Mexico’s position of neutrality over the Russia-Ukraine war provokes backlash from Washington.
The U.S. Ambassador to Mexico caused a stir at the tail end of last week when he told Mexican lawmakers that Mexico cannot ever be close to Russia. That is quite literally what Ambassador Ken Salazar’s said in his address to select members of Mexico’s lower house of Congress on Thursday (translated by yours truly):
“I have here (he said while indicating lapels on his jacket breast) the flags of Mexico, the United States and Ukraine. We have to be in solidarity with Ukraine and against Russia.
The Russian ambassador was here yesterday making a lot of noise about how Mexico and Russia are so close. This, sorry, can never happen. It can never happen…
I remember very well that during the Second World War there was no distance between Mexico and the United States, both were united against what Hitler was doing…
When a family is attacked, the family comes together…Between Mexico and the United States there can be no difference, we have to be the same.”
Mexico’s Long History of Neutrality
Salazar’s comments are controversial for a whole slew of reasons. First, Mexico is a sovereign nation and as such should be able to choose which countries it wants to forge close ties with, even if they are the target of U.S. sanctions.
Second, the hypocrisy stinks. U.S. and its European allies have consistently argued that Russia has absolutely no right to try to determine what happens within the borders of its sovereign neighbor Ukraine, even as tons of weapons poured into the country from NATO Member States such as Poland and the Czech Republic. Yet the US Government, through its ambassador to Mexico, is now trying to literally dictate the terms of Mexico’s relationship with Russia.
What the U.S. essentially seems to be saying is that neutrality is not an option in the escalating conflict between Russia and the West — at least not for Mexico.
Which brings us to the third point: Mexico has a long, albeit interrupted, history of neutrality dating all the way back to the early 1930s. In 1939, a neutrality clause was even added to its constitution by the government of then-President Lazaro Cardenas, which also nationalized Mexico’s oil and gas a year earlier. Since then Mexico has enjoyed close relations with many countries that have been targeted by international sanctions, including Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Mexico’s long-held position of neutrality has also made it a haven for people seeking political asylum, including republicans fleeing Spain at the end of the Spanish Civil War and the emigres of the Southern Cone dictatorships of the 1960s and ’70s.
Lastly, even Salazar’s elicitation of Mexico’s unwavering alliance with the U.S. against Hitler in the Second World War is not entirely fact-based. Mexico did not join the war until 1942 and that was only after a German submarine torpedoed the Mexican oil tanker “Potrero del Llano” in international waters, leading to the loss of 14 lives.
Salazar’s comments came a day after a handful of Mexican congressmen and women belonging to the ruling coalition parties Morena, PT and PRI created a pro-Russian group in the Congress. The guest of honor to the event was Russia’s ambassador to Mexico, Víktor Koronelli, who described the group ‘s formation as “a sign of support, of friendship, of solidarity in these complicated times in which my country is not just facing a special military operation in Ukraine, but a tremendous media war.”
Souring Relations
It was a provocative move on the part of the lawmakers in question and it didn’t take long for the U.S. to respond. First, Salazar issued its warning that Mexico should never get close to Russia. Then, a few hours later, the chief of U.S. North Command Glen VanHerck testified to the U.S. Senate that Mexico is currently home to more Russian spies than any other country on planet Earth:
“I would like to point out that most of the GRU members in the world are in Mexico at the moment. That’s Russian intelligence personnel. And they keep a very close eye on their chances of influencing the opportunities and access that the United States has.”
As El País points out, the four-star general was answering questions from senators on the Committee on Armed Services. He also claimed that both China and Russia are “very aggressive and active” in the whole area of the Northern Command’s area of responsibility, including the Bahamas and Mexico. While it is highly likely that both Russian and Chinese intelligence services do have a large presence in Mexico, given its geostrategic position, it is hard not to see VanHerck’s comments as a barely veiled threat.
As readers are well aware, relations between the U.S. and Mexico have soured of late as AMLO has sought to rebalance Mexico’s economic model by, among other things, promoting domestic, non-GMO production of staple crops such as corn; prioritizing Mexico’s crude oil for the domestic market; bringing Mexico’s electricity market back under the control of the state-owned utility Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE) and nationalizing the country’s lithium deposits.
These policy measures do not necessarily dovetail with the commercial interests of Mexico’s largest trading partner, the U.S — hence the souring relations.
A Step Too Far
Most countries in Latin America, including Mexico, were prepared to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the emergency meeting of the United Nations General Assembly of March 2. But almost all of them, with the exception of Chile and Colombia, refuse to endorse the US-NATO-led push to isolate Russia from the global economy. Most importantly, they include the two heavyweight economies of Latin America, Brazil and Mexico, which together account for roughly 60% of the region’s GDP.
In response to the comments of Salazar, Koronelli and VanHerck Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, also known by his initials AMLO, underscored Mexico’s position of neutrality on the conflict:
“We need to send them telegrams informing them that Mexico is not a colony of any foreign country; Mexico is a free, independent, sovereign country. We are not a colony of Russia, China or the United States…
We are not going to Moscow to spy on anyone, nor are we going to Beijing to spy on what they are doing in China, nor are we going to Washington, not even to Los Angeles. We don’t do that sort of thing…We are not going to participate either for or against [this war], it is a position of neutrality of ours, which has to do with Mexico’s foreign policy.”
AMLO also acknowledged that he does not know if there are Russian spies on Mexican soil or if so how many. In December 2020, the Mexican Senate approved, at the president’s behest, a reform to the National Security Law aimed at limiting the presence of foreign agents in Mexico. The measure forces all foreign agents to request authorization to enter Mexico and report to the authorities. Although the reform was aimed specifically at US DEA and CIA agents, the Mexican government says it applies to all countries.
Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24, AMLO has insisted on following a policy of non-intervention in the conflict, but that is not easy when your number one trading partner is United States of America, which accounts for over 80% of all global purchases of Mexico’s exports and is arguably the main instigator of conflict in Ukraine, through its insistence that Ukraine should become a member of NATO.
The U.S. appears to be determined to apply a “with us or against us” approach to Russian sanctions. But for the moment it is not working. Many of the world’s largest nations – including China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Mexico — have refused to join in.
Mexico has sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine, but has made it clear that it will not impose sanctions of any kind on Russia, with whom it has limited trade anyway. On February 24, just two days after the invasion began, Mexico’s Foreign Secretary Manuel Marcelo Luis Ebrard justified Mexico’s rejection of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by citing Mexico’s experience of losing roughly half of its territory to a neighboring state:
“Due to our history and tradition, the way we formed as a nation, we must forcefully reject and condemn the invasion of a country like Ukraine by a great power like Russia.”
But both AMLO and Ebrard have stopped short of supporting the no-holes barred economic war the U.S. and its European allies have unleashed against Russia. The countries that have so far agreed to endorse U.S.-EU-led sanctions include the UK, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile and Colombia. Beyond this coalition, few nations have taken part in the economic war against the Putin government. Even close U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and NATO Member Turkey have refused to join the melee.
One obvious reason for this is that the governments of many countries in the so-called “Global South” are shocked by the precedent the U.S., EU and friends have set by attempting to banish Russia, one of the world’s largest commodity producers and exporters, from the global financial system. They know that if the sanctions are successful in toppling the Putin government, which for them moment seems pretty unlikely, they could be next.
Another reason is that many governments simply do not feel they have skin in the game. This is a commonly held stance of Latin American governments in times of international war. As El País notes, Latin American countries have tended to adopt a position of neutrality in large international conflicts, limiting themselves to participating in peace missions under the UN flag.
It´s a position that was perfectly summed up by AMLO in the first days of the Russia-Ukraine war:
“We do not consider that [this war] concerns us. We are not going to take any sort of economic reprisal because we want to have good relations with all governments.”
According to Washington, however, this position is no longer tenable with regard to Russia.
37 comments
Comments are closed.
If there was any proof needed that Washington is tone deaf when dealing with other countries, its in its attempt to bully countries into supporting the economic war against Russia, especially those countries (like Mexico) which has little real trade. The US is burning up a lot of goodwill and credit, even in potentially sympathetic countries (like the Philippines or ROK) by doing this. In the long term, this will do a lot of harm to the US’s interests. How hard really is it to be respectful of countries sovereignty while asking politely for support? Even China, which often struggles to deal with non-Asian cultures, usually understands this simple point.
As far as I can tell, the US is still working from the position that other countries have no choice but to curry favour if they wish to trade with the US, and there is no alternative to trade with the US.
It’s a view grounded in an understanding of international trade flows some thirty years out of date.
It’s their USD reserves, acquired by exporting to the US (and others who pay in US) and parked at the Fed that are now revealing just how risky the USD is. Never forget, the US government, which recently sent representatives to meet elected Venezuelan president Maduro, gave partial control of Venezuela’s accounts at the Fed to that cretin Juan Guaido (via Reuters), who the US government recognized at the “legitimate” leader of Venezuela. You can’t make this sh** up. The tide has turned, though … and the Biden administration will go down in history as the numpties who killed dollar hegemony.
/Fin
I’m not sure tone deaf is correct. I think it’s more like; Do what I say or I’ll steal your lunch money and pant’s you on the playground. It is a serious question to ask: WTF is happening in the US State Department?
The big deal is that the US has lost the ability to push these countries around. We’re left looking like a washed-up bully who cannot back up his threats with punches.
And I thought Gunboat Diplomacy was a quaint relic of the past.
It seems to me that he has his protaganists confused here.
It’s just childish and shows how decayed our foreign policy establishment is. Remember World War II? I remember.
I remember reading stuff. Like an account of the Trotsky Triangle. He got caught between Stalin, FDR and the Federales. Willy Nelson’s old song about how” the Federales could’a had him any day.” Probably the last thing we should invoke is the Mexican SS against Russia on our doorstep.
I dunno, but I doubt Salazar “remembers very well WWII”. He was born in 1955.
What else would you expect from the Chair of of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Transition Team? Fortunately, Mexicans are quite accustomed to American hypocrisy…
Maybe AMLO remembers Hillary’s husband, Dollar Bill Clinton destroying the livelihood of Mexican corn farmers with the NAFTA exports of ADM and Cargill grain? The Fast and Furious export of military weapons to the cartels under Obama, “so that they could be discovered being re imported to the U.S.” plus so many other things.
I suspect that the Mexicans are a very proud people but this ham-fisted effort by the US Ambassador to Mexico to tell them what they can and can’t do in their own country will surely backfire in unexpected ways for years to come. Even in WW2 Mexico’s main contribution to the Allied effort was only a fighter squadron (the “Aztec Eagles”) that flew against the Japanese ground forces but not much more than that. This US/EU effort to recruit the entire world, including Mexico, against Russia would have no interest for them and they are not stupid. They can see that the next effort will be against China which would mean that eventually that they would not be allowed to trade with any major country unless it was part of the US/EU Axis. In passing, here is the background to that US Ambassador and I note that he has only been in the job about six months. Come to think of it, the Germans had the same problem too but with a Trump appointed Ambassador-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Salazar
And once you can only trade with USA, watch out for DC pulling a Venezuela on you if you get uppity.
They can see that the next effort will be against China which would mean that eventually that they would not be allowed to trade with any major country unless it was part of the US/EU Axis
The TPP was intended to be the corral/prison for the global south to reside within…once a country joined there was no mechanism to leave,… a thirteen member group of lawyers who would rule over the entire group, using ISDS to supercede sovereignty. Trump axing that deal was IMO an historic event.
Personally, I regard his four years as President as a small price to pay for him giving the TPP the axe.
Mussolini made the trains run on time, too, but was that really worth his time as el Duce? I’m glad too, that the tpp didn’t have legs, although obama carried it mightily even after trump’s election victory. Obama was just being the dutiful and always obedient servant of the ruling classes. The idea that it’s either a democrat or a republican who must hold office shows how a barren capitalist-controlled poltical system has laid waste this nation, surrendering all governance to the rich and powerful.
As regards Mexico, ‘Poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.’ Seems true even now, but hopefully, things might change for the better if better people can help the people of Mexico, if not by approaching God, then at the least by distancing themselves from the USA.
“Obama was just being the dutiful and always obedient servant of the ruling classes.”
Bullseye! That sentence should be inscribed above the entrance to his presidential library.
Amen.
(Although the brain trust that has brought us our current brilliant foreign policy apparently missed that it was killed and kept operating as if nations were locked into following them over the cliff.)
I have had those same thoughts Kev.
Alot of people forget about that time Mexico gave the French a good little beat down.
It is really tempting to consider how Russia wants to use Belarus and Ukraine as buffers against Europe, and how USA seems to use Mexico as a buffer against the rest of South America.
And yeah, hypocrisy is a US staple. Right before the order to attack was given in Moscow, someone high up in their government mused about placing Russian troops in south and central America. That resulted in massive indignation coming out of DC, without any suggested self awareness what so ever regarding actions in eastern Europe etc.
Ever since 2008, there seems to be a growing disconnect from the real world by US intelligentsia and chattering classes. And COVID seems to have turbo charged this via WFH and an explosive use of delivery services.
I suspect that the ambassador’s clumsy bullying reflects a real anxiety–the Neo-Cons and friends have realized that an aggressive Russia, if in the mood for more direct retaliatory action, easily could destabilize Mexico. Because Ukraine is so corrupt and there are so many weapons flowing into that country without accountability, Russia has plenty of plausible deniability if a few hundred manpads and anti-tank missiles “ended up” in the hands of the cartels, who are already fighting a fairly substantial war. With Mexico already on the brink, any such escalation in violence could cause the country to explode.
The resulting refugee crisis, where I could imagine 10+ million people seeking to cross the border at once, would be horrible in virtually all conceivable dimensions. (Remember: Mexico City is the largest city in the world.)
Now that would be some Russian reciprocation in the most epic of ways.
Do wonder how long it would take before the abrams headed south.
Is there anything about the US that isn’t punitive right now? International, domestic, financial, social, personal, entertainment, … name it and it’s all about punishments.
Your comment deserves a soundtrack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV2Ev0OHXrs
Law and Order intro
No.
And after reading the m hudson interview it seems our rulers are making more money f@cking things up than making things. Move fast and break things, then give the husks away to wall st in sweetheart deals.
No, there isn’t, says Sisyphus watching the boulder rolling back down. My magic 8 ball says “outlook not so good.” I don’t think things will be less punitive in the future, as, for example, private equity grabbing up everything with no surcease. As for Mexico, NAFTA, seemed to be the beginning of major outsourcing with no accountability for cleaning up the mess(es) and just moving on. Perhaps that’s a bit off topic, but I agree about the punishment and meanness. Mexico has the right to stay neutral (or whatever) without the US failed state badgering them to do anything.
“The countries that have so far agreed to endorse U.S.-EU-led sanctions include the UK, Canada, South Korea, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile and Colombia.”
I’m surprised Argentina isn’t on this list. I thought they would have been first among those south of the border to agree.
Brazil, although condemning the invasion, is also opposed to sanctions against Russia.
Bolsonaro – who visited Russia shortly before the invasion – even stated that Brazil should remain ‘neutral’ in the conflict and underlined the fact that his country is dependent on Russia as a supplier of fertilizer.
Chile?
Chile just had a revolution. This was the last sting of the outgoing government?
I note that Gabriel Borić was inaugurated on 11 March 2022. Given Chile’s distance from the crisis in Ukraine, I wonder if the vote on 2 March now has any effect at all.
Salazar is a real clodhopper. But my guess is he’s a day late, as usual. The war in Ukraine is in negotiation. Had he waited just a few more days he wouldn’t have made such an ass of himself. Then again, maybe that was the whole point – hurry up and give Mexico an ultimatum before the latest false-flag fiasco fails.
I wonder when the courtier press will begin referring to US diplomats like Salazar as executors of America’s “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy.
New New Mexico? Would solve the immigration problem…
“Second, the hypocrisy stinks. U.S. and its European allies have consistently argued that Russia has absolutely no right to try to determine what happens within the borders of its sovereign neighbor Ukraine, even as tons of weapons poured into the country from NATO Member States such as Poland and the Czech Republic. Yet the US Government, through its ambassador to Mexico, is now trying to literally dictate the terms of Mexico’s relationship with Russia.”
It’s just clownish at this point.
Where do they find people like Salazar?
Stupid,arrogant and totally tone deaf with no effing clue about the history of US/ Mexican relations.
Let’s face, those countries that have imposed sanctions on Russia are mainly the EU, or the old colonial powers that invaded, committed genocide in, enslaved, and plundered the rest of the world, and a few of their offspring. The U.S. is still engaging in plunder. Yes, even in the Ukraine though that was not the main reason for the takeover. So most of the world has historical grievances against the EU countries, or “the West.” Doesn’t somebody in the State Dept. see these things? Don’t we have any true diplomats left?