Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The U.S. elections offer both an opportunity and a danger for Mexico. The opportunity is that they will open the space for a deliberate positive rethinking of the political, diplomatic, and economic relationship with the neighboring country. The danger is that internal Mexican forces will radicalize the political model favoring nations with authoritarian ascendancy, sacrificing a good relationship with the North and democracy.
This is a major geopolitical decision that the Mexican government will have to make. The pressures will be strong in both directions. There is an unquestionable attraction within Morena and its most important leaders towards the Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan political models. They are not even convinced by Brazil’s “Lulista” model, considering it too lukewarm. This wing of Morenism has great influence within the National Palace and among many legislators in the Federal Congress. Moreover, it receives the approval of former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.
Farther away, the Mexican ambassador to Russia is a fervent supporter of Vladimir Putin and his war against Ukraine. During the last six years, Chinese product purchases have grown exponentially. In addition, Mexico expressed its clandestine support by exporting Chinese steel and aluminum to the United States as if it were a Mexican product through the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC. Obviously, the northern neighbor made a stern claim, as it detected Mexico’s dishonesty immediately.
In contradiction to the Morenistas’ inclinations to support dictatorships in Latin America and Eurasia, some voices and sectors support the priority consolidation of the Mexican relationship with the North American bloc. This was heard, for example, at the recent meeting of CEOs from Mexico and the United States at the National Palace with the President. There, the lead singer was the Secretary of Economy, Marcelo Ebrard, who highlighted the new Mexican government’s desire to expand the trade and economic relationship with its North American partners.
The President said, very much in the style of Mexico’s imperial presidencies, that “she guaranteed the security of the businesses and investments of those who were in that room”. Upon hearing this presidential promise, many attendees asked themselves the question that floated like an elephant in the room: was this promise necessary in the face of the disintegration of the Mexican Judiciary? Everyone would have preferred solid and reliable legal institutions instead of the promises made by the leader of the moment.
Concerns grew when, three days later, the President ordered her government to disregard legal resolutions of the Judicial Power that she disliked. From that moment on, and with that action, the President showed her true face as an imperial and untrustworthy ruler who would not govern according to Mexico’s constitutional and institutional orders but according to her ideological and political preferences.
Under these conditions, the future of Mexico’s political and economic relationships is shrouded in uncertainty. Who can prevent the expropriation of properties, factories, or businesses when Morena’s internal political currents radicalize? Will Mexico choose to support Russia in its war against Ukraine? Will it prefer its trade with China, including the importation of fentanyl? Will it try to export Chinese vehicles to the United States? All these questions hang in the balance after the imperial behaviors of the Mexican Presidency.
All these issues are in the inkwell of the U.S. electoral juncture. The outcome of the U.S. election will significantly influence Mexico’s future. If Trump wins, he will revolutionize the economic relationship with pressures and new demands towards Mexico. And if Kamala Harris wins, she will pressure Mexico on the issue of insecurity and drug trafficking. Harris has expressly spoken of defeating the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels.
Neither of the two U.S. candidates will accept closer ties with Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, China, or Russia. For them, it will not be a discussion about “national sovereignty” but about hemispheric security. And Mexico will have to side with either concept. That will be the turning point in the bilateral relationship.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: