When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Trump And The World

Mexico's Problem Goes Beyond Trump, Straight To The American People

Trump's rough discourse has uncovered simmering resentment against Mexico among Americans, which began with NAFTA and the job losses that it entailed for parts of the U.S.

A Trump supporter in San Diego on May 27
A Trump supporter in San Diego on May 27
Luis Rubio

MEXICO CITY — The irritation is palpable and plainly justified: The risks of a Trump presidency for this country are obvious and his jibes at Mexico and the Mexicans, unacceptable. Nobody disputes this. The question for us is whether Mexico can have a hand in stopping Donald Trump and derailing his candidacy, without provoking an unforeseen backlash?

Our geography has granted us great economic opportunity, but we have not become a great political power. I don't think anyone will declare Mexico to be major regional power in Latin America. With that in mind though, and without underestimating our tarnished national dignity, the Mexican response to Trump cannot be visceral: We must act in such a way as to improve our options without raising the risks.

Changing the word "enemy" for "neighbor," nobody could say it better than the philosopher of war, Sun Tzu: "If you know your enemy and yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not your enemy, for every victory, you will suffer a defeat. If you know neither your enemy nor yourself, you will be defeated at every battle."

The little actor's strategy before a much bigger one has to be to contemplate the circumstances and possible consequences of his actions. For months now, the Mexican government has been acting with some presumption perhaps when promoting the naturalization in the U.S. of those Mexicans that meet the conditions, especially in "swing states" that are evenly split between Republicans and Democrats. The presumption is that their vote could make a difference on election day. While the numerical logic is clear, the political reasoning is not. Because we might then face not just the "wrong" president, but also his wrath.

Clearly, Mexico must do something that does not entail devastating risks. Many Mexican presidents have gone to the U.S. Congress in the past for some straight talking, and some have even gone beyond bilateral issues like migration or arms, to venture into sensitive issues like the Middle East or Vietnam. None managed to sway congressional opinion, and it would have been absurd to expect it when you think how vigorously Mexicans have rejected any U.S. interference in their internal affairs.

In Trump's case particularly, evidence suggests that his campaign ratings have improved every time a Mexican public figure, like the former conservative president Vicente Fox, criticized him on television. Trump's solid base of supporters fervently believes in his message and any help on our part is welcome! Quite simply, we mustn't stoke the fire.

Since the late 1980s, Mexican governments have had excellent ties with the United States. The interaction between the states is smooth, and any problems or complaints are given attention, if not always swiftly resolved. On two occasions at least half the Obama administration came to Mexico City to prevent an increase in tensions.

Blame NAFTA

The problem is not one of relations with the U.S. government, but with its citizens. That is where the trust deficit lies, and at least part of the reason why Trump's anti-Mexican discourse is vigorous and eagerly heard.

The NAFTA free-trade pact opened a world of opportunities for investment in Mexico and of exports of manufactures toward our neighbors. The big cost was to turn us into a domestic affair of the United States. The Americans used to view Mexico as a key country until the 1990s even if debates were restricted to specialized agencies dealing with drugs or crime. The debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) changed this and created a stigma around Mexico for those hit by job losses with the transfer of firms and factories onto Mexican soil or beyond. The political reality is that Mexico has taken the blame for so many ills for which we were not responsible, but not that this matters in campaign politics.

What matters is that we did nothing to stop it. After NAFTA's approval, we forgot about the U.S. society as a whole, which we had courted so much before to win its approval. We are paying the price and have to think of a response.

Clearly, in the long term, we must conquer American society with those assets of ours that are exceptional: culture, history, people, service, vitality, humor. In the short term, there isn't much else to do but build contacts and bridges with both campaign teams, explaining the Mexican perspective and working to minimize future harm. And also (silently) hope that one bad scenario doesn't come to pass.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

When Did Putin "Turn" Evil? That's Exactly The Wrong Question

Look back over the past two decades, and you'll see Vladimir Putin has always been the man revealed by the Ukraine invasion, an evil and sinister dictator. The Russian leader just managed to mask it, especially because so many chose to see him as a typically corrupt and greedy strongman who could be bribed or reasoned with.

Putin arrives for a ceremony to accept credentials from 24 foreign ambassadors at the Grand Kremlin Palace on Sept. 20.

Sergiy Gromenko*

-OpEd-

KYIV — The world knows that Vladimir Putin has power, money and mistresses. So why, ask some, wasn't that enough for him? Why did he have to go start another war?

At its heart, this is the wrong question to ask. For Putin, military expansion is not an adrenaline rush to feed into his existing life of luxury. On the contrary, the shedding of blood for the sake of holding power is his modus operandi, while the fruits of greed and corruption like the Putin Palace in Gelendzhik are more like a welcome bonus.

In the last year, we have kept hearing rhetorical questions like “why did Putin start this war at all, didn't he have enough of his own land?” or “he already has Gelendzhik to enjoy, why fight?” This line of thinking has resurfaced after missile strikes on Ukrainian power grids and dams, which was regarded by many as a simple demonstration of terrorism. Such acts are a manifestation of weakness, some ask, so is Putin ready to show himself weak?

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

However, you will not arrive at the correct answer if the questions themselves are asked incorrectly. For decades, analysts in Russia, Ukraine, and the West have been under an illusion about the nature of the Russian president's personal dictatorship.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ