year of Felipe Calderón’s term – only to see an increase in the last year.

We will have to wait and see.

The Uncertain Future of the Huatulco Golf Course

By Randy Jackson

In an earlier article in The Eye, “Bahías de Huatulco: Three Important Developments” (December 2023), I wrote about the proposed conversion of the Tangolunda golf course to a national park. Although the federal government’s announcement to convert this to a national park has not been withdrawn, there has yet to be an official decree to make the golf course into a natural area. The uncertainty looming over the fate of this crucial tourist asset for Huatulco stems from the clash of egos between the Mexican president and the billionaire owner. There have been strong reactions against the conversion to a national park, and uncertainty reigns over the future prospects of the golf course in Huatulco.

Background

The golf course in Tangolunda is known as Las Parotas, named after the majestic parota trees that enhance the beauty of the course. Established in 1991 under the administration of the federal agency FONATUR (Fondo Nacional de Fomento al Turismo), the golf course sustained operations until 2012, despite accumulating a reported loss of $26 million mxn ($1.5 million USD) over the preceding six years.

In an effort to mitigate economic losses and bolster tourism in Huatulco, FONATUR then opted to lease out the golf course. The objective was to attract third-party investments with the aim of elevating the golf course to a professional championship level. Grupo Salinas’s Producciones Especializada SA de CV, chaired by Ricardo Salinas Pliego, head of TV Azteca and Grupo Elektra, secured a ten-year lease for the golf course on August 21, 2012. To acquire the concession, a payment of $500,000 USD was made to FONATUR, coupled with an ongoing fee amounting to 10% of the golf course’s income. Leasing out the Tangolunda golf course marked a pivotal transition in its operations and future prospects.

The Golf Course during the Ten-Year Lease

After extensive redesign under the famous Mexican golf architect, Agustín Pizá, the course reopened in 2014. The improvements to the greens and fairways were impressive. It has been raised to a first-class professional level, and is the only professional golf course in the state of Oaxaca. The course is a public course, made somewhat exclusive by the high cost to play golf there. The economic viability of the golf course is not publicly available. Anecdotally it seems there are few players, yet social media reviews generally give it high praise citing the beauty and challenge of the course and the high quality of service.

During the tenure of the lease there has been some controversy, focused principally on two issues: (1) water use, and (2) lack of tournaments that would help promote Huatulco.

The water use issue was reported in the Mexican press around August of 2022. The controversy centered around the golf course refusing to use greywater from the sewage treatment plants for irrigation. This was something the golf course had done during the years of FONATUR operation. Also, the greywater use was listed as one of the environmental sustainability practices that helps Huatulco qualify for the Earth Check award (Earth Check is a global evaluation group for sustainable tourism; Huatulco has been awarded Earth Check Certification each year since 2005 up to and including 2023).

The golf course water controversy was compounded by the fact that it now uses potable water for irrigation while Huatulco overall is at or near its potable water capacity. However, not reported in any of the news articles on this issue was the fact that the golf course had drilled its own water wells for irrigation and have not been using the potable water supplied by FONATUR, which is the source of the drinking water for Huatulco. Nevertheless, the golf course is using ground water at a rate of 350,000 liters per day. (Note: As I reported in “Huatulco’s water system: In Survival Mode?” [December 2022], FONATUR produces 15 million liters of potable water per day from nine wells near the Copalita river).

The second issue cited against the operation of the golf course under the ten-year lease is the fact that the company operating the golf course hasn’t properly promoted it, which would aid in the promotion of Huatulco overall; the example cited is the failure of the course to schedule any professional golf tournaments.

Golf Course Fees

The fees to golf at Tangolunda are, to quote social media reviews, “muy caro” (very expensive). The Las Parotas website lists the fees for 18 holes: Mon-Thu, $2,700 mxn ($160 USD); Fri-Sun $4,000 mxn ($235 USD). There is a discount for locals. Although this is an expensive activity, affordable by few, the costs are not out of line for such a golf course.

To provide a comparison, on the website of the top 100 golf courses in Mexico, the Tangolunda golf course is listed as 49th. The top listed golf course on this website is Diamante Dunes in Cabo San Lucas. Its greens fees are listed at $320 USD for 18 holes. For the golf course Vidanta Nuevo Vallarta in Nuevo (Puerto) Vallarta, one up from the Tangolunda golf course on the list of best 100 courses, the cost is $195 USD.

Conversion to a National Park

With the expiry of the golf course lease in 2022, the current President of Mexico, AMLO (Andrés Manuel López Obrador) announced the golf course would be sold for $600 million mxn ($35 million USD), allowing Ricardo Salinas Pliego the first option to purchase it. Then on October 12, 2023, AMLO stated there were no purchase offers from Salinas Pliego or from anyone else and the Tangolunda golf course would be converted to a national park. This surprise announcement needs to be understood within a political context, the personal animosity between left-wing AMLO and conservative Ricardo Salinas Pliego.

According to the news site Infobae, on November 2, 2023, in his normal morning news conference, AMLO took several minutes to blame Ricardo Salinas Pliego for “leading a campaign against him.” AMLO accused Pliego of not paying taxes owed amounting to $25 billion mxn. Furthermore, he claimed that Salinas Pliego’s news organization (TV Azteca) inflated the number of deaths from the Acapulco hurricane for political purposes.

Salinas Pliego responded the same day saying that AMLO was abusing his power because his tax case was before the courts and AMLO was linking victims of the Acapulco hurricane to his (Salinas Pliego’s) organization in order to deflect political pressure on the president. The two have had public spats over private planes and educational textbooks as well.

The Current (Uncertain) State of the Golf Course

The Tangolunda golf course continues to operate normally under the ownership of Salinas Pliego, regardless of the political rhetoric. And the story is not over. There have been official protests against the conversion of the golf course by a number of Huatulco area business organizations. At the Oaxaca state level, the chamber of deputies has approved a motion asking for the Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) to refrain from declaring the Tangolunda golf course a Protected Natural Area.

Moreover, when Oaxaca governor Salomón Jara Cruz announced there would be investigations into the legitimacy of some of the real estate transactions in Huatulco carried out by FONATUR during previous administrations, he added that the Tangolunda golf course, despite the announcement to convert it to a national park, was tied up in litigation over the extension of the original ten-year lease. Because of this litigation, no change can be made to the golf course.

Then on January 15, 2024, we learned that Jara Cruz has accused a particular FONATUR executive with corruption by extending the ten-year lease without authorization. Salinas Pliego has responded by saying all regulations have been followed and his company has the lease extended until 2027.

So perhaps when thinking about the future of the Tangolunda golf course, the best advice might be from historic New York Yankees coach Yogi Berra, who famously said “It ain’t over till it’s over.”

For contact or comment, email: box95jackson@gmail.com

Zapatistas and the Modern World

By Brooke O’Connor

As November brings our minds to politics, we see wars and conflicts around the globe. It’s easy to think, “It’s far away from me,” or “It’s not my business,” but political unrest is around the corner in every culture.

In Mexico, we see how uprisings with the Zapatistas played out not so long ago. Those uprisings are continuing to affect important historical and cultural areas of Mexico.

Who Are the Zapatistas?

The Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista National Liberation Army, or EZLN) is a guerrilla group in Mexico. It was founded in 1983 and named after the inspiring peasant revolutionary Emiliano Zapata, who led the Liberation Army of the South during the Mexican Revolution (1910-21). Zapata’s forces fought for land reform, with the goal of reclaiming communal lands (ejidos) stolen by large agricultural haciendas (encouraged by the national government).

On January 1, 1994, the Zapatistas initiated a rebellion from their base in Chiapas, Mexico’s southernmost state. They aimed to protest against economic policies that they believed would harm the indigenous population of Mexico. This uprising later transformed into a powerful political movement, advocating for the rights and empowerment of Mexico’s marginalized indigenous communities.

Background

The Zapatista movement has a fascinating history that should be better known. Although they say they were founded in 1983, it was in the early 1990s that they started to gain followers. From their base in the Lacandón rainforest in eastern Chiapas, they called on Mexico’s indigenous people to rise up against the one-party rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI).

The Zapatistas wanted greater political and cultural autonomy for indigenous people in Chiapas and the rest of Mexico, and specifically to reform land ownership and distribution. The reason for their rebellion was a series of economic reforms introduced by the Mexican government to prepare for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which would link Mexico, the United States, and Canada. The Zapatistas believed that these reforms would make indigenous people even poorer, especially a land reform bill that would privatize communal farms.

The Rebellion

On January 1, 1994, NAFTA came into effect. On that very day, the Zapatistas took control of four towns in Chiapas. Led by the charismatic Subcomandante Marcos (Rafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente), they called on indigenous people from all over Mexico to join their cause. The rebels bravely held these towns for several days, battling with Mexican troops before retreating into the surrounding jungle. Over a hundred lives were lost during these initial clashes.

The impact of this uprising was far-reaching, as it quickly spread to other parts of Chiapas. In the following years, insurrections erupted in adjacent and nearby states – Veracruz, Oaxaca, Guerrero, and Puebla. Numerous indigenous communities supported the EZLN throughout this time. In fact, many municipios (roughly equivalent to a US or Canadian county) even declared themselves autonomous from both the state and federal governments, demonstrating their solidarity with the Zapatistas.

In 1994, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari started peace talks, but the conflict with the EZLN was not resolved by the time Ernesto Zedillo became president later that year. In February 1995, President Zedillo tried to use military force against the EZLN and even issued arrest warrants for Subcomandante Marcos and other important Zapatistas. However, these actions were unpopular, so Zedillo changed his mind and resumed negotiations with the EZLN.

The talks continued until February16, 1996, when both sides signed the San Andrés Accords. These accords included plans for land reform, indigenous autonomy, and cultural rights. The Mexican government, unfortunately, showed no signs of initiating any of the agreement’s provisions, and the EZLN broke off talks on August 29, requiring that the government fulfill their obligations under the Accords before talks could resume. The Mexican government offered a new agreement that basically ignored the San Andrés Accords, despite the government’s declaration that it had fulfilled the Accords. In December of that year, Zedillo rejected the agreements.

In the meantime, the government was also involved in a secret war against the rebels. They provided weapons to paramilitary groups who fought against the Zapatistas and their followers, often targeting innocent civilians to punish them for supporting the rebels. On December 22, 1997, in the tiny village of Acteal, Máscara Roja (Red Mask) a paramilitary group called aligned with the PRI, massacred 45 people, including pregnant women and children. The victims were members of a pacifist group called Las Abejas (The Bees), attending an indigenous Catholic prayer meeting. Las Abejas supported the Zapatistas, and espoused the group’s rejection of violence.

The Political Movement

Despite occasional conflicts, the Zapatistas eventually moved away from using weapons and instead focused on peaceful political actions. At the local level, they established administrative systems within the villages they controlled. Over time, they also created various local centers of government called caracoles (snails – the Zapatistas specifically meant conchas; conch shells magnify sound, both incoming and outgoing). According to Subcomandante Marcos, the caracoles are an interface between the Zapatistas and the larger world; they are

like doors which allow entry to communities and allow the communities to exit; like windows so that people can look inside and so that we can see outside; like megaphones to project our words into the distance and to hear the voice of the one that is far away. But above all to remind us that we should watch over and be responsive to the totality of the worlds that populate the world.

On a national scale, in 1999, the group organized the National Consultation on Indigenous Rights and Culture. Thousands of individual Zapatistas carried out the National Consultation by visiting indigenous towns and villages to conduct discussions of the issues driving the San Andreas Accords. On March 21, 1999, the EZLN held a national poll on indigenous rights. Approximately three million Mexicans participated in the voting, and the overwhelming majority supported the implementation of the San Andrés Accords.

Since the 1990s, amid many political twists and turns, Zapatismo has evolved into a global social movement that has gained strong support from progressive groups in the United States and Europe. The new Zapatismo movement promotes indigenous rights, cultural diversity, and standing against globalization and capitalism. Instead of focusing solely on class struggle, they believe in the power of building broad coalitions and grassroots movements to challenge the neoliberal world order. Unlike resorting to armed conflict, their strategy revolves around capturing the attention of the international media, earning them the title of the world’s first “virtual guerrilla” movement.

How Does This Affect Mexico Today?

Ironically, this anti-globalism movement has formed strong connections with foreign organizations over the years, ties that have been crucial for the EZLN’s survival. International organizations have been generous in providing donations and platforms for selling products, such as coffee, in a manner that they claim offers an alternative to globalism without exploiting indigenous communities.

These connections with other worlds beyond Mexico has led the Zapatistas to take a stance on various issues, including gender identity, the Ukraine-Russia conflict, COVID policies, rail lines in Norwegian Sami territory, and President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s Maya Train project.

While their autonomous strategy has aimed to address local needs like healthcare and education, its effectiveness in improving the situation remains a subject of debate. Chiapas, including the Zapatista territory, continues to face extreme poverty. Moreover, the absence of federal troops has made the area quite appealing to human and drug smugglers, which is ironic considering the international connections involved.

Paradoxically, Subcomandante Marcos could well be considered the most extraordinary tourism ambassador the state has ever had. Before 1994, there were some tourists and foreign residents in Chiapas, but the media coverage attracted even more curious or idealistic people. They came not only to experience the rich native cultures but also with the hope of encountering someone wearing a black Zapatista pasamontaña (balaclava).

Moral of the Story

The only constant is change, and only sometimes does what seems to be a noble cause yield the results a movement sought initially. The author believes that the only way we can effectively initiate change is within ourselves first, then within our homes, and slowly, within our community through example and concern for our fellow man. Maybe then we can eliminate the endless death and destruction that war and uprisings bring because of political differences.

Coalitions and Democracy: Navigating Mexico’s Unique Political Landscape

By Randy Jackson

Both Mexico and the United States will hold their federal elections in 2024. Although the Republic of Mexico has a federal government structure similar to that of the United States, with both countries featuring a president and bicameral legislatures, the nature of the democratic process between these two nations is strikingly different. In the United States, despite the availability of other party choices, voters, in all practicality, must choose between two political parties. In contrast, Mexico’s democracy is more dynamic, with a wide variety of viable political parties. This diversity has led to the emergence of coalitions as a fundamental aspect of the country’s political landscape. In this ever-evolving political landscape, coalitions have become pivotal in determining the course of governance in Mexico.

As we approach the Mexico General Election (scheduled for June 2, 2024), it may be helpful to provide an overview of how coalitions operate within Mexico’s federal governance.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

The federal level of Mexico’s government consists of three branches: the Executive (President), the Chamber of Deputies, and the Senate. All three branches play crucial roles in passing legislation. Each branch operates under different electoral rules. The President is elected through a plurality vote (the highest number of votes). In contrast, the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate have members elected through both plurality and proportional representation, with each employing distinct proportional representation methodologies.

THE IMPORTANCE OF COALITIONS

With the elections of 2000, seventy years of continuous single-party rule by Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Institucional – PRI) came to an end with the election of President Vicente Fox. Since then, the governance of Mexico has relied on coalitions. Under the current administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), seven parties hold seats in the Chamber of Deputies and Senate. These seven parties are organized into two coalitions: the governing coalition and the opposition coalition.

Prior to each election cycle, new coalition agreements are established through formal agreements among the parties. In the last federal election (2018), a left-of-center coalition, calling themselves Juntos Haremos Historia (together we will make history), was formed. It consisted of MORENA (Movimiento Regeneración Nacional, or National Regeneration Movement – MRN), the Labour Party (Partido del Trabajo – PT), and the Social Encounter Party (Partido Encuentro Social – PES). This coalition emerged victorious in the election, with AMLO securing the Office of the President. The PES dissolved in 2018. In 2020, just before the midterm elections, the entire coalition dissolved, and a new coalition – Juntos Hacemos Historia (together we make [present tense] history) – added the Green Party (Partido Verde Ecologista de México, or PVEM) to its roster. This coalition has once again chosen MORENA to lead, with Claudia Sheinbaum as their presidential candidate for 2024. Neither the PT nor the PVM will field a candidate in the presidential election, thus consolidating the votes for MORENA.

On the opposition side, a center-right coalition named FAM (Frente Amplio por México, or Broad Front for Mexico) is led by the PAN (Partido Acción Nacional, or National Action Party). It also includes the PRI, MC (Movimiento Ciudadano, or Citizens’ Movement), and PRD (Partido de la Revolución Democrática, or Party of the Democratic Revolution). This coalition enters the 2024 election with the PAN’s leader, Xóchitl Gálvez, as their presidential candidate. Similarly, the other parties in the coalition will not nominate a candidate for President to maximize support for PAN.

It’s important to note that the Presidency can be won by a candidate from one of these two coalitions or even another party. Furthermore, the composition of the Congress of the Union (comprising the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate) can result in various scenarios. This may lead to the formation of new coalitions for effective governance or possibly a period of political disarray, akin to the current situation in the United States.

THE STRUCTURE OF MEXICO’S GOVERNMENT

Understanding the significance of coalitions in Mexican governance requires a basic understanding of the division of powers between government branches and the election methods for different branches.

The Office of the President
The President of Mexico serves as the head of the executive branch, with responsibilities including being the Head of Government, Head of State, Commander of the Armed Forces, and head of the Federal Public Administration. The Presidential term lasts for six years, and Presidents are ineligible to run for subsequent elections. The President plays a pivotal role in approving or vetoing legislation. To advance a legislative agenda, the President must collaborate with the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. Additionally, the President is responsible for making key appointments, such as those to the Supreme Court, diplomatic posts, and various federal agencies. These appointments require confirmation by the Senate.

Presidential elections in Mexico are based on a plurality system, meaning the candidate with the most votes wins. For instance, in 2018, AMLO secured 54% of the popular vote (there were four final candidates). In 2012, Enrique Pena Nieto won the Presidency with 38% of the vote (three final candidates), and in 2006, Filipe Calderon emerged victorious with 36% of the vote (three final candidates). Coalitions play a vital role in Presidential elections, as parties within a coalition with somewhat similar political leanings abstain from running their own candidates to prevent vote splitting.

The Chamber of Deputies
The Chamber of Deputies comprises 500 members, with elections held every three years. Its powers encompass passing laws, levying taxes, declaring war, initiating impeachment proceedings, and ratifying foreign treaties. Seven parties currently hold seats in the Chamber of Deputies, grouped into two coalitions: the Governing Coalition and the Opposition Coalition.

Of the 500 deputies, 300 are elected through plurality voting in each of the 300 constituencies throughout the country. The remaining 200 deputies are allocated through proportional representation. These seats are distributed based on the popular vote in five distinct regions of Mexico, each with an allocation of 40 seats. Calculations are made to assign the percentage of seats each party receives in each of the five regions.

The Senate
The Senate comprises 128 members, with four seats designated for each of the 31 states and Mexico City. Senators serve six-year terms and possess the authority to pass laws and confirm appointments to the Supreme Court, diplomatic positions, and other presidential appointments.

Out of the 128 senators, half (64) are elected directly via plurality voting in each state, along with Mexico City. An additional 64 senators are allocated through two distinct proportional representation systems. Among the directly elected Senators, the two candidates with the highest vote counts in each state and Mexico City secure a seat.

Subsequently, one additional seat is assigned for each state and Mexico City through the “First Minority System.” In this process, one Senate seat is granted for each state based on the highest percentage of national senate results overall. However, if the overall national results for the first-place party match the parties of the directly elected senators for that state and Mexico City, the seat is assigned to the next most popular party in that region.

Finally, in the “Second Minority System,” one Senate seat is allocated for each state and Mexico City based on the second highest national senate results overall. Once again, if the second most popular party nationally aligns with the party of the two directly elected senators from that state and Mexico City, the seat is awarded to the next most popular party in that region.

In conclusion, the very structure of the electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, with its proportional representation, promotes a diversity of political parties, thereby necessitating the formation of coalitions. As we approach the 2024 Mexican general election, it will be interesting to watch how the results will determine the reshaping of coalitions in the governance of Mexico.

Email: box95jackson@gmail.com

Claudia Sheinbaum: The Next President of Mexico

By Marcia Chaiken and Jan Chaiken

Unless there is a major political upset in the next eight months, Claudia Sheinbaum is on track to be elected in June 2024 as the next president of Mexico. A poll published in September by El Universal, a major Mexico City newspaper, indicated that she was then far ahead of her four opponents; in a four-way race, she garnered 50% of the vote. Her party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), in coalition with other parties, has captured the loyalty of the majority of Mexican voters; MORENA alone received 53% of the vote in the poll. And her champion, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), the current president of Mexico and founder of left-leaning MORENA, has such a high approval rating (60%) that it is a relatively safe bet to start planning to watch her inauguration.

According to The Times of Israel, not only would Sheinbaum be the first woman president of Mexico, she would join a very small number of Jews outside Israel who have become heads of state: Janet Jagan (Guyana), Ricardo Maduro (Honduras), Pedro Pablo Kuczynski (Peru) and, of course, Ukraine’s own Volodymyr Zelensky; she would be the first Jewish person ever to head a country with a population over 50 million people. But Sheinbaum is very quiet about her Judaism, probably partly due to the adamant post-Revolution separation in Mexico between religion and state, the fact that most Jews in Mexico are politically very conservative and unlikely to vote for a MORENA candidate, and the misinformation and smear campaign used against her by her political rivals, notably the former president Vicente Fox. Although antisemitism rears its ugly head less frequently in Mexico than in many other countries, a rumor was started that she wasn’t a viable candidate for president since she was born in Bulgaria – ultimately squelched by the publication of Sheinbaum’s Mexico City birth certificate. And in response to Fox’s intimation that her rival, Gálvez, was a true Mexican (but implicitly not Sheinbaum), Claudia retorted that she was “as Mexican as mole.”

One might say that Sheinbaum has been on track to become the first woman president of Mexico since she was born, 61 years ago. Her parents, two super-achieving scientists affiliated with the National University of Mexico (UNAM), were themselves children of immigrants seeking refuge in Mexico from religious persecution. Her father’s family fled from Russian pogroms and forced conscription of Jews in Lithuania in the 1920s. Her mother’s family escaped the Holocaust, the systematic murder of Jews in Bulgaria in the 1940s. And since young Claudia was close to her grandparents and attended a Jewish secular coed elementary school, there is little doubt that she was imbued with a formative knowledge of the perils of rabid discrimination and the value of helping those who are being oppressed by powerful authoritarians.

After completing her secondary education at Colegio de Ciencias y Humanidades (CCH), a feeder school for UNAM, she matriculated at UNAM studying physics and simultaneously joining other student activists on campus. Her political activism continued throughout her undergraduate and graduate studies, and as a UNAM faculty member in 1998 she was instrumental in the founding of the Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD). After completing her bachelor’s degree in physics in 1989, she went on to complete her master’s degree and Ph.D. in energy engineering, carrying out research at Lawrence Laboratories, UC Berkeley, on comparative international consumption of energy. She returned to UNAM when she accepted a faculty appointment in 1995.

As an undergraduate, Claudia met and briefly dated student Jesús María Tarriba Unger, currently soon to be her second husband; Tarriba completed his dissertation in physics at UNAM in 1987 and began an award-winning career in financial risk-model applied research. After breaking up with Tarriba, Claudia dated and in 1987 married Carlos Imaz Gispert. She became a stepmother to Imaz’s five-year-old son and in 1988 the couple had a daughter, Mariana, who carried out the Sheinbaum family’s multigenerational academic achievement, earning a BA in history from UNAM, a Master’s degree in comparative literature from the University of Barcelona and a master’s and Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Mariana currently is the Academic Coordinator of Humanities at UNAM-Boston. Claudia and Imaz were divorced in 2016 after 29 years of marriage.

One of the closest political ties Sheinbaum made during her political activism was with AMLO. As Mayor of Mexico City (CDMX), he appointed her as his environmental minister in 2000. In that position, she applied her academic knowledge to reshaping the city’s transportation system, including the installation of the highly efficient and easy-to-use MetroBus that quickly whisks passengers along many routes, including trips from the international airport to the central downtown area.

Claudia was once again back on the faculty of UNAM after 2005 when AMLO stepped down from being Mayor of CDMX to unsuccessfully run for President. She quickly shifted gears, but not fields, and became part of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change, working on assessment of mitigation approaches; along with former U.S, Vice President Al Gore, the group was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

Her absence from the political arena lasted only a few years, and in 2015 she was elected Mayor of Tlalpan, a district of Mexico City. Three years later she was elected Mayor of the City itself, the first woman to hold that office. The processes leading to her election and the reforms she carried out as Mayor were described in The Eye by Carole Reedy (March and November, 2019) – but the bottom line is that she was elected by a large majority based on her platform, and she carried out the measures she promised.

Like all politicians, she has her detractors. She’s been blamed for the outcomes of natural disasters, smeared by some as being too instrumental in the success of her daughter, and accused by others as being simply the puppet of AMLO. Yet, her resume speaks for itself and she remains hugely popular. There is no doubt that she will continue to carry on some of the approaches initiated by AMLO – but given her research in and passion for mitigating climate change and building a sustainable world, one can be quite sure that she will be taking a different direction than AMLO did in supporting Mexico’s petrol industry.

Since we are not citizens of Mexico, we cannot vote for her. But given her past accomplishments, we are looking forward to seeing what successes she will have as President of Mexico.

Who Was That Woman in the Dinosaur Suit?

By Deborah Van Hoewyk

In December 2022, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) tried to get a constitutional amendment through the Mexican Congress. The amendment would have overhauled the country’s electoral process in such a way that, among many other things, AMLO could have stayed in office after his term ended. (Mexico’s presidents serve a single six-year term.) While AMLO’s constitutional amendment failed, his party, MORENA, continued the effort to reform elections through legislation. (See Randy Jackson’s article elsewhere in this issue on Mexican political parties and coalitions.)

Enter the Opposition

During discussions of the proposed legislation, a lime-green, eight-foot dinosaur took the speaker’s podium in the senate chamber: “Today we introduce the ‘Jurassic Plan,’ … a plan that would bring back ‘the dinosaurs’ of the PRI.” The Institutional Revolutionary Party held unilateral power in Mexico from 1929 to 2000 – at least occasionally through elections deemed fraudulent. The green monster implied that supporters of changing Mexico’s electoral process were out of date, out of touch, and just possibly corrupt.

Inside the dinosaur suit? Senator Bertha Xóchitl Gálvez Ruiz, now 60, who was elected to the Senate in 2018 through proportional representation for the PAN party (National Action Party), and re-elected for the PRD party (Party of the Democratic Revolution). (Three-quarters of Mexico’s senators represent a particular place, one-quarter of the senators proportionally represent the political parties).

There are TWO women running for president in Mexico, and Senator Gálvez is the “other woman” – an article on the better-known candidate, Claudia Sheinbaum, appears elsewhere in this issue. Gálvez is the candidate of the opposition coalition Frente Amplio por México (Broad Front for Mexico), which comprises the PAN, the PRD, AND THE PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). Sheinbaum is AMLO’s protégé, and is the candidate of the ruling coalition, Juntos Hacemos Historia (Together We Make History), made up of the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), the Labor Party (PT), and the Ecologist Green Party of Mexico (PVEM).

Who Is Xóchitl Gálvez?

Born in Tepatepec, Hidalgo, Gálvez is mostly Otomi – her father was Otomi, and her mother was part Otomi (the Otomi were the earliest indigenous people to appear in the Mexican highlands, around 8000 BCE). Reportedly, she grew up poor, selling tamales in the street or Gelatina de Tres Leches, a “Mexican Jello” dessert, in the market – depending on who’s telling the story. More to the point, her education and work history focus on digital technology.

Gálvez studied computer engineering at UNAM (National Autonomous University of Mexico) and worked as a computer help tech at a call center before returning to UNAM as a research assistant. She finally earned her degree in Computer Engineering in 2010, at the age of 47. In the meantime, she was a programmer and then a systems analyst at INEGI (Mexico’s census bureau); she also served as director of telecommunications at Mexico’s World Trade Center.

In 1992, she set up High Tech Services, a company that developed projects that deployed digital technology to design intelligent buildings, increase energy savings, automate processes, and support security and telecommunications installations. In 1998, she founded Operation and Maintenance for Intelligent Buildings (OMEI). She was named one of the 100 Global Leaders of the World’s Future at Davos in 1999; in 2000, one of the 25 Latin America’s Business Elite by Business Week.

Interviewed by Bloomberg.com news service in 1998, Gálvez said that, amid rapid growth of young entrepreneurial companies, including her own, inequality became an issue for her. “I realized we were creating two Mexicos – one for people with dollars, and one in which people had nothing. The have-nots weren’t going to progress at all if they didn’t have proper nutrition.”

She set up the Foundation for the Future (Fundación Porvenir), which distributes food supplements to indigenous children suffering from malnutrition and works on supporting women in indigenous communities. Gálvez believes that the private sector should work to lessen the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

In her late thirties, Gálvez became interested in politics as another way to strengthen Mexican society. Under President Vicente Fox – the 2000 candidate who overturned the PRI’s unbroken hold on the presidency – she headed up the National Institute of Indigenous Peoples (INPI). In 2010, she was the runner-up for governor of Hidalgo; in 2015, she was the PAN candidate for mayor of Hidalgo, and won. She had served for nearly three years when she ran for the Senate.

Can She Win the Presidency?

Probably not. Apparently, though, the dinosaur stunt stuck in AMLO’s craw. He has definitely increased her name recognition. Mexican presidents are not allowed to comment on candidates for office, particularly when they are running to succeed that president.

In late Spring of 2023, when it became apparent that Gálvez was the likely presidential candidate of the Broad Front coalition, AMLO began castigating her in his daily mañaneras (two-hour press conferences – what national president has time to gab with the press for two hours a day?). According to CNN online (July 23, 2023), he’s called her a “wimp,” a “puppet,” and “employee of the oligarchy.” He has said she didn’t grow up poor; he has released private financial information on her businesses and said their contracts are corrupt. (Gálvez has pointed out that some of those contracts are with the Mexican government.)

The National Election Institute (INE) has ordered AMLO to stop attacking Gálvez; the order has not taken effect, and you should note that the INE is also under attack by AMLO. El Financiero, Mexico’s Wall Street Journal, has said “AMLO is obsessed with Senator Gálvez,” and other commentators have joked that AMLO is the Senator’s campaign manager.

There is no doubt that AMLO’s ill-founded attacks have raised her profile to within striking distance of Sheinbaum. It’s not clear whether that’s enough, but it has definitely put her on the national stage for some time to come. Remember, it took AMLO himself three tries to get elected.

Politics, Petroleum, and the Environment:How to Doom Your Country’s Climate Targets

By Deborah Van Hoewyk

About last month: Did you emerge from the mental fog induced by St. Patrick’s Day on March 17 in time to face the festivities of March 18? Completely missed it? March 18, what’s that?

Mexico’s Oil Belongs to Mexico – via PEMEX

In Mexico, March 18 is “Expropriation Day,” the anniversary of President Lázaro Cárdenas’ 1938 nationalization of the country’s oil fields and production facilities. It seemed like “a good idea at the time,” and many Mexicans think of the expropriación petrolera as a second Mexican Revolution, one that liberated Mexican workers from low wages and oppressive working conditions imposed by the foreign companies that dominated the oil industry in Mexico. It is taught in schools as a story of resistance to American imperialism, a source of great national pride.

Before expropriation, there were 17 international firms producing oil in Mexico, dominated by the Mexican Eagle Company (a subsidiary of the Royal Dutch/Shell Company, now just “Shell”) and various U.S. firms (Jersey Standard, a branch of Standard Oil, and Standard Oil Company of California, SOCAL, now Chevron); together the Dutch and the Americans (basically, the Rockefellers) controlled 90% of the production of Mexican oil; Gulf Oil added another 5%.

Under Cárdenas’ plan, the Mexican government would control the production and commercialization of all petroleum resources derived from Mexican territory, significantly increasing government income while shoring up public finance and the social benefits it provided. To do this, he created a government corporation, Petróleos Mexicanos – that would be PEMEX, for those of us who drive in Mexico.

PEMEX was designed as a country-wide monopoly, jointly owned by the state and the Sindicato de Trabajadores Petroleros de la República Mexicana (petroleum workers’ union). It was tasked with all phases of oil and gas production in Mexico: exploration, development, transportation, refining, storage, distribution, and sales. It was designed to partner with the Comisión Federal de Electricidad, known far and wide as CFE, which had been set up in 1937.

Mexico as Petrostate

And what has 84 years of government control of the oil and gas industry done for Mexico?

International oil companies had been encouraged to come to Mexico by President José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori, who ruled Mexico in dictatorial style from 1877 to 1911 (with a four-year hiatus due to term limits, which he canceled after his re-election). Porfirio Díaz was overthrown by the Mexican Revolution (officially fought from 1910-17). In 1917, there were 440 oil production companies working in Mexico, they produced 55 million barrels a day, and Mexico was the world’s second-largest producer of crude oil.

In 1917, Mexico voted in its Constitution, which restored national control of the oil industry. Foreign companies could produce oil from Mexican wells, but needed to obtain official government concessions, which the largest companies refused to do. Both sides succeeded in ignoring the tensions, but oil production began slipping away to Venezuela, where it was cheaper to extract the crude.

Two decades later, the event that brought on expropriation was a labor strike against the international petroleum companies; after a year of negotiating, the petroleum workers’ union walked off the job for 11 days, and the government sent the contract to federal arbitration, which defined a new contract. The international companies refused to accept it, expropriation had been established by law in 1916, and there you go – Mexico took it all.

Over time, that hasn’t worked out all that well. The greatly simplified explanation is that, had the motivations for expropriation, the establishment of PEMEX, and tying it to CFE, been strictly economic, all might have been well. But the public monopoly was also intended to support Mexico’s socioeconomic programs – health, housing, education, recreation, retirement. (PEMEX revenues also funded Mexico’s repayment of loans incurred during the financial crisis of the late 1970s.) Ultimately, PEMEX has been used to pay for everything but financing the company itself: there has been little exploration for new sites, there is no infrastructure to develop them, and lack of maintenance has produced huge oil spills, particularly into the Gulf of Mexico. Moreover, PEMEX has been heavily subsidized by the government to keep retail prices low, thus obscuring real production production costs, so there is no government or public appetite for “remodeling” PEMEX to do a better job.

Back to the Future in the Oil Industry

Every so often, especially when the petroleum industry teetered and later as NAFTA was being negotiated (1994, renewed 2020), figures in the Congreso de la Unión (the federal legislature) or various presidents would make noises about letting international oil companies return. Between 2004 and the beginning of the presidential term of President Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-18), oil production had dropped from 3.4 to 2.5 million barrels a day, and continued to drop, but the nation’s budget depended on PEMEX for a third of its revenues.

If the nation’s oil industry were left to PEMEX on its own, “Much of Mexico’s estimated 30 billion barrels of oil and 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas” would “simply remain locked in the ground” (Forbes, October 30, 2013). PEMEX was hamstrung, without “sufficient technical expertise” for exploration, and was legally denied the ability to acquire the expertise. Even if PEMEX could have brought in outside expertise, “big oil” wouldn’t come without financial guarantees, which PEMEX of course could not provide.

In 2013, Peña Nieto managed to amend the Mexican constitution to permit private international investment in oil, gas, and electricity production and distribution, including in the retail fuel market. Mexico auctioned off blocks of deep and shallow water exploration concessions, and welcomed international gasolineras – indeed, those of us who drive in Mexico saw BP (née British Petroleum), RepSol (Spain), and Gulf (U.S.) stations on our southbound treks to Oaxaca.

Not So Fast!

Many – notably, future presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) – opposed the constitutional reform on the grounds that oil and gas were a treasure of Mexico’s national heritage. “Treason,” said AMLO. When AMLO won the 2018 election on the basis of his populist nationalism, cloaked in the language of the left, he immediately set out to dismantle Peña Nieto’s energy sector reforms and restore PEMEX and fossil fuels to a position of pride – although not necessarily productivity, and certainly not to the benefit of the environment.

However, AMLO’s approach to Mexican energy – restore PEMEX/CFE and achieve self-sufficiency, the environment be damned – has brought on sharp criticism from analysts concerned with environmental protection. Combined with the environmental impacts of other AMLO strategies in tourism and economic development, Mexican energy policy is raising alarms at home and abroad; the policies are seen as detrimental, if not disastrous, in a country as “mega-biodiverse” as Mexico.

Mexico is party to the 2015 Paris Agreement, a UN-sponsored international treaty that records voluntary “nationally determined contributions,” or NDCs, from its signatory nations to meet targets for (1) reducing greenhouse gas emissions and (2) adapting to climate change through developing sources of alternative energy. Mexico was the first “developing country” to submit a plan for participating in the Paris Agreement, including an NDC of cutting emissions 22% by 2030 and obtaining 35% of its energy from alternative sources by 2024.

Countries are supposed to boost those targets every five years; new targets were announced in October 2021 at COP26, the second UN-sponsored climate change conference (Glasgow, Scotland, October 2021). Despite a visit from U.S. climate envoy John Kerry in advance of COP26, Mexico – along with Russia and Brazil – said it would work on increasing targets, but would not raise them. Mexico is the 14th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and the 2nd-largest in Latin America, bested only by the Brazil of Jair Bolsonaro, who promotes “land use change” in the form of slash-and-burn conversion of jungle to agriculture and industry. Climate Action Tracker, an international research partnership, finds that, given its policies and performance, Mexico’s emissions will rise, not fall, and the Mexico’s targets are “not at all consistent with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit.”

AMLO and the Environment

It would, of course, be difficult to lower emissions when you are “pouring money into PEMEX, at the environment’s expense” as Bloomberg analysts put it in January 2021. In search of an energy-independent Mexico, AMLO has also made regulatory changes that “cut the knees off a booming renewables market” by ordering regulatory agencies to favor PEMEX/CFE by means of over-regulation of about 200 wind farms, solar arrays, natural gas plants, and other private projects.

AMLO is promoting two major infrastructure projects. First, to shore up oil production, he is building an $8 billion US mega oil refinery at Dos Bocas in his home state of Tabasco, on what was a protected mangrove forest. The refinery has been opposed by both business and environmentalist groups, and has been prejected to fail on financial grounds. In addition, AMLO has asked PEMEX to increase output at the country’s six current refineries, which burn highly polluting fuel oil. CFE is using high-sulfur fuel oil, and has bought tons – 2 million tons – of coal as a further source of fuel.

And then there’s the (in)famous Tren Maya, a tourism initiative that is laying over 1,550 kilometers of rail tracks across Tabasco, Campeche, Yucatán, Quintana Roo, and Chiapas – right through the rainforest that is home to the endangered Mexican jaguar. The price tag is now $200 billion mxn (about $9.8 billion US); in a bid to add utility to the Tren Maya, freight capacity has been added to the original vision. The Tren Maya is opposed by both indigenous and environmentalist groups.

AMLO’s strategies for meeting Mexico’s NDCs are to plant trees and update 60 hydroelectric plants. The Sembrando Vida (Sowing Life) program, funded at $3.4 billion US, pays farmers to plant trees for fruit and timber production. Intended to bring income-producing agriculture to degraded land, the program actually encourages farmers to clear the jungle (that would be slash-and-burn again) to plant the program-provided trees.

Modernizing the hydroelectric plants receives high marks from agencies and experts in general, but in the first quarter of 2019, hydroelectric produced 6.4% of Mexico’s power, other alternatives (wind, nuclear, solar) produced 9.6%, and fossil fuels produced the remaining 84%. Hydroelectric power is much more expensive to produce than wind or solar; all the plants involved are over 50 years old, and modernization will be complicated and expensive. Many areas of Mexico face drought conditions, and dammed water is diverted to agricultural use rather than the hydroelectric plant. Promoting hydroelectric power with these improvements is a policy with only minor benefits.

When his policies and programs are criticized on environmental grounds, AMLO is dismissive, conspiracy oriented, and attacks the opposition: “There’s a lot of deception. I would tell you that they have grabbed the flag of clean energy in the same way they grab the flag of feminism or human rights. Since when are conservatives concerned about the environment?”

When he was elected, AMLO said he would have a mid-term review of his presidency. On April 11, 2022, he is holding a consulta de Revocación de Mandato, a consultation with voters on whether to “revoke his mandate.” The ballot question is carefully awkward, if not confusing, in its wording; it conflates the issues of whether or not a voter approves of AMLO’s policies with whether AMLO should stay in office. Given a general social bias towards continuity, AMLO is likely to win in a landslide.

Mexico’s Green Energy -Potential, Promise, Problems

By Randy Jackson

POTENTIAL

Few countries on earth have such an abundance of green energy potential as Mexico. The geography and geology of Mexico provides three substantial sources of green energy: solar, wind and geothermal.

Solar: Potential energy from solar projects seems obvious, with much of the country bathed in sunlight for a good portion of the year. Also, the lower the latitude, i.e., the lower the distance from the Equator, the higher the energy concentration of the sun. The northwest area of Mexico has the highest average number of days of sunlight in the country. The sunniest spot on earth is just north of Mexico, in Yuma, Arizona, and the surrounding areas stretching well into Mexico have a very high average number of days of sunshine. Days of sunshine, concentrated by lower latitudes, end up in a measurement called “insolation.” Insolation is a measurement of kilowatt hour per square meter, essentially a measurement of sunpower at a given location. All this leads to the calculation (using existing solar panel efficiency) that just 25 square kilometers of solar panels, were they located in the Sonoran Desert or the state of Chihuahua, would be sufficient to provide 100% of Mexico’s electricity demand.

Wind: Many of us who are familiar with Huatulco and the surrounding area know of the substantial wind energy facilities in the narrower part of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. The Eurus Wind Farm in Juchitán de Zaragoza is the largest wind farm in Latin America. In Mexico overall, the states of Oaxaca, Yucatán and Tamaulipas all have locations with average wind speeds greater than 28 km/hour – 15 Km/hour is the minimum average speed normally required for a wind farm. Average wind speed is one determining factor for wind farms; the other is air density. Sea level locations, as at the Eurus Wind Farm, have higher air density when compared to higher elevations. This means the air has more mass, essentially giving the wind more power to turn a wind turbine. REVE, the Spanish wind energy magazine, reports that Mexico has wind energy potential of about 70,000 MWH (megawatt hours), about the total current electrical generating capacity in all of Mexico.

Geothermal: Mexico has 48 active volcanoes, a testament to the high degree of tectonic activity below the earth’s surface in Mexico (has anyone not experienced an earthquake in Huatulco?). Geothermal resources are most often found along tectonic plates where the earth’s magma is closer to the surface. This superheats rock that can be easily drilled into from the surface; water is then injected and the resulting steam drives turbines to create electricity. The world’s second largest geothermal power station is located in the state of Baja California, near the city of Mexicali. This location, known as Cerro Prieto, sits atop of a unique geological fault usually only found under the oceans. The Mexican ministry of energy envisions 1,670 MWH of electricity from geothermal plants by 2030.

PROMISE

Before hosting the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexican President Felipe Calderón set out goals for Mexico to reach one-third of its energy from renewables by 2024. Some reforms and laws were initiated in Calderón’s term of office to move towards these renewable energy goals. In Mexico, energy is state owned and controlled.

Energy resource ownership, particularly oil but also electricity generation, is a sensitive national concern for Mexico. However, in 2013, President Enrique Peña Nieto was able to pass a reform that allowed private companies to participate in the energy sector, with the control, transmission and distribution of energy remaining exclusively within the control of the state. This initiative, followed up with specific regulations, allowed private investments in renewable energy projects to recover their investments over time, by selling electricity to the state owned CFE (Comisión Federal de Electricidad) under negotiated contracts.

These reforms and Mexico’s abundant green energy potential allowed many Mexican and international companies to step forward to propose and develop green energy projects. To facilitate these projects under state control, Mexico held three auctions to purchase renewable electricity under long term contracts; 41 projects were selected under the auction process. Solar energy projects accounted for 4,867 MW, wind energy 2,122 MW and geothermal 25 MW. In 2017 private investment in renewable energy in Mexico was $6.2 billion USD. Mexico seemed to be off to a good start towards its green energy goals.

PROBLEMS

In 2018, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (often referred to as AMLO) was elected. Shortly after taking office, AMLO cancelled any future auctions to purchase green electricity by CFE. Then, in early 2020, under the guise of COVID-19 measures, Mexico changed the rules of how wind and solar projects could access the electrical grid. The new policy imposes a new requirement on developers of wind and solar projects to obtain a generation permit. These permits are subject to further regulations that prioritize CFE electrical generation from oil and gas electricity plants. These changes have raised international concerns regarding regulations that effectively cancel existing legal contracts. The European Union sent a letter to Mexico’s Energy Minister, Rocío Nahle García, saying the new rules would negatively impact 44 renewable energy projects and jeopardize $6.4 billion (USD) in renewable energy projects from EU companies. Bloomberg News reported March 16 of this year that the Canadian government expressed concern to the Mexican Economy Secretary, Tatiana Clouthier Carrillo, about stranding a potential $4.1 billion (USD) in renewable projects by Canadian companies. These concerns have also been expressed by the US and other countries using diplomatic channels.

The arguments made by the current Mexican administration in defending their change to regulation regarding private investments in the electrical energy grid are numerous. AMLO has suggested that corruption was involved in awarding some of the contracts to purchase electricity. He has also argued that the sporadic nature of renewable energy destabilizes the electricity grid. He also said there is just too much bureaucracy overseeing the energy sector in Mexico, and more central control is needed.

Some of these regulatory changes are currently being challenged in Mexican courts, so the final outcome is yet to be determined. However, the substantial green energy potential of Mexico is out there, available, awaiting the right political conditions for it to be harvested.

Changes in Immigration at the Mexico/United States Border

By Marcia Chaiken and Jan Chaiken

Our grand-parents were immigrants who fled violence and oppression from Russia in the early 1900s; refuge was provided for them and their cousins in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. While a significant number of current residents of North America trace their roots back to indigenous residents or people who were forced onto ships and brought here against their will, many of us are descendants of people who bravely traveled to the New World assured that their lives would be better and that their skills and get-up-and-go would be welcomed. Although immigrants have always faced xenophobia and lack of social acceptance, over a period of time, most immigrants integrate into the work-a-day world and achieve upward mobility.

The United States, in particular, has always been considered to be a “melting pot” – a place where diversity was prized and a welcome message was literally inscribed on the Statue of Liberty in New York harbor. The annual number of migrants admitted to the U.S. adjusted up or down periodically. During boom times, immigrants supply much needed labor as the country’s economy grows. During economic downturns, immigrants have been both formally and informally excluded. During the Great Depression, President Hoover specifically restricted immigration from Mexico, and the city of Los Angeles tried to repatriate immigrants who had already settled there from Mexico in order to avoid providing services they needed. Mass deportations of Mexicans were instituted, and the contemptuous term “wetback” became part of the lexicon of the U.S. Government. Willingly or unwillingly, there were more immigrants leaving the U.S. during the Depression than were arriving, counting both legal and undocumented immigrants.

We were fortunate enough to have grown up in the U.S. during the boom times that followed the end of World War II. At that time, the U.S. was flooded with refugees from all over the world. New York City streets rang with a polyglot of languages, as did areas of other large cities. The voracious need for labor at steel mills in South Chicago attracted so many Mexican immigrants that some neighborhoods in the area became like small islands of Mexico surrounded by other ethnic and racial groups. In the following decades, Mexico became the number one source of immigrants to the U.S. For ourselves, as newly-weds in 1963, on a tight graduate student budget, we favored Mexican restaurants for a luxury dinner out.

While raising our children in Los Angeles in the 1970s and early 1980s, our lives were enriched by the local Mexican-American culture. Some families of our kids’ friends were upper-middle class Chicanos whose forebears had lived in the area when it was still Mexico, long before the United States grabbed it. The cafeterias at the local schools served burritos, enchiladas, beans, and rice. Our children spoke Spanglish, and our son, when he worked for the summer on a construction team, brought home choice Spanish words that even now we rarely hear in Mexico. Downtown Los Angeles featured Sundays when girls in their quinceañera gowns were being photographed in Father Serra Park. During school vacations we frequently headed south for carnivals in Tijuana, for whale watching off the Baja Coast, or just to wander around the beautiful Sonoran desert. The border between the U.S. and Mexico was easily navigated in both directions. While camping near California’s Salton Sea, we could decide to drive over the border to Mexicali for dinner and be back in time to bed down in our tents.

Driving through the vast agricultural areas in California, whether at sunrise, during the hot afternoons or toward sunset, we usually sighted Mexican immigrants doing stoop labor in the fields. California was not the only state relying on Mexican immigrants for back-breaking agricultural labor. Name any state producing fruits, vegetables or grains for American consumption or for export, and you will find that the backbone of the industry was primarily provided by Spanish-speaking families from south of the border. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 – the last major U.S. immigration legislation – in part recognized the contribution made by undocumented immigrants from Mexico by granting the right to apply for legal status to immigrants who had arrived before May 1982 and remained in the U.S. after working in agriculture for 90 days. However, the Act also fined employers who were found to hire undocumented field workers after May 1982.

Even with generally tighter restrictions on hiring undocumented workers, the booming U.S. economy attracted greater numbers of immigrants from Mexico. Between 1990 and 2000, the number grew from over 4 million to over 9 million. This trend ended when the U.S. economy collapsed during the financial recession in 2007. Between 2007 and 2017 the number of undocumented Mexicans living in the U.S. decreased by 2 million people.

The Mexicans who provided Americans with labor that no U.S. citizen would willingly undertake were hardly living the American dream, but their lives were arguably better than they would have been in rural villages or urban ghettos in Mexico. And for the most part, the attitude of Americans in the 20th century was “live and let live.” That is not to say there was no xenophobia; periods of intense xenophobia, overt stereotyping and violence directed against specific ethnic groups of immigrants have occurred regularly. Irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine in the late 19th century were held in contempt and Prohibition was passed in large part as a symbolic means of rejecting their culture. During World War II, Japanese and German descendants of immigrants were vilified, and Japanese families were confined to concentration camps. Even though by 2010 the number of Mexican immigrants had started to decrease, the past decade has seen a period of intensifying xenophobia against them and other immigrant groups.

Two major developments may in part have been responsible for this rise of nationalism and rejection of new immigrants. In Mexico and Central America, drug cartels became increasingly dominant and violent; hundreds and then thousands of people from Mexico and Central America began fleeing for safety to the U.S., flooding the border.

At the same time, the economy in the U.S. dramatically shifted away from manual labor to technology-driven employment. Coal mines closed, ranching and farming became large-scale corporate enterprises, and factories replaced human employees with robots. Large numbers of blue-collar laborers lost their traditional jobs; while many shifted over to the service industry their compensation barely met subsistence requirements. Their American dream had failed and they were angry. Along came Donald Trump who provided them with a scapegoat for their anger.

On the day he announced his run to be President, Trump vilified Mexican immigrants, labelling them criminals and rapists. Candidate Donald Trump proclaimed that, if elected as US President, to keep Mexicans out he would build a big, “beautiful” wall, akin to the Great Wall of China, along the length of the border, and that Mexico would pay for the construction. Leaders in Mexico retorted at times in very colorful language that there was no way Mexico was going to pay for the wall. But blue-collar workers rallied around Trump to the cry, “Build the wall.”

After Trump was elected, he used executive order after executive order in an attempt to put an end to Mexican immigration. The U.S. Congress essentially refused to fund the wall, so Trump ordered the diversion of funds from the Department of Defense, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and other sources to start construction. The wall project continued through his administration, but fell far short of his grandiose plan, mostly replacing sections of the preexisting border wall that had deteriorated in the harsh desert weather.

Trump also ordered the end of the practice of allowing undocumented immigrants who had been arrested by the Border Patrol to remain in the U.S. with relatives or other sponsors until their request for asylum could be adjudicated. Calling this practice by the derogatory term, “catch and release,” the Trump administration ordered that undocumented refugees found on the U.S. side of the border be warehoused in jails and then bussed under guard back to Mexico, where they were unceremoniously dumped in the streets of border cities.

Trump also reduced the annual numbers of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US, reduced the numbers of federal employees processing people applying for visas from Mexico and Central America, and reduced the number of judges to whom refugees could appeal for sanctuary. The whole process that allowed people fleeing from drug wars to legally enter the U.S. was essentially gutted, and those who simply tried to enter the U.S. legally were jailed at the border. When photos of children jailed in cages went viral, Trump had his administration carry out an even more horrendous policy: children were separated from their parents, babies literally ripped from the arms of their mothers, and were taken to remote buildings – essentially warehouses with virtually no one trained in childcare to look after them. The children were later taken to other places in the U.S., and the parents were deported. No system was in place to track the placement of the children, and thousands of them were lost to their families until there was a national outcry. Nonprofit organizations tried to substitute for the government and reunite the children with their parents – but in some cases this was an impossible task.

When COVID became a pandemic, although Trump refused to address COVID as a problem and insisted that the virus would just disappear, he disingenuously used the disease as an excuse to stop virtually any refugee from entering the U.S. while they formally requested visas. Trump struck a bargain with Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) to cooperate in turning back people seeking legal entry into the U.S. and allowing them to stay in Mexico in border cities until the U.S. was ready to process them. Mexican border towns were turned into tent cities – refugee concentration camps – with few if any services. Among those living on the street were thousands of unaccompanied children who had traveled by themselves or small groups together, with telephone numbers or other contact information for relatives or family friends in the U.S.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

Trump also reduced the annual numbers of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US, reduced the numbers of federal employees processing people applying for visas from Mexico and Central America, and reduced the number of judges to whom refugees could appeal for sanctuary. The whole process that allowed people fleeing from drug wars to legally enter the U.S. was essentially gutted, and those who simply tried to enter the U.S. legally were jailed at the border. When photos of children jailed in cages went viral, Trump had his administration carry out an even more horrendous policy: children were separated from their parents, babies literally ripped from the arms of their mothers, and were taken to remote buildings – essentially warehouses with virtually no one trained in childcare to look after them. The children were later taken to other places in the U.S., and the parents were deported. No system was in place to track the placement of the children, and thousands of them were lost to their families until there was a national outcry. Nonprofit organizations tried to substitute for the government and reunite the children with their parents – but in some cases this was an impossible task.

When COVID became a pandemic, although Trump refused to address COVID as a problem and insisted that the virus would just disappear, he disingenuously used the disease as an excuse to stop virtually any refugee from entering the U.S. while they formally requested visas. Trump struck a bargain with Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) to cooperate in turning back people seeking legal entry into the U.S. and allowing them to stay in Mexico in border cities until the U.S. was ready to process them. Mexican border towns were turned into tent cities – refugee concentration camps – with few if any services. Among those living on the street were thousands of unaccompanied children who had traveled by themselves or small groups together, with telephone numbers or other contact information for relatives or family friends in the U.S.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

Trump also reduced the annual numbers of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US, reduced the numbers of federal employees processing people applying for visas from Mexico and Central America, and reduced the number of judges to whom refugees could appeal for sanctuary. The whole process that allowed people fleeing from drug wars to legally enter the U.S. was essentially gutted, and those who simply tried to enter the U.S. legally were jailed at the border. When photos of children jailed in cages went viral, Trump had his administration carry out an even more horrendous policy: children were separated from their parents, babies literally ripped from the arms of their mothers, and were taken to remote buildings – essentially warehouses with virtually no one trained in childcare to look after them. The children were later taken to other places in the U.S., and the parents were deported. No system was in place to track the placement of the children, and thousands of them were lost to their families until there was a national outcry. Nonprofit organizations tried to substitute for the government and reunite the children with their parents – but in some cases this was an impossible task.

When COVID became a pandemic, although Trump refused to address COVID as a problem and insisted that the virus would just disappear, he disingenuously used the disease as an excuse to stop virtually any refugee from entering the U.S. while they formally requested visas. Trump struck a bargain with Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) to cooperate in turning back people seeking legal entry into the U.S. and allowing them to stay in Mexico in border cities until the U.S. was ready to process them. Mexican border towns were turned into tent cities – refugee concentration camps – with few if any services. Among those living on the street were thousands of unaccompanied children who had traveled by themselves or small groups together, with telephone numbers or other contact information for relatives or family friends in the U.S.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

Trump also reduced the annual numbers of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US, reduced the numbers of federal employees processing people applying for visas from Mexico and Central America, and reduced the number of judges to whom refugees could appeal for sanctuary. The whole process that allowed people fleeing from drug wars to legally enter the U.S. was essentially gutted, and those who simply tried to enter the U.S. legally were jailed at the border. When photos of children jailed in cages went viral, Trump had his administration carry out an even more horrendous policy: children were separated from their parents, babies literally ripped from the arms of their mothers, and were taken to remote buildings – essentially warehouses with virtually no one trained in childcare to look after them. The children were later taken to other places in the U.S., and the parents were deported. No system was in place to track the placement of the children, and thousands of them were lost to their families until there was a national outcry. Nonprofit organizations tried to substitute for the government and reunite the children with their parents – but in some cases this was an impossible task.

When COVID became a pandemic, although Trump refused to address COVID as a problem and insisted that the virus would just disappear, he disingenuously used the disease as an excuse to stop virtually any refugee from entering the U.S. while they formally requested visas. Trump struck a bargain with Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) to cooperate in turning back people seeking legal entry into the U.S. and allowing them to stay in Mexico in border cities until the U.S. was ready to process them. Mexican border towns were turned into tent cities – refugee concentration camps – with few if any services. Among those living on the street were thousands of unaccompanied children who had traveled by themselves or small groups together, with telephone numbers or other contact information for relatives or family friends in the U.S.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

Trump also reduced the annual numbers of people allowed to legally immigrate to the US, reduced the numbers of federal employees processing people applying for visas from Mexico and Central America, and reduced the number of judges to whom refugees could appeal for sanctuary. The whole process that allowed people fleeing from drug wars to legally enter the U.S. was essentially gutted, and those who simply tried to enter the U.S. legally were jailed at the border. When photos of children jailed in cages went viral, Trump had his administration carry out an even more horrendous policy: children were separated from their parents, babies literally ripped from the arms of their mothers, and were taken to remote buildings – essentially warehouses with virtually no one trained in childcare to look after them. The children were later taken to other places in the U.S., and the parents were deported. No system was in place to track the placement of the children, and thousands of them were lost to their families until there was a national outcry. Nonprofit organizations tried to substitute for the government and reunite the children with their parents – but in some cases this was an impossible task.

When COVID became a pandemic, although Trump refused to address COVID as a problem and insisted that the virus would just disappear, he disingenuously used the disease as an excuse to stop virtually any refugee from entering the U.S. while they formally requested visas. Trump struck a bargain with Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) to cooperate in turning back people seeking legal entry into the U.S. and allowing them to stay in Mexico in border cities until the U.S. was ready to process them. Mexican border towns were turned into tent cities – refugee concentration camps – with few if any services. Among those living on the street were thousands of unaccompanied children who had traveled by themselves or small groups together, with telephone numbers or other contact information for relatives or family friends in the U.S.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

The only people to benefit from this policy were, first of all, high-level cartel members who were arrested in the U.S. and, instead of standing trial, were returned to Mexico without fear of punishment and, second, “coyotes” – those who for an exorbitant charge guide refugees across the border through tunnels under border walls or by creating breaks in border fences. The horrors experienced by those crossing the border have inspired best-selling novels such as American Dirt, and critically-lauded plays such as Mojada, a Medea in Los Angeles. But real people are still suffering on a daily basis. On Tuesday, March 2, a Ford Explorer with the seats removed carried 25 people through a breach in the border wall in the southeast corner of California. The Explorer headed west and pulled onto CA Route 115 in front of a semi hauling two empty trailers. The crash killed 13 people in the Explorer; one woman, knocked unconscious, woke up to find her dead daughter stretched across her lap.

One of the primary issues raised during the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections concerned the conditions and policies in place at the Mexican-U.S. border. While Trump supporters were still chanting “Build the Wall,” Biden supporters were crying, “No more children in cages.” As a candidate, Biden promised to overturn the executive orders Trump had signed that created egregious conditions at the border and to submit a comprehensive immigration bill for legislation – the first in thirty-five years. That promise was fulfilled on Inauguration Day, as President Biden began signing the promised executive orders returning the U.S. border to a place where refugees can be treated with dignity and just practices. One order specifically stated:

The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world. … Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Government, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in communities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that … USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need. … Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.

On his first day in office President Biden also submitted The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which “establishes a new system to responsibly manage and secure our border, keep our families and communities safe, and better manage migration across the Hemisphere.” Specific measures delineate staff and resources to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexican Border, and procedures for encouraging refugees to apply for and receive visas to the enter the U.S. long before they reach the border.

But the job is daunting. Thousands of unaccompanied children are arriving on the border every day. Given that Trump eviscerated the entire system for humanely and rapidly processing people seeking sanctuary on the border, the whole process needs to be built back. While the new administration is working as rapidly as government agencies can, many agencies are heavily involved in addressing the immediate needs of asylum seekers, in particular children living in federal facilities or on the streets in border towns. One measure in place is a promise to the children’s contacts in the U.S. that their own documentation status will not lead to negative consequences if they come to claim the children and care for them. Another telling example of the difference that is currently taking place at the border is the role of FEMA; rather than expropriating FEMA funds for building a largely ineffectual wall, FEMA staff, trained to provide humanitarian aid after natural catastrophes, are now using their resources and skills to alleviate the humanitarian crises caused by human forces on both sides of the border.

One of the primary issues raised during the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections concerned the conditions and policies in place at the Mexican-U.S. border. While Trump supporters were still chanting “Build the Wall,” Biden supporters were crying, “No more children in cages.” As a candidate, Biden promised to overturn the executive orders Trump had signed that created egregious conditions at the border and to submit a comprehensive immigration bill for legislation – the first in thirty-five years. That promise was fulfilled on Inauguration Day, as President Biden began signing the promised executive orders returning the U.S. border to a place where refugees can be treated with dignity and just practices. One order specifically stated:

The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world. … Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Government, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in communities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that … USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need. … Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.

On his first day in office President Biden also submitted The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which “establishes a new system to responsibly manage and secure our border, keep our families and communities safe, and better manage migration across the Hemisphere.” Specific measures delineate staff and resources to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexican Border, and procedures for encouraging refugees to apply for and receive visas to the enter the U.S. long before they reach the border.

But the job is daunting. Thousands of unaccompanied children are arriving on the border every day. Given that Trump eviscerated the entire system for humanely and rapidly processing people seeking sanctuary on the border, the whole process needs to be built back. While the new administration is working as rapidly as government agencies can, many agencies are heavily involved in addressing the immediate needs of asylum seekers, in particular children living in federal facilities or on the streets in border towns. One measure in place is a promise to the children’s contacts in the U.S. that their own documentation status will not lead to negative consequences if they come to claim the children and care for them. Another telling example of the difference that is currently taking place at the border is the role of FEMA; rather than expropriating FEMA funds for building a largely ineffectual wall, FEMA staff, trained to provide humanitarian aid after natural catastrophes, are now using their resources and skills to alleviate the humanitarian crises caused by human forces on both sides of the border.

One of the primary issues raised during the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections concerned the conditions and policies in place at the Mexican-U.S. border. While Trump supporters were still chanting “Build the Wall,” Biden supporters were crying, “No more children in cages.” As a candidate, Biden promised to overturn the executive orders Trump had signed that created egregious conditions at the border and to submit a comprehensive immigration bill for legislation – the first in thirty-five years. That promise was fulfilled on Inauguration Day, as President Biden began signing the promised executive orders returning the U.S. border to a place where refugees can be treated with dignity and just practices. One order specifically stated:

The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world. … Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Government, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in communities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that … USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need. … Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.

On his first day in office President Biden also submitted The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which “establishes a new system to responsibly manage and secure our border, keep our families and communities safe, and better manage migration across the Hemisphere.” Specific measures delineate staff and resources to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexican Border, and procedures for encouraging refugees to apply for and receive visas to the enter the U.S. long before they reach the border.

But the job is daunting. Thousands of unaccompanied children are arriving on the border every day. Given that Trump eviscerated the entire system for humanely and rapidly processing people seeking sanctuary on the border, the whole process needs to be built back. While the new administration is working as rapidly as government agencies can, many agencies are heavily involved in addressing the immediate needs of asylum seekers, in particular children living in federal facilities or on the streets in border towns. One measure in place is a promise to the children’s contacts in the U.S. that their own documentation status will not lead to negative consequences if they come to claim the children and care for them. Another telling example of the difference that is currently taking place at the border is the role of FEMA; rather than expropriating FEMA funds for building a largely ineffectual wall, FEMA staff, trained to provide humanitarian aid after natural catastrophes, are now using their resources and skills to alleviate the humanitarian crises caused by human forces on both sides of the border.

One of the primary issues raised during the 2020 U.S. Presidential elections concerned the conditions and policies in place at the Mexican-U.S. border. While Trump supporters were still chanting “Build the Wall,” Biden supporters were crying, “No more children in cages.” As a candidate, Biden promised to overturn the executive orders Trump had signed that created egregious conditions at the border and to submit a comprehensive immigration bill for legislation – the first in thirty-five years. That promise was fulfilled on Inauguration Day, as President Biden began signing the promised executive orders returning the U.S. border to a place where refugees can be treated with dignity and just practices. One order specifically stated:

The long tradition of the United States as a leader in refugee resettlement provides a beacon of hope for persecuted people around the world. … Through the United States Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), the Federal Government, cooperating with private partners and American citizens in communities across the country, demonstrates the generosity and core values of our Nation, while benefitting from the many contributions that refugees make to our country. Accordingly, it shall be the policy of my Administration that … USRAP should be rebuilt and expanded, commensurate with global need. … Delays in administering USRAP and other humanitarian programs are counter to our national interests, can raise grave humanitarian concerns, and should be minimized.

On his first day in office President Biden also submitted The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, which “establishes a new system to responsibly manage and secure our border, keep our families and communities safe, and better manage migration across the Hemisphere.” Specific measures delineate staff and resources to ameliorate the humanitarian crisis on the U.S.-Mexican Border, and procedures for encouraging refugees to apply for and receive visas to the enter the U.S. long before they reach the border.

But the job is daunting. Thousands of unaccompanied children are arriving on the border every day. Given that Trump eviscerated the entire system for humanely and rapidly processing people seeking sanctuary on the border, the whole process needs to be built back. While the new administration is working as rapidly as government agencies can, many agencies are heavily involved in addressing the immediate needs of asylum seekers, in particular children living in federal facilities or on the streets in border towns. One measure in place is a promise to the children’s contacts in the U.S. that their own documentation status will not lead to negative consequences if they come to claim the children and care for them. Another telling example of the difference that is currently taking place at the border is the role of FEMA; rather than expropriating FEMA funds for building a largely ineffectual wall, FEMA staff, trained to provide humanitarian aid after natural catastrophes, are now using their resources and skills to alleviate the humanitarian crises caused by human forces on both sides of the border.

But the job is daunting. Thousands of unaccompanied children are arriving on the border every day. Given that Trump eviscerated the entire system for humanely and rapidly processing people seeking sanctuary on the border, the whole process needs to be built back. While the new administration is working as rapidly as government agencies can, many agencies are heavily involved in addressing the immediate needs of asylum seekers, in particular children living in federal facilities or on the streets in border towns. One measure in place is a promise to the children’s contacts in the U.S. that their own documentation status will not lead to negative consequences if they come to claim the children and care for them. Another telling example of the difference that is currently taking place at the border is the role of FEMA; rather than expropriating FEMA funds for building a largely ineffectual wall, FEMA staff, trained to provide humanitarian aid after natural catastrophes, are now using their resources and skills to alleviate the humanitarian crises caused by human forces on both sides of the border.

But the job is daunting. Thousands of unaccompanied children are arriving on the border every day. Given that Trump eviscerated the entire system for humanely and rapidly processing people seeking sanctuary on the border, the whole process needs to be built back. While the new administration is working as rapidly as government agencies can, many agencies are heavily involved in addressing the immediate needs of asylum seekers, in particular children living in federal facilities or on the streets in border towns. One measure in place is a promise to the children’s contacts in the U.S. that their own documentation status will not lead to negative consequences if they come to claim the children and care for them. Another telling example of the difference that is currently taking place at the border is the role of FEMA; rather than expropriating FEMA funds for building a largely ineffectual wall, FEMA staff, trained to provide humanitarian aid after natural catastrophes, are now using their resources and skills to alleviate the humanitarian crises caused by human forces on both sides of the border.

But the job is daunting. Thousands of unaccompanied children are arriving on the border every day. Given that Trump eviscerated the entire system for humanely and rapidly processing people seeking sanctuary on the border, the whole process needs to be built back. While the new administration is working as rapidly as government agencies can, many agencies are heavily involved in addressing the immediate needs of asylum seekers, in particular children living in federal facilities or on the streets in border towns. One measure in place is a promise to the children’s contacts in the U.S. that their own documentation status will not lead to negative consequences if they come to claim the children and care for them. Another telling example of the difference that is currently taking place at the border is the role of FEMA; rather than expropriating FEMA funds for building a largely ineffectual wall, FEMA staff, trained to provide humanitarian aid after natural catastrophes, are now using their resources and skills to alleviate the humanitarian crises caused by human forces on both sides of the border.

Women and Water

By Brooke Gazer

From the comfort of Huatulco’s first-world development, it is hard to imagine that there are places in the state without access to water. But this is not an uncommon problem – over a third of Mexican households lack potable water, 2 million households have no water at all, and over 10 million receive water only every few days. Often the lack of water has “deep roots,” going back to land disputes that can go back to Spanish rule. For many communities throughout the Oaxacan Sierra, water is an all-consuming daily concern.

One of these communities is San Pedro y San Pablo Ayutla Mixe, a town located about 123 kilometers (75 miles) east of Oaxaca City, with over five thousand residents (2010 census); about 87% of the residents live in poverty.

You might wonder why a town would develop without a viable score of water? The answer is that it did not. Originally the residents drew water from pipes connected to a natural spring, but rural Oaxaca is rife with complicated land and water disputes. The one between Ayutla and Tamazulapám del Espíritu Santo is only one of three hundred in the state. When this dispute reached a violent climax in 2017, Ayutla lost access to the spring they relied on. Hauling water is currently the only alternative the residents have to survive.

For families in the Sierra, roles are clearly defined. Men labor in their fields, or travel away from home to take jobs on construction sites. Providing water for the family is women’s work. To meet the minimum needs of her family, each woman hauls an average of ten buckets per day. Ten buckets. If the bucket held eight liters (a little more than two gallons) it would weigh over 17 pounds. This would mean five grueling trips, carrying two buckets weighing roughly 35 pounds per trip.

The well is located 40 minutes into the forest, but the difficulty is not just the distance. It is downhill to the well. On their return, these women must carry their burden uphill, possibly on their shoulder or with a rope around their forehead. It is likely some can only carry one, which might mean ten trips, or smaller buckets. Half of a women’s day may be consumed just hauling water.

Ten buckets of eight liters would provide her family with 80 liters per day, less if the buckets are smaller. With care, she could boil black beans, prepare dough for corn tortillas, wash dishes and clothing and reuse wash water for bathing. To put this into perspective, in Mexico City, the average daily water consumption per person is 150 liters.

Life has always been hard for rural women in the selva (forest). This backbreaking chore is over and above her normal household duties, which are all performed without electricity or any modern conveniences. But for the past year, the coronavirus pandemic has placed an added burden to her nearly impossible routine. Extra water is required as everyone must wash their hands more frequently and to wipe and disinfect high-touched surfaces. This requires additional arduous trips to the well each day.

It has been over four years since this community was denied access to the spring that brought water into the town. Even understanding that this is a poor community with limited resources, one might still ask – was there no way to install a pump and a pipe from the current water supply? There may be two possible answers to this question. One might revolve around precarious land and water claims, preventing the town from installing any infrastructure surrounding the water source. The other could be that in these communities, men make the decisions regarding how resources are used … and it is women who haul the water.

Brooke Gazer operates Agua Azul la Villa, an oceanview B&B in Huatulco (www.bbaguaazul.com).