Luis Rubio
The China-United States conflict precedes Trump. After years of economic complementarity, for which someone coined the word “Chimerica” to describe a relationship that ties together the relative strengths of each of those nations -manufacture for the Asian giant, creativity and technological innovation for the superpower- these two began to distance themselves from each other. Many were the causes of the separation, but there is no doubt that the disconnect unleashed enormous forces around the world, at the same time accentuating the characteristics of each of the parties. On the U.S. side, the retraction hardened concerning the so-called globalization, while China focused on propping up its strengths, starting with technological education. There are many lessons here for Mexico in both cases.
In a recent article by Sam Dunning entitled China’s Unstoppable Chinese STEM Army: America can’t halt Chinese innovation, the author describes the contrast between U.S. failures in educational matters, above all, its distance regarding technical training, in the face of the Chinese emphasis on science (S), technology (T), engineering (E), and mathematics (M). China, just like many of the most successful Asian nations, dedicated itself to building a future on a solid platform of physical, health, and educational infrastructure. In what concerns education, as this article suggests, the Chinese favor scientific and technical education to increase the productivity of their economy and raise their population’s standard of living. From that logic, they derive an entire ensemble of actions that have permitted them to transform their economy and country in general and establish the basis for their future. As other nations of that region have evidenced, it is yet to be determined whether it is possible to sustain compatibility between their political system and their economic development, but what there is no doubt about is the spectacular transformation that China has undergone over the past four decades.
In the light of that panorama, one must ask oneself what is it that Mexico has achieved during that same period. Like China, Mexico recognized in the eighties that its economy no longer functioned and that major surgery would be required to confront the challenges imposed by a growing and demanding population. From that time, economic reforms and, eventually, political reforms were embarked upon, which modified the economic structure of the country’s core and power structure. However, no one is surprised that, despite an infinity of advances, the result has not been wholly satisfactory and much less so compared to what nations in other latitudes have achieved that invested in educational systems and infrastructure in a systematic fashion.
The appeal that China has for many members of Mexico’s Morena Party in that context is evident. At least one should be grateful that they see China as an example and not Cuba or Venezuela. Ultimately, these Morena constituents understand that what is indeed significant here is, in effect, the economic transformation. Nonetheless, what they yearn for in China is the authoritarian structure of political control that the Chinese government exercises. On the other hand, it does not stop being paradoxical that they are attracted by the results, but they are not willing to do the work to get to a similar place. Where are the infrastructure projects -based on cost-benefit calculations- that would liken Mexico to the Asian giant? Where is the promotion of private enterprises to carry out that transformation? Where can one find an educational system oriented toward technological development? The model that appears attractive to them involves a great deal of work that no one in Morena seems interested in replicating.
Much more relevant is the example that other Asian nations provide that attained similar transformations without the brutal authoritarian controls that distinguish China. Korea, Taiwan, and even Thailand, Vietnam, and Maylasia, not to mention India, illustrate reform processes much closer to those of the Mexican one, some having obtained the consolidation of fully democratic political systems on a par with notable economic and social successes. It is obvious that there isn’t only one way to advance, but the Mexican way has been clumsy, to say the least. In very much the Mexican own style, after the initiation of the reforms, an incomplete but articulate and coherent project, what followed was reactive when not the product of mere occurrences.
And there it is where Mexico persists: in occurrences, dreams, and disputes. The great lesson that the diverse Asian nations depict is their clarity of course and their concentration on constructing conditions that make attaining their objectives possible. Mexico has gone from failure to failure: some administrations liberalize, others impose controls, some worry about security, and others revile it without resolving the underlying problem. It is all talk, but no one confronts the true obstacles that keep the country prostrated.
The past cannot be changed, but instead of seeing Trump as a threat, why not see him (or use him) as an opportunity for taking a great leap forward to provoke the transformation that Mexico obviously requires but that appears to be hindered by all those interests and dogmas?
@lrubiof
Further Reading: