Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The Brazilian candidate to head the Inter-American Development Bank, Ilan Goldfajn, won the leadership in an election that pitted two Latin American giants, Mexico and Brazil, against each other. Goldfajn won the election with 80.08% of the votes cast. Argentina, which had nominated a candidate for the same post, withdrew its nomination at the last minute and supported the Brazilian candidate. In second place was the Chilean candidate, with 9.93% of the votes. Mexico’s candidate, Gerardo Esquivel, came third with 8.21% of the votes. The Caribbean candidate, nominated by Trinidad and Tobago, obtained 1.61% of the votes.
Before the election, the candidates had presented their proposals to the IDB member countries’ Board of Governors and Finance Ministers. A relevant detail is that, by tradition, Latin America had permanently appointed the director of the IDB. However, Trump insisted on appointing an American, breaking with the history of balance between North and South in the Americas, taking advantage of the fact that the United States has a decisive weight in the voting, holding 30% of the votes. For the good of all, the balance was restored with the bank’s governors’ and directors’ decision to appoint a Latin American to head the institution.
In this case, the U.S. weight was also crucial to Goldfajn’s appointment, as the weight of its votes favored the Brazilian. The decline of the Argentinean candidate and her country’s support for Brazil resulted in a negotiation so that Argentinean officials could occupy important positions within the Bank. Argentina even negotiated with the U.S. and Canada to secure a majority of votes for Goldfajn.
These facts confirm an intense diplomacy between Argentina, Brazil, the United States, and Canada to put together a winning candidacy. Where was Mexico? Obviously, it did not get fully involved in this race, nor apparently in the relevant elections in previous international organizations.
In the case of appointments to international institutions, the important thing is not so much to be appointed as a member of a commission or group but to head a relevant body. Two cases now stand out as failures. Mexico applied to lead the Pan-American Health Organisation and failed. What is our country doing wrong when lobbying for relevant appointments?
One perception that permeates the diplomatic sphere is that the Mexican foreign minister does not take on the lobbying task necessary to win Mexican candidacies. For example, in the case of the candidacy to head PAHO, it was evident that the Undersecretary of Health, López Gatell, was in charge of the case, with a mistaken strategy of thinking that Cuba would give Mexico the victory due to the support given to the Cuban doctors’ program. They were wrong not to understand the forces at work regarding voting. Meanwhile, Ebrard watches a football match in Qatar, and Mexico loses the IDB election.
And Mexico also loses a supposedly “natural” ally with Argentina, which joins Bolsonaro’s candidacy and not López Obrador’s. Aren’t they close friends?
Behind these failures lies a bigger problem. Mexico does not have the respect and support of its supposed “leftist” allies in the south, such as Chile, Argentina, or Brazil, because Lula supported Bolsonaro’s candidate. And it has lost the respect of its T-MEC/USMCA/CUSMA allies: the United States and Canada. Even leftist Colombia did not support Mexico’s candidacy. Mexico is in the process of isolation and alienation from its traditional bases of support: the relevant countries of the Americas. As Mexico moves closer to Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, rather than Brazil, Argentina, and Chile, we must raise red flags about our diplomacy.
The biggest warning is that López Obrador’s Mexico is a power losing strength, importance, and regional influence. It is also losing the respect of the continent’s countries, exchanging everything for a pantomime of unfounded superiority. Mexico is a declining power.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Comments:
It takes a smarter man than me to understand why AMLO is closer to Trump and Bolsonaro than other left-wingers.
What’s once again disappointing about this is that in early 2018, “emerging markets” in the Western Hemisphere were slated to benefit from an inevitable deglobalization / near-shoring phase, and Mexico was identified as the crown jewel of those markets. Virtually nothing in the AMLO policy book is taking advantage of the country’s natural advantages. Even the diplomacy is stupid
St. Cyr
Further Reading:
Comments from readers are welcome at: [email protected]