Luis Rubio

The China-United States conflict precedes Trump. After years of economic complementarity, for which someone coined the word “Chimerica” to describe a relationship that ties together the relative strengths of each of those nations -manufacture for the Asian giant, creativity and technological innovation for the superpower- these two began to distance themselves from each other. Many were the causes of the separation, but there is no doubt that the disconnect unleashed enormous forces around the world, at the same time accentuating the characteristics of each of the parties. On the U.S. side, the retraction hardened with respect to the so-called globalization, while China focused on propping up its strengths, starting with that of technological education. Many lessons here for Mexico in both cases.

In a recent article by Sam Dunning entitled China’s Unstoppable Chinese STEM Army: America can’t halt Chinese innovation, the author describes the contrast between U.S. failures in educational matters, above all its distance regarding technical training, in the face of the Chinese emphasis on science (S), technology (T), engineering (E), and mathematics (M). China, just as have many of the most successful Asian nations, dedicated themselves to build a future on a solid platform of physical, health, and educational infrastructure. In what concerns education, as this article suggests, the Chinese favor scientific and technical education to increase the productivity of their economy and to raise the standard of living of their population. From that logic derives an entire ensemble of actions that not only have permitted them to transform their economy and their country in general, but also to establish the bases for their future. As other nations of that region have evidenced, it is yet to be determined whether it is possible to sustain compatibility between their political system and their economic development, but what there is no doubt about is the spectacular transformation that China has undergone over the past four decades. 

In the light of that panorama, one must ask oneself what is it that Mexico has achieved during that same period. Like China, Mexico recognized in the eighties that its economy no longer functioned, and that major surgery would be required to confront the challenges imposed by a growing and demanding population. From that time, a period was embarked upon of economic reforms and, eventually, political reforms, which modified the economic structure from the country’s core, as well as of the structure of power. However, no one is surprised that, despite an infinity of advances, the result has not been wholly satisfactory and much less so when it is compared with what nations in other latitudes have achieved that invested in educational systems and infrastructure in systematic fashion.

The appeal that China has for many members of Mexico’s Morena Party in that context is evident. At least one should be grateful that they see in China an example and not in Cuba or Venezuela. At the end of the day these Morena constituents understand that what is indeed significant here is in effect the economic transformation. Nonetheless, what they yearn for in China is the authoritarian structure of political control that the Chinese government exercises. On the other hand, it does not stop being paradoxical that they are attracted by the results, but they are not willing to do the work to get to a similar place.  Where are the infrastructure projects -based on cost-benefit calculations- that would liken Mexico to the Asian giant? Where is the promotion of private enterprises to carry out that transformation? Where can one find the educational system oriented toward technological development? The model that appears attractive to them involves a great deal of work that no one in Morena seems interested in replicating.

Much more relevant is the example that other Asian nations provide that attained similar transformations without the brutal authoritarian controls that distinguish China. Korea, Taiwan and even Thailand, Vietnam and Maylasia, not to mention India, illustrate reform processes much closer to those of the Mexican one, some having obtained the consolidation of fully democratic political systems on a par with notable economic and social successes. It is obvious that there isn’t only one way to advance, but the Mexican way has been clumsy, to say the least. In very much the Mexican own style, after the initiation of the reforms, an incomplete but articulate and coherent project, what followed was reactive when not the product of mere occurrences.

And there it is where Mexico persists: in occurrences, dreams and disputes. The great lesson that the diverse Asian nations depict is their clarity of course and their concentration on the construction of conditions to make possible the attainment of their objectives. Mexico has gone from failure to failure: some administrations liberalize, others impose controls; some worry about security, others revile it, without doing anything to resolve the underlying problem. All talk, but no one confronts the true obstacles that keep the country prostrated.  

The past cannot be changed, but instead of seeing Trump as a threat, why not see him (or use him) as an opportunity for taking a great leap forward, to provoke the transformation that Mexico obviously requires but that appears to be hindered by all those interests and dogmas.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Two very different moments portray recent times. One is that of AMLO and what he represented. The other is that of Claudia Sheinbaum. Although they have stemmed from the same locus in these last years, from Morena specifically, their histories are clearly distinct. The movement that AMLO headed was, in the words of Fernando Escalante, “a great offensive of the political class against the State.” The second moment is that of the current government, whose origin no longer harkens back to any of the PRI currents of the 20^th century but instead refers to the political Left that emerged with the university student movement in the eighties and that eventually fused with the “historical” Left into what ended up being the United Socialist Party of Mexico (PSUM). Although one government arose from the other and insists on persevering in the project of the ancestor, its essence is different and will undergo distinct consequences. However, rather than leading toward a great future, both have succumbed to what Román Revueltas calls a “strong and non-negotiable Mexicanness.”

As a “son” of PRI, AMLO dedicated himself to concentrating presidential power and to conferring preeminence on the government. AMLO’s project was easily identifiable as derived from revolutionary nationalism, one of the two prominent branches of the PRI in its origins. The PRIsts always entertained the conviction of sticking to the formal rules, at least in appearance, modifying -but not annulling- the status quo and, above all else, preserving political stability. The materialization of that vision lay in economic growth as a factor of both development as well as of stability, values that AMLO opted to subordinate for the building of a clientelist system with obvious political as well as electoral benefits, but at a monumental cost for stability and the future. Where he deviated with respect to the tradition of his party-of-origin was in AMLO’s contempt for formalities and institutions. While his predecessors carefully honed their discourse and outwardly revered the institutions although all the while violating their rules (under cover of darkness), AMLO chose to concentrate the power in his person, not in the presidency. Perhaps more transcendent, his entire government devoted itself to undermining, if not destroying, the legacy that he defined as “neoliberalism,” the economic project that pulled the country out of the ditch from the eighties on and that led, indirectly, to the political liberalization of the nineties.

During her first months as President, Claudia Sheinbaum has clung to the pathway marked by her predecessor, but she has been exhibiting significant differences. Above anything else, by personality, history and training, she is the most distant from the old PRI that Mexicans have known. While her PAN predecessors continued to pay deference to the ways of the old system, she has etched her own style from day one, beginning with the reverence she shows toward her predecessor, something heretofore unknown in previous Mexican political history. Secondly, in contrast with AMLO, she not only understands the importance of economic growth in terms of attacking poverty and inequality, two of her project’s central values, she is also poised to find the way to accelerate it. Her strategy for achieving this (budgetary, rhetorical and institutional) can contradict that purpose, but it does not seem to me that there exists the least doubt regarding her conviction in that respect, further evidenced by her dedication to dealing with Trump. Third, her security strategy recognizes de facto notonly the enormous deficit left to her by her predecessor, but also the brutal cost of those famous bear hugs, as they comprised an incentive for the consolidation of organized crime in diverse regions of the country and sectors of the economy. Finally, she has been explicit in her conviction that the government has the responsibility of not only leading the development of the country, but also of regulating it and being the central factor in that process through public enterprises. That is, her stance remains one of Leftist conviction, not of convenience, such as that of her predecessor. 

Clearly, these are not irreconcilable visions, but they are very distinct. Both favor the government over the market and public enterprises over private investment. Also, both share an anti-American streak, independently of whether, on their rational side, they recognize the need (or inevitability) of preserving the trade agreement with North America as well as a functional relation with the American people. Paradoxically, in many senses, both AMLO and the President represent much of the traditional character of the Mexican.

Román Revueltas argues this from start to finish: “Mexico has ended up not liking the West. It also is not thrilled with modernity. It takes solace in, it is true, the permanent evocation of a mythical past, local of necessity, obligatorily autochthonous.” Revueltas poses the central dilemma that the country faces from an anthropological perspective: “The outdated victimization of our people, inculcated at an early age in the schools and seasoned with the corresponding resentment, has rendered the flowering of a strange repudiation of our Northern neighbors.”

AMLO navigated without committing himself; now in the Trump era, Mexico has no choice but to define itself fully: toward the future or toward the past. The President will have to choose.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Absolute power, insinuated by Lord Acton, is not a guarantee of good government. And even more so when all that power lies in the hands of an ethereal entity called the Morena party that, now without the active leadership in control of all the processes of AMLO, is becoming a complex, increasingly bureaucratic entity with a propensity toward fragmentation. And worse yet when the absence of even the most minimal semblance of counterweight -the result of the popular vote as well as of the illegal overrepresentation in Congress produced by AMLO- does nothing other than embolden the most extreme, radical and disruptive elements of the party.  All of this leaves a president in control of part of the administration and with a demonstrated ability for conducting the complex relationship with Trump, but not with recognition of what makes an economy work.

The contradiction is conspicuous. In fact, read contradictions, in the plural. Morena, everything that that “movement” represents, is allergic to economic growth, but this is required to finance the interminable cash transfers it needs to fuel its client base, without which the supposed hegemony would cease to exist. AMLO understood well the inconsistency between loyalty and economic improvement: when people progress and become middle class, he said, they stop being loyal, thus it’s better to keep them poor and dependent. That worked for a while, but, as illustrated by the excessive and irresponsible fiscal deficit incurred in 2024, its limits are egregious, the reason why President Sheinbaum knows there is no option other than promoting economic growth. Her “Plan México” constitutes a recognition of that political imperative but also evidences the enormous distance between the objective -growth and nearshoring- and her comprehension of what would be required for productive investment to materialize.

Morena has driven a series of laws, constitutional amendments and incoherent regulations, nearly all these incompatible with a growing economy. The upcoming recession is palpable proof of this: however much the functionaries congratulate each other on the investment received from the exterior in recent years, the reality is that there has been practically no investment since the beginning of the past government of AMLO back in 2018. The savers, entrepreneurs and investors, national as well as foreign, have many options at their command and will never opt for those that entail intolerable risks. Risks such as those inherent in a politicized judiciary, a bureaucracy that changes the rules of the game according to the whims of the functionary or president in turn and, above all, a political apparatus that can change the Constitution in the blink of an eye. Only out of ideological zeal and political intransigence can it be expected to attract investment in this way. 

The era in which the markets, mainly the financial ones, could dictate the limits of governmental acting (of all world governments), as took place during the last nearly half century, has passed, giving way to the reappearance of the power of the State. However, investment can equally be directed to distinct places, depending on the objective conditions of each locality. The term nearshoring has been in the vernacular of the world of commerce and the economy for years and the logic would seem to establish it as obvious that Mexico would be the great beneficiary of that geopolitical circumstance due to its geographic location and the existence of the United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement (USMCA). Notwithstanding this, there have been at least three slipshod governments that assumed that the opportunity would materialize on its own with no effort (or that it was not an opportunity at all). The evidence shows that the great beneficiaries have been countries such as Vietnam, Indonesia and the Dominican Republic, nations that seized the opportunity without flinching.

And then came Trump. To date (and this could change in an instant) President Sheinbaum has achieved a functional relationship, skirting the worst outbursts of her U.S. counterpart, but the fragility of the relationship is evident, whenever the gentleman in question wallows in a half-cooked idea or, more important, in the enormous vulnerability of Mexico, which Trump understands full well. Still more importantly, the “arrangements” arrived at do not include objective measures to which the parties can remit in the case of a disagreement, implying that everything is (and I fear will be) in the air for the next four years. And there is no worse dissuasive element to saving and investment than instability and uncertainty.

What is peculiar is President Sheinbaum’s extraordinary (and praiseworthy) willingness to negotiate with Trump and to devise ways and arguments to pacify him in the face of the absolute indisposition to understand and accept the need to review deep-rooted concepts and prejudices that are contrary and counterproductive for appealing to investment and promoting economic growth. It is not sufficient to recognize the need for growth and private investment (a milestone in itself after AMLO), because a decision to save or invest does not hinge on the rhetoric, but instead on the objective conditions and these have come to evolve as running precisely counter to what a potential investor requires and demands. 

As Deirdre McCloskey states, “the evidence is overwhelming: that liberty, not coercion by a private master or a public state, inspires people to continuous betterment. For the poorest.”

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Mexico is split into two worlds with perceptions appearing to be irreconcilable. According to recent surveys, President Sheinbaum commands more than 70% approval, while the remainder of society disapproves of her, frequently in resounding fashion. In general terms, these numbers are not radically distinct from those observed in the 2024 presidential election or from the trends of recent years. Perhaps the big question is what this tells us about the present, but, above all, with respect to the future of the country.       

The first thing that should be elucidated is wherefore these numbers derive because on their permanence depends the entire governmental strategy. When the government relies on such high approval numbers it is easy for it to ignore the rest of society, whether because the government loses sight of it or because it has consciously decided to ignore it. That is, this is about a calculation and a wager: the calculation concerning whether that support base can be maintained with the existing strategies and the wager having to do with there not being factors that alter the equation.

According to Alejandro Moreno’s surveys starting in 2023, 60% of the population felt satisfied, it had seen the growth of its real income thus of its consumption capacity, therefore it approved of the then-president’s management. On its part, the remaining 40% disapproved of the president’s management on considering that it was damaging the future well-being and attempting against the prospects of growth and development. The central difference between the two contingents lies in the level of schooling, as well as in the contrast relative to their place in the socioeconomic structure: those who live day-to-day against those able to count on relative certainty in their economic future. The former have benefitted from the direct transfer programs of the Morena governments, while the latter agonize over the country’s long-term stability and viability.   

That is, the crux of the contrast seems to lie in each contingent’s perspective of time. For the cohort that feels satisfied, what is important is the here and now; for the remaining 40% what matters is the perception of the future: Where are we going? This is about perspectives emanating from very distinct visions and economic realities, that expose the circumstance of a divided country: the one that has had the opportunity to advance on the education ladder and the one that remained mired in an educational system that does not prepare one for the job market nor for life. The former enjoy reliable employment while the latter count on governmental “supports.”

Perceptions are crucial for electoral purposes, but they constitute a risk when their support system is tenuous. To the degree that the government can guarantee that its cash transfers will continue to flow and that their real value will not erode through greater inflation, the bet would seem reasonable. Contrariwise, to the extent that the economy was to confront adverse head winds, the strategy would become exceedingly risk ridden.  

To date, the government has preserved a politico-electoral strategy designed by AMLO sustained not only in the transfers, but also in an introspective vision of the economy, geared toward protecting what exists. With some exceptions, the current government has followed the same general trend, but, although with a content that is more ideological and more quarrelsome and defying, as illustrated by the recent exchanges with Trump, it has recognized the importance, and inevitability, of closer economic ties with the U.S.

Were one to observe the panorama without electoral bias, the present government strategy would appear to be quite daring. On the one hand, the economy faces essential problems: inflation continues to be high; the debt, while not at catastrophic levels, has been growing; the fiscal deficit is highly worrisome (in itself as well as the manner in which it affects the creditworthiness determined by the rating agencies); and the potential conflict with Trump threatens the viability of the principal growth engine of the economy, the exports. On the other hand, except for the issue of security, where it is clear that a new strategy is being attempted, the government has not been doing anything to revert the sub-standard trends observed in education, health, infrastructure, justice, and the Rule of Law. In any case, the reforms of the past months in matters of justice, energy and autonomous entities point in the opposite direction. 

In diverse forums, President Sheinbaum has expressed her conviction that nearshoring comprises a great opportunity for building a successful future. This deals with, without doubt, a possibility that could be fruitful. However, the wager would imply returning to square one in terms of what has been done in the past months for the sake of creating an environment of predictability for investment and conditions for Mexicans emerging from the educational system to possess the qualifications that the job market exacts. We certainly are not there as of today.

When one contemplates the government’s approval and disapproval numbers, the relevant question is who will be right at the end of the road: those who are satisfied or those who are worried because they see the risks multiplying and that the opportunities are not such.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

An old American saying goes that “it takes two to tango.” For many decades, Mexico and the United States learned to dance with each other, though, after a serious and promising start, their heart stopped being there. In the eighties, amid a severe economic crisis that threatened to the destroy the country, Mexico began a series of internal reforms and opted to get closer to the United States, a decision that implied a radical rupture in historical terms, to ensure the viability of the reformist project and the Mexican economy in the long term. The United States saw the moment as the great opportunity that it could offer Mexico for it to transform itself. The original agreement, NAFTA, followed this political rationale. However, the seeds of a complex future were sowed from the very beginning, as Mexico contemplated the free trade arrangement as the end of a process of internal reform, while the United States saw it as the beginning of a great transformation of its southern neighbor. Today, it is the United States that is experiencing a convulsion, leaving little doubt that, whatever the outcome, it will impact Mexico.

Trump won his second term with the majority of the popular vote and converted it into a license to alter the status quo in radical fashion. Assisted by his new great friend, the businessman Elon Musk, Trump has provoked not only major revisions in international relations, tariffs, and the agency for international development (USAID), but he has also devoted himself to restricting public expenditures already approved by the Congress, promoting the early retirement of vast segments of the bureaucracy, eliminating agencies and departments without warning, thus creating enormous confusion. There are many ways to read the ultimate objective, but the whole structure of the American government is experiencing spasms and contortions.

Interpretations of what is being attempted fluctuate from the extreme that Trump pretends to become an autocratic king, to those that suggests that the process led by Musk aims to discredit the government itself. Though these interpretations are not exclusive, they reflect the personalities of the central actors in this drama. The history of the U.S. started with the rejection of European religious imposition (from which much of the derision to a strong central government derives), to which one must add the libertarian current to which Musk belongs, who believes that a government must function the way a business works. On his part, Trump has a series of well-established ideas, among which the use of tariffs is preponderant as a negotiating instrument (a key trait of the American president, who sees the world as a series of transactions), as much as his sense of revenge against the “deep state” that, in his reading, is responsible for the steal of his electoral victory back in 2020.

Both Trump and Musk have a history that explains much of their vision and, especially of the viciousness with which they are acting. Trump got to the presidency with a deep sense of resentment due to his perception that his country has been the victim of its own actions, starting with the Marshall plan after the second world war, to the growth of China as a competitor of the United States, and including the countries that, like Mexico, have become important suppliers of inputs, all of which he sees as an afront to the average American worker. On his part, Musk grew up in the era of apartheid in South African and saw how that society deteriorated, which led him to become a maximalist in his demands for order. The combination of these two characters explains much of the noise that emanates from the north and that affects the rest of the world.

Seen from afar, especially from Mexico, which has recent experience with an aspirant autocrat (with the power to make it true), the big question is whether the United States has effective counterweights to contain the excesses in which Trump might incur. One way to assess this would be to look into the control that the party of the president has in its legislative chambers and many governorships, but it would be excessive to derive from this a certainty that these august bodies would bend to the desires of the president. In contrast with Mexico, American legislators have to respond to their voters, which limits the propensity to yield before the pressures of the president (which are not small). Furthermore, there is no uniformity of ideology, politics or practice among Republican members of Congress, as illustrated by the endless juggling that the Republican Speaker of the House must play to attempt to get his budget approved, even if only for a few months at a time. Checks and balances appear more effective than they might seem.

The other factors of counterweigh are the markets and, in the long run, the most transcendent, is the judges, several of whom have thwarted the president’s actions and issued restraining orders to the presidential duo. It remains to be seen how the Supreme Court aligns itself, given that its members have, both by structure and necessity, to respond to history and not to the president or whomever appointed them. The prospect is, inexorably, of a time of uncertainty and unpredictability, just when Mexico requires the opposite… In any case, the stakes are enormous for Americans, the world and, certainly, USMCA and Mexico in general.

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Perhaps there is no greater factor of dissonance in national political life than the confrontation of visions, interpretations and expectations that characterizes the ongoing political debate and public opinion: for some everything is fine, for others everything is bad. Part of the explanation surely originates in an ideological clash that leads to extreme perceptions and part in an idealization of the present or the past, respectively, and its consequent extrapolation. Is there a way to elucidate what is behind the clash of visions?

The conflicting narratives are very clear: for those who perceive that everything is bad, democracy is dead, and the future can only worsen; for others, everything is fine: people are happy, the government is popular and, therefore, the future is promising. Are both equally valid? The answer is key for the future, the economy and the government itself.

There are two “hard” facts that allow us to analyze the phenomenon: one is that AMLO’s popularity was almost never below 60% and that of CS is above 70%. The other fact, which is repeated regularly in the polls, is that the country is divided into two blocks: the 60% who are happy and the 40% who are not. The first ones live mostly from day to day and their circumstances have improved in recent times thanks to remittances, cash transfers and the minimum wage. For their part, the 40% have a reliable economic situation (a job or a stable income) that allows them to think about the future and they see with concern the dislocation of some key variables (such the lack of counterweights, the debt, deficit, productivity).

Two things seem unquestionable: one is that popularity does not guarantee the permanence of the status quo or economic and financial viability. The other is that, as a consequence of recent constitutional changes, the political reality that today many see as catastrophic was not as popular or successful as the detractors of the reforms claim. I do not mean to suggest that the outlook is benign, only that Mexican democracy was weak, that AMLO violated electoral legislation with impunity and that as soon as the Supreme Court challenged presidential power it was overthrown. In other words, the supposed supports and counterweights of democracy were more mythical than real.

For the majority of the population (that 60% who voted for Morena), the “democratization” of corruption, the inequality that AMLO skillfully exploited and the deterioration of real income in recent decades weighed more heavily. Democracy, plurality and its structures were never popular.

It is not that today’s pessimists were blind to everyday reality. They simply tended to see what was happening benignly or as problems to be solved; thus, much of their current pessimism stems from the fact that constitutional formalization makes those potential solutions impossible, which undoubtedly constitutes a profound political change.

My point is not to justify either narrative, but to understand that reality was much less favorable than what those who today denounce political deterioration argue, while recognizing that the government (AMLO and CS) has been much more skillful in responding to the daily concerns of the majority of the population. This does not imply that their strategy is good or sustainable, but that it has been extraordinarily effective and popular.

I have no doubt that part of the explanation for the contradictory narratives lies in the fact that the population has normalized (or taken for granted) things that would be unacceptable in other latitudes such as insecurity, corruption, low growth or poor public services. But, in contrast to that, real income and the consequent growth in consumption have had an obvious political benefit. It remains to be seen whether popularity responds to a new legitimacy or if it is a mere reflection of economic improvement, key factors in electoral terms.

All of which does not mean that the most thoughtful and worrying analyses regarding the future are wrong, only that they are out of sync with current reality. Analytically, it is obvious that the government strategy works only so long as the factors or vectors that support it do not change. If at any time the variables (exchange rate, public finances, USMCA, rating agencies) that make the government strategy possible and viable are altered, everything would change. Also, the absence of counterweights will inexorably affect investment decisions, with their consequent impact on the rate of economic growth.

In the end, the crucial factor lies in the government’s ability and willingness to respond skillfully and quickly to the challenges, both internal and external, that may arise. While AMLO enjoyed an extremely favorable environment, CS faces a much more uncertain outlook, largely due to the complex legacy that AMLO left both economically and in the constitutional structure, but also because of Trump. Her responses to date have been more geared toward wrapping herself in the flag to satisfy her base and ideology than responding to a changing reality. But the future depends on how she responds.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis RubioFebruary 10, 2025

​ Summarize

​

After Colombia’s president took on U.S. President Trump and lost, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has managed this new complex relationship with remarkable deftness and clarity of purpose. But can this strategy be maintained with Trump’s mind set on tariffs everywhere?

After Colombia’s president took on U.S. President Trump and lost, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has managed this new complex relationship with remarkable deftness and clarity of purpose. But can this strategy be maintained with Trump’s mind set on tariffs everywhere? 

Updated February 10, 2025 at 5:10 p.m.*

MEXICO CITY — Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro taught Mexico a valuable lesson, though he surely didn’t mean to. It took on the United States’ combative president, Donald Trump and lost in no time.

Compared to such reckless abandon, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has managed this complex new relationship with remarkable deftness and clarity of purpose. Evidently it is too soon to hail victory but the results are not bad, so far. Our challenge of course is to defend our position on multiple fronts, over the long-term.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only trulyinternational newsletter. Sign up here.

Trump is a born negotiator. His record so far shows he likes to test his opponents with a bit of pushing and shoving coupled with threats, then cornering them to see what they’re made of. Depending on the response, he will strike back until he gets what he wants. But as his book says: The aim is to win, whatever the stakes.

Art of the deal, across the border

He attacks to the left and the right, and then more once he’s landed a punch. So a sensible way of progressing with him would be to give him his winning space without paying too high a price.

The Mexican government might even think of leveraging its own projects with Trump’s objectives (and above all, resources). The first though not the only example that comes to mind is in fighting crime. The last administration, led by the president’s former mentor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, chose “hugs over bullets” to curb crime, leaving a nation at the nightmarish mercy of cartels and hoodlums and its successor facing a big challenge, in euphemistic terms.

It would be a grave error to despise or underestimate Trump.

As López Obrador allowed criminal gangs to expand and dig into their chosen territories, they worked on equipping themselves with armored vehicles and ever-more sophisticated weaponry. The power of crime has thus grown exponentially against a wavering state. Putting aside all jingoism then, we could do with a bit of help and collaboration from our butch neighbor, before the government is overwhelmed.

“Not good enough”

Whatever one’s opinion of Trump, it would be a grave error to despise or underestimate him. That’s precisely what Petro did. Instead of devising a strategy for dealing with Trump, he launched into a tirade online without thinking of the consequences. His diatribe on X was so clumsy it practically handed Trump an instant victory. Within hours, Colombia had accepted the administration’s entire packet of demands and conditions, or as our former president liked to say in his morning press shows, he just bent over.

Sheinbaum has so far shielded the country from the storm. Whatever it is she’s doing, it’s working, bar a slight problem: Trump won’t rest.

Asked in a Fox News interview on Sunday about the pledges from Mexico and Canada to boost border security to stop illegal drugs from entering the U.S., and therefore stave off Trump’s steep tariffs, the president’s response was: “No, it’s not good enough.”

If promises and pledges won’t suffice, and our government has little leeway in facing down his demands — what are we to do… for the next four years?Soldiers of the Mexican Army are on duty on the border between Mexico and the United StatesLuis Perea/Xinhua/ZUMA

What are we to do?

There are two angles to consider here: domestic and American. Inside the country, the president has achieved a balance between her internal, political rhetoric and negotiating with Trump. Essentially this has been done with discreet conversations held with the other side and quite in contrast with her rousing speeches to the party faithful. 

Only, this cannot go on, because at some point the contradiction between the quiet conversations and the big speeches will become blatant. It is inevitable. Her government will have to publicly honor its secret pledges. Sheinbaum will have to choose between satisfying her Morena party constituents and building the future, as she cannot do both, or not in the short term. That is precisely why she could do worse than grab onto Trump’s coattails and win some tangible yields that could even benefit Morena in electoral terms.

As El Financiero points out, the financial sector already expressed its support for Sheinbaum’s strategic “Mexico Plan,” which promotes investments in infrastructure, manufacturing and technology in an effort to strengthen the nation’s industry and reduce its economic dependence. 

“Private sector participation will be key in the implementation of Plan Mexico and in the search for mechanisms to reduce the impact of trade tensions with the United States,” El Financiero quotes representatives from Mexico City-based financial company Yavo Capital as saying.

Time to pedal

From the American angle, while it may be foolish to underestimate Trump, it would be equally mindless to overlook the role of institutional counterweights in U.S. politics. The Republicans have a majority in both Congress chambers but each legislator must answer to her or his voters, who could always pressure their representatives. Yes, that is how it works there.

The key lies in finding common ground with Trump.

So a strategy to get closer to those districts most relevant to Mexico — like those that live off bilateral ties or are home to citizens of Mexican descent — might soften the worst blows or even, at best, achieve results favorable to Mexico. Each side must use what weapons it has and we have much at our disposal. The problem is we never use them, so our first move must be to identify and start working those tools.

As the physicist Albert Einstein said, “life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving.” The Mexican government, both the current and previous ones, enjoyed the advantages of migration and exports without solving the most basic problems facing the country. Now it is time to pedal; the key lies in finding common ground with Trump to solve our problems and, with that, his.

*Originally published February 7, 2025, this article was updated February 10, 2025 with Trump’s reaction to Mexico’s and Canada’s pledges to boost border security to stop illegal drugs, as well as enriched media.

           Luis Rubio

It is impossible not to perceive the paradox that characterizes the government and Mexico today. On the one hand, we have a government that seeks (and requires?) the support and unity of the population in the face of a great challenge from abroad. On the other hand, there is a party and government that were born, grew up and live off division, polarization and the systematic denigration of everything that is not Morena. If one adds to that the set of laws, constitutional amendments, destruction of key institutions and the growing exclusive monopoly of power, one can only ask: How, in this context, can one expect national unity or development?

The scene recalls the lapidary phrase with which Barbara Tuchman begins her famous book The March of Folly: “A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests.” The book analyzes the glaring errors of one government after another from Troy to Vietnam where the common denominator is the inability to develop policies suitable for the circumstances. Driven by ideology, prejudice, misinformation, or any other bias, these governments become unable to understand the circumstances they face, leading them to make aberrant mistakes that undermine their own objectives and interests. Thus, Tuchman concludes, “If pursuing disadvantage after the disadvantage has become obvious is irrational, then rejection of reason is the prime characteristic of folly.”

There is not the slightest doubt that Trump represents a monumental challenge which, to date, has been skillfully handled by the President. However, that does not excuse the enormous complications that the government itself and its party, especially its predecessor, have incurred in, all of them self-inflicted, and which limit its capacity for action both on the economic and political levels.

On the economic side, the capacity for growth is limited by the fiscal follies committed in the last presidential race with the obvious objective of winning the election at any price and regardless of the consequences, even if Troy were left burning, to continue with Tuchman’s logic. Much more to the point, AMLO chose to ignore, or intentionally not understand, the reason why the institutional framework of the last decades had been built. That is, like Trump, he dedicated himself to destroying without asking, without being interested in the why or the what for of each of these institutions, from the Supreme Court to the free trade agreements, passing through the commissions of telecommunications, competition, energy, transparency, etc. It is evident that it is always possible to optimize, make the governmental structure more efficient and reduce expenses, but what was done throughout the last government and that was formalized in the constitution at the beginning of the current administration was irrational from the perspective of economic development and qualifies as madness under the aforementioned author’s yardstick.

On the political side, things have not been better. Morena achieved its objective of monopolizing the legislature, even if that violated the current legislation and regulations, and is on its way to subordinating and controlling the judiciary, with which it will take practically absolute control of the structure of the State. Furthermore, the entire strategy is exclusive, as if at least 40% of voters who opted for other political currents, or a different institutional structure, did not exist. It is still to be determined what the relationship between the party and the government will be, but there is no doubt that it will be a monopoly. The electorate endorsed it, so no one can dispute the legitimacy of the elections, but that does not deny the contradiction between this monopoly and the development objectives that the government has set. It is no coincidence that the country has seen practically no new investment from abroad and very little from national companies. When conditions are such that they discourage new projects, the country has been left with the mere reinvestment of profits, but without new prospects for the growth that the administration aspires to. Not seeing, or not wanting to see, the contradiction is another facet of that same folly.

This is how things were in Mexico before Trump came to power in the U.S., and now we have to deal with the madness that comes from him, but it is impossible to pretend “national unity” when there is not even the slightest intention of correcting the political course, especially Morena’s dedication to the exclusion of almost half of the electorate, or of creating favorable conditions to attract investment on the economic side. Ultimately, the bet for growth through consumption depends on the economy growing quickly, because otherwise the fiscal gap will grow even more, putting the country before risks that previous generations knew as crises that are not commendable for anyone.

Crises, the old Chinese proverb goes, are a mixture of danger and opportunity. Skillful handling of Trump suggests opportunity, but poor handling of the country’s future entails risk. The last thing we want is to fall into a crisis; better to skip it and get straight to opportunity, but that would require ending self-inflicted folly.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The Colombian president taught us all a lesson that he had no intention of delivering: he got into a fight with Samson, I mean Trump, and lost in less time than a goose crows. Compared to that spectacle, President Sheinbaum has conducted this extremely complex relationship with skill and clarity of purpose. Obviously, it is too early to claim victory, but the result to date is not bad. The problem is reaching the finishing line.

Trump is a born negotiator. His book describes in detail his way of proceeding: he pushes, threatens, corners and tests the resistance of his counterpart. Depending on the response he gets, he counterattacks until he finds a way to get his way. But, as his book describes, his objective is to win, regardless of the size of the prize: he attacks left and right and, when he wins, he moves on to the next thing. It is not very difficult to understand that the way to advance in a negotiation with him is to give him spaces to win where the cost for the counterpart is not prohibitive.

A derivative of the above, which I think would be desirable in Mexico’s case, would consist of finding a way to leverage the Mexican government’s projects with the objectives (and, above all, resources) of President Trump. The most obvious example, but far from the only one, would be the security strategy that, after so many hugs, has become a nightmare for citizens and a formidable challenge for the authorities. While her predecessor facilitated the growth and consolidation of criminal organizations, the latter dedicated themselves to entrenching themselves in their territories and equipping themselves with armored equipment and increasingly sophisticated weapons. The power of criminals grows exponentially in the face of a weak government. Beyond false nationalism, punctual and concerted support would be more than useful for a government that could easily be overtaken.

Whatever one’s opinion of Mr. Trump, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate him. But that is exactly what President Petro of Colombia did. Instead of designing a strategy to deal with Trump, he launched a rhetorical attack aimed at his base without considering the consequences. So absurd, improvised and clumsy was his tirade that Trump finished him off in a flash. It took just a few hours for the Colombian government to cave in and accept the entire package of conditions imposed by the American president. In the vernacular language that the previous Mexican president employed often, he folded.

So far, President Sheinbaum has managed to keep Mexico safe from the Trumpian onslaught. Whatever she is doing, it is working for her. The problem is that the American president is not going to be satisfied with verbal agreements and the capacity, as well as willingness, of the Mexican government to respond to his demands is not enormous. The question becomes serious; in a traditional Mexican expression, “How to get the ox out of the ravine?”

There are two key aspects to this matter: the internal and the American. On the internal side, the president has achieved a balance between her internal rhetoric and the negotiation with Trump. She has achieved this essentially by keeping the exchanges that are taking place with her counterpart secret, while exacerbating her harangues to the Morena base. The problem for her is that the scheme is not sustainable. First, the contradiction between the two discourses will soon be noticed, partly because what was agreed will have to be implemented and partly because at some point what is said in private will come to light. That is to say, sooner or later, the president will have to decide between satisfying her base or building the future, because the two are not compatible, at least not in the short term. And it is precisely for this reason that it would be extremely useful to leverage Trump’s objectives with a Mexican strategy to achieve tangible benefits that attenuate the potential Morena reaction.

The other side is the United States. Just as it would be foolish to underestimate Trump, it would be equally obtuse to disdain the checks and balances that characterize the American political system. Although the Republicans have a majority in both legislative chambers, each legislator answers to his or her voters and many of those citizens are susceptible of exerting pressure on their representatives. This is how it works there: a well-designed strategy to approach the districts that are relevant to Mexico -those that live off the bilateral relationship or where citizens with ties to Mexico live- could defuse the worst blows or, in a positive sense, help advance the achievement of favorable results for Mexico. Everyone uses the weapons they have, and Mexico has many potentially, but very few active ones. The first priority should thus be to identify them and put them into action.

Einstein said that “life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving.” The Mexican government, both the current and previous ones, enjoyed the advantages of migration and exports without solving the most basic problems facing the country. Now it is time to start moving. The key lies in finding common ground with Trump to solve our problems and, with that, his own.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubio

Luis Rubio

One frequently hears the in-joke that Canada and Mexico have a problem in common. In effect, in contrast with European nations -some big, some smaller, but none overwhelming- the dimensions and transcendence of our common neighbor entail singular characteristics. Decades ago, Canada as well as Mexico opted for converting the United States into an opportunity for economic development; however, each of these nations acts very distinctly and the effect of those differences is much greater instability and unpredictability for the Mexican flank. 

Although most Canadians speak English, their culture is very distinct from and contrasts with that of the U.S. More European in their conduct and social organization, Canadians take pride in their differences with respect to their U.S. neighbors. Nonetheless, several decades ago they decided that their economic future would greatly benefit from a tight linkage with their neighbor to the South.

Since the sixties they established the first formal trade agreement with respect to the automotive sector with the so-called “auto pact” (APTA) in 1965 that joined the two nations in their industrial heart (above all, at the beginning, the province of Ontario with the state of Michigan) to subsequently convert it into the world’s most active industrial-exchange zone with respect to automotive matters. Decades later they negotiated a free trade agreement (FTA) between the two nations followed, a short while later, when Mexico came on board, with the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA.

Beyond the formal institutions, Canadians recognize the crucial importance of their economic ties with the United States and have developed systematic and permanent strategies to ensure that nothing and no one calls into question the viability of the structures (the treaties) that support them. The contrast with Mexico is extraordinary and notable. For Canadians, there is no doubt about the need to nurture and preserve the political ties that make the successful functioning of their economy possible. Consequently, they devote enormous resources to preserving these ties.

It is not that Canada is altruistic nor that it has sold itself out to the Americans. The logic of its action is based on the best Canadian national interest: they recognize the centrality of the U.S. for its well-being and, therefore, they invest time and resources in all decision-making ambits in the U.S. Every federal ministry, as well as the provincial premiers, visit their counterparts in the U.S., have a presence in the U.S. Congress and Senate and present evidence of the transcendence FOR the U.S. of the Canadian economy. In economic terms, they protect their supply chains and advocate for the interests of their nation. In addition to that, they assume as theirs the U.S. priorities in ambits such as relations with China (e.g. blocking Tik Tok and Huawei), all with the objective of avoiding its being the target of U.S. political ire, recently exacerbated by the US’s new President. They accept certain limitations for the sake of attaining general well-being, without ceding any fundamental principle.

Mexico lives from its exports to the U.S. The supply chains that transverse the three North American nations are crucial for the production of all types of goods and the Mexican contribution to the process is not only critical for these three nations, but transcendental for Mexico’s own economy. The exports translate into demand for goods and services inside Mexico and these in turn generate economic activity throughout the entire national territory. Were we Canadians, we would be devoted body and soul to protecting the permanence of the mechanism that makes these exports and its counterpart possible in the form of foreign investment. Notwithstanding this, despite Mexico’s having put together a very ambitious political strategy in the nineties to secure the approval of the original FTA (NAFTA), that exercise was not sustained, and we now see the consequences…

It is obvious that Mexico entertains a challenge distinct from that of Canada, which implies it being the target of interminable attacks on the part of U.S. politicians, principally regarding migration, drugs and the violence exercised by organized crime, some of which transcends toward the U.S. It is evident that these are matters that clearly should concern Mexicans and that affect Mexico as much or more than the U.S., but successive Mexican governments have done next to nothing to confront them in Mexico and have been completely negligent in advocating for Mexican interests within the political realm of its neighbor to the North. Much would be gained by acting decisively in these internal ambits to improve the perspectives of USMCA, but this should be in addition to a well-developed political strategy within the U.S. governmental apparatus.      

In 1962 John F. Kennedy could say that “Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. The economy has made us partners, and necessity has made us allies.” President Trump would never pronounce a phrase such as this, but Mexico should dedicate itself to ensuring that at least the society and the friendship would begin to reestablish themselves starting now…  

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof