Luis Rubio
Governments should be judged by what they deliver, not by their intentions or the emotions they provoke. Tony Blair once put it bluntly: “After ten years of being British PM, and now 15 years of experience working with governments around the world, I have learnt one thing. It’s all about delivery… The challenge is efficacy.” Davos this year produced plenty of soaring speeches and wounded feelings. But in the end, outcomes matter — and by that standard, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum is quietly outperforming.
The global backdrop is one of upheaval. Technology, the information revolution, and deep economic integration have created enormous gains — and equally large dislocations. Donald Trump’s first presidency hinted at a break with the post–World War II international order. His second has turned that break into a full-scale challenge to the rules, norms, and assumptions that governed global relations for decades. Few countries have been spared pressure, but none more so than America’s two USMCA partners.
Canada and Mexico have taken sharply different paths.
For Canadians, the relationship with the United States has long been defined by closeness and trust. Trump’s renewed verbal assaults felt like betrayal, even humiliation. The public backlash reshaped Canadian politics, helped propel Mark Carney to power, and strengthened support for diversifying Canada’s economic and political ties away from Washington.
Mexico’s historical memory is different. Its relationship with the United States has always been turbulent, dating back to the 1847 war and subsequent interventions. Mexicans tend to view the relationship as transactional rather than sentimental. From that vantage point, Trump’s pressure is less a rupture than another chapter in a long, complicated story. Paradoxically, that history may now be an advantage: Mexico is approaching the moment with a cooler head.
That is why Carney’s eloquent and emotionally charged Davos speech deserves a closer look. He gave voice to the frustration many countries feel toward Washington. It was powerful — and politically resonant. But was it realistic? That question goes to the heart of whether Canada’s strategy will prove more effective than Mexico’s.
Carney’s line — “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu” — struck a nerve in Mexico, where critics accuse Sheinbaum of being too accommodating while praising Canada’s more confrontational stance. So far, however, both approaches have produced broadly similar results. And given Trump’s volatility, open defiance carries risks. It is not hard to imagine a U.S. president inclined to punish what he sees as insubordination. Picking a fight with a vastly stronger neighbor is a hazardous bet. Even if the U.S. Supreme Court limits Trump’s tariff powers, he would still have plenty of tools to squeeze other countries. The future is uncertain either way — but gratuitous confrontation seems unwise.
The hard reality is that both Canada and Mexico are deeply integrated with the U.S. economy. Their primary growth engine is the same one: exports to the American market. Yes, political forces in both countries would prefer more distance from Washington — Mexico’s Morena party among them. Yet economic logic has consistently trumped ideology; thus, President Sheinbaum, like her predecessor, has championed the agreement.
So which strategy is better: Sheinbaum’s pragmatism or Carney’s defiance? It is too soon to render a final verdict. But one fact stands out. Sheinbaum’s steady, disciplined handling of Trump has helped preserve a measure of stability in a fraught relationship — even as Mexico grapples with severe internal challenges in security and governance. Success is never guaranteed. For now, though, her approach is delivering what matters most: results.
@lrubiof
Further Reading: