Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Mexico is much more important to the United States than Venezuela or Colombia. This premise is even more true when considering Cuba and Nicaragua. The United States grants Mexico a degree of political latitude that it does not allow any of these other countries. Apparently.
A national security analysis concludes that the US government’s actions in these Caribbean Basin countries are a tactical exercise to gauge reactions, resistance, and the extent of internal fractures that arise when they face economic, political, and military pressure from abroad. It is testing to gauge international reaction to pressure on authoritarian leftist governments. In terms of national security, the country in mind is Mexico.
Considering that China, Russia, and Iran have been strategic allies of all these countries, the United States is studying what reactions it can anticipate to direct attacks or serious covert actions against any of them, or against several of them as a bloc. To what extent are these four Caribbean Basin nations dangerous enemies to the United States and its national security? Considering their specific economic weight in the region, they are medium-sized players (Colombia and Venezuela) and very minor ones in the case of Cuba and Nicaragua. They are hotbeds of conflict in the countries around them, but they have lost their appeal, and their disruptive power is, frankly, diminished. Ecuador and Peru have moved away from their spheres of influence, as have Bolivia and Argentina. Uruguay and Chile were never close, and Brazil plays on another field: that of the BRICS and the international arena.
That being the case, why does the United States pay so much attention to them? The answer seems to be that they are a testing ground for something bigger. That “something bigger” is Mexico. The United States is testing the extent to which it can influence Mexico’s internal affairs and those of certain countries hostile to its interests, while avoiding an adverse reaction to its presence across the region. It is proceeding with a degree of caution, which it does not exercise in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, or Russia. It freely and casually expresses its opinions, exerts pressure, makes demands, or issues threats regarding these countries, intervening in all their internal affairs.
But Latin America is a different case. It is a neighbor. Millions of its citizens live in the United States and have dual nationality. Legal and illegal migration comes mainly from that region. Economic, political, and social interaction is historic and intense. And it is geographically close to the U.S. landmass. Recent actions against Venezuela and Colombia are noteworthy. They are designed to provoke reactions from their governments because of their links to drug trafficking, now transformed into narco-terrorism, according to Washington. In the case of Venezuela, the accusations are not only about the existence of the Tren de Aragua cartel, but also because it is linked to the Soles cartel, in reference to the high command of the Venezuelan armed forces.
The case of Colombia is different because Washington has a close historical relationship with the Colombian armed forces. US teams have trained them and have dedicated their lives to fighting the left-wing guerrillas who sought to overthrow the Colombian government. It was members of the Colombian National Police who confronted the drug traffickers. Broadly speaking, the army fought the guerrillas, and the national police fought drug trafficking, until the guerrillas and drug traffickers merged into a single entity.
This explains why Washington does not criticize the Colombian army, but does criticize President Petro as a civil authority and accuses him of not confronting narco-terrorism. Now Washington is attacking boats and ships emanating not only from Venezuela but also from Colombia, on the assumption that they are following orders from drug cartels. The United States’ military actions in the region are, by all accounts, completely illegal. But they are designed precisely to gauge the international community’s reaction to such interventionist tactics. They are not only looking for the weak points of the Maduro and Petro governments, but also measuring how far they can go with their actions without the backing of their Congress and with an international community that perhaps prefers to think about Ukraine and Gaza rather than their neighbors in Latin America.
They have turned their attention to Mexico. The Morena government has pursued a foreign policy toward Latin America primarily focused on the Caribbean Basin. It has shown solidarity with the Maduro government by endorsing electoral fraud in that country. Support for Cuba has gone beyond all limits of moderation: Mexico is the fundamental economic lifeline of the Cuban economy, having transferred gasoline and oil worth more than $3 billion to the island, knowing full well that this support is a gift, as Cuba will never be able to pay for the services provided. All this in support of an ancient dictatorship that refuses to die. Nicaragua and Colombia receive tokens of Mexico’s solidarity.
In addition, Mexico has announced that it will not attend the Summit of the Americas to be held in December in the Dominican Republic, an event convened by Washington. The reason Mexico gives for not attending is that Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have not been invited to the meeting because they are considered dictatorships. In other words, Mexico is siding with three dictatorships and shunning dialogue with the rest of the continent. Petro has joined Mexico’s position, going even further: he is proposing a “counter-summit” to be held on the exact dates. So far, his call has not been echoed.
Since López Obrador’s government took office, Mexico has adopted a position opposed to Washington’s. It has abandoned its historical position as the great mediator of conflicts between nations due to its recognized capacity for dialogue and trust-building. Now, Mexico has become an additional problem for the region, rather than a help. The new Mexican foreign policy is not the result of an authentic ideological position, but rather the product of its unacknowledged strategic alliance with drug traffickers.
It is no coincidence that in this context of conflict, threats, and regional violence, Trump has stated that Sheinbaum is a good person but lacks the strength to govern her country. And, most importantly for Trump, according to him, she is dominated and controlled by drug traffickers. Faced with this, and to mobilize her base and secure their support, Sheinbaum is radicalizing Mexico’s foreign policy. At the same time, Mexico’s Secretary of Economy, Marcelo Ebrard, lives happily in his bubble, predicting that there will be a successful renegotiation of the USMCA, assuming the existence of “normal times” that will allow Mexico to have an excellent trade agreement with the United States, pretending to ignore that his government is associating with Washington’s main adversaries in open defiance. Blindness and frivolity permeate the tactical and strategic thinking of the Morena rulers.
What Washington is testing in the southern Caribbean Basin is to gauge the best measures to be applied in the northern Caribbean Basin, which is Mexico. Trump authorized the CIA to operate in Mexico. The multiple destabilization tactics being used in Venezuela and Colombia will eventually be applied in Mexico, at a calculated moment. The communication war will be the prelude to any action. Some members of the government, past and present, and relevant political party leaders will be selectively denounced through the media. There will be a systematic and permanent smear campaign to destroy the credibility of the political model and its national and international legitimacy. The discrediting of Mexico and its government will serve as a guide for shaping options for change in political institutions.
The lion circles its prey, gauging the strengths, skills, abilities, and weaknesses that sustain it, before attacking its victim. Mexico is strategically crucial to the United States. And Mexico behaves like a blind child imbued with an imaginary omnipotence.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: