That the Mexican bailout was implemented against the wishes of the people of the two main countries that were party to it is notable, but not unique. There is no shortage of examples of democracy failing in Mexico, or in the United States. What is so important about the bailout from a sovereignty viewpoint is that neither Mexican nor U.S. government leaders felt they had a choice about what policies to adopt. The Mexicans knew that if they wanted bridge loans to pay off investors, they would have to submit to U.S. demands. And while U.S. officials acted in significant part to bail out friends on Wall Street, they also justified the bailout based on the belief that the fate of the United States is bound up with Mexico s, and that both countries must submit to the dictates of international financial markets.
Democracy is virtually absent from economic regulatory institutions.
As a result, the global economy is being integrated in a way that denies people of individual nations the possibility of charting their own future. The start up of the new World Trade Organization will only intensify the problem, as an unaccountable international body is empowered to force changes in broad swathes of national health, safety, environmental and economic development programs and laws. Many conservatives and liberals characterized sovereignty as an outdated notion which should properly be cast aside to embrace unfettered international trade and markets. Other liberals and many progressives argued that an emphasis on sovereignty interfered with beneficial international cooperation, and that promoting mutual interdependence would benefit all. Some, especially progressives, contended that, for better or worse, the forces of globalization are marching forward relentlessly and cannot be turned back.