Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

 Gerald Ford in the Impossible Triangle

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Throughout history, relations between the United States and Latin America have been marked by actions that some might call imperialist. Although there is talk of the largest US military deployment in the region, such movements are nothing new in Washington's history. Experts like James Cockcroft have dedicated in-depth analyses to this topic, exploring how the White House's geopolitical interests have shaped its interventionist policy toward Latin America.

Today, the focus seems to be shifting toward what some call the "tripod of evil" in the region: Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico. These countries, according to certain political discourses, represent a threat under the concept of narcoterrorism, a label used to justify extreme measures and open new fronts in US national security. Turning to this axis, figures like Donald Trump have expressed their intention to combat the "populist narcoterrorism" associated with these countries, in addition to addressing the growing international influence that alliances between these nations and the BRICS could have.

American strategic thinking is not a new phenomenon, but it finds echo in traditional perspectives such as those of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who analyzed Latin America's role within American interests and pointed to the historical disdain for the region, often perceived as having secondary influence. However, times are changing, and global dynamics are forcing a strategic reconfiguration. Alvin Toffler, for example, addresses the concept of "rapid change," highlighting the importance of adapting to the accelerated transformations that shape both societies and political systems. In this scenario, the United States seems to be rethinking its approach to Latin America, under pressure from new global and regional challenges.

The Trump administration, and more broadly recent American policy, may be taking note of these trends. The need to view Latin America in a new light makes sense in a global context where strategic and economic alliances are gaining greater importance. This potential shift would also respond to the direct impact on the United States of the structural problems of its neighbors south of the Rio Grande. The Mexican crisis, with its profound effects on society and governance, not only affects Mexico itself; its repercussions extend to other Latin American nations and also impact the delicate internal balance of the United States.

It is clear that Mexico represents an increasingly significant challenge to U.S. national security. While the neighboring country does not need to become a kind of Japan south of the Rio Grande to be relevant, it is emerging as a key player in the geopolitical and strategic landscape. If the United States wishes to maintain its internal stability while navigating an increasingly interconnected and competitive world, it must confront the challenges stemming from the political and social deterioration along its borders. What is happening in Mexico and other Latin American countries can no longer be ignored without serious consequences for the shared future of a region united by social, economic, and cultural ties.

Donald Trump: Finally?

Donald Trump: Finally?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Before President Claudia Sheinbaum's report on her first year in office, the President of the United States announced a full-scale declaration of war against drug cartels in Latin America.

This decision raised serious questions in Mexico, since the organized crime groups involved in the production and trafficking of narcotics have been designated as terrorists by the White House.

This designation raises the possibility of a U.S. military intervention, as has already been seen recently with alleged actions against drug traffickers on the Venezuelan coast.

However, the impact of Trump's message was relegated on the Mexican public agenda.

The central themes of Sheinbaum's event, such as the assessment of her first year in office, the marked distancing from her political predecessor, and the introduction of new policies and projects for the short term, garnered more attention than the threats emanating from the north.

It is possible that the current political landscape is reaching a certain point of equilibrium.

On the one hand, internal divisions within the U.S. government have limited the actions of Trumpism, forcing the former president to seek new rhetorical strategies that go beyond attacking Mexico.

On the other hand, Sheinbaum is beginning to consolidate her autonomy and gain prominence in the face of agreements and political power structures in the country.

As for Trump's actions toward Mexico, he seems to have reached his limit. The possibility of a military invasion appears irrelevant given the level of control and economic influence that Washington already exerts over its southern neighbor.

Little can be altered in such a deeply entrenched economic integration scheme, where mutual interests ultimately prevail over bilateral conflicts and abuses.

The apparent lack of impact of the former U.S. president's recent speeches also highlights the apathy, indolence, and irresponsibility characteristic of much of the Mexican political class.

If Trump aspires to change anything in Mexico, he'll have to do it alone, because the country's power groups simply advance according to their own interests, without paying much attention.

Mister Taco's strategies haven't been able to overcome Mexico's apathy and dynamism; the country presents an exhausting challenge that forces Trumpism to take a look at its own affairs.

Mexican Narco-State

Mexican Narco-State

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although it has been pointed out that imperialist semiotics establishes inescapable marks on its enemies and spaces of conquest, this argument is inaccurate when it comes to arguments such as those pertaining to the Sinaloa Cartel, which claims to have controlled the Mexican state for at least fifty years. The magnitude of this accusation has not been grasped by the Mexican government or the idea of ​​building justice in our country.

Amid the disturbing revelations stemming from drug trafficking captured in the United States about the corruption rooted in the Mexican state, the country faces a crucial moment that demands a firm and coherent response. These statements, which suggest drug trafficking has controlled the power structure for decades, cannot be ignored. However, the solution lies not in foreign intervention, but in strengthening its own institutions and reaffirming national sovereignty. Mexico must take the initiative, demonstrating its capacity to face these challenges autonomously and effectively.

Collaboration with the United States is essential, but it must be based on mutual respect and strategic cooperation, not subordination. Instead of an invasion of US justice, a common front must be established against organized crime, sharing intelligence, technology, and best practices. This proactive approach will allow the Mexican government to wage a head-on fight against drug trafficking and corruption without relinquishing control over its own destiny. The country's governability is at a crossroads, and the only dignified way out is through a profound reengineering of the state. Superficial reforms are insufficient; a break with past practices is required to build a new public administration. The fight against drug trafficking can be the convening of a National Agreement for stability, reconciliation, and economic growth in the country.

Claudia Sheinbaum's administration has the monumental task of leading this transformation. It must implement public policies that not only combat crime but also discourage the economic gravitation toward the United States that fuels immediate crime. By offering collective incentives and opportunities through solid social and economic programs, the Mexican state can create a more resilient social fabric that is less vulnerable to the lures of crime. The challenge is enormous, but the opportunity to consolidate a more just and sovereign Mexico is even greater. This is not about giving in, but about demonstrating the nation's strength and capacity to overcome its own crises.

The way the United States is building evidence to pursue justice based on accusations and testimonies is similar to the progressive phenomena that are affecting the structure of kyriarchy in Mexico.

After the cartels themselves declared they were corrupting the political power structure in Mexico, there isn't much left to say. The enormous task is to rebuild the country and public administration. The idea of ​​a narco-state requires a rethinking of

government reengineering. Reforms are meaningless; an institutional breakdown is essential to achieve the desired transformation.

Cadets Always Have a Sad Heart

 Cadets Always Have a Sad Heart

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

A new logic is taking hold in the complex relationship between Mexico and the United States, one that seems to be confirmed by the handover of drug lords to Washington. Far from being an act of mere cooperation, this dynamic confirms that President Sheinbaum's administration is complying with US demands to avoid a greater threat. Donald Trump, with his rhetoric and actions, not only seeks to solve the immediate problem of drug trafficking, but, in a masterstroke, attempts to dismantle the future scenario that George Friedman proposes for the year 2080, in which the demographic and political power of the Mexican-American community in the United States defeats the US federal government.

Emilio Lezama's (El Universal) analysis of Trump's possible military intervention, which focuses on dismantling the drug trafficking structure, is the prelude to Trump's deeper strategy. However, Friedman's vision goes beyond military conflict. Friedman suggests that the United States' defeat will not come on the battlefield, but rather from its own inability to integrate the growing population of Mexican origin, which will consolidate and align itself with Mexican interests, rendering future military intervention unworkable. For Trump, this demographic and social threat is the real enemy. Therefore, his interventionist strategy in Mexico seeks to separate the actors. His goal is to segment the Mexican population into two groups: criminals, whom he is fighting, and "good" citizens. By directing military operations and unilateral interventions outside of US states with large Mexican-American populations, Trump avoids the polarization of a demographic base that could turn against him, as happened in Los Angeles, California. His message is clear: the fight is against drug trafficking and corruption in Mexico, not against Hispanics who live and work legally in the United States.

On this playing field, the Mexican Army and Navy have adopted a stance of pragmatic cooperation, an act reminiscent of the diplomacy of the Carrancistas in 1914-1916 and the Sonora Group in 1920-1929. In those years, figures such as Venustiano Carranza, Álvaro Obregón, and Plutarco Elías Calles understood that US recognition and support were vital to consolidating their power and stabilizing the country. The current cooperation, although painful for national sovereignty, is a similar calculation. The Morena government knows it lacks an institutionalized party, an effective social movement, or the military power to confront a direct intervention by the Yankee Empire, and any resistance would lead to an asymmetric conflict with high costs for the civilian population.

In this context, the corruption of the Mexican political class, including members of Morena, serves as an additional justification for US interventionism. While Morena politicians don't behave like the allies of Porfirio Díaz or Victoriano Huerta, who fled the country to Alfonso XIII after being defeated in a civil war, their pragmatism resembles them and could open the door to a new modus vivendi. The opposition, far from being a counterweight, could take advantage of this fragile situation to infiltrate the government in the near future, creating a de facto system in which power is shared or negotiated under Washington's conditions.

This situation leaves Mexico in a dilemma where peace is bought at the cost of sovereignty and autonomy. In this scenario, President Sheinbaum and the armed forces are playing a game in which the only possible victory is to avoid all-out war.

Is the Mexican monsoon the tears of cadets Manuel Azueta, Juan de la Barrera, Juan Escutia, Francisco Márquez, Agustín Melgar, Fernando Montes de Oca, and Vicente Suárez? Mexican youth should not seek solace in the ghosts of a broken sovereignty, but in the recognition of a geopolitical reality. The time of sacrifices on the altar of the nation is over (Regina). The blood spilled at Chapultepec and Veracruz is not the end point, but the beginning of a history that now demands to be rewritten. There is no honor in defending the ruins of a lying and traitorous political class, Santanistas who sell the homeland in installments while paying homage to the ghost of an empty nationalism, as Sergio Aguayo says in the Pantheon of Myths and Alejandro Filio poetically expresses in that verse of disillusionment: The patio, the great ceremony, the homeland the tricolor light, then the betrayal of he who steals, dishonors and sells us our rights and our voice. The pain of deception must make the adolescent republic mature; Mexicans must stop seeing the United States as an invader and begin to understand it as a destiny: 50 million Mexicans can't be wrong!

Municipal Government and the Drug War

 Municipal Government and the Drug War

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The municipality is becoming a crime zone or authoritarian enclave that represents enormous governance problems for the Mexican State. During Felipe Calderón Hinojosa's administration, crime rates in the municipalities were high; now, the degree of cartel penetration in local governments is excessive; it can be said that city councils represent the petty cash of the groups generating violence.

What is happening with the municipal government even represents an added variable for the phenomenon of caciques. The caciques used violence and crime to impose their power; now, the situation in several municipalities simply presents alternative governments led by organized crime.

Hence the contradiction between the mayor of Uruapan, Michoacán, and the presidency of the republic in Mexico. The federal government lacks the sensitivity to understand the magnitude of the violence and pressure of the problems generated by drug trafficking. Once again, the situation in Michoacán during the Calderón administration serves as evidence of local problems and the way they have grown. Michoacán is one of the states hardest hit by drug trafficking violence.

How can extreme violence be reduced at the regional level? If the security policy of the previous administration has proven counterproductive, it is important to stop minimizing regional problems and propose new forms of public policy. Michoacán has had significant problems stemming from drug trafficking; the governments of Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto ultimately exacerbated the situation of insecurity. Morena has also failed to find a consistent way to protect society. The Bajío region of the country is one of the most violent areas in the republic.

Mexico's mayors, for the most part, are helpless in the face of drug trafficking, and governability, as well as the rule of law, are disappearing in the face of the power of drug trafficking militias and organized crime. The good ideas regarding security intelligence and institutional protection at the local level that were developed to amend constitutional articles 11, 21, and 115 remain a dead letter if the federal government fails to act. How many Teuchitlanes or Igualas will Mexico endure? Narco-governance cannot be sanctioned or judged if the abandonment of the established federal government is the recurring method of responding to the local government's calls.

The local government is abandoned and faces drug violence without any recourse other than civil courage.

The Trumpist Security Strategy in Mexico

 The Trumpist Security Strategy in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Although the ultimate purpose of the national security policy built on Donald Trump's demands and regional demands is still under debate, the truth is that important changes are being perceived. The actions of the Armed Forces, the National Guard, and the Ministry of Security are affecting the intermediate levels of some organized crime sectors. Narco-politicians have begun to fall, and this is important, especially because the groups leading the low-intensity war in Mexico can reduce their violence if the influence of politicians who manipulate conflicts to their advantage is limited; or, alternatively, they represent the apex of power in certain entities.

The Mexican State has been forced to implement measures to control organized crime in accordance with North American interests; however, there are other problems that affect the civilian population and are outside the Trumpist sphere. Claudia Sheinbaum's anti-drug trafficking strategy must correct Trump's demands and make it clear to the US government that its implementation can also contribute to generating effective governance for Republicans. The violence and impunity that have multiplied exponentially in Mexico are also contributing to the US problem.

The Mexican government must insist on subsidies and material support from the United States and various international organizations for the implementation of actions against insecurity in our country. Something has been lacking in the lack of economic understanding on migration and the fight against drugs since the López Obrador administration. Trump's demand for Mexico to resolve drug trafficking to the United States requires extraordinary budgetary amounts that were not contemplated by local or federal governments. Now, the circumstances facing Mexico may call for the participation of other international entities and extraordinary support to try to address a situation that affects drug use in the United States and around the world. The genocides confirmed by the narco-masses in Mexico reveal a problem beyond the capabilities of the National State. This is something more complex than terrorism; it resembles African civil wars.

Claudia Sheinbaum could propose securing resources and understanding with the United States, as well as other organizations, to ensure that Donald Trump's anti-drug strategy is effective and to guarantee the efficacy of the measures implemented. In fact, Mexico is a safe third country in terms of migration. Will the same happen with other dynamics such as drug trafficking and health?

The immediate capture of some narco-politicians and the control of certain regions will allow for improved governance; however, the government of the republic will have to seek funding for the anti-drug macro-policy proposed by North America.

Narco Land

Narco Land

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

A large part of Mexican society seems to disagree with the centrality that emigration and drug trafficking enjoy in the economy and structure of the social order; However, it seems inevitable to begin to recognize this role that they also share with other crimes in the daily environment of our republic.

It is not the first time that the United States intends to expose officials and members of the political class through a drug scandal. The phrase “narco Mexico” is a tautology, and the link between professional politicians or high officials and drug trafficking seems so common that it no longer surprises anyone.

But, if Mexico is a neighbor of the United States, why does the most important democracy - and empire - in the world do little to inhibit the commission of these crimes, specifically drug trafficking? The point is that Mexico and the United States have a complicit and ambiguous relationship regarding both the consumption and transfer of drugs and that long-standing relationship is an open secret. However, by having more resources, the United States has greater responsibility in the task of correcting things. Mexico is not the only supplier of drugs to North America, but it does constitute the main space of territorial approach for different groups, including international ones, dedicated to the transfer of psychotropics, to take on board American consumers. Health, as it applies to addictions, is not important in public policies in the United States; That is to say, although the number of deaths from fentanyl in young North Americans is stated bizarrely, their own country does not have prevention programs, projects or models, drug consumption in North America is increasing disproportionately and only the American government could change it.

Given its military capacity, the United States could take down drug trafficking groups in a jiffy; not only legalize its use so that drug addiction becomes formal and responsible consumption takes place in a controlled and peaceful environment. That is to say, while drugs are legalized in North America, Mexico is experiencing a low-intensity war that every day weakens the formal government and empowers too many cartels and associations. If the White House put the same effort into preventing addictions in American youth, in the same way that it serves the pentagonism; Mexico and North America could reach an optimum on this issue.

Maintaining the route that has been followed until now implies that soon the scenario set by George Friedman for 2080 will be brought forward. In the perspective of this geopolitician, the south of the United States becomes a settlement of criminal groups who, later, will carry out a true invasion and destruction of the Yankee empire. Now, to try to avoid this catastrophic prediction, North America is increasingly increasing actions and evidence that fuel a total war against Mexico, while preventing it from maintaining alliances with other countries dangerous to North American hegemony.

Friedman points out that Mexamerica constitutes the most important fracture zone for North America, greater than the importance of the regions of Russia and China. The United States thinks that Eurasia represents the greatest risk to its future; but not. The real risk is

Mexican knot. Affecting Mexico can cause the destruction of the United States in any sense.

The cartels have indeed moved to the southern border of the United States and the White House government knows who they are. Why don't they capture them? What does it mean to make an agreement with them to showcase the Mexican political class? It is increasingly shown that the State in Mexico lacks the resources to confront drug trafficking and impose order in the various regions of the country. Under these conditions, what is the point of making a public complaint and further weakening the government of our country?

Promoting instability in Mexico only leads to the government being increasingly ineffective in the fight against drugs and narcotics consumption increasing in the United States. In a good neighborly relationship, Mexico would expect greater collaboration and responsibility from the North American government in a situation that significantly harms everyone.

The war on drugs in Mexico depends on help from North America. Media exposures do not fix anything and constitute the classic ping pong game to influence public opinion, meanwhile, American and Mexican youth die in their hundreds due to the drug phenomenon.

The fight against trafficking cartels must be more than strategic and must begin from the American south, where the main centers of drug trafficking operations and finances are developed. The invasion of Mexico by the United States continues to be a valid option and, even, quite necessary. But, as George Friedman points out in his analysis: what if the United States loses the war with Mexico?

2024 and Narcopolitics

 2024 and Narcopolitics

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Moises Naim and Carlos Fazio agree that global society is in the middle of a war between factual powers of various kinds. The Cornwall Consensus and the Davos 2030 Agenda constitute timid approaches to restructuring the political sphere in the face of the subjugation of the market that puts the human race on the brink of extinction. Multiple formats of formal and informal economy are dominating all aspects of life; But, nevertheless, the defense of politics and the institutionalization of the State are essential for humanity to survive.

Drug trafficking is one of the main global economic activities. In Mexico it is even considered one of the largest employers, in addition to preventing the marginalization of its members in all aspects. The empowerment of drug trafficking in our country seems to have no limits.

It is undeniable that Mexico is a Narco-Society, but it is at the service of the Narco-Empire called the United States. Mexico has been configured as the Sicily of the United States since World War II because the pentagonist military industrial complex is subsidized by Latin American drug trafficking. The main promoter of the drug economy is the United States.

Ronald Reagan and Oliver North are reproduced in each Mexican six-year term, at each of its levels of government. However, each nation's ability to better address the problem depends on internal strength.

The United States does little, almost nothing, to prevent the transfer of drugs and their consumption in its society. The Yankee empire is capable of bombing a country where some American soldiers were victims of terrorism, but it does nothing against those who poison its youth - by the millions - from within and even from its neighbors.

Mexican drug trafficking cells have migrated to the southern United States and coexist with North American authorities and taxpayers. The White House neither sees them, nor hears them, nor does anything to them; as well as the bizarre ones of Donald Trump, Abbot or Di Santis.

American political processes are marked by drugs more than any other country. What does the United States do when its government agencies handle the movement of drugs in various parts of the world? Nothing, who certifies the United States in its fight against addictions or drug control? Nobody. Thousands of books, reports and scientific reports confirm the evidence of the political links with organized crime of the North American government.

Mexico is experiencing a low-intensity war by the State against the Drug Cartels financed by North America and another one superimposed on the competition for the market by the same protagonists of drug trafficking. How long will the US government and its political class be serious about drugs?

The relentless drug war

 The relentless drug war

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Although the Morenista government has been cornered for breaking the campaign promise to return the army to the barracks, the advance and strength of criminal groups in various entities is an indication that, outside the federation, there is no local government capable of protect the citizenry. Insecurity is a constant in local governments, more than in the federal administration.

The lack of clarity and transparency in the resources executed by local governments, mainly in state and municipal governments ravaged by the war between groups dedicated to the transfer of narcotic and psychotropic drugs, especially in the regions governed by the opposition, manifests the need to greater centralization in security policies and the disappearance of powers in those entities where governments should simply resign – or have done so – due to their impotence in the face of the force of crime.

The increasing progress of the protagonists in the drug war shows the need to increase budgets to develop security policies and strengthen the national bodies in charge of operating legitimate violence. Social readaptation centers and rural municipalities are structured on the basis of crime and require radical measures to be amended. State governments are more than permissive with local crime, feuderalism has been verified on several occasions and several state executives have been directly related to the mafias.

By 2024, regardless of the party that wins, the new six-year term must recognize the perpetuity of the state of exception that Mexico is experiencing and consider measures to strengthen the federal government and reduce the incompetence of local governments. Feuderalism was the true face of corrupting neoliberalism that was creating unpunished and criminal oligarchies, as well as exposing society to impressive levels of insecurity.

The reengineering of security in Mexico implies recognizing where the budgets must be exercised and the accounts that governments must render. Beyond the criminal ties and mafia sponsorships that officials in charge of civil order have, security indicators must also be considered for the revocation of mandate. The Sicilianization of Mexico is imminent and without serious proposals for public order, the reality of the Failed State also leaves our borders.

The exploits of the groups that fight in the drug war prevent any public policy from working. Local governments are ineffective, corrupt and incompetent, it is up to the federal government to be an accomplice or censor of these events.

Narcopolitics in the mexican presidential succession

Narcopolitics in the presidential succession

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

Around 1994, the power of criminal groups was glimpsed when one of the most considered hypotheses indicated that the death of Luis Donaldo Colosio corresponded to a drug-trafficking mafia embedded in the government. The successive assassinations put the country on its face, criminality was willing to generate all kinds of ungovernability. The country was on the verge of chaos, as Andrés Oppenheimer pointed out and continues to say. The situation of violence unleashed was the script for new novels and video games from the perspective of Tom Clancy.

In 1994, drug trafficking made a surprising presence to show that it was no longer anyone's violent force but rather a protagonist in the configuration of the Mexican political system. The situation in the country shows that various cartels have generalized the behavior of being endorsers of power. The mafias dedicated to the transfer and production of narcotics are at the level of the United States and the Catholic Church for what interventionism means against the different levels of public administration and the making of public policies.

It seems that these representative actors of different interest groups were synchronized to finish off Mexico. The regularization of growth, development, security, education and, at least, the goods that Abraham Maslow's configuration considers as minimum for the human being, cannot be structured without the informal consideration of these factual powers. The Mexican government is going through a war against powerful enemies, the State is besieged by a criminal imperialism that has canceled, forever, the possibility of Mexico consolidating itself.

The SEDENA and SEMAR, also infiltrated, barely carry out a significant job so that the country does not end up exploding.

The objective of imperialism is to influence the designation of the different presidential candidates and, if possible, to configure the elections to affect the party that is in possession of the federal public administration.

The United States and the Catholic Church will never grant a respectable place to Mexico, the Darwinism of international relations motivates our country to remain an island of domination. Hence the need for MORENA to rethink foreign policy with North America and digest imperialism that is geographically absolute. Nationalism is not only recovering the traditional and populist styles of the political form that Mexico has, but promoting intelligent measures to change the destiny that the powers that be intend to determine.

The Empire said NO

The Empire said NO

May 16, 2020

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

https://www.semanarioelreto.com/single-post/2020/05/16/El-Imperio-dijo-NO

A few weeks ago, Roberta Jacobson, former United States ambassador to Mexico, pointed out that former President Felipe Calderón knew the relationship of his Secretary of Public Security, Genaro García Luna, with the Sinaloa cartel and other drug trafficking actors in our country. All in all, Americans cannot be surprised when they denounce actions like Calderón's. The United States is the main drug trafficking and drug-consuming power. In narcotics he found, since the Second World War, a way to finance his war economy. All the presidents who collaborate with North America are, have had to be and will be like Calderón, including López Obrador.

Felipe Calderón, like Gustavo Díaz Ordaz and Carlos Salinas de Gortari, are proof of the serious consequence of fully adhering to North American geopolitics and considering their support for posterity when, as former presidents, they seek to exert their influence again. The United States has interests, not friends. The evidence of the presidential links with drug trafficking is like the indications of the LITEMPO payroll. The right is responsible for the tone of relations between Mexico and the United States. As CIA agents and traitors to the country, they profited from the millions of anti-communist dollars to exterminate opposition and social movements, setting the tone for America to expand its imperialism and bring Mexicans to their knees. There was the dirty war that makes them so proud and that they continue to practice on a daily basis. The message from the United States to the right now is to be patient and to seek more serious agendas than feminism. For López Obrador, the message is that he continue working in the WALL for Central American emigration and that he persist in the regulation of drug trafficking. The sword of Imperialism weighs on AMLO, it makes more and more commitments behind society's back. The president must not forget Francisco I. Madero and Henry Lane Wilson, nor the National Catholic Party.

Felipe Calderón may be the Díaz Ordaz of the 21st century, there is hardly anything that can be said in his favor. Could these characters have opposed North American geopolitical interests? Maybe not. But they were able to do less harm by trying to strengthen the State and its institutions, improving the educational level or reducing poverty. On the contrary, obedience to the directives of the pentagon made Mexico project in the next Iraq, where the Yankee economy makes prospective. To strengthen the Creole oligarchy, the PRI and PAN governments encouraged the anti-communist paranoia of the United States and, now, they continue to affirm that the ghosts of the LC23Sep and Lucio Cabañas materialize in López Obrador to carry out the Red Revolution. Their fear of social movements caused the peasants to leave the homeland and the middle class to become a survivor. Every day the right has less credibility despite the scandalous black campaigns that they are able to sponsor.

The state of violence has allowed capitalism through dispossession that plundered Mexico's natural and human resources. It should not be surprising that the presidents of Mexico, the North American Security Agencies, and drug traffickers have deals and coordinate actions to regulate the flow of drugs that enters the United States. Since Adolfo López Mateos, Mexican presidents have had to be CIA agents. The serious thing is to give credibility in Mexico to the hypotheses of the North American propaganda regarding the links between emigration and drug trafficking, it is a lack of respect for those who leaving the country, still maintain support for their communities and families thanks to the nostalgia economy . If not for these resources, the market in various areas would collapse. Linking remittances with drug trafficking is a fallacious justification for moral Americans. its migrantologists have studied the matter in depth and have found no money laundering or arms purchases in the hundred dollars a week and / or fortnightly that the countrymen send to their people. It is a transfer that impacts in volume, but constitutes an ant money that hardly activates regional economies, contributing to the country's development. The failure of Sedesol's 3x1 public policy, created enthusiastically during the Vicente Fox period, indicates that these remittances are minimal and peculiar in their integration. They are resources that come to account drops to the expeller communities of emigrants and that little reduce the marginalization, poverty, chiefdom and gunfighting. There is the Mixteca Poblana as well as regions of Guanajuato, Jalisco, Zacatecas and Michoacán where remittances serve to survive the day.

The mention of both situations would not have much relation if there were not a third opinion, which has been repeated for some years: that criminal groups “inject” the Mexican economy through drug trafficking through alternative routes to banks, such as political parties, construction companies, film studios, sports, music events, etc., so that it cannot be traced whether the origin of said economic resources is legal or not. In parallel, just as the formal and informal economies have been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, activities related to the production and transfer of narcotic drugs, arms smuggling and money laundering, have experienced liberalization due to the approach on health issues. Which means that the demand for drugs in the United States is infinite and there is no way to regulate the supply. But that is the responsibility of the United States and the more than one hundred million addicts in its territory.

Mexico must think of models such as Costa Rica, Panama, Puerto Rico or Peru to approach US capitalism in a new way, since maintaining itself as a narco-state constitutes a dangerous choice that gives way to wild forms of US interventionism. As long as the primary sector, industry and public service are not developed properly, the economy of informality and crime will be the daily characteristics.

The anti-communist rage of the Mexican right and its absurd coup proposals must be canceled. The US support for AMLO implies that our country needs stability and to continue operating in conditions that do not irritate the Empire. In these times, for the United States, the Mexican right is more dangerous than the drug traffickers. Catholic nationalists are more rabid than the Taliban. The Mexican right needs to synchronize itself with the important changes brought about by the death of neoliberalism, the times of health governance and technological innovation. It is up to them to support López Obrador, their legitimate and legal president.

All three comments highlight Mexico's dependence on North America. While the United States will not come to solve Mexico's problems, it should consider whether keeping Mexico and Central America as its drug suppliers is productive in any sense. The United States and Mexico must think of a different form of economic, social, and political integration.