[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.

                          ____________________