In order to know what the President thinks about some issues of great strategic importance, nothing is better than reading his statements made abroad. See, for example, what he said in Ireland in the context of the G-8 meetings. Faced with questions from 'specialized' journalists, the President referred to the likely energy reform with unusual candor and accuracy, thus launching an optimistic message faced with the prospect that in a few more months, the initiative might be submitted to the Congress.
The President told the Financial Times that the reform of Petróleos Mexicanos [Pemex] agreed on in the framework of the Pact for Mexico, would include "the necessary constitutional changes to provide certainty for investors". Although he then pointed out that there are several options for presentation, he put forward that the reform will be "transformational", a curious neologism under which lies the mystery of the extent to which the state-owned company will be opened up which is, strictly speaking, the issue that concerns his political partners. The President spoke not a word about the role that Pemex has had to play, in fact and in law, even under the weight of corruption and official neglect.
However, the presidential words confirmed in the eyes of the media present that privatization proceeds, thus justifying preparations by large companies, like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch and the ineffable Repsol [Spanish]. It's not that in Ireland the President might say something new, because in fact there are few things as trite as the attempt to open the lock-gates of Pemex to private capital. But this time he could present the result of an agreement, not to mention negotiations with the parties that signed the Pact for Mexico. The novelty was that the intentions contained in this text as a starting point for the energy discussion and the subsequent legislative reform, were surreptitiously slipped in to become strong government arguments in favor of his proposal. Peña was able to present to the world's powerful an image of unity such that none of his predecessors had dreamed: politics in the service of structural reforms.
The leader of the PRD naturally felt exposed and ridiculed. He denied that he had already agreed to the pact. In statements published in Excelsior, Jesús Zambrano declared with annoyance:
"Before Peña Nieto says that 'energy reform will be ready in August or September' and is celebrated for what participation of the major political parties in the Pact for Mexico means--that this would facilitate the supposed reform with the magnificent scent of privatization--perhaps, first, they might present their proposals to us."
After this startling denunciation ("they might present their proposals to us"), Zambrano recalled that other approaches are on the table, such as those developed by Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas to modernize Pemex without privatizing the natural resources; that is, without jettisoning the constitutional legacy that up to now has governed the issue. ... The hope is that these [alternative proposals] might have an impact on the necessary and possible reform, and they that they not remain as evidence of what could be but was not, either because of division or fatalism in the face of the offensive of the global establishment that demands its slice of the Mexican oil pie.
However, by not recognizing as "privatization" the opening to private capital in areas hitherto reserved to the State, it is obvious that Peña Nieto's government has already assumed a point of view; that is, one subject to the ownership provisions of Article 27 in the Constitution. The idea that the nation (not the government) continues being owner of the hydrocarbons and of the company's properties, supports the nominal denial by which the government wants to be leading the procession and ringing the bells.
"I want to state clearly: it is not about privatizing. Some have believed that participation by the private sector means privatization. To the contrary, I have said it over and over again: Mexico is owner of the petroleum, but we need to expand its capacity," Peña Nieto was quoted by La Jornada as saying yesterday.
Clearly, it is not thinking to appoint managers designated by the private companies, but no one in Mexico believes that private business might not sell off what has stopped functioning. Surely Peña Nieto is confident that even without the vote of the left (and the "extra-parliamentary" movement that this could put underway), his initiative will gain the support of the PAN [National Action Party], which will strive to obtain concessions in exchange for giving the green light to a proposal that, in short, take up again [former president Felipe] Calderón's most expensive approaches, even though it might deny the PRI tradition (recently abolished). But this reform, just like the [pending] tax reform, has implications that make it, if possible, even more momentous.
Beyond the fragility of the pact for organizing the national debate, the inability of the political forces to propose a comprehensive strategic vision, to assign the place of oil income and property issues with a view for safeguarding the national interest, is troubling. It presupposes stringing together the sense of the reforms in a great holistic ensemble, which cannot be the subsidiary assumption of laissez faire, as some of our great men want. It gives the impression that the government is not interested in anything but improving the company's accounts without making the effort for in-depth rationalization.
Beyond the fragility of the pact for organizing the national debate, the inability of the political forces to propose a comprehensive strategic vision, to assign the place of oil income and property issues with a view for safeguarding the national interest, is troubling. It presupposes stringing together the sense of the reforms in a great holistic ensemble, which cannot be the subsidiary assumption of laissez faire, as some of our great men want. It gives the impression that the government is not interested in anything but improving the company's accounts without making the effort for in-depth rationalization.
The government has a plan: to make way for the transnational capital that might be able to mount a technology package on top of the ephemeral prosperity brought by large investments. But despite all the reformist rhetoric, there is no plan capable of outlining, even with broad strokes, a credible and viable option for the future of Mexico.
It is believed that liquidating the state oil "monopoly" is the end stage of the "modernization" initiated with a lot of hype several decades ago, which would open the way to join the global world (as the great centers of power justly call it), without ever acknowledging that those promises of shared wealth did not translate into lower inequality, sustainable growth but, yes, instead gave way to the vulnerable society that we are today. Instead of fostering discussion about the country that we are and want to be, the current reformism, without another perspective, will not help resolve the existence of a Mexico that, without a doubt, requires resources. That, above all, requires clear national objectives. Spanish original