Ricardo Pascoe PIerce
It could be said that warnings are written on all the walls, like graffiti. There are signs inside and outside the country that time is rapidly running out for the President to define herself as the most radical depository of Morena’s sectarian project or to become the leader of all Mexicans. This is her existential dilemma, or, if you prefer, it is the cage she voluntarily put herself in.
She wanted power; well, she already has it. Now, she has to exercise it. Power offers options and dilemmas to those who hold it.
Sheinbaum governs a country that is geographically linked to others: The United States to the north and Guatemala to the south. Mexico’s economy is another cog and mirror of the U.S. economy. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Mexican economy is, in reality, just another cog in the U.S. domestic market. The CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC ties our country structurally, administratively, legally, socially, and financially to the United States. And vice versa. It is a two-way street.
If all this is not understood, then the President did not understand the power game she got into. For example, hopefully, she understood that it was a mistake for AMLO to call on Mexican Americans to vote for Trump against Biden in 2020 and not to recognize Biden’s victory until months after the election was consummated. Because AMLO’s behavior in the face of Biden has cost our country dearly. One cost was the “extraction” of Zambada. It is to be hoped that the President will not make the same mistake this coming November 5.
The President accuses the U.S. government of having kidnapped “Mayo” Zambada, even though she does not have the precise information or the confession of a party; the cost is paid by Mexico in human lives and destroyed economies in Sinaloa and progressively in other parts of the country. And all because, as the ambassador of the neighboring country insinuated, it seems that Mexico was bothered by the arrest of “Mayo” Zambada.
In that tortuous two-way street, the neighbor perceived Mexico’s reluctance to arrest the criminal, so it surely felt it could act where it saw the other failing. Let’s assume that it did. Now, the Mexican government seems to be unhappy with that “extraction” as it does not want to show its true position on the unexpected conflict within the Sinaloa cartel. It obviously does not want to take sides either against the Chapitos, against the Mayiza, or both, but instead chooses to criticize the U.S. government. It is a more comfortable position if the intention is not to show favoritism for the Chapitos or Zambada, especially since they are all in the hands of U.S. authorities whose stories could, presumably, bring down the federal government and many state governments.
The Mexican security forces, Army, Navy, and National Guard, are simply going around and around the streets, highways, and vacant lots of Sinaloa without having a clear definition of their objective or what their mission is in that state. Or they do know their mission, which is to go around and around defensively without attending to the emergency that the citizens are experiencing, not committing the government to a conflict between the parties. It seems that the real power is on the side of the criminals and not on the side of the State. Organized crime is perceived as active and empowered, while the State is immobile, frozen, and unable to respond. We are facing what we should be most concerned about: the subordination of the majority political force in the country to the force of the “weakest”: organized crime.
Sinaloa summarizes the crisis of governability that the Republic is going through and, especially, the terrain on which the President will have to define herself. If she continues colluding with the alliances of the previous six-year term and assuming the cost of what this implies: without declaring it, to continue with “hugs, not bullets”. This is the impression given by the paralysis of an entire national State in the face of the internal war of the Sinaloa cartel.
And it gets worse with the apparent alliance (temporary or lasting?) between the Chapitos and the Jalisco Cartel – New Generation (CJNG). They can aspire to dominate the entire country by combining their two strengths, weapons and corruption. There is talk of three new cartels emerging at this stage of the new government. Rather, there should be talk of new accommodations in the existing cartels. The Nueva Generación, Michoacán Nueva Generación, and Tabasco Nueva Generación cartels are the product of new agreements with the new authorities of a new administration. Everything is new, and the newcomers to power are trying to have their own agreements, alliances, and spaces for action. Nothing is happening here that has not happened before.
An important question arises: How much will this new process of reconfiguring cartels and governmental agreements break with the balance of the six-year term that has just ended? When reconfiguring the pacts, the previous ones are broken, and that is where the denunciations, claims, kidnappings, extractions, and accusations of corruption of the previous rulers begin.
Morenismo is building new territorial control pacts, ceding power to the criminal implants in their natural territories of control. They are reacting to the war in and around Sinaloa, facilitating pacts that will be sealed with blood and fire. They don’t do it any other way. The question, however, is how long it will take for this new power-sharing scheme in the country to consolidate. Because there is not much time.
The presence of Zambada and Chapo’s sons in the United States is a time bomb for the officials of the previous six-year term, many of whom continue with relevant official functions in the incumbent government. Presumably, there will soon be relevant information emanating from U.S. security offices about the revelations of Zambada and his associates. Indeed, recent articles in the Washington Post and the New York Times express great U.S. concern about the authoritarian threat looming over Mexico’s head as a result of judicial reform, political weakness, and the radicalization of the President.
In essence, Mexico’s extreme political uncertainty, along with its looming economic instability and the growing power of criminals, combine dangerously with U.S. domestic polarization, the uncertainty of next Tuesday’s election outcome, and the near certainty of serious post-election conflict in that country.
Tuesday is a hazardous day for North America because of the U.S. election and the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation’s decision on judicial reform in Mexico. The threat of armed violence on both sides of the border, Trump’s probable contempt for the election result, and Sheinbaum’s contempt for the Court’s ruling on judicial reform together create the perfect storm for an end-of-the-year in an atmosphere of coups d’état successful or unsuccessful, on both sides of the border.
Everything will depend on the caliber of the rulers and their ability to manage with intelligence and negotiating flexibility on each side or take things to the radicalized extreme, resulting in confrontations without winners.
Thus, we are in a time of definitions.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: