Luis Rubio
Mexico has been paralyzed ever since the Trump novel (tragedy?) began. During his campaign, the US president used a series of symbols -like the wall and NAFTA- that were easy to visualize by the electorate, and which proved critical in winning his election; many of these were contrary to Mexico’s interests and demeaning to Mexicans. During the electoral stage, there were good reasons for not responding to his accusations and insults, thus avoiding giving more powder to his threats and insults. In fact, there was an analysis by Nate Silver that showed a correlation between the statements made by Vicente Fox and Trump’s performance in the polls: when Fox raised his voice, Trump’s numbers improved, a factor that was further enhanced with the odd invitation by the Mexican government for him to visit during the campaign. The strategy of not responding during the campaign had an impeccable rationale but, once that contest was resolved, it no longer makes sense. Despite that, this conception seems to persist in the way Mexico is conducting the negotiations on NAFTA, which, clearly, is not working.
In the novel To kill a Mockingbird there is a passage in which somebody spits on Atticus Finch’s face (the lawyer), to which he does not respond, in fact, remains undaunted, without any reaction. Later he explains that it is preferable to let himself be spat on that to have his client -the victim of a racist rape- beaten. In contrast to Finch, who understood perfectly the context with which he had to deal, the Mexican government does not seem to understand the powerful symbolism that the wall and the call for cancelling NAFTA represented for Trump and his base. In a word, Trump has to achieve a victory, even if it is symbolic, that allows him to tell his base “I delivered.” The Mexican negotiating team does not seem to recognize this element in its strategy.
The Mexican team (in tandem with the Canadian government) has acted in an absolutely professional, organized and intelligent way along this process. It studied each of the proposals and claims raised by Trump and the US negotiating team with care and depth and has sought solutions within the context of a technical negotiation. In this regard, it has proposed ways to improve trade, eliminate obstacles and improve the numbers related to the trade deficit that lies at the heart of Trump’s obsession with NAFTA and, thus, his characterization of it as a failure. Along the way, it has made intelligent and creative proposals to improve the existing NAFTA and take it to a new stage that will make exchanges more efficient and facilitate trade and investment. That is, it has done an impeccable and absolutely professional job. However, many months into these negotiations, it seems evident that Trump remains dissatisfied, repeatedly threatening with the cancellation of the NAFTA.
Some believe that these threats are nothing more than a negotiation ploy and, undoubtedly, they are right. His book, The Art of the Deal, summarizes a whole way of being and seeing the world: in essence, everything is negotiable and all in life is a permanent negotiation in which some win and others lose, so every interlocutor has to be put against the wall. From this perspective, there is no doubt that much of the theater that surrounds the negotiation rounds entails a continuum of attempts to “soften” the negotiators. But, beyond the specific issues that are on the table, this negotiation does not refer to the acquisition of a property or a hotel; rather, it involves an innumerable set of actors and interests -including many of the states that concentrate Trump’s hard-core base- and before which he needs to save face. That is, even though the negotiation refers to technical issues -trade deficit, dispute resolution, rules of origin, government procurement, intellectual property, online commerce and so on- behind it lies a political commitment that was key to its electoral triumph. Without his rioting about the wall or his promises to end the NAFTA, Trump would never have been president. Consequently, he needs more than technical solutions: he requires symbolic satisfactions that respond to his campaign promises.
It is clear that Mexico is not going to provide funds to build a wall or compromise on the key factors that make trade and investment flow efficiently. However, just as there has been enormous creativity on the technical side of the negotiations (something that has characterized the Mexican negotiating teams ever since the first negotiation began in the early 1990s), it is imperative to find ways to satisfy the symbolic requirements. First of all, Mexico must recognize that these are at least as important to the US government as the rest. Maybe more.
A few months ago, Paco Calderón, my neighbor on this page and a dear friend, proposed that the negotiating team adopt a purple cow -as if it were something sacrosanct- as a means to have a credible asset to give up during the negotiations. It is time to recognize that Trump has very large purple cows in his mind and that Mexico must find a way to let him give them up without, on the way, losing his credibility with the electorate. This is certainly not rocket science.
www.cidac.org
@lrubiof