Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
After much discussion about the elusive concept of “sovereignty,” rationality prevailed. It turns out that the idea of ‘sovereignty’ depends on who utters the word and how. If it is for internal applause, it is understood as “the people are in charge here.” But if it is for another audience, it is malleable and open to interpretation, and also depends on the strength of the other.
The drone that flew over the State of Mexico, seeking to detect the hideout and base of operations of members of a cartel operating in that area, carried out espionage activities “at the request of a Mexican institution,” according to the federal Secretary of Public Security, Omar García Harfuch. The secretary’s message was, like everything reported by the federal government, cryptic, ambiguous, lacking in specificity, and deliberately confusing. And peppered with lies. The intention was to say that it “did not violate” (horror) sovereignty.
It is very possible that if social media had not captured the flight of the drone (an autonomous, unmanned flying device) from a US military base to Valle de Bravo and back to its base, we would not have been informed of its intrusion into national airspace. Harfuch went so far as to say that it was not a military drone, but a civilian one. Once again, social media showed that he was lying: that drone is specifically military and was manufactured for the US Army.
So many lies and so much concealment to avoid admitting that a US military drone flew over national territory at the express request of the Mexican government. They did not want to admit it because authorizing that spy flight over national territory goes against the official narrative of defending national sovereignty. Can the president really say that “the people authorized that flight”?
The fact that a spy drone flew over national territory, and the attempt by the ruling party to downplay the incident, raises questions. First, one might think that this spy drone flight over national territory is not the first and will not be the last. It confirms the existence of a program between national security and intelligence agencies that has not been disclosed to the Mexican public.
Second, could it be that the “security plan” between the two governments that President Sheinbaum announced was about to be signed already exists? If so, it would be important, for the purposes of defending our “sovereignty,” that its contents be made public. What commitments have the two governments made? Is the handover of 55 Mexican drug traffickers to the US government, without any legal procedure to support it, part of a secret agreement between the security agencies of both nations?
Third, if the joint security plan exists, how is the scheme for sharing the information obtained being proposed? Obviously, the drone collected valuable information that could detect criminal operations, in addition to detecting the location of specific targets for capture, among other things. How is that information secured, and how is it protected from falling into the wrong hands?
Finally, what is the scope of these espionage activities on national territory, and who defines the targets to be pursued? It is conceivable that the Mexican authorities would be interested in some targets, while the US authorities would be interested in others, different from Mexico’s priorities. It is therefore essential to define who has effective custody of the information gathered. It is clear that whoever collects the information initially is the one who has access to an initial review of what has been collected, heard, and recorded. Does the security plan address these aspects of intelligence?
In fact, the drone flight is reminiscent of President Calderón’s Plan Colombia and Plan Mérida. These “details” about the custody of information, the preparation of operations, and their execution speak to a specific plan to which the signatories adhere.
Looking at the facts, it seems that there is a plan in operation that, as is often the case with this government, may exist, but is hidden and secret because the government does not know how to explain it. It has no place in the “sovereignist” narrative of the 4T or of the president and her “here the people rule” slogan. And even less so if it goes against the express wishes of López Obrador.
It turns out that there are joint training exercises between the US Army and the Mexican Navy. The integration of the Mexican Armed Forces into the US Northern Command, together with Canada, has been reactivated. The FBI and the DEA are training state police forces to carry out operations, such as the one recently carried out in Aguascalientes, resulting in the apprehension of 27 members of the CJNG, under US supervision.
Everything indicates that the ban on the presence and operation of US intelligence and security agencies in Mexico has been lifted. López Obrador expelled them from the country; Sheinbaum accepted them back. What does this new federal policy mean in terms of the narrative of “national sovereignty”? What does it represent in terms of internal conflicts within the 4T government?
While the political relationship between Mexico and the United States is stagnant and in a state of uncertainty due to Sheinbaum’s indecision, the police-military relationship appears to be strengthening. The contradiction lies in the fact that the United States wants something that the president wants to avoid at all costs: to hand over members of her government who are linked to drug trafficking to the justice system of the neighboring country. That will break up the ruling group and overthrow the current government. She has sent 55 cartel members, begging that this will satisfy the bloodthirsty appetite of the North. Spoiler: it won’t. Oh well, now she is preparing the next sacrifice: Bartlett.
Significantly, there has not been a single meeting between the two presidents, despite their six or seven telephone conversations. Secretary Rubio has not come to Mexico either. Emissaries have come, but the leaders have not. That fact alone is a matter of state policy. It even suggests that Trump’s hasty departure from the G-7 meeting in Canada, when he was hours away from meeting with Sheinbaum, was deliberate. He did not want that meeting. He tried to maintain his “deniability” about Mexico.
In the world of politics and diplomacy, this lack of contact between leaders is considered confirmation of distance and mistrust between nations. And Mexico gives the United States reasons to mistrust it. They are supposed to be allies in both senses of the word: allies in tactics and strategy. However, Mexico has insisted on leaning more toward the political and military adversaries of the United States, while opportunistically aspiring to strengthen bilateral economic integration, clearly to its own benefit. It wants to implement its anti-US policy while achieving greater Mexican integration into the US market. And this absurd pretension is called sovereignty.
At a time when Ecuador and Argentina have left the ranks of Bolivarianism, and Bolivia is about to do the same today with its presidential election, there are three Latin American dictatorships with which Mexico identifies: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Three countries with prisons full of political prisoners and total suppression of the political and human rights of their citizens. These three countries are allies of Russia and China, declared adversaries of the United States and Europe.
The policy of the 4T is to be guided by a fallacy toward the United States. That fallacy creates a dangerous situation for Mexico. While the two countries are separating politically and diplomatically, their armed forces and intelligence communities are growing closer. The word sovereignty takes on another dimension in this context, beyond the control of those in power. When politicians clash but the military unites, the danger is self-explanatory. Nationalist-sovereignist rhetoric may make some cheer, but others see unreality in its Torquemada-like postulates and prefer reconciliation with the geographical and economic reality of the nation, moving away from ideological fallacy.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: