Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives just aren't tactful when it comes to foreign affairs. In what foes are calling the "Enmienda Halliburton" (the Halliburton Amendment), Republicans on the House International Relations Committee have attached a clause to a State Department bill calling for "an accord to open Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) to investment by U.S. oil companies." PEMEX would have to open up to foreign investment before the United States agreed to an amnesty deal for illegal Mexican immigrants. Although Mexican President Fox has been pushing for an amnesty deal since he came into office, the Bush administration has been reluctant to tackle the issue. Now, Republicans are asking Mexico for oil in exchange for amnesty. One of Mexico's leading dailies said it best: "Blackmail in the U.S.: Immigration Accord for PEMEX."
Although the amendment was added as a "Sense of Congress" clause -- and is therefore not legally binding -- it again demonstrates the economic skew to our foreign policy. Republicans in Congress have never shied away from criticizing Mexico's reluctance to open up its oil industry. The current bill states that PEMEX "is inefficient, plagued by corruption and in need of substantial reform and private investment." Right. Kenneth Lay, anyone? Enron aside, there is no doubt that PEMEX does need reform in order to modernize and meet the growing demands of an increasingly economically-mobile society. This need, however, does not preclude what is at stake for many Mexicans: pride and national dignity.
Why is PEMEX a source of national pride, one might ask? It's just a bloody oil company! Well, in March of 1938, Mexican President Lzaro Crdenas nationalized the Mexican oil industry in the hope of eliminating external influences to Mexican economic and foreign policy. Many Mexicans consider the creation of PEMEX a source of national pride: the company allowed Mexico to break itself free from the meddling interests of foreign powers. The nationalization of the oil industry is even written into Mexico's constitution.
For America to press Mexico for oil decentralization is akin to a foreign power asking the United States to amend the Bill of Rights (Let the Patriot Act do that!). The Mexican public already views America with anger over the Iraq issue. Even worse, hostility to this new measure is already reaching feverish proportions. Republicans, however, seem to brush this anger aside. Hubris has already infected their ranks in Congress. After all, how is it that the world's most powerful nation is denied access its third world neighbor's plentiful oil reserves?
Why are Mexico's oil reserves needed, anyway? Security is the prevalent word today. By securing American energy reserves for the next couple of decades, America -- the argument goes -- would become less dependent on Arab oil, and by extension, more secure. This, we can all agree, is a good thing. How do we do this? Get Mexico's oil! But not so fast! Pushing America's weight around for economic reasons (and money is, in the end, at issue here) only stirs up more resentment against us -- even our own backyard. It is one thing to have angry terrorists thousands of miles away. It is another thing altogether to have them at your doorstep, as the attacks of Sept. 11 horrifyingly demonstrated.
The Democrats have responded by criticizing the initiative. The Hispanic Caucus in the House lambasted the amendment as "disrespectful" to Mexico. Representative Robert Menndez, D-N.J., went even further, stating that the initiative was "cynical" and "unilateral." All opponents to the measure agree: America must not unilaterally impose its will on any of its friends for the sake of economic prosperity. It seems as if these complaints went ignored: the measure narrowly passed in the House International Committee, to be taken up by both chambers later on this year.
These ludicrous demands only highlight the hypocrisy on the part of the Republican Party. It has gone to great lengths to sway the burgeoning Mexican vote (lest we forget, the 2000 Republican Convention was called the "Convencin del Partido Republicano," how cute!), only to turn around and demand oil for amnesty. The most ironic gesture of all took place the day before the "Halliburton Amendment" was passed: Luis Ernesto Derbez of Mexico and representatives of the United States in Washington jointly announced that, despite their differences, America and Mexico remained "friends and brothers."
Those protesters in New York were wrong to decry Bush's supposed "Blood for Oil" adventurism in Iraq, right? Maybe so. What Mr. Bush has now, however, is a party acting on the very same ambitions encapsulated in those protesters' chants. To avoid another diplomatic blunder, Mr. Bush would be wise to silence the Republicans in the House. The message, direct from the streets of Mexico, is very clear. No to oil for amnesty. No to blackmail.
