Mexico: The Tragedy of Abandoning the Future

 Mexico: The Tragedy of Abandoning the Future

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Some countries squander their opportunities due to a lack of resources; others, because of weak institutions; and some seem to do so because their political elites have come to confuse the defense of an identity with the foolish obligation to preserve their own past mistakes. Mexico runs the risk of falling into this last category.

In Letras Libres, Eduardo Turrent Mena poses an uncomfortable question: what would have happened if Mexico had fully taken advantage of the geopolitical reconfiguration that led the United States to seek alternatives to Chinese manufacturing? Geographic proximity, the North American trade agreement, Mexico’s industrial base, and the need to build infrastructure for artificial intelligence appeared to offer an exceptional opportunity to boost investment, productivity, and wages.

This argument does not rely on imagining a utopia. It relies on recognizing that Mexico possesses objective advantages—and that transforming these into prosperity requires institutions, security, energy, water, infrastructure, and legal certainty. The problem is that such conditions are not built through patriotic declarations, but rather through technical, political, and administrative decisions that demand continuity.

Mexican history provides legitimate reasons to be wary of the hegemonic ambitions of the United States. The war of 1846–1848, subsequent interventions, and the profound asymmetries between the two nations are all part of the national memory. It would be absurd to demand that Mexico forget this history or accept Washington’s decisions without resistance.

In 1996, Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner, and Álvaro Vargas Llosa poked fun at a familiar political archetype: the intellectual or leader who explains Latin American poverty by pointing to the malice of foreigners, blames capitalism for all social ills, and believes that nationalism or the expansion of the state are sufficient responses to problems that actually require effective institutions.

The Mexican contradiction is also cultural. Millions of people live on both sides of the border, maintain transnational families, work within shared production chains, and participate in cultural circuits that pay no heed to the ideological divisions drawn by governments. The Mexican economy is deeply integrated with that of the United States, even if national politics does not always act as though this reality carries strategic implications.

This ambiguity comes at a geopolitical cost: the challenge lies in shifting from viewing the relationship with the United States as a perpetual struggle for dignity to seeing it as an ongoing negotiation for prosperity—all while upholding democratic principles and national interests.

A long-standing culture of corruption is paving the way for a worst-case scenario; by 2060, mere survival will not be enough. The future demands that we move beyond the false dichotomy between sovereignty and integration, as well as the one between social justice and a competitive economy. No society can sustain its well-being if it fails to produce, innovate, and develop human capital—nor can it do so if growth benefits only a privileged few.

The ultimate question is not whether Mexico can become American. Rather, can Mexico be fully Mexican without fearing modernity, without conflating cooperation with subordination, and without sacrificing its own future just to preserve the ideological certainties of its leaders? Can Mexico move past corruption? Can it shed the stifling influence of medieval-style Catholicism over its decision-making processes?

For nearly two centuries, Mexico has been debating its problems without addressing their root causes. In 2009, Jorge G. Castañeda and Héctor Aguilar Camín published Un futuro para México (A Future for Mexico), an essay that warned of the weight of the past, a lack of direction, and an inability to translate democracy into prosperity. Seventeen years later, the question remains as relevant as ever: why does a country with so many advantages continue to postpone fundamental decisions?

Eduardo Turrent Mena offers an answer rooted in geopolitics: Mexico had the opportunity to become a strategic industrial and technological hub for the United States—precisely as competition with China was driving a reorganization of global supply chains. Artificial intelligence, semiconductors, energy, and advanced manufacturing could have ushered in a new era of growth. But such an opportunity requires security, infrastructure, an adequate energy supply, investment, and legal certainty.

Mexico’s challenges are not merely economic; they are also political, social, and cultural. We remain trapped between the myths of the past and the demands of the present. We conflate sovereignty with isolation, nationalism with development, and political loyalty with governing competence. Meanwhile, problems continue to mount, and opportunities are shifting toward other nations.

The U.S. legislative elections in November and the upcoming review of the USMCA (T-MEC) add a sense of urgency to this situation. While Mexico cannot dictate the electoral trajectory of its neighbor, it can—and must—prepare to negotiate with a U.S. Congress and administration whose priorities may shift. Entering these discussions without a clear energy, industrial, and security strategy would narrow our room for maneuver, precisely when we most need to expand it. Mexico’s future is not predetermined, but the missed opportunities of today could evolve into the crises of tomorrow. The relationship with the United States and the November legislative elections lend a sense of urgency to this reflection—without presuming what the electoral outcome might be. Given these various potential futures, what kind of institutions are we building today? There is a possibility: a democratic, secure, innovative, and prosperous Mexico—integrated into North America without relinquishing its own identity. To achieve this, we need economic growth, universal social rights, quality education, an independent judiciary, and a pragmatic foreign policy. We must also ensure that the benefits of integration reach the workers and the regions that have historically been left behind. The decisive fight against racism, corruption, and crime can no longer be deferred.

Mexico must decide whether it wishes to remain tethered to its foundational myths or begin building its future. Geopolitics offers boundless prospects. What is missing is the will to confront reality before the future turns into mere nostalgia.

Mexamérica without Trumpism

 Mexamérica without Trumpism

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Can Mexico live apart from the United States in a more multipolar world? Economic and social evidence indicates that the answer is no, at least not in the short or medium term without facing a major crisis.

Although the international system is evolving toward greater competition among powers and China has increased its economic and geopolitical influence, Mexico maintains a level of integration with the United States that is unparalleled with any other country.

Talking about a separation between the two does not simply mean replacing a trading partner, but rather transforming an economic model built over more than three decades.

Trade dependence is the first indicator.

Around 83% of Mexican exports are destined for the U.S. market, while China represents only about 2% of national exports.

This means that if preferential access to the U.S. market were to disappear, Mexico would have to find buyers for hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of manufactured goods, a task impossible to accomplish in just a few years.

No economy, not even China or the BRICS countries, currently has the capacity to absorb that volume of Mexican exports.

However, the relationship goes far beyond trade.

Mexican industry is part of a single North American production platform.

Sectors such as automotive, aerospace, electronics, and machinery operate through supply chains that cross the border multiple times before a finished product is completed.

A car assembled in Mexico may incorporate engines manufactured in the United States, electronic components from Asia, and parts produced in Canada.

This integration allows for reduced costs and increased competitiveness compared to other regions of the world.

Breaking these chains would mean rebuilding suppliers, infrastructure, and industrial processes that have taken decades to consolidate.

Foreign investment confirms this dependence.

Approximately 39% of all foreign direct investment received by Mexico comes from the United States.

Including Canada, North America represents practically half of the productive investment that comes to the country.

This is not just about financial capital; This investment also incorporates technology, patents, training, innovation, and access to international markets.

Replacing these flows would require other economies to be willing to invest with the same intensity and stability, something that is not currently the case.

In the social sphere, remittances represent another fundamental component.

Millions of Mexican families depend on money sent by workers who reside primarily in the United States.

Although remittances are not the main source of gross domestic product, they do sustain consumption and the local economy in numerous municipalities and states.

A significant reduction in these flows would have immediate effects on employment, regional trade, and poverty levels.

Energy security also demonstrates this close interdependence.

Mexico imports large quantities of natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and other fuels from the United States.

Much of the electricity used by Mexican industry depends indirectly on this energy supply.

An abrupt interruption would raise production costs, fuel inflation, and reduce the competitiveness of the national economy.

The phenomenon of migration and drug trafficking demonstrate that the bilateral relationship cannot be understood solely through the lens of trade.

Migration acts as an economic engine, generating employment for millions of Mexicans and producing remittances, while the U.S. market is the primary destination for drug trafficking organizations.

This shows that both countries share structural problems whose solution requires cooperation, regardless of any existing political differences.

In this context, China has significantly increased its commercial presence in Mexico.

The Asian country supplies machinery, electronic equipment, industrial inputs, and consumer goods, but purchases relatively few Mexican products.

This results in a profoundly unbalanced trade relationship.

Although China represents a world-class manufacturing power and an increasingly influential player, it is not yet a viable alternative to the economic integration that Mexico maintains with the United States.

All of this is happening while the international system is transitioning toward a more multipolar order.

It is possible that the United States will face a relative decline. The United States may face a relative decline compared to the dominance it exercised after the Cold War, but this does not signify a collapse of its economic or technological capabilities.

Likewise, China’s growing prominence does not automatically imply absolute dominance over the international system.

Both countries will continue to compete for global influence, while mid-sized economies will seek to maintain relations with both blocs.

Mexico cannot exist apart from the United States without incurring extraordinarily high economic and social costs.

Interdependence regarding trade, industry, finance, energy, and migration means that both countries are part of the same economic ecosystem.

The real challenge for Mexico lies not in replacing the United States with China or another power, but in gradually diversifying its markets, strengthening its technological capabilities, boosting productivity, and reducing vulnerabilities—all without severing the integration that currently serves as the primary engine of its economy.

Mexico as a Pillar of North America

 Mexico as a Pillar of North America

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The idea that Mexico is a “middle power” is, at best, rhetorical excess and, at worst, a dangerous delusion.

The reality is harsher: Mexico operates as North America’s maquiladora region, a supplier of labor and logistics that the “Empire” could, if it so chose, replace or discipline through immediate control.

History does not lie: attempts to challenge Washington’s geopolitical gravity have ended in collapse, from the decline of Porfirio Díaz to the financial disaster of José López Portillo.

Today, the country is lost in a “halo effect” of populism that prioritizes spectacle over strategy.

While figures like Omar García Harfuch, aka “Batman,” or the defense of a “paper sovereignty” in the face of the Cuban crisis serve to fuel the domestic narrative, the real world is heading toward an unprecedented security and supply crisis.

The inconvenient truth is this: if the United States falls, Mexico disappears.

There is no Plan B in Beijing, no salvation in Moscow, no refuge in Tehran.

Latin American elites have historically used the people as cannon fodder to buy time and protection, but this capacity for manipulation is exhausted by hardship.

The Chilean path demonstrated that the only peaceful and successful coexistence with the North arises from order and institutions, not from sovereignist tantrums.

Mexico must aspire to be the "Little House" of North America; an integration that responds not to cultural supremacy, but to the relentless dynamics of regional capitalism.

Our geopolitical margin is narrow: either we democratize and use soft power to influence the bloc, or we will be absorbed by the force of events.

Beneath the surface of what analysts like Carlos Ramírez and Luis Carlos Ugalde call "Populist Neoliberalism" or authoritarianism lies an inescapable reality: we are a tributary state and a critical security zone for Washington.

The viability of the 21st century lies not in "romantic diversification" toward transatlantic or Asian horizons—which only deepen our deficit and vulnerability—but in the consolidation of our North American identity.

In this scenario, Marcelo Ebrard's strategy is not just diplomacy but an imperative for survival.

Mexico and Canada must reclaim Robert Pastor's vision: a community of interests that transcends geographical proximity.

Attempting to replace this bloc with support from Europe or Asia is a systemic miscalculation.

Our logistical structures are designed for continental integration; any attempt at isolation will only fragment the resilience that the most dynamic market on the planet provides us.

The strength of the balance of payments is the clearest indicator for decision-making.

While intra-North American trade sustains our stability, our relationship with Asian giants tends to weaken our financial maneuvering.

Globalization has been reconfigured into a profound regionalism where proximity is the supreme strategic asset.

The ruling party is entering a labyrinth of sterile factionalism and local strongmen who neglect the general welfare. The need for figures who prioritize the viability of the state over the rhetoric of conflict is emerging.

In this chaos of centrifugal leadership, technical management and strategic integration become the only tools capable of safeguarding the future.

Faced with the imminent crisis due to the situation in the Middle East, will Mexican society be able to accept a technical “Oppenheimer,” or will it choose the resentment sown by populism and “go down with the captain” rather than be saved by the expert?

The path to true freedom is not built with rhetoric, but with the order that only technology can guarantee.

In this urgent scenario, Marcelo Ebrard Casaubón stands as the Oppenheimer of national survival: the technical expert capable of harnessing the "bomb" of prosperity through a cordial and strategic relationship with the United States.

While the noise of populist attacks fades in the face of scarcity, the echo of reason points to Ebrard as the necessary architect to safeguard the economy and manage our inseparable membership in the Northern bloc.

Mexico has no time for further ideological distractions; its viability depends on leaders who prioritize the effectiveness of data over the narrative of conflict.

It is time to act as the strategic partners that geography and capital dictate, under the guidance of the one who holds the key to external harmony, or accept the consequences of becoming a forgotten and impoverished periphery.

The moment of truth has arrived.

Will Mexico save NAFTA?

 Will Mexico Save NAFTA?

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The viability of the Mexican economy in the 21st century lies not in romantic diversification toward transatlantic or Asian horizons, but in consolidating its identity as a fundamental pillar of the North American region.

Given the complex estrangement that has characterized the relationship with the Donald Trump administration, Secretary Marcelo Ebrard's strategy of strengthening ties with Ottawa is not only a shrewd diplomatic move, but an imperative for commercial survival.

Mexico and Canada now share the urgent need to rescue the continental vision that Robert Pastor proposed decades ago: an integrated North America that transcends mere geographic proximity to become a community of shared interests.

This strategic alliance seeks to shield the USMCA from protectionist impulses, recognizing that both countries are the United States' most stable and complementary partners.

Attempting to replace this bloc with support from Europe or Asia is, from a business perspective, a systemic miscalculation, given that our logistics and production structures are intrinsically designed for regional integration.

The strength of the balance of payments is the clearest indicator for decision-making in the highest corporate and diplomatic spheres.

While intra-North American trade generates a surplus that sustains macroeconomic stability and strengthens local value chains, trade relations with Asian giants and European powers tend to deepen a deficit that weakens our financial maneuvering capacity.

Far from being over, liberal globalization has been reconfigured toward a profound regionalism where proximity and security of supply are the new strategic assets.

Mexico must understand that its place at the global table depends on its ability to act as a bloc with its northern partners; any attempt at isolation or the search for geographically distant alternatives would only fragment the resilience that the most dynamic market on the planet provides us.

In this sense, the current mission is none other than to reaffirm that Mexico's prosperity is inextricably linked to the stability of North America, preventing an economic catastrophe through the technical and pragmatic defense of our continental integration.

While the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) delves into a labyrinth of sterile factionalism, where the project's founding promises seem to dissolve in a confrontation of regionalisms and particular power brokers, a figure emerges who prioritizes the viability of the State over the rhetoric of conflict.

While the party structure risks implosion due to the struggle of centrifugal leaders who neglect the general welfare, Marcelo Ebrard Casaubón is consolidating his position as the architect of a transition toward economic modernization, precisely articulating the ideal mechanisms for wealth creation and the stability of production chains. His administration transcends ideological disputes to focus on Mexico's strategic integration into the international community, demonstrating that true transformation lies not in the hegemony of any one group, but in the technical capacity to safeguard the future against uncertainty.

On the horizon of national politics, only he who holds the key to external harmony and control over the flow of capital will be able to steer the ship of state when the winds of internal discord finally run out of steam.

The path is laid out for those who understand that order is the necessary prelude to true freedom, and their moment will arrive when the echo of reason drowns out the noise of assault.

Mexico and the Canadian Bet

Mexico and the Canadian Bet

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The economic and political reality of Mexico reveals that, despite rhetoric and aspirations for independence, the country remains deeply tied to the U.S. economy.

The global trend, as evidenced by Canada's recent alliances with China, shows a shift toward diversification and the search for new trading partners.

However, in the Mexican case, this strategy is not only unfeasible but also dangerous.

Trade with the United States represents more than 80% of Mexican exports, and the dependence on this market is so pronounced that any change in U.S. policy has a direct effect on the country's economic stability.

Data indicates that Mexican imports from China have almost doubled in the last decade, reaching $62 billion by 2025, with intermediate goods that enhance the competitiveness of Mexican industry.

But this same vulnerability is reflected in exports, which reached a record $5.2 billion in 2022, primarily minerals, electronic circuits, and auto parts, all destined for China.

However, this diversification does not alter the reality: the Mexican economy is structurally designed to depend on the United States.

Canada's proposal to reduce its dependence on the U.S. through agreements with China and other countries serves as an example that Mexico cannot afford to ignore, but it also reveals the complexity of doing so without losing stability and sovereignty.

The narrative of Mexican nationalism, a pantheon of myths, has fueled a perception of self-sufficiency for decades, which in reality has only served to reinforce dependence.

The idea that Mexico can become a middle power, like Canada, requires not only a solid economic strategy but also a profound cultural shift, one that blends Anglo-Saxon and Mexican influences to build a more autonomous identity.

However, in practice, the country remains a U.S. backyard, with an economy and politics that reflect this subordination.

While Canada seeks alliances with China to reduce its dependence, Mexico remains trapped in a system where economic sovereignty is increasingly becoming an illusion.

The stark reality is that, however painful it may be to accept, Mexico cannot break free from the United States without jeopardizing its stability, its jobs, and its very future.

This dependence is not only economic, but also cultural and political, and this reality, however much it is disguised, is one of the main barriers preventing Mexico from truly taking off without this shadow that ultimately shapes its destiny.

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.

Sheinbaum and the Mickey Mouse Ears

 Sheinbaum and the Mickey Mouse Ears

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Perhaps it is due to the pressure exerted by the United States, given the risk of an economic crisis of historic proportions due to exclusion from the North American dynamic. However, President Claudia Sheinbaum is beginning to establish a decision-making process that distances herself from her predecessor. It is true that Yankee demands regarding national security may violate the powers that be in Mexico; however, the trade balance weighs more heavily, and above all, interaction with the United States. Therefore, the Mexican government must abide by Donald Trump's dictates.

The idea of ​​North America, as Robert Pastor and Alain Rouquie pointed out, is a fatal destiny for Mexico. It is impossible to pursue a radical separation after long decades in which government and society in our country conceded productive structures, markets, and labor. It is complicated to reverse the processes of an integration that, due to its influence, is more than a constant; the Mexican-American relationship is an everyday phenomenon.

Mexico's relationship with the United States is more than a symbiosis. Sheinbaum's government has discovered that it is impossible to begin building an internal market and national industrialization under the current circumstances. The most important thing now is to maintain the relationship with North America and develop the order required by Yankee imperialism.

Sheinbaum is beginning to see support from the PRI (Private Institutional Revolutionary Party), the United States, business groups, and the Armed Forces, in addition to numerous Morena-led tendencies. The PRIMOR (National Revolutionary Party) brings Sheinbaum closer to the governability implemented by Enrique Peña Nieto. Hopefully, she will gain control of local powers to prevent a moral crisis that would encourage a highly competitive succession.

State governments and authoritarian enclaves have failed to understand the importance of the United States' formal and informal economy for Mexico. Little by little, the establishment of a collaborative game between Sheinbaum and Trump succeeds in safeguarding the second level of the fourth transformation in the techno-feudal process that the globalist US oligarchy is developing as an empire.

The contradictory governance that the Mexican political system develops through its intermediaries leaves no one satisfied; it always has been that way. It is impossible for the party in power to satisfy the needs of its electorate without considering the interests of the North American economic, political, and social power circles. AMLO survived in his own way, and Sheinbaum is beginning to build her own naval route. Hopefully, she will have enough time and the winds will favor her for the good of the republic.