Blog

France v Mexico: 600,000 pesos is a lot for a pastry shop

In 1838 in a period of unrest during the fledgling years of the Mexican Republic, a French pastry chef living in Mexico City had his shop destroyed by looting soldiers. Receiving no sympathy from the Mexican Government, he turned to his native France for assistance. Paris responded by demanding 600,000 Pesos from Mexico in compensation – a ludicous amount for a pastry shop – but along with claims of unpaid debts, a good excuse to start a war. That they did and with 30,000 troops in tow, France had its money within the year.

24 years later, the French returned to the shores of Mexico asking for more money and with designs on empire building. The outnumbered Mexican republicans scored a famous victory at the Battle of Puebla on the 5th of May 1862, now celebrated every year as Cinco de Mayo. The republic went on to lose control of the country, regaining it only after three years, with assistance from their northern neigbour, the United States, and a decline of French interest in the teritory.

Intervention in the affairs of a nation dressed up as “settling unpaid debts” was a popular pastime of the French republics and monarchies in the colonial era. Upon Haiti’s independence, the former occupier demanded payments to the French to compensate for lost revenues and slaves which were now part of an independent Haiti.

These are dark tales of a past age where European powers sailed the world, stuck flags on islands, grabbed what they wanted, and left what remained in tatters. Much of this age is mercifully over. Yet the practice of using national debt as an excuse for intervention is not.

Mexico is a poor country, with annual income per person at £6,988. It borrows money from rich countries to help lift its people out of poverty.

France is a rich country, with annual incoming per person at £19,750. It lends money to countries like Mexico both independently and through international organisations like the World Bank.

When poor countries can’t afford to service their borrowings anymore, often because of rising interest rates, rich countries like France, just as in 1862, don’t demand just their money back. Whilst before western lenders would turn up with a flotilla of ships, now they come with bankers and advisers, explaining how if they want to ever be able to borrow again they will do what they’re told: privatise public services, deregulate markets, and lower taxes – a process delicately termed “structural adjustment”. After two centuries of debt disputes, Mexico suffered perhaps its greatest defeat when, addled by debt given by western lenders, it signed up to a structural adjustment package in the 1980s.

Inequality has grown and provision of services has declined, yet, structural adjustment isn’t dead. Countries like France have marched in line behind this modern interventionalist banner both when Haiti required relief after its hurricane in 2009, and in the wake of the Greece’s recent budget crisis.

Mexico and France had the honour of playing the first two matches in the tournament on Friday. Mexico played firmly to draw 1-1 with a South African side that showed occasional, but unsustained vigour. France held a goalless draw with Uruguay which has been described by others as one of the dullest matches they have ever played. For their opening performances alone, Mexico deserve a victory at Polokwane this Thursday.

I urge you to support Mexico for another reason.

We don’t know much about what became of the pastry chef “Monsieur Remontel”, but it seems likely that any compensation he receieved for his flattened shop wouldn’t have made up for the devistation inflicted upon his neighborhood by the full scale French invasion force. Another victim of France imposing its will using debt collection as an excuse. Until countries like France stop using debt of a way to keep the world in check, poorer countries like Mexico will always suffer.

So let us hearltily support Mexico, in eager anticipation of a reenactment of its victory over its unscrupulous lender on Cinco de Mayo, and to many more such victories beyond!

Posted in: France, France-Mexico, Mexico

Ric works for Transition Edinburgh University, a People & Planet-born campaign to make the university sustainable, and is looking forward to seeing Climate Camp arrive in Edinburgh this summer. He's cheering for his native English, if only to create a sense of danger in his life.

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Team-by-team: Groups A & B

Group A

South Africa

The host nation has had some great results recently, including beating Guatemala 5-0. Historically, home nations always do well, with six out of the seven World Cup champions winning on home turf. However, as the lowest-ranked country to ever host a World Cup, South Africa will struggle to make it past the first round.

In the run up to the World Cup, South Africa – 15th in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings – has received criticism over large numbers of evictions of vulnerable people to make room for World Cup infrastructure. War on Want is highlighting these issues through an interactive map of Cape Town.

Mexico

The attack-minded Mexicans, with Manchester United’s recent signing Javier Hernandez and Arsenal’s Carlos Vela, are one of the group favourites. Recent losses against England and The Netherlands have disappointed, but they beat Italy 2-1 in their last match before the World Cup.

Mexico, 28th in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings, spends the least on weapons out of all the countries in the World Cup. In the WDM office we are keen on the Zapatistas – a movement of indigenous people whose ideology, Zapatismo, is a combination of libertarian socialism, anarchism and traditional Mayan thought – with at least two staff members having been to visit them before starting at WDM.

The Zapatistas are vehemently opposed to neo-liberal globalisation, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has forced Mexico to end its crop subsidies while not placing similar conditions on the United States. NAFTA also forced Mexico to remove a section in its constitution which guaranteed indigenous people land rights. Their website is in Spanish but works quite well with Google translate if you don’t speak it.

Uruguay

The two-time World Cup winners also have an offensive team with Diego Forlan and Luis Suarez and beat Israel 4-1 in their last match before the World Cup. Only just qualifying after 1-0 win over Costa Rica in the South American play-off match, Uruguay is a bit of a wild card in this group.

Uruguay is the 21st most supportable team in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings and is one of only two countries – Slovakia being the other one – with no women at all in government. Uruguay will forever be remembered as the first ever nation to win the World Cup in 1930.

France

Les Bleus have a great team on paper and must be group favourites. However, they only just qualified through the controversial play off match against Ireland where the referee missed Thierry Henry’s handball.

France is the 18th most supportable team on the Who Should I Cheer For rankings and comes in middle of the table across all the indicators, although we at WDM think they should be shamed for falling short of the OECD’s aid target of 0.7% of GDP.

Group B

Greece

In the Greeks’ only previous appearance at a World Cup was 1994, they lost all their matches and didn’t score a single goal. But they did go on to win the European Championships in 2004. Theo Gekas of Bayer Leverkusen was the leading scorer in the European group stages of qualifying, scoring 10 goals.

It’s difficult to think about Greece at the moment without considering its economic crisis. Last month saw large protests as people feel that the harsh austerity measures imposed by the IMF will mainly affect the poor. Greece is 30th in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings, doing particularly badly on military spending. Perhaps that should be the first thing they cut?

Argentina

2010 sees the return of Maradona as manager of the team he infamously won with as a player in 1986. But will Lionel Messi be able to show the same brilliance that he’s shown all season for Barcelona – where he scored nearly 50 goals – in the World Cup? It remains to be seen. In Argentina – the birthplace of Che Guevara – the Church of Maradona was established in 1998 and now has over 100,000 worshippers.

Nigeria

The poorest country in the World Cup in terms of GDP per person but should have a reasonable chance of getting the second place, especially with new coach Lars Lagerbäck who took Sweden to five successive tournaments 2000 to 2008. Nigeria is the largest country in Africa in terms of population size – every fifth African is Nigerian.

South Korea

South Korea, who will probably be battling it out with Nigeria for the second place in this group, had an amazing run in 2002, beating Portugal in the groups stages before knocking out Spain and Italy on the way to the semi-finals. This year’s team also looks stronger than in 2006 where they got knocked out in the group stages.

South Korea also does badly in the Who Should I Cheer For rankings when it comes to military spending, perhaps countered by the fact that the head of the UN, Ban ki-moon is from the country.

Posted in: France, Group previews, Mexico, South Africa, Uruguay

Pontus Westerberg is web officer at WDM. Terribly disappointed that his native Sweden has not qualified for the World Cup, he is putting all his effort into Who Should I Cheer For instead. He is cheering for Nigeria.

Views expressed here are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Development Movement.

Switch to our mobile site