Remarks 2007 Mexico Business Summit
John D. Negroponte, Deputy Secretary of State

Monterrey, Mexico
October 28, 2007

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:  

(Applause.)  Thank you.  Thank you very much, Miguel, and for the warm and generous introduction.  Thank you for the great friendship that you and Cristiana have shown to me and to my wife Diana and to our whole family over these many years.  And seeing you and many others of you here this evening brings back a flood of memories of our four – more than four – years here in Mexico, which were years of great personal satisfaction.  We loved service here.  We love the country of Mexico.  I always tell our junior diplomatic officers, the entering classes, I say one of the pieces of advice I give them, is to travel all around the countries to which they are assigned.  And I recall that we visited 31 of the 32 states of Mexico during the time that we were here.  And that was a source of great enjoyment and satisfaction and I must admit I think that I have seen more of Mexico than I have seen of my own country, the United States.  But in any event, I want to thank you for having me as a keynote speaker this evening.

I’d also like to recognize President Berger of Guatemala and Governor Gonzalez Parás of Nuevo Leon for being here with us tonight, in addition to many other diplomatic colleagues, both Mexican and foreign representatives to this country, including Jeffrey Davidow, one of our former Ambassadors here to Mexico.  It was great to see you again, Jeff.

The Monterrey Conference every year has distinguished all of the leaders who come together to look at our long-term relationship and outlook for the Hemisphere.  I’m glad to be back in Mexico tonight.  I served as Ambassador here, as I mentioned, for four years, from 1989 through 1993.  And I often think of my years in Mexico as among the most interesting and fruitful ones in my career.  And my family treasures our memories of times spent here and the many Mexican friends we made, and we have returned frequently since leaving our official position in Mexico City in September of 1993.

The United States has a great stake in the success of Mexico.  We share a deep, broad relationship and we understand that our futures – our success and our competitiveness in this global era – are increasingly intertwined.  We have unique demographic links.  We know our society is enriched by the talent and productivity of many of your countrymen who live in the United States.  Today, a million Americans live in Mexico.  Ours is a friendship and a partnership that has grown, in time, based on shared values and shared interests and extensive people-to-people relationships. 

When I remember my service in Mexico, I think of how far our relationship has come since 1993.  When I became Ambassador, the popular consensus was that strong bilateral ties were beyond reach.  I remember preparing to assume the ambassadorship and reading Alan Riding’s book Distant Neighbors.  The author referred to Mexico and the U.S. as two border nations, and here I quote, “separated by language, religion, race, philosophy, and history.”  End of quote.  He continued, and I quote, “probably nowhere in the world do two neighbors understand each other so little.”  End of quote.  Riding wrote his book in 1984.  It was a pessimistic message. 

What a difference two decades can make.  Look at the breadth of our achievement – because it reflects how far we have come.  The number of issues we discuss, the interaction across a range of bilateral, trilateral and multilateral issues – not to mention the state and local dynamic – is larger than ever before.   Today our countries are joined, not divided, by history.  Not divided by history, culture, business and connections our citizens understood long before governments caught up.

We are no longer distant neighbors – we are profoundly engaged with each other.  Does that mean we always agree?  Of course not.  But it does mean that more often than not, our common values are leading us to cooperate on common challenges. Mexicans and Americans alike increasingly recognize the corrosive impact of narcotics trafficking and crime on both sides of the border.  And our common values include a commitment to democracy, rule of law, and prosperity for all of our citizens. 

As Ambassador of the United States to Mexico 14 years ago, I served during a dynamic time for United States-Mexico relations.  I participated in negotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement.  NAFTA transformed relations between the United States and Mexico and served as a model for economic growth and development across the world.   

At the end of my tenure as Ambassador in 1993, the United States and Mexico were on the verge of implementing NAFTA.  In that year, trade between the United States and Mexico amounted to $99 billion. United States investment in Mexico stood at $15.4 billion. Neither of these sums are pocket change, but now, fourteen years later, they are dwarfed by the numbers that reflect the huge strides we have made in integrating our economies.  In 2005, United States investment in Mexico was $71.4 billion – more than quadruple the 1993 amount.  In 2006, we traded more than a billion dollars worth of goods and services a day, almost quadrupling our bilateral commerce as well.

In the first 15 years of this historic free trade agreement, we have together greatly advanced the competitiveness of North America.  By opening new markets, NAFTA has led to the creation of new jobs and increases of standards of living.  It will continue to do so.  Yet, as we work to realize the promise of free trade, we are mindful of those on both sides of the border who do not feel the benefits of such trade and question its utility.  We must continue to invest in education, job training, and development programs so that every citizen has the skills to compete in the dynamic 21st century and we make North America the best place to live and do business in the world. 

You and I are both better off as a result of NAFTA.  With continued close North American cooperation, I am confident our children will reap even greater benefits.

And as I said, NAFTA has been a model for the region as we negotiate additional free trade agreements in the Hemisphere.  Just this month, Costa Rica voted in favor of the Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, which will encourage broad trade through Central America and the Dominican Republic.  And President Bush has asked the United States Congress to vote in favor of three additional free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Peru.  These agreements make our economies stronger, generate employment, and promote competitiveness we all need in this vast new global economy.  It is vital that these accords be approved by our Congress as soon as possible.

Fourteen years ago, our leaders had a vision of a dynamic region prospering economically and politically.  Today, our leaders recognize the need to protect our prosperity and well-being by combating transnational threats.  We are united in our goal of a prosperous and secure region, free from exploitation by organized criminals, and safe from the risk of terrorism.  

Our economies prosper better – best – if investors feel secure, consumers can make decisions without intimidation, and business can be confident in the rule of law.  Criminal organizations and terrorists not only destroy lives and possessions – they destroy confidence and hope.   This groundwork for increased cooperation was laid during the Fox Administration, when we began to improve information sharing across borders to better attack transnational criminal organizations.  The more we communicated and cooperated, however, the more we realized the enormity of the challenge. 

Today, it is my privilege to again play a role in strengthening United States-Mexico ties as we join together as partners confronting our mutual threats.  We assume our mutual obligations to protect ourselves against criminal organizations operating not just along our border, but deep within our two nations, with a high level of violence and callous disregard for human life, that our citizens reject.  

When President Calderon came into office, he made clear that the fight against organized crime was a priority.  To date, his actions have spoken even more loudly and underscore his determination and dedication to success in this fight.  Since January, the Government of Mexico has extradited more than 70 criminals, including major figures from each of the key cartels operating in Mexico.  It has launched a series of surges in key states to disrupt criminal operations and networks.  Not only are federal law enforcement entities making anti-corruption efforts a priority, but the central government has reached out to state and local entities to do the same.  And we have seen record seizures of precursor chemicals, cocaine – with 10 tons seized just weeks ago – and cash – with $207 million recently seized from inside of a house in Mexico City.  

We believe that President Calderon is relentless in this fight.  He has proposed bold security and judicial reforms pending before the Mexican Congress now.  And these reforms may soon be added to the list of reforms successfully passed by a newly invigorated congressional leadership.  I want to acknowledge the sacrifice of his leadership.  As cartels lash back against the government, more soldiers, more police and public servants have been killed this year than ever before. 

President Calderon and his team recognize that this is a shared challenge.  And the United States has also been active in these same efforts.  We have established a National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy to implement objectives in intelligence collection, interdiction, surveillance and prosecution to stop criminal activities.  And in 2005, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives launched its own Southwest Border Initiative to trace information with Mexico, to close off weapons trafficking corridors, and expand intelligence cooperation.

Successful initiatives on both sides of the border have led both our nations to a similar point:  we are stronger working together.  Organized crime does not respect borders, and we should not let borders be barriers to our separate law enforcement efforts.  Cooperation across the border will strengthen our individual efforts as well, further undercutting the drug-traffickers and the gangs.

During his meeting last March with President Bush, President Calderon proposed that our two countries intensify our efforts bilaterally.  He urged the United States to expand its efforts to reduce drug demand, to stem the flow of arms across the border, and to attack money-laundering more aggressively.  President Calderon also offered to expand bilateral cooperation so that we could both be more effective, on our respective sides of the border, to stop organized crime and drug trafficking, and ensure that terrorist organizations cannot ever exploit either nation. 

Since that time we have been in extensive consultations to define the scope of our new partnership.  We have heard the words of encouragement from our respective legislatures and look forward to engaging with them, recognizing the critical roles they have in this process.  Both presidents have been closely engaged at key moments, discussing the development of the partnership by phone and of course at the recent North American Leaders Summit in Montebello, Canada last August.

The result is what we call the Merida Initiative, a new partnership announced by President Bush and President Calderon last week to confront organized crime and drug trafficking organizations operating in the region.  NAFTA transformed our trade and helped our people prosper.  This new initiative will build on the success of NAFTA and define our shared responsibility to confront criminal organizations.  We commit to the strategic and tactical cooperation necessary to combat criminal activity and separate initiatives to strengthen our respective, complementary, efforts against specific challenges.

Let me start by telling you what this partnership is not.  It is not a plan that involves increases in United States government presence in Mexico with law enforcement or military.  It is not a strategy that in any way infringes on Mexico's sovereign rights – or on those of the United States.  It is a strategy to succeed: to succeed against organized criminals and drug traffickers; to succeed in protecting the victims they traffic and exploit; to succeed in reinforcing our mutual efforts against possible terrorist threats; and to succeed in breaking smuggling networks of every possible kind. 

Our two countries will share information and databases to make sure we know as much as possible about the criminals and their networks.  The United States will support Mexico's ongoing initiatives with equipment so that our respective law enforcement teams can work more effectively together.  We will share leads, develop parallel investigations, and pursue respective prosecutions to take criminals off the streets of Mexico and the United States.  And we will offer to expand existing training programs so that Mexico's law enforcement officials have the resources and capabilities they need to enforce the law.

We will work on our own challenges as well.  For the United States, demand reduction, bulk currency and illegal arms flows are a priority, in addition to our current efforts.  For Mexico, directly attacking organized crime while reforming its police and judicial systems are formidable tasks. 

Additionally, we will look south together, and expand our strategy and assistance to our willing partners in Central America who share both the same challenges and the same commitment to confront them.  Working with the leaders of Mexico and these nations, we will align our training, offer equipment and information so that the long trail of illicit activity that traverses Central America towards the United States can be broken. 

As we succeed – as criminal organizations disband, as gangs lose their sway in Central America, as the U.S. reduces drug demand – we will prosper.   When criminals stop corrupting, stop intimidating, and stop undermining our societies, business can flourish, employment can multiply, and opportunities can take root. 

I was privileged to be present at the creation of NAFTA, and to now see the good it has wrought for all three partners.  I feel privileged to be present as the United States and Mexico launch a new era of cooperation against crime in all its forms, an era that will free us of the suffering organized crime now causes, and secure us from the always present threat of terrorism.  Two decades ago we might have been merely neighbors with a common border – today we are partners on many of the issues of mutual import to both of our nations.  From the great strengths of both our nations, and from the respect and trust we bring each other, this partnership will truly succeed.

Thank you very much.

(Applause.) 

MIGUEL ALEMÁN VELASCO: Muchas gracias, John.  Creo que ha sido muy importante no solamente tu presencia sino tu mensaje de esta noche. Que se adelanta con respuestas a muchas de las preguntas que seguramente se piensan hacer aquí sobre todo con relación a la iniciativa de Mérida. Por lo que voy a invitar a los presentes a iniciar esta sesión de preguntas y respuestas para las personas que tienen los micrófonos nos hagan favor de llegar hasta aquellos que levanten la mano solicitar un micrófono. Estamos a sus órdenes. Veo una mano por allá.

[English: Thank you, John.  I believe that not only your presence but also your message have been very important tonight.  A message that has already responded to many of the questions that people have certainly been thinking about, especially regarding the Merida Initiative.  With that I will invite those present to begin the question-and-answer session, for those who have the microphones please be so kind as to go to those who are raising their hands to ask for a microphone.  We’re at your disposal.  There’s a question.]

QUESTION:  Good night, Mr. Ambassador.  This is Luis Anguro from Guadalajara.  First of all, thank you for being here in Mexico.  There’s no doubt that NAFTA has been a great situation for all three countries.  But I cannot help of thinking that there might be some backlash in the United States.  Just by looking at the networks in the U.S., you see some immigration issues, some protectionism issues that may be coming back to the U.S.  How do you see the situation within the society in the U.S., especially with the coming months for the elections for the next year?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:  Well, you remember even as we debated the NAFTA 15 years ago some of these same types of forces were at work – apprehensions about the trade agreement –  and I think those kinds of debates will always exist, whether it’s immigration issues or concerns put forward by the labor movement.  I think that a lot of it has to do with leadership.  And when it comes to trade issues, I think that a lot has to do with presidential leadership.  I think without strong presidential leadership, it’s usually quite hard to get these kinds of arrangements approved by the Congress.  And you’ll recall, the great effort after President Bush successfully negotiated the NAFTA agreement, President Clinton after him and Vice President Gore made an enormous effort to overcome concerns with respect to the NAFTA.  So I think that’s the same dynamic that you’ll see here.  Congressional constituencies tend to be just that.  They represent smaller and more defined specific interests. So they can always find something to perhaps be not entirely happy with or to object to.  So I think that what’s really going to be important is the leadership we get from the Executive Branch.  I’m hopeful.  I think it’s – we’ve three very important agreements pending with Latin America at the moment, as I mentioned:  Colombia, Peru, and Panama.  I think that there has been some resistance, particularly to the agreement with Colombia, with the suggestion being made that the government in Colombia has to do more to avoid human rights abuses against Colombian labor leaders.  And one of the points that we are arguing in response is that people should recognize that President Uribe and his government are really part of the solution and not part of the problem.  And that it would be, I think, a strategic setback if for some reason we were not able to get that agreement ratified, approved by the Congress.  So, it’s a very, very high priority for us to get all of those agreements approved, but particularly the agreement with Colombia.

MIGUEL ALEMÁN VELASCO: Thank you, John.  Algúna otra pregunta, por favor?  Dos preguntas mas.

[English:  Another question, please?  Two more questions.]

QUESTION: Good night. My name is Hector.  When you were (inaudible), Mr. Miguel said that you would speak in five languages.  Spanish, English, French.  Can I make a question in Spanish?  Okay.

Que piensa usted o cual es su opinión acerca del muro que esta construyendo?

[English: What do you think or what is your opinion about the wall that is being built …]

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:  (Interrupting.) Si Usted dijera la pregunta en vietnamita, quizás (inaudible) algunas dificultades (Laughter.)  En español, sí, está bien.

[English: (Interrupting.) If you want to ask a question in Vietnamese, there may be some difficulties.  (Laughter.)  Yes, Spanish is fine.]

QUESTION:   Muchas gracias.  La pregunta siguiente es muy concreta, cuál es su opinión a cerca del muro que se está construyendo entre la frontera de México y los Estados Unidos? Esa es la pregunta.  Gracias.

[English: Thank you.  The following question is very concrete.  What is your opinion of the wall being constructed on the U.S.-Mexican border? That’s the question.  Thanks.]

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Pues, puedo (inaudible) en ingles? (Laughter.)  Contesto en español.  Yo creo que es un tema que ha evolucionado desde el periodo que yo estuve – yo era el embajador aquí en su país. Y ahora se ha construido varios – “How do you say, stretches?” – tramos del muro en la frontera.  A mi juicio, esto no es una solución definitiva a la cuestión de la migración entre nuestros dos países.  Yo creo que más bien es un tema que tiene que tiene que tratarse a través de medidas económicas y sociales.  Y que también hay que reconocer el papel importante que los inmigrantes mexicanos han tenido en nuestra sociedad y de nuestra cultura.  Entonces, no es la solución óptima, pero también hay que reconocer, no? Es un derecho soberano de un país de tomar las medidas que considere oportuna para aplicar sus leyes. Y es una forma en que aplicamos nuestras leyes en cuanto a la inmigración. 

[English:  Well, can I answer in English? (Laughter.)  I’ll answer in Spanish.  I believe that this is a subject that has evolved since the time when I was Ambassador in your country.  Now they have constructed various stretches of the wall along the border.  In my judgment, this is not the definitive solution to the question of immigration between our two countries.  I believe that it is a subject that has to be solved through economic and social measures.  Also, there has to be recognition of the important role that Mexican immigrants have played in our society and culture.  So, it’s not an optimal solution, but you have to recognize that it is a sovereign right of a country to take measures it considers appropriate to apply its laws.  This is a way in which we apply our laws in terms of immigration.]

QUESTION:  Mr. Ambassador, some of us remember – and I’m sure you do, too – that in 1991, ‘92 and ’93, a lot of us expected from you and the Mexican side some progress on energy.  I noticed that this comment was omitted in your comments.  You have to think that 14 years later, there has been really no advance on energy.  Where Mexico, of course, is a very important energy partner with the United States.  And so we’d like to hear some comments from you as to how you see the future evolution of this partnership in energy between the U.S. and Mexico.  Thank you.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: I must admit that I haven’t followed in any great detail what’s happened on the energy front in U.S.-Mexico relations in recent years.  The one thing I would say is that I’m aware that Mexican oil production is in decline.  And, of course, Mexico has been a very important supplier – a very important and very reliable supplier of oil to the United States, which is something that we appreciate and value very much.  So I think that if this trend of declining oil production on the part of Mexico due to the lack of investment in new exploration and exploitation continues, I think that this would cause concern in energy circles in the United States.  And we could see a reduction in the supply of Mexican oil to our economy, which would mean that we would have to find that oil somewhere else. 

MIGUEL ALEMÁN VELASCO: Can we have another question?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Yeah.

QUESTION: Good night, Mr. Negroponte.  My name is Carina Romero.  I’m a student from the master’s degree in International Relations at the National University of Mexico.  I want you to answer this question, please.  Which is your opinion about the European Union, about the euro, and the economic relations in the globalization process and if you agree or disagree with the idea of create an American union with the same conditions – like, only one supra-national institution?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Right.  I’ve always thought that the concept of the European Union would simply not – is simply not applicable to North America.  Not only because it is not our policy to seek that result, which is true.  But as I’ve reflected on the differences, both in geography and history, of the United States, Mexico, Canada – it’s hard to imagine people who have a very different idea about space and freedom than the Europeans do.  It’s hard to imagine them wanting to integrate their societies to the extent that the Europeans have done.  So, that is why we have always favored perhaps greater integration in the trade area, but not in all the other areas that the Europeans are pursuing.  So, I definitely see that the difference between the arrangement we have here in North America and the arrangement the Europeans have as continuing to be very different indeed.

QUESTION:  Please (inaudible) us, Mr. Ambassador, with an answer to the following.  There’s a perception that the potential of the bilateral relationship is tremendous and that there’s been lots of opportunities wasted in developing what could be a really extraordinary relationship between the U.S. and Mexico – that the relationship has taken a backseat to immigration and drug trafficking and the opportunity to develop a competitiveness platform to identify the three countries together as a trading bloc vis-a-vis the rest of the world and identifying opportunities for economic development in Mexico has basically not kept up the pace.  What can you say about the priorities of the U.S. in terms of developing the relationship to the rightful place that it deserves?

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Well, I tried to address some of that in my speech.  Both are important. I mean, you have to deal with security issues, if you’re confronted by them.  Especially since security issues, if they are allowed to get out of control, make it impossible – extremely difficult, if not impossible – to pursue your other objectives.  So, it’s not because we’re interested in security issues to the exclusion of the other questions you refer to.  I would agree that the primary goal of our policy on both sides of the border ought to be to find a way to develop the most mutually beneficial possible relationship in the areas of trade, economic investment, people-to-people exchanges, and so forth.  So, that’s got to be the priority.  But the question of dealing with security, if it arises, has got to be – has just simply got to be confronted.  I think that we have to pursue both of these objectives at the same time.  And I would submit to you that we have made progress in developing the potential of our relationship.  But obviously we can do better and I think that we’re all committed to trying to do that.

QUESTION:  Good evening Mr. Ambassador.  In NAFTA, the arbitration clause allows for companies within the member nations to file suit against the national governments for expropriation or actions tantamount to expropriation.  And this has been – there have been several cases of problems with this particular clause.  And I was wondering if this was going to be repeated in CAFTA.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:  Well, you know. I’ve reached the age where if I don’t know the answer to a question, I just say so. (Laughter.) I’m afraid that I just don’t know the issue well enough to give you a meaningful reply. Sorry.

MIGUEL ALEMÁN VELASCO:  Tenemos una pregunta mas, por favor.  Tenemos dos preguntas más. Tres preguntas mas?  (Laughter.)

[English: We have another question, please.  We have two more questions.  Three more? (Laughter.)]

QUESTION:  You talked about the partnership, but why did your government link the billion dollars for Mexico before the meeting with Iraq?  I mean, there’s a lot of risk that they won’t pass Congress because of this, putting those things together.  I mean, it doesn’t show such a linkage with your partner, I think. Thank you.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:  The question was what about the risk of Congress?

QUESTION: That it’s not approved in Congress because it’s linked.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE: Right.

QUESTION:  From our point of view, it’s quite different – Iraq and Mexico dealing with drug-trafficking.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:  Right.  Well, I think certainly we’re going to make every effort to secure these funds from Congress. Congress controls the power of the purse.  That’s a reality that we have to deal with.  We will work with the interested Congressmen, people who are the border congressional delegation, perhaps the Hispanic Caucus, and others, to discuss with them the merits of this plan.  We’ve had some briefings already and they have been quite well received.  And Mr. Shannon and I, when we go back to Washington, will engage in further briefings. 

If I might, Tom, you should stand up.  We haven’t introduced our Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. (Applause.)  I should have done that early.  He’s our man in the State Department who coordinates all of our diplomatic activities with the Western Hemisphere and does that day-to-day, every day, seven days a week.  And does a very good job of it.

QUESTION:  Why did your government link the Mexican funds with the funds for Iraq?  That was the question.

DEPUTY SECRETARY NEGROPONTE:  Wait.  Oh, I’m sorry.  I didn’t understand the question, that part of your question.  We didn’t link them.  It was simply that there are quite a number of different activities that were included in this supplemental request.  It was the earliest possible way of getting funds for this initiative.  It was through the supplemental appropriation that we requested of the Congress.  And it has funds in it for activities in South Asia, in the Middle East, in other parts of the world.  It’s not limited only to Iraq.  It was simply issues that we considered to be of considerable urgency.  And since we wanted to be responsive to President Calderon’s suggestion that he made last March, we chose to submit the request for funds in this supplemental request.

 (Applause.)

QUESTION: Gracias mi nombre es Javier Alejo.  He tenido alguna experiencia en la relación México-EUA.  Aparte de haber sido cónsul general de México en Austin.  Sr. Embajador gusto en saludarlo.  Lo felicito por su brillante y delicada exposición sobre este tema en cuanto a la relación entre México y los EUA.  Creo que es importante tener en cuenta que con todo y que el TLC ha dado lugar a la modificación de muchos (inaudible) y positiva de la relación entre México-EUA ha tenido el problema y así debemos reconocerlo abiertamente los dos gobiernos de que ha creado una relación económica trunca.  Porque hemos abierto nuestras mutuas economías nada mas en dos de los tres aspectos fundamentales de las mismas.  Una es el comercio de bienes y servicios y la otra es la de los capitales y los flujos financieros.  Pero no la hemos abierto en los mercados de trabajo. Eso es algo que se tiene que decir abiertamente y reconocerse para empezar a trabajarlo correctamente.  Tiene que quedar claro que tenemos una relación económica trunca.  Y por consiguiente ineficiente.  El mundo de progreso que se pudo haber creado entre estas dos naciones habría dado muchos más altos resultados de los que ha dado hasta ahora si hubiéramos sabido organizar un mercado trans-fronterizo  de trabajo.  En términos concretos eso se traduce en las cuestiones de día a día en que los EUA no emita suficientes visas para trabajar.  En un mercado que necesita más trabajadores.  Un resultado concreto de esa falta de emisión de visas los que estamos en esto sabemos que hay un tope establecido desde hace muchos años de visas de trabajo a emitir, es la ilegalidad en la búsqueda de trabajo.  No quiere decir que si se emitieran más visas de trabajo se suspendiera la ilegalidad.  Esta siempre existirá.  Pero sería muchísima menor y obtendríamos mucho más progreso y menos problemas de legalidad entre los dos países y menos tensiones.  Menos criminalidad y menos falta al régimen de derecho entre los dos países.  Luego vienen los problemas que han surgido después del 11 de septiembre del 2001.  Todos hemos lamentado lo que pasó entonces. México especialmente porque somos vecinos y solidario con los EUA.  Pero se han adoptado medidas en EUA que están causando problemas al comercio, y más problemas al funcionamiento de los mercados trans-fronterizos de trabajo. Eso no se ha debatido abierta y honestamente entre los dos pueblos. Y hay que hacerlo.  Se están tomando decisiones unilaterales.  Es importante que lo veamos democráticamente.  O es que los mexicanos somos menores a los canadienses por ejemplo?  Esto es algo muy delicado.  Y está en la conciencia de los mexicanos.  Los mexicanos ya sienten que se les percibe como seres inferiores o por lo menos no dignos de confianza.  Entonces es muy importante que lo veamos de una manera abierta porque justamente compartimos los valores de la democracia y de la búsqueda de la prosperidad común y de la paz en nuestros pueblos.   Entonces yo siento que si sería bueno que pusiéramos esto sobre la mesa.  Muchas gracias.

[English: Thank you.  My name is Javier Alejo.  I have had some experience in the Mexican-U.S. relationship, as well as having been the Consul General of Mexico in Austin.  It is nice to greet you, Mr. Ambassador.  I congratulate you on your brilliant and delicate exposition of this topic concerning the relationship between Mexico and the United States.  I think that it is important to keep in mind that with all that NAFTA [has done, it] has made room for many changes and positive (inaudible).  The relationship between Mexico and the United States has had problems and thus we should openly recognize that the two governments have created this truncated economic relationship, because we have opened our mutual economies in no more than two of the three fundamental aspects of the same.  One is the commerce of goods and services and the other is that of the flow of capital and financial [services].  But we have not opened up in labor markets.  This is something that should be said openly and be recognized [in order] to begin working on it correctly.  It must remain clear that we have a truncated economic relationship, and therefore, inefficient.  The world of progress that could have been created between these two nations would have had much greater results that what has been occurred until now if we had known how to organize a trans-border labor market.  In concrete terms this translates in the day-to-day dealings in that the United States does not issue sufficient work visas.  In a market that needs more workers.  A concrete result of this lack of visa issuance, for those of us involved, is that we know that for many years there has been an established cap for [the number of] work visas to be issued, [which has promoted] illegality in the search for work.  This does not mean that if they issued more work visas, the illegality would be stopped.  This will always exist.  But it would be much less and we could obtain much more progress and fewer legal problems between the two countries and less tension.  Less criminality and fewer weaknesses in the legal relationship between the two countries.  Then come the problems that have arisen after September 11, 2001.  We all regret what happened back then, Mexico especially because we are neighbors and have solidarity with the United States.  But the United States has adopted measures that are causing problems in commerce and more problems in the function of trans-border labor markets.  This has not been openly and honestly debated between the two peoples.  And it must be done.  Unilateral decisions are being made.  It is important that we see it democratically.  Or is it that Mexicans are lower than the Canadians, for example?  This is something very delicate.  And this is in the collective conscience of the Mexican people.  The Mexicans already feel that they are seen as inferior beings or at least not worthy of trust.  Therefore, it is very important that we see this in an open manner because we justly share the values of democracy and the search for common prosperity and peace between our two peoples.  Therefore, I feel that it would be good for us to put this on the table.  Thank you very much.]

MIGUEL ALEMÁN VELASCO: Gracias a Francisco Javier.  Gracias, Sr. Embajador. Agradecemos su estancia aquí en el podium.  Gracias, Sr. Embajador

[English: Thank you, Francisco Javier.  Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.  We thank you for your time here at the podium.  Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.]