In the shadow of the Failed State
Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero
Although the hypothesis is not completely original since Soledad Loaeza has previously exposed her ideas on US imperialism -as well as other authors-, the important thing is that an academic voice authorized by the red circle of the national status quo allows us to recognize -with all crudeness- the geopolitical situation of Mexico against the United States (Loaeza, S. (2022) In the shadow of the superpower. Colmex). The totalizing Yankee imperialism in Mexico is beginning to be a platitude not only for the traditions of the left or right, but also for the neoliberals and democrats. Understanding the narrow margin of action that the Mexican political system has had against the overwhelming and hegemonic United States, constitutes a significant advance.
Mexico has gone from being a Spanish colony to an American colony. The regime of the revolution could not be consolidated without the approval of North America, rather, no Mexican government can last without the approval of the empire. The El Paso meeting or Henry Lane Wilson (not forgetting the unscrupulous Poinsett) are just traces of an interventionism that is absolute and does not diminish with the passage of time.
It is true that the president of Mexico is not the all-powerful Tlatoani of the myth, nor Viceroy, most of the time he only becomes a CIA agent. The omnipotent is North America, at least for what has to do with our governability.
The colonial socioeconomic structure was subordinated to the United States and the medieval hierarchy constitutes the state of affairs that informally subsidizes the Yankee war economy.
During World War II and, above all, during the Cold War, the Mexican government was neutralized under the anti-communist interests of the United States. The power of the North American military complex was an irrefutable reason for revolutionary nationalism to move from a sovereignist attempt to a submissive behavior towards the Capitalist Superpower. The anti-communist capitalist Nazi-fascist alignment was imposed on the PRI and subsequent governments, to the satisfaction of the local right-wings and the submission or extermination of the multiple left-wings.
And although the tacit warning of Dr. Soledad's recent academic work seems to have the performance of President López Obrador as its objective, although it seems like a contradiction, why not think that the course of things in the current government is allowed by North America? Didn't that happen in Cardenismo? Didn't the United States seek to buy time to impose successive conservative governments in which the socioeconomic structure of Mexico was balanced? The shameful economic remittances resulting from emigration and drug trafficking, aren't they also informal subsidies for the inoperative national economy?
The behavior of Ambassador Ken Salazar and the current Democratic administration also face a lack of time when it comes to the Mexican question. It is essential to stabilize the economy of our country, reduce the inequality that is causing an insurgent and anarchic culture that develops the Failed State and can put the Yankee hegemony in its own territory at risk.
There is nothing Mexico can do in the face of the military power of the United States. Indeed, as Loaeza points out, the Yankee invasions in Latin America and the coups promoted by the White House constitute a reminder of the Sword of Damocles that hangs over our rulers. For this reason, and for that reason alone, Andrés Manuel López Obrador remains in power.
The rebellious violence that is generating inequality in the country forces us to reconsider the New Deal policies that Mexico requires. I wish that AMLO had the capacity of General Lázaro Cárdenas, but they are not very similar because he has only copied the negative of socialist pragmatism. However, even Cárdenas supported his government with pins in the face of frank messages of an American invasion of our country.
George Friedmann imagines a war between Mexico and the United States in the year 2080, probably the environmental and human crisis that is being experienced have ended up catalyzing trends. Although Friedmann is wrong in his geopolitical perspective, the war will not be won by Mexico but by a mortar, a muégano of multiple castes and particularisms that will end up fragmenting the American Union to its anthropological limits in the Northwest. To inhibit such projection, modernity and social change in Mexico must be redirected.
Militarism and the transfer of drugs in Mexico are designed from the United States, it is the only way that has been found to correct a Hispanic colonial structure that is worse than neoliberalism. The disgust that the Spanish monarch showed in front of the Sword of General Simón Bolívar is proof that this colonialist viceroyalty structure does not yield in the face of historical change. Iberophony and Hispanidad will never save Latin America.
Mexico and the United States need time to postpone 2080. Neoliberalism and conservatism are not enough for our country to develop and competitively integrate into the American dynamic. If things continue as they are, if the optimum of our bilateral relationship is to identify ourselves as the North American Sicily, this will also end up dangerously hurting the United States. The problem is not populism or trying to build programs that benefit the precarious, the obstacle to development in Mexico is due to a cacique, corrupt, medieval and bandit economy, which is going to destroy us -sooner or later- and will lead to the grave as well to North America.
Since the colonial era, the political, economic and social institutions designed by the Spanish Empire have not worked. The mechanics of community order in our country is a corrupt synergy resulting from a balance between particularisms and mutual mistrust. It is the factual powers who become hegemonic, precisely the cacique and Creole institutions are established to provide the greatest order of things.
The curialization and national integration of the different communities is generated through urbanization and proximity to metropolitan centers, as long as the cities incorporate supply and economic development measures. Cities that maintain high levels of poverty reproduce social ruptures and pathologies with less impact, but are problematic for local governments. A brief review of the municipalities immediately highlights the cacicazgos and the total absence of basic services. The drug violence that comes from rural and dispersed areas that feed chiefdoms, organized crime groups and the informal economy, now also has the social order of our country in check.
During the Cristero War and until the Cardenismo, even during the Delahuertista revolt, one of the strategies used by the Mexican government was the bombing of rural areas: generating ultimatums for the populations to move to the cities and neutralize the resistant communities. This warmongering has been maintained in the Mexican Bajío and is reproduced as an example in various parts of the country.
Although this seems like an authoritarian measure, in the past it has been effective in reducing the violence that plagues different parts of Mexico. Different literature, specifically cristero from the Bajío, bitterly recounts this type of action that devastated towns and put an end to the agricultural wealth of the towns (eg Acámbaro in Guanajuato). Even the high hierarchy of the Catholic Church accepted these terms because there was no other way to reduce the confrontational mood that continued in rural communities. Even the development of the water system of dams during the regime of the revolution buried -literally- some of the towns that were distinguished by their governmental opposition.
Most of Mexican society rejects modernization, the culture of poverty does not want to pay the cost that it implies, it does not want to become Westernized or establish itself as a strategic partner of the United States. The country has failed in its modernization and there is no coincidence between the elites and the popular classes. The negative expectations of the Mexican economy no longer make the association with the United States viable, the country is not competitive nor does it have the infrastructure that even keeps pace with North America in the cybernetic, digital and artificial intelligence era that has arrived.
Loaeza considers that there is a margin of creativity and institutionalization of the Mexican rulers to contribute to the development and sovereignty of the country. However, it has been the ungovernability of factual groups that defends sovereignty, but at the cost of disorder and instability.
But things are reaching the limit and the decomposition of the social fabric in Mexico is reaching such a degree that a benign order can no longer be sustained in any way. The drug violence that is being provoked in Mexico is authorized by the United States. The ability of the United States to take advantage of what is happening in Mexico is imminent, but the supposed benefit of the narco-economy is no longer optimal for anyone. If communism implied the risk of civilization for North American governments, don't you consider that drug trafficking is a worse social engineering? Do you remember what England did to China? Are we approaching an imminent conflict with the United States? have we won lost with the mafia narco-republic? Remittances and profits from crime and illegality are tripled by the development of our country. The same logic applies to the United States. How much has Latin American immigration cost you from the perspective of Huntington, Brzezinski, Kissinger and Friedmann?
Soledad Loaeza's work aims to highlight the institutions and formalization that the different Mexican governments have developed; however, the Mexican political class has always been at the service of the exterior and, in recent times, exclusively at the service of the United States; therefore, it is hardly credible that any of its members are nationalists. What is evident from her study is the statement regarding the absolute totality exercised by the United States over Mexico. For this reason, the criticisms towards the alleged authoritarianism and militarism of López Obrador that the author implicitly makes are surprising. Would the Americans allow an autocrat like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro in Mexico? Wouldn't they have eliminated him immediately? Loeza's own narrative destroys the indications of the excessive power that AMLO concentrates. The absolute power in Mexico is held by the United States.
After understanding that Mexican presidents have always been threatened by US missiles, which is why many decided to become CIA agents (Litempos), why would López Obrador escape this continuity? And if he has escaped, why have the Americans let him continue?
After the 1914 invasion, General Francisco Villa's attacks on Columbus and other consequences of the revolutionary process in our country, North America has realized that it can approach a total victory over Mexico, but even the defeat of the country is not Synonym of control. It has happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq; and it will happen in Mexico. Few Mexicans will defend the territory, the mob will penetrate - to a greater extent - the American South.
Nazism deployed one of the largest military offensives to break the 3,500-kilometer Soviet barrier and reach the Ural Mountains, the failure was resounding with everything and Western support. Why does the IV Reich of the United States think that it could achieve in Mexico what the Nazis could not achieve in Russia?
Mexico does not have Commander Winter on its side, however, it does have Commander Relajo (Portilla) who has already positioned himself in the South and East of the United States, he has reached the Ural Gringos. The emigration of Mexicans (approx. 50,000,000 inhabitants), with all the schizophrenia that it implies, has established cells and beach missiles in almost 80% of the US territory. Who controls who?
The historical Mexican ungovernability has been a riddle for North American imperialism, they made the double mistake of manipulating it and believing in the ineffective Mexican rulers (which always distinguishes their limited capacity despite Soledad Loaeza's arguments), which is why they have the State Failed before your eyes (just look at the governments of Texas, California and Florida).
The geopolitical relations of North America are overwhelming against Mexico. In this sense, the militarization and centralism that the country is experiencing, the false democratization and the cacique feudalism that has taken violence to the extreme must be understood.
Soledad Loaeza's findings must be validated for the reality that Mexico is experiencing in the era of the Fourth Transformation. The fearsome Yankee sword is over our country and it is important to find new optimal forms of relationship between such different countries. The economic divorce from the T-MEC will not be so serious if the border is still there, however, if we continue with the path of fury and criminal violence that the daily path of our country maintains, only the strong performance of a military authority will be able to regulate the uncontrolled violence exercised by rural groups devoted to the transfer of narcotics. And the war of the streets in Mexican cities will spread to American cities.