Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Since the beginning of his administration, López Obrador has insisted that he applies the classic interpretation of the Estrada Doctrine as the guiding axis of his foreign policy. He has repeatedly said that the best foreign policy is domestic policy. But as is his custom, everything he announces that he will NOT do is precisely what he does at some point or has in mind as a possibility. And when he actually does it, he lives in denial. He governs by lying in the light of day. Hence his idyll with the world of “other data”.
It has been scientifically proven that to know what his government will do, one has to listen to López Obrador say what he would never do to be sure that this is exactly what he will do. There are the cases of militarization (he said the opposite), of the indebtedness policy (he said he would not raise the debt, and he did), and that he would respect diverse opinions (and he is dedicated to insulting the press, investors, entrepreneurs, academics, women, and whoever dares to contradict him).
The Estrada Doctrine, which supposedly guides López Obrador’s foreign policy, postulates Mexican non-intervention in other peoples’ affairs and respect for their self-determination. This doctrine postulates the idea of national sovereignty as the cornerstone of his proposal. It establishes that governments should not judge, for better or worse, other governments or changes of governments in other countries since to do so would imply violating their sovereignty.
In foreign policy, he expressly declared himself in favor of not intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. Faithful to his method of swearing that he would never do what he intends to do, he now holds the record of being the Mexican President who has interfered the most in the affairs of other nations.
No president in national memory has secretly brought military contingents for clandestine operations into Mexico, except for Maximilian. Or sending his Secretary of Finance to advise leftist governments in South America that are in crisis. Even less so, the signing of the letter recently got fully involved in the political-partisan fight in Argentina by supporting the Vice-President of that country, accused of corruption by the Judiciary. That signature directly interferes in a legal and political-partisan dispute in that southern country that is going through conflictive pre-electoral times.
What would Lopez Obrador think if Latin American governments expressed themselves about his government, wishing the opposition to win the next presidential elections, as he did by supporting Petro’s presidential candidacy during the recent campaign in Colombia?
It is one thing to respect the government of another country, but it is quite another to get into the mire of the internal political struggle of nations, pretending to point out which side should triumph.
The other side of the same coin is when he has to swallow his anger before the claims of U.S. legislators for his failed management of economic, social, and security matters in Mexico, as is happening today with the criticism he is receiving in the context of the dispute over the content of the USMCA. In this case, AMLO is indignant and denounces violations of national sovereignty, wrapping himself in the tricolor flag when the same treatment is applied to him.
Even though he continues to believe, in the style of Maximilian, that he has the “moral authority” to give his opinion about other countries and their internal processes.
His “populist-sovereignist populism” has already lost all legitimacy precisely because of his hypocrisy. He can lie to his people and other governments once, twice, or thrice. But after years of lies and deceit as a “style of governing”, López Obrador’s credibility is already a burnt commodity with no credibility. And, sadly for all, he has dragged the excellent reputation of the Mexican country into the mire with him.
[email protected]
@@rpascoep