Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Repeatedly denying something usually causes doubt in the listener. Why deny the same thing so many times? Why isn’t a single, categorical denial enough? To such an extent that in Christianity, there is the story of the three denials of the disciple Peter. Despite his promise to remain loyal to Jesus, even unto death, he ends up denying him three times under social pressure. President Sheinbaum has said on more than three occasions that she told the U.S. authorities that she will not accept actions by their armed forces on our territory. She always states that “I told them no…” and then elaborates on the concepts of sovereignty, independence, and non-subordination.
In light of past and present events, it is reasonable to assume that there has been more collaboration than is publicly acknowledged. But with the imminent signing of a National Security Agreement between the United States and Mexico, it is pertinent to ask ourselves: what are we talking about?
Official and unofficial spokespeople in the United States have corroborated in every way what they want. They want a joint Mexico-United States program to attack the cartels in Mexico with the whole military force of both nations, with the intention of eradicating them in Mexico and, therefore, in the United States. The U.S. military drones used by García Harfuch are the clearest sign of this.
The modalities can be discussed: likely, U.S. military forces will not intervene directly in Mexico, but their instruments of war will, such as intelligence, espionage, satellite location of priority targets, armed drone flights, etc. All modalities of collaboration can be discussed if the common goal is to eradicate drug trafficking as an active irregular military force.
Two issues are of the utmost importance for the consolidation of the agreement. First, the acceptance of US intelligence services operating on national territory, ensuring absolute secrecy of their identities for their personal and operational security. This is important because during the last six-year term, President López Obrador informed the Russian embassy of the identity of US intelligence agents in Mexico.
Second, care must be taken in handling and compartmentalizing privileged information that may result from collaboration between binational agencies, given the information leaks that have occurred in the past. The recent tip-off from the National Guard warning El Mencho, leader of the CJNG, of a police siege closing in on him is the most recent example that reinforces this requirement.
For all of the above reasons, and in order to sign this agreement between the two countries, it is necessary to “rid” the Mexican political system of those members whose loyalties oscillate between the ruling party and drug trafficking organizations. This is the Gordian knot of the bilateral National Security Agreement.
Because the National Security Agreement is a political act in which both nations must confirm their mutual trust and confidence. Without trust, there can be no agreement. And there can be no agreement if there is a perception that all the information generated and the actions planned will be promptly reported to the targets of the punitive actions.
Hence, President Sheinbaum’s repeated denials cast a shadow of mistrust over the negotiation of the agreement. And it casts doubt on the visit of Marco Rubio, U.S. Secretary of State, to Mexico next week. Have all these issues been resolved, including the issue of mutual trust?
The only thing the President has said is what she would NOT accept. And she has said it repeatedly. However, she has not specified what she WILL accept from this list of issues that are invariably raised in a security agreement. Specifically, what is not heard is a tone of confidence from the president. Instead, she offers evasions, denials, and insinuations. Under these conditions, it is difficult to believe that a bilateral national security agreement will be signed in four days. I hope I am wrong.
There are international conditions that work against the agreement. U.S. officials and lawmakers are “insisting” that Mexico collaborate with them, understanding collaboration to mean broader involvement of their security agencies with freedom of movement in Mexico, intelligence, drones, and espionage directed against political, criminal, civilian, and military actors. This insistence is a result of the perception that Mexico has not categorically agreed to the agreement. In other words, mistrust reigns on both sides.
Secondly, the collapse of “Bolivarianism” in Latin America is causing the United States to harden its position against “narco-terrorism” and the political regimes that give it life: Venezuela, where the collapse of Maduro’s government and his allies is expected, the collapse of Bolivia’s MAS, Ecuador’s rejection of the political group of former President Correa, an ally of Venezuela, and the growing irrelevance of Cuba and Nicaragua due to their inability to mobilize political forces. The Cubans are security and intelligence agents who protect Maduro, nothing more. Mexico is fighting a futile battle against Peru, supporting the Bolivarian coup, much like Ecuador. Brazil and Colombia remain silent in the face of US cruisers stationed off the Venezuelan coast.
All these international processes are putting pressure on Mexican Morenism. Its international allies are rapidly dying or weakening. The collapse of the Bolivian and Venezuelan governments is weakening Mexico’s ability to resist US pressure. By the time Rubio arrives in Mexico, there may have been significant changes on the Latin American chessboard. The president prefers to play with ideological rather than political cards, which are very worn and weak in the face of new realities. Her lack of political clarity, generated by an ideological and unrealistic view of Latin American and world events, may lead her to believe in the viability of non-existent alliances, in forces that no longer exist, and in possibilities whose time for execution has already passed.
Behind all this are her denials, three or four times over. “I told them no,” while reality overtakes her and forces her into a game for which she is unprepared. The limited reserve of ideas and thinking of the 4T, which hardly extends beyond the conceptual framework of Palenque, will not suffice to bring Mexico to a safe harbor as it navigates the turbulent waters of a rapidly changing world.
@rpascoep
Note to Our Subscribers and Readers
We’re writing to you today to apologize for the intrusive ads that have appeared recently in our content, and to share some important updates regarding our publication. After five years, we are updating and upgrading the technology of our site. We continually strive to enhance the quality of our content and the overall experience for our valued readers.
We appreciate your continued support and feedback, which helps us shape the future of our publication. We encourage you to reach out to us with any questions or comments at [email protected]
Thank you,
The Editorial Team
Further Reading: