Luis Rubio
There is no greater challenge for Mexico than its relationship with the United States, a matter not only crucial for obvious reasons but also recurrent throughout Mexico’s history. However, today, the true question is not about what Trump wants but instead about what Mexico requires: two very distinct perspectives. Trump has been very clear about what he wants from Mexico and has threatened to employ heterodox instruments, such as tariffs, to impose what he wants. We also know that what he likes most to do is win. Therefore, the question that seems pertinent to me is what to do so that he wins something big while at the same time helping Mexico advance to resolve or contribute to resolving some of the decisive problems that Mexico faces.
The evidence to date is not praiseworthy. Rather than attempting to understand Trump, his way of being, his nature, and his substantive objectives, the government has confronted or attempted to dodge him. While Mexico hesitates and persists in its perverse cycle of taking offense, arguing, complaining, avoiding, fearing, and retaking offense, Canada, as a nation, is shaping the foundations of a constructive relationship. Who advances more?
The strategy, if it can be called that, of defense and resistance clearly does not work. The grand Prussian general von Moltke said it best: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” In contrast with that great strategist, who advocated for constant adaptation in the realm of reality, the Mexican government clings to its prejudices and, rather than clawing its way out of the quagmire, it continues digging the hole in which it finds itself. Reality will not adjust to governmental preconceptions, which is why there is no alternative other than to change the strategy or, better yet, develop a plan appropriate for the circumstances.
Rather than adapt itself, the propensity has been to dispute Trump’s statements and react in an ill-timed fashion to the utterances of diverse Canadian politicians. In both cases, the Mexican government projects its ignorance and indolence. Trump shoots from the knees and identifies the weaknesses in his counterpart; as he encounters resistance, he attacks again. For their part, Canadian politicians, that rare species that does indeed have to be accountable to its electorate, act at the local level as in any democracy worthy of respect. It is absurd to confront them into a street-scuffle diatribe. It would be better to identify Mexico’s national interests and devise a strategy to advance them.
A strategy susceptible to avoiding costs and simultaneously advancing toward the solution to the problems that besiege Mexico would imply beginning by eliminating prejudices to focus on the real issues. Before anything else, understand the actors in the game: Trump is transparent, and given that he has already been president, there is extensive evidence of what matters to him, how he responds, and what works with him. The Canadians have done their homework, and it is working for them. Learning from Canada would be more beneficial than accusing them of being traitors. In second place, it would be necessary to recognize and accept that much of what Trump says about Mexico is true. Mexicans may not like it when an outsider says that there is criminality in Mexico, that the drug cartels control vast territories, or that there is a great deal of corruption, but it’s hard to deny it…
The penchant for Mexicans to wrap themselves in the flag is enormous but minutely productive. It would be more beneficial to accept the existence of these issues and address them. In that way, in third place, it would be crucial to ask ourselves how we could leverage Trump’s manner of acting to advance solutions that Mexico needs. Instead of reacting viscerally, it would be more productive and helpful to go to Trump with a well-conceived plan and propose joint solutions: “The problems that Mexico faces are overtaking us, so we would be grateful for your help. Still, tariffs -or drones- would be counterproductive”. Instead of that, the proposal would continue, “It would be better to engage in a mutual, regional, security strategy and a common trade policy (of the three countries) to confront the Chinese challenge. Similarly, we must work on a common vision of the causes of migration and the need for conferring order to the demand for workers within the U.S. economy, on the one hand, and solutions to the factors that lead migrants to abandon their place of origin, on the other.”
With this, I do not pretend to define the solutions but instead propose that a change is urgent in conceiving the problem facing Mexico with the change of government in the U.S., our neighbor and main source of economic growth. The essence does not lie in the specific, but rather in the willingness to accept that there are problems in Mexico that demand solutions and to see the government of Trump as an opportunity to face them together or with its support (whether direct, logistic or with specialized equipment). The point is that it is urgent to shed the victim’s attitude and replace it with one of “how do we fix it.”
Yogi Berra, the great baseball player, said, “You can observe a lot by just watching.” Instead of worrying about Trump, it would be better to understand him. Or, as Camus wrote in The Plague, destiny demands assuming the challenge: “All I can say is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims‒ and as far as possible one must refuse to be on the side of the pestilence.”
@lrubiof
Further Reading: