Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Only a blind person cannot see it coming. And only a poor analyst or a terrified Morena supporter cannot see it because they do not want to see it. But a confrontation with the US government is coming over the persistent complicity between drug traffickers and Morena.
Dr. Sheinbaum’s lack of political skill stands out at the top of the policy of complicity that discredits Mexico before the world. First, relying on supposed “moral authority,” she reproached the US authorities for negotiating with terrorists, as the members of Mexican cartels are classified. It seemed like an attempt to distance herself from any accusations that might come from the drug lords in detention. They say she tried to “preempt harm.”
To think that the political struggle between Mexico and the United States is a question of who has “moral authority” and who does not is to misunderstand what is at stake right now entirely. It’s like being in kindergarten.
The “moral” claim sounded like an epilogue to his previous comment, which was equally evasive and fearful: “If they accuse anyone in Mexico, they will have to present evidence.” No one is unaware that neither AMLO nor Sheinbaum applied the same standard of proof when García Luna was tried and imprisoned in New York. That former official was sentenced to years in prison despite no physical evidence being presented. It was all hearsay, and that was enough for the jury to find him guilty.
Obviously, the president fears that the same thing will happen now, also without evidence, when arrest warrants are possibly issued against a list of famous people in Mexico for being partners and members of Mexican cartels.
In an act of clumsiness, blindness, or provocation, she chose none other than Sinaloa and, alongside the contrite and submissive governor Rubén Rocha, to deny the direct accusation by Ovidio Guzmán’s lawyer that she was a public relations agent for Mexican drug traffickers. She vaguely denied it (“it is an insult to the presidential office,” which is, and is not, a denial) while standing next to the symbol of the merger of drug trafficking with Morena. The presidential blindness is incredible and worrying.
Defense lawyer Lichtman warned that AMLO was also a partner in drug trafficking and that he would provide more information on these cases. The warning could not be more explicit and clear. They are talking to the US authorities. A word to the wise is enough.
At the same time, President Trump threatened, once again, to impose 30% tariffs on all products from Mexico, justified by the continued influx of fentanyl into his country, even though the US government itself has recorded a significant decrease in drug trafficking to the northern country.
That is beside the point. What is important is that Trump’s statement coincides, in time, with the unusual and unexpected words (for a lawyer) of Lichtman. He had never issued such threats to Mexican officials during previous trials of various drug traffickers he had represented. He even referred to the case of General Cienfuegos, who was returned to Mexico and immediately released at the request of former President López Obrador, despite being guilty, according to the talkative lawyer.
For the United States, Mexico is a national security issue. If this is not understood, then what is to come in the next few days, weeks, and months will never be understood. Mexico differs significantly from the cases of Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. Despite the ideological similarities between Morena and the governments of these three countries, the latter are issues of ideological interest to lobbyists in Washington and to Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans living in the United States or Europe.
As a matter of national security for the United States, Mexico is in a league of its own, unlike the extremists in the Caribbean Basin. The United States can easily survive or even ignore those three Caribbean countries. But it cannot survive without a relationship of trust and certainty with Mexico. Like it or not, the interconnection of economies and societies means that, from a national security perspective, there cannot be a dissident in North America who is closer to Washington’s adversaries (China and Russia) than to the region’s political and economic power axis. It is a geographical inevitability, if you will, but it is our inevitability.
When the United States decided to bomb Iran, the issue of regime change was underlying its thinking. To what extent was it feasible, even legally, to attack another country on the pretext of curbing its essential state policies (its nuclear-military capacity, in the case of Iran) without interfering with, or even destroying, its political regime? In the sphere of international relations, the question of “finishing the job” is always present when one country interferes in the affairs of another.
This reflection comes to mind when one considers the extent of US intervention in Mexico under the pretext of national security. AMLO himself used the concept of “national security” to justify ignoring the law and governing practically by presidential decree, circumventing laws, regulations, and even the Constitution. Governments use the national security argument to achieve a variety of purposes, some of which are to safeguard the nation, while others are to steal in broad daylight, from a bank or a country.
The fact that Washington is building the scaffolding for a broad, concerted, forceful, and insurmountable intervention in Mexico seems evident to me. There are many signs in plain sight, as well as those that are not visible. Examples abound: the reinforced army on the northern border, the battleships in the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico, the drone flyovers, the interception of information via Pegasus, the use of Northern Command to bring the military and marines closer to the sympathies of the political friendship project, the training of Mexican commandos, the laws that define drug trafficking as “terrorism,” the testimonies of Chapitos and Mayo Zambada in New York and Chicago, the leaks of alleged lists of Morena drug traffickers, tariffs as pressure to achieve political concessions, threats to renegotiate the USMCA, intimidation of investors, espionage against the former president and the president. In short, all of this is visible. And there is much more that is not visible.
The conclusion should be obvious. Washington is considering what a regime change in Mexico would entail. This reflection is based on an analysis of the internal strengths and weaknesses of the ruling group in Mexico, the future of populist-authoritarian governments with leftist rhetoric in Latin America, and Washington’s need to prevent Mexico from becoming a new consolidated member of the allied governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, much less a promoter of Chinese and Russian interests in the region.
The political and historical justification for Mexicans to promote regime change in Mexico, without Washington’s intervention, is due to the frankly perverse complicity of drug trafficking with Morena’s government and party structures. The decision is also influenced by the frivolity and lack of seriousness or training among the ruling cadres, the lack of intellectual and professional capacity among officials, and the excessive delight in corruption among the movement’s members, all of which are hallmarks of the government headed by Claudia Sheinbaum.
To avoid US interventionism, it is necessary to take the lead in the process of regime change, with those members of the ruling group who are aware of the gravity of the situation, together with the social, civil, and partisan opposition, proposing a national pact for a pluralistic democratic transition. If this is not done, others will try to impose their own regime change. And that would create more problems for Mexico.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: