ABSTRACT
With the victory of Bill Clinton in the November 1992 election and a Democratic majority in the Congress, there was some speculation in the United States and Mexico that the new administration and Congress might press Salinas harder to liberalize politically. Candidate Clinton had criticized the Bush administration’s policy toward China and Haiti for ignoring human rights abuses. Clinton had also taken a strong stand against dictatorial regimes in Latin America. These positions, plus stronger Democratic Party traditions on human rights, translated to open speculation among Mexican intellectuals and the political opposition that these same principles might be applied to Mexico. This speculation was not, however, based on specific statements made by the Clinton team about Mexico. Leftist commentator Adolfo Aguilar predicted, for example, “a foreseeable revision of the complacent attitude of the government of the United States with respect to the abuses of political power, human rights, electoral fraud, and lack of democracy in Mexico.”1 Jorge Castañeda expressed a similar view:
Despite the speculation, it is difficult to detect any appreciable shift in the administration’s attitude toward speaking out or more openly supporting democratic change in Mexico during this first year. A State Department desk officer for Mexico explained the continuity between the two administrations as: “amazing, no significant changes in the way things are done.”3 Clinton administration officials interviewed did not indicate any internal consideration given to broadening NAFTA to political concerns or, as critics had argued, using the opening to NAFTA to advocate greater political reform. Richard Feinberg, the administration’s new Director for Latin American Affairs on the National Security Council, indicated that the administration supported political reform
and more competitive party politics in Mexico, but their approach was “we don’t get involved in the details, don’t make headlines.”4
