Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
President Sheinbaum responded with a categorical: “We accept’”. It was Sheinbaum’s reaction to a statement made by Marco Rubio, future Secretary of State, during his confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate. Rubio had said that the preferable thing to do was to work with the Mexican government to solve the problems he had previously listed. But what was said before that phrase that provoked the Mexican leader’s enthusiastic response?
To clearly understand, it is necessary to listen to Rubio’s entire confirmation hearing, which lasted nearly 5 hours, talking about international issues and not only about Mexico.
During the hearing, the backdrop of the discussion was the references and concerns about the U.S. relationship with China and the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. Rubio clearly stated that he knows China is “here to stay”. He recognizes its economic, political, and, increasingly, military strength. He considers China an unfair adversary regarding the established international conduct in terms of economic competition. The Chinese State uses a labor force, sometimes enslaved people, to produce and sell products on the world market at discounted prices, ignoring environmental, safety, and hygiene measures in the production of its products.
He affirmed that the Chinese state uses electronic espionage to steal data and technologies from other countries, notably the United States, to advance and develop its industrial capacity. What is most important for Rubio is that China leads, together with Russia as a junior partner, the effort to consolidate a bloc of countries opposed to the liberal and democratic political model of the West.
Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and, previously, Syria are among the countries allied with China and Russia. Some African countries are already members of this bloc. They are distinguished by their authoritarian to dictatorial governments, which are a sign of their communality.
Based on these considerations, Rubio’s central interest is Latin America, especially Mexico. He recognizes the importance of the Mexican economy and its importance to the U.S. domestic market. However, he considers that his government faces two central problems with Mexico: drug trafficking and non-compliance with the principles of the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC.
While the immigration issue was mentioned, it was tangential.
Rubio was very clear that he does consider Mexican cartels to be terrorist organizations. He said it several times: “…these terrorist groups…” referring to the cartels. But he also warned they are transnational organizations and, therefore, it is necessary to evaluate whether the declaration as terrorist groups helps or complicates their prosecution at a global level. He reaffirmed that the cartels occupy significant swathes of territory in Mexico, including the border with the United States.
In this context, he offered his most critical reflection on the cartels. He made it clear that the decision to fight them had been made. No matter what happens, this fight will be carried out because it is a commitment “of President Trump’s government” to US society. When asked, he stated that the United States could contemplate unilateral actions within Mexico but preferred that “it be by common agreement and in collaboration with the government of Mexico.”
President Sheinbaum reacted to this phrase, saying, “We accept.” However, since the broken telephone is a typical game between Mexico and Washington, it is essential to clarify that they are likely not talking about the same thing.
Rubio is talking about collaboration to actively combat organized crime, as the United States did jointly with Mexico in other administrations, with the presence of its agents and intelligence services, even integrated with the Navy and possibly the Mexican Army within the national territory.
Sheinbaum does not seem to think of that collaboration but of another one. AMLO, the black shadow behind the whole Mexican conversation, changed the National Security Law to exclude all US agencies from their presence in the national territory. And so it was: DEA, CIA, and other agencies essentially stopped operating in Mexico during AMLO’s six-year term.
After AMLO’s famous intimidating document to Sheinbaum, in which he states that any policy different from his on security matters will be considered a betrayal of the transformation movement, will the President dare to have the dialogue offered by Rubio in his hearing? It is very difficult to imagine that the President will be able to move forward along Marco Rubio’s path of collaboration.
If there is no such collaboration, unilateral actions, such as extracting Mayo Zambada from Sinaloa, will obviously become the only option. That event occurred because of López Obrador’s stubborn refusal to act jointly with the United States against the cartels.
Now, the former president and his followers are trembling because of what cartel leaders in the United States might reveal. They go from the euphoria of power to the fear of justice.
Rubio addressed another issue of concern for his country, which was the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC. He made a generic comment concerning Mexico. He said: “I do not understand why we have to allow companies from other countries to operate freely in our country when their governments unduly restrict the freedom of investment and legal activity of our companies in their countries”. With that sentence, he established the central premise of the Trump administration’s plea for the renegotiation and/or cancellation of the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC.
Many economic and political circles in the United States have expressed discomfort with Mexico’s non-compliance with the agreements assumed in the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC. The desire to exclude sectors of the Mexican economy from the free investment of Canadian and U.S. capital is a source of permanent discomfort.
Restricting investment in sectors such as mining, the oil sector, the electricity industry, medical electronics, and agricultural sectors such as corn has sparked calls for retaliation against Mexican industries. So far, they have not gone beyond public expressions by investors, protests in Congress, and complaints at CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC meetings. However, there is already a feeling that the current situation can no longer continue and that more drastic measures must be taken. Time is running out for toleration and ambiguity.
In the context of the new Trump administration, more powerful and programmatically defined than the previous one, Mexico is facing difficult and existential decisions.
- Will it side with the bloc of democratic countries allied with the United States, or will it be an ally of authoritarian regimes in China, Cuba, and Venezuela, with all that this decision entails in terms of economic and political hostility?
2. Will it coordinate with the United States in the fight against drug trafficking, or will it follow AMLO’s “hugs, not bullets” route?
3. Will she fully comply with the CUSMA/USMCA/T-MEC rules or reduce the economic relationship with North America?
@rpascoep
Further Reading: