Post on 12-May-2023
Mitzi Ambriz
IR 550
Professor Skonieczny
Topic: The influence of Free Trade Rhetoric in State
Participation
Introduction
During the NAFTA at Ten Conference in 2002, Mexican
President Carlos Salinas de Gortari made the following statement,
“At the end of 1989, the world reality changed drastically. We
found ourselves facing a major global transformation, and with
it, a new political scenario for Mexico... We let it be known:
We want trade, not aid…” (Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars: NAFTA at Ten Conference Report, 2002, p. 29-30). This
statement shows that President Salinas recognized economic
integration, through free trade, was the new model Mexico had to
adopt if it wanted to compete in a global market. This systematic
shift from trade to aid reflected a global trend toward a new
neoliberal world order that based on the principles of open
markets.
At the same NAFTA at Ten Conference in 2002, President
Salinas also said, “In Mexico, we had to build a consensus in
favor of the negotiations. Indeed, a consensus existed, but it
was in opposition... Through persuasion, dialogue, and intense
give and take, we managed to create a space for the discussion of
the free trade agreement among the political actors and in public
opinion,”(p. 31). In other words, Mexico’s experience with NAFTA
illustrates that the shift to a free trade regime did not go
without controversy. In many cases, free trade resistance is
answered with a persuasive appeal framed by the discussion on the
benefits of a neoliberal economic system. As President Salinas
stated, the strategy that determined the success of NAFTA was
that of rhetoric that aligned with other modern, neoliberal, and
progressive states.
It appears then that this international economic
liberalization trend is motivated by the strategic use of
language just as much, if not more so than direct economic gains.
This brings me to question the following: How does the rhetoric
influence and encourage state participation in a neoliberal free
trade regime? In this paper I argue that an existing successful
rhetorical strategy makes it possible for small or low-income
states to pursue fee trade policies regardless of economic gains
or losses. Lower-income countries feel inclined to participate in
transnational free trade agreements because of the discussions on
globalization, development, and state identity. By applying a
constructivist theoretical approach to my analysis, I will
demonstrate how the rhetoric of free trade shifts the
international norms of states toward embracing neoliberal
policies (Goldsmith & Posner, 2000).
Many scholars, as far back as Aristotle, study the role of
rhetoric to be as a crucial element in the art of persuasion. The
theoretical debate of the place of rhetoric in international
relations has only recently become emerged within scholarly
literature. This debate is best framed between the critiques of
rational choice behavior (i.e. realism) and social rule-based
behavior (i.e. constructivism), and how they either lack or
incorporate the role that language plays in defining reality.
Language is in itself a symbolic system of shared meanings that
facilitates how we communicate and understand patterns of
behavior. The intersection between language and politics happens
when political concepts are applied normatively in order to
produce a desired dialogue. Rhetorical strategies are often
produced by the use of moral and legal arguments, emphasis on key
values, and even binaries that frame political and economic
alternatives as contradicting. The very nature of trans-national
relationships is defined by subjective political concepts that
justify state actions through a rhetorical strategy.
My argument requires a thorough analysis of the rhetoric of
free trade. Without the binary dialogue of globalization,
development and free trade theory would lack the substance needed
to mobilize entire continents toward economic liberalization. The
exact definition of globalization is interpreted in a variety of
ways, but they all recognize the characteristics of innovation
and integration of diverse societies (Connell, 2007). Both sides
of the debate of globalization reveal the dangerous assumption
that this global interdependence is inevitable (Skonieczny,
2010). When determining the criteria for economic success, in the
context of today’s world, countries are now required to adopt
free trade policies in order to adequately compete in
international markets. Neoliberal principles also benefit from
strategic dialogue. There is an emphasis free trade puts on
comparative advantage, economic and political cooperation,
regional trade blocs, and additional non-economic incentives in
order to appeal regardless of the unpredictability of optimizing
trade (Trentmann, 1998).
A vulnerable international economy throughout the 20th
century gave room for the discourse of free trade to come in and
shift international economic practices away from the
protectionist status quo (Bergsten, 1996). Globalization became
this new phenomenon that encouraged modernization by integrating
different economic systems and countries of all stages in
development. My paper will attempt to demonstrate how rhetoric
positively influences a state’s participation in free trade
agreements by: a) framing the theoretical debate of the role of
rhetoric and language in international relations; b) looking at
free trade rhetoric in the context of globalization; c)
identifying the non-economic benefits of free trade; and d)
looking at a case of study of Mexico’s neoliberal transformation.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Debate on Rhetoric
Academic scholars have debated the place of rhetoric across
multiple disciplines. Aristotle first recognized the multifaceted
purpose of rhetoric in his work, where he argued that, “Rhetoric
may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the
available means of persuasion”. The technical characteristics of
the use of rhetoric are the modes of persuasion. Therefore, the
core characteristics of rhetorical analysis can be seen across
almost any subject. By applying Aristotle’s rhetorical awareness
to the discipline of international relations, scholars contribute
a more complex and strategic understanding of the persuasive
discourse within foreign affairs (Beer & Hariman).
International relation scholars have only recently
incorporated the effects of language into the theoretical debate
(Beer & Hariman, 1996; Risse, 2000; Fierke, 2002; Goldmsith &
Posner, 2002; Zarfesky, 2004; Dryzek, 2010). The current debate
concerning language in international relations is greatly shaped
by the controversy between rational choice theorists (i.e.
realism) and social constructivism (Goldsmith & Posner, 2002;
Fierke, 2002; Risse, 2000; Beer & Hariman, 1996). Goldsmith and
Posner critique the theoretical paradigms that approach
international relations from a rational choice perspective
(2000). Their argument dismisses realism and rational choice that
preoccupy nations behavioral assumptions with power and self-
interest (Goldsmith & Posner, 2000).
Goldsmith and Posner are able to rebuttal realist
assumptions by exploring the prevalence of moral and legal
rhetoric in international affairs. In their article they state
the following, “When a nation recognizes other nations or
governments, the mere utterance of words alters numerous
international relationships involving diplomatic rights and
privileges, the capacity to make treaties, and much more” (p. 4).
By looking at the signals and talk models of nations’ engaging
with one-another, their research found that moral and legal
rhetoric serve the following functions: give the impression that
a nation has a functional political system, reduce distrust from
oppositional interests, and facilitate coordination.
Following the realist critique, Goldsmith and Posner also
discuss constructivism’s concern for language in international
relations. They argue that moral and legal rhetoric are the core
of the constructivism’s effectiveness (Goldsmith & Posner, 2002).
From a constructivist theoretical approach, the role of rhetoric
in international relations is not a grand puzzle; it is simply
how behavioral norms operate. Constructivism recognizes culture
and international norms as the factors that shape national
identities and leadership preferences. Talking about norms and
values implies that there is a belief in such norms, and it is
through moral and legal rhetoric that they are justified and
complied with.
Goldsmith and Posner use one of the most blatant examples of
the use of moral and legal rhetoric to justify actions, Nazi
Germany. This article argues that the Holocaust gained support
through Hitler’s strategic use of moral and legal rhetoric that
framed a legitimate humanitarian concern. Although the
justification in the expansion of Nazi Germany was said to
intervene in the mistreatment of the German-speaking population
and relieve economic strain, Hitler’s agenda strived for maximum
power and self-interest (Goldsmith & Posner, 2000). This early
analysis of Nazi Germany allows Goldsmith and Posner to
demonstrate how using morale and international law as a
rhetorical strategy lead to the success of a campaign. With the
example of Nazi Germany, the article further argues that the use
of such rhetorical strategies does not determine compliance with
morality and international law.
Fierke (2002) begins her critique by framing this IR debate
to emphasize that the question should not be whether language is
important, but how or why language is important. The purpose of
her article is to clarify between rationalist and constructivist
assumptions; she critically analyzes Waltz and Wendt’s
theoretical contributions. Her critique on Waltzian neorealism is
that it ignored all cultural accountability and couldn’t account
for change. Her take on Wendt or constructivism, on the other
hand, is that it assumed an objective reality of the world and
language. Both theoretical approaches, she argued, focused too
narrowly on empirical work and not the role of language, logic
and the world. The concern for the study of language is then
placed in post structuralism and positivism (Fierke; Dryzek,
2010; Beer & Hariman, 1996). The article argues that despite
constructivist attempts to keep language off the table, Wendt’s
social approach to international relations allows state identity,
interests, and norms to transform. At the core of these social
transformations are the very dialectic interactions and exchanges
that shape the socialization process.
Fierke states, “If the meaning of concepts is fixed prior to
the investigation, and then compared with the world, these
categories may dictate what is seen” (p. 342). Therefore, when
language is added to the study of international affairs, she
argues speech serves a strategic use as well as a communicative
use. The strategic uses of speech serve to influence compliance
for certain goals, regardless of whether threats or gains are the
ones generating the pressure. On the other hand, the
communicative function of speech acts serve to reach a mutual
understanding and consensus based on shared meanings of the
message content. Social constructivism can then widely
incorporate the use of rhetoric as a “normative entrepreneur” in
order to mobilize states to act appropriately. After all, the
consistent discussion of norms suggests acceptance and a strong
belief of such norms.
Risse frames the theoretical debate on rhetoric between the
rational choice (i.e. realism) “logic of consequentialism” and
the rule-guided behavior (i.e. constructivism) “logic of
appropriateness” (2010). The logic behind these two different
theoretical paradigms frames a dichotomy of cultural norms vs.
material interests and identities vs. actors. Risse does however
argue that neither of these idealistic logics occurs in their
purest form. At its simplest, communicative action in world
politics is social interaction with the purpose of reaching a
mutual understanding based on a reasoned consensus. Although she
critiques the social constructivist logic of appropriateness,
Risse acknowledges that this rule-guided behavior is a conscious
process that applies appropriate norms through communicative
actions.
The puzzle Goldsmith and Posner, Fierke, and Risse explore
is not just how, but why talk influences behavior. There is a
symbiotic relationship between talk and action. Nations’ talk
fulfills that which their actions don’t; that is to soften
enemies, avoid alienation, and pacify national opposition
(Goldsmith & Posner). Fierke also argues that the use of speech
is intended as a form of action in itself. Similarly, Dryzek
(2010) studied the place of rhetoric in politics and argued that
rhetoric facilitates makeup, representation, and the audience’s
commitment or disposition. Although Dryzek work is centered
around deliberative democracy, his analysis serves multiple
subject matters in that he states, “Reason cannot escape
rhetoric” (p. 321). His work argues that rhetoric promotes a very
deliberative and effective linkage to reason. He ties this belief
back to post-structuralism, which credit “rhetoricality” as the
core of all reason giving. By using a lawyer’s ability to play
with creative explanations for evidence as a metaphor, Dryzek
demonstrates his argument that effective rhetoric serves to
provide the burden of persuasion rather than the burden of proof.
Dryzek allows us to make the transition from the abstract use of
rhetoric into a tangible analysis of specific actors’ use of
rhetoric, in that she bridges rhetorical representation
differently among actors.
Zarfesky (2004) is able to move past the theoretical debate
of what rhetoric does and address how it is that we know what
rhetoric does. His study on presidential rhetoric looks at 8 case
studies ranging form George Washington, to George W. Bush in
order to see how presidents rely on the power of rhetorical
definition. Zarfesky indeed believes that presidential rhetoric
defines political reality, thus serves as the primary power of
the presidency. He argues that there is an overly simplistic
understanding of the nature of rhetorical transactions and the
process of communication; rhetoric is deserving of being a
discipline in itself. Regardless, his study finds quantifiable
data by analyzing the rhetoric in public speeches given by
presidents and the effects it has on the public’s dispositions
and beliefs. By focusing on the narrow text choices framed around
argument selection, phrasing, organization, and style Zarfesky
found that rhetoric not only produces changes in audience
attitudes, but also reflect specific values and perspectives of
the president. Therefore, Zarfesky concludes that the political
position and resourceful means of communication available to the
president, shape the context in which the public views political
reality.
The Rhetoric of Globalization
To further illuminate the role of rhetoric in the free trade
debate, we have to understand the rhetoric of globalization. In
the context of international economics, globalization
particularly refers to the opening/deregulation and integration
of national markets with global markets (Harris, 2005). This
rapid breakdown of boundaries goes beyond economic means; it is a
multidimensional concept that serves to perpetuate
interdependence.
Connell’s (2007) work explores how we should attempt to
understand this new phenomenon: globalization. She goes on to
argue that the abundance of literature on the concept of
globalization comes from the global North, therefore lacks an
all-inclusive analysis (Connell; Mittleman, 2000). In principle,
the academic discussion of globalization emphasizes a “global
society” thus includes the global south, but in practice there is
a genuine absence of a global south narrative. This North-centric
approach to globalization studies constructs a hierarchy, and
even a dichotomy in the international economic order (Mittleman).
This privileged bias has allowed the concept of globalization to
transform from a mere economic strategy, into this idea of “a new
global society” (Connell, p. 370). Such a shift in the
theoretical understanding of globalization has allowed the
concept to become an undisputable new world system. Connell sates
that the framework of the debate on globalization no longer
questions the factual basis of the phenomenon.
This new “global society”, as Connell’s work suggests, has
developed based on the idea that the world is growing closer. The
abstract links that have virtually shrunk time and space due to
rapid political, economic, and social interdependence allows
globalization advocates to cluster diverse societies into a
“world-as-a-whole” (p. 370). In doing so, an objective global
society emphasizes and strives for modernity. Rhetoric further
facilitates the irreversibility of globalization. To further
demonstrate how globalization theory reifies a debate that
struggles to find any other alternative to what has been
previously discussed, Connell identifies the dialectic
dichotomies framed. Among the most prominent are: global versus
local, homogeneity versus difference, and dispersed versus
concentrated power. Using language that illustrates oppositional
goals when discussing the development and marketing strategies of
neoliberalism transcends the inability to overcome globalization
theory as a fact.
Additional scholarly work further explores the acceptance
of the process of globalization (Skonieczny, 2010). Skonieczny’s
article identifies a persistent assumption of inevitability that
comes from both resistance and advocates debating globalization.
Framing a modern economic system as a natural force of evolution,
Skonieczny states, is a dangerous discursive route that benefits
neoliberalism. Although empirical consequences of neoliberal
policies can demonstrate that otherwise, understanding this
debate in the context of an inevitable new world order leaves no
political or economic alternatives. Her work argues that the
misunderstanding of contingency and inevitability to be one in
the same have allowed this dominant discourse on globalization to
go unchallenged (p. 3).
Framing a globalization debate around contingency needs to
be approached with an understanding beyond that of eventuality
and uncertainty, otherwise it is easy to revert the discussion
back to a lack of alternatives for the phenomenon. The article
explores the potential for alternative discourses for the debate
of globalization and even effective resistance to neoliberal
policies if contingency was better understood as the very
disruption of said alternative means. Otherwise, framing
contingency as oppositional from inevitability. Ultimately,
Skonieczny argues that it is this very relationship between
contingency and inevitability, as either equal or dichotomies,
which perpetuate the dominant assumption that globalization, is
here to stay.
Clarke (2003) contributes to the study of globalization by
studying how this “apocalyptic view of globalization” influences
the transformation of welfare states; welfare states being
developing countries. The central force of globalization is in
the emphasis put on economics over politics. Clarke explains this
power in the global capital to be a result of how interdependent
markets now serve as institutions that dominate coordination
among states. The interpretation of globalization as inevitable
further gives free markets the power to globally transform
economic, political, and cultural trends by dissolving barriers.
Clarke’s work also points out a very important relationship,
which is that between the nations-state versus the market; he
identifies this as “another failed binary” (p. 204). This failed
binary is the result of literature that comes from political-
institutionalism that frames the state as having challenging
principles to market and capital relations. Such a conflict of
interest and interference between the state and capital is
particular to neoliberal philosophy.
Free Trade Rhetoric
Although Maline and Kubota (2005) state that “Rising
international trade flows are a primary component of
globalization” (p. 107), they admit that the deviation from the
protectionist status quo in place before 1975, especially from
less-developed countries, has been a surprise. The globalization
of free trade predicted that the integration of the global north
and south through cooperative multilateral open markets would
terminate conflict and enhance prosperity for all countries
(Bergsten, 1996). International relation scholars have explored
the significant ideas and values that encouraged the discussion
of free trade and how they have shaped the international
political economy. By looking at the historical relationship
between political economy and political culture in 19th century
Britain, Trentmann (1998) argues that the power of free trade
begins with the ideological constructions of the consumer,
national identity, and moral and civic virtues. Trentmann
disagrees with the simple logic that self-seeking material
interest glues politics and the economy to a free open market.
Instead he argues that it is through cultural meanings and
practices of political ideas, values, and discourses that have
shaped a consensus for free trade.
Free trade emphasizes specialization as the most efficient
way to optimize a nation’s comparative advantage (Trentmann). By
applying the appeal of the golden rule to comparative advantage,
free trade further promotes reciprocity. Goyal and Joshi (2006)
further contribute to the implications of reciprocity within
bilateral free trade agreements. By signing bilateral free trade
agreements, countries facilitate trade by lowering import
tariffs, and even eliminating them altogether. In doing so,
automatic benefits come to domestic firms as they gain greater
access to foreign markets and individual consumers benefit from
lower prices. Goyal and Johsi’s article argues that because there
is an assumed assumption of optimizing social welfare, small and
low-cost countries have a higher incentive to form bilateral free
trade agreements with high cost countries. The assumption of
bilateralism in global free trade agreements serves as a
consistent building bloc in the creation of NAFTA and GATT.
Hakim (1993) argues the benefits of free trade in the
context of Latin America’s participation in the Western
hemisphere free trade arena. Hakim argued that in the inability
to predict gains and losses within the time frame that free trade
agreements have been negotiated; the primary gain is a
psychological boost. Expected benefits consists of an increase in
exports and export-oriented manufacturing, insurance effects,
greater foreign investment flows inward, improved economic
coordination, as well as greater political cooperation. According
to Hakim, the interest in a Western Hemispheric free trade system
could not have had better timing. The post-Cold War era had the
US fixated on security while Latin America countries benefitted
from the internal restructuring that came out of free trade. The
security interest the US could fulfill through free trade
policies can be explained by McDonald’s (2004), exploration of
how commercial peace literature emphasizes that free trade
promotes peace. The removal of protective barriers to
international commerce creates a state of economic
interdependence between states, which makes conflict less likely.
The article credits this phenomenon to free trade’s practice of
specialization for creating a dependable state of resources due
to the international division of labor.
According to Hakim’s argument, Latin America sought to take
full advantage of the offer the US presented them. The rapid
trend toward neoliberalism was forming regional trading blocs,
such as the European Union. Latin America lacked confidence in
export-led growth and its geopolitical location was of interest
to US security, hence the identity nations, beyond Mexico,
benefitted substantially from joining the US led Western
hemispheric trading bloc. Hakim’s article further explores how
the US did not conceive free trade as an economic recovery plan
for Latin America, but rather a step to self-help. This form of
self-help came from the national economic reform domestic
policies were required to take if they were to enter into free
trade agreements with the US. domestic restructuring of economic
policies within Latin American countries strived to build self-
sustaining open markets that could attract foreign direct
investment in order to compete on a global level.
METHODOLOGY
In order to fully comprehend the relationship between
rhetoric and a nations transition into a neoliberal free trade
regime, my paper will examine the specific case of Mexico’s
neoliberal transition. First I will be looking at Mexico’s
historical context beginning with the country’s post-
revolutionary socioeconomic reforms applied the first half of the
20th century. I will also be looking at the economic and
political reforms implemented between 1950 up until Mexico’s
economic crisis in 1982. By understanding Mexico’s chronological
shift in economic policy, my analysis of rhetorical trends can
better understand the context under which the discourse is
happening. Furthermore, my awareness of the historical context of
the presidential rhetoric will allow my analysis to be inclusive
and critical of all contributing factors to Mexico’s neoliberal
transition; ultimately ruling rhetorical trends as the greatest
indicator.
The concern for rhetorical trends will come from my analysis
of ten Mexican presidential inauguration speeches between 1940
and 1994. The electronic database “500 anos de Mexico en
documentos” (i.e. 500 Years of Mexico in Documents) will serve as
the primary source for the ten presidential speeches, having
translated the documents from Spanish to English myself.
Beginning in 1940 there is a solid post-revolutionary discourse
that will serve as the foundation for contrasting the neoliberal
transition seen in the latter. By 1994 Mexico had implemented the
core agreement for their neoliberal transformation, The National
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), ratified in 1994, which created the
second largest trading bloc in the world, a righteous competitor
to the European Union (Harris, 2005). Mexico’s partnership with
its rich northern neighbors, the USA and Canada, allowed their
developing state to receive for international recognition that
can be immediately analyzed in President Ernesto Zedilla Ponce’s
inauguration of 1994, following the neoliberal campaign of
President Salinas.
After identifying the general pattern of language choice
across these layers of discourse, my paper will identify
consistent themes within free trade rhetoric. As discussed in my
literature review, globalization and free trade literature
emphasize key concepts such as new global order, reciprocity,
modernity, comparative advantage, and so forth. By using such a
method, we will begin to see the consistent trend that frames
neoliberal free trade regimes as the preferred policy reform for
lower income states.
CASE STUDY
Modern Mexico experienced a period of rapid economic growth
between 1940 and 1970 known as the “Mexican Miracle” (Hamnett,
1999, p. 178). During this period, political economic reform was
heavily influenced by the Mexican Revolution and even considered
a post-revolutionary product where the state had a larger role to
play. The turn into the 20th century saw an increase in external
pressures toward industrialization and integration into the
international system due to the outbreak of World War II, the
Cold War, economic deficits, and neoliberalism all over the
world. In the case of Mexico, inadequate infrastructure required
domestic political stabilization before such progress could
happen.
Source: Kehoe, T. J.,Meza, F. (2011). Catch-up growth followed by
stagnation: Mexico, 1950-2010. Latin American Journal of Economics, 48(2),
227-268.
Figure 3 above shows Mexico’s annual GDP growth between 1875
and 2010 within the historical context of the country. Between
1905 and 1920 we see a gap that represents a lost decade and a
half for the economic growth for Mexico due to the expansion and
outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. Although significant reform
had taken place in Mexico in the late 19th century, in the year
1910 Mexico saw the revolution transform into an armed movement
(Knight & Rodriguez, 2011). Such a rebellion following Porfirio
Diaz’s dictatorship (1876-1911), gained mobility because of the
opposition against the rise of capitalism, as it contributed to
the marginalization of peasant populations. Even upon the
Mexico’s independence and ratification of their constitution in
1917, the country experienced massive food shortages that further
distressed the rural populations who could not reap from the
countries industrial sector. To further exasperate the Mexican
government’s economic struggle, the country lost access to
international credit because of the internal revolutionary
warfare. Nevertheless by 1940 the Mexican Revolution can be, more
or less, considered to be over (Knight et. al). After a 30-year
span, the remainder of the revolutionary generation was aging,
the Great Depression impacted political shifts, and the Cold War
encouraged cooperation with the United States.
Post-revolutionary economic reform began with the election
of the former revolutionary general, Lazaro Cardenas, for the
presidency in 1934. Having been part of the revolutionary-era and
with about a fourth of the Mexican working population dependent
on the agricultural sector at the time (Henry, 19980), his
campaign took a socialist approach by empowering labor and
peasant organizations, land re-distribution to the peasantry,
“ejidos”, and took an overall agrarian reform as the country’s
backbone for economic progress (Hamnett, p. 181). These “ejidos”
were Mexico’s agrarian economic systems where federal land
distribution, expropriated from private owners, provided communal
land available to peasants for cultivation. Furthermore, ejido
farmers were given substantial financing through federal credit
systems. President Cardenas allowed for an overwhelming amount of
land distribution to peasants, twice as much as any of his
predecessors combined (Knight et al.). The amount ejidos
available to the rural population went from 1.6 million in 1940
to 2.5 million in 1960 (Hamnett). In 1938, Cardenas seized all
foreign owned oil companies and nationalized Mexico’s petroleum
industry so the country’s oil resources could be invested back
into the domestic economy through the increase in wages. Mexico’s
reconstruction through Cardenas’s credit based socioeconomic
reconstruction required a long process, as we see President
Cardenas’s influence across three decades of Mexican presidential
campaigns.
Cardenas’s following three successors delivered individual
inauguration speeches on within a time span of 12 years. During
this three-decade post-revolutionary period we can see a solid
period of rhetorical trends that emphasize similar concepts such
as credit, the rural population, and the development of the
agriculture sector as the source for socioeconomic reform. The
end of Cardenas’s term did represent the conclusion of a
revolutionary era of social programs for the country, but also a
newfound Mexican identity. Through the use of rhetorical strategy
that reiterates key political concepts and policy, individual
Presidents have served as the Mexican entrepreneurs for the
evolution in economic, political, and social development (Camp,
1989).
1940- President Manuel Avila Camacho
On July 7, 1940 the general presidential elections declared
Manuel Avila Camacho the winner and successor for presidential
seat regardless of the electoral fraudulent accusations.
President Camacho, like his predecessor Cardenas, was member of
the PRI political party. Cardenas agrarian reform empowered the
rural or farmer faction of the population and gained their
electoral support, thus paving the road for Camacho as the PRI
party candidate. The post-revolutionary period left very little
room for oppositional political parties to coordinate, therefore
there was few rejection seen at the federal level with policy
reform decisions.
His inaugural speech acknowledged matters from domestic
duty, concern for international human rights, domestic economy,
Mexican moral, the working class, the youth, education, military,
and U.S. relations. Among his many declarations, President
Camacho said the following concerning Mexico’s economic
development:
“Investors and entrepreneurs know beforehand that no
business arising from starvation wages or violence of
the fundamental rights of workers, may be supported by
a public authority such as ours, that is the cause of
national claims… I therefore turn to the farmers to
have faith in the land and work. The agrarian problem
will require the most attention of the Government to
comply faithfully with the purposes of the Revolution.
We will extend the protection to small property, not
only to defend what already exists, but so that out of
the vast uncultivated tracts transform new small farms…
One of the driving forces behind this expansion be
credit; an accessible and cheap credit, the
organization and promotion deserve our immediate and
strong support. The people of Mexico need the lever and
we will give credit. All these rules shall further the
purchasing power of the agricultural community, promote
the development of industries, increase job
opportunities and will be a time of plenty and
prosperity…The nation wants prosperity; but not
prosperity all on its own. Our government cannot be a
docile instrument managed by privileged interests nor
one nor other.
We want prosperity with justice on which the spiritual
values of Mexico exalt. We therefore need to strengthen
public morals; Governments of the States and my
collaborators will make the nation feel that only
equity can serve the common interests; We endeavor to
ensure that the characteristic virtues of the Mexican
family of, honor, filial devotion, fraternal, remain
intact, we will make every household subsists feeling
of goodwill as an expression of true democratic spirit…
that's why we are all Mexicans…” (500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
During the Mexican Revolution, the peasant farmers were the
largest mass with a voice. In his speech, President Camacho makes
it clear that Mexico is not a country full of privileged people,
but one that overflows with hard working farmers. The rhetoric in
this excerpt of his speech empowers the agrarian sector to be the
core of Mexico’s potential for development. The use of the word
“credit” in his speech is a significant indicator of the economic
and political trend Mexico practiced throughout the 20th century.
Credit given to the agricultural sector in hopes it would
stimulate larger production, but such credit became available by
acquiring debt at the federal level.
President Camacho follows political actions with morality.
The use of values, morality, and tradition serve to reassure the
country that the economic reforms taking place reinforce Mexican
ideals. By making the connection to Mexican cultural values such
as family, policy discourse leaves room to incorporate the
average working class man, that otherwise, would not be concerned
in the conversation.
During President Manuel Avila Camacho’s presidency, the
world witnessed the expansion of World War II. Although allies,
Mexico exercised its independence from the United States by
initially attempting to remain neutral during WWII. Entering his
term, President Camacho had no ability to predict the following
course for Mexico, regardless he goes on in the same speech to
speak on national security and World War II:
“It is a great fortune that the Americas are united in
the resolve to defend against all attacks our
continental doctrine of equality of law, mutual respect
and decorum… Nothing divides us in our America… Whole
continent united for the same cause, keeping under
cover all vulnerable site will be invincible. Never
mind that many of our nations small or weak; the cause
is common. Our large or small economies placed next to
each other, strengthen, give the continent an
unassailable economic power…” (500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
Here Camacho speaks on behalf of the foreign relations
Mexico has with the United States and their role as an ally
during WWII. By building solidarity by choosing to acknowledge
regionalism and a mutual support for humanitarian values, Camacho
is able to frame Mexico’s support for the cause of WWII without
committing to military action. Furthermore, President Cardenas
recognized Mexico’s position as a smaller and lower-income
country in comparison to the United States, to do otherwise would
simply be unreasonable, but in doing so he restores the country’s
value. Regardless of economic power or military strength,
Mexico’s geopolitical location gives the country the political
capital needed to be considered a valuable player during
international warfare.
President Avila Camacho’s inauguration speech obviously
could not have predicted the expansion of WWII. By 1941, however,
WWII had profoundly impacted Mexico politically, economically,
and socially. In order to serve and support their northern
neighbor, Mexico’s wartime efforts were reflected in their
domestic push for industrialization and urbanization in order to
replenish wartime shortages. Regardless of the country’s appeal
to neutrality during the second global war, Mexico formally
entered by declaring war on the Axis Powers in 1942 after a
German submarine sank two of their tankers in 1941 (History.com
Staff, 2010). Even more importantly, the wartime demand for raw
materials and Mexico’s valuable role as a supplier allowed the
country to secure its first international since the Mexican
Revolution lost years (Hamnett).
Mexico’s rhetorical shift towards industrialization and
urbanization in the mid 20th century undeniably benefitted from
the global wartime. Mexico’s road towards industrialization
during wartimes is one that is reflected by President Avila
Camacho’s successor’s, Miguel Aleman, rhetoric. In President
Aleman Valdes’s inauguration speech, we can see similar
rhetorical trends that emphasize and implore economic reforms
parallel to Avila Camacho’s administration, and ultimately that
of Cardenas’s.
1946- President Miguel Aleman Valdes
Miguel Aleman Valdes became the 46th president of the United
Mexican States on December 1, 1946. The election of Aleman, a
lawyer by profession, marked a new turn for Mexico’s presidency
as the torch was passed from revolution-era candidates to
civilian politicians. During his presidency he focused less on
agrarian reform, unlike his predecessors, and excelled Mexico’s
industrial development. Although the country’s population
continued to see a growing discrepancy between the rich and the
poor, Mexico’s economic and industrial sectors saw positive
growth. Aleman’s administration promoted economic growth and
encouraged the industry sector through infrastructure
improvements that would then allow the social sector to reap the
benefits.
The following excerpt from President Miguel Aleman Valdes’
oath into presidency concern agricultural production and the
peasant population:
“The overall progress of Mexico requires solving urgent
problems in the form of the middle peasant… and
increased human element and increased agricultural
production. The welfare of the Nation requires the
increase of agricultural production… Agricultural
production requires more vigorous competition and
better credit conditions, which provide not only
governmental institutions but also the private
capital…” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
Once again we see a similar trend of rhetoric that focuses
Mexico’s economic strengths around domestic agrarian reform.
President Valdes continues to be influenced by Lazaro Cardenas
revolutionary reforms just as Camacho was before him. The nations
economic stability is centered on its domestic capability to
produce and fend for itself. Mexico’s new found access to
international credit now provided the financial resources for a
budget that could deliver the post-revolutionary promise as well
as a new potential. President Aleman Valdes was not quick to
discontinue a strong concern for the faction that farmed the
land, but he was enthusiastic about tapping into a new source of
economic progress.
In the same speech, President Aleman Valdes went on to speak
on the opportunity Mexico had for industrialization at the time.
He said the following:
“We must realize the industrialization that we have
proposed. During warfare effort we could create new
industries… National industries enjoy prudent tariff
protection... Industrialization requires credit in
greater volume and with reasonable interest, so that
companies are not victims of the inordinate
speculation…” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
The text above tells how WWII had affected Mexico directly
during Aleman’s presidency and his administration’s duty to
exploit the opportunity. Aleman’s use of rhetoric which calls on
the patriotic duty of the country to support industry growth
during a justified time of war provides his speech with a boost
of morality in a political decision that would otherwise repel
the overwhelming rural masses. Furthermore, the mention of
sensible tariff protection is an indicator of anti-neoliberal
policy efforts to apply protectionist means to the country’s
export-led production.
The following excerpt from President Miguel Aleman Valdes’
oath into presidency concerns worker salaries, and consumerism:
“Moreover, companies must understand that the hand of
well-paid and better social conditions and cultural
work is the best factor for the success of the
production and a fair return on capital… Low-wage
workers are not suitable for industrial progress,
because we must not forget that the labor sector is
both important factor of production and part of what
the consumer mass produced; There is, then, that enable
him to play with his work in the fitness industry and
remunerate them adequately to be a good consumer… we
will make loans to companies that are in distressed
situations, in order to increase production are
applied.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
President Aleman Valdes’s inaugural speech excerpt above
reflects an economic philosophy similar to that of Fordism.
Industry expansion in Mexico was not favorable at the end of the
19th century, and possibly faced the same fate mid 20th century
due to the interpreted threat by the agriculture labor sector.
The concept of Fordism reflected in Aleman Valdes’s speech above
appeals to empower the Mexico’s workforce towards adopting a new
sector of labor. Workers are addressed as consumers, further
reiterating their active role in the domestic economy. Export led
economic growth simultaneously triggers the fear for the
exportation of profit. By speaking on the vitality of a worker’s
consumer power for a successful domestic economy, industrial
growth is a reinvestment into the worker’s pocket rather than the
funneling of private capital.
The excerpt below also pertains to the same
presidential oath by Miguel Aleman Valdes, in which he
demonized a capitalistic system. He says the following:
“The greatness of the motherland, the people's welfare
and respectability of the Republic should be above any
other interests and prevail against selfishness bad
that Mexicans do not understand that the dignity of
human life is opposed to enrichment at the expense of
hunger of the people. Excessive profits for its lack of
fairness, are put outside the law they create in the
minds of those with a selfishness that prevents them
calmly see the process of economics, commerce or
industry unduly benefited, and correspondingly,
encourage feelings of hatred and impulses of violence
which, if realized, would also be illegal in the
consumer class.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
The above excerpt from President Aleman Valdes’s speech
captures the rhetorical strategy that places industry and capital
as a second priority to that of a worker. This part of the speech
reinforces the dismissal of any paranoia to the country’s new
industrial agenda by framing profit and capitalism as almost
sinful. By demonizing the appropriation of a capitalist system,
President Aleman Valdes’s rhetoric grants bestows before the
Mexican identity a neglect and intolerance for excessive profit
at the expense of the people’s livelihoods. Such rhetorical
choices above condition greed and profit with hateful and violent
tendencies in order to further assure a distrustful country that
what they fear is not a Mexican norm, thus not a concern.
Rhetorical appeal for industry pushed forward industrial
production during President Aleman Valdes’s term. As we can see
in the graph shown below, Mexico’s general population began a
significant and consistent increase in their general population.
The graph further outlines the rise within the urban population,
and for the first in 1951 Mexico’s manufacturing sector overtook
agricultural production.
Source: Henry, N. S. (1998). Chapter 5 A nation in transition:
The Mexican government as a cause and cure
Wartime demands thus far had sustained Mexico’s growing
economy even with the application of import substitutions. Their
exportation profits gave the country access to reasonable
interest on loans, and payment arrangements on their external
debt. The country had a virtual capacity to sustain their
domestic economy on a credit-based system, for the time. The
annual GDP growth rate of 6% since 1940 generated further
optimism in the PRI political party and the opportunity to expand
their political influence into other federal sectors.
Unfortunately for Mexico, the stagnation of the agricultural
population and production, discussed above, could not sustain the
rapid growth of the population and industrial sector overall. In
1948, Mexico’s peso began to experience a consistent devaluation
with annual inflation rates reaching 8.4% between 1948 and 1954,
compare this to the U.S.’ s 2%. As a result, Aleman Valde’s
administration applied import quotas, higher tariffs, and
licenses to further apply import substitution and protect the
domestic industry. This protectionist approach taken by the
Mexican government at the turn of the 1950s paved the way for
Adolfo Ruiz Cortines administration.
1952- President Adolfo Ruiz Cortines
On December 1, 1952 Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, another PRI
candidate, became Miguel Aleman Valdes’ successor and the new
President of the United Mexican States. WWII had been over for
about 7 years by now but there was still a consistent demand for
cheap Mexican goods worldwide because of the Korean War in the
early 1950s. The economic nationalist policies that had been
placed by Valdes further encouraged the state to finance
industrial and agricultural growth by increased dependence on
external credit. The country’s masked debt also concealed the
inability or inefficiency for long term growth, thus Cardenas
rhetorical influence began to shift with President Ruiz Cortinez
to emphasize the urban and industry rather than the rural
(Hamnett, p. 265). His campaign slogan, “austerity and
moralization” gained the people’s support in the polls. During
his presidency, Ruiz Cortines applied strict control of the
country’s funding in the public sector and is also well known for
amending women’s suffrage rights. He supported the renovation of
public facilities as well as welfare projects for the
overwhelming peasant population. In his presidential oath,
President Ruiz Cortines re-frames the country’s priorities to
reinvest the same efforts put forth in the industry faction
toward development into public administration:
“Like any country in the process of economic
development, Mexico has been faced with a serious
dilemma because of the shortage of capital available
for investment… If you apply its resources to the
production of consumer goods, without caring to
replenish and increase machinery and equipment
requiring the agriculture, industry and transport, may
slow down economic development.” (500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
President Ruiz Cortines’s discourse above serves to
correlate the success of the agricultural sector with that of the
industrial sector. With the majority of the population dependent
on agricultural labor just a decade earlier, very few could
actually reap the benefits of industrializing from the
countryside. Instead of allowing the obvious instability of the
rural versus urban populations to result in yet another
revolution, making the two interdependent let Ruiz Cortines avoid
prioritizing either social group as being the primary focus for
federal investment. His administration sought to invest in
mediums that could benefit all social sectors such as fixing
roads, housing, and general public infrastructures. The following
excerpt from his speech further addresses the poverty problem
developing at the time:
“The modesty of our resources requires us to get
maximum productivity with minimum investment; and
displacement of rural labor to industry, advises a
prudent and gradual mechanization of agriculture… Most
distressing of all current issues, as it affects the
majority of the population is without a doubt the
scarcity and high prices of food items. With the firm
support of the whole nation and a plan that will begin
in the 1953-1954 cycle, we will use the moral and
material resources that are necessary to cut and make
available to the people corn, beans, sugar or brown
sugar, edible fats, blanket, denim and calico.” (500
Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
By 1952, Mexico was experiencing overwhelming food shortages
as a result of the stagnation in the rural population and farm
labor force (Hamnett). Just as his speech promised, the
government distributed beans, corn, and other basic essentials to
alleviate food shortages between 1952 and 1954. The consistent
rhetoric emphasizing long term economic progress by credit,
investment, production, and industrialization had not benefitted
the rural population thus far. Mexico’s government was facing
strong and consistent critique and opposition by the people, but
President Ruiz Cortines excerpt above placed the people as the
sector for federal investment. By applying direct alleviation to
poverty in morality and material goods as stated above, Ruiz
Cortines campaign of “austerity and morality” delivers a direct
rhetorical appeal and an impact.
1958- President Adolfo Lopez Mateos
Adolfo Lopez Mateos’ presidential speech directly
acknowledges Mexico’s role in the international community through
its membership in the United Nations in 1945 (United Nations
Member States). Following Ruiz Cortines’s term the Cold War era
continued to have an impact on Mexico’s socioeconomic policies.
Mexico had their fair share of domestic communist groups fueled
by the growing inequality between the rich and the poor. The
great divide in the world at the time served to strengthen
continental alliances politically, economically, and morally. The
following excerpt from Lopez Mateos’s speech strategically frames
the Cold War era between two forces, thus creating a space for
Mexico to righteously choose to join international organizations
regardless of its previous nationalist stance.
“Our foreign policy has fallen to our internal
development; the repeat and reaffirm that will become
auxiliary instrument of our overall development, and
aware that we do not live isolated and could live
isolated, declare that exist in civilization principles
to keep: in the world, people who must help each other,
and rights in human society to be achieved in full
force… The world has since been moving between two
dangers… Hence our decision to participate ever more
deeply in the work of the institutions created to
establish, maintain and promote the rule of law and
collective progress: the United Nations, and with
regard to our hemisphere, the Organization of American
States… who have long tended a helping hand and who
sincerely reiterate that friendship. Our international
conduct are set, therefore, two fundamental rules: do
not accept anything that violates our sovereignty, and
not deny our contest to any effort that may actually
serve to improve the harmony of the country and the
living conditions of men…” (500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
As shown above, such use of discourse pushed Mexico toward a
righteous duty to support organizations that aid humanitarian
concerns. Although my paper discussed the use of binaries in the
context of neoliberalism, this excerpt also utilizes the
rhetorical strategy of binaries. During the Cold War the world
was framed by a fight between democracy versus communism, the
latter being greater evil. Framing the world between two
polarized regimes allowed for the democratic nature of Mexico to
pursue international organization membership as a patriotic and
moral duty. Nevertheless, President Mateos felt the need to
address that the country’s UN membership would not jeopardize
their domestic agenda for development or even their sovereignty.
“We produce and export more, reinvigorating our foreign
trade, our imports adjust, balance our budget and the
strength of our credit and our ability to strengthen
external payment. We have to fight for progress to be
comprehensive and balanced, ensuring that wealth is not
concentrated in few hands, in certain activities and in
limited geographic regions... We have to ensure that
the substantial profits are reinvested in Mexico for
national benefit… Demand in this collaboration of all
and especially for those who have resources to invest,
have an imperative patriotic duty to do so… Patriotism
is love the land where we were born, not discouraged
because we were not granted any better; always seek
greatness, which encourages the vigor of the mind,
nobility of heart and work efficiency of their
children… Industry will strengthen our systems to add
value to Mexican labor and incorporate more work in the
transformation of our raw materials.” (500 Anos de
Mexico en Docuemntos).
President Lopez Mateos further encouraged the faith in
Mexico’s import substitution, export-led, and credit based
economic growth in the excerpt above. The steady annual GDP
growth and increased industrial production allowed for the masked
debt to be accepted as part of the reform, as long as the country
had a steady growth in GDP and access to international credit the
country could expect a prosperous future. This prosperous future,
of course, would happen on a nationalist and socialist playing
field, as we see President Lopez Mateos demonize a capitalistic
system where owning the majority of wealth while others go hungry
simply are not values he Mexican government identify with.
1964- President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz
In 1964, Gustavo Diaz Ordaz became the new elected Mexican
president. By this time, the country faced significant peso
devaluation, an increase in output by almost double, while
agriculture increased less than a percent, and an overall
unemployment crisis. The rapid population growth of the country
was inadequately supported by the credit necessary to finance
accelerated roles of production and payments. In the 1960s, it
became clear that Mexico’s wartime production opportunities were
over and that the Mexican economy could no longer afford to
finance itself. In his inauguration speech, President Diaz Ordaz
explains the country’s economic deficit as a phase in the
transitioning process and begins to introduce foreign investment
as a valuable new source for Mexico’s economy. His speech went as
follows:
“We are on the threshold of development that
stands on its own, because it generates development. It
is the difficult stage of transition, which is
suffering at the same time, both the problems of
underdevelopment as the initiation of development. To
reach the next step, we need to coordinate actions,
complete and integrate embodiments, and indicate other
to achieve new goals…The key to Mexico's problems is
the lack of capital in relation to the use of natural
and human resources…The capital of Mexico should not be
formed with sacrifice of the just social benefits or
reducing the consumption of the lower income classes.
It would be unfair to the disadvantaged will support
the full weight of our development.” (500 Anos de
Mexico en Docuemntos).
In the excerpt above, Diaz Ordaz’s speech builds solidarity
with the number of other countries who have also experienced
similar distress in order to pose the problem as a step along the
process of development. The sacrifices made in large by the
peasant population are framed as important indicators, almost as
martyrs for the rest of the country’s economic progress. The
speech goes on to defend the sacrifice of human resources by
stating that the rural population should not be the only ones
having to bare the burden of hunger and poverty for the sake of
greater economic prosperity. The following excerpt introduces
foreign direct investment, a neoliberal concept I might add, as a
potential solution for the country’s financial shortcomings. Diaz
Ordaz stated the following:
“Without a market, no production. And without
purchasing power of the masses, no market. We reiterate
that, surrounded by misery, no company prospers.
Economic growth achieved so far is the result of
policies over three decades began in Mexico: investment
in infrastructure… Direct investment from abroad can
play an important role in accelerating economic
progress, and is welcome as long as they hold our law,
operate as a complement to national efforts and
contributes to the achievement of social objectives
that the country.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
The excerpt above first explains the power structure of a
country’s market relevant to productivity, and consumerism. The
relationship and success rate is obviously not sustainable using
this market power relationship, thus making room for the
discussion of a new source of finance. Foreign direct investment
is a concept attached to various other concerns of foreign
invisible hands in the industry, and the extraction of profit
from the domestic economy. By following up the discussion of FDI
as a newfound potential for Mexico’s economy with clear
intentions for regulations, Diaz Ordaz strategically removes
immediate conspiracy and paranoia attached to the idea. His
speech continued to reassure the protection of domestic markets
with the addition of a new foreign investing agent in the
following excerpt:
“You have to keep balance between agricultural and
industrial activities; between exploitation and
conservation of natural resources; between the
development of the different regions of the country,
the various types of industry, the various economic and
social investments, effect, performance and recovery;
balance, in short, between capital formation and its
proper distribution.” (500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
Once again, Mexico’s moral values of equal wealth
distribution are referenced in order to reiterate that the
introduction of foreign investment will not result in the
capitalistic nature assumed and witnessed in several other cases.
It is important to note that regardless of Mexico’s economic
struggles between the 1940s and 1970s, their socioeconomic reform
and development was spearheading Latin America (Hamnett).
President Diaz Ordaz’s term was a significant determining period
for the development of Mexico’s relationship with the rest of the
Latin American community as the Cold War conflict placed Mexico
at the threshold of domestic and neighboring opposition. The
Western influence on the Soviet Union is said to have been the
determining factor in dismantling the cause for communist forces,
thus Mexico’s economic leadership in the Latin American community
gave the country hegemonic influence in the region. The speech
discusses Mexico’s brotherhood with Latin America as follows:
“The outstanding fact is that in international affairs
has ended the war. The world is on the threshold of a
new historical stage yet whose characteristics can be
set as accurately; but we can guess that will be
different from the immediate past… Within the Latin
American context, Mexico may go, circumstantially, to
the head or behind, or in an intermediate position, in
any aspect of our life; but aspires only to be a member
of the group adds its efforts to the common
improvement... Mexico so dearly wants to be brother to
all his brothers in Latin America.” (500 Anos de Mexico
en Docuemntos).
It was important for Diaz Ordaz to not overstep the
influence and soft power Mexico employed as the Latin American
hegemon. The country’s alliance to their Latin American identity
served to re-establish faith in the country’s sovereignty as
their alliances to their northern neighbor challenged such
independence. Any faith in his presidential administration was
unfortunately lost because of the Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968.
Mexico City was chosen to host the 1968 Olympic Games
because of the country’s boosting economy and growing
international recognition. Thousands of student protesters
had utilized the international spotlight to protest the lack
of social justice they felt in the country. On October 2,
1968, only ten days before the opening games, Mexican armed
forces opened fire on a protest that took place on he
historic Tlatelolco Plaza de las Tres Culturas. To this day
the actual number of deaths and the origin of the direct
order to open fire on civilians is concealed by the Mexican
government and its allies (History.com Staff, 2010).
Regardless of the lack of knowledge for direct
responsibility, Diaz Ordaz and the PRI political party as a
whole never truly recuperated from the backlash and loss of
political faith from the Mexican people. This significant
tragedy in Mexican history is addressed in following
presidential speeches, such as in Jose Lopez Portillo’s
inauguration speech.
1970- President Luis Echeverria Alvarez
Following Diaz Ordaz’s term, Luis Echeverria Alvarez was
voted into presidency in 1970. During this period of Mexico’s
economic journey, the country was still experiencing strong
oppositions as a result of the Tlatelolco Massacre. The cause for
the protestors was a just one as the country had now lost a
significant agriculture sector jobs to service and manufacturing
sector jobs, as shown in the graph below.
Source: Henry, N. S. (1998). Chapter 5 A nation in transition: The Mexican government as a cause and cure
The rural to urban population ration had almost evened out
by 1970 going from 66.5% to 33.5% in 1930 to 49.3% to 50.7% by
1960 (Hamnett). The food shortages and the gap between the poor
and the rich grew substantially by 1970. President Alvarez’s
inauguration speech facilitated the similar rhetorical strategy
as his predecessors. His speech stated the following:
“Revolutionary is now the worthy public servant, a
loyal soldier and the full leader… So is the
nationalist vision and social entrepreneur… It is true
that there is an inevitable trade-off between economic
growth and income redistribution… For this it is
necessary to share the income with equity and expand
the domestic consumer market… Mexico does not accept
that the means of production are handled exclusively by
public bodies; but has also surpassed the theories that
left entirely to private forces, promoting the economy,
experience has taught us that there is sufficient
capital increase if we do not seek their proper
application. Investments should get to where they are
most needed: the countryside, infrastructure, obtaining
capital to companies that occupy required abundant
workforce. We will encourage domestic savings, both
private institutions that capture, as that state
agencies must obtain...” (500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
The excerpt above further demonizes the profitability of
capitalism, as discussed earlier in Valdes’s and Mateos’s
inauguration speeches. With the access to foreign direct
investment as a financial source for industry, Mexico was
experiencing further uncertainty for the direction of this new
private sector of investment. Mexican government played an
important in regulating between public and private investment,
but the majority of the population was not concerned with
economic jargon. Mexico’s rural population simply knew they were
not benefiting from the country’s stead GDP growth and President
Alvarez’s rhetorical strategy was to ensure that Mexico’s values
would not embrace profit at the expense of the poor. This
argument is facilitated further in the following excerpt of his
speech:
“Foreign investment should not displace the Mexican
capital, but to complement it by partnering it where
useful… We will keep fighting for fairer terms of
trade, mainly between countries linked by geography and
mutual friendship; but explore new markets in all
regions of the world and generalize the system of rules
to encourage the manufacture of items whose quality and
price are competitive abroad… Just advertised identity
purposes we act and with the impulses to transform
outdated structures within our countries and in our
relations with the outside… We must create an economy
of scale that back the most affordable and make complex
industries globally competitive… Propose the
establishment of multinational companies that link the
initiative of our investors, using raw materials from
different countries and utilize advanced techniques and
institutional sources of international credit.” (500
Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
This part of the speech serves to remind Mexico of its
initial source of Mexican capital, credit, in order to
reassure that the sovereignty of Mexico will be preserved
through careful balance of foreign investment and
international credit. In this part of Alvarez’s speech we
also begin to see room for a discourse around international
sources of trade. In the context of 1970s Mexico,
international trade did not mean the neoliberal open market
system we would assume today, but rather a source for
further export led economies with import substitution
domestic policy. During Alarez’s presidency we see a global
boom in the oil industry and with the discovery of huge oil
reserves in the Gulf of Mexico in 1976, Mexico’s economic
game begins new economic and political reform.
1976- President Jose Lopez Portillo
The newfound oil reserves in Mexico opened up economic
potential for Mexico as a whole. Mexico’s potential for inflow of
capital from oil exports opens up their access to an increase in
foreign loans. 1976 also saw a new Presidential term filled by
Jose Lopez Portillo. President Lopez Portillo’s campaign promised
to used the oil profits to reinvest in the domestic industry,
social welfare, and improve agriculture production. Although
their federal debt had reached $19.6 billion by 1976, having
increased from $4.5 billion only 6 years prior, the promising oil
industry provided a platform of good faith in the credit system.
His inauguration speech pursues the exploitation of the oil
reserves by stating the following:
“The country has been demanding a change in procedures
and attitudes will surely have an impact beyond the
six-year period that begins today to shape Mexican
society at the end of this century… it is important to
restore confidence in a country that has oil, land,
water and minerals of all kinds; coastal and marine
areas full of resources and nutrients; varied climates;
production plant; precursor and current revolutionary
institutions, national pride; origin and destination;
men and women who love and must cultivate. Mexico needs
to reaffirm its values, strength and security that
their fate does not depend on monetary whims or some
magic number to establish parity between the peso and
foreign currencies. It is essential to reiterate that
our development depends on the productive efforts of
the Mexicans; that our natural resources are not
depleted by our currency devaluation; the creativity of
its people, we are not at the mercy of financial panics
and, consequently, prices, wages and living standards
deteriorate only to the extent that, through ignorance,
fear or bad faith, be unable to understand that the
only thing affected is the value of what we buy abroad.
I wish we understood so soon to avoid the worst of
alienating dependencies, psychological, that we lose
identity and address…”(500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
President Portillo’s speech calls for the salvation of the
people’s faith in the Mexican government. With the oil industry’s
promise lingering over his term, Mexico sees the potential to
generate the inflow of capital necessary to sustain a domestic
economy built on the principles of import substitution. The
concept of import substitution as policy can only be grasped by
very few through economic means. Portillo’s speech is able to
strategically frame social consequences and the loss of Mexican
values if the country were to steer away from such policy and
become dependent on foreign imports.
In the exceprt from Portillo’s inauguration speech shown
below, we see a new rhetorical trend emerge, one flagged by the
first solid emntion of the concept of globalization.
Globalization, from Portillo’s rhetorical interpretation, is the
global balance of economic capacity. Portillo stated the
following:
“So the tax rules should not rely on the easy
expedient of increasing rates, but globalization and
the idea of handling income for those who have more, as
accepted by everyone contribute more; so in other end
will allow us to release those who have less and who
have nominally Signed by inflation and devaluations to
categories problems strongly loaded by the income tax;
to reduce low rates allow many workers and members of
the middle class to increase their savings capacity and
consumption...” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
To further showcase a new rhetorical trend in the late 20th
century within presidential inaugural campaigns, the excerpt
below later in Portillo’s speech addresses trade to be a crucial
component of Mexico’s economic progress. He stated the following:
“Trade can be one of the master keys to convert our
social needs in real demand, to stimulate and guide the
production to ensure the timely provision of necessary
social goods and nationally to combat conspicuous
consumption and waste, to bring the producers and
consumers through fair and transparent operations,
reducing costs and adjusting utilities to real services
rendered; for everyone to sell and buy better, know
what and how to do it and abuse and speculation is
eradicated.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
Trade was an enthusiastic goal with the oil industry
promising larger capital to reinvest in domestic industry.
Unfortunately for Portillo and Mexico, the country’s oil
reserve was of low quality and could not deliver the profits
expected. At this point in Mexico’s economy, their inability
to repay loans acquired because of the expected success in
the petroleum industry left Mexico with the world’s largest
foreign debt (History.com Staff, 2010).
1982- President Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado
1982 brought about a new president, Miguel de la Madrid
Hurtado, as well rock bottom for Mexico’s economic state. The
increased loan packages into the country during the 1976
discovery of oil reserves and the collapse of oil prices in 1981
brought Mexico into a full blown economic crisis by 1982. The oil
expansion resulted in the overvaluation of the peso, reaching 60%
inflation rates by April 1982 and 100% by the fall; by the end of
the year the U.S. dollar cost 144 pesos. President de la Madrid
Hurtado nationalized he banks in an attempt to expropriate any
capital, regardless of his attempts Mexico formally declared
bankruptcy in 1982.Once again, Mexico lost their access to
credit, with an estimated debt of $89 billion by 1983.
“Mexico is in a serious crisis. We suffer inflation
that reached this year nearly one hundred percent; an
unprecedented deficit of the public sector and is fed
acutely lacks his own savings to finance investment;
the lag in rates and public prices set to state
enterprises in a precarious situation, and subsidizing
inefficiencies covers high-income groups; weakening in
the dynamics of the productive sectors has placed us in
zero growth… We have a public and private external debt
reached an excessive proportion whose service imposes
an undue burden on the budget and the balance of
payments and shifts resources from productive
investment and social spending...” (500 Anos de Mexico
en Docuemntos).
President Hurtado’s speech does not hesitate to stress the
economic crisis Mexico is experiencing as he enters into office.
Listed are various internal external factors that contributed to
the debt crisis. In the following excerpt later inhis speech,
Hurtado frames the crisis within an international arena of trade
competition. He stated the following:
“The crisis lies in an international context of
uncertainty and fear; a deep recession is looming.
There are trade wars, even among allies; disguised
protectionism free cambism. High interest rates, the
collapse in commodity prices and rising industrial
products, produce the insolvency of many countries. The
global economic turmoil political instability, the arms
race, the struggle of powers to expand areas of
influence is added. Never in recent times have we seen
so far international understanding.” (500 Anos de
Mexico en Docuemntos).
By framing an international arena of trade wars,
Hurtado’s rhetoric begins to place Mexico’s position within
the international trade wars. If the economic crisis is a
result of Mexico’s inability to respond and adapt to global
competition, then the future of economic reform for the
country will have to hose between integrating into the
international arena and competing, or choosing to maintain a
failing economic system. Mexico’s integration of
international market politics begin with the country’s entry
into GATT, where they are provided with a $500 million trade
adjustment loan. By 1988, the accumulated Mexican debt
reached $101.8 billion.
1988- President Carlos Salinas de Gortari
The election of Carlos Salinas de Gortari for persiden in
1988 started the “Salinisation” of Mexico (Hamnett), the opening
of Mexican markets. Entering his term, Salinas spoke on behalf of
a great potential for the country based on a new global order of
economic. Salinas used bankruptcy to justify his campaigns
extreme response to economic reform with privatization. In the
following excerpt from President Salinas’s inauguration speech,
there is a consistent neoliberal rhetorical strategy that
emphasizes key concepts such as modernization and inevitability.
Salinas stated the following:
“I took office as President in a complex time between
collective hope and the weight of accumulated
sacrifices, including the need to build for the future
and the urgency of immediate outputs; this is a unique
time in our history, full of risks but rich in
opportunities… the modernization of Mexico is
essential… the modernization of Mexico is inevitable,
therefore, most nation states are changing regardless
of location, ideology, political practices or
industrial level achieved; the global trend is that
states are restructured” (500 Anos de Mexico en
Docuemntos).
The framing of Mexico’s economic restructuring as essential
and inevitable simply allows no other alternative for policy than
to conform. Salinas dismisses Mexico’s diverse inability to adapt
by acknowledging that they are not alone in their quest for the
1st world and their ability to succeed is within their grasp.
Salinas inauguration speech goes on to implement neoliberal
jargon across his entire inauguration speech. The following part
of his inauguration speech forecasts the privatization of the
banks nationalized in 1982. The privatization of banks opened up
access to greater foreign investment for both the private and
public sector. HE stated the following:
“Change to be at the forefront of global
transformation… I postulate a new era of growth… public
investment will be key… private sector investment will
play a key role… this negotiation must be done in a
reasonably short time with international banks, with
multilateral agencies and governments of industrialized
countries.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
Salinas attempts to define the concept of globalization
and growing international interdependence in his speech by
saying the following:
“We must understand it undiminished, that in the
contemporary world distances and times are almost
nonexistent; economic, social and cultural relations
become increasingly interdependent, more
interdependence between rich and poor, powerful and
weak, between north and south, east and west.” (500
Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
By compressing time and space as we know it, the world
becomes more integrated, and with the integration of space
and time, economies will “inevitably” come to lean on one
another. Salinas goes on in hisinauguration speech to
foretell the country’s crusade for trade partners around the
world in the following excerpts:
“Seek a new balance with the United States of America,
an area of opportunity and delicate differences; attend
bilateral acute debt problems and trade, relentless
combat drug trafficking and the protection of human and
labor rights of our migrant workers…In Canada, we will
strengthen our relationship further. The similarity of
our difficulties and the new world demanding a strong
political relationship with Latin America and the
Caribbean, to strengthen our regional identity and open
spaces to development and effective democracy…. We will
strengthen our relationship with dynamically integrate
the European community; open new and wider channels of
communication and relationship with the Pacific Rim,
especially Japan, a country with which we sister effort
and cultural depth; with the Union of Soviet Republics
maintain our friendship, as with India; with the PRC
will seek to further expand the cooperation and the
countries of Asia and Africa… States, there is little
we can not achieve; divided, there is much that we will
not achieve…”(500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).
By 1991, Presdient Salinas ‘s administration had pitched
talks about a free trade agreement with the U.S. By 1992, NAFTA
was signed and went into full effect at the beginning of 1994.
The quick journey for the North America Free Trade Agreement
paved the way for Mexico to pursue several other free trade
agreements with Latin America in the 1990s, and across the world
at the turn of the 21st century. The economic benefits of the
neoliberal policies advocated by President Salinas rhetorical
campaign, and applied by his administration would not serve as
the immediate determining factor for success, rather his
successors inauguration speech served that purpose.
1994- President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce
In 1994, President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce entered his
presidential term facing new economic reform and overall foreign
policy restructuring for Mexico. The very first of NAFTA’s
ratification cannot provide solid growth rates for the country,
interestingly enough however, Ponce’s inauguration speech’s
rhetoric portrays a new found psychological boost for Mexico’s
place in the world. He says the following:
“Mexico is a respected nation in the world. This is
attested by the honorable presence of leaders and
representatives of people with whom we are linked to by
endearing ties. To all of them, our gratitude and our
friendship. Self-determination of peoples, the peaceful
settlement of disputes, the legal equality of States
and equitable trade between countries, are principles
that have guided our foreign policy and give us moral
authority in the world.”
After the country’s economic and political regional
free trade contract, the Mexican president was able to speak
on behalf of a new national identity that recognized on a
global scale. Such an immediate response by rhetorical
trends indicate neoliberal free trade regime conformation
due factors beyond economic gains or losses that will be
further analyzed in my Analysis.
ANALYSIS
After looking at 5 solid decades of Mexico’s economic
history and presidential inauguration speeches, I have found
solid rhetorical trends within specific time periods.
1940-1952
The presidential speeches given by Manuel Avila Camacho,
Miguel Aleman Valdes, and Adolfo Ruiz Cortines all reflected
similar rhetorical trends pertaining to agrarian reform, a credit
based economic based, and overall empowerment of the peasant and
farmer populations. The post-revolutionary years these speeches
happened in were still very fragile to an overwhelming
“campesino” (i.e. peasant farmer) population in the country. The
Cardenas era mobilized such a strong socioeconomic reform through
his rhetoric by emphasizing land-distribution and nationalist
industry; his predecessors also applied similar strategies in
order to gain voter support. The historical context of this time
experienced wartime opportunities to industrialize their domestic
economy, leading to consistent campaigns supporting import
substitution and nationalism. Mexican identity is directly
correlated with the country’s ability to preserve Mexican values
by being self-dependent and not allowing foreign imports to
invade their market, ultimately leading to the loss of
sovereignty. Furthermore, forward movement and economic reform is
referred to as progress, a more or less neutral term for future
success.
1958-1976
The four inaugural speeches given y Adolfo Lopez Mateos,
Gustavo Diaz Ordas, Luis Echeverria Alvarez, and Jose Lopez
Portillo, from my papers analysis, represent another solid
pattern in rhetorical trends. During this 20 year period it is
important to recall the fall in wartime industrialization and
begin to see a shift in the emphasis over “export more” and
“Mexican capital” being at the forefront of an import substation
and protectionist era for Mexico. In 19664 For the first time in
1964, Gustavo Diaz Ordaz, opens up the discussion for “direct
investment from abroad” to serve as a source of capital. This is
important because following his term, Luis Echeverria Alvarez
does not lack to mention that foreign investment shall not
displace Mexico’s domestic capable source of capital. Another
consistent rhetorical trend in these four presidential speeches
is the demonization of capitalism, or the private ownership of
overwhelming profit. It is interesting to see that a consistent
period of nationalist, socialist, and protectionist measures
followed by the introduction of foreign investment would deem it
necessary to demonize capitalism. The mention of the concept of
globalization happened for the first time in 1976, in Jose Lopez
Padilla’s inauguration speech. My analysis of such rhetoric
during this period is explained by the domestic economic turmoil.
The rural populations were going hungry, the government could not
sustain economic growth solely on international credit, but
foreign investment simply contradicted everything hard Mexican
work ethics had established thus far. By creating a dialogue that
would make the profitability of an industry at the cost of
another’s livelihood sinful, the introduction of foreign direct
investment into the domestic industry of Mexico was no longer the
same blood-sucking concept people once feared.
1982-1994
The remainder of the three speeches I analyzed happened
at the turn of a nationwide financial deficit in Mexico.
The rhetorical trends I analyzed during this period showed
significant transformation form that of the first time
period, and even the second. In Miguel de la Madrid
Hurtado’s speech in 1982 the shift begins from using the
word “progress” for economic success and reform, to suing
the word “modernize” to suggest economic and political
progress. The concept of modernization belongs to thr
rhetorical strategy framed by the use of binaries when
talking about globalization and/or neoliberalism. President
Salinas speech in 1988 blatantly uses the greatest weapons
of neoliberal rhetoric throughout his speech such as
inevitability, global transformations, and so forth. By
1994, we can see a clear psychological boost in Mexico’s
identity as an internationally recognized economic power
after the ratification of NAFTA. This rhetorical period
overall reflects clear uses of binaries and a shift
patriotic duties from public welfare in the post-
revolutionary period, to international integration at the
end of the 20th century.
CONCLUSION
The rhetorical trends I analyzed throughout
presidential inauguration speeches in the 20th century,
support my thesis in that the dialogue and discussions
built around economic and political reform frame their
justification, resulting in the encouragement for state’s
to be part of neoliberal transitions regardless of the
unpredictable economic gains or losses. Although a realist
might credit the desperate state of economic deficit in
Mexico for the success of NAFTA, after my analysis and this
project overall, I believe that the rhetorical evolution
allowed for the country to build a consensus based on the
framing of moral, legal, and patriotic justifications that
either allowed Mexico to have a first class ticket toward a
developing world or be left at the train station.
Further suggestions and improvements for my project and
research would be in the inclusion of public support for
neoliberal reform. Although it is clear that Mexico faced a
lot of opposition after NAFTA, it is hard to generate
public opinion polls that can consistently correlate public
support for government policy directly to presidential
rhetoric. My project contributes to the discipline of
international relations as it attempts to explain a
country’s economic transformation through rhetoric and
discourse. Such a rhetorical analysis can be taken out of
the context of economics and used to analyze conflict
resolutions, war strategy, and the overall mechanisms of
international affairs.
References
500 anos de Mexico en documentos.
http://www.biblioteca.tv/artman2/publish/ index.shtml
Atkins, G. P. (1993). Institutional arrangements for hemispheric
free trade. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 526,
183-194.
Asitotle. Rhetoric. **
Bar-Tura, A. (2011). Economic policy and World Organization.
Perspectives On Global Development & Technology, 10(1), 194-212.
Bergsten, C. F. (1996). Globalizing free trade. Foreign Affairs,
75(3), 105-120.
Bhagwati, J. (2001). After Seattle: Free trade and the WTO.
International Affairs,
77(1), 15-29.
Bhagwati, J. (2001). After Seattle: Free trade and the WTO.
International Affairs,
77(1), 15-29.
Carlisle, C. R. (1996). Is the world ready for free trade? Foreign
Affairs, 75(6), 113-
126.
Clarke, J. (1995). Rhetoric before reality: Loose lips sink
ships. Foreign Affairs, 74(5),
2-7.
Clarke, J. (2003). Turning inside out? Globalization, neo-
liberalism and welfare states. Anthropologica, 45(2), 201-214.
Connell, R. (2007). The northern theory of globalization.
Sociological Theory, 25(4),
368-385.
Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Rhetoric in democracy: A systematic
appreciation. Political
Theory, 38(3), 319-339.
Goldsmith, J. L., Posner, E. A. (2000). Moral and legal rhetoric
in international relations: A rational choice
perspective. University of Chicago Law School:John M. Olin Law & Economics
Working Paper No. 108
Goyal, S., & Joshi, S. (2006). Bilateralism and free trade.
International Economic Review, 47(3), 748-778.
History.com Staff. (2010). Mexico timeline. History.com.
http://www.history.com/topics/mexico/mexico-timeline
Hakim, P. (1993). Western hemisphere free trade: Why should Latin
America be interested?. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 526, 121- 134.
Hamnett, B. (1999). Concise history of Mexico. Cambridge University
Press.
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). U.S. Library of
Congress. http://countrystudies.us/mexico/84.htm
Kehoe, T. J., & Meza, F. (2011). Catch-up growth followed by
stagnation: Mexico, 1950- 2010. Latin American Journal of Economics,
48(2), 227-268.
Knight, A., & Rodriguez, J. (2011). The Mexican Revolution, 1910–
1940. Oxford Bibliographies Online: Latin American Studies. doi:
10.1093/obo/9780199766581- 0033
Lustig, N. C. (1998). NAFTA: Setting the record straight. Brooking
Institute. http://0- www.ciaonet.org.opac.sfsu.edu/wps/lun01/
McDonald, P. J. (2004). Peace through trade or free trade? The
Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 48(4), 547-572.
Milne, H. V., Kubota, K. (2005). Why the move to free trade?:
Democracy and trade
policy in the developing countries. International Organization,
59(1), 107-
143.
Mittleman, J. H. (2000). Globalization: Captors and Captive. Third
World Quarterly, 21(6), 917-929.
Morici, P. (1992). Free trade with Mexico. Foreign Policy, 87, 88-104.
Naim, M. (2009). Globalization. Foreign Policy, (171), 28-30, 32, 34.
NAFTA at 10: Press, Potental, and Precedents. (2002). Woodrow
Wilson international Center for Scholars.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/NAFT
A_short.pdf
Nichol’s, M. P. (1987). Aristotle’s defense of rhetoric. The
Journal of Politics, 49(3), 657-677.
Skonieczny, A. (2010). Interpreting inevitability: Globalization
and resistance. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 35(1), 1-27.
World Trade Organization. GATT and the Goods Council.
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gatt_e/gatt_e.htm