The Fourth Transformation Facing Donald Trump

 The Fourth Transformation Facing Donald Trump

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

In the analysis of political transitions, the theory of the rupture of the dominant coalition explains how, at certain moments, the groups sustaining a regime or political system begin to splinter or weaken due to internal changes or external pressures.

In the case of Morena—the party that has concentrated power in Mexico in recent years—one can observe a process that appears to be approaching such a rupture, particularly in light of pressure and accusations regarding U.S. intervention in the country's internal affairs.

Donald Trump and, subsequently, other actors in the United States have asserted that Mexico is governed by drug trafficking and "narco-politics," a claim that has had a profound impact on the various internal factions of Morena.

For some time now, Morena has not been a homogeneous bloc; within it exist distinct currents and figures with varied interests and loyalties.

Some of these actors—considered the "softliners"—have begun seeking agreements and understandings with U.S. authorities, hoping to safeguard their positions and avoid being directly affected by external pressures.

Others—the more radical or "hardline" elements—maintain a stance of resistance, defending national sovereignty and criticizing foreign interference.

However, tension between these internal groups has intensified in recent months, creating an atmosphere of mistrust, fragmentation, and power struggles.

The situation is reminiscent, in certain respects, of what occurred in Venezuela following the U.S. and its allies' targeting of Nicolás Maduro.

In that scenario, different factions within Chavismo split between those who accepted external negotiations to maintain their standing and those who resisted and fought to preserve the regime's autonomy.

In Mexico, some Morena actors appear to be following a similar path, seeking—from within—agreements with the United States that would allow them to preserve their influence and, in some cases, distance themselves from the radicalism that they view as a threat to their political survival.

Can we speak, then, of a rupture in Morena's dominant coalition? The evidence suggests the answer is yes. The unity that once seemed solid around López Obrador and his transformation project is now under threat.

Internal factions are increasingly acting in their own self-interest and for political survival, within a landscape where external pressure has acted as a catalyst for emerging divisions.

In this context, the struggle for power in Mexico is no longer merely an internal dispute; it has become a battle where alliances are being redrawn based on who is willing and able to negotiate with the United States, and who prefers to resist and maintain a confrontational stance.

While it cannot yet be stated with certainty that the Morena coalition has definitively fractured, the signs indicate that the process is underway.

External pressure, internal fragmentation, and power struggles are creating a scenario where alliances and loyalties are becoming blurred, and the cohesion that underpinned the so-called "Fourth Transformation" is beginning to give way.

Mexico's political history—and parallels with other cases in the region—suggest that if this trend continues, Morena could face a process similar to that of Venezuela, where internal rifts and external pressures ultimately redefine the political system in ways that cannot yet be clearly foreseen.

Donald Trump Weakens on Venezuela

 Donald Trump Weakens on Venezuela

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

US geopolitics in the region is undergoing a significant shift, with characteristics reminiscent of Theodore Roosevelt's model.

Although the use of military force is presented as a strategy of psychological pressure, this form of coercive diplomacy tolerates no resistance and sends a clear message against populist governments and established powers.

While there have been no large-scale attacks like those of recent historical periods, the implicit message is forceful: the United States is not willing to allow full political, economic, and social autonomy in this region. The potential fall of the Castro-Chavista regime in Venezuela prompts reflection on the future of nationalist populism in Latin America.

It is striking to observe the fragility of populist governments in the face of US influence, as well as the lack of significant support from the BRICS countries regarding the realities facing South America.

The question arises as to whether this context could represent any political benefit for Donald Trump.

However, it should also be noted that his decisions and excesses generate discontent even among his own electorate.

In parallel, the anti-neoliberal and decolonial discourse in Latin America seems to be reconfiguring itself in the face of US military threats.

It is essential that ideas evolve toward more effective strategies to counter imperialist dynamics.

On the other hand, the process of economic integration between Mexico and the United States presents itself, by necessity, as a display of pragmatism that cannot be ignored.

Mexico, increasingly interdependent with its northern neighbor, faces the challenge of deepening this relationship to guarantee mutual benefits.

A viable path to ensuring successful integration involves fostering a liberal culture and strengthening Mexican state institutions.

The current situation in Venezuela serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing objectives and means in the region's political trajectory.

Meanwhile, the historical aspirations of the Latin American left face significant challenges.

Its structural limitations contrast sharply with the reach of U.S. power, creating a seemingly insurmountable dynamic.

Mexico's political and economic evolution is inextricably linked to the U.S. context, making it essential to closely observe developments in the United States to anticipate the future.

The internal struggles within the Mexican state have inadvertently contributed to amplifying the United States' influence and veto power in domestic affairs.

Instead of pursuing an independence that is difficult to achieve under current conditions, it is crucial to commit to balanced and responsible collaboration that benefits both parties and fosters a more constructive environment.

Although the decline of US imperialism has been extensively debated, the military mobilization in Latin America seems to contradict this perception.

However, recent events stemming from Donald Trump's actions against progressive populism in Venezuela suggest that the weakness of the United States and the lack of clarity surrounding Trumpism are more evident.

While the unilateral measures taken against vessels deemed unsafe by the United States have been significant, the survival of so-called Castro-Chavismo in Venezuela demonstrates that the landscape has not substantially changed.

At the same time, in other strategic areas of global geopolitics, the United States is retreating in the face of its adversaries and limiting the scope of its influence as a bastion of liberal capitalist democracy.

Historical critics of US imperialism, such as Noam Chomsky, predicted that the decline of the United States would inevitably come as the resources necessary to maintain such costly geopolitical control for its taxpayers were exhausted.

Today, this premise seems to be confirmed by recent US economic decisions and geopolitical strategies.

The United States appears to be incapable of guaranteeing the protection of its own national security, adopting a mercantilist approach and ceasing to invest in major projects that would expand its geopolitical presence beyond its immediate areas of competitive influence.

This reinforces the increasingly accepted idea of ​​the decline of American imperialism.

The Trump administration's strategy, for its part, is becoming increasingly ambiguous both domestically and internationally.

In this context, the multipolar scenario gains greater relevance, and it is vital that societies understand the implications of a world governed by multiple, conflicting powers seeking to replace US hegemony.

An example of this shift is Mexico, where the influence of powers like China and Russia not only persists but could grow due to the less proactive approach of the United States.

Likewise, the expansion of the BRICS bloc and the strengthening of progressive populist regimes in Latin America appear to be inevitable trends on the regional landscape.

In parallel, the decline of the United States is generating immediate concerns, especially regarding the public policies that Mexico must adopt to address challenges such as mass deportations and immigration control.

Furthermore, it will be a priority to develop strategies to offset the economic impact stemming from both potential deportations and the reliance on informal labor, which represents a key component of the country's socioeconomic structure.

Venezuela for Ukraine

 Venezuela for Ukraine

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

In the current geopolitical realignment, the threads of power seem to weave a new and complex plot. The recent pressure exerted by the White House on Venezuela is not an isolated act, but rather emerges as a strategic lever following the Putin-Trump summit in Alaska. This bold move suggests a resurgence of the Monroe Doctrine, which seeks to reaffirm its traditional influence in Latin America, while, at the same time, Russia focuses its attention on Europe, delimiting its sphere of influence to the confines of the Intermarium.

The pulse of history shows us how regional blocs are reconfiguring their alliances, recovering designs prior to the neoliberal era. This dynamic fosters a new form of interventionism, forcing leftist governments and those with progressive sympathies—from Nicaragua and Bolivia to Mexico and Brazil—to reconsider their ties with Russia. In this context, the resurgence of the figure of "Mister Danger" takes on notable relevance, as it appears to be reclaiming its former territories of influence.

The pressure on Caracas, although intense, appears to be of a different magnitude than that of other nations. One only needs to observe the concentration of military forces and naval vessels off its coast to perceive the gravity of the situation. However, this pressure does not compare with the open and direct interventions that marked the 20th century in Latin America. There is speculation about the end of "Castro-Chavismo," but Nicolás Maduro's resilience in the face of previous crises raises doubts about the true scope of this offensive. It is possible that Trumpism is only seeking a far-reaching oil or other extractivist agreement, a pact that, if finalized, could even strengthen the Venezuelan regime, transforming it into a vassal of the United States.

For US foreign policy, the concept of "narco-states" has become the direct justification for its interventionism, transcending mere ideologies. The collusion between governments, mafias, and cartels, of which Venezuela and Mexico are clear examples for Donald Trump, has become a pretext for interference. Apparently, this phenomenon represents a real threat that demands to be combated, although the role of civil society in this drama is still uncertain. The conscription of the Venezuelan population, called for an imaginary confrontation against a supposed invasion, reveals the lack of preparation of these regimes to establish strategic defenses against imperialism. Mexico, in this arena, must closely observe the course of events in Venezuela, as it represents a window into what its own future might hold.

The fall of Nicolás Maduro and the fate of Mexico

The fall of Nicolás Maduro and the fate of Mexico

https://www.semanarioelreto.com/single-post/2019/02/04/La-ca%C3%ADda-de-Nicol%C3%A1s-Maduro-y-el-destino-de-M%C3%A9xico
February 4, 2019
Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Even though Morena is made up of a wide plurality of forces and groups that managed to unify the indignation to make López Obrador reach the presidency of Mexico, there is no cohesion and strength to inhibit the effect that the probable political change in Venezuela will have. This fact can be highly significant for the progressive governments of Latin America. The geopolitical intervention of North America activates the license for the oligarchies to radicalize their positions. In Mexico, hate campaigns, the opportunism of the media and the vileness of political actors will increase.

Progressive governments are still trying to digest the effects of neoliberal globalization, aspire to rebuild a Welfare State that distributes income, improves the condition of humanity and safeguards the environment. However, things seem ungovernable and neoliberal forces become obscure. The task is complicated in front of a society without class consciousness and much less a homeland, it only wants efficiency and results to live the moment of an ephemeral and surprising modernity.

If President Nicolás Maduro falls, the strategy used in Venezuela will be the paradigm to confront and polarize the López Obrador government. It may seem normal that in a democracy the political forces compete aggressively for power, the abnormal is the coup and disloyal behavior to the political system and the community. Government inefficiency or exhaustion of the Chavez regime combined with the ambition of the Venezuelan oligarchy, generate a difficult environment. The last ones do not care about their country, they have always been in the service of foreign forces and they have no other identity than Miami. In Mexico this has been the same for some time, these groups are latent and generate the right environment to activate.

Donald Trump wants to impose a global disaster to retain the presidency, this is a wrong route that is not only distant from the American voter, it is the cause of the exhaustion and crisis in the United States. The republicans do not finish assimilating the lesson: to intervene abroad implies that the internal problems multiply and the cost is assumed by the taxpayer. Interventionism is equal to immigration and excessive subsidies for useless missions abroad. Globalization is uncontrollable and, therefore, the United States must concentrate on its local problems. Trump must fulfill the campaign promises, assume the nationalist character he promised, take the transnationals to his home and provide employment for his people.

In Mexico, the opposition to López Obrador will use all the smear and fear campaigns that are within their reach, they have no limits and are capable of putting the people against the people. AMLO is in the same position as Vicente Fox at the beginning of his six-year term: he generates immediate results or adheres to the usual corrupt ones to simulate governability. Big Fish!, demanded the one with the boots, a people hurt by so many years of suffering. The understanding of the dilemma may reduce the enmity between both characters.

The media war sooner or later has effects and are exhausting for the government in turn. There is no society immune to so much poison, there is no community that supports more pain in countries like Mexico. It is time for our country and the Ibero-American region to understand that, as Juan Linz pointed out, presidentialism does not serve as a form of government and only generates the license for US interventions. Parliamentarism is the necessary vaccine for political forces to force themselves to collaborate and avoid scenarios such as Chile in 1973 or Guatemala in 1954. If Venezuela were a parliamentarian, would there be a coup? The pettiness of the opposition has to be transformed into governmental co-responsibility, nobody needs revolutions or Vietnams, system re-engineering is needed. While the eternal reform of the State in Mexico will forget this point, the Kissinger, the CIA, the Marines and the counterinsurgency will always return.

The dialogue with the true civil society, the opposition to Donald Trump and the alternative movements are effective strategies in the short term; however, they are placebos braking a pathology that is seen as metastasis. The change of the form of government in Mexico is a necessary line for not reaching Venezuela.

Anticommunism, the old rage in Latin America

Anticommunism, the old rage in Latin America
January 31, 2019
Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero
https://www.semanarioelreto.com/single-post/2019/01/31/Anticomunismo-la-a%C3%B1eja-rabia-hispanoamericana

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) no longer exists; However, in Latin America the political culture seems to have not heard. When Latin American governments and politicians insist on becoming nationalists, soon disqualifications arise where the anticommunist paroxysm radically sprouts. This unreason has been the factor that, throughout the twentieth century, has prevented the consolidation of the State and the Republic; underdevelopment is the obvious consequence. To end the eternal Latin American poverty, in terms of Rhina Roux, it is enough to return their costumes to the Prince.

Anti-communism was accompanied by unbearable US military interventions. The geopolitical capacity of the North American empire has been radical in the conjunctural moments of Latin nationalism. But times have changed, democratization and the market modified the international game; The United States will end up hurting itself if it decides to summon the anticommunist networks of its strategy.

Robert Pastor describes the conflictive cycle of Spanish-American relations as "swirling". Neither learns nor tries to understand the other. The concrete thing is that Yankee interventionism only results in poverty, corruption, emigration, drug trafficking and all the ills of what is now called the "Failed State". These diseases have been infected and spread in the American Union, the advances of these pathologies within American social capital are stratospheric. Samuel Huntington and George Friedman have warned it decades ago, the United States must stop attending to the ayatollahs of hate and religious fundamentalists just as they did when they let go of Edmund Walsh if they do not want to fail as it happened recently with the most extensive of their paralyzes governmental.

Venezuela's populist regime is exhausted, it's true; however, worse is a military intervention and ridiculous an immediate request for elections. Maduro must be helped to complete his government or make general elections at a reasonable, fair and competitive time. To seek a solution like the one in Guatemala in 1954 is to forget how much the world has changed. The anti-communists stayed in 1905. The world can scrupulously observe the following elections and the Bolivarian government must abandon power if the people no longer hold it.

Today there is Russia, an old empire with a geopolitical and military power similar to the United States but with a greater capacity to adapt to the times of globalization. American society knows the Russian power in its own flesh, it is the modern instruments - formal and informal - that allowed the recovery and development of the most significant central state of the Slavic Baltic civilization. The 1962 crisis could be repeated; but, this time, the nuclear warheads and something else would remain. Venezuela is not alone.

Robert Pastor rightly points out that the teleological principles of American foreign policy must change with respect to Latin America. The American Union must extend throughout the continent and the region can share development, democracy and security in a co-responsible and confederate manner. Local anti-communism must be rejected not only because it is anachronistic but also because it is dangerous and abusive. Latin American schizophrenia always results in the benefit of a parasitic and medieval oligarchy. Even though the Catholic Church has ceased to be anti-Communist and Mario Bergoglio himself placed himself in a position similar to that of the Mexican government, the Constantine radicals long for the arrival of the Marines everywhere and in all the countries of the hemisphere. His great technocratic capacity only reaches to produce mentalities like that of Luis Pazos.

Anti-anti-Communism can be a reference of our time. Communism is dead and it is time that anticommunism - and its brothers: Nazism, Judeophobia, clericalism, fascism, etc. - also do it. How else will ideas and politics be renewed in our republics?