[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 18 (Wednesday, February 27, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1246-S1248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REMARKS OF JORGE CASTANEDA, MEXICAN SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to publicly thank my good
friend Jorge Castaneda, Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations, for
taking the time out of his busy schedule to address the U.S.-Spain
Council last weekend.
I have had the pleasure of chairing the U.S.-Spain Council for two
years now, and each year our annual meetings have been informative and
thought-provoking. At these meetings American and Spanish members of
the Council discuss U.S.-Spain bilateral relations, but we also focus
on the unique triangular relationship between the U.S., Spain, and
Latin America, particularly Mexico. Our meetings are always candid,
constructive, and informative, and I believe that they are particularly
valuable for our membership. Part of what makes our annual meetings so
successful is the high quality of the speakers that attend our
conferences. This was truly evident when Secretary Castaneda delivered
the address at our closing dinner last Friday in the Senate Caucus
Room.
Having been an elected public servant for over 25 years, I have
attended numerous dinners and receptions, and have heard countless
dinner speeches. I can honestly say that Secretary Castaneda's speech
ranks among the best I have ever heard. In his insightful remarks,
Secretary Castaneda detailed his analysis of Mexican political history,
and outlined his vision for the future of democracy in Mexico while
drawing several parallels between Mexican political liberalization and
the democratization of Spain after the fall of Franco. Secretary
Castaneda's remarks were astute, thought-provoking, and engaging.
Indeed, they are among the most comprehensive analyses of modern Mexico
to date. I think that my colleagues, especially those with an interest
in the Western Hemisphere, would have enjoyed and greatly benefited
from the substance of these remarks had they been present at the
dinner.
Dr. Jorge Castaneda is uniquely qualified to speak about Mexico's
political situation. He is a man of enormous talent and experience, a
leading intellectual, and now an important diplomat. He has thought and
written extensively about international relations, and particularly
Mexico's role in the global community. He was a world renowned academic
before joining the Fox Administration, and has taught at the National
Autonomous University of Mexico and at New York University. He is the
author of twelve books, published in English and Spanish, and he has
been a frequent contributor to noted publications such as Newsweek
magazine, El Pais, and Reforma.
As Secretary of Foreign Relations, Secretary Castaneda has worked to
build the image of a safe, honest, and peaceful Mexico that respects
human rights and engages in political and social reform. He has also
sought very successfully to strengthen his government's involvement on
the global stage, both in this Hemisphere and in Europe.
In light of the fact that my colleagues were not able to be present
to hear Secretary Castaneda speak, I ask unanimous consent that his
remarks be printed in the Record. I urge my colleagues to take the time
to read them. I know that they will enjoy and be better informed having
done so.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Ladies and gentlemen: I want to thank the U.S.-Spanish
Council and my good friend Senator Chris Dodd for inviting me
to join you here this evening. I am grateful for this
opportunity to share with you some thoughts on Mexico's
foreign policy.
As a result of Mexico's far-reaching process of reform and
renewal, the government of President Vicente Fox has acquired
a legitimacy that is almost without precedent in our country.
This has had a profound impact on President Fox's domestic
agenda. It has also forced us to rethink and retool our
foreign policy so that it responds to the needs and
priorities of a new democratic Mexico. Times have changed.
Things have changed. And, Lampedusa not withstanding, let me
assure you that not everything will remain the same.
This process of reform and renewal is uncharted territory
for us in Mexico, but it should not be unfamiliar to those
who have lived through or have studied democratic transitions
in other countries. In the past few decades, many
authoritarian regimes have come to an end not as result of
violence, but through a peaceful and orderly process of
democratization. Several factors came into play to make these
transitions possible. One of the most significant among them
was the growing role of civil society as a source of moral
and political pressure, both at home and abroad. Also
prominent was the influence of the media, both national and
international, constantly challenging and undermining
authoritarian regimes through public exposure. And obviously,
the most significant factor was the balance of political
forces within each nation and their willingness to enter into
agreements that would facilitate the transition to a
democratic regime.
All these factors have also been at play in Mexico, and
they deserve a detailed examination in order to fully
understand the country's recent democratic transition and its
prospects for consolidation. However, I wish to focus my
remarks here today on another crucial issue that does not
often receive the attention it merits, in spite of the
potentially decisive role that it can play in the
consolidation of a democratic regime: the influence of
international affairs and foreign policy in strengthening
democracy.
There is often a positive correlation between democracy and
international engagement or conversely between
authoritarianism and isolation. That is why undemocratic
governments tend to be defensive in their engagement with
others. The less democratic a country is, the more likely
that it will view the outside world with suspicion and will
interpret any criticism as an affront to its sovereignty and
to the rule of
[[Page S1247]]
the few. Undemocratic governments today may pay utmost
attention to domestic issues, while they regard international
matters with mistrust, at best, or with fear and hostility,
at worst.
The end of authoritarianism has a two-fold effect: it means
building and consolidating democratic institutions and, at
the same time, leaving behind the defensive and inward-
looking attitude that had kept our country at a distance from
the world community. This complex interplay between foreign
policy and democracy has been part of other transitions, and
I believe that Mexico can draw some important lessons from
those experiences.
Perhaps the most relevant case for Mexico is the Spanish
transition. In a recent book, aptly entitled ``The Future is
No Longer what it Used to Be,'' former President Felipe
Gonzalez and journalist Juan Luis Cebrian provide a brilliant
account of the political transition that allowed Spain to
overcome its authoritarian legacy and consolidate a
democratic regime. Some of the agonizingly complex issues
that Spanish society had to resolve in this process are
also pertinent, mutatis mutandis, to other countries: How
to ensure that age-old authoritarian temptations would be
effectively resisted and eventually eliminated? How to
prevent new conflicts and long standing fractures within
society from derailing the democratic process?
The Spanish transition to democracy boldly and creatively
addressed these questions. The remarkably successful outcome
of this process owed much to the responsible, stabilizing
leadership of Spain's politica elites and media. This was
most singularly achieved through the 1977 Constitution and
the celebrated ``Pactos de la Moncloa'', which brought all
major Spanish political forces together to agree on a basic
framework for the Spanish State and for economic and social
policy. But equally important was the role played by Spanish
foreign policy in deepening and strengthening democracy, as
well as, change across the board.
They keyb to this process was Spain's decisive shift
towards European integration, which contributed enormously to
democratic stability. The first crucial step in this
direction was the country's decision to become a full fledged
Party to the NATO, which Spain joined on May 1982, submitting
its continued membership to a national referendum in 1986.
This effectively put an end to its relative isolation and
promoted the modernization and democratization of the armed
forces, which henceforth were obliged to adhere to the same
professional standards in place throughout the NATO's member
nations.
The most significant foreign policy measure as far as the
consolidation of democracy is concerned, however, was the
decision to join the European Economic Community, as the
European Union was known then. There was wide consensus among
Social political leaders about the need to bind Madrid to
Brussels, that is to say, to bring Spain into close
association with the EEC nations, anchoring the modernization
and democratization of the country within the regional
institutions of a democratic Europe. Spain's request for
entry had been submitted as early as 1977. But, it was
President Felipe Gonzalez and the Partido Socialista Obrero
Espanol, who explicitly linked foreign policy and democratic
consolidation as a State goal. They understood that the move
towards Europe and the move towards democracy were
complementary processes: if Spain was to be part of the
European Economic Community and enjoy the benefits that this
membership afforded in terms of trade and finance, it also
had to maintain social policies and political institutions
that were consistent with those of the EEC as a whole.
In assuming these responsibilities within the framework of
NATO and the EEC, Spain was acting freely and on the basis of
its own sovereign interests. The new demands placed on Spain
by European membership were unquestionably binding, but were
also the result of an internal and public debate and, as
such, a deliberate choice by the Spanish people. It is in
this sense that the importance of the foreign factor in the
Spanish transition can contribute to understand the current
process of change in Mexico.
The fact that foreign policy is a key element of Mexico's
transition is neither a whim nor a fluke. Its source is the
presidential election of 2000, which stands as a milestone in
Mexico's recent political development. But it is also a
purposeful response to the changes that have occurred in the
international arena over the past decade, not least of which
is the emergence of a growing international consensus
regarding both the legitimacy of democratic institutions
above all others and the respect for fundamental human
rights, including basic civil and political rights, and the
rule of law.
Under these new conditions, it is imperative to bring
Mexico's relations with the rest of the world up to date. and
in order to do so, President Fox established a two-pronged
strategy. Firstly, it was necessary to provide greater depth
to our long term relationship with the United States, which
for historical as well as geopolitical reasons remains--and
will continue to be in the foreseeable future--Mexico's most
important and closest foreign partner. And secondly, given
the hegemonic position of the US in the world area and the
asymmetry of our bilateral relationship, Mexico needed to
develop an additional major policy axis that would bring
greater balance to our international agenda. This is the
reasoning behind the country's more active engagement in
regional and multilateral fora, such as the UN, the OAS, and
other international mechanisms over the past year or so. But
in addition to their own intrinsic merits and justifications
these two external guidelines include fundamental domestic
policy policy connotations.
They obviously face a series of constraints. Admittedly,
our country today cannot rely, as Spain did, on an already
existing institutional framework such as the one provided by
the European Economic Community. There are no established
supranational North American or regional institutions which
may serve as an anchor for the process of democratization and
modernization that we have undertaken; nor are there
structural or cohesion funds through which financial
assistance could be channeled to reduce inequalities between
different countries and regions and foster socioeconomic
convergence among European nations, as was the case within
the EEC. In the absence of this framework, we need
to actively and creatively develop new institutions that
will promote North American prosperity and, in the
process, help Mexico achieve a successful and definitive
transition to democracy.
That is why we have, first, re-launched our bilateral
relationship with the United States, introducing new issues,
such as migration and energy seeking consistently and
systematically to engage all actors across the spectrum of US
society; and, most importantly, it explains why we are trying
to establish a new conceptual framework for our relationship.
What we envision is a new set of standing institutions that
would allow for the free movement of capital, goods and
services, and also people, so that we may gradually bring
about a greater degree of uniformity in the levels of
economic and social development within North America. This
will require designing creative mechanisms to transfer
resources for social cohesion and infrastructure, opening up
our borders, and North American institution building to
regulate and oversee this process of integration between the
three countries. This may sound overtly ambitious and even
far-fetched. But it should be doable and, more importantly,
it is a right step in the same direction that was chosen over
a decade ago for not entirely the right reasons.
Indeed, NAFTA was meant--and largely sold--as a means to
lock into place economic convergence and macroeconomic
policies. This was done, however, in a typically
authoritarian fashion in Mexico, without authentic debate,
transparency or consensus and some of the Treaty's most
obvious shortcomings may be attributed directly to this.
Playing a more active role in the multilateral arena is the
other road we have chosen abroad to consolidate democracy
domestically. We are convinced that it is in Mexico's best
interest to adapt itself to the new rules-based international
system that is gradually emerging and we therefore now
subscribe to the argument that certain principles are
universal and enforceable above and beyond the sovereignty of
the State. In this regard, also, there are important
precedents in Mexico's recent past. The so-called
``democratic clause'' that was part and parcel of Mexico's
Free Trade Agreement signed with the European Union in 1999
is evidence that, even before the full onset of democracy in
Mexico, the country was being compelled to adhere to certain
basic international standards if it wanted to have a more
active international profile.
This is why Mexico has recently taken a more proactive role
in international fora fighting racial discrimination and
promoting the rights of indigenous peoples in the World
Conference held in Durban last year; or strengthening
democratic values and institutions in the Americas though the
Interamerican Democratic Charter and throughout the world by
joining the Community of Democracies; or adopting a more
consistent stance in the proceedings of the UN Human Rights
Commission; or actively working to increase transparency and
combat corruption during the recent International Anti-
Corruption Conference held in Prague; or hosting the UN
sponsored International Conference on Financing for
Development to be held next month in Monterrey; or hosting
the forthcoming Ministerial Conference of the World Trade
Organization in 2003.
These actions and the commitments not only promote key
foreign policy interests, but they also, and most crucially,
help to anchor Mexico's emerging democracy and process of
change. They will contribute to prevent a future dislocation
of the democratic process or the temptation to return to the
authoritarianism of previous decades.
Let me give you an example. The government of President Fox
has radically altered the country's traditional international
stance on human rights, and has recently taken a number of
important steps to guarantee their full observance within the
country. Prominent prisoners, such as activists Teodor
Cabrera and Rodolfo Montiel, fishermen Leocadio Ascencio and
Aurelio Guzman, and Mr. Jose Gallardo, a former member of the
Mexican armed forces, were released from jail as a result of
the President's decision to review their cases and find
adequate solutions that fully respect the rule of law. They
are part of an ambitious agenda for reform that has already
allowed for the liberation of nearly a hundred other
prisoners who had been detained because of their activities
during the Chiapas uprising; the appointment of a Special
Prosecutor to investigate past human rights violations, the
subscription or ratification of 13 international treaties on
issues such as discrimination against
[[Page S1248]]
women, the exploitation of children or crimes against
humanity or asking the Mexican Congress to ratify the Statute
of Rome creating the International Criminal Court; and an
agreement for the establishment of a regional delegation of
the International Committee of the Red Cross in Mexico. But
they are also, first and foremost, actions that seek to
guarantee that international surveillance on these issues
will strengthen democracy and human rights at home.
Ladies and Gentlemen: By overcoming authoritarian rule,
Mexico is leaving behind its former defensive attitude and
reaching out to the world in search for a new identity, just
as Spain did more than 25 years ago. But while the
similarities between the Spanish and the Mexican transitions
are significant, the differences are equally revealing.
Whereas Spaniards were able to come to terms with their
authoritarian past, Mexicans have yet to achieve
reconciliation and a common sense of purpose of its real and
longstanding democratic institutions by addressing the
grievances of recent past history. Whereas the Spanish people
immediately experienced the tangible benefits afforded by EEC
membership, through infrastructure and cohesion funds aimed
at overcoming backwardness and establishing a level playing
field within the Community, Mexican society has yet to fully
realize the enormous advantages to be gained by establishing
similar mechanisms to boost economic and social development
in Mexico and by embracing the idea of a North American
community. Whereas Spain was able to anchor its democratic
transition in an existing European Community, Mexico must
strive to build the institutions of true North American
Community. And whereas Spain's entry in the EEC impinged upon
Spanish sovereignty, as indeed it affected the sovereignty of
all other EEC members, NAFTA, a truly Anglo-Saxon
institution, left domestic politics and social policy, two
fundamental attributes of sovereignty, largely untouched.
This latter point is crucial. Mexico, today, as Spain
purposefully did back in the eighties, seeks supranational
rules and regulations that bind and ensure its democratic
transition and enhance its prosperity and ensure its
democratic stability. This seems to me a more than fair trade
off.
The jury is still out on Mexico's democratic consolidation.
If we are to succeed, the leaders of all major political
parties in Mexico must have the courage to put some of their
differences aside and work together for a common purpose. But
our North American partners must also show themselves willing
to take on the challenge of developing a new vision for our
region, one that can radically change for the better the
lives of millions of people throughout Mexico, the U.S. and
Canada.
If there has been a clear and consistent trait throughout
the world in recent decades, it is the tendency towards
integration, which in turn has resulted in stronger
democratic institutions and the adherence to basic universal
standards of behavior. This is not a spontaneous or natural
process, even though there may be historical forces at play.
Rather, it must be complemented by deliberate action. This is
exactly what the government of President Fox has set out to
achieve: to use foreign policy as a crowbar to open up our
country and help consolidate democracy and change human
rights in Mexico. Succeeding in this endeavor is not only
critical for Mexico; it is an issue of central importance to
the future of North America, to our hemisphere and to the
rest of the international community.
Let me conclude by quoting the Spanish-British historian
Charles Powell, who ends his splendid work on the history of
Spain after Franco by stating--not without some British
reserve and understatement--that ``it would be unfair not to
acknowledge that what was achieved [by this transition]
undoubtedly constitutes a cause for collective pride''.
I sincerely hope that, 26 years from now, a future
historian of Mexico can express similar feelings about our
transition to democracy. It is this hope that spurs many of
us in government, and throughout society at large, to do
everything we can to ensure that our country lives up to its
present challenge. And I am sure that all of you will
understand why we in Mexico wholeheartedly believe that it is
a cause that our partners should also embrace.
Thank you.
____________________