Fox’s Performance Leaves Many Puzzled

The typical achievement of a summit involving heads of state is either a) nothing, or b) decided well in advance. The highlight of the actual gathering is the made-for-television acting out between jaw sessions. The featured participants take advantage of the spotlight to promote themselves, while protesters use the cameras to convince the world that their cause somehow requires oddball behavior or manic violence.

If summits are political theater, last week's meeting of Latin American leaders in an Argentine resort city was no less than Grand Kabuki, a song-and-dance spectacle emphasizing technique. Much of Mexico, however, was unimpressed with its own president's technique. In fact, the near-consensus opinion of those outside his own party was that Vicente Fox's behavior at the summit was shameful, embarrassing, and detrimental to the nation.

And that's the sugarcoated version. Just about every voice to the left of the president (i.e. the majority of voices) came right out and accused him of kowtowing to the United States, of "doing Bush's dirty work" in Argentina. The "E" word — entreguista — is a serious charge in these parts, but so overused in recent years that it's lost much of its zing. This time around, though, the concern is genuine, and those who accuse the president of submitting to Washington's will at the expense of Mexico's interests seem to mean what they say.

The criticism grew out of Fox's vocal and persistent attempts to push forward the long-stalled Free Trade Area of the Americas, known in Mexico as ALCA for its initials in Spanish. It's no secret that Fox is a firm believer in the proposed accord, which would link more than 30 North and South American nations from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego in open commerce. But since there was zero chance for any unanimous agreement even on resuming talks in the future (the topic wasn't even on the summit agenda), Fox's fevered pitching and lobbying for ALCA came off as unseemly grandstanding, and often as scolding.

Worse, he unloaded some shots at the five countries that wouldn't commit to more hemisphere-wide trade talks. One of those shots was aimed at his host, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner. Fox was shocked — shocked! — that Kirchner was "more oriented toward obeying Argentine public opinion and his presidential image in the eyes of the Argentines than with achieving a successful summit in terms of the integration of the Americas."

That he meant this observation to be taken as criticism, not praise, is rather telling in itself. Fox even went after Diego Maradona, the Argentine soccer legend who beat obesity and drugs to emerge as a media star and anti-globalization activist. Maradona was omnipresent at the summit, bouncing up and down with Hugo Chávez and reminding all within earshot of Bush's sins. When asked about Maradona's views, Fox seemed to dismiss the right of a mere soccer player to even have views.

How imprudent was that? We're talking about Argentina's greatest hero, a guy who not only has a museum dedicated to him, but also a church. To dis him is to dis the entire nation. That's not good diplomacy.

The television footage of Fox's comments at the summit and upon returning to Mexico last week reveals a noticeable change in the president's personality. One reason his approval ratings aren't as low as the public perception of his performance in office is that he's seen as amiable and sincere — a swell guy despite everything. Last week though, there was a smarmy, unctuous tone to his public comments, as though he found it hard to tolerate those benighted populists who refused to see things his way.

At the same time, there was a certain pettiness to some of Fox's actions. According to newspaper reports, he didn't clap after Kirchner's public address. He even refused to attend the gala supper. (This may be the most unpardonable of sins. Beef and wine are two areas of endeavor where Argentina outshines Mexico. Only vegetarian teetotalers have an excuse for passing up such an opportunity.)

The intensity of many Mexicans' reaction to the undiplomatic behavior of their president has a context. Mexicans are proud of their foreign policy tradition, which historically has emphasized non-intervention, with no interruption of relations with countries undergoing regime change, good or bad. At the same time, Mexico has been generous in taking in refugees in trouble, such as Spanish loyalists in the 1930s and Central Americans in the 1980s. Mexico always got along with other countries.

Now Mexicans see an administration leaving little stink bombs in country after country. Today it's Peru, which wasn't notified when its wanted ex-president passed through. Yesterday it was Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela for not supporting free trade (though four of them are members of their own free trade zone, Mercosur). Earlier it was U.S. blacks, insulted twice in a matter of months. Before that it was Cuba, a historic close friend.

But let's be honest. The real reason for the fuss is the perception that Fox was imposing ALCA on the summit because the United States wanted him to. Bush was there, too, but even he obliquely acknowledged that Argentina and the other ALCA-skeptics weren't going to be swayed by anything he said. So why not have Mexico — the supposed "bridge" between the U.S. and Latin America — carry the ball? That's how many of Fox's critics interpret the events, and they find it hard to stomach.

It was the subject — the U.S.-backed ALCA — more than Fox's ham-fisted style that has roiled Fox's domestic adversaries. Not convinced? Try a thought experiment: Suppose the summit had been in a U.S. city and Fox used the same pushy technique to impose immigration reform onto the agenda? Suppose it was Bush rather than Kirchner who Fox criticized for pandering to public opinion rather than working for an immigration accord? Suppose it was Arnold Schwarzenegger, instead of Diego Maradona, being dismissed as a mere bodybuilder whose opinions weren't welcome?

Would the outrage at Fox's conduct be as pronounced? Of course not. He'd probably be cheered.

The assumption that the president was serving only as Bush's lapdog also seems a little too facile. Fox is a free-market absolutist who sees free trade as the solution to the hemisphere's problems. Like most free-market absolutists, he considers himself a member of the one true church, on a mission to spread the gospel. That his views coincide with Bush's views doesn't mean they're not his own. And in the not unlikely case that Fox and the U.S. administration are coordinating their efforts — well, that's only troublesome if what they're working on is unacceptable.

And for the record, Mexico bucked the United States twice that same week — by signing on with the International Criminal Court despite U.S. pressure not to, and by voting for the umpteenth time against the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

In Argentina last week, President Fox came down squarely in the camp that seeks to demonize those Latin American leaders (such as Kirchner) who question the supremacy of an unfettered market and who favor a more active government role in nudging the market in a more equitable direction. At the heart of the current controversy is a reasonable doubt that the Mexican people want to be in that camp. We'll have a better idea come next July.