'People power' is a global brand owned by US

A couple of years ago television, radio and print media in the West just couldn't get enough of "people power." In quick succession, from Georgia's Rose Revolution in November 2003, via Ukraine's Orange Revolution a year later, to the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, 24-hour news channels kept us up to date with democracy on a roll. Triggered by allegations of election fraud, the dominoes toppled. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, was happy with the trend: "They're doing it in many different corners of the world, places as varied as Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan and, on the other hand, Lebanon.... And so this is a hopeful time." But when a million Mexicans try to jump on the people-power bandwagon, crying foul about the July 2 presidential elections, when protesters stage a vigil in the center of the capital that continues to this day, they meet a deafening silence in the global media. Despite Mexico's long tradition of electoral fraud and polls suggesting that Andrés Manuel López Obrador–a critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)–was ahead, the media accepted the wafer-thin majority gained by the ruling party nominee, Harvard graduate Felipe Calderón. Although Mexico's election authorities rejected López Obrador's demand for all 42 million ballots to be recounted, the partial recount of nine percent indicated numerous irregularities. But no echo of indignation has wafted to the streets of Mexico City from Western capitals. Maybe Israel's intervention in Lebanon grabbed all the attention and required every hack and videophone. Back in 2004 CNN and the BBC were perfectly able to cover the battle for Falluja and the Orange Revolution in the same bulletins. Today, however, even a news junkie like me cannot remember a mainstream BBC bulletin live from among the massive crowds in Mexico City. Faced by CNN's indifference to the growing crisis in Mexico, only a retread of an old saying will do: "Pity poor Mexico, so far from Israel, so close to the United States." Castro's failing health gets more airtime than the constitutional crisis gripping Mexico, which is one of its major oil suppliers. Apparently, crowds of protesters squatting in Mexico City for weeks protesting against alleged vote-rigging don't make a good news story. Occasionally commentators who celebrated Ukrainians blocking the main thoroughfares of Kiev condescend to jeer at Mexico's sore losers and complain that businessmen are missing deadlines because dead-enders with nothing better to do are holding up the traffic. Ukraine's Viktor Yushchenko was decisive when he declared himself president, but isn't López Obrador a demagogue for doing the same? The color-coded revolutionaries of the former Soviet Union had a pro-western agenda–such as bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO and the EU–but in Latin America radicals question the wisdom of membership of US-led bodies such as NAFTA and the WTO. The crude truth is that Washington cannot afford to let Mexico's vast oil reserves fall into hands of a president even half as radical as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. But didn't the Western observers certify the Mexican polls as "fair," while they condemned the Ukrainian elections? True, but election observers are not objective scientists. The EU relies on politicians, not automatons, to evaluate polls. Take the head of its observer mission, José Ignacio Salafranca: as a Spanish speaker in Mexico, Salafranca had a huge advantage over many of the observers in Ukraine who draped themselves in orange even while en mission–but he is hardly neutral. His rightwing Popular party is an ally of Calderón's PAN party, which is in power in Mexico. Calderón was immediately congratulated by Salafranca's colleague Antonio López-Istúriz on the "great news." The days of left-wing fraternalism may be over, but the globalist right has its own network, linking the Spanish conservatives, US Republicans and Calderón's party–and they provided the key observer. To paraphrase Stalin: "It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who observes the vote." Salafranca has a track record as an election observer. In Lebanon's general elections in 2005 he had no problem with the pro-western faction sweeping the board around Beirut with fewer than a quarter of voters taking part and nine of its seats gained without even a token alternative candidate. "It is a feast of democracy," he declared. His mood changed when the democratic banquet moved to areas dominated by Hezbollah or the Christian maverick General Aoun. Suddenly, "vote-buying" and the need for "fundamental reform" popped up in the EU observation reports. Unanimity on the scale seen across Lebanon suggests that the Cedar Revolution–despite the hype–did nothing to promote real democratic pluralism. Hezbollah's hold on the South is the most controversial aspect of the sectarian segmentation of Lebanese society, but everywhere local bosses dominate their fiefdoms as before. Similarly, more skepticism about Ukraine's revolution would have left people better informed than the orange boosterism that passed for commentary 18 months ago. But Mexico is different because it is so under-reported. The cruel reality is that "people power" has become a global brand. But like so many global brands it is owned by the US. Mexicans and any other "populists" who try to copy it should beware that they're infringing a copyright. No matter how many protesters swarm through Mexico City or how long they protest, it is George Bush and Co. who decide which people truly represent The People. People power turns out to be about politics, not arithmetic.