Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
On the surface, the next President of the United States, Donald Trump, wants Mexico and Canada to stop the entry of undocumented migrants into his country, as well as the flow of drugs, especially fentanyl. To achieve this goal, he is threatening to impose tariffs of 25% on all products that both countries export to the US market.
The leaders of Mexico and Canada reacted differently to the tariff announcement even though Trump is not even President (that will happen on January 20, 2025) and, therefore, has no power to make good on his threat tomorrow. Both countries reacted as if the imposition of tariffs would be enforced the day after the announcement.
Mexico published a letter from the President to Trump, threatening “tariff for tariff” in response, very much in the style of Lopez Obrador. In other words, Mexico accepted the challenge of meeting the trade war with another trade war. Until, apparently, someone made her see the negative impact that public letters generate on the recipient’s mood. Aside from being considered an inappropriate medium and directed more to the social base of the sender, it is easy to ignore a letter as a means of communication because it is not serious and a sign of disinterest in reaching a beneficial agreement for the parties.
This was the case with all the letters López Obrador sent during his presidency. They had zero positive effect and decreased Mexican influence on any issue.
Trudeau, on the other hand, immediately picked up the phone and spoke with Trump to establish the basis for a fruitful dialogue. That phone call led to a visit by Trudeau and his government team to Trump’s Florida home to begin, in practice, negotiations on the future of the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC. For the record, the future viability of the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC was discussed, not its contents. In other words, the conversation between Canada and the United States is underway on what to do with this trade agreement.
After Trudeau’s example, the President picked up the phone and spoke with Trump. And yet, she stumbled on the confusing line between wanting to negotiate the terms of an agreement and the “ideological” obsession to distinguish between dialogue and the non-granting of sovereignty. That purpose generated a public spat between Sheinbaum and Trump over their conversation’s actual terms. It’s totally absurd and childish. The positive effect of the phone call was lost quickly with that polemic. It also gave the impression that someone was lying or exaggerating about what was said in the conversation.
After the Canadian visit to Trump in Florida, the question now arises in the Mexican and international press: Will the Mexican President meet with Trump, too, following in Trudeau’s footsteps?
It does not take a fortune teller to know that Trump’s concerns about Mexico are not exclusively about migration and fentanyl. Those two issues serve as an appetizer to address the future bilateral relationship.
In the background, there are other issues of strategic interest to the United States that it wants to address, as Mexico is “its southern border”. To list the issues, in terms of national security, we can mention a) the drug trafficking cartels as terrorist organizations because they are instruments that the enemies of the United States can use, b) the Cuban, Russian, and Venezuelan use of Mexico as a base of operations for espionage against the United States, c) the co-optation of elements of the Mexican Army by the narcos, Cubans and Russians to serve as a source of support and information about the Northern Command, d) the penetration of China as economic and strategic support to Morena in its anti-US program and e) the ideological Mexico as a force against US interests in Latin America and the world (implicit support to Russia in the war in Ukraine, confrontation in international organizations, allowing the import of Chinese steel and aluminum to the US market accredited as Mexican products, etc.).
All these issues underlie Trump’s interest in Mexico. Migration and fentanyl are enough pretexts to threaten the imposition of 25% tariffs. The other issues will be enough to terminate the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC if he perceives that his enemies’ influence and intervention in Mexico are increasing. Any Mexican naivety will cost dearly.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: