AND
l project Reindustrialization of the United States, assumed as a state policy and not only as a Trumpism electoral flag, leaves Mexico even as a strategic partner. Washington reorganizes their chains with autonomy, underpinning their economic security and recovering critical sectors such as semiconductors, energy, defense, pharmaceutical, steel and automotive. For us the message is obvious: it is no longer enough to integrate passively into the North American market; It is urgent to rebuild its own productive device.
For three decades, under NAFTA and the T-MEC, Mexico was integrated as an export platform to reduce costs to US companies. The maquilador model, dependent on external inputs, did not generate innovation or consolidate a national industrial fabric. Scientific research advanced, but without an industry that absorbed it, it was disconnected. Here is the confusion: semiconductor projects, electric cars or satellites are announced as if they were the beginning of a new era, when we do not have the manufacturing base that supports them. International experience is clear: industry is first built, even in traditional sectors, and from there the demand for science and technology arises. Starting with border industries without that platform only condemns us to depend on foreign capital, which retains innovation and leaves us the role of assemblies.
He Nearshoring He sold as the great opportunity. There were spectacular ads, but most remained in promises. Tesla announced a plant in Nuevo León that still has no date or scale. Other shipowners reduced or postponed their plans. Without national strategy, these investments only reinforce Mexico as periphery. And the internal problems are evident: lack of specialized talent, an unstable electrical system, poor infrastructure and a climate of insecurity that scares capital. To this are added external tensions: steel tariffs, disputes in the T-MEC and pressures in energy, biotechnology and telecommunications.
The true dilemma is not to stay or leave the T-MEC, but to decide whether we continue to depend on foreign investment or bet on building national investment. The treaty limits subsidies, strategic public purchases and temporary protection, just the instruments we need. While the logic of Nearshoring It reproduces dependency, Mexico requires strong development bank, protection of nascent sectors and value chains built with its own capital. There are the opportunities: steel, agribusiness, generic pharmaceutical and auto parts. Steel is an infrastructure basis; Agroindustria ensures food and added value; Generic medications strengthen health and reduce imports, and auto parts allow you to climb in the automotive chain without pretending to immediately manufacture the complete electric car.
The real problem is not technical or external: it is political. A coherent strategy is missing, while an entertaining opposition weakens the State and a divided ruling postpones key decisions. Without a central conduction, every attempt is dispersed in isolated and without future projects. The question is not whether Mexico will participate in global reorganization, but how. Integrate without conditions perpetuates the periphery; Doing it with active policies would allow the juncture into a development lever.
For that, a single decision center is needed, with a budget, real power and long -term vision. Japan understood with Miti after the war: he coordinated financing, temporary protection and innovation, aligning the State, the private sector and the academy. Mexico needs some of that magnitude, which gives accounts only to the presidency and guarantees continuity against external pressures and changes of government.
The institutional transformation must be translated into facts: an industrial and technological policy with a 10-year-old horizon, a productive sovereignty council, a public purchasing program in strategic sectors, an innovation fund with public-private coinversion and a development bank that finances tractor projects. Science cannot continue dispersed: it must be oriented to strategic missions that generate national employment and chains.
The review of the T-MEC should be used as a political space to defend sovereignty margins and gain time. The United States subsidizes and protects its industry under its own legal framework; Mexico cannot give up doing the same. The treaty can serve as a transient platform, but reindustrialization requires going beyond its limits. In the end, material problems are solved with investment and planning; External pressures are negotiated. The difficult thing is the political: a divided country does not support a strategic course. The unit of the State, of the productive sector and of society is the indispensable condition to transform barriers into steps towards productive sovereignty and an independent future.
* CIDE director
