Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The ‘pauses’ in relations with several countries show that Mexico lacks a foreign policy. President López Obrador’s international diplomatic tactic is to begin any comment by saying that Mexico is careful not to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries and is respectful of their decisions. He then goes on to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, passing judgment on the conservative forces that destroy everything in those cases and on what should be done by the forces that he considers his allies.
He has done so in multiple instances in his four years in office. He put diplomatic relations with Spain on hold because of his Freudian conflict with that nation. He refused to recognize Biden’s election victory, apparently betting that his friend Trump would be able to reverse the election result. In the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, what has stood out is the ambiguity of the Mexican position. The Mexican ambassador to the UN has expressed one position and the president another. The position before the Security Council and the General Assembly has been one of unequivocal rejection of Russia’s invasion of a sovereign nation. But López Obrador has opened Mexico’s doors to Russian businesses, even extolling the use of Russian vaccines against COVID. And he refuses to condemn the invasion of a sovereign nation.
Mexico has objectively sided with dictatorships in Latin America and beyond in international organizations. Most recently, Mexico refused to join the global condemnation of Iran’s regime for its repression of women, siding with Russia, Iran, and other dictatorships that endorse “their right to self-determination”, supporting a nation that uses repression, imprisonment, and hanging of citizens protesting against the lack of democracy.
Mexico has recently defended the Nicaraguan and Venezuelan dictatorships in the face of the cancellation of human rights to free expression of ideas in those countries, the imprisonment of political opponents, and the use of force to repress those who diverge with the regime. He has demanded that the US lift the US economic blockade of Cuba, as all Mexican governments before him have done. But he has gone further in the relationship with Cuba. He has exalted that country’s political regime and indicates that he wants to repeat its practices in Mexico, such as the civil-military pact he is building. He has hired so-called Cuban doctors to work in remote areas where there are no Mexican doctors. However, the impression is that they are experts in counter-insurgency, intelligence, and espionage. They may be the rearguard of an attempt to suddenly transform the democratic regime in Mexico, creating a “soft dictatorship” to change the country into a one-party state.
Verbose, in the extreme, he cannot refrain from commenting on Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, or countries such as Panama, criticizing the President and Foreign Minister of that country as “false feminists”. He gives his opinion on who should win the elections in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Colombia. And, evidently, he pontificates on the situation in Peru and assumes the right to define who is the real President of that country. He also put relations with that country on hold, as he did with Spain. And just as he considers that Castillo had the constitutional right to provoke a coup d’état, he also indignantly condemns US “interventionism” when the US ambassador recognizes the new Peruvian president.
Moreover, by criticizing Washington over the Peruvian case, he comes close to suggesting that because of this position, there are no conditions for the meeting scheduled for early January between Biden, Trudeau, and López. And just as he did not attend Biden’s Democracy Summit in Los Angeles and canceled the Pacific Alliance meeting, he is perfectly capable of canceling the next meeting of the three leaders. He has strained the strategic relationship with Washington, guided by false principles of Latin American sovereignty. He loves Trump and detests the liberal Biden. He is convinced that politeness does detract from bravery. Moreover, he does not like these meetings where he is forced to talk to the international press because he does not know how to defend himself with high-level arguments. He only accepts to face the servile media of his “mañaneras” (morning press conferences) so that he can “graciously” offend those he hates without any questioning on the spot.
He moralizes and intervenes by saying that it is not intervention. But it is such a blatant and transparent lie that it has succeeded in straining Mexico’s relationship with all of Latin America and the rest of the world. He is seen as a caricature of an authoritarian ruler dominated by the fantasies of the power he wields. He appears as a fanciful demagogue, driven by an out-of-control ego and narcissism that has blinded him.
He wanted to be the new great leader of Latin America. He thought he could take a place alongside Bolívar, Sandino, and Fidel. Instead, he has soured Mexico’s relationship with the world, including with natural allies such as Fernández of Argentina and Lula in Brazil. Chile’s Boric visited Mexico to say that the real left is, does, and says something else.
With the 4T government, Mexico has lost its political strength and moral authority. The great admiration and respect that Mexico and its foreign policy enjoyed in the past was for being a reliable country with a strong word of honor. Our ethics allowed us to be a reliable moderators in times of conflict. The defense of sovereignty and self-determination were principles that the Mexican government respected. And the rest of the world knew it could count on Mexico’s political and moral authority, even as a referee in serious conflicts.
Today Mexico is part of the problem instead of being part of the solution to the severe issues afflicting our region of the world. The Manichean conversion of any conflict in the area into a confrontation between blacks and whites, and the desire to be the leader of only one sector, places Mexico in a position that makes the regional political environment tenser and strengthens those who promote polarization and violence.
Also, it must be said turning all problems into cases between good guys and bad guys, friends and foes is a formula for evading the responsibility of promoting the necessary negotiations between the parties to find constructive and lasting solutions to regional conflicts. The option that López Obrador’s destructive strategy has found is to deepen the disputes to try to get his side to win the game. He does not want the country to win.
It is because of this sectarian, destructive, and divisive method that Mexico applies to regional and global conflicts that it is confirmed that Mexico has no foreign policy. It simply has a repertoire of elementary schemes that result from ancestral resentments that come to the surface in the worst way when it comes to other countries. It is a country without a direction.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: