Connect with us

Americas

Elections in Mexico: Is it Russia again or the United States?

Published

on

In early January US National Security Adviser Herbert McMaster accused Russia of “interfering” in the upcoming presidential elections in … Mexico. To top it off as they say… Speaking about in the so-called. “interference” in various elections, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had already joked: “You have not listed all we did this year. Sweden, Denmark, Montenegro, Macedonia, Austria … I had to work hard. Because of this we did not get to other things, which are no less important. For example – to develop cultural ties with Japan… ”

With all the understanding that Donald Trump with his statements caused serious damage to relations with Mexico, McMaster’s statement has already provoked a reaction in the American media. They are concerned about the possible coming to power of Lopez Obrador, a competitor of the current president of Mexico, who is allegedly believed to be the protégé of Moscow.

The Washington Post: “Mexicans joked that Trump had become López Obrador’s campaign manager. And now Putin may also be working to help the anti-American candidate’s cause. Observers started noticing months ago that the Kremlin’s unofficial television network, RT, which is available in Mexico, started giving vast amounts of time to López Obrador’s main English-language spokesman, John Ackerman. Lopez Obrador recently announced that Ackerman’s wife will join his cabinet if he wins the election. And an RT program host even described Ackerman as “Our man in Mexico. …The United States and Mexico have enjoyed a friendly and mutually beneficial relationship. That is likely to change under López Obrador, who would dramatically alter the tenor and content of the relationship.” – writes Frida Ghitis.

Why is Washington so worried about the elections in Mexico and the Moscow’s “interference”?

If we proceed from formal assumptions, then everything seems to be clear.
Firstly, Mexico is the third largest trading partner of the United States and the second consumer of American goods and services.

Secondly, about 5 million jobs in the United States are connected with thousands of American companies that in one way or another produce these goods and services for this country.

And, thirdly, at present Mexico is an important partner of the United States in ensuring anti-terrorist security and controlling illegal immigration.

All this, as well as the extensive American-Mexican border with all its problems, seems to explain the US concern about the upcoming July elections in this country. And yet – what does Russia have to do with it?

If you look more closely at the “campaign of concern” that has begun, you can see that Washington appears to be worried about the wider context – South America as a whole. Probably, Donald Trump, as an intuitive businessman and the current boss of the super-corporation called the USA, understands that one can not go out to battle with the whole world, having unruly neighbors. And this is what the upcoming elections are threatening with. Until recently, it seemed that the coming to power of Michel Temer in Brazil, the victory in the 2015 presidential election in Argentina of businessman Mauricio Macri, as well as the “right” governments in Uruguay, Paraguay and Ecuador, not without direct US help, laid a serious basis for “turning right” on the continent, where in the previous decades the left movements run the show. But life does not stand still.

Now, according to opinion polls, Lopez Obrador is one of the most likely candidates for the presidency in Mexico after the rule of the current and most unpopular president Enrique Peña Nieto, whose policy, after all accusations of corruption, disappointed most of the country’s citizens. Against this background, Lopez Obrador, judging by his actions and policy statements, is less in sync with Donald Trump’s policy on migration, climate change issues, and views on relations with the United States.

In the economic sector China has already started to replace the United States on the South American continent.

Therefore, it seems that Washington does not care about Moscow in the upcoming elections, but rather about the possible coming to power of less controlled elites, which was outlined in the upcoming elections in Mexico and later in Brazil this year. The United States realize that the potential changes on the South American continent (in this “soft underbelly” of the United States) are coming in conflict not only with the geopolitical doctrine of Trump – America first – but also simply threaten the realization of this concept if in such close proximity the indirect political control is not maintained.

Analysts believe that the results of the upcoming elections can have the most serious impact on the situation in the region. The USA openly scares the possible “anti-American” consolidation on any issues of neighboring countries, while all of Washington’s efforts are aimed at containing Russia and China with the cooling of relations with key partners in Europe. The new (or returning old) doctrine of “imperial domination” requires the USA to react stiffly to any manifestations of “anti-Americanism.” And exactly this, and not the alleged Moscow’s  “interference” in the  elections, that creates the need for another propaganda “attack” on Russia to cover up its interests and actions in Mexico and on the South American continent as a whole.

Meanwhile, in December 2017, the Russian Foreign Ministry handed to the US Ambassador to Moscow John Huntsman a document proposing to guarantee non-interference of countries in each other’s affairs. This was reported by the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry Maria Zakharova.

“It also reaffirmed the willingness to exchange letters or other forms of guarantees of mutual non-interference in electoral and other internal political processes. Accordingly, it’s up to the American side, – “Zakharova said.

As far as we know, the official answer has not yet been received.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Trump’s New Wall? Mexico’s Southern Border

Lisdey Espinoza Pedraza

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Americas

Scandinavia Veers Left plus D-Day Reflections as Trump Storms Europe

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Americas

To Impeach Or Not To Impeach? That Is The Question

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy