Given the background, it was natural for the Banamex shareholder company to answer bluntly: “they are an indivisible part of the sale and nothing will be sold in parts”.
Surprisingly, a character in Mexican history that seemed forgotten (Luis Cabrera, Secretary of the Treasury under Venustiano Carranza) was resurrected for public debate by Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard. At the time, Minister Cabrera seized the cash reserves of the banks and justified the measure by proclaiming, verbatim, that the “money had to be taken from wherever it was.” For his part, just on Sunday of last week, Minister Ebrard wrote on social media that Banamex’s cultural and artistic heritage “should become national property…”.
The first thing that appears about the proposal is regarding its justification and coherence. In this sense, the official stated (going out of his jurisdiction, by the way) that the transfer of property invoked should take place “for its preservation.” However, there is no forecast on the horizon that this heritage is in danger of disappearance, export or dismemberment. In addition, there are also no doubts about its legitimacy and legality.
Banamex gradually acquired the works of art and documents that make up this cultural heritage with its own resources. And even more, he has preserved and exhibited them with the support of a very expensive professional curatorship. Furthermore, an art expert from UNAM expressed the opinion that, from its origin, this art collection was formed under the criteria of “a production that the national museums did not bother to make…”. Thus, given these antecedents, it was natural for the Banamex shareholder company to reply emphatically to Ebrard’s proposal that “Citibanamex Cultural Development along with the collections… are an indivisible part of the sale and nothing will be sold in parts.”
Undoubtedly, the most debatable part of the chancellor’s proposal is the justification that was pulled out of the sleeve to execute that patrimonial appropriation: “it could be a retribution for the enormous and unfair support that we taxpayers have given with the large annual payments to cover promissory notes IBAB, better known as Fobaproa”.
Based on what legal figure could this transfer of assets materialize in favor of the State? Confiscation and seizure are illegal and expropriation would require payment by the government for the property subject to expropriation. It would not be out of place for our disoriented chancellor to try not to interfere in the lands of the Ministry of Public Education, in addition to obtaining the advice of a good lawyer in Administrative Law.
bdonatello@eleconomista.com.mx
Columnist
economic debate
