Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The world is in turmoil. It’s an almost elementary observation, but it had to be said. From the elementary, we must build the scaffolding for complex, increasingly interrelated relationships between what is happening in Mexico and what is happening in the outside world. If that connection is not made, then miscalculations will come, one after another, in political management and public policy.
It was an act of arrogance and a supposed political tactic for Claudia Sheinbaum not to attend the Davos meeting last week. But now it is clear that she should have attended. Not because she had to deliver a historic speech, like Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada. The important thing was to be in a forum where the actions, reactions, and perspectives of what is to come had to be felt, heard, and vibrated. A news report is not the same as experiencing it firsthand. Mexico’s Secretary of the Environment did speak, but her presence and presentation were merely incidental and irrelevant. The topic was not the environment; the Mexican delegation went unnoticed at the event.
It was important for Sheinbaum to hear, firsthand, the various representatives of Trump’s cabinet speak ill of and insult Europe and its leaders, and for Mark Carney and Canada to mock their supposed weakness because they want to do things by consensus, rather than Trump-style: by imposing the force of the strongest. She could even have heard Trump’s speech directly in the room, in which, at another point, he said that there would soon be American “boots” in Mexico.
It was also important for Sheinbaum to form her own opinion on how Mexico should conduct its negotiations with the United States in view of the upcoming USMCA talks. She could have observed the event in which Trump created a Governing Council with around 20 leaders, and he even intended to replace the UN and serve as the Council’s leader for life by self-appointment.
The Davos meeting was mind-boggling and deeply revealing of global dynamics. And it was a lesson in the hard and direct exercise of power by the United States. There is at least one conclusion Mexico should begin to assimilate now: the USMCA negotiations will be an exercise in US imposition and demands from the moment the process begins.
If we stick to what the US National Strategy (the document describing the United States’ national security strategy, recently published by Trump) says, its central motto is to achieve peace through force. After that premise, it defines the United States’ central adversaries: China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. In addition to outlining its strategy for each of these adversaries, it defines the Western Hemisphere (from Canada to Patagonia, including Greenland) as the United States’ sphere of strategic control. It mentions narco-terrorism and the need to control vital bases in the area: the Panama Canal, Greenland, and, by inference, the entire Caribbean Basin, from Venezuela to Cuba and Mexico. It expressly states that control of the area must be achieved through the United States’ military force.
Two threats emerge from Washington after the Davos meeting. First, it has been reaffirmed that no country should send oil to Cuba. This was Trump’s warning when he said that not a drop of Venezuelan oil would reach Cuba. And now he adds: from any country. This is obviously a signal to Sheinbaum that her oil tankers could be confiscated. Mexico, it is said, is already evaluating the advisability of continuing to send oil to Cuba. Trump says he is considering imposing a total naval blockade on the island. Obviously, if such a blockade were to occur, the intention would be to provoke an internal revolt to overthrow the regime or to have the Cuban government propose a negotiated solution to Trump, which would imply changes in that country’s government.
The collapse of the Cuban regime would place Mexico in a situation of total isolation in the region. With political changes in Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Honduras, Mexico and Brazil no longer represent a viable progressive opposition and live cloistered in isolation, each facing Washington. Brazil has a very robust international diplomacy. It will seek allies in China and Asia. But they are very far from the hemisphere where Brazil is located. And Mexico is in the mood to please Washington by applying tariffs on China. And now Mexico is evaluating the advisability of stopping oil shipments to Cuba, after the threat of a naval blockade of the island.
The second threat that came out of the White House and the Pentagon is that it warns of “unilateral actions” if countries do not do their part in confronting narco-terrorists. Obviously, this refers to several countries, including Mexico.
The message comes after Davos and after Mexico handed over another batch of 36 drug traffickers who were in Mexican prisons but continued to run their businesses undisturbed despite being incarcerated. It is possible to conclude that Mexican prisons are like a Montessori experience: everyone does whatever they want. That latest offering of living beings to Washington clearly did not satisfy the authorities in that country.
As is well known, Washington’s central demand on Mexico is that it hand over the politicians behind the cartels who were allowed to act with complete freedom throughout López Obrador’s six-year term. This latest threat sets off alarms throughout Morena’s ruling party and places the president at a crossroads. If she does not decide to act now, she can be sure that others will act in the vacuum she leaves behind. And she will lose her reputation for honesty and incorruptibility.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: