Foro de Diálogo entre las Sociedades Civiles y las Instituciones del Gobierno de México y de la Unión Europea (Dialogue Forum between the Civil Societies and Government Institutions of Mexico and the European Union), February 28 – March 1 2005.

Forum report
Petri Minkkinen
University of Helsinki and Network Institute for Global Democratization (NIGD)
petri.minkkinen@helsinki.fi
Helsinki, April 2005

As an invited guest I participated in the second Mexican phase of the Dialogue Forum between the Civil Societies and Government Institutions of Mexico and the European Union, Mexico City, February 28 – March 1 2005) as a representative of Network Institute for Global Democratization (NIGD) and in cooperation with the Red Mexicana Frente al Libre Comercio(RMALC) and Iniciativa de Copenhagen para Centroamérica y México (CIFCA). The purpose of this report is to give an overview of the points of view of the civil society represented by RMALC and CIFCA as I conceived them in the context of his Forum (this is therefore not necessarily the official view of these civil society organizations). In other words, this is not a comprehensive forum report. For a broader view of the forum see the homepages of the European Union, RMALC and CIFCA. Neither is this an evaluation of whole process which has taken place both in Europe (Brussels) and in Mexico (Mexico City). I have participated only in the Mexican phases of the process and thus my reflections are based solely on the observation of and participation in the preparation and actualization of the “Americas” section of this process.

Preparation, meeting hosted by the RMALC and CIFCA in the offices of the RMALC, Mexico City, February 26 2005

The purpose of this meeting was to listen to various groups of the Mexican civil society and to put together the strategy of Mexican and European civil society organizations as represented by RMALC and CIFCA. The general atmosphere can be summarized as two distinctive viewpoints in relation to this forum process in general. Both particular viewpoints emerged in a context of (1) a certain satisfaction that a process that started in 2001 – for the part of an actual dialogue forum realized in Mexico – had achieved a certain level of institutionalization in a sense that the process continues and that the European Commission and the Government of Mexico had decided to invest some energy for the continuity of the process and (2) a certain dissatisfaction that the implementation of the proposals emerging from the civil societies had not materialized as practical results either in the sense that the suggestions for the institutionalization from the part of civil society organizations had not been actualized or in a sense that the demands of the Mexican and European Civil societies in relation to either implementing the Global Agreement in relation to the demands for the respect of the human rights or revising the Global Agreement in the way that would make its economic part more favourable for sustainable the economic development in Mexico had not been successful.

On the one hand, there was a more optimistic wait and see feeling, i.e. the idea that the Commission and the Mexican government, despite their lack of willingness to implement the practical proposals of the civil societies, had shown interest in the process in itself and were willing to continue the dialogue and listen to the proposals of the civil society organizations. Thus, it was suggested that it is wise to continue with the process and wait and see whether the governments are willing to proceed with the practical proposals presented by the civil society organizations. It was also pointed out that the European Commission had indeed given certain positive signs that it cares for the human rights in Mexico. On the other hand, there was a more pessimistic feeling suggesting that despite the efforts of the civil society organizations the governments are not responsive in reality. In other words, this process is not a dialogue but a monologue i.e. a process in which the governments listen but do not act accordingly and thus this process is nothing but gesture with the objective of legitimizing the Global Agreement process as such.

Besides this general duality of atmosphere, we heard many testimonies from the Mexican civil society actors showing clearly that the Global Agreement supports unsustainable labour relations practices from the part of EU-European transnational corporations in Mexico. Therefore, despite the appearance of the Global Agreement as something more (humane) than just a free trade agreement, it follows a similar route in the actual world as does more pure “free trade” agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement. Moreover, many testimonies suggested that many trade and investment practices involved in the Global Agreement actually go beyond for example NAFTA in their neo-liberalness and contribute to the promotion of the process of neo-liberal globalization which has been harmful to Mexico, Mexican economy and the Mexican society and Mexicans in general. Moreover, we heard many testimonies of the human right violations against the indigenous populations and the labour rights of the campesinos for example in the state of Oaxaca as well as violations against the human rights of the protesters against the aims of the Tercera Cumbre de los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de la Unión Europea, América Latina y el Caribe in Guadalajara, Mexico (May 28-29 2004). It was lamented that many of the activists are still imprisoned and this was taken as one example that the human rights clausula of the Global Agreement is not working.

Moreover, the RMALC and the CIFCA discussed their strategies for the forum and the final drafts of the individual and common statements and the press release were prepared. It was also agreed that given the fact that the Global Agreement is a bi-regional agreement, it is necessary that the human rights and democracy clausulas as well as the Global Agreement in general shall be respected both in the European Union and in Mexico and that the European civil society organizations must pay more attention to the implications of Global Agreement and neo-liberal globalization in general in Europe. In other words, it is essential to make sure that for example the human rights are respected both in Europe and in Mexico and not just act in a way suggesting that all human rights violations take place in Mexico. In other words, it is essential, especially in the context of a general threat to human rights and human rights legislations globally caused by the so called “war on terror”, to defend human rights globally and within the jurisdictions of all agreeing parties.

Dialogue Forum between the Civil Societies and Government Institutions of Mexico and the European Union, Mexico City, February 28 – March 1 2005)

Day I, February 28 in the Tlatelolco offices of Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The forum began with the inauguration session. Despite certain reservations of the civil society organizations, the fact that the president of Mexico, Vicente Fox inaugurated the forum suggests that the European Union and the Mexican Government do give some emphasis on the process. Other speakers were Luis Ernesto Derbez, Mexico’s foreign secretary, Tomás Duplá de Moral, representing the European Commission and various representatives of European and Mexican civil societies. Norma Castañeda (DECA, Equipo Pueblo, a member organization of RMALC) represented a compact of civil society organizations, including RMALC and CIFCA. In her speech she challenged the governments to proceed with practical work that would take account the proposals of the civil society organizations and follow the spirit of Global Agreement. Despite the fact that the presentations of the representatives of the governments were relatively optimistic – especially that of Tomás Duplá de Moral – and painted a positive picture of the Global Agreement and the forum process and that the representatives of the civil society organizations were considerably more critical and painted with dimmer colours, it is possible to say that the inaugural session did give us a feeling that this forum could form a space for a real dialogue. After the inauguration we heard three keynote presentations and then we divided ourselves in four working groups:

Mesa 1: Evaluación de las relaciones entre México y la Unión Europea y sus estados miembros: Diálogo político y asuntos económicos.
Mesa 2: Balance, perspectivas y prioridades de la cooperación.
Mesa 3: Cohesión Social.
Mesa 4: Institucionalización del Foro de Diálogo entre las Sociedades Civiles y las Instituciones del Gobierno de México y de la Unión Europea.

In all working groups the respective participants presented their prepared presentations after which the floor was open to discussion. I participated in the Mesa 4, in which we discussed the possibilities to strengthen the institutionalization of the forum process. Our group suggested that it would be important to create a (1) Mixed Consultative Committee (Comité Consultivo Mixto), which would be a political organ representing Mexican and European civil societies and an institutionalized space for cooperation with the Common Council (Consejo Conjunto) and thus with the governments and (2) a Social Observatory (Observatorio Social) that would be a cooperative effort that would bring together broad spectrum of research and analysis combining various instruments to research social, economical, cultural and environmental consequences – and possibilities – of the Global Agreement. Together these new spaces would bring us closer to the objective of assuring the real participation of the European and Mexican civil societies in the monitoring, implementation and evolution of the Global Agreement.

Other participants presented their proposals as well and later we agreed that the moderator Alberto Montoya and his colleagues should compile a draft proposal for the final statement of Mesa 4 on which we would discuss during the next working day before drafting the final statement. At that time it seemed to me that everything went well. The atmosphere of Mesa 4 was good and the moderator and then representatives of the Mexican government and the Commission were very open in their work.

Day II, March 1 in the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Tlatelolco)

The second working day began with the evaluation of the draft statement which was a nine pages long paper that brought together main proposals of the participants. We went through the draft carefully and discussed it first in a general manner and then more in detail. Many participants presented their critique of the draft and then it was suggested that it would be a good idea to shorten the paper considerably and to state more clearly the central proposals of Mesa 4. Accordingly, we decided to create an editorial group representing moderator, the governments and the civil societies. So far so good, at least I thought that everything was proceeding well and – unlike the other groups, as I heard later, especially in Mesa 1, where it was impossible to reach any kinds of agreements and where, according to various civil society participants, the Commission representative was dictating the topics on which it was possible to discuss and limiting the possibilities of discussion in many ways. However, I who did not participate in the editorial group, was informed later that in the process of editing especially the representative of the government of Mexico adopted a cautionary attitude and watered down many concrete proposals that were incorporated in the draft statement. In the end the civil society representatives were quite disappointed because the final document did not include practical proposals for example on the creation of Observatorio Social and in relation to the Comité Consultivo Mixto there was only a vague promise to discuss about it.

Therefore, at that stage many representatives of the civil societies were ready to think that the negative feeling about the forum was more correct, i.e. that this forum does not represent a dialogue but a monologue: as in the first forum, the governments were ready to listen but not to proceed with concrete practical steps forward in the institutionalization of the process. This feeling could almost be touched in the closing session in which final statements of the working groups were presented. In the final discussion the representatives of European and Mexican civil societies (Gerard Karlhausen and Cresencio Morales Avila) presented their views that brought up certain reservations on the process and especially on the limited readiness of the governments to proceed with concrete steps forward not only in relation to the institutionalization but also with the subject matters of the other Mesas. Tomás Duplá del Moral, representative of the European Commission was seemingly exhausted by the critique and contrary to the optimism and open-mindedness he expressed in his inaugural speech, it seemed that he wanted to end the closing session as soon as possible. He however, promised that the Commission takes seriously the proposals and takes them in account in the development of the process. Lourdes Aranda Bezaury, representing Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs went through the main issues of the forum and the closing session and promised that the Mexican government will discuss the proposals of the civil societies and wants to proceed with the process. She also promised that the presentations can be found in the homepage of Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs within two days. The press conference was cancelled.

Evaluation of the forum process

In the analysis taking place after the forum we discussed how RMALC and CIFCA should – or should not – proceed with the process. Many were disappointed with the at least seemingly meagre results of the forum and even thought that it could be advisable to withdraw their participation to the process. I was personally disappointed by the clear undertone present in the overall posture of the European Commission suggesting between the lines and sometimes quite openly that in the final analysis everything related to the Global Agreement which, as the evaluation process and the development of the process, should be subordinated to the demands of global competition. In other words, the agreement and its constitutive parts must obey the demands set by the global competition and Mexico should develop her economy and society in a way that promotes its economy’s ability to compete in the context of global competition.

As a critical student of economic globalization I am convinced that this demand is in gross contradiction with the subordinate objectives of promotion of the human rights, the labour rights and viable (national) economy of Mexico – or the European Union, for that matter – and does certainly not help the promotion of the demands of the Mexican civil society that the Global Agreement should be revised or implemented in a way promoting the sustainable economic development in Mexico. As a matter of fact, it is the demand of global competition which is wrecking the economies and societies not only of the poorer countries but also those of the rich countries. Therefore, if the aim is to promote sustainable economic development and human rights in Mexico and European Union, the demand of global competition should be subordinated to the needs of sustainable economy, society and human rights, not the other way round as is the case now. In other words, it is essential to change the priorities.

However, despite the problems faced in the forum process and despite the critical notes above, the general feeling of our group was that we can continue our participation in the process. However, the game ball is now in the hands of the European Commission and the Mexican Government. The civil society organizations of the European Union and Mexico have presented their practical proposals and the governments have promised to read them carefully. Therefore, in order to have a more clearly institutionalized and balanced process in which the European and Mexican civil societies could have better possibilities to get involved with the process of evolution and development of these forums and the broader process related to the Global Agreement, it is now the turn of the governments to respond in constructive manner and guarantee that the process is indeed a dialogue and not just a monologue.

Appendix I

Appendix II