Strategic Dissonance
The constant barrage of criticism that President Donald Trump directs at Mexico on a daily basis calls for a variety of warnings and responses. During his second presidential term, Trump has utilized tariffs as a key instrument to apply sustained pressure on the Mexican government. Moreover, he is either meeting his objectives or coming very close to doing so. As a result, Mexico is continually reconsidering its foreign policy approach toward its main reference point. This is due to the ongoing struggle over values and principles such as freedom, independence, development and sovereignty. Each of these creates strategic dissonance amid our daily activities.
Three significant developments contribute to the present situation. First, the increased military presence in the Caribbean has resulted in incidents involving attacks on vessels and the seizure of oil tankers. The goal is to remove Nicolás Maduro and support governments that comply with certain demands*. All of this is accompanied by a sponsored shift to the right in the southern region. Second, the publication of the U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy and the now famous Trump Corollary. This conveys the harsh imperial vision that will govern U.S. relations with the subcontinent. Last, Mexico maintains a strong stance in its foreign policy, resisting U.S. ambitions.
To thoroughly assess the implications — considered the government's primary concern — it is essential to examine the perspectives and decisions of the U.S. policy-making leadership. It is generally understood that these viewpoints are neither overly favorable nor simplistic; rather, they reflect the complex motivations and interests underlying its relationship with neighboring nations. Notably, such actions often diverge from our national objectives. Typically, the outcomes indicate a tendency toward reinforcing global hegemony.
On successive occasions, decisions are made based on business interests and convenience in order to increase command and control over one's neighbor. Classifying Mexico as a major customer does little to guarantee its use as a bargaining chip. The country's weapons are limited and not powerful enough to significantly benefit its own interests. The truth is that the specific views of Americans point to limiting the development of Mexican capabilities.
They even come across as avaricious displays of power, trying to profit from any deal. As a rule, generosity is excluded from the processes of interaction. There is no desire for Mexico to reach higher stages of industrial or technological development. Modernity does not enter into the neighbor's self-interested view. And in that direction, indispensable conditions will be imposed to subjugate and subordinate, never to liberate and help prosper. After clearly identifying the opponent's practical and basic intentions, it is necessary to list and consider all possible actions that could be taken.
The Mexican government has so far followed constitutional principles in its actions, which serves as an effective defensive strategy. The official discourse must necessarily be based on this. It is an essential mandate. But then, within the context of endless negotiations, progress must be made, even if it is tedious, minor or slow. It would be unwise to respond forcefully and possibly provoke an opponent that is both stronger and less cautious. A skilled negotiator must maintain alignment between their statements and actions. Only in this way will it be possible to convince and halt, even if only in part, the pretensions of continuous control and subordination.
Determining how independent to be in external relations is a delicate assessment, and daily efforts should prioritize public interests. Sovereignty is a deeply rooted aspiration among Mexicans, but it has certain limitations. The struggle to establish it in everyday life requires expanding concrete measures. It should not be forced as the basis for all and any debates that affect it. This gives rise to a series of unpredictable outcomes that, through closer relations, will shape the power of both the state and the nation. The quest to round out both the sovereignty and the operational capacity of the country will undoubtedly be an ongoing task.
In the face of others, however tough and ambitious they may be, we cannot fall into defeatism based on fear, caution and advice. Even less so should we interpose petty interests. Liberating action requires constant recourse to popular support — support that is informed and majority-based. Therefore, it is essential to prioritize harmonious coexistence with individuals who should be empowered as active participants.
*Editor's note: A U.S. military operation "extracted" Nicolas Maduro and his wife just before 2 a.m. Saturday, Jan. 3, and brought him by plane to New York to face criminal charges.
Three significant developments contribute to the present situation. First, the increased military presence in the Caribbean has resulted in incidents involving attacks on vessels and the seizure of oil tankers. The goal is to remove Nicolás Maduro and support governments that comply with certain demands*. All of this is accompanied by a sponsored shift to the right in the southern region. Second, the publication of the U.S. 2025 National Security Strategy and the now famous Trump Corollary. This conveys the harsh imperial vision that will govern U.S. relations with the subcontinent. Last, Mexico maintains a strong stance in its foreign policy, resisting U.S. ambitions.
To thoroughly assess the implications — considered the government's primary concern — it is essential to examine the perspectives and decisions of the U.S. policy-making leadership. It is generally understood that these viewpoints are neither overly favorable nor simplistic; rather, they reflect the complex motivations and interests underlying its relationship with neighboring nations. Notably, such actions often diverge from our national objectives. Typically, the outcomes indicate a tendency toward reinforcing global hegemony.
On successive occasions, decisions are made based on business interests and convenience in order to increase command and control over one's neighbor. Classifying Mexico as a major customer does little to guarantee its use as a bargaining chip. The country's weapons are limited and not powerful enough to significantly benefit its own interests. The truth is that the specific views of Americans point to limiting the development of Mexican capabilities.
They even come across as avaricious displays of power, trying to profit from any deal. As a rule, generosity is excluded from the processes of interaction. There is no desire for Mexico to reach higher stages of industrial or technological development. Modernity does not enter into the neighbor's self-interested view. And in that direction, indispensable conditions will be imposed to subjugate and subordinate, never to liberate and help prosper. After clearly identifying the opponent's practical and basic intentions, it is necessary to list and consider all possible actions that could be taken.
The Mexican government has so far followed constitutional principles in its actions, which serves as an effective defensive strategy. The official discourse must necessarily be based on this. It is an essential mandate. But then, within the context of endless negotiations, progress must be made, even if it is tedious, minor or slow. It would be unwise to respond forcefully and possibly provoke an opponent that is both stronger and less cautious. A skilled negotiator must maintain alignment between their statements and actions. Only in this way will it be possible to convince and halt, even if only in part, the pretensions of continuous control and subordination.
Determining how independent to be in external relations is a delicate assessment, and daily efforts should prioritize public interests. Sovereignty is a deeply rooted aspiration among Mexicans, but it has certain limitations. The struggle to establish it in everyday life requires expanding concrete measures. It should not be forced as the basis for all and any debates that affect it. This gives rise to a series of unpredictable outcomes that, through closer relations, will shape the power of both the state and the nation. The quest to round out both the sovereignty and the operational capacity of the country will undoubtedly be an ongoing task.
In the face of others, however tough and ambitious they may be, we cannot fall into defeatism based on fear, caution and advice. Even less so should we interpose petty interests. Liberating action requires constant recourse to popular support — support that is informed and majority-based. Therefore, it is essential to prioritize harmonious coexistence with individuals who should be empowered as active participants.
*Editor's note: A U.S. military operation "extracted" Nicolas Maduro and his wife just before 2 a.m. Saturday, Jan. 3, and brought him by plane to New York to face criminal charges.
Previous article![]( "Against Putin’s Will?")
Next article![]( "This Year, International ‘Our Country 1st’ Rhetoric Raged Internationally")
