Mexico is immersed in an increasingly globalized world in all areas, despite populist attempts to return to a self-sufficient world. We live in that little blue dot in space, as Carl Sagan called our planet. That is why the human consciousness of inhabiting the same land is part of something that is here to stay. The world’s big problems are global: from global warming to international finance; from migration on a planetary scale to the revolution in transport. In the same way, in the world no one stops large solidarity movements anymore. Justice has also gone global, as witnessed by the existence of, for example, the International Criminal Court that has brought to justice Heads of State for crimes against humanity that would previously have gone unpunished.
Facing these dilemmas requires leaders who not only understand the common problems of humanity, but who can enter into a fruitful dialogue with other leaders. Unfortunately, the current regime prevailing in Mexico has a provincial vocation. Despite this, the President is not consistent either. There are plenty of examples in which his speech is interventionist, especially when it comes to Latin America, where he apparently intends to exercise leadership.
In fact, the obradorismo sees itself as an ally of governments and authoritarian leftist movements on the continent. His support for the coup president in Peru is not episodic or merely rhetorical and reactive. It is structural, active and persistent. So much so that the family of the ex-President and currently on trial, Pedro Castillo, was granted asylum in the Mexican Embassy, a fact that irritated several congressmen in Peru, some of whom asked that López Obrador be named, persona non grata, for his interventionism in internal affairs of Peru. The situation escalated to such a degree that the Peruvian government expelled the Mexican Ambassador, an unprecedented event in the history of our diplomacy.
It is possible, then, to define the foreign policy of López Obrador as an attempt to disconnect from the great world trends, with the loss of influence of Mexico in the world, while seeking to lead the movement of the authoritarian left in America. America, and all this justified with an incoherent patina in which the rhetoric of non-intervention is appealed to.