Not Paper, Just Tomatoes

 Not Paper, Just Tomatoes

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The fact that almost 100% of the production of such a basic agricultural product as tomatoes is destined for export to a single country constitutes absolute proof of the profound asymmetrical and colonial integration that Mexico maintains with the Yankee Empire.

The concern of large landowners about Trump's tariffs is legitimate from their business perspective; however, should they be thinking about domestic consumption? In other words, could the tomato businessmen and landowners in our country be kind enough to ensure people could access this agricultural product without the radical variation it presents in the market? The same is true of products ranging from cilantro to lemons in the variety of our folkloric national cuisine.

The humanism of businessmen and landowners in our country is incredible; they might as well be Japanese to feel proud of the situation! The United States' absorption in Mexican tomatoes is more than paradoxical; Furthermore, there are almost no farmers left in Mexico since everyone is going to plant tomatoes, but in the United States! This highlights how the US economic influence not only attracts our workforce but also disrupts domestic production chains.

Tomato production in Mexico, during the neoliberal era, was designed on a massive scale for export and targeted at specific North American markets, with standards and prices that often don't align with the consumption capacity of the Mexican population in general, or that don't offer the same profits as the external market.

The case of the tomato demonstrates the frustration and sense of hopelessness that the majority of the population feels toward its ruling and economic class. It seems that in Mexico the United States solves everything, starting with tomatoes. Any government project, public policy, or national project is simply useless against the immense power of the American Union.

Has US imperialism fallen? Ask the Mexicans.

Millions of Mexicans, especially those in rural areas with few opportunities, see migration to the United States as the only tangible avenue for socioeconomic advancement.

Remittances become the engine of the local economy, filling the gaps that national public policies fail to address, or simply fail to mitigate.

In this context, school, local commerce, or farm work seem insufficient or downright useless options in the face of the dollar's purchasing power.

This generates a structural dependency that is palpable and understandable at the individual and community levels.

The tomato example is another manifestation of this same dependency.

The actions of the ruling class, neoliberal or whoever, increase frustration.

What would the reality of Zacatecas be like if Andrés Bermúdez Viramontes—the tomato king—had been governor? Who did more good for the state: the tomato king or the Monreals? It seems as if Mexico has been ruled by nothing but Monreal since time immemorial, like in Bruno Traven's novels.

What would the Tomato King think of the landowners who don't want to sell their tomatoes cheaply to Mexicans in Mexico, even though they would also destroy production in volume?

It seems impossible to reduce Mexico's vulnerability to the United States; the Morena left doesn't even understand the country's structural weakness vis-à-vis the BRICS, and they won't listen either.

The Noroñas and Monreales remain the only answer.

Excessive dependence on a single external factor (remittances, a single export market) makes Mexico incredibly vulnerable to economic and political fluctuations in the United States.

If immigration laws are further tightened tomorrow, or if remittances decline drastically, what will happen to the country? The need for effective public policies is more than urgent; but what is essential is to destroy the ruling corruption of the fiefdoms in Mexico.

The ability to govern in Mexico

 The ability to govern in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Marcelo Ebrard's visit to the United States to lobby for the negative situation that Donald Trump has raised about Mexico, is evidence not only of the limited governability of our country but also of the constant decrease in communicating vessels between the North American and Mexican governments. The government of our country has historically only served to generate intermediations that, in general, are temporary arrangements to appease problems. Samuel Schmidt calls it "Planned Ineffectiveness," telling everyone yes; but never when. Schmidt coordinated, at the end of the last century, one of the original works on the concept of governability. The texts collected in this work, fundamentally the work of Yehezkel Dror, raise the need for ethical political leadership and a project for the future; Indeed, without community goals and objectives, the country is adrift, it is a ship that is driven according to the whims of the powers that be and, as the protagonist of the Tin Drum, it is a sign of emotional immaturity, a State that does not want to grow (Ikram Antaki).

Can the Mexican government still maintain the “quinceañera syndrome”? Probably not. The political situation in Mexico has been demanding definitions for some time and the scenario that Donald Trump poses is more than threatening. The threat of Trumpism is radical against Mexico, we are all enemies of Trumpism and the consideration of terrorism implies a complete denial of Mexican society. It is true that the current times of the “Sugar Daddy” profile can lead to considering that Trumpism is full of old fools and easily manipulated; however, this is not entirely true, at least not for Mexico. If Donald Trump does not prevail against Mexico, it will be evident that the United States does not win wars, not even cultural ones, the American defeat in Mexico will be worse than Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq. This time, the risk of failing in the operation against Mexicanness will not only be an unfulfilled promise for the Republican electorate but also a sign of decline in the face of the world; even the failure of the United States to impose governability in Mexico will be a sign of an emotional codependency similar to drug addiction. That is, the United States only wants Mexico as a piñata to ward off its traumas. Mexico has been constantly disapproved of by North America, there have been hundreds of studies that show the Mexican impossibility of American assimilation; therefore, the reason for remaining attached without a radical American intervention is complicated by so many problems that the neighborhood generates.

Claudia Sheinbaum's government can take the support of the United States to establish the minimum levels of governability and call for a national pact that underpins a new social and political leadership. Manuel Camacho Solís proposed national agreements since the terrible 1994 to inhibit governability directed from North America; It is therefore urgent to depolarize the country and call for a national project before the United States decides to turn Mexico into its Latin American Ukraine.