Antonio Navalón
Every 12 years, Mexican and U.S. presidential elections coincide. This year, at the same time and with the same institutional instability, Mexico will elect a President, and the United States will select who? In the U.S. case, the balance will be tipped in favor of a candidate who, at least for the Republican Party, is neither showing up nor participating in any primary election selection methodologies. Up to this moment, Donald Trump’s great campaign has been the follow-up and the unraveling of his judicial processes and, as incredible as it may seem and subject to something extraordinary happening, he gives the impression that he has all the possibilities to secure his return to the White House. However, as I mentioned, Trump still has to focus on ensuring that the judicial processes he is involved in are not substantial or damaging enough to prevent him from winning the 2024 elections.
There have been few occasions when the severity and level of the parallel crises between the United States and Mexico have coincided. Today, we share divided societies and controversial leaders and have a synthetic drug that unites us every day and makes us more dependent: fentanyl. But as in love stories, dependence is only sustainable when it allows for mutual benefit or growth; otherwise, the relationship is exposed to severe consequences. It cannot be denied that ” no matter how it happened” – reminiscent of Felipe Calderon’s old statement – the cartels have been allowed to coexist freely and at the expense of the State throughout this six-year term. They tear each other to shreds and dismember each other, yet confrontations with the Mexican army are rare. In addition, during this administration, few efforts have been made to combat organized crime; this, together with the lack of clarity regarding the strategy adopted by the government, has caused a clear sense of instability among the Mexican people.
The drug trafficking industry has grown exponentially throughout the Americas. One need look no further to see the ever-increasing presence and interference of the cartels, not only in drug trafficking but also in the public life of the States. The most latent problems in the bilateral relationship are drug trafficking and the migratory cancer, which increasingly exposes the unsustainability of the situation. Two elements have been gradually poisoning the relationship between Mexico and the United States, which only raises the question of how far or when it will be possible to stretch the rubber band before everything bursts. The highest level visit that has taken place during this six-year term -which does not include President Biden himself- was the one led last week by Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The objective of this visit was to address and seek solutions to the two issues that I mentioned previously and that have put the bilateral relationship in a high-tension situation. In addition, two points will occupy a significant place in the agendas and campaign promises, especially on the part of the U.S. contenders in the run-up to 2024.
The U.S. government has constantly blamed Mexico and our cartels for being solely responsible for the drug trafficking and migration crisis. However, it is essential to highlight that, on the one hand, for there to be a supply, there must be a demand, and in that sense, the United States is a gigantic market for the consumption of narcotics. On the other hand, at this point, it is worth remembering that the López Obrador government gave in to the constant demands of the Americans by sending thousands of members of the National Guard to the southern border. However, it is also true that the U.S. internal security problem would be different without the Mexican operational base and the enormous growth of the cartels in recent years in Latin America, the U.S. internal security problem would be different.
I have always thought that there would never be a solution until the bilateral relationship was confronted with the severe effects that both crises are producing. And, of course, despite the miracle that whitens hearts and attitudes, once the borders are crossed, it is complicated to assume that such industry and levels of development, penetration, and professionalism can be achieved without the active collaboration of many U.S. officials.
The time when we provided the dead and they provided the business is over. Right now, the dead are provided by both countries. Some as a consequence of the process of structuring the industrial distribution and others because, once the most serious element of having created a deadly drug at an affordable price and with a very easy movement capacity has been discovered, the market is exploding, especially from the point of view of the consequences.
The images of social decomposition materializing in the main streets of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Philadelphia prove the deep crisis the United States is currently going through. On the Mexican side, there is little more to add. The forces that have fought against evil have disappeared, at least from a visible and quantifiable point of view, and a new business reality has been created around the arms issue. Today, we have created new economic and exploitation groups whose only common element is that they have uniforms or that the new owners wear uniforms.
It is challenging to try to limit that, in the application of the U.S. legislation itself, the phenomenon of extraterritoriality will not be fulfilled, and it gives the impression that at least with “Los Chapitos” considered – rightly or wrongly – as the main suspects of the great fentanyl industry, they will not be handed over by Mexico to the Americans as in the case of Ovidio. Otherwise, what we must prepare for in the run-up to the start of the electoral processes is the intervention through covert military operations.
I spare you the torrent of words to condemn what will occur in the mañaneras. And I say that the relationship in all sectors – considering CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC, arbitrage, and nearshoring – in short, the whole relationship depends on the solution of the two macro problems mentioned. Regarding migration, we are overcompliant, and there are no more National Guard elements we can move to the southern border. However, the efforts have not been enough. I would like to know who is responsible for that day after day, thousands of Central and Latin Americans enter our territory with the northern border as their final destination, despite all the control mechanisms. But more than that, I am interested in knowing how long this continued exodus, which on many occasions culminates in the Rio Grande or the surrounding areas of the different border points of the country, will continue to be feasible and, above all, humane. Clearly, “The Beast” – as if it were a representation of an Indian train – transports many of them. It is also clear that such a movement, coordinated and centralized by whoever coordinates it, is not improvised.
Our national guards are trying to stop the exodus, but – as far as we can see – it is already an exodus that is impossible to contain. The fact is that, without a new reading and a new migratory doctrine or strategy, there will be no exits that will allow us to peacefully find the endless river of the need and failure of the other Americans who do not speak English and who every day risk their lives to find not better job opportunities but the minimum to ensure human development.
Migration and drug trafficking. Will drug trafficking and migration be solved, or will they be the two elements collapsing the bilateral relationship?
Further Reading: