Next July 2018, Mexico will elect over 3000 public posts all over the country, including a new president, members of the Congress, local officials and several state governors. The result of such election will be determinant in Mexico’s future for years to come as it remains unclear which direction the country will take not only domestically, but also regionally and internationally.
The so-called leftist candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador has been the clear front runner of the contested election for several months. This should not come as a surprise as Mexico’s political environment is facing a perplexed field of presidential candidates: José Antonio Meade, the PRI’s candidate, is a well-seasoned public servant with ample experience in public administration, but a very clumsy campaigner that has the difficult task of defending the dire legacy of the incumbent president, Enrique Peña Nieto; Ricardo Anaya, the third candidate is running on a brittle right-left coalition that has been struggling to find its sense of direction.
If these circumstances were not enough, Mexico is being squeezed at the same time by Trump’s United States, and more recently by Putin’s Russia; each pursuing a completely divergent agenda, yet, ironically, contributing to the very same electoral result: The rise of Obrador. Over the last few days, there have been increasing rumours about a possible Russian interference in Mexican elections. So far, any predictions of such involvement remain speculative, yet they are not irrational. Due to its proximity, there is no other country in the world that influences the US as much as Mexico. Both nations are deeply interwoven, and they depend on one another to strengthen security, trade, investment, as well as improve the lives of their citizens in who are residents in either country. They are the homes of the largest US and Mexican diasporas. It is estimated that approximately 37 million Mexicans reside in the US, and over one million Americans live in Mexico.
Hence, for both countries the current high stakes make the prospect of any potential Russian meddling even more substantial. Mexico’s fragile democracy faces a variety of threats before this year’s elections, therefore, it must take every measure available to avoid being the next Guinea pig in Putin’s geopolitical experiment. Russia’s interference in world politics should not be easily dismissed. American intelligence and security agencies have confirmed there was indeed some sort of interference with the 2016 American election; there is also substantial evidence that Russia sought to influence elections held in France, Germany, the Netherlands; and there are growing fears that Russia will try to influence Italy’s May general election.
If Russia truly seeks to damage the US, Mexico’s 2018 elections offer a rewarding and vulnerable target. Social media and the Internet remain for many Mexicans as their main source of information. Mexico, unlike the US and most western countries, does not have a specialised agency to expose any fake news neither its electoral institutions have the expertise to address weaknesses and controversies. A few days ago, Obrador discredited accusations directed at his possible links with Russia as fabricated and aimed at ruining his lead in the electoral positions. He was seen joking about this issue. However, Obrador needs to get serious and address any potential conflict of interest that may arise within his team before shrugging off any suspicions.
A few weeks ago, when he announced his would-be cabinet should he become the next president, a name popped out: Irma Eréndira Sandoval. She would be the one in charge of leading the fight against corruption within bureaucracy. Irma, however, has too much baggage for such a position. Her partner is John Ackerman, who has ben given considerable amount of air time on RT, the Kremlin´s unofficial television network. They have gone as far as describing him as “our man in Mexico.” Ackerman is a trusted contributor to such network. Consequently, the potential to influence and destabilise Mexico’s presidential elections, as well as the potential conflict of interest within Obrador’s inner circle is not a laughing matter.
Judging by Putin’s record, one could surmise where Mexico’s elections could fit in the Russian puzzle. Putin has largely sought to discredit democracy and weaken the west along with it. The twin goals bolster the Kremlin’s global power as well as strengthen Putin’s standing back home: the more disillusioned people living in democracies are, the less ordinary Russians will demand democratisation of their government. Disinformation campaigns are also most effective when they prey on deep-seated beliefs and latent conflicts, such is the case of Mexico. A Russian misinformation campaign can easily exaggerate and amplify hard feelings. Mexico needs to safeguard its electoral process from tampering their choice. Mexicans should be given the freedom to choose the candidate they want; their choice next July should be theirs and none else’s. Mexicans do not need Russian social media telling them that their politicians are prone to corruption and their democracy is flawed. The country has vast experience in that field. In an election that could be won by a wafer-thin victory, similarly to what happened in the US, a little push from Russians intensifying the message on social media could end up making a decisive difference.
Trump’s New Wall? Mexico’s Southern Border
For much of modern history, Mexico defined itself in opposition to the United States. In recent years, the two countries stepped up cooperation on almost all relevant issues, and the two nations are now deeply intertwined politically, economically and culturally. This is bound to change. After months of ignoring Donald Trump’s provocations, López Obrador reacted rapidly to Trump’s shakedown and agreed to a number of resolutions of extraordinary scope and urgency: the new Mexican administration agreed to deploy the country’s federal police to its southern border to crack down on immigration; and opened the door to the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy that would turn Mexico into a Third Safe Country in less than a month from now.
As stated in the agreement, Mexico would take in all the refugees that the US decides to send back to Mexico to await resolution of their asylum process. This could take years, given the substantial immigration backlog in American courts. The agreement goes further: Mexico is responsible for the provision of education, health care and employment for such refugees. This could easily lead to a serious humanitarian crisis that Mexican institutions will be unable to deal with.
This approach contradicts previous Mexican presidential vows for regional development and humanitarian relief rather than confrontation and enforcement. Conditions on the ground in Mexico are far harsher than the Mexican Foreign Affairs Minister, Marcelo Ebrard and the President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, would like to admit, and this is partly due to the current administration’s miscalculations: López Obrador has dramatically cut the budget for governmental agencies responsible for managing refugees and processing removals. Mexican border towns are also ill-equipped for handling transient migrant populations; and Mexico also faces other more systematic challenges, such as corruption and lack of rule of law enforcement. The new policy agreed with the American government is likely to result in a significant increase in claims filed for asylum in Mexico. Mexico’s immigration bureaucracies are utterly overwhelmed, and López Obrador’s misguided budget cuts have exacerbated their failings.
Mexico’s immigration policy is now bound by an immoral and unacceptable deal that will effectively turn Mexico into Trump’s border wall. The global system for the protection of refugees is based on the notion of shared responsibility among countries. It is very dangerous for the US to use Mexico as a pawn to set an example and ignore its international responsibility. This agreement also violates international law on refugees: Mexico is a life-threatening country for undocumented migrants. Human trafficking, recruitment for organised criminal organisations, abduction, extortion, sexual violence, and disappearances are some of the issues migrants face in Mexico. Finally, Mexico’s National Guard, the agency that will be in charge of monitoring the southern border, was created by López Obrador to tackle domestic crime. Its members have no training nor knowledge on immigration matters. It is an untested new military force that could end up creating more problems than the ones it is trying to solve. Deploying agents to the border could also have a high political cost for the president.
The agreement with Trump gives López Obrador 45 days to show progress. If Mexico fails, Mexico will be forced to set in motion some version of Safe Third Country agreement, or face further tariff bullying from the US. This deal has been sold by the new Mexican administration as a victory over the US. More migrants, less money, extreme violence and a recalcitrant, unpredictable northern neighbour are the ingredients for a potential, impending refugee crisis, not a diplomatic victory.
Could Mexico have taken a different approach? Yes. Trump’s decision to impose tariffs would exacerbate the underlying causes of immigration in the region and do nothing to address it. His bullying to force Mexico to crack down on immigration was a cheap electoral ploy to mobilise its base with a view to winning the 2020 elections. This is nothing new. Trump is not seeking a solution; he is seeking a political gain. He built his first presidential campaign on an anti-Mexico and an anti-immigrant rhetoric. It worked in 2016, and he is planning to repeat the same formula.
The Mexican administration lack of knowledge on diplomatic matters, and their inability to play politics let a golden opportunity go. Using trade to bludgeon Mexico into compliance with an immigration crack down makes no sense: Mexico is not responsible for the increase in migratory flows. Central America’s poverty and violence trace back to American policies in the 1980s. Mexico is not responsible either for America’s famously dysfunctional immigration system. Trump’s economic threats against Mexico may not even have been legal: both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the newly agreed US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) require most trade between members to be tariff free.
Mexico could also have hit back with by levying tariffs that would have hurt swing-state voters, and in turn hurt Trump. This was the golden opportunity Mexico let slip from its hands. Mexico could have responded by hitting Trump where it hurts: Tariffs on American goods heading south. Mexico responded in a similar manner in June last year in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs. Mexico could have raised those tariffs each month in tandem with American levels.
This retaliation would have highlighted the gap between Trump’s anti-Mexican rhetoric and the underlying interdependence of the US and Mexico with stark consequences for the US presidential elections of 2020. Many of the biggest exporters to Mexico such as Arizona. Florida. California, Michigan and Illinois are swing states. New tariffs could have thrown Texas into recession and put its 38 electoral votes into play. It is all too late now, Mexico could have inadvertently helped Trump to get re-elected. Mexico has less than a month left to show some backbone and demand real American cooperation on the region’s shared challenges and rejecting Trump’s threats once and for all. The relationship between Mexico and the US could have been an example of cooperation under difficult conditions, but that would have required different American and Mexican presidents.
Scandinavia Veers Left plus D-Day Reflections as Trump Storms Europe
Mette Frederiksen of the five-party Social Democrat bloc won 91 of the 169 seats in the Danish parliament ending the rule of the right-wing Liberal Party group that had governed for 14 of the last 18 years. The election issues centered on climate change, immigration and Denmark’s generous social welfare policies. All parties favored tighter immigration rules thereby taking away the central issue dominating the far-right Democrat Freedom Party which has seen its support halved since the last election in 2015.
Ms Frederiksen promised more spending to bolster the much loved social welfare model and increased taxes on businesses and the wealthy. A left wave is sweeping Scandinavia as Denmark becomes the third country, after Sweden and Finland, to move left within a year. Mette Frederiksen will also be, at 41, the youngest prime minister Denmark has ever had.
Donald Trump has used the 75th anniversary of D-Day commemorations to garner positive publicity. The supreme promoter has managed to tie it in with a “classy” (his oft-chosen word) state visit to the UK spending a day with royals. It was also a farewell to the prime minister as her resignation is effective from June 7. Add a D-Day remembrance ceremony at Portsmouth and he was off to his golf course in Ireland for a couple of days of relaxation disguised as a visit to the country for talks — he has little in common with the prime minister, Leo Varadkar, who is half-Indian and gay.
Onward to France where leaders gathered for ceremonies at several places. It is easy to forget the extent of that carnage: over 20,000 French civilians were killed in Normandy alone mostly from aerial bombing and artillery fire. The Normandy American cemetery holds over 9600 soldiers. All in all, France lost in the neighborhood of 390,000 civilian dead during the whole war. Estimates of total deaths across the world range from 70 to 85 million or about 3 percent of the then global population (estimated at 2.3 billion).
Much has been written about conflict resolutions generally from a cold rational perspective. Emotions like greed, fear and a sense of injustice when unresolved lead only in one direction. There was a time when individual disputes were given the ultimate resolution through single combat. Now legal rights and courts are available — not always perfect, not always fair, but neither are humans.
It does not take a genius to extrapolate such legal measures to nations and international courts … which already exist. Just one problem: the mighty simply ignore them. So we wait, and we honor the dead of wars that in retrospect appear idiotic and insane. Worse is the attempt to justify such insanity through times like the “good war”, a monstrous absurdity.
It usually takes a while. Then we get leaders who have never seen the horror of war — some have assiduously avoided it — and the cycle starts again.
To Impeach Or Not To Impeach? That Is The Question
Robert Mueller let loose a thunderbolt midweek. Donald Trump had not been charged, he said, because it was Department of Justice policy not to charge a sitting president. Dumping the issue firmly into Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lap, he reminded us of the purpose of the impeachment process. According to Mueller there are ten instances where there are serious issues with the president obstructing justice adding that his report never concludes that Trump is innocent.
So here is a simple question: If Mueller thought the president is not innocent but he did not charge him because of Justice Department policy, and he appears also to favor impeachment, then why in heaven’s name did he not simply state in his report that the preponderance of evidence indicated Trump was guilty?
Nancy Pelosi is wary of impeachment. According to the rules, the House initiates it and when/if it finds sufficient grounds, it forwards the case to the Senate for a formal trial. The Senate at present is controlled by Republicans, who have been saying it’s time to move on, often adding that after two years of investigation and a 448-page report, what is the point of re-litigating the issue? They have a point and again it leads to the question: if Special Counsel Mueller thinks Trump is guilty as he now implies, why did he not actually say so?
Never one to miss any opportunity , Trump labels Mueller, highly conflicted, and blasts impeachment as ‘a dirty, filthy, disgusting word’, He has also stopped Don McGahn, a special counsel at the White House from testifying before Congress invoking ‘executive privilege’ — a doctrine designed to keep private the president’s consultations with his advisors. While not cited anywhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has held it to be ‘fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the Separation of Powers under the Constitution.’ Separation of powers keeps apart the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary, meaning each one cannot interfere with the other.
Nancy Pelosi is under increasing pressure from the young firebrands. Rep Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has already expressed the view that it is time to open an impeachment inquiry against Trump given the obstruction of lawmakers’ oversight duty.
Speaker Pelosi is a long-time politician with political blood running through her veins — her father was Mayor of Baltimore and like herself also a US Representative. To her the situation as is, is quite appealing. Trump’s behavior fires up Democrats across the country and they respond by emptying their pockets to defeat the Republicans in 2020. Democratic coffers benefit so why harm this golden goose — a bogeyman they have an excellent chance of defeating — also evident from the numbers lining up to contest the Democratic presidential primaries, currently at 24.
Will Trump be impeached? Time will tell but at present it sure doesn’t look likely.
Tanker Incidents: Who Blinks First?
The recent tanker incidents in the Gulf of Oman have heightened the potential for a dangerous conflict. Now that the...
Tourism: A Global Force For Growth And Development
The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) has met in Baku, Azerbaijan, for the 110th Session of its Executive Council (16-18 June)....
Trump’s New Wall? Mexico’s Southern Border
For much of modern history, Mexico defined itself in opposition to the United States. In recent years, the two countries...
A Vision of Sustainable Middle Eastern Design at Four Seasons Hotel Abu Dhabi
Discover a vision of modern Middle Eastern Design at Four Seasons Hotel Abu Dhabi at Al Maryah Island. Developed in...
The impact of US-China Trade war
It is highly unlikely, that any tangible solution to the Trade war between Beijing and Washington will emerge in the...
Renewable energy investment in 2018 hit USD 288.9 billion
Global investment in renewable energy hit USD 288.9 billion in 2018, with the amount spent on new capacity far exceeding...
EU responses to climate change
Fighting climate change is a priority for the Parliament. Below you will find details of the solutions the EU and...
Energy News2 days ago
IEA takes part in G20 Energy and Environment Ministerial in Japan
Economy2 days ago
8 facts you don’t know about the money migrants send back home
Newsdesk1 day ago
Micro and Small Rural Entrepreneurs’ Access to Credit Enhanced by ADB
Defense1 day ago
Effectiveness of Nuclear Deterrence of India and Pakistan in Pulwama incident
Science & Technology2 days ago
Girls Don’t Code? In The Caribbean, They Lead Tech Startups
Economy1 day ago
The Game of Tariffs
Energy2 days ago
Fossil fuel consumption subsidies bounced back strongly in 2018
Newsdesk2 days ago
Improved Skills and Job Opportunities for Youth in Maldives