Antonio Navalón
One of the most important side effects of what happened on September 11, 2001 – and one that I don’t think Osama bin Laden cared much about – is that, with the fall of the Twin Towers, two additional things also succumbed: the control and quasi-ownership of the United States over non-English-speaking America. The morning of September 12th witnessed how the great American leader was suddenly extinguished. The whole world was shocked by the tragedy and because what happened was also proof that the United States, which was apparently untouchable, was no longer so. Their vulnerability was exposed, and from that moment on, the Americas acquired a freedom they had not experienced before. It was as if overnight, they had been cut off from the U.S. sphere of influence and given a free pass to independence and freedom of action.
It was the first time that God and fate played a dirty trick on the empire of the North. And not only was it a physical attack, and not only were their casualties in the form of people, but what happened that September morning also exposed the failure of its intelligence services, prevention systems, and its entire defensive scheme. On that day, a new era in world history was born. If the Roman empire took centuries to disappear completely, the American empire took approximately seventeen minutes – which was the time difference between the plane’s impact with the first tower and the impact of the second tower – to succumb.
A new America also emerged from the attack on the Twin Towers and the change in global structures that this event brought about. After that moment, non-English-speaking America gradually woke up and realized that they had finally achieved the long-awaited freedom from the empire of the North. We were free and grown-up. And today, almost twenty-one years later, we are living the explosion of freedom and libertarianism that arose from that moment.
The President of Mexico was the first to request – first politely and then not so politely – that everyone should be invited to the Summit of the Americas to be held from June 6 to 10 in Los Angeles. But, do not be fooled since everyone, for President López Obrador, means Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. He is not waging any war, possibly because he thinks he will be invited in his own right, regardless of what Brazil does or does not do, a country, which by the way, is always a subcontinent within that continent – not linguistically or geographically – but which is part of the America that does not speak English.
And from here, what will happen? President López Obrador should ask his people what they want to be. He should ask them if they would like to be Cubans or Venezuelans; will national sovereignty take precedence over misery and local hunger over imported development? In reality, what do we want or what do we strive to be? It is also necessary to determine whether, in the event that the Mexican President’s failure to appear will be accompanied by a series of denunciations and demands towards the USMCA.
What are we playing? Which is the plan, desire, or model to be followed from this point on? Remembering what Eduardo Galeano said, the veins of Latin America are open, and, what is worse, they continue to gush blood. They are veins that are capable of generating feelings of rebellion. However, in the face of the non-existent variety of alternatives, there is not much to do to improve the panorama. That had always been the plan: to have options that sought to improve the people’s living conditions and choose the best of them. Apparently, we have failed in that too. Either we apply for membership in the ALBA countries – and naturally, we start an ideologized campaign based on a nationalism that denies the development capabilities of other economic models – or we move towards a model of non-integration, but cooperation and development, within the USMCA space.
This is a critical moment for everyone. However, within this group, the one that has the most to lose, and is losing the most, is Mexico for sure. The reality is that, after the United States and almost at the same level as Canada, Mexico is the second most important country on the continent. But, above all, our country is the leader in Spanish-speaking America. There is no more stormy relationship – and with good reason – than that between Mexico and the United States. Starting with the fact that one of the parties – in that sort of mixture of invasion and robbery – had half of its territory taken from it, the relationship between the two countries has always been complicated. It took us so long to admit, accept and stop seeing each other as enemies that it took the arrival of two great statesmen, two prodigies such as General Lázaro Cárdenas and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, for us to begin to believe – with the nationalization of oil – that it was possible to have a beneficial and mutually respectful relationship. However, today we prefer to get along with those who mistreat or harm us, and we choose to get along badly with those who try to see us and treat us as equals. Who understands the current administration’s preferences for friendships and relationships? Only those who execute them. But the reality is that those preferences and decisions affect you and me—the consequences of all that will affect all of us.
What is dramatic is not that the President of Mexico goes or does not go to Los Angeles. What is dramatic and worrisome is the reason why he would or would not go. But, above all, what is behind that reason also goes hand in hand with the proposal for the future implied by that position. I do not see anywhere that we are looking for a model to achieve – to give an example – that the poor stop being poor or that we seek to develop all areas of the country. I see policies that hinder the development of society by giving them everything they need, leaving them with no room for self-improvement.
I have always believed that revolutions begin when stomachs are empty. Empty stomachs are the best dynamic for revolutions to succeed. After that, it is all about that not only a few stomachs are filled, but that this revolution serves to fill the stomachs of all. Or, to put it another way, power can be conquered in the name of the poor as long as they always continue to be poor.
Undoubtedly, in his dreams of youth and adolescence, he who governs us today aspired to become the President who said no to the United States and confronted it with its embarrassments. However, that is not enough to explain or justify the collateral damage created to the Mexican people due to the position adopted. And even less so when the reality is that the position taken does not seek to challenge effectively and congruently – with weighty political, social, and economic arguments – but what it wants is simply to demonstrate that we are different. And we are indeed different because, faced with an offer of development and growth, we opt for an offer of local misery.
