Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Mexico is in the eye of the storm. To navigate the new political conditions emerging on the national horizon, it is essential to adopt new paradigms and methods of analysis. Traditional arguments no longer work, given the new geopolitical configurations of the world. It is time to rethink ourselves.
Venezuela’s abrupt transformation—from a lackey state of China, Russia, and Iran to a protectorate of the United States—is not simply an old-fashioned imperial phenomenon. It is a change that transforms all relations among the nation-states of the Caribbean Basin. This directly affects Mexico and its ties with nations such as Cuba and Nicaragua.
The traditional notion of “national sovereignty,” so often repeated, is no longer valid. Today, all nations in the region, without exception, are part of a chain of economic interests—such as economies of scale and global value chains—and political interests. This union in chain explains why the idea of sovereignty, rather than a fiction, is a remnant of times gone by, when nations sought to be self-sufficient. The “autarkic economy” was a model of analysis and never intended to be a reality. The only ones who sold the idea of autarky were lying politicians seeking votes from a population desperate for solutions.
These are confusing times, no doubt. But it is also possible to argue that, within the chaos, a new order is emerging. It is not too risky to postulate that a new international order is emerging before our eyes. But we must know where to look to find definitions on how to act. We must learn to read the new warning signs so as not to take the wrong course.
Governments can and must defend national interests. But when they insist on mixing that legitimate and necessary agenda with the excuse of national sovereignty, then the notion of the country that actually exists in a world of politically interrelated economies and regions is lost. The argument of national sovereignty often serves governments with authoritarian pretensions within their borders. Hence, the sovereignty claim of some when protesting the removal of Maduro from power in Venezuela. They understand sovereignty as the right of rulers, but not of the people, who are the proper depository of any sovereign concept. And that sovereignty is exercised through the popular vote, respected without question by the defeated and the victors.
The emerging new international order requires defining Mexico’s national interests. And the question arises: Is it in the national interest to make Mexico the leading supplier of oil to Cuba? Is it a national interest, or is it part of the ideological agenda of Morena and, therefore, of the federal government, but not necessarily of the nation?
PEMEX delivers gasoline and additives worth approximately 100 billion pesos, money it owes to its contractors and suppliers. It does not seem to be a good deal for the company, especially considering that Cuba will never pay for those shipments. The island’s public finances are in a state of bankruptcy.
PEMEX is also technically bankrupt, were it not for the support of the federal Treasury (i.e., the taxpayer), which financially backs its misadventures. It will never recover its investment in projects such as Dos Bocas. From an economic and financial perspective, the support given to Cuba does not serve PEMEX as a company, as it will never recover its investment.
From a political point of view, Mexican support for Cuba is even more complex. Cuba is a dictatorship, and not of the proletariat. It is the dictatorship of a civic-military elite whose families enrich themselves by doing business around the world, with Cuban state-owned companies as a guarantee of their activities. They learned this from the Russians. Their internal credibility is diminishing amid the economic crisis afflicting the population, while the children of the elite drive Audi, BMW, or Mercedes cars along Havana’s broad avenues. They also failed to learn the lesson from the USSR’s dissolution about the dangers of this behavior.
President Díaz-Canel scolded Cuba’s People’s Power (the national parliament) for its inefficiency. For the first time, he did not blame Yankee imperialism for the country’s ills, but rather the Communist Party of Cuba for its serious mistakes in governing the country. He issued a warning: “We are going to have to change.” He did not clarify the meaning of the comment. Emboldened by his military ‘victory’ in Caracas, President Trump has said, “Cuba will fall, internally.” Internally? What does Trump know about the internal conditions of the Cuban elite? He did not clarify his comment.
It is possible to think that the Cuban elite, having seen and assimilated the crushing of its soldiers in Caracas, concluded that it was time to negotiate with Washington. Raúl reached a positive agreement with Obama in 2016, but Fidel rejected it, humiliating his brother in front of the party and the country. Six months later, Fidel died and left Cuba with no options. Out of pure brotherly envy. Proof that there are dialogue partners in Havana, very pragmatic ones, obviously.
Washington undoubtedly views the systematic and defiant shipment of Mexican gasoline to Cuba with displeasure, especially after future shipments of Venezuelan gasoline to the Caribbean island were halted. Mexico claims that it is a sovereign decision. Washington considers that no Mexican action is sovereign if no consultations are involved. Trump starts from one idea: everything must be consulted and evaluated in light of everyone’s interests.
President Petro has recognized the dangers posed by Trump’s threats. He understands that a confrontation with Washington is not in his presidential candidate’s best interests. Trump’s pressure on the Colombian electorate could well change the election results, as it did in Argentina, Chile, and Honduras. Petro does not want to take that risk and called Trump to make peace. He will visit Trump at the White House in February.
Trump’s threat to carry out military incursions into Mexico should not be dismissed, as Sheinbaum did, as “is his way of communicating.” The danger is real, which is why she sent the foreign minister to talk to Rubio. But she is not seeking a meeting with Trump in Washington. She is avoiding it. Why is the Mexican president avoiding a meeting with Trump, unlike Petro? Sheinbaum’s lack of political understanding and assertiveness threatens to put Mexico on the path to becoming a U.S. protectorate. Her ideological obsessions put Mexico in grave danger.
What is Trump saying to Mexico and the president with his threats? He is expressing his dissatisfaction with Mexico’s continued and defiant support for Cuba. In his own way, he is demanding an end to that support for the Cuban dictatorship. And he is telling her to stop intervening in Cuba, because the United States has its own plan to dismantle the current regime on the island.
If Mexico insists on supporting Cuba, there is a real possibility that a Delta commando will arrive in Mexico, but not because of El Mencho or some Mexican cartel operator. Instead, it would stem from political leaders linked to organized crime. In other words, the real government officials responsible for the proliferation of drug trafficking in the country. If he dared to extract Maduro, he would not hesitate to “extract” Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Dramatic operations of this kind are designed to “kill” the king and leave his bishops to pick up the pieces of the disaster and deal with the consequences of his actions. And AMLO is the king of Morena.
The lesson should remain as a learning experience for Mexico about the events in Venezuela and the effects of the arrogance of national leaders who consider themselves above the law. In the new international order, everyone will have to answer for their actions and decisions. We must know how to read the warning signs.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: