Corn, Beans, and ... Hypocrisy?

What's the problem down in Mexico?
Why is our resource-rich neighbor such a poor cousin economically?

Well, Mexico has a longstanding problem with corruption.
The Mexican economy remains largely under the control of the government, encouraging inefficiency through anti-competitive policies. This has improved somewhat over the past 10 years, though former president Vicente Fox was largely unsuccessful in reforming the government's involvement in the economy.

Wick o' the Bailey had this to say:

... would it be so bad if the Mexican president were a Mexican populist, more willing to adopt the point of view of the poor than the rich, and unwilling to kowtow to pressure from the US when it comes to American policy in Latin America and the rest of the world? Mr. White seems to think so, but I'm not so certain.

Hmmm. Wick seemed to have enough certitude to be willing to pray to whatever gods for Obrador to win.
It's possible, I suppose, that Obrador's promises are not empty but it does not seem that Mexico's problems have stemmed from having too little socialism. Either Mexico really is far more corrupt than is the United States, in which case chances are good that Obrador is as corrupt as the next guy, or we might expect an economic model like that of the US to lift Mexico out of its economic stupor.
That's where the ideological difference kicks in. There are always losers when the economy changes. The solution, however, is not to try to stave off changes. That just increases the inevitable pain. Loosening government controls would, I expect, benefit the poor of Mexico. There's no good reason for Mexico to lag behind China in economic progress, except for the fact that Mexico has made itself less friendly to investment.
Obrador would be a danger, I think. I do not believe that he has more than empty promises to give to the people. He is offering tried-and-false solutions (socialism, entitlements) to Mexico's problems.
Changing the culture of Mexico such that it has more in common with the aspects of US culture that lead to economic success would help the Mexican people.

Wick gave us a closing statement that was more of a parting shot (Mallonee), suggesting that Obrador wouldn't be the first to renege on the agreements made by a predecessor.
The associated link provided information about the ABM treaty, the ICC treaty, and the Kyoto Protocol--at least those were offered as the "most significant" examples.

1) ABM was signed with the Soviet Union. There is no Soviet Union any longer. Regardless of that,

Under the terms of the ABM Treaty, the United States is prohibited from defending its homeland against ballistic missile attack. We are also prohibited from cooperating in developing missile defenses against long-range threats with our friends and allies. Given the emergence of these new threats to our national security and the imperative of defending against them, the United States is today providing formal notification of its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. As provided in Article XV of that Treaty, the effective date of withdrawal will be six months from today. (source)

See Article XV, part 2 of the ABM Treaty.
It is important to note, I think, that Obrador isn't talking about withdrawal from NAFTA (which is possible along similar lines to the course that Bush took with the ABM Treaty), but rather disregarding certain provisions that permit US farmers of corn and beans to compete with Mexican farmers of the same. Rather than allowing the people as a whole to experience the benefits of lower produce prices (and encoraging farming of alternative crops that trade favorably in the other direction), Obrador seems to favor shortsighted protectionism.

2) The formation of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Is this really a reversal of the wishes of Bush's predecessor?

In signing ... we are not abandoning our concerns about significant flaws in the treaty.

In particular, we are concerned that when the court comes into existence, it will not only exercise authority over personnel of states that have ratified the treaty, but also claim jurisdiction over personnel of states that have not.

With signature, however, we will be in a position to influence the evolution of the court. Without signature, we will not.

--President Clinton (source)

Sounds to me as though Bush shared Clinton's specific concern about the treaty.

3) The Kyoto Protocol. This one isn't even an issue. The Senate turned thumbs down on it in '97. The US was not bound by Clinton's signature minus the approval of the Senate.


In conclusion, the apology for Obrador based on the supposed actions of President Bush carries the odor of a tu quoque ("you, too!") fallacy.
Worse than that, the implied actions were not comparable to those that Obrador apparently contemplated.

Note: This is the first time I've saved writing as a draft, which accounts for this post appearing below a post that was written later.
Add'l Note: Fixed a link under "Mallonee" that went to the wrong destination. My apologies for the mistake.