This topic addresses the geopolitics of Mexico. One thinks that Mexico is part of the U.S. backyard. The backyard may be outside the exceptional space of American identity, but one might say the same for the "inner city" in the United States. Besides, no matter how foreign it might be, it is still our backyard. This is even more the case since the implantation of a neoliberal order in Mexico, beginning with the debt crisis of the early 1980s, extending through NAFTA in the mid 1990s and Pena Nieto's Pacto por Mexico in 2013. In the discourse of U.S. policy makers, the neoliberal order is nothing less than "our globalization", which we should be willing to defend. Or, in the words of Thomas Shannon (formerly of the U.S. State Department), the United States has achieved economic integration with Mexico and now it must defend that achievement; it must, in effect, "armor NAFTA." But from whom?
The answer back in 1994 when NAFTA went to effect was the Zapatista rebels in the state of Chiapas, who declared war against neo-liberalism in Mexico. By 2006, the new enemy had become drug cartels that were threatening to transform Mexico into a failed state. The Calderon administration (2006-2012) deployed the Mexican military against the cartels, with the catastrophic result of intensifying political and criminal violence in Mexico. Beginning in 2007, the U.S. initiated the Merida Initiative, a program of dispensing increased amounts of military aid and government funding - much of this oriented toward the modernization of Mexico's criminal justice system.
The interesting point here is that neoliberalism, far from requiring just a minimal state to defend property rights, needs a strong state capable of producing order in the midst of neoliberal economic restructuring. This restructuring is a matter of organizing society in terms of transnational market forces - and removing impediments from the operation of these forces. From this point of view, the neoliberal order has to be defended from those who would resist it.
This order, however, might be politically disrupted. This is the threat of democracy to neoliberalism. That threat has Washington on edge, particularly as Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) enjoys a commanding lead, according to opinion polls, in Mexico's presidential elections. The 2018 elections are more consequential than even the control of the presidency: 3,000 elective offices will be up for grabs on July 1, 2018, from municipal presidents, to governor to state and federal legislators.
The problem is not just how Mexicans will vote, but how they may be influenced by Russian efforts to swing the election toward AMLO in order to destabilize the United States. Russian presence in Mexico dates back to the cold war, points out Council on Foreign Relations Shannon O'Neil. AMLO is, from this point of view, similar to the communist parties of the Cold War era: he is a vector of foreign - i.e., not American - influence in Mexico. Mexico, warns O'Neil, "remains extremely vulnerable to the Russian influence that occurred in the 2016 U.S. election." O'Neil continues by noting that "Disinformation campaigns are most effective when they prey upon deep seated beliefs and latent conflict. The U.S. and Mexico have these in spades."
This is an interesting remark. O'Neil is securitizing the Mexican election as a national security issue for the United States because of the way in which the United States must control the space of neo-liberalism. It is not even that clear that AMLO poses much of an overt threat to it. After all, he does not intend to raise taxes on the Mexican economic elite, or back out of NAFTA - although he is interested in reversing Pena Nieto's partial privatization of Mexico's oil industry. AMLO served as mayor of Mexico City from 2000 to 2005 and during that time, he worked with the richest man in Mexico, Carlos Slim, to pursue the expansion of Mexico City's airport and the refurbishment of its historical center. He oversaw investment in public infrastructure and education. These facts are not consistent with the narrative that Putin is planing to use AMLO "to wreak havoc on the U.S.-Mexico relationship" and "damage the U.S. and weaken the western world order."
To go back to O'Neil's language, Mexico and the United states do not have actual conflicts, but latent ones. The supposition here is that the neoliberal project is built around a community of interests that AMLO is outside this community. He is an outsider because he is atavistic, wanting to return Mexico to a failed project of economic nationalism. Linking the Mexican elections to concerns with Russian interference reinforces this point. Maybe it also reflects the liberal anxiety that the world is slipping from economic integration to fragmentation. Mexico is another space in the struggle to defend liberalism from the forces of regression.
The answer back in 1994 when NAFTA went to effect was the Zapatista rebels in the state of Chiapas, who declared war against neo-liberalism in Mexico. By 2006, the new enemy had become drug cartels that were threatening to transform Mexico into a failed state. The Calderon administration (2006-2012) deployed the Mexican military against the cartels, with the catastrophic result of intensifying political and criminal violence in Mexico. Beginning in 2007, the U.S. initiated the Merida Initiative, a program of dispensing increased amounts of military aid and government funding - much of this oriented toward the modernization of Mexico's criminal justice system.
The interesting point here is that neoliberalism, far from requiring just a minimal state to defend property rights, needs a strong state capable of producing order in the midst of neoliberal economic restructuring. This restructuring is a matter of organizing society in terms of transnational market forces - and removing impediments from the operation of these forces. From this point of view, the neoliberal order has to be defended from those who would resist it.
This order, however, might be politically disrupted. This is the threat of democracy to neoliberalism. That threat has Washington on edge, particularly as Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) enjoys a commanding lead, according to opinion polls, in Mexico's presidential elections. The 2018 elections are more consequential than even the control of the presidency: 3,000 elective offices will be up for grabs on July 1, 2018, from municipal presidents, to governor to state and federal legislators.
The problem is not just how Mexicans will vote, but how they may be influenced by Russian efforts to swing the election toward AMLO in order to destabilize the United States. Russian presence in Mexico dates back to the cold war, points out Council on Foreign Relations Shannon O'Neil. AMLO is, from this point of view, similar to the communist parties of the Cold War era: he is a vector of foreign - i.e., not American - influence in Mexico. Mexico, warns O'Neil, "remains extremely vulnerable to the Russian influence that occurred in the 2016 U.S. election." O'Neil continues by noting that "Disinformation campaigns are most effective when they prey upon deep seated beliefs and latent conflict. The U.S. and Mexico have these in spades."
This is an interesting remark. O'Neil is securitizing the Mexican election as a national security issue for the United States because of the way in which the United States must control the space of neo-liberalism. It is not even that clear that AMLO poses much of an overt threat to it. After all, he does not intend to raise taxes on the Mexican economic elite, or back out of NAFTA - although he is interested in reversing Pena Nieto's partial privatization of Mexico's oil industry. AMLO served as mayor of Mexico City from 2000 to 2005 and during that time, he worked with the richest man in Mexico, Carlos Slim, to pursue the expansion of Mexico City's airport and the refurbishment of its historical center. He oversaw investment in public infrastructure and education. These facts are not consistent with the narrative that Putin is planing to use AMLO "to wreak havoc on the U.S.-Mexico relationship" and "damage the U.S. and weaken the western world order."
To go back to O'Neil's language, Mexico and the United states do not have actual conflicts, but latent ones. The supposition here is that the neoliberal project is built around a community of interests that AMLO is outside this community. He is an outsider because he is atavistic, wanting to return Mexico to a failed project of economic nationalism. Linking the Mexican elections to concerns with Russian interference reinforces this point. Maybe it also reflects the liberal anxiety that the world is slipping from economic integration to fragmentation. Mexico is another space in the struggle to defend liberalism from the forces of regression.
Comments
Post a Comment