[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-322260-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-322260-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","hansons-latin-american-letter-number-1797-the-value-of-the-political-benefits","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Number 1797 - The Value of the \"Political Benefits\"","","Hanson’s Latin American Letter, Number 1797, analyzes U.S.-Mexico gas contract negotiations in 1977 and the political messaging surrounding them. It reviews Senate/House hearing claims by the Department of Energy about media errors, timing of contract terms, and pricing figures, then argues that “political benefits” as framed by Washington is misleading and self-defeating. The letter compares the situation to a historical precedent from Roosevelt-era good-neighbor policy regarding Argentine beef and independence in foreign policy.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/hansons-latin-american-letter-number-1797-the-value-of-the-political-benefits/322260/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/hansons-latin-american-letter-number-1797-the-value-of-the-political-benefits/322260.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Patrick","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-02","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does the letter say the “political benefits” are supposed to be?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"It claims Washington presents “political benefits” as Mexico reversing course on foreign-policy issues or soft-pedaling its views in response to the gas contract.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How does the letter address the Department of Energy’s role in the dispute?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"It argues the Department of Energy and related official statements relied on corrected media reporting and pricing claims, but used those issues to place Pemex and Mexico in a negative light.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"Why does the letter reject Washington’s framing of the “political benefits”?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It states Mexican foreign policy is not negotiable in exchange for gas terms, and encouraging U.S. newspapers to propagate that view is described as a tragic, self-defeating tactic.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},322260,1790183273,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},549758146520,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/80002397d8c0411e94?_k=1775819394049821470","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER  \nWASHINGTON  \n25 August 1979  \nDear Sir:  \nNumber 1797  \n\"A successful Mexican-U.S.gas salepromises a range of POLITICAL benefitsto both countries.\"  \n...Washington Post.  \n\"...during the il1-fated negotiations(1977),American officials grosslyunderestimated Mexican resilience topressure.\"  \n..Carlos Fuentes,former MexicanAmbassador to France.  \nEnergy Secretary Schlesinger said that \"ifthe original contract for gas(1977)were nowin effect,the price would be $4.40.\"\"..Washington Post.  \nDuring the hearings before the House Committee on Science and TechnologyTHE MOMENTthe Department of Energy explained that the media on both sides of theOF TRUTH:border had reported erroneously on the U.S.government's rejection of thegas deal negotiated by six American companies in 1977.It conceded thatthe failure of the Department to correct the reports and the unendingerroneous reporting since then had stemmed from the Department³s fear of offending\"Mexican sensibilities.\"  \nNow,through briefings of selected elements of the press such as theWashington Post and through direct official statements,Washington is embarked on sti1lanother distortion of the facts coupled with a questionable tactic of the Departmentof Energy to place Petroleos Mexicanos in a bad light.  \nThis is very sticky manoeuvering which gives added importance to the warn-ing cited by Carlos Fuentes regarding Mexican resilience to pressure.  \nLet's examine the situation:  \n\"POLITICALbecause Po “ed1itocal bezeftst”hich micoascdeato the Uanted staeeredBENEFITS\"The \"political benefits\"consist of Mexico doing one of two things in res-ponse to the contract for sale of gas:(1)It would reverse course onforeign policy issues which have made headlines out of Mexico City in re-  \ncent weeks and have disturbed Washington deeply.Or,(2)At least it would soft-pedalits views on the issues.  \nWhat is involved?  \n(a)\"E1 Presidente de Mexico puede asistir a la proxima conferencia depaises non-alineados.\"  \n(b)\"Apoya Mexico a Puerto Rico en su independencia,\"  \n(c)Public praise by Lopez Portillo for the work of one of the two orthree most finished totalitarians of this century(Castro),\"  \nA weekly letter for burinessmen pablisbnd privsely inWasbington,D.C.  \n# THE VALUE\n\nOF THE  \n\"POLITICAL  \nBENEFITS\"  \nIt is true that the United States views the Havana summit of the non-aligned nations as an al1-out effort by Castro to assume the leadershipof the whole third world,and feels that Castro has believed this is apromising enough gamble to stake his prestige and to risk a horriblediplomatic debacle -and Washington believes that Mexican support mightjust be enough to assure a Castro triumph,even though it would be value-less for Mexico.  \nIt is true that the United States does not welcome Mexican interferencein the Puerto Rican situation,the more so if it encourages further Castro adventuresthere.And again itis impressed with the fact that the exercise would be valuelessfor Mexico.  \nAnd it is true that U.S.public opinion and international opinion gener-ally has been shocked by the warmth of the Mexican reception of Castro,which has costMexico dearly in the matter of its tradition of defense of human dignity.  \nBut what is important is that Mexican foreign policy has always been in-THE CHANCEdependent.Especially,independent of the United States,And the ideaOFthat the purchase or non-purchase of a piddling amount of gas at oneREALIZINGprice or another could ever be a quid pro quo for abandonment of Mexico'sON THEindependence in foreign policy,could yield \"political benefits\"as de-\"POLITICALfined by Washington,is pure nonsense.To encourage influential U.S.BENEFITSnewspapers to propogate such a view is a tragic self-defeating tactic,  \nOne is reminded of an instance during the years of the good-neighborApolicy under Franklin Roosevelt.  Then it was argued that if ArgentinePRECEDENT:beef were given access to the United States market,the consequence wouldARGENTINE-be an acceptan","cbCaigrc7qZ29tlC","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaigrc7qZ29tlC","pdf",1302842,"English","# THE VALUE OF THE \"POLITICAL BENEFITS\"\n## THE CHANCE REALIZING ON THE \"POLITICAL BENEFITS\"\n## PRECEDENT: ARGENTINE U.S. RELATIONS\n## THE TACTICAL MANOEUVER AGAINST PEMEX\n# HOW TO NEGOTIATE?","[{\"question\":\"What does the letter say the “political benefits” are supposed to be?\",\"answer\":\"It claims Washington presents “political benefits” as Mexico reversing course on foreign-policy issues or soft-pedaling its views in response to the gas contract.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the letter address the Department of Energy’s role in the dispute?\",\"answer\":\"It argues the Department of Energy and related official statements relied on corrected media reporting and pricing claims, but used those issues to place Pemex and Mexico in a negative light.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does the letter reject Washington’s framing of the “political benefits”?\",\"answer\":\"It states Mexican foreign policy is not negotiable in exchange for gas terms, and encouraging U.S. newspapers to propagate that view is described as a tragic, self-defeating tactic.\"}]","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Number 1797 - The Value of the \"Political Benefits\" | PDF",1789962259,13]