Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The scene said it all. And it captured the public’s imagination: a President dressed as if he were terminally ill, with his head notoriously bowed before the general. It was a very Latin American photograph. How often have we witnessed that scene in Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, and Peru? Civilian power bows down before military force, either by commission or omission.
General Cienfuegos, the former Secretary of National Defense of Mexico who was accused of having made an agreement with a group of drug traffickers for his protection and benefit, was later arrested in the United States and, at first, celebrated by the President as the best proof of the corruption of the neoliberal governments before his own. Suddenly, the President turned around and, without explanation, swallowed his words. He demanded the surrender of the general to Mexico, under penalty of canceling all collaboration between the respective Armies. That handover was achieved in a negotiation between Trump and AMLO, without the reasons for the U.S. about-face being clarified promptly.
The President has boasted of his defense of General Cienfuegos. He considers that he should be an instrument of the next presidential election in Mexico. He accuses the DEA and the U.S. government of having invented the intelligence to blackmail Mexico. And he threatened to withdraw all cooperation between that country’s armed forces and Mexico. In other words, he is deepening his strategy of confronting the United States politically while collaborating in the economic arena. Well, that is, more or less, what he understands about how the bilateral relationship with the neighboring country can coexist.
He complicates the energy relationship and then shows his willingness to negotiate concessions on an individual basis to companies that demand treatment within the law. He will surely do the same by importing transgenic corn, exploiting lithium, etc. Public firmness dissipates in agreements at the negotiating table as gestures of flexibility within the hardness.
Why militarize what used to be civilian? There are at least two reasons for reaching this point. The first is because the President has seen the degree of deterioration of the country in all senses, especially since the drug lords’ war against the Mexican State. And he considers that he cannot win the war without launching a frontal and brutal assault against the cartels. He is unwilling to do so because his political theses would be exposed for what they are: empty phrases and unrealistic concepts that do not address reality. Therefore, he needs the express collaboration of the Army to undertake the noble escape. That is, not to confront the cartels so as not to generate more violence and bloodbaths, but not withdrawing entirely from the battlefield either. AMLO’s anti-drug trafficking policy is made of an incredible simulation. And that is what it will remain.
For the simulation to work, he needs the full collaboration of the Army and its top commanders. And he has received that full cooperation…but at a price. The price is the second reason for militarization.
If the Army is going to simulate nothing more than that, it will perform its main task, which is national security, and now public safety as well, then it will have to assure satisfaction to the members of the force. Turning the Army into a new business class may have initially seemed to be “easy” to grant. Giving away other people’s money has never caused AMLO any conflict, so why should it cause him any embarrassment now?
Incidentally, the transformation of the Army from a disbanded and deactivated instrument of repression to an entrepreneurial one means the transfer of substantial public resources so that the military’s coffers can be filled quickly and, thus, have the pretext and excuse not to repress, but to enrich themselves.
Even former enemies can become partners. Money sings very differently from bullets. An army of businessmen is more interested in politics than in war. They will want to be deputies, senators, and, why not, the Chief of Government of Mexico City.
The significant difference between politicians and the military is that the former exists as long as they win elections. In contrast, the military will always be present, defined by their internal ranks. They do not go anywhere but the military camp, while politicians go home. Therefore, Lopez Obrador’s actions to elevate the military command simultaneously confirm their subordination to him. Forget the Constitution. The military is in charge, not the President.
[email protected]
@rpascoep
Further Reading: