Few countries are more acutely aware of the dangers posed by a resurgence in US military adventurism than Mexico. As mentioned in previous posts, Mexico City is even home to a National Museum of Interventions, which I had the pleasure of visiting a few months back [1]. Today, having suffered at least ten invasions and incursions from its northern neighbour since winning independence from Spain over 200 years ago, the country is currently facing a constant stream of threats from the Trump administration of military attacks or even invasion.
While it is unlikely the US will resort to a full-on military invasion of Mexico, as it did between 1846 and 1848 when it seized over half of Mexico’s territory, the stakes are rising as the threats escalate. Yesterday, the Trump administration officially designated eight Latin American drug trafficking groups, six of them Mexican, as terrorist organisations, opening the way to more aggressive, unilateral US military action in the countries affected: Mexico, El Salvador and Venezuela.
The US’ lapdog ally, Canada, has also announced the incorporation of seven criminal organizations, including several Mexican drug cartels, onto its list of groups classified as terrorist. Earlier this week, the Canadian ambassador to Mexico was at pains to make clear the measure will be applied exclusively in Canadian territory, in respect of Mexican sovereignty.
Confirmation of Escalation
While Washington’s move hardly comes as a surprise, it nonetheless represents confirmation of further escalation. According to Trump’s executive order, it is US policy “to ensure the total elimination of these organizations’ presence in the United States and their ability to threaten the territory, safety, and security of the United States through their extraterritorial command-and-control structures.”
These are the newly designated narco-terrorist organisations:
-Tren de Aragua (Venezuela)
-Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13, El Salvador)
-Sinaloa Cartel
-Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG)
-Cárteles Unidos
-Cártel del Noreste (CDN)
-Cártel del Golfo(CDG)
-La Nueva Familia Michoacana(LNFM)
One of the first Trump administration officials to react to the announcement was Elon Musk:
Elon Musk is threatening to bomb Mexico, El Salvador, and Venezuela.
US drone warfare has already killed countless civilians around the globe with no accountability.
We cannot allow this Nazi to terrorize our neighbors. pic.twitter.com/CmbOMIMHmv
— CODEPINK (@codepink) February 19, 2025
As readers may recall, Musk has form when it comes to threatening the sovereignty of other nations on the American continent. In 2019, he famously tweeted “We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it!” in relation to the forced removal of Evo Morales as president of Bolivia. Morales himself partly blames the coup commercial interests in Bolivia’s lithium sector, including those of Musk’s TESLA. Now, Musk is blithely tweeting about the US military unleashing drone strikes against Mexico.
Bolstering Mexican Sovereignty
In the face of the rising threats from Washington, President Claudia Sheinbaum yesterday presented a constitutional reform project to protect the country against “foreign interference.” The reform will include amendments to articles 19 and 40 of the country’s Magna Carta, which relate to the country’s sovereignty and unofficial pretrial detention.
Sheinbaum also said her government was not consulted by the United States in its decision to include Mexican cartels on a list of global terrorist organisations while reiterating that both governments are working together to achieve peace on both sides of the border.
“There is collaboration and coordination but there is no interference or subordination,” she said during Thursday’s “Mañanera” morning press conference. “Both countries want to reduce drug consumption and trafficking, reduce the rates of violence. We both want to combat organized crime groups that carry out illegal acts in both countries. We are working very well in coordinating and collaborating in these areas, but never by violating Mexico’s sovereignty,”
The proposed amendment to Article 40 stipulates that “the people of Mexico, under no circumstances, will accept interventions, meddling or any foreign act that violates the integrity, independence and sovereignty of the nation, such as coups d’état, interference in elections or violation of territory, whether by land, sea, air or space.”
It also establishes that Mexico will not allow foreign intervention in investigations or judicial processes without the express authorisation of the Mexican State, which may be in response to recent speculation that the US judiciary is building a case against Sheinbaum’s predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, over his alleged ties with drug trafficking groups.
For its part, the amendment to Article 19 indicates that any person, national or foreign, “linked to the manufacture, distribution, marketing, transfer or illegal introduction of weapons into the national territory” will be subject to informal preventive detention and will face “the most severe penalty possible.”
As the Mexican journalist Jesús Escobar Tovar noted in his daily podcast yesterday, Sheinbaum’s recurring emphasis on defending national sovereignty is of vital importance given that “generations of Mexican leaders, from Miguel Aleman (1946-52) to Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-18), have essentially handed Mexican sovereignty, in all its different facets and at all its different levels, to the US on a plate, constantly ceding to US demands whatever they may have been”:
“In its acts, the posture of the US today is provocative; It is intimidating towards our country… What is going to happen now that the drug cartels are officially considered as terrorist organisations?
If we consider the actions, declarations and expressed desires of an important faction within Trump’s political movement, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Elon Musk, a very powerful figure, the national security advisor, Mike Waltz, Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, not to mention other more peripheral figures such as Peter Thiel, they have been constantly talking about invading Mexico.
They, including JD Vance, have been constantly repeating the diatribe of invading Mexico in order to eliminate the drug cartels. They are not going to eliminate anything; all they will do is create a humanitarian crisis. Why? Because it is by now well documented that whenever the United States enters another country supposedly to help it, it ends up leaving behind a total hellhole. They destroy institutions, the quality of life, and the conscience and wellbeing of local people, all in order to plunder.
The US is never going to enter another country in order to help it out in any way. It will go in to pillage. As such, all those people here in Mexico like Marko Cortes, Lily Tevez… who try to convince the Mexican people that active collaboration with the United States, or as some are calling it, a “soft invasion”, could be very positive are lying through their teeth, promoting an anti-patriotic and treasonous discourse. That’s why it is so important to set clear rules and shine a spotlight on those who intentionally seek to undermine national sovereignty.
The issue of national sovereignty is, as you may have noticed, a recurring theme in Doctor Sheinbaum’s speeches… This is because it is an issue that is at the very heart of discussions with the United States. In all dealings with the US you have to stand firm and try to prevent it from infringing your sovereignty. If you allow it to happen just once, you will never be able to get rid of them. Once they do finally leave, it will be because they have bled you dry.
Sheinbaum has so far opted for a “calculated and diplomatic” response to Trump. And so far, the strategy has paid dividends, winning her plaudits from some unlikely places. According to the Wall Street Journal, Sheinbaum “is writing the manual on how to handle Trump.” The Economist reports that her “firm demeanour” has won her “acclaim at home and abroad for how she handled her mercurial American counterpart” while CNN recently gushed at her “art of keeping a cool head with Trump.”
Until Trump hit the scene once again, most US and British media outlets were broadly hostile to Sheinbaum and her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s policies and style of governance, in particular the relatively independent course they have struck wrt foreign policy. That includes forging close diplomatic ties with the US’ least favoured nations in Latin America, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, remaining fiercely neutral on the US-Russian proxy war in Ukraine and forging closer economic ties with China.
But it’s not just the Anglo-American media that are fawning over Sheinbaum’s calmness under pressure; so, too, are some world leaders. Germany’s (almost certainly outgoing) President Olaf Scholz called her “a very smart politician” because she “has acted calmly.” Even Trump thanked Sheinbaum on Wednesday for sharing details of the anti-drug policy that her government has promoted across the lengths and breadth of country.
“It was a very interesting conversation, because we’re going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars advertising how bad drugs are so that children don’t use them, that they devour your brain, destroy your teeth, your skin, everything,” Trump said. “And I thanked her for that. You know, I make a lot of calls and I never learn anything from anybody.”
Rare praise indeed from a man like Trump. Some observers in Mexico are calling it a “carrot-or-garotte” approach, which essentially translates as “carrot-or-stick.” And they’re probably not wrong.
There are, moreover, clear limitations to what Sheinbaum can achieve if the Trump administration decides to escalate its showdown with/shakedown of its southern neighbour. Mexico’s near-total economic dependence on the US is a clear source of weakness. Thanks to 40 years of NAFTA, the country relies on its northern neighbour not only for imports of its staple foods (corn, beans, rice…) but also energy, in particular natural gas from Texas. Moreover, Over 80% of Mexico’s exports go to the US, making it acutely vulnerable to tariffs.
Remittances from Mexican migrants now provide around 3.5% of GDP and account for a whopping 5% of household income, making it an essential financial lifeline for many families across the country. To what extent Trump’s anti-immigrant policies will impact that lifeline remains to be seen, but the initial signs are not encouraging. According to one report, remittances from the US have fallen by 40% in February alone in San Cristóbal de las Casas, the municipality in Mexico that receives the most income from remittances from the US.
The Real Goal
On numerous occasions over the past year we have discussed how the US’ decision to intensify its disastrous war on drugs across Latin America has little to do with stemming the flow of drugs into the US. As Christopher Fettweis, a professor of political science at Tulane University in New Orleans, wrote in Responsible Statecraft last May, the drugs always find a way:
Those proposing the special forces “solution” to the fentanyl crisis do not appear to grasp the basic economics: supply will always find a way to high demand, and new narcotics entrepreneurs will always arise. When the Colombian cartels waned in the 1990s, one may recall, other suppliers quickly emerged in Mexico. If the current moles in Mexico are whacked, new ones will soon pop up elsewhere. Killing the middlemen of the drug trade never solves the problem.
This is particularly true when the drug in question is fentanyl, which is so powerful that both its ingredients and pills can be transported in tiny quantities and still be profitable.
“You don’t need a truck, a boat, a plane, you need human beings,” and the millions of people crossing the Mexican-US border every day make it “impossible” to control smuggling, says Steven Dudley, co-director of the InSight Crime think tank.
Nor does the intensification of the war on drugs have much to do with tackling the escalating violence being unleashed by drug cartels across Latin America. If Washington was serious about that, it would have stemmed the southward flow of US-produced guns and other weapons a long time ago. But that would hurt the profits of US arms manufacturers. And if it was serious about tackling drug addiction, it would never have let Big Pharma unleash the opium epidemic in the first place. And once it had, it would never have let the perps walk free with the daintiest of financial slaps on the wrists.
The real purpose of Washington’s war on the narco terroristas is to regain strategic dominance in a region that it has long neglected, allowing its apex strategic rival, China, not only to gain a foothold in its backyard but to begin winning the race for economic dominance, while also selling lots of US-made weapons in the process. China is already South America’s largest trade partner, and as we saw with the recent opening of the Chinese-funded and controlled mega-port in Chancay, Peru, its Belt and Road Initiative promises to further cement that position.
It’s no coincidence that one of the Trump administration’s main bones of contention with Panama was the fact that its government, like most governments in Latin America, had signed the Belt and Road Initiative. To placate Washington’s demands, the Panamanian government recently pledged to quit the initiative.
In the past 18 months, Washington has signed numerous (often hush-hush) agreements with governments in South America aimed at intensifying cooperation in the fight against the region’s drug cartels. More US-made weapons are flowing southward, more US military bases are being approved, including, most recently, in the Galapagos Islands. Both the Milei government in Argentina and the Noboa administration in Ecuador have designated drug cartels as narco-terroristas, opening the way to closer alignment with US Southern Command.
Just this week, Noboa, the US-born son of Ecuador’s richest man, ordered the foreign ministry to seek cooperation agreements with “allied nations” that would allow “the incorporation of special forces” on a temporary basis as support for the Ecuadorian police and armed forces. It is further proof that his government’s declaration of all-out war against the country’s drug gangs just over a year ago has done nothing but fuel the violence and instability, while of course creating more business for US arms manufacturers.
In the first 45 days of 2025, the number of intentional homicides in the country increased by 63%. This, of course, was totally predictable; in fact, we predicted over a year ago that the Noboa government’s labelling of the drug cartels as “terrorist organisations” and “belligerent non-state actors”, rather than reducing the cycle of violence, would almost certainly intensify it.
The same would almost certainly happen in Mexico if the Sheinbaum government intensified its war on the cartels, just as Mexico’s then-President Felipe Calderon did in early 2007 by declaring total war on the drug cartels. Like Noboa, Calderon had neither the resources, expertise, manpower or institutional support to take on such a task.
A Couple of Aces
This time around, Mexico has a couple of aces up its sleeve, however. Firstly, it has a government that seems genuinely interested in protecting Mexican sovereignty. And that government has very high levels of public support. After Trump’s inauguration, Sheinbaum’s approval has risen to 80%, according to the “Polls MX Poll” which averages out approval ratings for the president from a broad selection of opinion polls.
The president has “known how to take advantage” of the crisis with the United States to forge her own image and differentiate herself from her predecessor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018-2024), said William Jensen, an associate at the Mexican Council of International Affairs (Comexi).
“Sheinbaum has used the relationship with Trump to define her personality as president and show the public, both at the national and international level, that she has her own style, focused on the technical and pragmatic,” he told EFE.
Sheinbaum’s message that her government is willing to cooperate with US authorities on security issues but will not accept direct US military intervention enjoys broad support across Mexico’s political spectrum. There are exceptions, of course, including some politicians in opposition parties and certain media figures who are calling for direct US intervention in Mexico, but they and their supporters represent a small minority.
The second ace up Mexico’s sleeve is, paradoxically, Donald Trump’s executive order designating Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organisations. The designation theoretically allows US authorities to impose penalties on entities and individuals that provide material support to cartels. That surely must include the US arms manufacturers and dealers who provide an estimated 70% of all the cartels’ weaponry as well as all the Wall Street, City of London and European banks that help the cartels to launder the proceeds from their businesses.[2]
If Sheinbaum plays her cards right, perhaps she can shift some of the focus onto these major facilitators of the global drugs trade. She has already announced plans to expand the lawsuit filed by Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs during AMLO’s presidency against US arms manufacturers and sellers, accusing them of knowingly selling weapons to Mexican cartels.
It is a step in the right direction. Granted, it is unlikely to lead to any kind of meaningful action on the part of US authorities, whether against US arms manufacturers or the Wall Street banks — as I pointed out in my recent post on the DEA’s ongoing interest in AMLO, the CIA, which was more or less founded by Wall Street bankers and lawyers, has wielded more influence over the modern global drugs trade than any other institution. But it will at least expose the Trump administration’s bare-faced hypocrisy in its crusade against Latin America’s drug cartels.
[1] Housed in the former Monastery of San Diego Churubusco, which was used as a makeshift fort during the US army’s invasion of Mexico City in 1847, the museum offers a fascinating trip down a dark collective memory lane. Among the exhibits are photos of US soldiers storming into the city of Veracruz in 1914 as well as maps of the Mexico that existed before the US invaded and seized possession of over half its territory between 1846-8.
[2] As readers may recall, Antonio Maria Costa, the former head of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, made a bombshell claim in 2009 that hundreds of billions of dollars of drug money had helped to keep the global financial system afloat during the global financial crisis. At one point, the proceeds of organised crime were apparently “the only liquid investment capital” available to some banks on the brink of collapse.
As The Guardian reported in 2011, just one US lender, Wachovia, now part of the giant Wells Fargo, “was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4bn – a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico’s gross national product – into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.”
Its punishment? $110m in forfeiture, for allowing transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and a $50m fine. Despite all the evidence showing direct collusion and profiteering between Wall Street and City of London banks and some of the world’s most ruthless drug trafficking organisations, not a single senior bank executive has spent a single night in jail as a result.
Mexico is importing 60% of its diesel and gasoline from the USA. This is a problem since some 80% of domestic tonnage is transported on the road = diesel and gasoline usage. If I would be Scheinbaum I would take a closer look at the “delays” of the the refinery constructions. Maybe there is some counter-aid USAID to be found.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/mexico-seeks-more-2025-fuel-import-deals-after-refinery-delays-2024-07-26/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344115885_Road_freight_transport_in_Mexico_production_and_employment_Autotransporte_de_carga_en_Mexico_produccion_y_empleo
Is anybody aware of any good authorship regarding possible links between the CIA and Mexican drug cartels? I haven’t been able to find anything on it.
The link to Colombian cartels was obvious and extensively documented but I’m not aware of it for Mexico. Of course more recently the connection was clear in Afghanistan considering poppy cultivation only happened under American occupation. Also people like Alfred McCoy wrote on the CIA connection to heroin production on the golden triangle. There’s the whole Clinton drug trafficking rabbit hole…. Links to cartels go back to the beginnings of the CIA.
Winston Scott has a nice book about multiple Mexican presidents being on the CIA payroll.
Maybe Trump should go to Langley first before invading Mexico. Classic problem reaction solution?
A good place to start is the memoirs of the former DEA agent Hector BerrellezThe Last Narc, which inspired a fine documentary series by the same name.
Thank you.
And thanks for the excellent article.
Also, if you look on YouTube there are a couple of interviews of the main character, the DEA agent, that have been produced in the last 3 weeks.
Not a book but a good article from people in the know.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2012/7/24/mexican-official-cia-manages-drug-trade
Thank you Trees and Trunks, and the article may be good as a historical reference, but since it’s from 2012 it has no bearing on the current President of Mexico, in fact the previous President had only just been elected when it was written. Quote from the article:
The book re. CIA suborning Mexican presidents is actually about Winston Scott, CIA station chief. It’s titled Our Man in Mexico, by Jefferson Morley.
Sheinbaum actually has a trump card to play if the US gets too aggressive with Mexico and starts doing things like assassination of cartel members or bombing of remote cartel locations in Mexico itself and that is the one that Turkiye’s Erdogan has successfully played. When the EU get too hot and heavy with Turkiye, Erdogan threatens to open up his borders and let hundreds of thousands of refugees go through and head deep into the EU. If things get too serious, Sheinbaum could announce that they are pulling back all borders guards and will refuse to stop any caravans of refugees from South America going through Mexico to the US border. Say that the crisis that Trump has caused means that they can no longer afford proper border security anymore and that it will be up to Trump to stop the tide. Yes, it’s a nuclear option but it will be in the back of everybody’s minds.
That’s very nice but the true nuclear option is to let the Russians and Chinese put nukes in Mexico and built a couple submarine bases that could support nuclear submarines. After all Mexico is a sovereign country like Ukraine and Australia, we can’t impinge on their sovereignty and self determination, amirite?
Encouraging to see that the Mexican gov’t has a spine now.
It’s frustrating that the author implies that Trump may be limited by his own executive order, which if the law were really followed would mean prosecuting a lot of wealthy US and Euro entities that indirectly profit from the illegal drug trade. Gary Webb showed the CIA was the biggest player in the illegal drug trade in the 80s and early 90s – for those interested, his newspaper series on it is easily findable and called Dark Alliance. He was murdered a few years later, presumably for writing it and following up in later years.
So obviously the war on drugs is a cover story for whatever they actually want to do, and the law, drugs, and human health have little to do with it.
Regarding scaring countries away from cooperation with China – I really wonder how far this can work. China’s offering other countries such an economically better deal. I wish them the best.
Point taken, and it’s a fair one. Have added a clarifying paragraph at the end of the piece conceding that going after the arms manufacturers or Wall Street banks is unlikely to lead to any kind of meaningful action on the part of US authorities. But it will at least shine a light on the Trump administration’s bare-faced hypocrisy in its crusade against Latin America’s narco tarroristas.
compa Nick, ty for this Sheinbaum es “mi presidente”. I have been following the Mexicano lawsuit against US gunrunning which you reference here “She has already announced plans to expand the lawsuit filed by Mexico” but the link goes to the Chinese anger at the Panama belt and road situation. I believe the lawsuit is going to be heard on appeal next month.
bien jale camarada
Link now fixed. Thanks for the heads-up, Felix.
Code Pink is still being funded apparently.
Code Pink is still being funded apparently.
[ Please explain what this sentence means. ]
Here is an article which explains the basic mechanism being alluded to. It is not about Code Pink specifically. It is about the “Code Pink” of its day, which was called A.N.S.W.E.R. The article is titled :
” Is that your final A.N.S.W.E.R.? ”
It comes from the Rigorous Intuition 2.0 blog. Here is the link to it.
https://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/09/is-that-your-final-answer.html
Really interesting and helpful; I am grateful.
Thank you for the kind words.
For years the US has enjoyed the enviable security of being bounded by large oceans to the east and west, and weak and friendly nations to the north and south. Mr. Trump may, if he is not careful, end that priveleged status. He could cause the neighbor to the south to become not so friendly. Mexico may have a third card to play (maybe a trump card) in that the US southwest is as much Mexican as it is American. As the Tigres del Norte sing: I did not cross the frontier, the frontier crossed me (or words to that effect). If things get ugly there coud be real problems. Viva la reconquista!! The US military is very good at destroying things and killing people (prefereably from a distance) but local, low grade insurgencies are not their forte. Lets hope it does not come to that because it will be in no ones interest.
In a national poll this past week, 27% of Canadians indicated that they consider the US state to be an “enemy” of Canada
Cartel:
2: a combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to limit competition or fix prices
example – Illegal drug cartel
3: a combination of political groups for common action
So, if you are a drug manufacturer, arms maker, wall streeter or otherwise a FIRE sector participant or in business designed to limit competition or fix prices in the USA ….then you are not considered a cartel because $$$$ ?? or if you are a and in the USA then you are not considered a cartel because $$$$ ??
So, for instance “Trump Officially Declares Cartels as Terrorists” – does that exclude domestic cartels as terrorists or, does it include them?….
I think it should include them!!! but, alas, because it would self incriminate so many in position to take action it won’t. I also wonder, since many have said that what Musk and DOGE are doing may violate some laws…..I would suspect that Trump is deliberately stating that he trusts Musk et al and is sure he is operating with good intent etc. in an effort (should Musk et al violate the law) to create a legal defense for himself (let musk take the hit) regarding high crimes and misdemeanors. I think Trump is trying to set up the independent sub-contractor fence and or some other fence to Principle/Agent liability like
“For torts occurring outside of official duties , the liability of the principal depends on whether the agent’s tort occurred during a frolic or a detour. A principal is liable for the “detours” of their agent but not for the “frolics.” The primary considerations many courts use to determine if an act was a frolic or a detour include how much control the principal exerts over the agent’s actions and who economically benefits from the agent’s actions.” – Cornell Law Legal Information Institute
Anyway – sorry to diverge from topic a little bit
You’re making a good argument for “organized crime” not “terrorism” which merits further consideration in the unintended consequences department.
Thank you Mr Corbishley for the excellent read.
“We will coup whoever we want. Deal with it!” Sez the clown who used to brag about overstaying his visa, who only got “naturalized” in the early 2000s. Of course, though he looks like the bad guy in a B film, he’s white.
Well, he is currently couping the US itself, with the assistance of his Assistant Vice President Trump, and just leaving us to “deal with it”.
thanks Nick, free trade destroys sovereignty. we see that with Mexico because of THE NORTH AMERICA “FREE TRADE” AGREEMENT, which in reality is a treaty(more on that later)written by corporations, with little or no input from democratic control, civil society, labor and environmental groups, forcing governments into enforcing free trade.
what is free trade? let Bill MItchel and others explain,
as bill mitchell points out, yes its free trade. what is free trade? its unfettered capital.
https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=34677
The case against free trade – Part 1
“Like many aspects of mainstream economic theory – free trade – is one of the concepts that sounds okay at first but the gloss quickly fades once you understand the basis of the theory and how it derives its seemingly ideal results. In practice, the textbook ‘model’ is never attainable in reality and so what goes for ‘free trade’ is really a stacked deck of cards that has increasingly allowed large financial capital interests to rough ride over workers, consumers and undermine the democratic status of elected governments.
This blog is Part 1 in a two-part (might be three) series on why progressives should oppose moves to ‘free trade’ and instead adopt as a principle the concept of ‘fair trade’, as long as it doesn’t compromise the democratic legitimacy of the elected government. This is a further instalment to the manuscript I am currently finalising with co-author, Italian journalist Thomas Fazi. The book, which will hopefully be out soon, traces the way the Left fell prey to what we call the globalisation myth and formed the view that the state has become powerless (or severely constrained) in the face of the transnational movements of goods and services and capital flows. This segment fits into Part 3 which focuses on ‘what is to be done’.
——-
https://www.ianwelsh.net/why-free-trade-isnt-efficient/
Why Free Trade Isn’t Efficient By Ian Welsh On June 26, 2018 Comments
For the past few weeks, I’ve been reading a raft of literature by lawyers, economists, and bureaucrats involved with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other free traders. It’s been a fascinating journey into an alternate world, one in which frictionless trade and money flows, and unified regulations and laws are considered to be a good thing.
—————–
https://wolfstreet.com/2025/02/05/trade-deficit-in-goods-worsens-to-all-time-worst-in-2024-small-surplus-in-services-improves-overall-trade-deficit-worsens-by-17/
Three decades of connivance by the US government – which bridged with ease any political divide – and Corporate America, under the failed doctrine of globalization, have destroyed much of the manufacturing base so that corporate profit margins could fatten by chasing cheap labor, lax environmental laws, and preferential treatments in US and foreign tax codes.
In return, they sacrificed the most important economic sector – manufacturing – with its huge primary, secondary, and tertiary impact on employment, on household incomes, on federal, state, and local tax receipts, on know how in automation and manufacturing technology, on engineering and engineering education, and on infrastructure. In the process, they shifted much of this activity and expertise to other countries.
The US is still the second largest manufacturing country by output in the world, with a share of 15.9% of global manufacturing output, and larger than the next three combined – Japan 6.5%, Germany 4.8%, and India 2.9%. But China’s manufacturing output is nearly twice that of the US, with a share of 31.6% of global output (World Bank data).
That this mess was encouraged to happen over the past three-plus decades under the doctrine of “globalization” and “free trade” is a huge scandal that spanned the political parties. And those globalization-mongers are still at it today, preaching the same failed doctrine.
————–
https://www.citizen.org/article/more-information-on-the-world-trade-organization-wto/
Unaccountable WTO tribunals have ruled have ruled that governments must change legitimate public policies meant to protect consumers, public health and the environment or face potentially billions in trade sanctions.
The WTO has ruled against U.S. policies we rely on to protect public health, the environment and make informed decisions as consumers. The U.S. has weakened these policies to meet WTO dictates. Examples include: U.S. country-of-origin labels on meat, Clean Air Act rules, fuel efficiency standards for cars, endangered species rules on sea turtles, and the ban on tuna caught with nets that kill dolphins. The U.S. ban on sweet-flavored cigarettes designed to combat youth smoking was also ruled against, but the U.S. settled the case without eliminating the policy.
Because the WTO shifted decision-making on many policies that affect our daily lives to unaccountable, closed door venues and required every nation to adopt an array of retrograde non-trade policies, it was opposed by civil society organizations in countries worldwide. But, the corporations that helped design the WTO sought to expand its scope and powers through additional negotiations.
Increasingly the only element of the WTO that has operated throughout, its powerful dispute settlement system, is coming under disrepute as unaccountable tribunals substitute their judgement to create new rules to impose on the governments that are signatories to the WTO. The WTO’s crisis of legitimacy has deepened in recent years.
—–
when a government enters into a free trade treaty, essentially they are entering into a treaty not with fellow sovereign countries, but with corporations.
under free trade, government no longer has sovereignty and democratic control. government is now subservient to capital, they now are the enforcers of free trade for capital.
https://fpif.org/free-trade-regime-oligarchy-action/
“Let’s put this assertion to the test by looking at the concrete example of free trade agreements and their relation to democracy and national sovereignty.
“Democracy” typically refers to a system of government in which people decide on the rules of their sovereign nation. In the true spirit of democracy and sovereignty, all spheres of policy — including the environment, trade, finance, intellectual property, and culture — must be subject to a fair political process and self-determination.
In the modern, globalized world, the institutions of democracy and sovereignty exist in tension with another powerful institution: the global market and its free trade regimes.”
“While a small number of labor unions and NGOs appear to have some involvement in the process, critics note that many relevant actors have been shut out.
As renowned economists Joseph Stiglitz and Dean Baker contend, it is mostly the executive branch and some privileged big corporations that are involved in the process, and are therefore able to shape the treaty to fit their narrow interests.”
———————-
free trade agreements are really treaties that corporations found a work around constitutional congressional voting.
https://stennis.gov/the-role-of-congress-in-adopting-international-treaties/
Over time, workarounds to the official treaty process have been created. A prominent example is the emergence of congressional-executive agreements. This type of agreement is different from a treaty for many reasons.
First, they are not ratified and are subjected to the limits of the normal law-making process, i.e., the congressional scope is limited for normal laws, while treaties can be on any topic. Congressional-executive agreements only require a simple majority of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to pass and are a popular way to enact policies that may be too controversial for a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate.
Furthermore, congressional-executive agreements still become part of international and domestic law. Examples of congressional-executive agreements in recent years include the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the entrance of the United States into the World Trade Organization.
…
and we know that free trade is almost completely corporate driven, that has gutted sovereignty, and has made government merely a enforcer for corporate free trade policies.
Very good post. Covers a lot of the issues. But a ¨free trade agreement¨ has such a nice sound to it. Almost sounds as good as a ¨right to work¨ law.
Seconded
the american occupation of haiti from 1915 – 1932 essentially smoothed out the path for one of the most repressive dictatorships in latin america and the US has interfered in elections and assassinated presidents there ever since . despite the gang war and disease outbreak people there still oppose US intervention and this is why . i want this quote stamped on people’s brains because i am so tired of racists saying that n—-rs could never have a stable state
Funny you mention it because while I was reading Nick’s excellent article, I kept thinking the US wants Mexico to become the next Haiti.
I’m distressed to hear Canada called “The US’ lapdog ally.” As a 85 year old Canadian, I have long been aware of what it means to live close to the US. Even in 1866 ( the year before Canada became a country on its own), the US passed legislation to attack Canada and take it over. We have lived ever since worrying about what the US might decide to do with Canada, so please give us a little respect.
However, I am sending this article to some of the members of our government so that they can begin to truly take Trump’s words to heart.
One of the benefits of having Trump as president is that if you stand up to the United States, you will be criticized, but if you stand up to Trump, you will be praised.
Notice that even though NAFTA has contributed to a 625% export increase for Mexico since 1992, Mexican growth has been 26% slower than US growth. Mexican growth has been nearly the slowest in all Latin America since 1992:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Dc5T
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for Mexico as a percent of Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States & Exports of Goods and Services by Mexico as a percent of Gross Domestic Product, 1992-2023
(Indexed to 1992)
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1ChMX
August 4, 2014
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States, Canada, Mexico and Brazil, 1992-2023
(Indexed to 1992)