In case you hadn't heard, Carlos Pascual, U.S. ambassador to Mexico, resigned his post on March 19.
Officially, Pascual resigned, but he did so under duress. His problem was that he had fallen out of favor with Mexican president Felipe Calderon. Essentially, the President of Mexico hounded him out of office.
The row was over WikiLeaks. In diplomatic cables never intended for public consumption, Pascual, like any good diplomat, had relayed his impressions back to the State Department. In these dispatches, he expressed his lack of confidence in various aspects of the Mexican government's war on the drug cartels.[ Envoy Quits Over Cables on Mexico,By Damien Cave, NYT, March 19, 2011]
When this was made public, Mexican Presidente Calderon was furious, and he began to lambaste (rather childishly, if you ask me) the American ambassador publicly.
For example, Calderon said that
"I do not have to tell the U.S. ambassador how many times I meet with my security Cabinet. It is none of his business. I will not accept or tolerate any type of intervention,"
Don't Mexican diplomats send diplomatic cables to the Mexican foreign ministry?
Here's another (incoherent) Calderon attack on Pascual:
"… that man's ignorance translates into a distortion of what is happening in Mexico, and affects things and creates ill-feeling within our own team."
After this treatment, Pascual resigned his post. Calderon had won. In effect, he successfully expelled an American ambassador.
That's diplomacy, right? Pascual was just doing his job, but because of WikiLeaks and the thin-skinned Mexican Presidente, he lost his position. (Don't worry about Pascual, he's been appointed the State Department's Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs.)
What about Arturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States?
The ambassador has an interesting family background.
In the Spanish dual surname system, his surnames are Sarukhan (father's surname) and Casamitjana (mother's surname).
We've written about Sarukhan in a number of articles here at VDARE.COM. He's a smooth, intelligent and very effective agent of Mexican colonization in the U.S.A.
In 2006, when Sarukhan was put in charge of Mexico's relations with the U.S., he said that the Mexican embassy and consulate network would be used as "beachheads" to promote the Mexican agenda on U.S. territory.[No se me fue de las manos la SRE: Sarukhán, El Siglo De Torreon, (English translation)December 6, 2006]
Several months later (Feb. 2007), as the new Mexican ambassador, Sarukhan set out to influence U.S. immigration policy, announcing that protecting the "rights" of Mexicans north of the border "forms the backbone of our diplomacy in the U.S." Oh, and "The thinking that walls must be built to detain the flow of migrants because that flow threatens security is wrong." Got that?
Throughout his ambassadorship, Sarukhan has remained faithful to his mission, openly meddling in U.S. immigration and nationality policy.
Seeing the advantages of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans having a big census count, Ambassador Sarukhan got mixed up in the U.S. census.
At the end of 2009, in his message to "the Mexican Community in the United States", Mexican Ambassador Sarukhan explained to Mexican colonists that there was a census in 2010 and it would determine the (U.S.) budget "for essential services for our community" and (U.S.) legislative districts. Additionally, he assured them that census data wouldn't be shared with other U.S. government agencies. (Illegals, don't worry).[ Mensaje del Embajador Arturo Sarukhan a la Comunidad Mexicana en Estados Unidos en ocasión del fin de año]
The Mexican diplomatic corps worked hand in hand with the U.S. government and Hispanic organizations on the census, with Mexican diplomats actually helping Mexican immigrants fill out 2010 U.S. Census forms.
At times Sarukhan acts more like a colonial administrator than a diplomat. So he objects to American objections to mass illegal immigration.
Last year he came out swinging against Arizona's SB 1070 law. Sarukhan called the law "racial discrimination" and promised that "Mexico will utilize all the diplomatic, political and economic resources in its reach in response to the signing of this law."
This year, Sarukhan has been concerned about what's been going on in Georgia, where several legislative proposals offended the ambassador.
Several days before HB87, one of the proposals, was scheduled to have a hearing in the Georgia legislature, Sarukhan was in Atlanta campaigning against it. He did an hour long interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. While bashing Georgia's HB87, the ambassador took a swipe at a congressional proposal to close up the anchor baby loophole (he keeps up with that issue, also). [Mexican Ambassador Blasts Georgia Bills Aimed at Illegal Immigrants, By Jeremy Redmon, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, February 3, 2011]
In March, Sarukhan was back in Georgia to host a meeting of Mexican provincial governors, excuse me, I mean "consuls" to discuss the discouraging wave of American subjects asserting their independence. In attendance were the consuls of
Atlanta, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Miami, New Orleans, Orlando, Raleigh and Mexican diplomats from Washington.[Sarukhán Critica Initiativas de EU, El Universal, March 15, 2011]
To get an idea of Sarukhan's agenda in our country, consider some of his twitter entries from the past few months, where he comments with reckless abandon on U.S. internal legislation.
On May 11, he tweeted " Kudos to the Senators that have reintroduced the DREAM ACT today, a common-sense initiative that should garner bipartisan support."
He also liked what happened in Maryland:
"Maryland's Dream Act signed today by Gov O'Malley is recognition of important contribution of immigrants to future well-being of the US." (May 10 tweet).
On February 22, Sarukhan was happy with the New Mexico senate "for rejecting a bill against undocumented immigrants."
And he was happy when the Arizona Senate didn´t pass any more measures attempting to stop the invasion: "…businesses, civil society & AZ Senate reject additional antiimmigrant laws ." (March 22nd).
But the ambassador expressed his displeasure on February 19 that the U.S. House voted "to block [Obama] Adm[inistration] from requiring border FFL's to report multiple sales of assault weapons."
Sarukhan liked President Obama's immigration speech in El Paso, tweeting on May 10 that "Pres. Obama makes a powerful & compelling case for comprehensive immigration reform".
On April 19th, Sarukhan said it was
"Encouraging that Pres Obama reengaged with bipartisan immigration reform stakeholders. Mex[ico] will be a co-responsible partner in this effort. "
On May 5th, the Ambassador expressed appreciation to Nancy Pelosi:
"Thank YOU for all your support & help and for continuing to work for the well-being of the Latino community in the US!"
Unsurprisingly, Sarukan tweeted on April 11, that
"We welcome the US Ninth Circuit's court ruling on AZ SB1070 reaffirming full authority of the [U.S.] Federal Gov[ernment] in enforcing [U.S.] immigration law."
The ambassador is not too busy to pay attention to a pending law suit:
"The Mex[ican] Government stands side by side with migrant farmworkers in US: New class action suit against a Nevada agribusiness presented today." (March 15).
On April 13, citing an HBO special as a source, the ambassador said that "closing loopholes in gun shows is so important".
Certainly, Sarukhan is watching demographic trends, and tweeted on March 26 that "2010 Census results underscores role of Latinos as the driving force behind population growth in the US."
On March 14th, Sarukhan tweeted about the importance of registering Mexicans in the U.S. at their nearest Mexican consulate. Why? "To locate them in emergencies". Yes, and to organize amnesty demonstrations?
The distinguished ambassador attended a LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) dinner, and had kind words for the organization "that has done intense work in favor of our communities in the U.S." Did you notice that "our communities"?
And don't leave out the national Council of La Raza, he attended their dinner too (tweet on March 8th).
Well, you get the idea. In contrast to the hapless Ambassador Pascual, who was only doing his job and had his diplomatic cables noised abroad by WikiLeaks, Sarukhan is openly meddling in U.S. internal politics.
That is in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.
According to Article 55, all diplomats have the duty "to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of the State."
If our government respected our sovereignty, and upheld a treaty of which both the U.S. and Mexico are signatories, wouldn't Ambassador Sarukhan have already been hounded out of the country? Doesn't he deserve it more than Ambassador Pascual?
In an America that respected its sovereignty, that's what would have happened. But Sarukhan and other Mexican diplomats have gotten away with so much in recent years. They figure nothing is going to stop them, and under current U.S. leadership, they are probably right.
American citizen Allan Wall (email him) recently moved back to the U.S.A. after many years residing in Mexico. In 2005, Allan served a tour of duty in Iraq with the Texas Army National Guard. His VDARE.COM articles are archived here; his Mexidata.info articles are archived here; his News With Views columns are archived here; and his website is here.