Lopez Obrador, Andres Manuel

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en México 2024: lo que hay que saber

      by

      Esto es lo que hay que saber:¿Por qué son importantes estas elecciones en México?¿Quiénes son las candidatas a la presidencia de México?¿Cuáles son los principales temas de las elecciones?¿Quién se espera que gane?¿Cuándo se sabrán los resultados de las elecciones del 2024 en México?¿Cómo puedo saber más?¿Por qué son importantes estas elecciones en México?Las votaciones del 2 de junio serán históricas de distintas maneras.Serán los mayores comicios del país en cuanto a votantes y cargos. Se espera que casi 99 millones de personas emitan su voto para elegir más de 20.000 cargos locales, estatales y en el Congreso, así como la presidencia del país.Y, por primera vez en su historia, el país elegirá a una presidenta, ya que las dos principales candidatas que postulan al cargo son mujeres.El presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, no tiene permitido volver a contender, según lo establecido por la Constitución, y ha respaldado con fuerza a su protegida y correligionaria del partido Morena, Claudia Sheinbaum, quien promete continuar con la agenda del actual mandatario. Su principal competencia es Xóchitl Gálvez, una crítica del gobierno de López Obrador que promete que hará que vuelvan los pesos y contrapeso al gobierno.La ganadora será responsable de nominar a un nuevo juez de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación. Si gana Sheinbaum, se espera que elija a alguien de su partido, lo cual podría cambiar el equilibrio de la corte en un momento en que ha servido de contrapeso al gobierno actual.¿Quiénes son las candidatas a la presidencia de México?Las dos principales contendientes son Sheinbaum, física y otrora jefa de gobierno de la Ciudad de México, y Gálvez, exsenadora y empresaria tecnológica que a menudo se ha identificado con una agenda progresista.Varios factores le dan la ventaja a Sheinbaum y el partido Morena. En gran medida, tal vez se deba a los altos índices de aprobación de López Obrador. Sheinbaum ha prometido seguir con la agenda de López Obrador, en parte al consolidar algunos de sus principales proyectos de infraestructura, llevando a cabo sus medidas de austeridad y mantener sus programas de bienestar social.

      #story h1, .nytapp-hybrid-article h1 {
      font-style: normal;
      font-weight: 700;
      font-size: 2.5rem;
      line-height: 1;
      }

      #story li p a,
      .nytapp-hybrid-article li p a {
      text-decoration-color: var(–color-content-secondary) !important;
      color: var(–color-content-primary);
      text-underline-offset: 3px;
      }

      #story li p a:visited,
      .nytapp-hybrid-article li p a:visited {
      text-decoration-color: var(–color-content-secondary) !important;
      color: var(–color-content-primary);
      text-underline-offset: 3px;
      }

      #story li > p,
      .nytapp-hybrid-article li p {
      font-family: nyt-cheltenham, nyt-imperial,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;
      font-size: 20px;
      font-weight: 300;
      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 600px) {

      #story li > p {
      font-size: 22px;
      }

      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 1024px) {

      h2:not(#styln-toplinks-title) {
      padding-top: 40px;
      }

      #story h1, .nytapp-hybrid-article h1 {
      font-size: 2.938rem;
      line-height: 1;
      }

      }

      We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico’s 2024 General Election: What to Know

      by

      Why does this election matter?Who are the candidates?What are the main issues?Who is expected to win?When will we learn the result?Where can I find out more?Why does this election matter?Mexico’s vote on June 2 will be a landmark election in several ways.It will be the country’s largest election in terms of voters and seats. Nearly 99 million people are expected to cast a ballot for more than 20,000 local, state and congressional posts as well as for the presidency.And for the first time in the country’s history, Mexico will elect a female president, as the top two candidates running for the office are women.President Andrés Manuel López Obrador cannot run again under the constitution, and he has strongly backed his protégée and fellow Morena party member, Claudia Sheinbaum, who pledges to continue the current leader’s agenda. Her primary opponent is Xóchitl Gálvez, a strong critic of the López Obrador administration who vows to return checks and balances to government.The winner will be responsible for nominating a new Supreme Court judge. If Ms. Sheinbaum is elected, she is expected to nominate an ally of her Morena party, which could shift the court’s balance at a time when it has stood as a counterweight to the López Obrador administration.Who are the candidates?The top two candidates are Ms. Sheinbaum, a physicist and former mayor of Mexico City, and Ms. Gálvez, a former senator and outspoken tech entrepreneur who has often adhered to progressive politics.Several factors favor Ms. Sheinbaum and her Morena party; above all, perhaps, is Mr. López Obrador’s high approval rating. Ms. Sheinbaum has pledged to continue Mr. López Obrador’s agenda, in large part by consolidating some of his major infrastructure projects, carrying out his austerity measures and preserving his social welfare programs.

      #story h1, .nytapp-hybrid-article h1 {
      font-style: normal;
      font-weight: 700;
      font-size: 2.5rem;
      line-height: 1;
      }

      #story li p a,
      .nytapp-hybrid-article li p a {
      text-decoration-color: var(–color-content-secondary) !important;
      color: var(–color-content-primary);
      text-underline-offset: 3px;
      }

      #story li p a:visited,
      .nytapp-hybrid-article li p a:visited {
      text-decoration-color: var(–color-content-secondary) !important;
      color: var(–color-content-primary);
      text-underline-offset: 3px;
      }

      #story li > p,
      .nytapp-hybrid-article li p {
      font-family: nyt-cheltenham, nyt-imperial,georgia,’times new roman’,times,serif;
      font-size: 20px;
      font-weight: 300;
      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 600px) {

      #story li > p {
      font-size: 22px;
      }

      }

      @media screen and (min-width: 1024px) {

      h2:not(#styln-toplinks-title) {
      padding-top: 40px;
      }

      #story h1, .nytapp-hybrid-article h1 {
      font-size: 2.938rem;
      line-height: 1;
      }

      }

      We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico Condemns Texas Law, and Says It Will Not Accept Deportations From the State

      by

      Mexico will not accept deportations made by Texas “under any circumstances,” the country’s foreign ministry said on Tuesday in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow Texas to arrest migrants who cross into the state without authorization.The ministry condemned the state law, known as Senate Bill 4, saying it would separate families, violate the human rights of migrants and generate “hostile environments” for the more than 10 million people of Mexican origin living in Texas.Mexico’s top diplomat for North America, Roberto Velasco Álvarez, rejected the ruling on the social media on Tuesday, saying that immigration policy was something to be negotiated between federal governments.The Mexican government has severely criticized the measure since last year, and rejected the idea of local or state agencies, rather than federal authorities, detaining and returning migrants and asylum seekers to Mexican territory.“Texas has taken a very combative stance,” said Rafael Fernández de Castro, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican studies at the University of California, San Diego. “It’s only aggravating the problem because you violently close one part of the border, but others are still open.”A senior Mexican foreign ministry official who was not allowed to speak publicly said that the Supreme Court ruling would not affect existing migration agreements between the two countries.While Mexico has served as the United States’ immigration enforcer, often discouraging migrants from massing at the border, the country has also publicly pushed for two key policies to address the root causes that force people out of their home countries — such as poverty, violence, inequality and climate change — and expand regular pathways for migration.Last week, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico said his administration was proposing that the Biden administration give legal status to at least five million undocumented Mexicans living and working in the United States.He has also called on the United States to suspend sanctions against Venezuela and lift the blockade against Cuba, saying that such measures would reduce migration flows from those countries. And he has called proposals to build walls or close the border as “electoral propaganda.”“Do you think the Americans and Mexicans will approve of this?” Mr. López Obrador said last month. “Companies cannot stand it. Maybe for a day, but not for a week.” More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico’s President Faces Inquiry for Disclosing Phone Number of Times Journalist

      by

      President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico has repeatedly made attacks on members of the news media in a country that is one of the world’s deadliest for journalists.Mexico’s freedom of information institute, a government agency, said Thursday that it would start an investigation into the president’s disclosure on national television of the personal cellphone number of a journalist for The New York Times.The investigation centers on a decision by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador during a televised news conference on Thursday that left many aghast in Mexico, one of the deadliest countries in the world for journalists. At least 128 journalists have been killed in Mexico since 2006, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.During the news conference, Mr. López Obrador read aloud from an email from Natalie Kitroeff, The New York Times’s bureau chief for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. She had requested comment for an article revealing that U.S. law enforcement officials had for years been looking into claims that allies of Mr. López Obrador met with and took millions of dollars from drug cartels.In addition to railing against Ms. Kitroeff and identifying her by name, Mr. López Obrador publicly recited her phone number.“This is tantamount to doxxing, illegal by Mexican privacy laws and places reporters at risk,” Jan-Albert Hootsen, the Mexico representative for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said on X, the social media platform.Mexico’s National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection, or INAI, said in a statement that its investigation would seek to establish whether Mr. López Obrador had violated Mexican legislation protecting personal data. The institute runs Mexico’s freedom of information system, which was created more than two decades ago to make government operations more transparent and curb abuses of power.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Climate is on the Ballot Around the World

      by

      About half of the world’s population will be electing leaders this year.More than 40 countries that are home to about half of the world’s population — including the United States, India and South Africa — will be electing their leaders this year.My colleagues at The Times report that it’s “one of the largest and most consequential democratic exercises in living memory,” which “will affect how the world is run for decades to come.”Climate is front and center on many of the ballots. The leaders chosen in this year’s elections will face daunting challenges laid out in global climate commitments for the end of the decade, such as ending deforestation, tripling renewable energy capacity and sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions.Here are the issues and races to watch closely:Major climate policies at stakeClimate change is one of the issues on which Republicans and Democrats are farthest apart.President Biden signed what many called the most powerful climate legislation in the country’s history. Former President Trump, who is likely to be the Republican presidential candidate — especially after his victory in the Iowa caucuses — withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, the 2015 treaty that guided much of the world’s progress in curbing climate change.Republicans have also prepared a sweeping strategy called Project 2025 if Trump wins back the White House. As my colleague Lisa Friedman wrote last year, “the plan calls for shredding regulations to curb greenhouse gas pollution from cars, oil and gas wells and power plants, dismantling almost every clean energy program in the federal government and boosting the production of fossil fuels.”Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, is expected to seek re-election.Martin Divisek/EPA, via ShutterstockEuropean Union incumbents will also be defending their climate policies, known as the Green Deal, in elections for the European Parliament in June. Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president who is expected to seek re-election by the European Parliament, kicked off a series of policies designed to ensure the bloc achieves carbon neutrality by 2050. But opposition to these policies is growing. Farmers in several countries have tried to block measures to restore natural ecosystems, while homeowners have grown increasingly worried about the cost of the green energy transition.Opinion polls analyzed by Reuters in a commentary piece suggest far-right lawmakers, who oppose Green Deal policies, will grow in number but remain a minority. Climate may also play a role in elections in Britain, which may happen in the second half of the year. They became a key point of disagreement between the Labour Party and the governing Conservative Party, which are trailing in the polls, after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak rolled back some of the country’s most ambitious climate policies.The future of coalCountries that rely heavily on coal as a source of energy, such as India, Indonesia and South Africa, are also going to the polls this year. In South Africa, elections could influence how fast the country is able to switch to renewables. Any shake up to the ruling African National Congress’ hold on power could boost the shift to renewables, my colleague Lynsey Chutel, who covers South Africa, told me.Environmental activists demonstrated outside of Standard Bank South Africa in Johannesburg, South Africa, in September.Kim Ludbrook/EPA, via ShutterstockRight now, one of the party’s most powerful leaders is an energy minister who has fiercely defended the country’s continued use of coal. Many voters are angry at the A.N.C. for its inability to address an energy crisis partially created by aging coal plants.There seems to be less room for a shift in the elections in Indonesia and India. My colleague Suhasini Raj, who is based in India, told me that, despite high rates of pollution and the pressure on India to let go of coal, the current prime minister Narendra Modi is likely to be re-elected and continue his pro-coal policies.In Indonesia none of the candidates running for president have put forward a concrete plan to transition to clean energy, Mongabay, an environmental news service, reported. The country is by far the world’s biggest exporter of coal. Oil on the ballotFor leaders in oil producing nations around the world, balancing climate policies and drilling has been a delicate act that will be tested on the ballot.President Biden risked losing the support of many climate-conscious voters when he approved Willow, an $8 billion oil drilling project on pristine federal land in Alaska. But Biden’s support for more drilling has been, at least in part, an effort to curb inflation, which angers many more voters.Claudia Sheinbaum’s presidential campaign in Mexico is also balancing climate proposals with her country’s dependence on oil. A climate scientist who is now the mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum is a protégé of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, whose administration has tried to boost the oil sector’s role in the country’s economy.Claudia Sheinbaum, running for president in Mexico.Carlos Lopez/EPA, via ShutterstockSheinbaum, a favorite to win in June, has vowed to act to protect the climate. But it’s unclear how much Obrador’s oil legacy will color her policies. “We are going to keep advancing with renewable energies and with the protection of the environment, but without betraying the people of Mexico,” she told voters, according to Bloomberg.The oil industry is also on the ballot in Venezuela and Russia, where it lends strength to authoritarian leaders.Vladimir Putin’s re-election — and his disregard for the climate — seems to be a foregone conclusion. But, in Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, there is tiny window for change, though it seems to be closing fast.Venezuela freed five political prisoners in October after the United States vowed to lift some sanctions to its oil industry if it holds free and fair elections. But the main opposition candidate is still banned from running.It may sound contradictory, but some investment in Venezuela’s oil sector could help clean it up. As my colleagues reported last year, government dysfunction has left the industry unable to maintain minimum safeguards, with devastating consequences to the environment.We will report back with key developments on these races throughout the year. When it comes to the climate crisis, even far-off elections have implications for us all. Plaintiffs in the Loper Bright Enterprises case, from left, William Bright, Wayne Reichle and Stefan Axelsson, in Cape May, N.J.Rachel Wisniewski for The New York TimesA Supreme Court case could dismantle federal regulationThe Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday for a case that could severely curb the federal government’s regulatory power, with potentially drastic repercussions for the climate.The case is about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee designed to help prevent overfishing. But a victory for the fishermen could achieve a long-sought goal of the conservative legal movement: undermining a longstanding legal doctrine known as the Chevron deference.That could have implications for the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other sectors, legal experts told my colleague Hiroko Tabuchi.“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”The Chevron deference was created by a 1984 Supreme Court ruling involving the oil and gas giant. It empowers federal agencies to interpret ambiguities in laws passed by Congress. Weakening or eliminating the Chevron deference would limit the agencies’s ability to interpret the laws they administer. A victory for the fishermen would also shift power from agencies to judges, my colleague Adam Liptak wrote.The lawyers who have helped to propel the case to the nation’s highest court have a powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch. Court records show that the lawyers who represent the New Jersey-based fishermen also work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by Koch, who is a champion of anti-regulatory causes.In their briefs, the groups supporting the fishermen pointed out that the Chevron deference has fallen out of favor at the Supreme Court in recent years, and several justices have criticized it.Justice Clarence Thomas was initially a backer of the Chevron deference, writing the concurring opinion in 2005 that expanded its protections. But Thomas, who has close ties to the Koch’s political network, has since renounced his earlier ruling. Other climate newsNearly a quarter of humanity were living under drought in 2022 and 2023, the United Nations estimates.The Biden administration announced a plan to charge oil and gas companies a steep fee for emitting methane.John Kerry, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, plans to step down in the spring.A U.S. government map that show extreme weather threats now frequently covers almost the whole country.Chevron, the oil giant, and other companies are building an underground hydrogen battery in Utah.Denial about climate change is on the rise, according to an analysis of 12,000 disinformation videos by U.K. researchers, Grist reports.Colombia created its newest national park by befriending the traditional ranches that surround it.The Crochet Coral Reef, a long-running craft-science collaborative artwork, is the environmental version of the AIDS quilt. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump quería lanzar misiles a México. El Partido Republicano habla de enviar tropas

      by

      La idea republicana de usar la fuerza militar en México contra los cárteles de la droga comenzó como una fantasía de Donald Trump en el Despacho Oval. El expresidente busca hacerla realidad en 2025.La primera vez que Donald Trump habló en privado sobre lanzar misiles a México para destruir laboratorios de droga, por lo que recuerdan sus exasesores, fue en 2020.Y la primera vez que esos comentarios salieron a la luz pública fue cuando su segundo secretario de Defensa, Mark Esper, escribió en sus memorias que Trump se lo había planteado y le había preguntado si era posible que Estados Unidos hiciera parecer que el responsable era otro país. Esper describió la idea como algo absurdo.Sin embargo, en lugar de condenar la idea, algunos republicanos celebraron de manera pública la noticia de que Trump había querido emplear la fuerza militar contra los cárteles de la droga en territorio mexicano, y sin el consentimiento del gobierno de México. Muy pronto, la idea de Trump de una intervención militar al sur de la frontera estadounidense ha pasado de ser una fantasía del Despacho Oval a algo parecido a la doctrina del Partido Republicano.Durante la campaña presidencial y en el escenario del debate republicano en California la semana pasada, casi todos los aspirantes republicanos han defendido versiones distintas de un plan para enviar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales de EE. UU. a territorio mexicano para ejecutar o detener a miembros de los cárteles de la droga y destruir sus laboratorios y centros de distribución.En el Capitolio, un grupo de legisladores republicanos escribió una autorización robusta para el uso de la fuerza militar contra los cárteles, similares a los poderes de guerra que el Congreso le otorgó al expresidente George W. Bush antes de las invasiones de Afganistán e Irak. También han presionado para designar a los cárteles mexicanos como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras, una idea relacionada con la que coqueteó Trump como presidente, pero se retractó después de que México se opusiera de manera vehemente. Ahora, si Trump vuelve a la Casa Blanca en 2025, se ha comprometido a impulsar la designación y a desplegar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales y a las fuerzas navales para, según sus palabras, declarar la guerra a los cárteles.La proclividad del Partido Republicano de buscar una solución militar al problema de las drogas es un recordatorio de que el partido —a pesar de su viraje populista al antintervencionismo en los años de Trump y a que una facción que se opone a armar a Ucrania contra la invasión de Rusia ha crecido— todavía emplea la fuerza armada para lidiar con algunos temas complejos e inextricables. El propio Trump ha sido una especie de contradicción andante en lo que respecta al uso de la fuerza en el extranjero: por una parte, ha querido retirar la participación de Estados Unidos en el extranjero y, por otra, ha amenazado con lanzar bombas a enemigos como Irán.Los planes han indignado a las autoridades mexicanas. El presidente del país, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha denunciado las propuestas como indignantes e inaceptables. Hace más de un siglo que Estados Unidos no envía personal militar a México sin el consentimiento del gobierno mexicano.México tiene una historia amarga con la injerencia estadounidense: un gran trecho del suroeste estadounidense era parte de México antes de que Estados Unidos lo tomara por la fuerza a mediados del siglo XIX. Por lo general, México no permite al día de hoy que agentes estadounidenses armados ejecuten operaciones en su territorio, a diferencia de otros países latinoamericanos que han aceptado realizar operaciones conjuntas con la Administración para el Control de Drogas y que han invitado al gobierno estadounidense a ayudar a instruir, equipar y asistir a sus fuerzas de seguridad.Los analistas también han señalado la posibilidad de que una acción militar provoque daños económicos importantes. Los planes podrían romper la relación de Estados Unidos con México, su mayor socio comercial, y reducir otros tipos de cooperación, como la detención y extradición de delincuentes y los esfuerzos de México para disuadir a los migrantes de intentar cruzar de manera ilegal a Estados Unidos. Algunos republicanos conciben la amenaza de enviar el ejército a México como una herramienta de negociación para forzar a las autoridades mexicanas a tomar posturas más agresivas contra los cárteles.Por lo general, el derecho internacional prohíbe que un país haga uso de la fuerza militar en el territorio soberano de otra nación sin su consentimiento, salvo con el permiso del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas o en casos de legítima defensa. Pero Estados Unidos ha adoptado la postura de que puede utilizar la fuerza unilateral y legalmente en el territorio de otro país si su gobierno no es capaz o no quiere eliminar una amenaza no estatal que surja dentro de sus fronteras, como la amenaza de un grupo terrorista.Los republicanos han descrito las redes criminales mexicanas de narcotráfico como una amenaza para la seguridad nacional estadounidense, y algunos han calificado el fentanilo como un arma de destrucción masiva.Los estadounidenses gastan miles de millones de dólares al año en cocaína, heroína y otras drogas ilegales. En gran medida y durante décadas, el mercado negro generado por esa demanda ha sido abastecido por las operaciones delictivas de contrabando a lo largo de los más de 3000 kilómetros de frontera con México. Pero el auge del fentanilo —un fuerte opioide sintético de acción rápida que puede elaborarse a bajo costo a partir de sustancias químicas— ha creado una crisis. El fentanilo se ha vinculado a más de dos tercios de las casi 110.000 muertes por sobredosis en Estados Unidos el año pasado, y los legisladores de ambos partidos han estado buscando soluciones con urgencia.También ha crecido la frustración con el gobierno mexicano, cuyo presidente ha abogado por una política de “abrazos, no balazos” para lidiar con la delincuencia relacionada con las drogas, luego de que las medidas enérgicas contra los líderes de los cárteles de gobiernos anteriores derivaran en una violencia generalizada. Los cárteles, que se asemejan a organizaciones paramilitares con alta tecnología, han tomado el control de vastas zonas de México y han corrompido a muchos funcionarios gubernamentales y de las fuerzas del orden.El gobierno de Joe Biden, al igual que las gestiones anteriores de presidentes de ambos partidos, ha intentado colaborar con México para frenar el flujo de drogas y ha descartado la acción militar de manera explícita.Chris Landau, quien fue embajador de Trump en México de 2019 a 2021, consideró que la noción de usar la fuerza militar en un país fronterizo era una mala idea que solo empeoraría la situación. Advirtió que podría crear un nuevo “atolladero” y recordó las consecuencias de las intervenciones militares en Irak y Afganistán.“Entiendo la frustración”, añadió Landau. “Solo creo que un modelo de ‘tiroteo entre forajidos y autoridades’ no va a resolverlo y causará muchos más problemas”.Los orígenes en el Despacho OvalEl expresidente Donald Trump en el muro fronterizo durante una conmemoración en San Luis, Arizona, en junio de 2020. Trump tuvo varias conversaciones con asesores y otros miembros de su gestión sobre el combate a los cárteles mexicanos.Doug Mills/The New York TimesLa historia del modo en el que la idea de enviar fuerzas militares a México pasó del Despacho Oval de Trump al centro de la conversación política republicana es complicada y mucho más que una simple historia de legisladores que imitan a Trump.La propuesta de Trump de lanzar misiles contra laboratorios de drogas mexicanos no fue algo que inventara de cero. Surgió durante una reunión y un hombre en uniforme confirmó que era posible.Sin embargo, ese hombre en uniforme no pertenecía a la cadena de mando militar: era un oficial médico, una persona inusual para asesorar al presidente de Estados Unidos sobre operaciones militares en cualquier lugar.A finales de 2019 y principios de 2020, cuando la crisis del fentanilo se intensificaba, se hicieron reuniones a gran escala en el Despacho Oval en las que se abordó cómo lidiar con el problema. Algunas personas que participaron consideraron que las reuniones no servían de mucho porque los funcionarios tendían a actuar como Trump esperaba, y él actuaba para ellos.Cuando la idea de una intervención militar se planteó en una de esas reuniones, Trump se dirigió a Brett Giroir, quien estaba allí en calidad de subsecretario de Salud de EE. UU. Giroir era también almirante de cuatro estrellas en el Cuerpo Comisionado del Servicio de Salud Pública, y llevaba su uniforme de gala. Su principal argumento fue que Estados Unidos no era capaz de combatir la crisis solo con tratamiento, según una persona informada de sus comentarios.Por la forma en que Trump se enfocó en Giroir, quedaba claro que, debido a su uniforme de gala, había asumido erróneamente que pertenecía al ejército, según dos participantes en la reunión. Giroir, en su respuesta, sugirió poner “plomo al blanco”, recordaron los dos participantes. Trump no reveló lo que pensaba sobre la idea, y los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca, preocupados por ese momento, consideraron la posibilidad de pedirle a Giroir que no volviera a llevar su uniforme de gala al Despacho Oval.Giroir, en una declaración, no comentó sobre la discusión sustancial de la reunión, pero aseguró que nadie había insinuado que la acción militar por sí misma resolvería la crisis del fentanilo. También insistió en que Trump no lo había confundido con un oficial militar.“Sabía exactamente quién era yo, que estaba en el Servicio de Salud Pública y que era el responsable de opioides bajo las órdenes del secretario”, dijo Giroir. “Tuvimos diversas reuniones antes de eso”.Jason Miller, asesor principal de la campaña de 2024 de Trump, se negó a hablar de la reunión de la Oficina Oval o la discusión sobre el lanzamiento de misiles a México.Como presidente, Trump tuvo conversaciones sobre el uso de la fuerza militar en México con Brett Giroir, al centro, el subsecretario de Salud de Estados Unidos; el fiscal general, William Barr, a la izquierda; y el secretario de Defensa, Mark EsperFotografías del New York Times por Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick y Erin SchaffDurante ese mismo periodo de tiempo, a finales de 2019, el fiscal general, William P. Barr, le había propuesto a Trump la idea de utilizar la fuerza dentro de México, pero lo había vislumbrado como una política que podrían implementar en un segundo mandato, si Trump ganaba las elecciones de 2020. Pensó que la amenaza de una acción unilateral por parte de Estados Unidos daría al gobierno ventaja para presionar a los mexicanos a hacer más por su parte para reprimir a los cárteles.Barr y Trump mantuvieron varias conversaciones sobre el tema. Barr mencionó una serie de opciones de medidas enérgicas, según una persona familiarizada con las conversaciones. Pero Barr no era partidario de los misiles, según la persona, ya que le preocupaba que se pudieran alcanzar objetivos equivocados usando tales órdenes.Al menos dos veces en 2020, Trump preguntó en privado a su secretario de Defensa, Esper, sobre la posibilidad de enviar “misiles Patriot” a México para destruir los laboratorios de drogas, y si podrían culpar a otro país por ello. Los misiles Patriot no son del tipo que se emplearían en tal caso —son armas tierra-aire—, pero Trump tenía la costumbre de llamar “misiles Patriot” a todos los misiles, según dos ex altos funcionarios del gobierno. Durante una de las discusiones de 2020, Trump hizo el comentario en voz baja a Esper mientras estaban cerca del escritorio presidencial, desde donde pudo escucharlo otro funcionario del gabinete. Esper, sorprendido, rechazó la idea.De la boca de Trump a la campaña de 2024En una señal de lo políticamente poderoso que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la idea de enviar tropas a México, Nikki Haley, el gobernador Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy y Tim Scott se han apresurado a ofrecer soluciones militares a la epidemia de opioides.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesTras abandonar el cargo, Trump no dejó de hablar de atacar a los cárteles de la droga. Por el contario, convirtió la idea en una propuesta política oficial para su campaña presidencial de 2024.En enero, Trump publicó un video de propaganda titulado “El presidente Donald Trump declara la guerra a los cárteles”, en el que apoyaba explícitamente la idea de designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como al Estado Islámico en Irak y Siria, en lugar de tratarlos como organizaciones criminales transnacionales a las que hay que hacer frente con herramientas para el cumplimiento de la ley.Trump prometió “desplegar todos los activos militares necesarios, incluida la Marina de Guerra de Estados Unidos”, para imponer un embargo total a los cárteles y “designar a los principales cárteles como Organizaciones Terroristas Extranjeras”.Y se comprometió a ordenar al Pentágono “hacer un uso apropiado de las fuerzas especiales, la guerra cibernética y otras acciones abiertas y encubiertas para infligir el máximo daño a los líderes, la infraestructura y las operaciones de los cárteles”.En materia de derecho internacional, surge una pregunta crucial sobre si Estados Unidos usaría la fuerza militar dentro de México solo con el consentimiento de su gobierno o si lo haría unilateralmente sin consentimiento. Trump restó importancia a la posibilidad de una guerra con México en una entrevista reciente con Megyn Kelly, presentadora de un pódcast y antigua estrella de Fox News.Pero en una señal de lo políticamente potente que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la perspectiva de enviar tropas a México, la campaña de su principal rival, el gobernador Ron DeSantis de Florida, destacó los comentarios de Trump a Kelly y enfatizó que DeSantis ha prometido tomar medidas militares agresivas contra los cárteles.Vivek Ramaswamy ha prometido “usar nuestro ejército para aniquilar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga”. Tim Scott, senador por Carolina del Sur, ha publicado un anuncio de campaña en el que jura “desatar” al ejército estadounidense contra los cárteles. Y la exgobernadora de Carolina del Sur Nikki Haley ha dicho que cuando se trata de los cárteles de la droga, “le dices al presidente mexicano, o lo haces tú o lo hacemos nosotros”.Miller, el asesor de Trump, dijo que Trump había anunciado un “plan detallado para erradicar los cárteles de la droga y detener el flujo de drogas a nuestro país en la primera semana de enero, y es bueno ver que tantos otros ahora siguen su ejemplo”.Poner en práctica la ideaEl representante Dan Crenshaw ha propuesto una ley para autorizar ampliamente el uso de la fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles, un proyecto que más de 30 de sus compañeros republicanos han apoyado como copatrocinadores.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesLa idea ha cobrado vida propia en el Capitolio.Más de 20 republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes han firmado para copatrocinar la legislación propuesta por Dan Crenshaw, representante por Texas, para promulgar una amplia autorización para el empleo de fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles. También autorizaría la utilización de la fuerza contra cualquier organización extranjera que el presidente determine que cumple ciertos criterios, incluidas las organizaciones relacionadas con el tráfico de fentanilo.La autorización propuesta para la guerra terminaría al cabo de cinco años, a menos que el Congreso promulgara un nuevo proyecto de ley para prorrogala. Pero, por lo demás, su carácter laxo se asemeja a las amplias autorizaciones de guerra que el Congreso promulgó tras los atentados terroristas de 2001 y antes de la guerra de Irak de 2003, que se convirtieron en problemas más allá de los que los legisladores habían previsto en un principio.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur que es un aliado cercano de Trump, dijo que pensaba que un presidente podría bombardear laboratorios de fentanilo y centros de distribución en su propia autoridad constitucional como comandante en jefe, sin autorización del Congreso. Pero también argumentó que si Trump volviera a ser presidente, la mera amenaza de que podría hacer algo así podría inducir al gobierno mexicano a tomar medidas más agresivas.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur, dio una rueda de prensa en marzo sobre su propuesta de ley para designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“A medida que estos problemas no se gestionan y se hacen más grandes en alcance, las soluciones se vuelven más draconianas”, dijo. “Y una cosa sobre Trump, creo que si consigue un segundo mandato, creo que verán más cooperación por parte de México. No creo que tengamos que llegar a bombardear laboratorios, México ajustará sus políticas en función de Trump”.‘Una ofensa al pueblo de México’ El presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha acusado a los republicanos de “utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros”.Alejandro Cegarra para The New York TimesEl discurso republicano sobre atacar a los cárteles de la droga en México está rebotando por los pasillos de su gobierno. El presidente del país, el izquierdista Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha respondido con molestia y ha hecho algo inusual para un líder mundial: atacar al Partido Republicano.“Esta iniciativa de los republicanos, además de irresponsable, es una ofensa al pueblo de México, una falta de respeto a nuestra independencia, a nuestra soberanía”, dijo López Obrador a los periodistas en marzo. “Si no cambian su actitud y piensan que van a utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros, nosotros vamos a llamar a que no se vote por ese partido, por intervencionista, inhumano, hipócrita y corrupto”.Desde la perspectiva de México, Estados Unidos es el que alimenta la violencia de los cárteles, no solo porque la demanda del país crea el mercado para el narcotráfico, sino también porque Estados Unidos facilita la compra de las armas que terminan en México. Esas armas avivan la violencia armada en el país, a pesar de sus estrictas leyes de control de armas.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, máximo responsable para América del Norte de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores de México, invocó concretamente la comparación con las armas de fuego y señaló a Ramaswamy por prometer una acción militar estadounidense dentro de México.“Si está tan preocupado el señor Ramaswamy por lo que está pasando en México, pues la mejor forma en que podría ayudarnos es quitando las escopetas que le están vendiendo literalmente a cárteles mexicanos”, dijo en una entrevista.Mientras México se encamina a unas históricas elecciones presidenciales el próximo año, en las que se espera que los electores elijan entre dos candidatas, con toda probabilidad, gane quien gane tendrá que manejar las tensiones creadas por el Partido Republicano.“Deberíamos, más que amenazas, trabajar de una manera inteligente”, dijo Xóchitl Gálvez, senadora mexicana que ha sido elegida la abanderada de la oposición y ha rechazado de manera abierta la estrategia de seguridad de López Obrador, y añadió que “los abrazos han sido para los delincuentes y los balazos para los ciudadanos mexicanos”.Pero Gálvez también criticó las propuestas republicanas de invadir México y pidió una cooperación compartida y responsable. “No podemos seguir echando la culpa”, dijo.Nicholas Nehamas colaboró en este reportaje. Kitty Bennett colaboró con investigación.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal sénior de política y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte de un equipo que ganó un Premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más información de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie SavageEmiliano Rodríguez Mega es investigador-reportero del Times radicado en Ciudad de México. Cubre México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Más de Emiliano Rodríguez Mega More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump’s Idea to Use Military Force in Mexico Became Embraced by GOP

      by

      The Republican push to use military force in Mexico against drug cartels started in the Trump White House. He has plans to make the idea a reality in 2025.The first time Donald Trump talked privately about shooting missiles into Mexico to take out drug labs, as far as his former aides can recall, was in early 2020.And the first time those comments became public was when his second defense secretary, Mark T. Esper, wrote in his memoir that Mr. Trump had raised it with him and asked if the United States could make it look as if some other country was responsible. Mr. Esper portrayed the idea as ludicrous.Yet instead of condemning the idea, some Republicans publicly welcomed word that Mr. Trump had wanted to use military force against the drug cartels on Mexican soil — and without the consent of Mexico’s government. Mr. Trump’s notion of a military intervention south of the border has swiftly evolved from an Oval Office fantasy to something approaching Republican Party doctrine.On the presidential campaign trail and on the G.O.P. debate stage in California last week, nearly every Republican candidate has been advocating versions of a plan to send U.S. Special Operations troops into Mexican territory to kill or capture drug cartel members and destroy their labs and distribution centers.On Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers have drafted a broad authorization for the use of military force against cartels — echoing the war powers Congress gave former President George W. Bush before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. They have also pushed for designating Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations — a related idea Mr. Trump flirted with as president but backed off after Mexico hotly objected. Now, if Mr. Trump returns to the White House in 2025, he has vowed to push for the designations and to deploy Special Operations troops and naval forces to, as he put it, declare war on the cartels.The Republican Party’s attraction to seeking a military solution to the drug problem is a reminder that the G.O.P. — despite its populist shift toward anti-interventionism in the Trump years and the growth of a faction that opposes arming Ukraine against Russia’s invasion — still reaches for armed force to address some complex and intractable problems. Mr. Trump himself has been something of a walking contradiction when it comes to the use of force abroad, alternately wanting to pull back U.S. involvement overseas and threatening to drop bombs on enemies such as Iran.The plans have angered officials in Mexico. Its president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has denounced the proposals as outrageous and unacceptable. It has been more than a century since the United States sent military personnel into Mexico without the Mexican government’s assent.Mexico has a bitter history with American interference: Much of the southwestern United States was part of Mexico before the United States took it by force in the middle of the 19th century. To this day, Mexico generally does not allow U.S. agents with guns to carry out operations on its soil, in contrast to other Latin American countries that have agreed to joint operations with the Drug Enforcement Administration and invited the American government to help train, equip and assist their own security forces.Analysts have also warned about the potential for military action to cause significant economic damage. The plans could rupture the United States’ relationship with Mexico, its largest trading partner, and curtail other types of cooperation, including the arrest and extradition of criminals and Mexico’s efforts to deter migrants from trying to cross illegally into the United States. Some Republicans view the threat of sending the military into Mexico as a negotiating tool to force Mexican officials to get aggressive with the cartels.Generally, international law forbids a country from using military force on the sovereign soil of another nation without its consent, except with the permission of the United Nations Security Council or in cases of self-defense. But the United States has taken the position that it can lawfully use force unilaterally on another nation’s territory if its government is unable or unwilling to suppress a nonstate threat emanating from it, such as a threat from a terrorist group.Republicans have described the Mexican criminal drug-trafficking networks as a national security threat, with some calling fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.Americans spend many billions of dollars a year on cocaine, heroin and other illegal drugs. For decades, the black market created by that demand has been heavily supplied by criminal smuggling operations across the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. But the rise of fentanyl — a powerful and fast-acting synthetic opioid that can be made cheaply from chemicals — has created a crisis. Fentanyl has been linked to more than two-thirds of the nearly 110,000 American overdose deaths last year, and lawmakers from both parties have been desperately searching for solutions.Frustration has also mounted with the Mexican government, whose president has advocated a “hugs not bullets” policy to deal with drug crime, after crackdowns on cartel leaders by previous administrations led to widespread violence. The cartels, which resemble high-tech paramilitary organizations, have seized control of large areas in Mexico and have corrupted many officials in Mexico’s government and law enforcement ranks.The Biden administration — like previous administrations of both parties — has sought to partner with Mexico to stem the flow of drugs and has explicitly ruled out military action.Chris Landau, who was Mr. Trump’s ambassador to Mexico from 2019 to 2021, said the idea of using military force in a bordering country was a bad idea that would only make things worse. He warned it could create a new “quagmire,” invoking the aftermath of military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.“I understand the frustration,” Mr. Landau added. “I just think that a ‘shootout at the O.K. Corral’ model is not going to solve it and will cause a lot more problems.”Origins in the Oval OfficeFormer President Donald Trump at the border wall during a commemoration in San Luiz, Ariz., in June 2020. Mr. Trump has had a number of conversations with aides and other members of his administration about targeting Mexican cartels.Doug Mills/The New York TimesThe story of how the idea of sending military force into Mexico went from Mr. Trump’s Oval Office to the center of the Republican policy conversation is complex and much more than a simple tale of lawmakers copying Mr. Trump.Mr. Trump’s proposal to shoot missiles at Mexican drug labs was not something he concocted out of thin air. It came up during a meeting and was affirmed by a man in uniform.That man in uniform was not in the military chain of command, however: He was a medical officer and an unlikely person to be advising the president of the United States on military operations anywhere.By late 2019 and early 2020, as the fentanyl crisis was intensifying, large-scale meetings in the Oval Office addressed how to handle the problem. Some participants felt the meetings were of little use because officials tended to perform for Mr. Trump, and he would perform for them.When the idea of military intervention was brought up at one such meeting, Mr. Trump turned to Brett Giroir, who was there in his role as the U.S. assistant secretary for health. Mr. Giroir was also a four-star admiral in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, and he was wearing his dress uniform. His main point was that the United States was unable to combat the crisis with treatment alone, according to a person briefed on his comments.It was clear from the way Mr. Trump singled out Mr. Giroir that he had mistakenly thought he was in the military because of his dress uniform, according to two participants in the meeting. Mr. Giroir, in his response, suggested putting “lead to target,” the two participants recalled. Mr. Trump did not betray what he thought about the idea, and White House officials, troubled by the moment, considered asking Mr. Giroir not to wear his dress uniform to the Oval Office again.Mr. Giroir, in a statement, did not discuss the substance of the meeting, but said that no one had suggested that military action alone would solve the fentanyl crisis. He also insisted that Mr. Trump had not mistaken him for a military officer.“He knew exactly who I was, that I was in the Public Health Service, and I was the opioids lead under the Secretary,” Mr. Giroir said. “We had multiple meetings before that.”Jason Miller, a senior adviser on Mr. Trump’s 2024 campaign, declined to address the Oval Office meeting or the discussion of sending missiles into Mexico.As president, Mr. Trump had discussions about using military force in Mexico with Brett Giroir, center, the U.S. assistant secretary for health; Attorney General William Barr, left; and the defense secretary, Mark Esper.New York Times photographs by Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick and Erin SchaffDuring that same time period in late 2019, Attorney General William P. Barr had proposed to Mr. Trump the idea of using force inside Mexico, but he envisioned it as a policy they would pursue in a second term if Mr. Trump won the 2020 election. He thought the threat of unilateral action on the part of the United States would give the administration leverage to press the Mexicans to do more on their end to suppress the cartels.Mr. Barr and Mr. Trump had a number of conversations about the issue. Mr. Barr mentioned a range of options for aggressive action, according to a person familiar with the discussions. But Mr. Barr was not advocating missiles, concerned that the wrong target might get taken out using such ordinance, the person said.At least twice during 2020, Mr. Trump privately asked his defense secretary, Mr. Esper, about the possibility of sending “Patriot missiles” into Mexico to destroy the drug labs, and whether they could blame another country for it. Patriot missiles are not the kind that would be used — they are surface-to-air weapons — but Mr. Trump had a habit of calling all missiles “Patriot missiles,” according to two former senior administration officials. During one of the 2020 discussions, Mr. Trump made the comment quietly to Mr. Esper as they stood near the Resolute Desk, within ear shot of another cabinet official. Mr. Esper, stunned, pushed back on the idea.From Trump’s Mouth to the 2024 TrailIn a sign of how politically potent the idea of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, Nikki Haley, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy and Tim Scott have all rushed to offer military solutions to the opioid epidemic.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesAfter leaving office, Mr. Trump didn’t stop talking about attacking the drug cartels. Instead, he turned the idea into an official policy proposal for his 2024 campaign for president.In January, Mr. Trump released a policy video titled “President Donald J. Trump Declares War on Cartels,” in which he explicitly endorsed the idea of treating Mexican drug cartels like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — rather than treating them as transnational criminal organizations to be addressed using law enforcement tools.Mr. Trump promised to “deploy all necessary military assets, including the U.S. Navy” to impose a full naval embargo on the cartels and to “designate the major cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.”And he pledged to order the Pentagon “to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure and operations.”As a matter of international law, a crucial question is whether the United States would use military force inside Mexico only with the consent of its government or whether it would do so unilaterally without consent. Mr. Trump downplayed the prospect of war with Mexico in a recent interview with Megyn Kelly, the podcast host and former Fox News star.But in a sign of how politically potent the prospect of sending troops into Mexico has become for Republicans, the campaign of his chief rival, Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, highlighted Mr. Trump’s comments to Ms. Kelly and emphasized that Mr. DeSantis has promised to take aggressive military action against the cartels.Vivek Ramaswamy has promised to “use our military to annihilate the Mexican drug cartels.” Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has released a campaign ad vowing to “unleash” the U.S. military against the cartels. And former Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina has said that when it comes to drug cartels, “you tell the Mexican president, either you do it or we do it.”Mr. Miller, the Trump adviser, said that Mr. Trump had announced a “detailed plan to eradicate the drug cartels and stop the flow of drugs into our country in the first week of January, and it’s good to see so many others now following his lead.”Operationalizing the IdeaRepresentative Dan Crenshaw has proposed legislation to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels, a bill more than 20 of his fellow House Republicans have backed as co-sponsors.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesThe idea has taken on a life of its own on Capitol Hill.More than 20 House Republicans have signed on to co-sponsor legislation proposed by Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas to enact a broad authorization for the use of military force against nine named cartels. It would also authorize force against any other foreign organization that the president determines meets certain criteria, including organizations related to fentanyl trafficking.The proposed authorization for a war would end after five years unless Congress enacted a new bill to extend it. But its otherwise loose nature resembles the broad war authorizations Congress enacted after the 2001 terrorist attacks and ahead of the 2003 Iraq War, both of which escalated into entanglements beyond what lawmakers originally envisioned.Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a close ally of Mr. Trump, said he thought a president could bomb fentanyl labs and distribution centers on his own constitutional authority as commander in chief, without congressional authorization. But he also argued that if Mr. Trump became president again, the mere threat that he might do something like that could induce the Mexican government to take more aggressive actions.Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, held a news conference in March about his proposed legislation to designate Mexican drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“As these problems go unmanaged and get bigger in scope, the solutions become more draconian,” he said. “And the one thing about Trump, I think if he does get a second term, I think you’ll see more cooperation by Mexico. I don’t think we’ll ever have to get to bombing labs — Mexico will adjust their policies based on Trump.”‘An Offense to the People of Mexico’President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico has accused Republicans of using “Mexico for their propaganda” and their “electoral and political purposes.”Alejandro Cegarra for The New York TimesThe Republican rhetoric about attacking drug cartels inside Mexico is ricocheting around the halls of its government. The country’s leftist president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has responded furiously and taken the extraordinary step for a world leader of attacking the Republican Party.“This initiative of the Republicans, besides being irresponsible, is an offense to the people of Mexico, a lack of respect to our independence, to our sovereignty,” Mr. López Obrador told reporters in March. “If they do not change their attitude and think that they are going to use Mexico for their propaganda, their electoral and political purposes, we are going to call for not voting for this party, because it is interventionist, inhuman, hypocritical and corrupt.”From a Mexican perspective, it is the United States that is fueling the cartel violence — not only because American demand creates the market for the drug trade, but also because the United States makes it so easy to buy the firearms that end up in Mexico. Those firearms fuel gun violence in Mexico despite its tough gun-control laws.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, the top North American official in Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, specifically invoked the gun comparison as he called out Mr. Ramaswamy for promising U.S. military action inside Mexico.“If Mr. Ramaswamy is so concerned about what’s going on in Mexico, well, the best way he could help us is to take away the guns that are literally being sold to Mexican cartels,” he said in an interview.As Mexico heads to a historic presidential election next year, when voters are expected to choose between two leading candidates who are women, whoever gets elected will most likely need to handle the tensions created by the Republican Party.“Rather than threats, we should work in a smart way,” said Xóchitl Gálvez, a Mexican senator who has been chosen as the opposition’s candidate and has openly rejected Mr. López Obrador’s security strategy, adding that “the hugs have been for the criminals and the bullets for the Mexican citizens.”But Ms. Gálvez also criticized the Republican proposals to invade Mexico and called for shared and responsible cooperation. “We can’t keep blaming each other,” she said. Nicholas Nehamas More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico’s Next President Will Be a Woman

      by

      Mexico will elect its first woman as president next year after the governing party chose Claudia Sheinbaum to square off against the opposition’s candidate, Xóchitl Gálvez.Mexico’s governing party chose Claudia Sheinbaum, a former mayor of Mexico City, as its candidate in next year’s presidential election on Wednesday, creating a watershed moment in the world’s largest Spanish-speaking country, with voters expected to choose for the first time between two leading candidates who are women.“Today democracy won. Today the people of Mexico decided,” Ms. Sheinbaum said during the announcement, adding that her party, Morena, would win the 2024 election. “Tomorrow begins the electoral process,” she said. “And there is no minute to lose.”Ms. Sheinbaum, 61, a physicist with a doctorate in environmental engineering and a protégé of Mexico’s current president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, will face off against the opposition’s top contender, Xóchitl Gálvez, 60, an outspoken engineer with Indigenous roots who rose from poverty to become a tech entrepreneur.“We can already say today: Mexico, by the end of next year, will be governed by a woman,” said Jesús Silva-Herzog Márquez, a political scientist at Mexico’s Monterrey Institute of Technology, adding that it was an “extraordinary change” for the country.Ms. Sheinbaum has built her political career mostly in the shadow of Mr. López Obrador, and had emerged early on as the party’s favored pick to succeed the current president. That connection is thought to give her a crucial edge heading into next year’s election thanks to the high approval ratings enjoyed by Mr. López Obrador, who is limited by Mexico’s Constitution to one six-year term.In recent months, Mr. López Obrador has insisted that he will hold no influence once he finishes his term. “I am going to retire completely,” he said in March. “I am not a chieftain, much less do I feel irreplaceable. I am not a strongman; I am not a messiah.”President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is constitutionally limited to one six-year term.Alejandro Cegarra for The New York TimesBut some analysts say his influence will endure regardless of which candidate wins in 2024. Should Ms. Sheinbaum win, “there may be changes to certain policies, though the broad strokes of his agenda will remain intact,” according to a recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research institute in WashingtonIf she is defeated, Mr. López Obrador “will not fade quietly into the background,” the report said, citing a large base of loyal supporters allowing him to command substantial influence. Some legacies of his administration — including austerity measures or the immersion of the military into social, security and infrastructure roles — could also be obstacles for Ms. Gálvez if she seeks to roll back his policies.As the two female candidates target weaknesses in each other’s campaigns, they share some similarities. While neither are explicitly feminist, both are socially progressive, have engineering degrees and say they will maintain broadly popular antipoverty programs.Both women also support decriminalizing abortion. In Ms. Gálvez’s case, that position stands in contrast to that of her conservative party. Mexico’s Supreme Court on Wednesday decriminalized abortion nationwide, building on an earlier ruling giving officials the authority to allow the procedure on a state-by-state basis.Ms. Sheinbaum, who was born to Jewish parents in Mexico City, would become Mexico’s first Jewish president if she wins the race. She has faced a misinformation campaign on social media claiming falsely that she was born in Bulgaria, the country from which her mother emigrated; supporters of Ms. Sheinbaum have called this effort antisemitic.Ms. Sheinbaum would become Mexico’s first Jewish president if she wins the race.Meghan Dhaliwal for The New York TimesShe studied physics and energy engineering in Mexico before carrying out her doctoral research at California’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. After entering politics, she became Mr. López Obrador’s top environmental official when he was mayor of Mexico City.When Ms. Sheinbaum herself was elected mayor of the capital in 2018, she took on public transit and environmental issues as top priorities, but was also the target of criticism over fatal mishaps in the city’s transportation systems, including the collapse of a metro overpass in which 26 people were killed.With polls positioning Ms. Sheinbaum as the front-runner, her ties to Mr. López Obrador required discipline to maintain his support even when she may not have agreed with his decisions. For instance, when Mr. López Obrador minimized the coronavirus pandemic and federal government officials tweaked data to avoid a lockdown in Mexico City, she remained silent.“What has stood out is her loyalty, I think a blind loyalty, to the president,” said Mr. Silva-Herzog Márquez, the political scientist.Still, while hewing to Mr. López Obrador’s policies, Ms. Sheinbaum has also signaled some potential changes, notably expressing support for renewable energy sources.Drawing a contrast with her rival, Ms. Gálvez, a senator who often gets around Mexico City on an electric bicycle, has focused on her origins as the daughter of an Indigenous Otomí father and a mestiza mother.Xóchitl Gálvez, the top opposition candidate, has Indigenous roots and rose from poverty to become a tech entrepreneur.Claudio Cruz/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMs. Gálvez grew up in a small town about two hours from Mexico City without running water and speaking her father’s Hñähñu language. After receiving a scholarship to the National Autonomous University of Mexico, she became an engineer and founded a company that designs communications and energy networks for office buildings.After Vicente Fox won the presidency in 2000, she was appointed as head of the presidential office for Indigenous peoples. In 2018, Ms. Gálvez was elected senator representing the conservative National Action Party.Mr. López Obrador has repeatedly made her the focus of verbal attacks, which has had the effect of raising her profile around the country while highlighting the sway that the president and his party exert across Mexico.A combative leader who has embraced austerity measures while doubling down on Mexico’s reliance on fossil fuels, Mr. López Obrador looms over the campaigning. He pledged to do away with a long-held political tradition whereby Mexican presidents handpicked their successors with their “big finger,” replacing the practice with nationwide voter surveys.Historically, political parties in Mexico mostly selected their candidates in ways that were opaque and lacked much inclusion. Handpicking was more common than a “free and fair competition for a candidacy,” said Flavia Freidenberg, a political scientist at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.The new selection process has changed that tradition, but concerns persist over a lack of clarity and other irregularities that have been denounced by some analysts and other presidential hopefuls. Both the governing party, Morena, and the broad opposition coalition, called the Broad Front for Mexico, used public opinion polls “that have not been fully transparent,” Ms. Freidenberg added, “and are not necessarily considered democratic procedures.”The new procedures also ignored federal campaign regulations, with those at the helm of the process in both the governing party and the opposition moving the selection forward by a few months and cryptically calling Ms. Sheinbaum and Ms. Gálvez “coordinators” of each coalition instead of “candidates.”“These irregular activities have occurred under the gaze of public opinion, the political class and the electoral authorities,” Ms. Freidenberg said. “This is not a minor issue.”Next year’s general election, in which voters will elect not only a president but members of Congress, might also determine whether Mexico may return to a dominant-party system — similar to what the country experienced under the once-hegemonic Institutional Revolutionary Party, which held uninterrupted power for 71 years until 2000.Despite some setbacks, there are signs this is already happening. In June, Morena’s candidate won the governor’s race in the State of Mexico, the country’s most populous state, defeating the Institutional Revolutionary Party’s candidate.That victory brought the number of states under Morena’s control to 23 out of 32 states, up from just seven at the start of the president’s term in 2018.The question is “whether Morena reconfigures itself into a hegemonic party like the old PRI,” said Ana Laura Magaloni, a law professor who advised Ms. Sheinbaum’s mayoral campaign. “And that depends on how much of a fight the opposition can put up.” More