Andres Rozental: top Mexican diplomat discusses stalled migration accord, the row with Cuba and the danger of smear politics.

Viewed as one of the nation's foremost experts in foreign policy, particularly in relation to the United States and immigration, Mexico's Ambassador-at-large Andres Rozental has worked inside several presidential administrations and served as the nation's preeminent voice abroad for a decade.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

His diplomatic credentials are largely unrivaled in Mexico, having served as diplomat for over 30 years. Highlights include serving as ambassador to the United Kingdom (1995-1997), to Sweden (1983-1988) and as a Geneva-based representative to the United Nations (1982-1983). He served as deputy foreign secretary under the Salinas administration and was ambassador-at-large and special envoy for the first year of the Fox administration, meeting with rebels in the Colombian jungle and working toward crafting a revolutionary migration accord with the United States.

The internationally educated economist is also half-brother to Jorge Castaneda, who recently launched his 2006 presidential bid, and has worked professionally with the outspoken Castaneda on several occasions.

Rozental currently is president of the prominent think tank, the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and runs Rozental & Asociados, his international consulting firm that specializes in multinational corporate enterprises in Latin America.

BUSINESS MEXICO sat down with the ambassador at his luxurious office overlooking Campo Marte in Mexico City's affluent Polanco neighborhood and discussed the Cuba situation, the plot against the capital's mayor and the future of migration policy.

Having worked with several presidential administrations, how would you grade the Fox administration on what it has done bilaterally, specifically in terms of immigration? It is a difficult question, because the Fox administration has gone through different stages on this particular issue. There was the initial stage when he first took office, and even before that, where he took a very bold initiative to get the immigration issue onto the agenda in the United States without the traditional defensive position which Mexican administrations previously had had on the issue.

Before Fox, Mexican policy on immigration was no policy. The policy was to have no policy. This was a U.S. problem that the U.S. had to figure out, and as long as it represented an escape valve for Mexicans and the Mexican economy, then that was ok. I think what Fox did from the outset of his administration was to put it on his agenda, to tell the U.S. administration, the Bush administration, which was very receptive to this proposal by the way, that this needed to be looked at bilaterally. That this was not just the U.S.' problem, that it was also Mexico's problem and that we needed to negotiate a bilateral agreement on migration.

That was at the outset and that lasted until 9-11. Negotiations had began and there was a lot of progress made in negotiating some of the specifics of what could be a grand deal. Then came 9-11 and the distractions and the anti-immigrant sentiment and the hard political decision that the Bush administration had to make as to whether it could continue to discuss this with Mexico.

I guess the decision was not to do that anymore or at least not to give it the same priority. So this second stage, which started right after Fox's state visit to Washington on Sept. 7, 2001, ran until January of this year. And that stage was basically one of nothing--no discussions, no bilateral negotiations, nothing taking place in the U.S. on this issue and nothing much taking place in Mexico either.

Then in January, Bush makes his proposal and says that he still feels that there needs to be an agreement and a new migration policy in the United States--not negotiated with Mexico, not bilaterally discussed, just a unilateral decision to change immigration rules and regulations. And that was back in January, and then until today, nothing much has happened either.

And the Mexican government, that is Fox and the new foreign relations minister, decided that there wasn't much more to gain by pushing the migration agenda as strong as it was being pushed previously.

So at the end of the day, what we are left with today is basically nothing, nothing very significant on immigration.

So if you want me to rate the whole of the Fox administration for the three-and-a-half years it has been in power--lots of good intentions but very little to show for it.

Do you think the Fox administration has failed the Mexican migrant?

No, I don't. On the contrary, I think the Fox administration did what it could under the circumstances to push this agenda and get the U.S. to change its policy but unfortunately, circumstances--that were certainly beyond the control of any of us--didn't favor that.

Now we will see what happens after November.

On the other side of that coin, do you think that the Bush administration has failed the Mexican immigrant?

The Bush administration, from my perspective, has totally failed, because what was initially a very positive position taken by Bush personally and by his government--that the immigration issue was broken and needed to be fixed--he then copped out after 9-11 and decided that there was no political gain for him and I think that his political advisers probably told him that he had a lot to lose if he pushed this very contentious, highly sensitive issue in the U.S. domestic agenda. And with a tough re-election, it really wasn't in his interest politically to do that.

So yes, I think that he did fail to follow up on what was initially a very positive attitude. If you remember what he said, the words he used were, "match willing workers with willing employers" almost is an unlimited fashion, which was a good start. But since then, it has really been words more than deeds.

But many Republicans have said that the Bush plan is too accommodating, and commentators have said that it is designed just to win part of the Hispanic vote, which is going to be so important in the November election. Certainly the timing of it raises questions as to Bush's intentions. Undoubtedly, there is probably some of that, I don't think politicians generally act in the good interest of others. They act in their own interests. But it doesn't really matter. The point was that he put it on the table, that he made a proposal. Now his proposal is not a very specific proposal, it has no draft bill legislation attached to it. It has a lot of open-ended questions to it.

From my perspective, what was good is that it reignited the debate in the United States on the issue for better or for worse. And it did push certain members of Congress to come forth with draft bills, and there are now two or three of them floating around on the Hill in Washington. I don't think any of them will be finalized this year, but this is a process.

You've said in the past that you thought Mexicans should be looked at differently than other foreigners entering the United States. Why?

It's not so much being looked at differently. I think that the issue is that the United States only has two countries as immediate land neighbors and Nafta partners. Therefore, as we have a unique economic relationship among the three, then we should also have a unique migration relationship between the three.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

You need to complement free trade with free movement of labor. Not immediately, but over the long term, just the way the Europeans have done. It doesn't make sense to have an open economy when you can't move people back and forth to correspond to specific moments and specific needs in each of three countries.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

You had a hand in Nafta. Do you think the deal failed to live up to the ideal of "exporting goods, not people?"

Yes, all three countries, but mainly U.S. and Mexico, I think oversold the migration aspect as one of the things that Nafta would be a panacea for. Although in theory it sounded right to say if you give Mexico more of an economic opportunity, there will be less need for Mexicans to go to the United States for work. But demand for Mexican labor has not decreased.

Onto another subject, onto Cuba. How did it ever come to this? Is the diplomatic fallout a black eye to the Fox administration? Well, I certainly think that the way in which this has been handled by the Fox administration is certainly something I would criticize. I am clear on a series of issues. Mexico has been changing its policy on Cuba, not when Fox became president, but over the last three or four sexenios. I would say from just at the end of the Salinas administration, Mexico's policy toward Cuba became much more critical of the internal situation--of Fidel as a leader and the fact that human rights are not respected.

During the Zedillo administration, the relationship hit a low point. Zedillo never made a state visit to Cuba, Rosario Green, when she was foreign minister, went to Havana and met with the dissidents. So this is not a Fox administration initiative.

Obviously, a Fox administration coming as it did from the opposition with the credential of democracy and respect for human rights, it was evident that we were not going to be able to have a good relationship with Cuba. That was evident from the very beginning.

The fact that Castaneda was foreign minister made it even worse because for years he had been a thorn in the side of Fidel. Jorge in an Op-Ed piece 10 or 15 years ago called for Fidel to step down.

But as evident that the fallout has happened over these last few weeks shows that it was not Castaneda. It was that Cuba refused to accept that Mexico's policy has changed and it continues to change vis-a-vis Cuba and that Mexico is no longer an apologist for Cuba and its regime.

On the other hand, I think that these last two weeks have been absolutely terrible examples of the failure of diplomacy.

When you get to the point of a near rupture in relationship, expelling an ambassador and recalling your ambassador, you are as close as you can get to a breaking of relations, and that in itself is a failure of diplomacy. Diplomacy is meant to solve conflicts, not to create them. What with the attacking of personalities and the use of the media for the conduct of diplomacy, by the end of the day it escalated into one of these things that just had a Greek tragedy element to it.

Do you think that reflects on ...

I think it reflects on the fact that the current foreign minister has removed most of the professional foreign service from his immediate circle of advisers, and therefore he doesn't have the advice and counsel that his position requires.

Is it fair to say that it is amateur hour over at the SRE?

I think that is pretty fair to say. It is amateur hour. The gang that couldn't shoot straight.

Do you think it is true what Fidel has said that Mexico has become the little dog of the United States?

No, no. And it was "lapdog." Castro says this all the time, he says this about Mexico, he says this about Spain and Peru. One has to understand that Castro and Cuba are at war with the world. This is a regime that is very isolated. They have very few friends left, the Russians are gone, the Chinese are gone, the Socialist Bloc is gone.

Who are their friends today, their real friends? Two, Venezuela with Hugo Chavez and, to a lesser extent, Argentina with the new president Nestor Kirchner. That's it. They have no other friends. They are very isolated so they pick on every little word, action, vote to see what people are saying about Cuba and so forth.

You mentioned your half-brother Castaneda. Do you agree with his bid for the presidency?

Yes, I do absolutely. I think that at this particular point in time, he is the only person in Mexico that is debating and discussing and putting forth concrete ideas about how to change and how to move Mexico forward. Everybody else is about videos and scandals and kicking under the table.

In that sense, he is a very refreshing and a very necessary part of the political scene. He has a following, partly based on fact that people are fed up with the political party system and the leaders who run those parties. The fact that he is not identified with any party at the moment I think works in his favor.

The timing for his run has been perfect, what with all this mudslinging.

If you would make some predictions, who would you say would be the main party candidates?

I think it is pretty clear. Lopez Obrador is going to be the PRD candidate. Creel is probably going to be the PAN candidate unless he really stumbles badly and continues to stumble as badly as he has in the last few weeks. And I think Madrazo will be the PRI candidate.

How much do you think Lopez Obrador has been hurt?

He has definitely been hurt. The polls show it. He still has a hard core of supporters that are mainly here in Mexico City, in the poorer parts of the capital-Partly because he has been a populist, he has been giving money out. And partly because I think people see him as someone that is less tainted by the politics of Mexico than the other politicians.

However, with this scandal, with Bejarano and Ponce, anyone who analyzes this with objectivity sees Lopez Obrador's group as corrupt and as political, if you like, as any other. They are certainly not as pure as the driven snow.

What do you think of the rumors that there is someone behind the scene, pulling all the strings and orchestrating this mudslinging and video scandals? Specifically, someone like Madrazo or Salinas?

I am not a conspiracy theorist. But everybody plays a role and there are certainly some priistas that see the only way of getting back the presidency is by making sure that Fox fails and that the mayor fails. If that is the case, then they are pushing for nothing to happen.

There are others that are a bit more enlightened that understand that they might inherit a country that is in such a mess because of all this stagnation and lack of progress in reform.

But certainly there is that theory that, given the hatred between Lopez Obrador and Salinas, that the former president has had a hand in all this?

It's not just Salinas. There are a lot of people who don't like Lopez Obrador, that and who don't think he should become president. I don't know if Salinas hates him or not. I have never talked to Salinas about it so I don't know.

I do know, though, that there are a lot of people that are wary of him, that fear his populism and demagoguery and fear his manipulation of the media and of poor people. The fact that he goes out and throws money a la Peronista.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

I think there are a lot of businesspeople in Mexico that don't like the idea of Lopez Obrador. He doesn't appear to be the type of guy that is going to be very business friendly.

I would venture to say that there are people outside of Mexico that don't like the idea. People in Washington who would look at Lopez Obrador a bit the way they looked at Lula in Brazil before he became president. This is somebody from the fairly far left that has shown that he is a populist, that he likes to go out and satisfy the needs of the largest number of people by doing things that are mainly designed to increase his own personal popularity.

So you might say Lopez Obrador is right when he says there is a plot out there to discredit him, but I don't think the plot is run by George Bush or the CIA or the DEA or Salinas.

To wrap it up here. What with how damaged Mexico has been diplomatically--recently with the Cuba situation, last year with Iraq, and the perception that Mexico is kind of rudderless--should investors be concerned?

Mexico has matured a great deal. The politics now, to a certain extent, can be segregated from the day-to-day running of the country. That is good, because 10 or 15 years ago, something that has been happening recently here would have led to a massive flight of capital, a massive devaluation, a massive stampede out of Mexico. That hasn't happened.

I think people now recognize that Mexico has become more sophisticated in that sense and the political circus that we are living in today really does not have much to do with the actually running of the country.

William Brookside is a Mexico City-based freelance writer.