AND
The continuous beating that President Donald Trump applies on Mexico on a daily basis requires several and varied alerts and responses. In his second term as head of the Executive, Trump has found in tariffs the appropriate weapon to exert continuous pressure on the Mexican government. And, specifically, it achieves what it sets out to do or something close to it. This forces us to continually rethink the actions that Mexico must take towards what is its main reference for external relations. This is because values and principles as appreciated as freedom, independence, development or sovereignty enter into a continuous tug-of-war. They all create a strategic dissonance in the daily grind.
Three notable facts add up to accentuate the current panorama. First, the military concentration in the Caribbean. Derived from it, attacks on boats and the seizure of oil tankers. An attempt is being made to force the fall of Nicolás Maduro and the promotion of substitute puppet governments that give in to what is requested. Accompanying all this with the sponsored southern turn to the right. Second, the publication of the US security policy and the now famous Trump Corollary. There is transmitted the crude imperial vision that will govern the relations of the United States with the subcontinent. Finally, Mexican foreign policy and Mexico’s solid positions against its neighbor’s claims.
For a better analysis of the consequences of this, which is, in truth, the greatest concern of the government, it is necessary to start from what the American decision-making elite thinks and does. There is a presumption that what emanates from it does not paint a flattering or simplistic picture. On the contrary, it is seen and acted from the complex perspective of the interests that drive the always dissatisfied neighbor. And this action has little to do with our national aspirations. Typically, the consequences speak of positions aimed at accentuating the hegemony of a world power. On successive occasions, decisions work based on business and convenience to increase command and control over the neighbor. Listing Mexico as the main client does little to guarantee its use as a negotiating lever. The weapons that this country possesses are relatively minor and short to influence, broadly, for its own benefit. The truth is that the concrete visions of the Americans aim to limit the development of Mexican capabilities. They come to the point of seeing themselves as greedy pushers trying to take advantage of any deal. Generosity, as a general rule, is excluded from the processes of interrelation. It is not desired that Mexico access higher stages of industrial or technological development. Modernity does not fall within the interested gaze of the neighbor. And in that direction the indispensable conditions will be placed in order to subjugate and subordinate, never to liberate and prosper.
Once what can be classified as the effective and raw intention of the opponent has been rounded, the possible springs of action must be enumerated and located. The use that the Mexican government makes to this day is leveraged on constitutional principles. And it is the right thing to do as a defensive tactic. The official discourse, necessarily, must be based on this. It is an essential application mandate. But, then, and within an endless negotiating task, move forward, even if it is tedious, minor or prolonged precise achievements. It would not be advisable to be strident and risk provocation in the face of the adversary’s greater strength and lack of prudence. The position that a seasoned negotiator requires to take speaks of word and consistent deed. Only in this way can the claims of continuous control and subordination be convinced and stopped, even in part.
Evaluating the degree of independence to be shown in external relationships will be a sensitive task to measure. The daily scores must always look at the people. Sovereignty is a well-rooted aspiration among Mexicans, but it has certain limitations. The fight to establish it in daily events requires expanding its concrete measures. Do not force the use as support of all and any of the debates that affect it. From here springs an indeterminate series of consequences that will define, through approximations, the strength of the State and the nation. The search to round out both the sovereignty and operational capacity of the country will, without a doubt, be a continuous work.
When faced with others, no matter how tough and ambitious they may be, you cannot fall into defeatism that is based on fears, cautions and advice. Even less interpose petty interests.
Liberating action requires constantly resorting to popular support. One that is informed and majority. Therefore, priority attention falls on the inseparable coexistence with which actors must feel empowered.
