Mexico is part of the United States electoral campaign and hence, among other things, articles are published where it is said that Andrés Manuel López Obrador is a lame duck. AHA. Those who say that would have to come to Mexican soil to see if they can stand.
Having said the above, and for those who believe that the United States (and its investors) will be a factor that will contain AMLO’s impetus as he tries strictly to plan C, here are some reflections from Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, who disappeared very prematurely 19 years ago.
In February 1987, Aguilar Zinser wrote a text* about how a sector of the United States had come to understand that it was convenient to tolerate the unique Mexican presidentialism in order to exploit that model of government in favor of the interests of the Uncle Sam.
“Mexico achieved the political feat – not inconsiderable – of convincing its eternal adversary with facts that in exchange for its own tranquility, it had to accept and respect an ‘idiosyncratic’ political regime, statist, centralized, jealous of the natural resources of the country. country, distrustful of foreigners and particularly demonizing the United States, on whose solitary summit the president lives.”
“The more discreet the demands were, the more moderate the pressures and the more cordial the public dealings with Mexico and especially with its president, the greater the possibilities could also be of extracting concessions from the government and making Mexico commitments.”
In the eighties, certain sectors of the United States feared “that the Mexican tragedy would flood them with undocumented immigrants, drugs and terrorists.” Any resemblance to the current Trumpist speech is…
In those years it was taken for granted that only one side of Mexican politicians represented advantages for the United States (the technocrats of the MMH cabinet versus the ‘nationalists’ of the democratic current, as Adolfo himself describes them).
The author also notes that not everyone in DC believed that living with the imperial presidency was the best way to cope with the relationship: “The strategic vision of the extreme right has no other channel than to unleash a political and economic war with Mexico. It would seem that it is precisely towards a violent moratorium, of rupture, where they want to take Mexico with the purpose, perhaps, of measuring forces in that field. Perhaps they imagine that the war of the moratorium would lead the Mexican political system to its holocaust and unconditional surrender and, consequently, to the beginning of the economic and political reconstruction of Mexico under the American protectorate. If in the United States’ discourse on Mexico these years we change “moratorium” for “organized crime,” the paragraph stands.
All of us in Washington, Aguilar Zinser maintained, “must discover and recognize that Mexicans – most of us – want to see ourselves with dignity and pride, as part of a great, rich, fearless, modern, democratic, open and active nation.” abroad”.
The author stressed that the best Mexican defense against pressure was democracy: “Power and legitimacy are not decreed or invented, they are gathered in real consensus, exercised and wielded and not just announced. The only way to modify the correlation of forces – so unfavorable today in our dealings with the United States – is to show them that there is power in Mexico.”
I don’t know if Adolfo would like the previous paragraph to be used to define AMLO’s current power, but today it is what it is. That and an ambassador like Ken Salazar, who always acquiesces to the Tabasco style. And Washington so happy.
*American futurism, in The presidential succession in 1988, coordinated by Abraham Nuncio (Grijalbo, 1987).
