ETSÁKUPANI
INTERNACIONAL
N A F T A
Imagen: Nafta-Sec-Alena.org
directorio
Mtro. Luis Roberto Mantilla
Sahagún
Rector
Dr. Ernesto Rodríguez
Moncada
Vicerrector académico
CONTENIDO
M.A. Marcela Genel Valencia
Vicerrectora Administrativa
M.I.D. Viviana Itzel Espinosa
Estrada
Directora de Mercadotecnia
y Comunicación Institucional
Mtro. Víctor Fortino Vargas
Anguiano
Director Divisional
Lic. Leopoldo Callejas
Fonseca
Director de la Licenciatura
en Relaciones Comerciales
Internacionales
Colaboradores
Lic. Patricia Pérez Sistos
Ma.Fernanda Arroyo Navarro
Antonio Asís A.
Areli Guido Rojas
Diana Hernández Selvera
Comité Editorial
Jimena Isabel Nocetti García
Dayana Génesis Sosa Freyre
Pablo G. Reyes Ceniceros
María Gabriela Espinoza
Arredondo
Isabel Gpe. Ibarez Flores
Coral Álvrez Lombera
Irvin Gilberto Paz
Sigifredo Estrada Argüello
María de la Salud Alejandra
Sosa Medina
José Alfredo Tapia Navarrete
Leopoldo Callejas Fonseca
NAFTA: 20 years
4
NAFTA’S impact on México:
after 20 years.
6
NAFTA’S impact on México.
8
Would México be better without the
United States?
Breves Informativas
15
15
Asesor Creativo
Daniel Tinoco Torres
Etsákupani Internacional
ETSÁKUPANI INTERNACIONAL, Año 5 No. 46, noviembre 2015, editada por la Universidad Latina de América, a
través de la Licenciatura en Relaciones Comerciales Internacionales. Calle Manantial Contzio Norte No. 355,
Fraccionamiento Los Manantiales, C.P. 58170, Morelia, Michoacán, Tel: (443) 3 22 15 00 / 01 800 700 UNLA (8652)
www.unla.edu.mx
[email protected],
Editor
responsable:
Leopoldo
Callejas
Fonseca.
Reservas de Derechos al Uso Exclusivo No. 04-2011-110412382200-203, ISSN en trámite, ambos otorgados por el Instituto Nacional
del Derecho de Autor. Las opiniones expresadas por los autores no necesariamente reflejan la postura del editor de la publicación.
Queda estrictamente prohibida la reproducción total o parcial de los contenidos e imágenes de la publicación sin previa
autorización del titular del los derechos y/o de la Universidad Latina de América.
I
EDITORIAL
n 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, creating one of
the world’s largest free trade zones and laying the foundations for strong economic growth and
rising prosperity for Canada, the United States, and Mexico. 20 years after NAFTA was enacted,
the trade agreement’s legacy remains enshrouded in controversy, not only in Mexico, but in the
United States and Canada as well.
In the framework of the Mexico’s Foreign Policy course, the good, the bad, and the ugly of NAFTA
was discussed, and so the cons and pros of it were explored. The objective was to determine if
20 years later, do the benefits outweigh the costs? As a result, a very interesting and enriching
discussion took place. NAFTA is a subject with many supporters and opponents, each group with
Lic. Patricia Pérez
its own views, especially when speaking about its effects on Mexico.
Sistos
Before even trying to make an assessment of NATFA’S impact on Mexico, it’s important to review Licenciada en Relaciones
Internacionales y
the following:
estudiante de la Maestría
What is NAFTA? It is a comprehensive trade agreement that sets the rules of trade and investment en Gestión Pública de la
between Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Since the agreement entered into force on Sustentabilidad.
January 1, 1994, NAFTA has systematically eliminated most tariff and non-tariff barriers to free
trade and investment between the three NAFTA countries. The original purpose was to help the
United States, Canada and Mexico compete with the European Union. Nowadays, it has tripled
trade, but also been criticized for outsourcing U.S. jobs and exploiting Mexico’s farmers.
How does NAFTA work? NAFTA is a formal agreement that establishes clear rules for commercial
activity between its members. NAFTA is overseen by a number of institutions that ensure the
proper interpretation and smooth implementation of the Agreement’s provisions.
What is its purpose? Among its purposes, NAFTA aims to eliminate the tariff and non-tariff barriers
to trade and investment between the three nations; promote the trilateral and multilateral
cooperation; eliminate trade barriers; facilitate-border circulation of goods and services; and
increase investment opportunities.
Now, the real question is: after 20 years, how has NAFTA truly impacted Mexico?
NAFTA has certainly provided benefits and advantages to the Mexican economy. In the first two
decades, trade between the three members quadrupled, from $297 billion to $1.2 trillion. This
boosts economic growth, profits, and jobs for all three countries. As for Mexico, it emerged as
a forward-looking country with expanding global reach. On the other hand, among its negative
effects, widely speaking, we can point out that Mexican workers have benefited less than expected;
the trade agreement lifted tariffs but not regulations; and it hasn’t eliminated all the problems
associated with international trade between the three countries.
In this edition, we have the valuable collaboration of four outstanding IR students. I’d like to take
this opportunity to thank Diana María Hernández Selvera, Antonio Asís Álvarez, Areli Guido Rojas,
and María Fernanda Arroyo Navarro for their time, efforts, work and contribution. They all did an
amazing job!
Contáctanos
@etsakupani
/etsakupani.internacional
autores
NAFTA: 20 years
María Fernanda
Arroyo Navarro
es estudiante de la
Licenciatura en Relaciones
Internacionales en la
Universidad Autónoma de
Guadalajara.
The North America Free Trade Agreement,
celebrated 21 years ago, was the promise of
growth, fair competitiveness, and fair exchange and
in another way more recognition. To the current
Mexican situation it seemed to be the perfect
solution for the social, political and economical
problems that the country faced. In Mexico at that
time there was a crisis, the Zapatista movement
was all over the south, it promised a revolution. The
favorite president candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio
was assassinated in Tijuana and there was a lot of
secrecy going on and people were more skeptical of
the government than ever.
satisfying. There were American manufacturers
that were moved to the North of the country
mainly, creating cities in Mexico based in that
economy. With the “great low” tariffs, there was a
lot of FDI, even if it was to a very expensive price.
Mexico got lower tariffs with Canada and the U.S..
However, Mexico proved with this agreement
that it was a country capable of opening its doors;
Mexico changed regulations and its rates, making
them lose for everyone to adapt to them. These
regulations were mainly changed for workers and
the environment, meaning the true profit was for
FDI and the government.
Mexico in that same year asked the IMF aid, and
the IMF had promised that it would help Mexico in
exchange of accomplishing some conditions. Mexico
had to calm the boiling revolution that the Zapatista
movement was encouraging and become stable
socially. We have to recall that the economic crisis
of 1994 was just about to start, Mexico needed an
easy way out and the NAFTA was the best option.
Promising economic growth, fighting the upcoming
crisis, creating jobs, raising wages; all this entire
would end in social stability.
Through encouraging the new companies placed
in Mexico, competitiveness became impossible for
Mexicans, especially farmers, whose business went
down. This was very noticeable in the raise of the
price of the tortilla and the raise it has had each
year. The GDP per capita raisedby 22% in Mexico
but the real wages lowered. The poor regulation
for workers and the environment only made the
country perfect for exploitation.
Mexico, after adapting its regulations to be able to
form part of this agreement, became perfect for the
More than 20 years later the results are… not bilateral agreement, which is an agreement between
Fotografía: ArenaPública.com
companies and countries, and this of course
provokes the investor-state dispute settlements. This
happens when the country changes regulations and
“damages” the company. The company then sues
the state and this dispute is taken into arbitration.
This is solved by three lawyers, one chosen by the
state, the other one by the company and the third is
the one to decide what proceeds. With this, Mexico
and Canada have each paid over 350 million dollars
and the U.S. NOTHING.
It is also important to underline that since the
establishment of NAFTA, Mexico has become very
dependent on the U.S. economy, 72% to be exact.
The real interaction with Canada is only 5%.
Fotografía : ustr.gov
4
In conclusion I do not agree with this agreement.
I do however recognize that in a way, it was truly
the easy way out. I think Mexico was able to open
its door to international markets losing up in tariffs
and regulations for the best interest of bothsides,
meaning, dignifying regulations for workers and
the environment but also for companies. Being
protectionist is also important, it helps internal
market to grow and be competitive with the
international ones and of course, we wouldn’t
depend so much on one single economy. I believe
Mexico should look for other ways to have FAIR
FREE TRADE without being attached to one single
economy.
Bibliography:
•
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/us-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/
•
h t t p : / / w w w. i n v e s t o p e d i a . c o m /
financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
•
h t t p : / / w w w. b l o o m e r g . c o m / b w /
articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neithermiracle-nor-disaster
•
https://theguardian.com/
commentisfree/2014/jan/04/nafta-20-years-mexico-regret
•
h t t p : / / w w w. c f r. o r g / t r a d e /
naftas-economic-impact/p15790
5
autores
NAFTA’S impact on México:
after 20 years
Antonio Asís A.
es estudiante de la
Licenciatura en Relaciones
Internacionales en la
Universidad Autónoma de
Guadalajara.
market is significant.
In 1994, NAFTA entered into action will the eyes
of the world upon it, as a pact which would help
the development of the countries of North America
This agreement promised that each economy would
become established in the sectors that they found
interesting, mainly promising that this agreement
would help boost and develop the country which
was at that point emerging: Mexico.
As the last point to my idea, NAFTA was a pact with unsupported foundations sought fit to ideals of political economic for a unification without trade borders in the North. Through this idea, Mexico was believed
to progress and its economic efficiency would be possible as Mexico was considered an emerging country.
It is true that some parameters in the NAFTA have been positive in the early days, but nevertheless making
a quantum analysis until today, this treaty is an economic failure.
Bibliography:
However the result that NAFTA has demonstrated
since has had its advantages but also some weaker
points on the Mexican economy, because the Mexican government has failed at strengthening the domestic market, and has been affected by the entry
of foreign products because they have a lower cost
and on some occasions, the Mexican market cannot
be competitive through the opportunity costs for
the merchant or Mexican producer.
http://eleconomista.com.mx/columnas/columna-especial-valores/2014/02/06/tlcan-veinte-anos-su-entrada-vigor
http://www.americaeconomia.com/economia-mercados/finanzas/analisis-20-anos-del-tlcan-fue-unaayuda-para-mexico
Nowadays, there is a comparison of how NAFTA has
worked in Mexico for 20 years until today. It designates first of all that in the position of Latin American
countries, Mexico gets the position number 18 out
of 20 regarding its GDP per capita, and as discussed,
this it is not a good result as in 20 years, growth in
GDP per person has got to more than double and
the rate of GDP that is currently added to Mexico is
half the growth of the countries of Latin America.
Moreover, standards of poverty data reveal that recent studies comparing rates of survival in Mexico
is estimated that the population living in poverty is
assimilated with the index population which gave a
result of extreme poverty in 1994, that designates
about 14.5 million Mexicans living in low indices
of poverty in the country. However, it has not only
been a similar poverty rate, but in relation to the
minimum wage, it has suffered the same growth as
20 years ago, and that simply there has been an inflation adjusted economy of the country.
Dibujo: Dave Simond
Finally, the current unemployment in the country
is set to 5.1%, whereas 20 years ago, it was 3%; this
denotes not only the decrease we have had in the
labor sectors, but the lack of regularization to the
same, because analyzing the data according to NAFTA itself has made, the deterioration in the labor
6
Fotografía: NAPS
7
NAFTA’S impact on México
Areli Guido Rojas
es estudiante de la
Licenciatura en Relaciones
Internacionales en la
Universidad Autónoma de
Guadalajara
Trade relations have broadened substantially, and
U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across
North America that has made companies more globally competitive. These factors may have stimulated economic growth; Canada has expanded at the
fastest average rate and Mexico at the slowest. Intraregional trade flows have increased significantly
over the treaty’s first two decades, from roughly
$290 billion in 1993 to more than $1.1 trillion in
2012. Cross-border investment and travel have also
surged. The United States trades more in goods and
services with Mexico and Canada than it does with
Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. There was a considerable increase
in exports as well as in the field of employment in
Mexico. U.S. trade with Mexico was growing before NAFTA’S implementation, and would likely have
continued to grow with or without the deal on a
scale that “dwarfs the effects” of NAFTA itself; the
direct effect of NAFTA on U.S.- Mexico trade is fairly
small, and thus the direct impact on the U.S. labor
market is also small; and overall, the NAFTA deal has
only expanded U.S. gross domestic product “very
slightly”, with a similarly small and positive effect
on the Canadian and Mexican economies. The third
most important market in terms of exports to Mexico is Canada.
In effect the agreement helped receive the economy in the country due to the crisis that occurred
in 1982. The benefits of this agreement only got reflected until 2004 in Mexico, although it had already
done so in 1996 in Canada. For Mexico, NAFTA was
a tool that helped increase the economy, especially
since there were short-term investments. Economic
integration was starting between these countries.
One of NAFTA’s unrealized promise was that the
treaty would narrow the gap between the per capita incomes of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Per capita income in Mexico rose at an annual
average of 1.2 percent over the past two decades,
until 2012, far slower than Latin American countries such as Brazil, Chile and Peru. NAFTA was also
expected to discourage Mexican emigration to the
United States, yet despite the 2007-2009 recession
and increased deportations; Mexican-born people
living in the United States have doubled since 1994
8
autores
to 12 million in 2013. Industries excluded from
NAFTA – such as telecommunications, television,
and transportation- allowed Mexico’s wealthiest to
become even richer. NAFTA has crippled Mexican
farming prospects by opening competition to the
heavily sub sized U.S. farm industry. The economist
notes that despite increased competition, Mexican
farm exports to the United States have tripled since
NAFTA’S implementation, in part because of reduced tariffs on maize.
Experts say trade liberalization between Mexico
and the United States has had positive consequences for Mexicans generally, not just Mexican business interests. For instance, the deal has lead to
dramatic reduction in Mexican prices for clothes,
televisions, food, which helps offset slow income
growth. Mexican workers in the car manufacturing
and aeronautics sectors of northern Mexico have
benefited from the treaty and helped expand the
country’s manufacturing base. And Mexico has enjoyed and intangible benefit of NAFTA: The country has adopted orthodox economic management
practices and is no longer prone to crisis.
NAFTA like every other treaty had a purpose and I
think that it really achieved some of the goals the
treaty said it would accomplish. When Mexico entered the treaty, it wasn’t prepared as a country because it was barely recovering from the economic
crisis that was dragging from the 80’s but forMexico, entering this treaty was a very good long term
decision because the country grew in its technology, its recovered economy, its political stability, its
foreign investments, its environmental care, its new
democracy project, its foreign relations with other
countries, and its internal social situation. I didn’t
know a lot of things and it is obvious that some aspects of NAFTA’S don’t spark good results, but what
I believe is that it was very good to our country because Mexico developed and it has got a position in
the global framework nowadays. United States and
Canada are more developed countries, but the fact
that we are having multilateral relation with these countries will help us improve our international
commerce, foreign relations, and position ourselves
better. I also think it was a good decision at a very
Imagen: US Chamber
good time and year, because before, it would have been a catastrophe because of the instability of the policy and the economy in Mexico and after it would have been very late with the relations between Mexico,
U.S., and Canada.
In 1994, Mexico was not a very structured country but Salinas de Gortari made Mexico more participative
internationally yet Mexico had been very damaged because of the internal situation. Mexico, its economy
and its internal policy were going through tough times. Nowadays Mexico’s economy is growing in a very
good path; its exportations and importations are directed around the world, the market is expanding and
the economy is more stabilized. The political situation is getting better, although the freedom of speech is
almost non-existent and the insecurity is growing and expanding. We need to fix the internal situation of
the country but we are positioning ourselves in an international framework.
9
autores
Would México be better witouth the
United States?
Diana Hernández
Selvera
es estudiante de la
Licenciatura en Relaciones
Internacionales en la
Universidad Autónoma de
Guadalajara
Imagen : Ambassade du Mexique en France
Short Mexico’s History:
Mexico’s dependent tendency developed a long
time ago, specifically back when Spain colonized it,
due the fact that Spain treated Mexicans like they
were not important in the decisions of their own
country, to participate in the important decisions
you had to be either from Spain or a mix from Spanish and Mexican people and even they were rejected in some fields. They were used to receiving
orders from the king or queen, they did not know
how to make wise decisions or how to run a country; with its independence, Mexico suffered from a
lot of instability. The domestic situation was not in
the best terms; there were a lot of internal fights
for power and when they finally agreed on someone taking the power, the conspirators started acting against the one who took it until they finally
put someone else. That is why the presidents could
not stay long enough to really make a change in the
country and as a result, it could not make bonds
with other countries.
In spite of the fact that Mexico had had its independency since 1810, it could not stand by its own feet;
as a matter of fact, it needed the United States’ help
right away because they were more organized than
Mexico.
rest of the world since then, but even before then,
this country had shown a lot of domestic stability
and it’s because of the fact that when England came
to colonize them, they had a different vision from
Spain. The first difference is that they tried to kill
all the Native American people, even though they
let few communities alive, they killed most of them,
and sent people from their own to live there. The
other difference is that their monarchy let each
American state take their own decisions. They did
participate but each state had much more independence from the monarchy than Mexicans had. That
is how they learned how to develop their economy
by their own needs, the differences between North
and South America are still there and we can easily
detect them. Another important thing is they have
been voting their representatives since they were
colonized, but of course in that time England collaborated with those representatives as a team but
as we can see they have more experience in every
single field than Mexicans do.
What does NAFTA mean to both countries?
Since the beginning of times, Mexican representatives had searched for the United Sates help, either
for their approval of their governments or their economic help. That is why the presidents in Mexico
Short United States’ History:
have developed laws or treaties that the United StaAs its known, the United States became one of the tes obtained benefits from; they all wanted to be
most powerful countries by the end of the First “friends” with the ‘gringos’. Because being honest,
World War (WWI) and its moves has affected the who would want to be against them and their world
10
Imagen : University of New Hampshire
power?
One clear and current example of this kind of trades, that benefits more the United States, could be
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
between Canada, United States and Mexico. This
treaty has indeed helped to grow each economy
but that does not mean the United States are not
obtaining more benefits from it. In the positive aspects, it could be said that exports and foreign investments have grown but in the negative aspects.
Mexico has also grown its dependency from the
United States and with it its vulnerability . The United States is the biggest trading partner so its influence is also bigger but its demanding more than
offering (products) ; this means that the Americans
are importing more (raw material) from Mexico and
Canada. More than 80 percent of Mexico’s exports
are to the United States even though Mexico is the
country with more world trade treaties, it only focuses on the ones with its’ north neighbor and this is
because it is easier to maintain what it has had for
so long. Mexico’s trade with Latin America is decreasing and the ones with Europe and Asia are under
its’ capability because Mexico is not giving them the
necessary importance .
“All trade has winners and losers and NAFTA is not
the exception” Joy Olson (executive director of the
Washington Office on Latin America”.
Not only Mexico wants to be in good terms with
them but Americans also wants to be “friends”
(more like “frenemies”) with Mexico because that
means security for them, and because they have so
much more world power that Mexico has, they have
shown a lot of interest on having a certain control
on Mexico. As John Foster Dulles said: “The United
States of America does not have friends; it has interests.” The United States sells more to Mexico than
to China, India, Brazil and Russia together, 6 million
jobs in the United States depend from its trades
with Mexico .
“The trade has grown in an exceptional way. It did
not end the poverty in Mexico but that was not its’
intention” Michael Shifter (Think Tank president)
Now the three trading partners are searching new
possible partners: now that China has been growing,
it has become the main trade target.
Now everybody is talking about the need of a new
11
autores
12
type of NAFTA, “The NAFTA 2.0”, adapted to the
new needs and reality covering topics such as trade
facilitation, electronic trades, intellectual property
but most of all to make the region more competitive
so it can conquer other markets.
imports and exports come from or go to the American market. Tourism, essentially from the United
States has grown constantly and currently contributes more than 500 million dollars to the Mexican
economy.
Mexico searching for new possibilities:
There was a certain point when Mexico seemed
to have the opportunity to be less dependent
from United States but at the end of the Cold War,
Mexico’s foreign policy lost its capability of independence from its powerful neighbor. In the case of
Mexico, its strong dependency to the United States
has made it vulnerable of its ups and downs
Despite the fact that Mexico signed 11 trade treaties since 1994 with Canada, United States, Costa
Rica, Colombia, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador,
Bolivia, Nicaragua, Chile, the European Union, Israel, Japan and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the main Mexican trade is still with the
United States; only 20 percent of its exports are for
200 countries (the other 80 percent, as it was said
before, is designated to the United States)
These days, there is this current tendency to be into
a multipolar world, but the lack of a defined trade
politic by Mexico is what stops it from being part of
that multipolar world.
Tourism has been an extremely important element
in Mexican politics; and in Mexico, tourism means
American tourism since this makes up more than 90
percent of the total. Tourism has created employment for many of those who cannot be absorbed by
Mexico’s growing industrial sector.
Alfredo Millán (the principal of the Asia Pacific University) thinks that Mexico should pay more attention to the Asia Pacific area because it is increasing
7 or 8 percent per year. Mexico should not only promote the tourism with North America but also to
China because this country had 8.9 of Gross National Product in the second trimester of 2009. A treaty
of free trade with China would give a positive twist
to the Mexican economy and will open the door to
new trades with the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations.
Approximately three fourths of all foreign investments in recent years have come from the United
States, while approximately 60 percent Mexican
Few Mexico’s Issues:
Most of Mexican problems are domestic issues and
because the government only focuses on them, the
foreign issues are not been attended in the wisest
way.
The fact that the Mexican government does not
have a very defined trade politic besides the one
that it already has with the United States is what
stops it from a very fluent growth but that is also
because the Mexican people do not have as a priority the foreign area, the ones who care about it are
the ones that know what is really happening in that
field and those are very few people, they only care
about the domestic situation so the government
just takes care of keeping Mexican relations with
the United States while keeping Mexican people
“happy” with the “fixed”.domestic issues
The stimuli of the United States are too attractive to
dismiss, though some diversification of supplies and
markets is desirable and will probably occur.
The distrust by the Mexican people on their government affects also their capability of doing more for
the foreign policy because when they try to do something with the other world leaders, the people
will automatically judge their clothes, pronunciation, etc. and think that it is reason enough to think
they are not capable of making it right on the international arena.
There is also the fact that the rest of the world distrusts Mexico because of its high levels of corruption
and crime. They do not want to make investments
in here or come and visit the country because they
are afraid.
reason, to Mexico and because of the fact that Mexico is so close to the United States and because of its
world power, it should not make that move, and there is also the fact that Mexico does have relations with
more countries, like mentioned before, it is the country with more trades in the world, but Mexico’s presidents have not given enough importance to them and that is not the United States’ fault.
Do I think Mexico should have more economic and exports options than just United States? Yes, I do.
I do think that Mexico is giving a lot of attention to its northern neighbor but that is because Mexico is not
thinking clear and not producing more for the rest of the world; Mexico could easily make more companies and administrate more its products to send them to China, Europe Union, Japan, etc. and to industrialize itself more.
Why not growing more but keeping United States close? Who said it was impossible?
To be completely honest, I blame Mexico’s last presidents (except Felipe Calderon) for their inability to
take Mexico forward. Mexico does not run itself; it needs its government to grow and to be attractive to
the rest of the world and maybe six years are not long enough but even if they leave it incomplete, that is
an advance and most of them have not even done half of the things.
Bibliography
-http://www.uia.mx/departamentos/dpt_estudinterna/dialogo/economia/ralacion%20comecial.html
-http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/ladependenciademexicoalaeconomiadeestadosunidoshavulneradoalpais-1912409.html
-http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_united_states_of_america_does_
not_have_friends_it_has_interests
-http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/ladependenciademexicoalaeconomiadeestadosunidoshavulneradoalpais-1912409.html
-http://contralinea.info/archivo-revista/index.php/2009/11/08/mexico-el-mas-pobre-y-dependiente-enla-region-asia-pacifico/
-http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/ladependenciademexicoalaeconomiadeestadosunidoshavulneradoalpais-1912409.html
-http://contralinea.info/archivo-revista/index.php/2009/11/08/mexico-el-mas-pobre-y-dependiente-enla-region-asia-pacifico/
-Mexico’s Foreign Policy: Disguised Dependency
Conclusion:
Most of the people will agree that Mexico should
stop its relations with the United States and make
more relations with other countries that are growing
fast but I think that Mexico should not just cut its relations with the United States because this country
(the United States) is giving its protection, for some
Imagen : Wikipedia
13
breves informativas
Adiós al Kirchenismo
El antiperonista Mauricio Macri pide las llaves de la Casa
Rosada tras ganar las elecciones presidenciales argentinas
con un 51,42% de los votos, frente al 48,58% de su rival, el
oficialista Daniel Scioli, el domingo 22 de Noviembre.
El nuevo presidente argentino es un tecnócrata, que no forma
parte de los partidos tradicionales que monopolizan el país
desde 1983.
Fotografía: Prensa Cambiemos
Con información de Infobae
Dieciséis detenidos en Bélgica, que sigue en aleta.
Salah Abdeslam, el terrorista buscado tras los atentados
de París (acontecidos el pasado 13 de Noviembre) no está
entre los arrestados.
Medios locales señalan que habría escapado cerca de Lieja
y que iría en un BMW con dirección a Alemania.
Se han hecho 19 registros y la investigación sigue en marcha mientras el país sigue en alerta máxima.
El lunes 23 de Noviembre no abrieron ni el metro ni los
los centros educativos por miedo a un atentado terrorista, la Policía lanzaba varias redadas simultáneas en al menos seis distritos de Bruselas, además de en el centro de
la ciudad. Durante varias horas, los medios han dejado de
informar del operativo a petición de la Policía federal, que
ha lanzado un llamamiento a los periodistas y vecinos para
que no narraran en directo en redes sociales los movimientos de las fuerzas del orden.
Fotografía: AP
Con información de ABC
Suman 104 los muertos por avalancha en Birmania Al menos 104 cadáveres han sido recuperados entre los
escombros provocados por la avalancha de tierra en una
mina de jade en el estado Kachin, noreste de Birmania. En
la madrugada del sábado 21 de noviembre, una aluvión
de tierra y desechos de al menos 80 metros sepultó
unas 70 chozas de la población de Hpakant donde viven
los trabajadores de la mina. Según testigos, algunos
locales escarbaban en el momento de la avalancha en
las montañas de piedras desechadas por las compañías
mineras con la esperanza de encontrar una pieza de jade
desapercibida por los operarios. Hpakant, situado a más
de 1.100 kilómetros al norte de Rangún, es un remoto
distrito situado en una zona montañosa donde proliferan
las minas de jade. La ONG Global Witness denunció el
Fotografía: EFE
mes pasado las situaciones precarias en las que trabajan
los buscadores de jade en las minas, propiedad en ocasiones de señores de la guerra, narcotraficantes o generales de la
antigua junta militar. En un informe, aseveró que el comercio de estas gemas está valorado en unos 31.000 millones de
dólares (unos 27.800 millones de euros), la mitad del PIB birmano.
Con información de EFE
14