“A murdered journalist means one less voice in favor of the people.” These words, written in Spanish, were placed on a blanket outside a memorial for , a reporter for La Jornada who was murdered on May 15. He is the fourth journalist to be killed in Mexico this year and the second assaulted that day.

On May 16, hundreds of journalists gathered outside the attorney general’s office in three cities calling for justice. In the capital Mexico City, protesters held photos of the victims along with placards reading, “They are killing us.” Since President Enrique Peña Nieto entered office in 2012, ��have been killed and��.

PRESS FREEDOM IN MEXICO

Journalism is a risky profession as it can involve investigating and telling stories that many do not want to be told. As per the United Nations, more than in the line of duty over the past 10 years. This year alone has seen nine cases, according to , including the deaths of Javier Valdéz and .

In Mexico, the situation is coming to a head. Four of the nine were killed in that country, while two died in Iraq and one in Afghanistan, Russia and Syria. Another�� by the organization Article 19 says that every 22 hours, a member of the Mexican press suffers an attack.

The worst part is that 99.7% of those cases remain unpunished, according to��the ��by the Special Prosecutor’s��Office for��Crimes��Against��Journalists. From 2010 to 2016, 798 formal investigations for crimes against the press were registered, but��just 101 had the alleged perpetrator presented to court and only two were sentenced. In fact, 53% of attacks against journalists in 2016, including two extrajudicial executions, were committed by public servants, according to an annual . The state is believed to be the number one aggressor with 226 cases versus 17 by organized crime.

This partly explains why violence against journalists has kept growing despite the creation in 2012 of a special government office to protect human rights activists and journalists, along with the constant of President Peña Nieto to take action. The other reason comes from the����of these entities. Lines where no one answers, panic buttons without signals and cameras that take months to be installed of those who have sought assistance from the office.

Given the situation, the efforts of agencies like the Committee to Protect Journalists, Article 19 and Reporters Without Borders have not been enough to help journalists in trouble.

DYING��FOR A DOLLAR

Attacks, impunity and the criminalization of journalism are not the only factors killing Mexican media. Low salaries and minimal security are also common. According to , journalists earn around 10,000 pesos ($535) a month — enough for a single person but not a family. And that’s if you’re lucky: There are many like Gregorio Jiménez who, with five children and a wife depending on him,�� — one of which got him killed in 2014.

Apart from the low pay, some media outlets do not provide security for their employees, even when sent on dangerous assignments. Journalists at��La Jornada, for example, even though two of the four journalists murdered this year worked for that organization.

An important aspect of the economic crisis that journalists face comes from the changes in the way people consume information due to social networks. Mistrust in traditional media has increased worldwide.��The view of��journalists as being subjective, corrupt or enslaved to power has become a dogma among the least rational part of society — Donald Trump’s outspokenness against liberal media proves this phenomena is not limited to Mexico.��This portion of society is the least rational because its people do not realize that journalism is and will remain a fundamental tool for democracy.

In a world where “fake news” spreads with the speed of a virus and anyone with a smartphone has the ability to broadcast information of whatever quality, we need people who can verify the truth with a method, use reliable sources and make sense of facts through documented analysis. It is true that journalists (and media outlets) have a point of view that could define what they cover and how they do it — after all, they are people too. But with most journalists, those opinions will not be reflected in their work. Impartiality means looking for all the possible versions of truth that can be proven through objective and verified facts, in order to present the most genuine portrayal of reality.

Assaulting journalists and subjecting them to fear-based self-censorship means attacking our own fundamental rights of freedom of expression and access to information, enshrined in . So too does re-victimizing them and keeping quiet over the abuses they suffer.

Carmen Aristegui, a Mexican journalist who lost her job on the radio after investigating President Peña Nieto’s “,” said on : “We have to convince society that the death of a journalist is the death of society, it is the death of our liberties, it is the death of an attempt for democracy and for an harmonic life.” She also had it right when saying that today the portrait of Mexico has the face of a murdered journalist.

“You can kill journalists but you can’t kill the truth.” That is the hashtag — #NoSeMataLaVerdadMatandoPeriodistas — which represents the movement for press freedom in Mexico. The problem is that, even when truth is revealed, the voices of the world are usually dead, just as it was written on the memorial for Javier Valdéz.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post The Tragedy of Journalism in Mexico appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Donald Trump has already built barriers around his relationship with Mexico that are higher than any wall. The diplomatic slip in the form of a tweet that ended with President Enrique Peña Nieto canceling their meeting was apparently fixed after����between the two presidents held on January 27, in which they����and expressed their desire to keep cooperating on issues like security. Tensions keep growing, however, as Trump’s promises turn into actions and confrontation with its northern neighbor becomes a serious possibility for Mexico.

What was seen as a bully’s message when Trump was still just a presidential candidate became a real issue when the now President Trump signed an executive order to build the promised wall along the US border with Mexico. And even though Congress , Trump insists that somehow he will make Mexico pay the bill.

His declarations were��by President Peña Nieto: “Mexico does not believe in walls. I have said it many times: Mexico will not pay for any wall.” In a����distributed on social media, Peña Nieto added that he regretted and condemned the US decision to continue the construction of a wall that for years “has divided us instead of uniting us.”

Soon came the POTUS tweet repelling that if Mexico was unwilling to pay for the “badly needed wall,” then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting, and his Mexican counterpart��—also via Twitter. Trump would later tell Republican lawmakers in Philadelphia that it was a mutual decision: “Unless Mexico is going to treat the United States fairly, with respect, such a meeting would be fruitless, and I want to go a different route. We have no choice.” He also repeated that the American people would not pay for the wall and proposed��.

Giving in over this issue is not an option for both Mexico and the US. Agreeing to avoid the topic publicly was the better solution at the time, but now both sides fear that their respective leader will not keep his promise.

Actually, Mexico’s biggest concern is that Donald Trump actually accomplishes all that he has said about the US relationship with the Mexicans. However, America’s southern neighbor isn’t as weak as it seems. Both countries are dependent on each other and, therefore, have cards to put down on the table. This is why it took so little for Trump and Peña Nieto to call each other and promise cooperation.

Over the Wall

The��biggest threat isn’t the border wall—actually,����already exists. The real menace is the barrier to commerce that might come with an eventual renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—another of Trump’s promises.

The mogul president insists that the trade pact has led to a massive loss of American jobs as companies leave the country looking for investment opportunities and lower salaries in Mexico. The agreement has indeed allowed Mexico to draw foreign capital in and make its industry grow. Commercial deficit is also a fact: In 20 out of 21 years, Mexico’s sales have surpassed its purchases. However, this follows market dynamics rather than being an effect of the trade deal. NAFTA has given the United States����as to its neighbor.

According to the , trade between both countries amounted to more than $530 billion in 2015. Mexico is America’s third biggest trading partner and number one for����like Arizona, New��Mexico, Texas and California. alone exports $95 billion worth of good each year to Mexico, which equals 37% of total its global exports. The jobs of����depend directly on exports to Mexico. So do many of its��industries that use imported parts to complete production. In fact, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), this includes����for the Trump brands.

However, if an abrupt break from NAFTA will definitely hurt the US, for Mexico it may prove devastating. The US is by far its most important trade partner, representing 66.5% of its total international commerce. Since NAFTA was passed, the value of ��has risen by 638%. Today, some �����Ի���depend on its viability. If it is dissolved,��, and jobs created by the multinationals that Trump has promised to attract might not suffice to employ them.

It is exactly this asymmetry of what President Trump has in mind when he talks about negotiating with Mexico. A fair update of the treaty might benefit all its members, but he seems to be seeking more draconian changes, like eliminating Mexico’s trade surplus with the United States, limiting investment by American multinationals in its southern neighbor and adding a 35% on its products. If that happens, Mexico’s best option might be to leave the agreement altogether, just as Secretary of Economy��

Cards on the Table

With Canada����and the rest of its allies silenced, Mexico has been left to fight for its future alone. However, just as the former Foreign Secretary Jorge Castañeda��, the land of��charros (Mexican cowboys)��has got many chips to play.

Border security, terrorist threats and trafficking of illegal drugs, weapons and cash are only a��few reasons of why the US needs a good working relationship with its neighbor, as the White House����after the call between the two presidents. Bringing uncertainty over Mexico’s willingness to keep cooperating on these issues might be a great strategy to make Trump think twice about dismantling NAFTA, explained : “Will Mexico still cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking? Will it stop foreign terrorists from using Mexico as a way station into the United States? — Mexico can raise the stakes enough for Mr. Trump to reconsider his ‘America first’ approach to commerce.”

According to Porter, Jorge Castañeda seems to��agree: “‘Let Mr. Trump pull the United States out of Nafta,’ he argues. Instead of stopping Central American migrants at its southern border, Mexico should let them through on their way to the United States. ‘And let’s see if his wall keeps the terrorists out, because we won’t.’”

An even stronger (and riskier) tactic is playing with Trump’s desire to get a quick deal. Let’s put it this way: A victory over Mexico will make the new president look strong, leaving him in a good position to face China and other forces. Even if he can’t make a strong move against Chinese President Xi Jinping, he will have the Mexican issue as a flag to keep his voters happy. But if Mexico stands its ground and even lets NAFTA dissolve, it will send the world another message: Trump’s threats can be resisted.

This, however, is easier said than done. With��his ,��Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto is between a rock and a hard place on this issue. He cannot afford to leave NAFTA easily, especially because some of his most unpopular policies rely on the success of free trade.

The dollar-peso relation is another weak spot in Mexico’s position. The national currency has fallen from 15 pesos per dollar when Trump started his campaign to about 22 pesos per dollar today. Considering that his tweets have impacted this percentage on several occasions, it is not an exaggeration to say it might fall to 40 if Mexico leaves NAFTA, which will kill efforts to attract foreign companies to the country. Actually, Trump’s threats have already made�������Ի�����cancel long-planned investments in Mexico.

Despite this scenario, not everything is hopeless. Without NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Mexico has still got one of the highest number of��the world. It is the perfect timing to strengthen relations with other allies—starting with China, whose authorities have already declared themselves in favor of doing business with Mexico. Being too positive, this might also inspire a boost to the country’s domestic market.

As for the����that Trump is said to be considering, he will have to deal with America’s laws first and then the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) second before making it a reality. Furthermore, any increase in fees will be paid by American consumers. Mexican producers might only suffer indirectly under the logic that an increase in their prices leads to lower sales, which is unlikely to happen on basic products like tomatoes and avocados. Some hope the initiative will not pass, but that is what was said about the building of the wall.

An attempt to respond with an equal tariff on the southern side of the border might also be a good argument toward negotiation. “If Mexico puts a tax of 20% over American wine and alcoholic beverages, the most damaged would be the US,”��, founder and director of the consultancy firm Triplethree International. However, getting into a tax battle isn’t at all desirable. We have already experienced something similar in 2009, when Mexico put a 10% to 20% tax on northern products after America��, and both parties suffered as a result.

What has to be kept in mind is that Mexico does not want to go to��war with the United States. Both sides are simply looking for a more profitable deal. Just as the Mexican magnate Carlos Slim��, the new US president is not a terminator but a��negotiator,��whose style it is to crush the weak and talk with those he respects. If Mexican authorities stay firm, Trump will look for an easy deal, and they will be able to insist on their terms. If not, both economies will have a hard time prospering under Trump’s tenure—and so will their relationship.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Are Mexico and America Heading for a Breakup? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Mexico starts 2017 with two trending topics: the announcement of new gasoline prices to the market, and multiple protests inspired by the adjustment period in the form of a 20% price hike. But while Mexicans are filled with outrage, moguls around the world anticipate the potential earnings that this represents. The big question is: Who will the energy reform benefit?

On December 20, 2013, President Enrique Peña Nieto approved the energy reform that aimed to solve a series of conflicts over fuel that Mexicans had been suffering from for decades, including the bankruptcy of the national oil company, Pemex.

Since 1938, when President Lázaro Cárdenas nationalized the oil industry, Pemex had held the monopoly over the resource, bringing in a hefty proportion of the national income. However, poor management, high spending and corruption prevented necessary investment for decades. Lacking technology and infrastructure, the company became less and less productive, to the point that it could no longer manage the abundant Mexican oil nor cover the country’s demand.

In just 11 years, Pemex went from being the third largest gas producer in the world to being . By then, 62% of the gasoline it sold had to be from eight different countries: the United States, the Netherlands, Spain, India, the Bahamas, Antilles, France, and Trinidad and Tobago. This caused earnings to decrease and spending to grow even more, perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Over the years, Mexican pockets were protected from feeling the effects of Pemex’s decline, as the government controlled gas prices and kept them artificially low. The so-called Special Tax On Products And Services (IEPS) took the US Gulf coast as a reference for prices and adjusted accordingly. When these were higher than the official cost of oil in Mexico, taxes over fuel sales could be levied. But when they were lower (which is what usually happened), it had a negative rate that needed to be subsidized through public financing.

The system costs grew along with oil prices and there was a point, in 2008, when and doubled the budget for the government program to combat poverty, dubbed Oportunidades.

This was unacceptable in a country with 48 million poor people, especially because the main benefits were received by the middle and upper class. For every 12 pesos that someone on a low-income used of this support, someone in a higher tax bracket would get 36, due to the number of cars he or she owned.

That was the time when the gasolinazos started—monthly increases in the official price of gasoline designed to equate and eventually overcome the one in the US Gulf as the treasury sought to recover the incomes of a positive IEPS. The measures were in place��from��2008 until 2014. By then, had almost doubled. During that time, Pemex remained the only company allowed to import and sell gasoline, so Mexicans had no choice but to buy at whatever price or quality the company offered.

Attempting Reform

What the did, among other things, was open the field for the exploitation, transformation and commerce of oil-based fuels. This would supposedly allow better resource utilization and commercial growth through shared technology, private investment and competition. However, the transition process into this scheme has been slow and harsh, due to scheduling changes and steep rises in the national costs of gasoline as they were brought in line with the international market.

In 2015, the government applied a single annual rise of 1.8% over the fuel prices instead of monthly increases, and in 2016 the formula to determine that IEPS changed, turning it into a fixed-rate cost. This was included in a range of minimum and maximum prices, calculated on the basis of international conditions with a 3% price difference at the beginning of the year. If the real price exceeded that maximum ban, citizens could claim the tax back—a non-feasible option for the .

However, although the price per barrel reached its lowest in decades, gasoline prices did not fall. This is partly explained by the strengthening of the US dollar, which in relation to the peso . Since barrels are bought in dollars, the difference was offset by the exchange rate.

In addition, until the middle of the year, Pemex continued to hold the monopoly on importing or refining gasoline, so there wasn’t a real competition among gas stations run by various companies that were starting to appear in the northern states, as they all sold the same product at nearly the same price.

The increase between 14% and 20% that took place on the first day of 2017——is the result of adding logistic costs to the maximum range. This also explains why, for the first time in decades, there will not be a standard price for the whole country, but that it would vary from region to region according to transportation logistics and quality standards set by local environmental policy.

It is only a temporal measure. From February onward, costs will change every day until they are released in each state. By the end of the year, prices will only be determined by that invisible hand Adam Smith talked about: the market.

The energy reform is a great incentive for foreign companies to invest in the country. Today, 22 companies have , and it is expected that there will be 15 in 2018, including the Mexican companies Oxxo and Hidrosina, and the American and .

This is also a powerful reason for the United States to strengthen its relationship with Mexico, despite President-Elect Donald Trump’s threats. His own secretary of state and current CEO of ExxonMobil, , agrees—his eyes have been set on the potential benefits of doing business with the southern neighbor.

Competing for More Options

For Pemex, on the other hand, this means difficulties. Competition against other gas producers and their cutting-edge technology will be fierce—a hard blow for a company that is currently in free fall. Even with the new private financement scheme and attempts to compensate for decades of neglect with modernization projects on four of the most important refineries in Mexico, it might not suffice to face companies like the energy giant Gulf.

Moreover, the necessary pauses in construction caused by a lack of supplies have led to a dramatic over recent years. With development projects expected and a growing debt that already , the once-great national company will have a hard time catching up.

The Mexican government aims to compensate the gap from Pemex contributions with a gasoline tax and the new companies arriving in the country. Without a subsidy to pay, there will be about 400 billion extra pesos to invest in social programs.The question is whether this money will be correctly managed or if it will be lost on salary bonuses, debt payments and corruption��that costs the country about .

On the other hand, with more options on the market, there will not only be a wider range of prices, but also of quality. This is important because the better the quality of fuel, the less polluting it is. In places such as Mexico City, air pollution levels are so high that special regulations for the use of transport had to be created. New rules regarding fuel will finally be introduced, although prices might be slightly higher that in other places.

However, many Mexican consumers prefer low costs, even if it means giving up better quality. The 20% increase in prices this January, even if temporary, will have a direct impact on their finances. If the cost of fuel rises, transport fees will grow and inflation will peak. suggest it will rise to 4.8%—the highest number in years.

The truth is that even with the increase, Mexican gasoline is cheap compared to the rest of the world. In countries like Denmark, France and Canada,��. The difference, however, relies on purchasing power. While a Canadian citizen earns an average of $7.18 dollars per hour, a Mexican worker with minimum wage gets only $1.01, which is not enough to cover the costs of a basic food basket.

The working class will be the more damaged by this situation, as salaries will not have an equal increase to prices nor to the new costs of driving to work. Using public transport is not a good choice either. First of all, because with the increase in gas prices,�� and, second, because in most cities it is inefficient and cannot cover the population’s needs.

Furthermore, even if prices are being determined by the market by the end of 2017, it will take at least three years to actually see the benefits, as new companies arrive and build the necessary infrastructure to operate. Meanwhile, the economy will be .

There are many other problems related to these issues that will affect Mexicans in the short term. The president’s popularity hit rock bottom with this week demanding prices to be brought down. There is a in 13 states caused by the insufficient production, damaged ducts and panic shopping, and ��reselling stolen gasoline on the black market at lower prices are gaining ground.

Only time will tell if Mexico’s energy reform will bring more benefits than perils—and for whom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Solving Mexico’s Oil Crisis appeared first on 51�Թ�.