Tightening the Rope

The subversion of the international order that has more or less framed coexistence among nations has been the flagship policy of Donald Trump’s second term. The U.S. president dismisses both domestic and foreign laws, governing only by his own morality, or lack thereof. He wields intimidation and force as instruments to assert his country’s global power, which, in reality, is slipping away. These are conditions under which most nations now must operate. We do not live in simple times; they are unrecognizable compared to five years ago.

The solution will hardly come from outside intervention to curtail the crazy actions of the “Orange Emperor.” Some countries are too weak to face up to him; others, like China, are waiting for the right moment to act, which is not now. The main form of resistance will come from American democratic institutions, such as the judicial system, which Trump is determined to dismantle, although he has not succeeded so far. There are also elections, which still retain integrity, meaning there is still a possibility that this could all soon come to an end and we can turn a new page.

Meanwhile, it is up to the rest of the world to act cautiously and sensibly knowing there is an unhinged man driving a monster truck on the highway.

As I explained last week, Trump’s goal is merely to concentrate power. In the case of Venezuela, this was more important to him than the country’s oil reserves; we are now seeing an understandable reluctance by American conglomerates to invest there. It was also more important to him than tackling drug trafficking and, of course, democracy, something Trump could not care less about. His objective is control and coercion, particularly with regard to economics.

In the case of Mexico, Trump seems to have found the perfect pretext in the form of the war on drugs. The threat of direct intervention, which is worrying for politicians that are colluding with organized crime, is a not-so-subtle way of encouraging the Mexican government, led by Claudia Sheinbaum, to align itself with American interests. Primarily, it is an attempt to prevent Mexico from developing further economic relations with China. But it also seeks to align Mexican politics in general with U.S. desires to have the whole of the Northern Hemisphere by its side.

The question is whether Mexico will act tactfully, or will compromise and ideological sympathy prevail?

Until now, we have witnessed a schizophrenic state of affairs. President Sheinbaum is trying to fine-tune her relationship with Trump under a doctrine of “collaboration without subordination,” even postponing her daily press conference to do so. Yet her party, Morena, with the enthusiastic approval of numerous spokespeople and members of government, is throwing its support behind Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro; they still recognize him as president, demand his release and cry out about imperialism.

Herein lies the problem, among other things, with Mexico’s relationship with Cuba, specifically with regard to the oil and gas it continues to export to the Caribbean island every day. According to Sheinbaum, this constitutes historic and humanitarian support for a country suffering due to U.S. sanctions.

How much is too much? A collateral result of U.S. intervention in Venezuela is that the Chavist government’s petrol subsidy to Cuba has been terminated. Now, Mexico is the leader of a very small group of countries that export fuel to the island. These shipments worsen the growing financial difficulties experienced by our state-owned oil and gas corporation, Pemex, and do not, in actual fact, stretch far enough to cover Cuba’s needs. These days, power outages on the island can last for up to 20 hours; electricity is a rare commodity. Support from Mexico, which was useful for decades, is now vital for the Cuban government, but nonetheless remains insufficient. Besides, Cubans will not pay for the oil and gas we send them.

It is clear that support for Cuba is a financial burden on Mexico. Now it is also a political one. There will be pressure from both sides of the Straits of Florida; one side will ask Mexico to stop exports completely, while the other will ask Mexico for more. This issue is increasingly pressurized.

On a personal level, I am convinced that the regime in Cuba, which previously betrayed a popular revolution to form a military dictatorship, is capable of surviving by itself, even if it has to subject its population to a way of life similar to the one it experienced at liberation. To paraphrase former Spanish Prime Minister Felipe González, they are capable of imprisoning themselves in a state of unyielding resistance and following a path of obligatory collective suicide. Decades have passed since Cuba was an even slightly rational example of desirable social change. The last members of the bourgeoisie fled the island in the 1960s. Since then, millions have also defected, hungry and profoundly disillusioned by a cause they previously believed in and fought for.

Yet there are some – many of whom are in Morena’s ranks – that insist on denying reality, believing it to be socially and historically important to defend the Cuban government. Those people, enamored by ideology, are happy to tighten the rope until it gives.

It is important to know that tightening the rope too much could make it snap. This would be counterproductive, potentially even traumatic. Therefore, the first task is to safeguard national sovereignty. You cannot achieve this with bravado or by dealing revolutionary blows. It requires cautious maneuvering.