When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing. save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Facing Trump, Latin America Must Stand United With Mexico

A seawall in Gaza City on a cloudy day last month
Keep him out?
Eduardo Barajas Sandoval


BOGOTÁ The declarations Donald Trump made in last week's inauguration speech mark a major shift for the United States on both the domestic and international fronts. His nationalist exhortations, and call for other countries to follow the same path, are the kind of dangerous demagoguery that often leads to war and misery.

Trump's claims that "for too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost" and that "Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth" are not unlike words a new president might say in a 1970s Latin American capital, not to mention certain places in Europe in the 1930s.

The thanks Trump sent to "the people of the world" suggests imperial visions from someone seeking a universal mandate . Was he forgetting for a moment that inside the United States each state governor has more powers to handle his or her people's daily lives than anyone at the White House? He has shown little understanding of the world's complexities and the lengthy processes that have helped remove borders. These may be the ideas of someone who has only worked in his own companies, far removed from institutional realities such as the balance of powers or restrictions of international treaties.

There's no reason to think that, when harping on Mexicans throughout his campaign, Trump wanted to differentiate between Mexican migrants and those from El Salvador, Honduras or anywhere else in Latin America. If there were other Latin American countries bordering the United States, the Trump treatment would be the same, with insults and calls for a wall. Because ultimately, millions of Latin Americans have entered or want to enter the United States, or have children there.

For someone who talks so much about the injustices of a system co-opted by an indolent political elite, he ought to understand better than anyone the dynamics at work in so many Latin American countries. He would understand the reasons for migration and the tremendous commitment migrants can make to the country he now governs. He might be more considerate to Hispanic migrants and the work they do, so crucial to the U.S. economy in part because it is labor that so many Americans spurn.

The coming years will be a test for Latin America's strength and solidarity. Trump isn't just a problem for Mexico, which has already had its fair share of ordeals. This concerns all of our countries. We must not abandon Mexico, because from its border with the U.S. way down to the tip of the Southern Cone, we are all targets of a new policy and strategic vision. For so many reasons, from our shared histories to our current realities, we are all brothers with the Mexicans.

Our foreign ministries, which are sometimes shamefully used to curry favor with Washington, should be working on a common pact for a constructive dialogue with this administration. We must come together as a single Latin American bloc, because without a solid alliance, we won't be able to command the respect we deserve in the international power game. This is not the time for isolated ambition or opportunism. Any weakness on our part could have fatal consequences, any division will breed contempt. Because while me may hope for the best, with Trump now in power, we must expect the worst.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

Putinism Without Putin? USSR 2.0? Clean Slate? How Kremlin Succession Will Play Out

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, political commentators have consistently returned to the question of Putin's successor. Russia expert Andreas Umland foreshadows a potentially tumultuous transition, resulting in a new power regime. Whether this is more or less democratic than the current Putinist system, is difficult to predict.

Gathering in Moscow to congratulate Russia's President Vladimir Putin on his birthday.

Andreas Umland


STOCKHOLM — The Kremlin recently hinted that Vladimir Putin may remain as Russia's president until 2030. After the Constitution of the Russian Federation was amended in 2020, he may even extend his rule until 2036.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here .

However, it seems unlikely that Putin will remain in power for another decade. Too many risks have accumulated recently to count on a long gerontocratic rule for him and his entourage.

The most obvious and immediate risk factor for Putin's rule is the Russian-Ukrainian war. If Russia loses, the legitimacy of Putin and his regime will be threatened and they will likely collapse.

The rapid annexation of Crimea without hostilities in 2014 will ultimately be seen as the apex of his rule. Conversely, a protracted and bloody loss of the peninsula would be its nadir and probable demise.

Additional risk factors for the current Russian regime are related to further external challenges, for example, in the Caucasus. Other potentially dangerous factors for Putin are economic problems and their social consequences, environmental and industrial disasters, and domestic political instability.

Keep reading... Show less

The latest