Antonio Navalón
At the end of the 19th century, the Spanish empire was dying. Spanish intervention and supremacy were diminishing in several parts of the Caribbean – as in Puerto Rico or Cuba – as these nations were living their last years under the Spanish yoke. The same was true of the Philippines and Guam, the closest Spanish-held territory in the Far East. At that time, all the independence movements were in full swing, and, naturally, the United States – which had already started on the road to becoming the natural heir of the great empire in decline – was also showing its face or, covertly, sustaining most of the independence movements.
At the time, President William McKinley made a statement in which he maintained that the United States would not enter the Cuban-Spanish war or enter into the litigation and resolution with the Philippines. In the end, the policy of the United States of America did not seek to create independence movements, nor did they want to get involved in wars that were not their own. The publisher, businessman, and even politician, William Randolph Hearst – who at one point managed twenty-eight newspapers circulating in the United States and on whom Orson Welles’ famous movie “Citizen Kane” is based – told McKinley that the Americans would end up going to war. Everything seemed to indicate that the table was set for an inevitable confrontation. On one side was the realm of the press and what it entailed, and on the other was the political administration of a country that at the time – even though then-President McKinley was against it – had already made interventionism a significant part of its essence.
History always makes reason shine; hence, after the night of February 15, 1898, when the U.S. battleship Maine was blown up in the bay of Havana, this ended up being a decisive event. After sending a commission to investigate what happened to the U.S. ship, on April 25 of that same year, the U.S. Congress declared war on the Spanish. The conflict not only meant the intrusion of the Americans in the area but also ended up being the coup de grace to the little that remained of the Spanish forces and the Spanish empire.
Before, as is still the case, prior to making any move or taking any action, it was necessary to analyze and evaluate all the interests and positions involved and the possible consequences. Not only was it essential to consider the media or social repercussions, but an analysis had to be made of what could happen in the economic and political spectrum. Regarding the latter, the situation has not changed much. Today, as in those times, before acting, it is necessary to know where the power lies and who manages the economic empires or the political representations.
The Spanish empire lost the confrontation, and its hegemony became part of the annals of history. The United States, wounded by the blow, emerged victorious, obtaining the cession of Puerto Rico, Cuba, and Guam and selling the Philippines for 20 million dollars. Today, Puerto Rico and Guam continue to be under U.S. control. The Philippines shed the U.S. yoke in 1946, and Cuba, the great Cuba, formally became independent with the arrival of General Fidel Castro to power on February 16, 1959.
Last week, every time the major television and news networks interrupted their regular programming to report on the missing Americans in Matamoros, I inevitably thought of the ghost of Havana. From what happened, it is necessary to advise everyone – especially the advisors surrounding President López Obrador – to remember what happened in Havana. I would consider it very convenient to recommend they read history and -regardless of what they wish in the name of the holy national sovereignty- bring to the present what happened at the time in the Cuban capital.
We have been playing with fire for a long time. Over the past few years, the warnings have come in the form of a wall, offense, and various depictions. Moreover, although this is a President who has ideology and sovereignty as his great shields of unifying national spirit, he has not taken very seriously the fact that someday Americans might come across borders simply to defend themselves. And it is that what happened last week in Matamoros is but a demonstration of what has been an obvious fact for years, which is that the main threat to U.S. national preservation – especially along the border – is the relationship they have with us and the increasingly alarming situation of our cartels. Frankly, I don’t see U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment troops coming across the borders to invade us. It is not 1846. But I, like you and everyone else, have seen over a hundred movies showing the types of commando operations that can be organized by those who have legislation that allows them to act to protect their national territory. They call it the preservation of national security, and this concept is more and more likely to be applied against us every time we are reminded of the very dangerous and delicate situation we live in in the border area.
To defend itself and its own, the United States has the capacity to persecute any of its enemies in any country in the world to bring justice. They are either transferred to their territory or condemned or executed in the land of concern. Four African-Americans are just four African-Americans. The beginning and the end of all life are one. But we must never forget that the large numbers of massacres are just one more statistic; however, one death can end up being the face of a situation that can no longer be sustained. That is why we must take perfect notes. I am not saying that a formal declaration of war is going to be issued by the United States, but that, given what has been seen, possibly at this moment – which also coincides with the birth of the new North America and the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC – tactical command operations beyond the borders could be the only viable solution.
I don’t know who is advising President Lopez Obrador on the defense policy he should adopt at this time, but what I do know is that it is essential that he has someone to explain to him the capabilities and what others can do. I think it is critical that someone makes him understand that – at this point when kidnappings, disappearances, and executions no longer respect time or place – this clearly could be the beginning of U.S. tactical operations in our country. Of course, one could always say this could be taken as a declaration of war, but it is essential not to be naive here. Do you really believe that if a group of professionals enters our territory as mercenaries, they will confess that the Pentagon sent them?
That is why it is important to know that the Maine can be represented by anything or any circumstance. We must understand that the consequences of the Maine or whatever ends up exploiting this situation could be happening in Matamoros, in Tijuana, or anywhere along the border. However, what is clear is that we are not in a condition to withstand a frontal confrontation.
In this era of the blessed or cursed social networks revolution, we have become accustomed to having lazy brains. But here I ask you to wake up, see, blend, and analyze everything that has happened to reach this point. From the arrest of General Cienfuegos to the conviction of Genaro Garcia, from what happened last week in Matamoros to the permanent singing that we are not chasing cartels and that our policy is that of hugs and not bullets. However, all of this has only served to make the cartels more and more important and powerful in our country.
As in the past, the tension between political power and the power of the media is the key. It could never be said which Spaniard blew up the Maine. Nor could it be ascertained whether an American provoked the ship’s explosion. What is certain is that, contrary to what President McKinley said, Hearst proved to be right. And in the end, there was war. And the United States conquered territories that, some of which, to this day, remain under its control.
All is written. The day President McKinley read from the Oval Office the statement and, above all, the headlines of the editorial chain under Hearst’s command, it was clear to him – and he said so and let the American businessman know so – that there would be no war. William Randolph Hearst replied that it was enough of a photo to give him a war. Just one of the videos projected where the victims kidnapped and executed in Matamoros were thrown as if they were a sack of potatoes or as if they were dogs – according to the relatives – under Hearst’s mentality, would be enough to unleash a war.
At this time, it is essential to remember what country we live in and what environment surrounds us. In that sense, looking at the big picture and seeing things as they are is necessary. The environment and panorama surrounding us force us to analyze and reflect on the fact that there may be more videos that justify a war and several wars. In Mexico, we have an internal battle – and one that may cross borders – underway that no one can predict where or how it may end. In Europe – as if they had forgotten their war history – a military confrontation is being unleashed as we have not seen since the end of World War II. And while this is happening, the once global hegemony is now facing its own demons. Not only is the United States facing a potential economic, military, and intelligence crisis, but it is also facing an internal social and moral crisis, the likes of which we have not seen for a long time. In the face of all this and as far as Mexicans are concerned, whoever advises President López Obrador has to tell him that, in addition to sticking out his chest, raising his voice in the morning, and warning the Americans, the situation forces us to think about what happened with the Maine.
Further Reading: