For decades, the specter of Andrés Manuel López Obrador has haunted Mexico’s ruling elites. His triumph on Sunday could change the country’s domestic, regional, and international outlook, says Dan Steinbock

by Dan Steinbock
Political analysis

International media touted the neoliberal reforms of President Enrique Peña Nieto for the past year or two. However, when the “reform” narrative proved hollow, Nieto’s approval rating plunged from almost 50 to barely 10 percent. So the establishment narrative changed: it shifted to a flawed portrayal of Andrés Manuel López Obrador as a Mexican Hugo Chávez who endangers Mexico’s future.

Perhaps that’s why before his landslide election victory as president on Sunday The Economist called Obrador “Mexico’s answer to Donald Trump” whose “nationalist populism” offers “many reasons to worry about Mexico’s most likely next president.” Similarly, U.S.-based economic hit men and political risk groups, including Ian Bremmer’s Eurasia Group, framed Obrador’s popular front as a “significant market risk.”

With few variations, the same narrative was replicated in establishment media. The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek and The Financial Times warned of a “firebrand leftist” whose biography is “replete with danger signals.”

What these ideologically-driven reports didn’t say is that Obrador is neither an overnight phenomenon nor Trump-induced collateral damage. In reality, Obrador’s movement is a belated triumph for Mexico’s popular will after decades of electoral fraud.

In the past six years, Nieto’s administration has sold Mexico’s public assets to foreign bidders and opened financial markets to speculation, while loyally accommodating Washington’s policies. At the same time, corruption, crime, narco-violence and rising murder rates have soared. While neoliberal elites portray the past decade as that of rising competitiveness, market realities prove otherwise. Mexico’s real GDP growth has fallen significantly behind its BRIC potential during the years of Felipe Calderon (2006-12) and Nieto (2012-18).

But change may be at the door. Obrador will be inaugurated in December. His coalition “Juntos Haremos Historia” (Together We’ll Make History) rests on popular will, not on the needs of the oligarchic economic and political elite, or what Obrador calls the “power mafia.”

He is pushing for the rejuvenation of the agricultural sector. In particular, he would like to develop the agricultural economy of southern Mexico, which has been hurt by cheap (and tacitly subsidized) U.S. food imports. In contrast to Nieto’s “energy reform” – which ended state-owned Pemex’s monopoly in the oil industry and brought foreign investors to Mexican energy markets – Obrador wants a popular referendum on the energy sector, knowing well that many Mexicans oppose or are highly skeptical of the sale of national assets to foreign speculators.

Book on Trump

After Trump’s inauguration, Obrador published a best-selling book called Oye, Trump, in which he takes a critical look at the American “Caligura on Twitter.” While he is politically too shrewd to challenge Trump head on, he is not an appeaser like Nieto. And unlike Nieto, Obrador also had no hurry to conclude the Trump talks about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Through the election campaign, he supported the delay of renegotiation of NAFTA until the elections, so he can have a say in the final outcome.

Obrador seeks increased spending for welfare, which he argues should be a central political objective in a large emerging economy. He is also a strong proponent of cutting the salaries of the political elite to avoid penalizing ordinary Mexicans. He is willing to walk the talk: he has cut his own public-service salary, several times.

Delfina Gómez, an Obrador ally running for Mexico’s senate, told The Guardian: “He finds it shameful that someone might be flaunting their wealth whilst others are dying of hunger.”

Instead of pushing elite educational objectives, Obrador seeks educational reforms through universal access to public colleges and proposes increases in financial aid to students and the elderly.

Having been mayor of Mexico City, he knows only too well how the ruling elite operates in the imperial metropolis. As a result, he is strongly in favor of the decentralization of the executive cabinet by moving secretaries from the capital to the states to be closer to the people that they should serve, and further from the lobbies they tend to collude with.

In contrast to ‘law and order’ candidates that in the past have colluded with the drug kingpins, he wants to restore genuine law and order and thus peace and stability, in order to focus on economic development. He might even seek to negotiate an amnesty for the key narco criminals.

Obrador’s platform reflects popular will. That’s why it has been marginalized by the oligarchic elites for decades – even with electoral fraud.

Decades of Electoral Fraud

Born in 1953, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, often abbreviated as AMLO, is everything but a new force or overnight phenomenon in Mexican politics. Starting his career in 1976 in the then-dominant Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in Tabasco, on the Gulf of Mexico, he soon became the party’s state leader. In this capacity, Obrador saw intimately how PRI’s longstanding political monopoly began to crumble as domestic elites and foreign interests paved the way to Carlos Salinas’s presidency (1988-94).

Following a highly controversial electoral process and reported electoral fraud, Salinas, who had been groomed at elite U.S. universities, subjected Mexico to neoliberal reforms, which led to years of an economic rollercoaster climaxing with NAFTA. A series of other presidents took office—from Ernesto Zedillo and Vincente Fox to Calderón and Nieto – all promising economic reforms, a war against drugs and a better future. Yet, each, despite different parties, shared a common denominator: neoliberal economic policies, which were predicated on the continued embrace of NAFTA, the expansion of cartels, and jumping on the bandwagon of U.S. policies.

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (US), the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore).

Note: This article was cut to fit space. To read the complete piece, please visit us online at: elreporteroSF.com

The US military colony of Colombia is now a “global partner” of NATO, spooking Bolivia and Venezuela

by Elliott Gabriel

Colombia’s formal partnership with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) marks the first time that a Latin American country has joined the European group, and signals a new shift toward the Global South by the Cold War-era alliance.

Colombia’s entry into NATO as a “global partner” signals that the U.S. military top brass are likely to call the shots for the South American country both in terms of its security policies and its geopolitical orientation, which becomes all the more crucial as the North Atlantic alliance increasingly strives to become a power in the South Pacific amid rising friction between the U.S. and China.

NATO began its partnership agreement with the South American nation in May 2017, immediately following the peace deal between Bogota and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP), yet the country still continues to be plagued by right-wing paramilitary activity, security forces who act with impunity, and the dire inequality that originally birthed groups such as FARC-EP.

So-called “global partners” of NATO are largely those countries that lie firmly in the Anglo-American imperialist sphere of influence or were directly occupied by the U.S., including Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, New Zealand and Pakistan.

The 29-nation alliance was formed in 1949 at the dawn of the Cold War for the purpose of consolidating a strategic bulwark against the spread of communism and Soviet hegemony in the Euro-Atlantic region.

Speaking in a televised address, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and outgoing Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos addressed his country’s membership in the military alliance:

Colombia benefits a lot from being an active part of the international community, many of the problems we face are increasingly global and need the support and collaboration of other countries for their solution.”

According to NATO, the new partnership will focus on cybersecurity, maritime security, and anti-terror and organized crime operations. The partnership will also include programs relating to the standardization of military practices, joint training and military exercises, and the modernization of the Colombian Armed Forces along NATO lines.

While the news came as a surprise to some, Colombia and the North Atlantic alliance have long collaborated in these fields. The process is the culmination of right-wing President Alvaro Uribe’s opening-up of the country to the United States during the bloody “Plan Colombia” campaign versus FARC-EP, which saw the U.S. provide military aid to the country. By 2009, Uribe fast-tracked an agreement granting the U.S. military the use of two maritime bases, three air force bases, and two army bases in the country.

Under Uribe’s successor, Santos, the Colombian Ministry of Defense signed the first security and cooperation agreement with NATO in 2013, provoking an outcry from progressive governments in the region including Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Brazil and Ecuador.

Bolivian President Evo Morales denounced the move as a “provocation” and conspiracy against the “anti-imperialist Bolivarian countries” in the hemisphere, noting that the agreement came shortly after Santos had met with Venezuelan coup-supporter Henrique Capriles.

Morales noted:

How is it possible that Colombia wants to be a member of NATO? What for? To have NATO commit aggression against Latin America, so they can invade us, as they have done in Europe, Africa and Asia?”

On Thursday, RT aired an interview by former Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa of Santos, where the ex-president asked why Santos, a Nobel laureate, would ever want to join NATO.

The Colombian president noted that bringing NATO operations to Latin America was out of the question, and the “global partner” status was largely one of assimilating “best practices” in terms of military purchases and training, while even participating in military “peace missions elsewhere in the world” without obligating Colombia to take part in military operations it chooses not to join.

The North Atlantic Alliance Goes to the South Pacific?

While past moves signaling Colombia’s integration into the U.S.-dominated Atlantic security architecture were greeted by a storm of denunciations from Latin American leaders, this time only Venezuela’s Ministry of Foreign affairs slammed the “the intention of the Colombian authorities … to introduce a foreign military alliance with nuclear capability to Latin America and the Caribbean, which clearly constitutes a serious threat to regional peace and stability.”

Bolivia, in the meantime, finds itself diplomatically helpless as it struggles to regain leadership over the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR), which increasingly finds itself to be a relic of the bygone so-called “pink tide” era, especially after the pro-U.S. governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Paraguay quit the group in protest of Bolivia’s assumption of its pro-tempore presidency.

Yet Santos himself has stated that he is against any military intervention by the U.S. against Venezuela, noting:

That is not the solution – a Marine invasion of Venezuela would be catastrophic and would also spawn sequels effecting several generations. A U.S. military intervention would be a catastrophe for Venezuela and for Latin America’s relations with the United States.”

Yet some analysts fear that Bogota will adopt a more confrontational stance against Caracas if former president Uribe’s right-wing protégé, Ivan Duque, wins the upcoming Colombian elections.

While NATO was conceived to protect Europe from alleged “Soviet expansionism” following World War II, the post-Soviet era entailed Russia’s near-complete encirclement of Russia by U.S./NATO military infrastructure and forward operating bases in Europe.

Faced with questions about the continued relevance of the North Atlantic alliance, NATO has sought justification for its existence from Central Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa and has even floated the idea of indirect intervention in the South China Sea dispute.

However, China’s presence extends from the Eurasian landmass to the Southern Cone, raising the importance of the Pacific Ocean in the strategic calculations of U.S. imperialism and its junior partners from Europe to the Andes.

By expanding its “global partners” list to encompass Colombia, Washington is clearly moving to regain hegemony over South America with the consent of elected governments across the continent, ranging from Santos in Colombia to Mauricio Macri in Argentina, Michel Temer in Brazil, and even Lenin Moreno of Ecuador. (Russian Today).

Soccer association has announced disciplinary action after chant heard at World Cup match

by Mexico News Daily

Mexico’s national soccer team is asking fans to drop the popular “Eh, puto!” chant after FIFA, international soccer’s governing body, announced disciplinary procedures on Monday following its use during Sunday’s World Cup match between Mexico and Germany.

The team issued the plea today on social media, asking fans not to cry puto in the soccer stadiums. “You do not support us with this shout.” One of the team’s stars did the same.

Striker Javier “Chicharito” Hernández posted a message on Instagram today asking fans to stop the practice. “To all Mexican fans in the stadiums, don’t shout puto,” Hernández wrote. “Let’s not risk another fine.”

It’s not the first time that players on the team have appealed to fans to stop the chants, but to little avail.

The practice, which has become traditional at Mexican soccer games, is used by fans to taunt the opposing team’s goalie as he kicks the ball into play. Puto means faggot or male prostitute.

The chant gained international notice during the 2014 World Cup but FIFA took no action at the time.

However, it sanctioned the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) 12 times for fans’ homophobic chanting during the recent World Cup qualifying rounds with two warnings for the first two offences and fines for another 10.

And in Russia the organization is employing three observers at each match to report discriminatory behavior by spectators.

There are thousands of Mexicans in Russia for the big tournament, which is held every four years. At Sunday’s game, Mexico pulled a surprise 1-0 upset over defending champion Germany.

Mexico’s next match is against South Korea on Saturday, June 23, at 10 am CDT.

Source: Reuters (en), El Financiero (sp)

Japan issues travel warning for Mexico elections
Pre-election violence, threats and intimidation cited

The government of Japan has issued a travel advisory for Mexico, warning its citizens about ongoing violence during the current electoral season.

The advisory was published by the embassy of Japan in Mexico 11 days before the July 1 general election.

The document explains that in past elections, “Confusion was noted in some areas, such as arson in polling stations and attacks against candidates.”

The embassy suggested that Japanese travelers in Mexico gather information and act with caution, as protests could take place while the election date draws near.
Without specifying sources, the document quoted two reports claiming that to date 114 politicians and government officials have been murdered during the electoral season, and that other politicians and their families have been subjected to threats and intimidation.

In case Japanese citizens should be involved in an incident, the document lists the embassy’s address, its phone and fax numbers and its email address.
In May, the German government issued a similar advisory warning about the increasing violence against politicians in Mexico.

“Political demonstrations can develop into violent clashes, and thus should be avoided. Such situations can lead to roadblocks in major thoroughfares by demonstrators throughout the country, and can sometimes turn violent,” said the May 29 document.

Source: El Financiero (sp)

Shipment of German pork belly arrives in Mexico
Mexico’s market diversification policy kicks in

A shipment of German pork arrived in Mexico this week through efforts to diversify foreign trade.

It was the first shipment to arrive since tariffs were imposed on United States pork imports, the federal Agricultural Secretariat (Sagarpa) said yesterday.
The department said in a statement that 25.5 tons of frozen pork belly had arrived at the port of Veracruz, a result of its “market diversification policy” that aims to “guarantee the supply of a range of products at accessible prices.”

Mexico introduced a range of retaliatory measures against the United States’ metal tariffs on June 5, including 20 percent duties on U.S. pork, apples and potatoes.

The Sagarpa statement said the agriculture sanitation authority Senasica has already established sanitation protocols with other countries that allow them to supply agricultural products to the Mexican market.

Pork imports from Canada, Denmark, Spain, France, Chile, Italy, Belgium, Australia, New Zealand and Germany comply with the established sanitation rules.

The German pork was packed in 1,394 individual boxes and came from a Senasica-certified plant in Wiedenbrück, Sagarpa said, adding that it was the result of action taken by Senasica chief Enrique Sánchez Cruz during a meeting with Germany’s agriculture minister in Berlin.

Mexicans consume 2.11 million tonnes of pork annually and produces 1.45 million tonnes, of which 105,000 tonnes are exported. Imports account for the 754,000-tonne shortfall.

One-third of all pork consumed in Mexico comes from the United States and between 2010 and 2017 it supplied almost 90 percent of all imports. Government data shows that U.S. pork exports to Mexico were worth more than US $1 billion last year.

Jim Heimerl, president of the U.S. National Pork Producers Council, said earlier this month that Mexico’s 20 percent tariff on tariff on pork legs and shoulders eliminates his country’s ability to compete in the Mexican market.

With regard to apples, also subject to a new tariff, Sagarpa said importers of the fruit could look to countries including Argentina, Canada, Chile, China, Portugal and South Africa in order to maintain accessible costs for consumers.

Even before the United States imposed its 25 percent and 10 percent tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum imports, Mexico was seeking to diversify its export markets due to uncertainty about the future of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Mexico and the European Union (EU) reached an updated trade agreement in April while Mexico and 10 other Pacific Rim countries formally entered into a revised Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact in March.

Last week officials told the news agency Reuters that Mexico is also considering imposing tariffs on United States corn and soybean imports in case trade tensions with its northern neighbor should increase.

Source: El Economista (sp)