Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Is it possible to be neutral when the world is on the verge of war? All hints tell us no: it is not possible.
What is more, assuming supposed neutrality when facing a war scenario means taking sides with one or the other of the opponents, even if denied or hidden.
The Mexican government claims to be neutral in the conflict in Ukraine. It maintains that it does not support any of the countries in conflict. However, the problem of alleged neutrality persists in the specific case between Russia and Ukraine. Russia has illegally invaded Ukraine, an independent and sovereign country, using a military force that includes the use of Russian and Syrian mercenaries, apart from its regular army. In addition, Russia is beginning to use weapons prohibited by international law against the Ukrainian civilian population, such as cluster bombs, and issuing the threat to use nuclear weapons if “necessary”.
The world is facing a war of conquest by one nation over another. Of course, there have been other cases of illegal invasions by superpowers of sovereign nations. Such was the case with the U.S. invasion of Iraq to overthrow its ruler-Saddam Hussein-during the Bush presidency. The only factor that makes the Iraq case different is that the United States had no interest in annexing Iraq to its republic. It wanted to change the ruler but not make Iraq another star on its flag.
Mexico has called for a ceasefire in Ukraine. At the UN General Assembly, it voted for the resolution calling on Russia to cease its actions in Ukraine. In the Security Council, Mexico even called for the express exclusion of the use of nuclear weapons in the conflict. Up to that point, Mexico had handled itself well.
Mexico could do two things concerning Russia in terms of sanctions. One is that Mexico could stop maintaining economic and commercial ties with that country, demanding that Russia withdraw its troops that have illegally invaded a sovereign nation and are killing its civilians. These sanctions would have to include canceling Russian airline flights to our national territory. Stopping the purchase of Russian products would imply, among other things, to stop buying the fertilizers that Mexico purchases in that country. But Mexico refused to apply economic sanctions against Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The other element to consider would be to sanction the stay of the Russian ambassador in the national territory. Mexico should consider declaring the ambassador and his embassy staff persona non grata, considered as military or intelligence elements that could threaten national security. To use the diplomatic language invented by the 4T would be equivalent to putting bilateral relations between the two countries on hold. It would not imply a severing of diplomatic ties, but it would be a sign of Mexican displeasure with the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine.
President López Obrador rejected the application of sanctions against Russia. “We are pacifists,” clarified the president in a statement, thinking that applying sanctions would send the wrong signal that Mexico is on the side of Ukraine, the country attacked by its neighbor.
At this point, it is essential to stop. Is it a violation of Mexico’s constitutional foreign policy principles to side with a country attacked by another? Does neutrality, or non-interventionism, mean not supporting the victims and the attacked of the land when they are being massacred? When can it be thought that neutrality is being used as a pretext for not defining oneself if a government does not want its actual inclination in a conflict to be known?
Mexico supported Sandinismo in its struggle against the Somoza dictatorship. It rejected Franco’s dictatorship in Spain and broke diplomatic relations for years with that government. We received the Spanish Republican community that founded fundamental institutions in Mexico, such as the Fondo de Cultura Económica, the Colegio de México, the Colegio Madrid, among others. After the Pinochet coup, Mexico broke diplomatic relations with Chile and received Allende’s widow. Mexico has sheltered persecuted politicians from all continents and ideologies, even the Shah of Iran after he was overthrown.
What Mexico had never done was to declare itself “neutral” during a war of extermination, as in the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it did not want to show its true opinion about the conflict. It has been necessary to listen to speeches of Morena legislators, and read the tweets of leaders of that party, to realize that the true affinity of the President of Mexico is with Putin and Russia, not with Ukraine and its people attacked by the bombs of the invaders. López Obrador identifies more with the autocratic and one-party political regime style of Russia and China than with the two-party system of the United States and the way of governing of the European Union, with 26 countries dialoguing to build consensus.
That is why he has never expressed any disagreement with his like-minded countries. He even invited the Chinese President to close the CELAC meeting held in Mexico last year. The Mexican idea for that meeting was for Latin America to break ranks with the United States and Canada. Their objective was not achieved due to the absolute lack of agreement among the region’s countries. During the current crisis in Ukraine, instead of demanding that President Putin withdraw his troops from Ukraine, AMLO has dedicated himself to confronting the United States and insulting the European Union. As far as his ideological and political affinities are concerned, it is as clear as day.
The declared Mexican “neutrality” is not such. It is an excuse or a pretext for not having to publicly defend Putin and the criminal, military invasion of a third country, in this case, Ukraine. But the gratitude of the Russian ambassador in Mexico was eloquent: “Our thanks to the independent position that Mexico has adopted in this conflict”.
Note: the Russian ambassador was deliberate in his use of words. He did not say “neutral”, but “independent”. The ambassador is well aware that the flattery of “independence” resonates sweetly in the ear of the Mexican president. And he did not want to harm Mexico’s policy of neutrality. Because the Russian ambassador knows something essential: in a conflict between a strong aggressor and a weaker victimizer, neutrality always favors the aggressor.
Unofficially, but objectively and in fact, Mexican neutrality places us, as a country, on the side of the Russian invader. Poor Mexico: it seems that it is willing to throw away its best diplomatic traditions for the sake of an embrace of recognition among autocrats.
[email protected]
@rpascoep