Antonio Navalón
One of the most surprising aspects of human history is the degree to which moods condition and influence our perception of reality. Today, when faced with the eternal clash between the human and the technological, politics and economics are undeniably largely governed by societies’ emotional states and pulse.
Life is interpreted as if it were a function of an emotional thermostat: everything seems to be going well, poorly, or in a regular way, even before the consequences materialize in the wallet, in the heart, or on the battlefield. That sense of control and stability can crumble in an instant, and without warning, we find ourselves in a situation that, although it may seem unthinkable, becomes the new normal of a state of war.
Today, the conflict is global. In the United States, in the Middle East, and every corner of the world, it is no longer possible to focus only on the figures or the visible devastation in Gaza. Those who have defended the right of the countries of the Middle East to exist and have rejected terrorism have been left speechless in the face of a war based on total destruction.
October 7 is a watershed in modern history, especially in the Middle East. On that day, Hamas managed to infiltrate Israel, one of the most sophisticated intelligence services in the world. In a territory so small that there is no more than 30 minutes between military installations, the terrorists had seven hours to murder, rape, kidnap and demonstrate that, despite its legendary defense, Israel was not invulnerable.
For seven long hours, a spectacle of violence unfolded — murders, rapes, kidnappings and acts of extreme brutality — demonstrating the vulnerability of a system that until then had been believed invincible. At that moment, not only was the fragility of the Israeli defense evident; but a breach in collective security was opened, plunging the world into a war that, with each bomb explosion or loss of life, reminds us of the horrors of past conflicts and the unbearable reality of a violence that does not distinguish between age or innocence.
This tragedy becomes even more relevant when considering that the region in question should have left barbarism behind due to its technological and political development. However, today, societies seem to have internalized war as part of their daily existence. It is as if we are getting used to being in a constant and interruptible state of war.
Despite a history replete with centuries of confrontation and destruction, Europe finds itself immersed in a reconstruction process which, although magnificent in urban planning terms, brings with it the loss of the values inherent to peace. Finland, which has been on alert since the Soviet invasion of 1939, is the best example of a society that understands what it means always to be prepared. And while the West debated working hours and retirement rights, from one moment to the next, it was caught up in a new reality of war.
Mexico is no exception. Its war is against the cartels and, on a second level, against external threats. US security is inevitably linked to stability in Mexico. There will be no security along the 3,200 kilometers of border as long as there is no internal stability. However, the country has been unable to control this crisis: whether due to a lack of will, strategic errors, or because the wrong people won, the result is a settling of scores in which organized crime coexists with development, and peace has become an illusion.
The state of war in Mexico does not begin with planning supplies to last 72 hours without food or water, as European citizens have recently been urged to do. It begins with the Herculean task of accounting for the dead and the disappeared. Not only are we witnessing genocidal and fratricidal struggles, but the first challenge of this war is to explain to the world where the more than 120,000 disappeared are.
The state of war in our country is manifested, first of all, in the inescapable obligation to account for what happened to the disappeared, both to the citizens and to the neighboring countries. The legal ordeal ahead will be a long one. Perhaps we Mexicans have become accustomed to the figure, but other countries will want detailed answers about what happened to their citizens in the Mexican chaos.
The recent visit of US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is a clear sign: in the new state of war, Washington is unwilling to ignore a list of demands. The great battle will be to define the extent to which Mexico is willing or able to respond to these demands.
Until the situation is legally and conclusively clarified and until the fundamental question can be answered: Where have more than one hundred and twenty thousand disappeared? It will be tough to move forward. Without that answer, it will be difficult to move forward or demand respect on the international stage. We are facing a war that is not only being fought on the battlefields but also in the memory, justice, and dignity of those who have been silenced in the maelstrom of violence.
Further Reading: