L'élection du 2 juillet et l'ambiguïté mexicaine

Ci-dessous, de nos sources internes, voici une analyse de la situation de la politique extérieure mexicaine et des perspectives de cette politique avec l’élection du 2 juillet. On remarquera l’ambiguïté que dégage cette analyse, tant pour ce qui est de l’analyse de la politique qu’a menée Fox, — à certains moments très anti-américaine, à d’autres occasions, au contraire, déclenchant la ire de Chavez (Fox, a “puppy dog of imperialism”, — que pour les perspectives dans l’hypothèse où Obrador serait élu.

C’est justement cette ambiguïté qui nous paraît intéressante. Elle baigne l’extrême incertitude de l’élection mexicaine. Il s’agit de l’incertitude à propos de l’issue de l’élection, l’incertitude à propos de l’orientation de l’un ou l’autre, l’incertitude à propos de la politique elle-même…

« Leftist presidential hopeful Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador does not speak English, rarely travels outside Mexico and says the best foreign policy is to stay at home and avoid meddling in other nation's affairs. His conservative rival, Harvard-educated Felipe Calderon, says he will follow the globe-trotting path of President Vicente Fox, opening embassies from Nigeria to Pakistan, supporting Israel and boosting Mexico's role as a promoter of human rights and free trade. While both front-runners agree on building close U.S. ties and pushing for Washington to adopt immigration reform, their visions for Mexico's role in the world are vastly different. Both are running about even days before the July 2 vote. Fox catapulted Mexico onto the world scene six years ago, eager to show off the country's new democracy after his surprise victory ended 71 years of rule by the Institutional Revolutionary Party. The frank-speaking, former Coca Cola executive raised Mexico's international profile, promoting respect for human rights worldwide and lobbying for U.N. reforms that give more power to developing nations. Despite questions about Mexico's own rights record, the nation was elected president of the new U.N. Human Rights Council, created to pursue violators more aggressively.

» While popular internationally, Fox's policy received mixed reviews at home. The country paid a price for its global assertiveness, including angering the U.S. by refusing to support the Iraq war when it held a seat on the U.N. Security Council in 2003. Mexico also supported an international tribunal that could put U.S. soldiers on trial for war crimes, costing it US$1 million (€840,000) in U.S. military funding to fight drug gangs. Fox's refusal to negotiate with leaders he sees as authoritarian have also gotten him into trouble in the region. He strained relations with Cuba, a traditional Mexican ally, and severed all but trade ties with President Hugo Chavez after the Venezuelan leader called him a “puppy dog of imperialism”. His support of the so-called FTAA during last fall's Summit of the Americas in Argentina also angered most of the rest of Latin America. Chavez says he won't restore full relations with Mexico until a new president is elected. Lopez Obrador — on the defensive after months of Calderon attack ads suggesting that his election would usher in Chavez-like rule — says it is time Mexico returned to its long-standing policy of nonintervention. “We're going to be careful to not meddle in the internal life of other countries and other governments, because we are not going to permit them to meddle in the internal affairs of our country,” Lopez Obrador has said, adding that the best foreign policy is a good domestic policy that builds a stable nation. Analysts say Lopez Obrador is clearly directing his message at President Bush. “He's essentially asking the United States not to meddle in Mexico's internal affairs,” said Chuck Collins, a senior scholar at the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies. »

Mis en ligne le 28 juin 2006 à 15H54