COMMENTARY: By Jeremy Rose

At the beginning of last month, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum stood in front of an estimated 600,000 supporters in Zócalo Square and reflected on the achievements of her first year in office and the seven years since the Morena Party, which she heads, came to power.

It was quite a list: 13 million people lifted out of poverty; the minimum wage increased by 125 percent; Indigenous and Afro-Mexican communities allocated budgets to run their own affairs; a locally produced people’s electric car about to roll off production lines; a new fast rail system crossing the country; a national park spanning 5.7 million hectares across Mexico, Belize, and Guatemala; a 37 percent drop in homicides — and on it went.

Sheinbaum is Mexico’s first woman president, its first Jewish president, and a climate scientist who was part of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change team.

In short, she has a story to tell, but it’s not one our media pays enough attention to.

That speech — where she declared the end of neoliberalism in Mexico — barely rated a mention in the world’s English-language press.

The grope that trumped the anti-Trump
In fact, Sheinbaum’s extraordinarily popular first year in office — El País reports she has an approval rating of over 70% — has been largely ignored by the English-language media, with three notable exceptions: when she was groped by a man on the streets of Mexico City last November, it made front-page news around the globe; a much-hyped series of “Gen Z” protests; and her dignified, and at times witty, responses to bellicose threats to Mexico’s sovereignty from the US president — which have seen her labelled the anti-Trump.

So why the lack of interest? Some possibilities, none of them edifying, spring to mind: if it doesn’t involve violence, Latin America rarely rates a mention in the media; Sheinbaum is a woman; and she’s leftwing.

But for each of those, there’s at least one counter-example that suggests this isn’t always the case.

Argentina’s right-wing libertarian president, Javier Milei, is widely reported on despite coming from a country with little over a third of Mexico’s population and GDP. Milei is a poster boy for right-leaning pundits from Auckland to London.

Former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern — leader of a country of just five million people compared to Mexico’s 130 million — was widely reported on while in office, and with the recent publication of her memoir has been the subject of more feature articles in recent months than Sheinbaum has generated in a year in office.

And finally, and perhaps most interestingly, there was the saturation coverage of Zoran Mamdani’s run and eventual victory in the New York mayoral election.

Sheinbaum’s successful campaign to become the equivalent of mayor of Mexico City — with a population significantly larger than New York’s — in 2018 was barely reported, despite running on a similarly leftwing, if notably more ambitious, platform.

Mamdani’s campaign and victory were newsworthy but, on any metric, less significant than Sheinbaum’s time in office.

World’s most popular leader
She is arguably the world’s most popular leader, delivering on promises more far-reaching and consequential than anything on offer in the Big Apple.

A promise by Mamdani to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he visit New York — something he almost certainly cannot deliver on — was widely reported, while Sheinbaum’s support for resettling Palestinian children orphaned by Israel’s genocide in Gaza barely rated a mention. (Mexico has also joined South Africa’s International Court of Justice genocide case against Israel.)

The contrast between the saturation coverage of Mamdani and the paucity of coverage of Sheinbaum holds true for both conservative and liberal media.

The Wall Street Journal ran 50-plus editorials and op-eds criticising Mamdani in the run-up to his election but just three or four on Sheinbaum in her first year in office, all focusing on her alleged failure to tackle violence and the cartels. (In fact, homicides are down, though still extremely high.)

Even Jacobin magazine, one of the few US outlets to provide in-depth coverage of Mexico’s so-called “Fourth Transformation,” has given far more coverage to Mamdani, with a recent podcast declaring New York the epicentre of global socialism.

Whatever the explanation for the scant coverage of Sheinbaum, the achievements and popularity of the Morena movement are worth talking about.

The Donroe Doctrine’s threat to Mexico
There’s little doubt we’ll be hearing more about Mexico over the coming months, but the focus will almost certainly be on the threat from the north, not the achievements and promise of the Fourth Transformation.

After the illegal abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, President Trump turned his sights on Mexico, declaring Sheinbaum to be a “tremendous woman, she’s a very brave woman, but Mexico is run by the cartels”.

Having designated the Sinaloa and Jalisco New Generation cartels as terrorist organisations at the beginning of his second term in office, Trump had already signalled the possibility of military intervention in Mexico.

Sheinbaum’s response to both the Venezuelan intervention and the implied threat to Mexican sovereignty was resolute and principled:

“We categorically reject intervention in the internal affairs of other countries. The history of Latin America is clear and compelling: intervention has never brought democracy, never generated well-being, nor lasting stability.

“Only the people can build their own future, decide their path, exercise sovereignty over their natural resources, and freely define their form of government.”

Trump has other ideas, recently declaring that the US military could attack the cartels without congressional approval.

“I don’t think we’re necessarily going to ask for a declaration of war,” he said. “I think we’re just gonna kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. We’re going to kill them. They’re going to be, like, dead.”

Trump has dubbed the new era the Donroe Doctrine — a reference to his regime’s embrace of the Monroe Doctrine, named for President James Monroe, who declared the Western Hemisphere an area of US influence in the 1820s.

200 years of brutal interventions
It was the beginning of more than 200 years of brutal interventions by the US state, including a war on Mexico that resulted in the US taking over approximately 1.36 million sq km of Mexican territory — about 55 percent of the country.

Last year Trump hung a portrait of the country’s 11th president James Polk in the White House. Polk was responsible for the Mexican-American war of 1846-1848 which ended with the ceding of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming to the USA, in exchange for $15 million.

Trump has pointed to the portrait and told visitors: “He got a lot of land.”

His play on words with the Donroe Doctrine is characteristically narcissistic but also painfully accurate. It is the geopolitics of a gangster state.

In a world reeling from the criminal actions of that gangster state — from its continued bankrolling of genocide, to the extrajudicial killing of alleged drug smugglers, to SS-like round-ups of “foreigners” on its city streets, to threats to take over the sovereign territory of an ally — Mexico and its president, Claudia Sheinbaum, are a beacon of hope.

There is plenty I haven’t even touched on:

• The election of an Indigenous lawyer, Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, as head of the Supreme Court;
• The construction of 1.1 million affordable homes over the next six years, generating hundreds of thousands of jobs;
• The launch of SaberesMX, a free national online platform designed to democratise access to knowledge and provide lifelong learning opportunities across Mexico; and
• Sheinbaum’s daily morning press conferences, where she speaks directly to the nation.

If past experience is anything to go by, the mainstream media’s ignoring of Morena’s successes is unlikely to end any time soon.

The good news is that there are alternatives. Mexico Solidarity Media is a great source of original articles, translations from local media, and podcasts, and Substack writer and former Boston Globe and LA Times journalist Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez regularly writes about Mexico from a progressive perspective.

Jeremy Rose is a Wellington-based journalist and broadcaster and his Towards Democracy blog is at Substack. This article was first published at Towards Democracy and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By the time US President Donald Trump announced tariffs on China and Canada last Monday which could kickstart a trade war, New Zealand’s diplomats in Washington, DC, had already been deployed on another diplomatic drama.

Republican Senator Ted Cruz had said on social media it was “difficult to treat New Zealand as a normal ally . . .  when they denigrate and punish Israeli citizens for defending themselves and their country”.

He cited a story in the Israeli media outlet Ha’aretz, which has a reputation for independence in Israel and credibility abroad.

But Ha’aretz had wrongly reported Israelis must declare service in the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) as part of “new requirements” for visa applications.

Winston Peters replied forcefully to Cruz on X, condemning Ha’aretz’s story as “fake news” and demanding a correction.

But one thing Trump’s Republicans and Winston Peters had in common last week was irritating Mexico.

His fellow NZ First MP Shane Jones had bellowed “Send the Mexicans home” at Green MPs in Parliament.

Winston Peters then told two of them they should be more grateful for being able to live in New Zealand.

‘We will not be lectured’
On Facebook he wasn’t exactly backing down.

“We . . .  will not be lectured on the culture and traditions of New Zealand from people who have been here for five minutes,” he added.

While he was at it, Peters criticised media outlets for not holding other political parties to account for inflammatory comments.

Peters was posting that as a politician — not a foreign minister, but the Mexican ambassador complained to MFAT. (It seems the so-called “Mexican standoff” was resolved over a pre-Waitangi lunch with Ambassador Bravo).

But the next day — last Wednesday — news of another diplomatic drama broke on TVNZ’s 1News.

“A deal that could shatter New Zealand’s close relationship with a Pacific neighbour,” presenter Simon Dallow declared, in front of a backdrop of a stern-looking Peters.

TVNZ’s Pacific correspondent Barbara Dreaver reported the Cook Islands was about to sign a partnership agreement in Beijing.

“We want clarity and at this point in time, we have none. We’ve got past arrangements, constitutional arrangements, which require constant consultation with us, and dare I say, China knows that,” Peters told 1News.

Passports another headache
Cook Islands’ Prime Minister Mark Brown also told Barbara Dreaver TVNZ’s revelations last month about proposed Cook Island passports had also been a headache for him.

“We were caught by surprise when this news was broken by 1News. I thought it was a high-level diplomatic discussion with leaders to be open and frank,” he told TVNZ this week.

“For it to be brought out into the public before we’ve had a time to inform our public, I thought was a breach of our political diplomacy.”

Last week another Barabara Dreaver scoop on 1News brought the strained relationship with another Pacific state into the headlines:

“Our relationship with Kiribati is at breaking point. New Zealand’s $100 million aid programme there is now on hold. The move comes after President [Taneti] Maamau pulled out of a pre-arranged meeting with Winston Peters.”

The media ended up in the middle of the blame game over this too — but many didn’t see it coming.

Caught in the crossfire
“A diplomatic rift with Kiribati was on no one’s 2025 bingo card,” Stuff national affairs editor Andrea Vance wrote last weekend in the Sunday Star-Times.

“Of all the squabbles Winston Peters was expected to have this year, no one picked it would be with an impoverished, sinking island nation,” she wrote, in terms that would surely annoy Kiribati.

“Do you believe Kiribati is snubbing you?” RNZ Morning Report’s Corin Dann asked Peters.

“You can come to any conclusion you like, but our job is to try and resolve this matter,” Peters replied.

Kiribati Education Minister Alexander Teabo told RNZ Pacific there was no snub.

He said Kiribati President Maamau — who is also the nation’s foreign minister — had been unavailable because of a long-planned and important Catholic ordination ceremony on his home island of Onotoa — though this was prior to the proposed visit from Peters.

On Facebook — at some length — New Zealand-born Kiribati MP Ruth Cross Kwansing blamed “media manufactured drama”.

“The New Zealand media seized the opportunity to patronise Kiribati, and the familiar whispers about Chinese influence began to circulate,” she said.

She was more diplomatic on the 531pi Pacific Mornings radio show but insistent New Zealand had not been snubbed.

Public dispute “regrettable’
Peters told the same show it was “regrettable” that the dispute had been made public.

On Newstalk ZB Peters was backed — and Kiribati portrayed as the problem.

“If somebody is giving me $100m and they asked for a meeting, I will attend. I don’t care if it’s my mum’s birthday. Or somebody’s funeral,” Drive host Ryan Bridge told listeners.

“It’s always very hard to pick apart these stories (by) just reading them in the media. But I have faith and confidence in Winston Peters as our foreign minister,” PR-pro Trish Shrerson opined.

So did her fellow panellist, former Labour MP Stuart Nash.

“He’s respected across the Pacific. He’s the consummate diplomat. If Winston says this is the story and this is what’s happening, I believe 100 percent. And I would say, go hard. Winston — represent our interests.”

‘Totally silly’ response
But veteran Pacific journalist Michael Field contradicted them soon after on ZB.

“It’s totally silly. All this talk about cancelling $104 million of aid is total pie-in-the-sky from Winston Peters,” he said.

“Somebody’s lost their marbles on this, and the one who’s possibly on the ground looking for them is Winston Peters.

“He didn’t need to be in Tarawa in early January at all. This is pathetic. This is like saying I was invited to my sister’s birthday party and now it’s been cancelled,” he said.

Not a comparison you hear very often in international relations.

In his own Substack newsletter Michael Field also insisted the row reflected poorly on New Zealand.

“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still-viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls [from] being used as bases without Washington approval,” he added.

Kiribati ‘hugely disrespectful’
But TVNZ’s Barbara Dreaver said Kiribati was being “hugely disrespectful”.

In a TVNZ analysis piece last weekend, she said New Zealand has “every right to expect better engagement than it has been getting over the past year.”

Dreaver — who was born in and grew up in Kiribati and has family there — also criticised “the airtime and validation” Kwansing got in the media in New Zealand.

“She supports and is part of a government that requires all journalists — should they get a visa to go there — to hand over copies of all footage/information collected,” Dreaver said.

Kwansing hit back on Facebook, accusing Dreaver of “publishing inane drivel” and “irresponsible journalism causing stress to locals.”

“You write like you need a good holiday somewhere happy. Please book yourself a luxury day spa ASAP,” she told TVNZ’s Pacific Affairs reporter.

Two days later — last Tuesday — the Kiribati government made percent2CO percent2CP-R an official statement which also pointed the finger at the media.

“Despite this media issue, the government of Kiribati remains convinced the strong bonds between Kiribati and New Zealand will enable a resolution to this unfortunate standoff,” it said.

Copping the blame
Another reporter who knows what it’s like to cop the blame for reporting stuff diplomats and politicians want to keep out of the news is RNZ Pacific’s senior journalist and presenter Lydia Lewis.

Last year, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese questioned RNZ’s ethics after she reported comments he made to the US Deputy Secretary of State at the Pacific Islands Forum in Tonga — which revealed an until-then behind closed doors plan to pay for better policing in the Pacific.

She’s also been covering the tension with Kiribati.

Is the heat coming on the media more these days if they candidly report diplomatic differences?

“There’s no study that says there are more people blaming the media. So it’s anecdotal, but definitely, both the public and politicians are saying the media (are) making a big deal of things,” Lewis told Mediawatch.

“I would put the question back to the public as to who’s manufacturing drama. All we’re doing is reporting what’s in front of us for the public to then make their decision — and questioning it. And there were a lot of questions around this Kiribati story.”

Lewis said it was shortly before 6pm on January 27, that selected journalists were advised of the response of our government to the cancellation of the meeting with foreign minister Peters.

Vice-President an alternative
But it was not mentioned that Kiribati had offered the Vice-President for a meeting, the same person that met with an Australian delegation recently.

A response from Kiribati proved harder to get — and Lewis spoke to a senior figure in Kiribati that night who told her they knew nothing about it.

Politicians and diplomats, naturally enough, prefer to do things behind the scenes and media exposure is a complication for them.

But we simply wouldn’t know about the impending partnership agreement between China and the Cook Islands if TVNZ had not reported it last Monday.

And another irony: some political figures lamenting the diplomatically disruptive impact of the media also make decidedly undiplomatic responses of their own online these days.

“It can be revealing in the sense of where people stand. Sometimes they’re just putting out their opinions or their experience. Maybe they’ve got some sort of motive. A formal message or email we’ll take a bit more seriously. But some of the things on social media, we just take with a grain of salt,” said Lewis.

“It is vital we all look at multiple sources. It comes back to balance and knowledge and understanding what you know about and what you don’t know about — and then asking the questions in between.”

Big Powers and the Big Picture
Kwansing objected to New Zealand media jumping to the conclusion China’s influence was a factor in the friction with New Zealand.

“To dismiss the geopolitical implications with China . . .  would be naive and ignorant,” Dreaver countered.

Michael Field pointed to an angle missing.

“While the conspiracy around Kiribati and China has deepened, no one is noticing the still viable Kiribati-United States treaty which prevents Kiribati atolls being used as bases without Washington approval,” he wrote in his Substack.

In the same article in which Vance called Kiribati “an impoverished, sinking island nation” she later pointed out that its location, US military ties and vast ocean territory make it strategically important.

Questions about ‘transparency and accountability’
“There’s a lot of people that want in on Kiribati. It has a huge exclusive economic zone,” Lewis said.

She said communication problems and patchy connectivity are also drawbacks.

“We do have a fuller picture now of the situation, but the overarching question that’s come out of this is around transparency and accountability.

“We can’t hold Kiribati politicians to account like we do New Zealand government politicians.”

“I don’t want to give Kiribati a free pass here but it’s really difficult to get a response.

“They’re posting statements on Facebook and it really has raised some questions around the government’s commitment to transparency and accountability for all journalists . . .  committed to fair media reporting across the Pacific.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Maribel Nolasco and Rubén Sierra

Honolulu, Hawai‘i 

History was made on June 2, 2024. Claudia Sheinbaum became the first woman to be elected President of México and the first democratically-elected woman to lead a country in North America. President-elect Sheinbaum will take the reins from her predecessor and mentor Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) on the first of October. Sheinbaum, the left-leaning leader of the National Regeneration Movement known as MORENA, has committed to continuing AMLO’s political agenda which is often referred to as the Fourth Transformation. The Fourth Transformation promotes equitable economic growth, job creation, investments in infrastructure, the expansion of social programs and combating corruption.^[i] These efforts are primarily aimed at realizing popular demands to alleviate poverty, improve public safety, and fortify democratic institutions.

Sheinbaum’s ascendancy to the Mexican presidency represents significant political change in México’s 203 year old history. Many Mexicans hope that this political change will equate to progressive changes within society. But change will not be an easy task. The Sheinbaum administration will be confronted with decades-long issues of poverty, immigration, border security, and the unconscionable violence perpetrated by criminal organizations. Urgent action will be needed from the incoming president to address these systemic issues.

So, how will President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum confront the complex issues affecting México?  How will the historic Mexican president govern in these very uncertain and volatile times?

Who is Claudia Sheinbaum?

President-elect Sheinbaum is a Jewish Mexican whose maternal and paternal grandparents fled Eastern Europe during the Holocaust. They settled in México City in the 1940s. Influenced by the scientists in her family, Sheinbaum earned a PhD in Energy Engineering and completed some of her doctoral work at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Upon completion of her PhD, she worked as a faculty member at the Institute of Engineering at the National Autonomous University of México (UNAM). In 2007, Sheinbaum went on to become a contributing co-author at the United Nations for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.^[ii]

In 2000, Sheinbaum was appointed as Secretary of the Environment under AMLO’s administration when he served as Head of Government of México City. From 2015 to 2017, Sheinbaum served as Mayor of Tlalpan. In 2018, Sheinbaum became the first woman to be elected as the Head of Government of México City.

Sheinbaum’s Social Platform

As the first woman to represent México, Sheinbaum has made clear her social priorities. She has emphatically expressed her interest in “eradicating classism, racism, machismo and discrimination” which she associates with “right-wing thinking.”^[iii] México has been widely recognized as one of the most dangerous countries for women and girls. Sheinbaum said that her being a woman leader is a sign of an evolving society, “it’s a symbol for México” and “symbol for the world.”^[iv] Sheinbaum added that “México has been called a machista country for many years. But Mexicans are now governed by many women and that’s a change. I see young girls who are excited that a woman is going to be president. And it changes the culture for women and for men.”^[v] Although the specifics of her social policies have not yet been released, Sheinbaum acknowledges that more needs to be done to protect women and girls in México.

At the same time, Sheinbaum intends to continue AMLO’s vision of advancing indigenous rights. Sheinbaum has stated that she will continue to work with indigenous peoples of México to reach agreements to compensate for the historical injustices committed against their communities.^[vi] This priority is consistent with AMLO’s commitment to strengthen institutions which seek to defend indigenous communities and promote their right to self-determination.^[vii] However, this effort will not be without opposition.

The Zapatista National Liberation Army (EZLN), an armed indigenous revolutionary group located in southern México, has opposed several projects that have been promoted by AMLO. These projects include the expansion of the Mexican National Guard and the construction of the Maya Train. The leader of EZLN, referred to as subcommander Galeano, stated, “Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador’s [request] to build the Maya Train” is “a permit to destroy the indigenous people” because the megaproject will cause deforestation and destroy the biodiversity on indigenous lands.^[viii] Despite these concerns, AMLO has approved the completion of significant portions of the train. Some indigenous Mexicans have also expressed opposition to AMLO’s proposal to expand the National Guard and the building of new military barracks. According to the Guardian, “the national guard has built 165 barracks in México” under AMLO and “the indigenous Tzeltal ejido of San Sebastián Bachajón, Chiapas is leading the first lawsuit against one of 500 or so barracks planned across the country.”^[ix] Indigenous Mexicans argue that the construction of the barracks, like the Maya Train, will degrade their native lands and represents further militarization against indigenous people.^[x] Opposition from some indigenous groups to these policies will likely confront Sheinbaum’s presidency as she seeks to continue AMLO’s agenda. Overall, the success of Sheinbaum’s social platform will be heavily dependent on her ability to promote economic growth throughout the country.

Sheinbaum’s Plan for the Mexican Economy

Poverty continues to be a systemic issue in México. According to Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, in 2022, over 46 million people lived in poverty and over 9 million people lived in extreme poverty.^[xi] However, there are signs for optimism as nearly 6 million people have been lifted out of poverty as a result of AMLO’s pro-growth economic policies.^[xii] As AMLO has repeated on numerous occasions in his daily press conferences, “no olvidamos que por el bien de todos, primero los pobres” (we do not forget that for the good of all, the poor first). President-elect Sheinbaum has pledged to continue AMLO’s anti-poverty policies; for example, she has proposed to build one million homes which is projected to create two million jobs.^[xiii] Sheinbaum’s economic plan also includes public investments in infrastructure, increasing wages and developing industrial centers that are connected to educational institutions.^[xiv] This will be in conjunction with Sheinbaum’s plan to hasten México’s transition to renewable energy by allowing for more private investments.^[xv] At the same time, Sheinbaum has pledged to uphold AMLO’s promise to keep at least 54% of the country’s energy resources under government control.

Sheinbaum also intends to build on AMLO’s economic record by continuing to create jobs and stimulate regional economic growth through the manufacturing and tourism sectors. The revamped United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which AMLO strongly supports, has already created thousands of new jobs in manufacturing and at Mexican ports. As a result, USA Today recently reported that “more often Mexicans are staying put. They’re finding jobs in the hundreds of assembly plants that send car parts, pacemakers, respirators, computers and Christmas lights to the U.S., or they’re working in the booming tourist ports from Puerto Vallarta to Cancun.”^[xvi] According to AMLO, over three million assembly plant jobs have been created each year and thousands of more jobs created through infrastructure projects.^[xvii] These projects include the modernization of Mexican ports, the construction of Tren Maya, and the expansion of Ferrocarril Transístimo.

Michael Stott and Christine Murray of the Financial Times considers Sheinbaum “as an investor-friendly” politician “who will build on México’s privileged trade access to the U.S,”^[xviii] especially given the trade tensions between the U.S. and China. According to the Wilson Center based in Washington, D.C., “the deepening rift in the U.S.-China commercial ties provide substantial momentum for nearshoring in México, which, as of 2023, overtook Beijing as Washington’s main trading partner.”^[xix] The Wilson Center also added that Sheinbaum has “expressed an ambition… to attract greater U.S. investments” in manufacturing and “flagship projects like her renewable energy initiatives.”^[xx]

Overall, Sheinbaum’s economic priorities are ultimately intended to alleviate poverty and curb migration to the north. However, one significant obstacle to ensuring economic stability is the challenge of improving public safety. There is an urgent need to address and protect civilians from the persistent violence of criminal networks. This violence continues to disrupt economic activity. Therefore, Sheinbaum’s economic priorities will be dependent on her ability to address the historical violence that affects everyday people.

Sheinbaum and Public Safety

Criminal organizations throughout México continue to violently assert their control, especially in northern México. These organizations control strategic trade routes, agricultural commodities, and, of course, illicit drugs. Criminal organizations thrive, in part, because of the U.S.’ high demand for narcotics. In addition to drug trafficking, criminal groups are now competing for control over “legitimate export industries including avocados and limes.”^[xxi] The competition among groups, in some areas, has “caused Mexican families to live under the threat of extreme violence.”^[xxii] This unconscionable violence has resulted in the murder of over 156,000 people since 2018^[xxiii]  and the displacement of numerous families.

President-elect Sheinbaum, like AMLO, does not intend to directly combat criminal networks with stricter policing or the use of force. However, according to Reuters, Sheinbaum intends to “double the number of federal investigators to 8,000, increase the number of National Guard troops to 150,000 from around 120,000” and “decrease impunity through judicial reform.”^[xxiv] In addition, Sheinbaum “has pledged to address the root causes of organized crime via social programs” which “provide young people with economic opportunities to prevent recruitment from criminal groups.” Sheinbaum added, “we are going to rescue young people from the clutches of criminal gangs, and we’re going to give them support.”^[xxv]

Sheinbaum will also seek to address the root causes of what is empowering these criminal networks – guns coming from the United States. Sheinbaum’s administration will inherit a historic lawsuit against six U.S. gun manufacturers. During March of 2024, “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has revived México’s $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers, which previously was dismissed by a lower court.”^[xxvi] The defendants include Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Beretta USA, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Colt’s Manufacturing Co., and Glock Inc.^[xxvii] México argues that these American gun manufacturers have engaged in “negligent practices that facilitate the trafficking of more than 500,000 guns annually to Mexican drug cartels.”^[xxviii] According to the Arms Control Association’s observation of México’s lawsuit, México alleges that the “actions of American gun manufacturers” have “contributed directly to the violence within its national borders.”^[xxix] All of the companies named in the suit have denied any wrongdoing.

Instead, the gun companies argue that the U.S. Protection of Lawful Commerce Arms Act grants them legal immunity from lawsuits brought against them by foreign governments. However, Alejandro Celorio Alcántara, a legal advisor to the Mexican Foreign Ministry, believes that the lawsuit will shine light on the truth. Alcántara recently stated that “not only will [the Mexican government] have the opportunity to present its evidence, [México] will be able to ask the defendant companies to share their evidence with the court,” and “it could be a gold mine”^[xxx] for justice. In addition to the U.S. gun case, which has the potential to halt the trafficking of guns from the U.S. to México, Sheinbaum will also inherit other legal efforts that seek to curb violence abroad.

México and International Affairs

México, under the Sheinbaum administration, is expected to continue the trend of taking on significant roles in international affairs. Previously, México granted asylum to Evo Morales after the “Lithium Coup” in Bolivia. México had also been a strong advocate of freedom for whistleblower Julian Assange until Assange was finally released from prison in June 2024. México also upheld its sovereignty over the country’s natural resources against foreign control. México has even taken bold legal positions within geopolitical affairs. On January 18, 2024, México and Chile referred the military conflict between Israel and Hamas to the International Criminal Court (ICC). Both countries requested an “investigation into the probable commission of crimes” within ICC’s jurisdiction^[xxxi] “due to the growing concern over the latest escalation of violence, particularly against civilian targets.”^[xxxii] The investigation is intended to identify the specific individuals from Israel and Hamas who should be charged with committing criminal acts.

The unconscionable violence has resulted in the forced displacement of over 2 million people and counting,^[xxxiii] the murder of over 39,000 civilians including more than 13,000 children.^[xxxiv] The war has had a disproportionate and devastating impact on the Palestinian people. President-elect Sheinbaum stated, “no reason justifies the murder of Palestinian civilians […] nothing can justify the murder of a child.” Sheinbaum added, “Because of my Jewish origin, because of my love for México […] I share with millions the desire for justice, equality, fraternity and peace.”^[xxxv]

Moreover, on May 28, 2024, México filed a declaration of intervention with the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.^[xxxvi] México joins a growing number of nations who are accusing Israel of violating the United Nation’s 1948 Genocide Convention. México contends that there is reasonable evidence for “the existence of genocide in the context of armed conflict” between Israel and Hamas.^[xxxvii]

Conclusion

The historic election of Claudia Sheinbaum has generated much optimism for Mexicans. President-elect Sheinbaum is expected to continue AMLO’s economic policies which have already resulted in steady economic growth and significant job creation in the manufacturing and tourism industries. A growing and stable economy has also been effective at lifting millions of people out of poverty, keeping Mexicans at home, and away from gangs. Stable economic growth will be dependent on Sheinbaum’s ability to ensure public safety given the looming threat of gang violence.

Internationally, President-elect Sheinbaum will be leading México during an unprecedented time in which the country is taking prominent leadership roles in the fight for regional integration and independence, as well as international justice. Given all of the complexities, both domestically and internationally, México, under the leadership of President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, is expected to be a strong symbol for peace, justice, and international cooperation.

Maribel Nolasco has over 8 years working with labor unions. She was born and raised in Puebla, México and a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley and Chaminade University of Honolulu.

Ruben Sierra was a 2008 COHA Research Associate. In 2007, he studied Caribbean Literature and Music at the Casa de las Américas in Havana, Cuba. He has over 10 years of experience working with labor unions and non-profit organizations in California.

[i] AMLO & the Fourth Transformation: One Year After His Historic Election Victory | Wilson Center

[ii] Climate Change Working Group, Chapter 7: Industry – AR4 WGIII, United Nations, Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (accessed on May 30, 2024).

[iii] Lauren Villagran and Omar Ornelas, South of the border, a woman is poised to take power in historic Mexico 

elections, USA Today, June 1, 2024 (accessed on June 2, 2024).

[iv] Will Grant, Meet the women campaigning to become Mexico’s first female president | BBC, British Broadcasting

Corporation, May 30, 2024 (accessed on June 1, 2024).

[v] Ibid.

[vi] María Verza, Mexico’s next president is likely a woman. But in some Indigenous villages, men have all the power, WDIO ABC, May

28, 2024 (accessed on June 2, 2024). 

[vii] Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico’s indigenous peoples enrich the nation: Ebrard | Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores,

Government of México, June 3, 2022 (accessed on June 1, 2024). 

[viii] Peoples Dispatch, Zapatistas vow to continue resistance, oppose president AMLO’s ‘Mayan train’ project : Peoples Dispatch,

January 7, 2019 (accessed on July 23, 2024).

[ix] Peace Brigades International-USA, National Guard barracks, militarization of territory a concern for Indigenous peoples, environmental defenders in Mexico | PBI USA, (accessed on July 23, 2024).

[x] María Inclán, MEXICO: The Zapatistas vs. AMLO | Center for Latin American & Caribbean Studies, Berkeley Center for Latin

American & Caribbean Studies, 2020 (accessed on July 23, 2024).

[xi] BBVA Research, Poverty decreases at its lowest level (36.3%); but, access to health deteriorates, page 1, August 16, 2023,

updated on November 1, 2023 (accessed on May 30, 2024).

[xii] BBVA Research, Mexico | Poverty decreases at its lowest level (36.3%); but, access to health deteriorates, August 16, 2023,

updated on November 1, 2023 (accessed on May 31, 2024).

[xiii] Mariana Allende, Claudia Sheinbaum’s Key Economic Initiatives, June 3, 2024 (accessed on July 23, 2024).

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Dave Graham, Mexico’s Sheinbaum spurs hope of more private investment in energy after Lopez Obrador | Reuters, December

21,2023 (accessed on July 23, 2024)

[xvi] Lauren Villagran and Omar Ornelas, South of the border, a woman is poised to take power in historic Mexico 

elections, USA Today, June 1, 2024 (accessed on June 2, 2024).

[xvii] México’s President Lopéz Obrador, Encuentro con las industrias maquiladora y manufacturera, desde Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua,

via Mexican President’s YouTube Channel, Encuentro con las industrias maquiladora y manufacturera, desde Ciudad Juárez,

Chihuahua

[xviii] Financial Times, Claudia Sheinbaum, the woman hoping to be Mexico’s first female president (accessed on June 3, 2024).

[xix] Santiago Jose Herdoiza, Election 2024: Continuity and Change in Mexico’s Political and Economic

   Landscape, Wilson Center, May 24, 2024, (accessed on June 3, 2024).

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Lauren Villagran and Omar Ornelas, South of the border, a woman is poised to take power in historic Mexico elections, USA

Today, June 1, 2024 (accessed on June 2, 2024).

[xxii] Lauren Villagran and Omar Ornelas, South of the border, a woman is poised to take power in historic Mexico elections, USA

Today, June 1, 2024 (accessed on June 2, 2024).

[xxiii] Salvador River, AMLO’s presidential term bloodiest in Mexico’s history | FOX 5 San Diego & KUSI News, May 26, 2023

(accessed on July 23, 2024).

[xxiv] Diego Oré, Mexico election front-runner Sheinbaum faces tall order to cut cartel violence | Reuters, May 28, 2024 (accessed

on July 21, 2024).

[xxv] Sana Khan, Mexico Presidential Elections: How The 3 Candidates Plan To Combat Organized Crime, Latin Times, May 31, 2024,

(accessed on July 20, 2024).

[xxvi] Chad Lawhorn, Mexican Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Firms to Proceed, Arms Control Association, March 2024 (accessed on June

2, 2024).

[xxvii]  Ibid.

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Ibid.

[xxx] Chad Lawhorn, Mexican Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Firms to Proceed, Arms Control Association, March 2024 (accessed on June

2, 2024).

[xxxi] Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Mexico and Chile refer situation in Palestine to the International Criminal Court (ICC) |

Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores, Government of México, January 28, 2024 (accessed on May 30, 2024).

[xxxii] Ibid.

[xxxiii] United Nations Press Release, Humanitarian Situation in Gaza ‘a Moral Stain on Us All’, Secretary-General Tells Security

Council, Stressing International Law Must Be Respected by All | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases, July 17, 2024

(accessed on July 23, 2024).

[xxxiv] Palestine New & Information Agency, Gaza death toll surges to 38,919 over 89,622 injured, July 20, 2024 (accessed on

July 20, 2024).

[xxxv] The New Arab Staff, Who is Claudia Sheinbaum and how did she make history in Mexico, June 3, 2024 (accessed on June 3,

2024).  

[xxxvi] International Court of Justice, Mexico files a declaration of intervention in the proceedings under Article 63 of the Statute,

Document Number 192-20240528-PRE-01-00-EN

[xxxvii] Ibid.

Photo Credit: EneasMx, File:Claudia Sheinbaum discurso de la victoria.jpg – Wikimedia Commons

Sameer Gupta and Armaan Johal

From Toronto, ON

Although Mexico has maintained a ban on genetically modified (GM) corn since the 1990s, the move by Mexican President Andres Manuel Luiz Obrador (AMLO) in 2020 to eventually ban the import of GM corn in order to promote domestic cultivation of native varieties has threatened to spark a trade war with the United States. But in recent months, an interesting wrinkle developed, as it became evident that the Canadian government was actively involving itself in the dispute by backing the U.S. opposition to the Mexican law. Canadian officials agreed with Washington’s claim that the ban lacked scientific merit, and that it also threatened provisions concerning market access guaranteed by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). This dispute is part of a wider trend within relations between Mexico and its North American partners since the progressive Obrador won the Presidency in 2018. Obrador framed his Presidency as a rejection of neoliberal dogma which has dominated Mexico since the late 1970s, a highly symbolic gesture that has unsettled ostensibly centre-left governments in both Canada and the United States, and introduced a level of discord within the NAFTA relationship that is unprecedented since the agreement came into force 30 years ago.

Corn is native to Mexico and there is a long history of cultivation and consumption dating back to at least the Aztec period. Today corn is widely consumed in the form of tortillas, a staple food for millions of Mexican households. However, since NAFTA came into force in 1994 Mexico’s corn consumption has become increasingly dependent on imports from abroad – chiefly from the US. But an equally important development was growing fears about cross-pollination of transgenic corn with native varieties in Mexico, following the introduction of GM crops in the US in 1995. The threat this trend posed to food security and rural agrarian economies – and by extension to biodiversity and Indigenous lifeways – saw Mexico bar the domestic cultivation of GM crops in 1998.¹ Foreign biotech firms have waged a decades-long legal campaign² against that ban, which Obrador now seeks to extend to the growing percentage of corn that is sourced from outside of the country.

Despite objections from Canada and the US, there is reason to be concerned about the ecological and health impacts of GM crops and the industrial practices (like using carcinogenic chemical glyphosate) associated with their use.³ Additionally, Mexico has long maintained a database documenting public health concerns related to GM foods showing links to elevated risk of cancer and obesity.⁴

A Fight Decades in the Making

NAFTA, a free trade agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the US in 1992, is now being used to coerce Mexico to abandon its initiative on banning GM corn, and to submit to the whims of the U.S.’s heavily subsidized corn industry, for which Mexico is a leading export destination. Despite the fact that Canada does not export corn to Mexico, it is not surprising that Canada has gotten involved in Mexican efforts to protect and control its corn production and consumption. Canadian officials, including Minister of Trade Mary Ng, have explicitly said that they fear such a move might threaten the market access of Canadian biotechnology firms in other Mexican sectors, and more importantly, potentially undermine the appeal of GM products on the whole.⁶ This move, they suggest, would directly threaten the operations of Canadian firms globally. Canada is now using NAFTA as the mechanism to threaten agricultural reforms in Mexico, and in general the trade agreement itself has loomed large over Mexican politics for three decades now.

When NAFTA went into effect in 1994, it was argued by some that the deal would actually be a catalyst for positive social development by promoting liberal democratic governance and converging regulatory standards across North America – similar to the 1994 North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. This assumption stemmed from 20th century development theory, which posited that integration of poor countries into an “open” global market (by opening up their economies to foreign investors) would eventually see convergence of incomes with rich countries. But as Sachs & Warner argued, there was no empirical evidence of this trend forthcoming, even after decades of globalization-led development, and indeed Mexico would not prove to be an exception.⁷ The one-sided elimination of agricultural subsidies would see Mexican agricultural output devastated and its market captured by US-based exporters, driving up prices and causing significant rural unemployment and displacement in Mexico.⁸

Thus, even as manufacturing jobs moved to Mexico, economic migration to the United States and Canada from Mexico intensified, swelling urban populations and ensuring wages stayed relatively low within North America, even as trade volumes between the NAFTA countries exploded. In the wake of accelerating inequality in all three countries, and stubbornly high poverty levels in Mexico throughout the 2000s, the 2020 renegotiation of NAFTA — now rebranded as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) — claimed to address these concerns by emphasizing balanced trade and greater attention to social impact.⁹

The brewing fight over genetically modified corn reveals how NAFTA’s commitment to equalization of regulatory regimes remains one-sided, imbued with colonial logic that continues to perceive Mexico as a permanent laggard in the realm of sustainability and human rights, with no scope for its internal democratic processes to stake leadership on these issues by contradicting the neoliberal orthodoxies promulgated by both Ottawa and Washington. Mexico’s position has consistently been informed by the precautionary principle, an emerging doctrine within environmental law which permits states to restrict new innovations with the potential for harm, even in the absence of scientific consensus.¹⁰ This approach has been largely rejected by the United States, as it steadfastly refuses to ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity, which “endorses a precautionary approach to risk assessment.”¹¹ Even though Canada has ratified that agreement, its insistence that Mexico’s claims lack scientific merit belies its ostensible acceptance of the precautionary principle.

And so while this self-serving form of equivalency is broadly applied throughout trade agreements between Canada and Mexico such as NAFTA, there is reason to believe there are ulterior motivations for seeking stronger labour standards or ecological protection in Mexico. Rather, they were critical in allaying concerns that the agreement would unduly undermine Canadian standards of living. By requiring that Mexico work toward improving its labour, environmental, and other such social standards until they were deemed “equivalent” to those of its NAFTA partners, Canada and the US could credibly claim to be eroding the comparative advantage of lower-cost Mexican labour which threatened Canadian manufacturing jobs.¹² Progressively higher standards would improve quality of life for Mexicans, to the point where firms relocating production to Mexico could not count on winning North American market share merely by “cutting corners” on labour rights and environmental standards. The flipside of this convergence would see Canadian and American workers accept stagnant wage growth in largely non-unionized workplaces, as well as social benefits strangled by years of austerity.¹³

NAFTA also allowed Canada and the U.S. to influence the direction of neoliberal reforms in Mexico, privileging paradigms like consumer choice, voluntary action, and limited state intervention. One such example of dangling regulatory equivalency as a precondition for the elimination of trade barriers is the Canada-Mexico Organic Equivalency Arrangement which came into effect earlier this year.¹⁴ However, that agreement, which seeks to give Canadian consumers “more choices that meet Canada’s high organic requirements” is characteristic of this attitude implicit in the concept of equivalency that Mexico had no capacity to improve living standards and quality of life independently of the parameters outlined and pursued by its NAFTA partners. While consumer choice as the solution to growing demand for safer and healthier foods might be acceptable in wealthy Canada, the choice to purchase higher cost “organics” is simply not a credible solution in Mexico, where household incomes are far lower.¹⁵ That is partly why the Mexican government has instead resorted to raising minimum standards, through more stringent regulations concerning the production of corn intended for human consumption.

Further, these trade agreements were pursued by all three NAFTA countries because it allowed Mexican big business to enlist Canada and the U.S. as leading stakeholders in Mexico’s legislative process. Following NAFTA’s implementation in 1994 they would collectively manage reform in Mexico over the following two decades, guiding it according to the whims of the continental system that they presided over – even when their neoliberal reform agenda contradicted the wishes of campesinos (landless farmers), Indigenous communities, and workers.¹⁶ The Mexican government even attempted to remove the ban on GM corn cultivation in 2009, before a Supreme Court ruling restored it in 2013.¹⁷ Now when there is a progressive government in power in Mexico which takes a much more critical view toward both neoliberal economics and the commercial agreements which undergird it, Canada’s willingness to join this U.S.-Mexico dispute speaks to the neocolonial asymmetries which Canada seeks to preserve in its relations with Mexico.

Canada claims there is “no scientific basis”¹⁸ for Mexico’s claim that imports of GM corn present health and ecological risks, deploying tactics which one expert in Mexico likened to those once used by the tobacco industry.¹⁹ Meanwhile, in pursuing the ban Mexico seeks to improve its food security, preserve its biodiversity, and ensure livelihoods for rural and Indigenous communities by promoting the cultivation of its extensive endowment of native corn varieties. In doing so, it is drawing upon cutting-edge frameworks and epistemologies like the precautionary principle, something that Canada should welcome if it is genuinely concerned about Mexican biodiversity. But even as it is confronted with compelling evidence of the risks posed by GM corn, Canada insists on using mechanisms established by NAFTA in order to halt the initiative. Canada alleges that Mexico’s policy would introduce “asymmetry in North American regulatory conditions,” even though the relationship is already asymmetrical –  which is what both Canada and the US are seeking to maintain; while purporting that there exists equivalencies on health, safety and the environment .²⁰

Toward a New Paradigm of Equivalency

Mexico certainly is not opposed to restoring a degree of equivalency. In fact, President Obrador has shown a willingness to compromise on the implementation window, as well as limiting the ban to yellow corn meant for human consumption (the majority of yellow corn is used for livestock feed and other industrial purposes). Even though this has been the case, instead of pressing for a middle ground which takes seriously the emerging facts and unique ecological heritage about which Mexico is concerned, Canada has followed the lead of the US by utilizing NAFTA to the advantage of Canada’s corn and biotechnology sectors – the latter in which Canada maintains significant interests. Mexico has even offered to collaborate with Canada on GM research to no avail. As one Mexican politician supportive of the ban said, Mexico’s neighbours have no right to “intervene in the decisions that the Mexican government is making to safeguard human rights related to this issue.”²¹

Canada should take this point seriously. After all, it has its own history of conflict with the US over differential regulatory regimes and bouts of protectionism to preserve domestic jobs, price stability, and health standards – with disputes over dairy being but one recent example.²² Instead, it would be wise for Canada to consider a wider range of social values like sustainability, employment, and Indigenous values that should override the principles of market access, or at least warrant additional scrutiny and higher standards. Mexico, like Canada, is a democracy, and it would be highly undemocratic if the popular mandate of an elected leader seeking to make good on promises to protect human and environmental rights were summarily overruled via dispute resolution mechanisms introduced by free trade agreements, where the plaintiffs are poised to enjoy strongly favourable odds.²³

One alternative to these “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” mechanisms is greater recourse to domestic jurisdiction, where for example the imperative to protect national biodiversity through a GM corn ban was upheld by the Mexican Supreme Court in 2013, and again in 2021.²⁴ While valid concerns about corporations exercising “regulatory arbitrage” could be addressed through treaty-based mechanisms, establishing common rules around corruption and rule of law as part of trade agreement negotiations may allow domestic social forces room to exercise greater leverage over the terms of foreign investment, extract fairer benefits, and impose stronger conditions in exchange for market access.²⁵ This would also provide an incentive to NAFTA partners to consider a bidirectional concept of equivalency in their negotiations over market access, recognizing the unique development needs, goals and risks each country faces, rather than seeking to impose particular sustainability and development solutions which will ensure steady profits for the domestic industries of rich countries which sit at the top of global value chains.

Contrary to popular discourses around ‘globalization,’ the nation-state has hardly been displaced as the principal organizer of the international economy by corporations and multilateral institutions. While both certainly have come to the fore, they remain in large part manifestations of the structural power of western countries, and especially the US. As such, in many cases – including the corn dispute – the idea of investor-state disputes is really a myth. These are disputes between national economies, and thus they should be resolved bilaterally rather than through adherence to supposedly universal principles of sound economics which nearly always align with the national interests of the advanced capitalist countries. Equivalency under this model would become bilaterally negotiated, rather than about adherence to a universal – and decidedly neoliberal – concept of governance.

Conclusion

As this dispute on Mexican corn winds its way through the mandated resolution process, it becomes increasingly clear that free trade agreements are not politically neutral instruments which seek to rationalize the international investment landscape and help all investors exploit competitive advantages wherever they might exist, free of unhelpful market distortions. Instead, they have been used by certain states to dominate foreign markets and exploit them as peripheral sources of low-cost inputs to their own national value chains. Reestablishing the bilateral state-to-state dimensions of trade and investment can thus help reassert the role of national politics in driving urgently required reform of the rules governing global capital and commercial flows. Furthermore, this reconfigured approach to investment relations can help bring the imperatives of economic development into harmony with the necessity of protecting biodiversity, ensuring traditional livelihoods, and bolstering consumption in regions experiencing high rates of poverty, underdevelopment and mass migration, particularly in the Global South.

Currently, Canada has the opportunity to evolve the terms of free trade agreements in collaboration with a developing country partner with a radically different political valence from those Mexican administrations which have managed the expansion of Canada-Mexico relations post-NAFTA. The AMLO administration seeks to move away from the neoliberal policies which failed to deliver substantial poverty reduction, accelerated environmental degradation, and even contributed to the intensification of political violence. Mexico’s progressive turn, as epitomized by its resolve to confront the creeping infiltration of GM crops into its agricultural system, mirrors wider exhaustion with the neoliberal project among large sections of Canadian society. Seizing upon this emerging consensus around ecological sustainability, safety, and nutrition in the North American food production system, Canada should work both bilaterally and multilaterally to champion Mexico’s innovative approach to evaluating GM crop safety, and work constructively to phase out harmful practices by Canadian biotechnology firms.

In failing to take these steps and instead opting for an assault on Mexico’s biodiversity, Canada’s demand for the repeal of Mexico’s GM corn import ban reveals the neocolonial designs harboured by the architects and defenders of NAFTA – and the hollowness of its expressed claim to improve the lives of Mexico’s poorest and most marginalized.

Armaan Singh Johal is a senior majoring in Political Science at York University (Canada).

Sameer Gupta is a senior majoring in Work and Labour Studies at York University (Canada).

Editorial assistance was provided by Tamanisha J. John, Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics at York University and Jill Clark-Gollub, Assistant Editor/Translator at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA).

Photo by Erik Aquino on Unsplash

Endnotes 

1. McAfee, K. (2007). Beyond techno-science: Transgenic maize in the fight over Mexico’s future. Geoforum, 39(1), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.06.002
2. Yet another country delivers a crushing blow to gmos. Thrive Market. (2015, November 12). https://thrivemarket.com/blog/yet-another-country-delivers-crushing-blow-gmos
3. Lopez-Hernandez, Erenesto. Gmo Corn, Mexico, and Coloniality. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law. (n.d.). (2020). https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=jetlaw
4. Documentos y actividades en bioseguridad – CONAHCYT. (n.d.-a). https://conahcyt.mx/cibiogem/index.php/sistema-nacional-de-informacion/documentos-y-actividades-en-bioseguridad
5. “Mexico 2021 Export Highlights.” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, fas.usda.gov/mexico-2021-export-highlights. 2022.
6. “Canada and US Challenge Mexico’s Ban on GM Corn.” CBAN, cban.ca/gmos/issues/trade/canada-and-us-challenge-mexicos-ban-on-gm-corn/#:~:text=Canada%20does%20not%20export%20any,white%20corn%20is%20non%2DGM. 2023
7. Sachs, Jeffrey, and Andrew M. Warner. Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration. Harvard Institute for International Development, Harvard University, 1996.
8. NAFTA’s Legacy for Mexico: Economic Displacement, Lower … – Citizen, www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/migration/nafta_factsheet_mexico_legacy_march_2018_final.pdf. 2018.
9. Brodsky, Ally, et al. “Labor, Environment, and . . . Gender? What the USMCA Could Mean for the Inclusion of Gender in Future U.S. Trade Agreements.” CSIS, https://www.csis.org/analysis/labor-environment-and-gender-what-usmca-could-mean-inclusion-gender-future-us-trade
10. Jose Felix Pinto-Bazurco, et al. “The Precautionary Principle.” International Institute for Sustainable Development, https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/precautionary-principle
11. Maize & Biodiversity: The Effects of Transgenic Maize in Mexico: Key Findings and Recommendations: Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Secretariat Report. The Commission, 2004.
12. Bown, C. P., & Claussen, K. (2023, October 12). The rapid response labor mechanism of the US-mexico-canada agreement. PIIE. p. 31 https://www.piie.com/publications/working-papers/rapid-response-labor-mechanism-us-mexico-canada-agreement
13. Semuels, A. (2016, April 19). “good” jobs aren’t coming back. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/onshoring-jobs/412201/
14. Agency, Canadian Food Inspection. “Canada and the Mexico Reach Arrangement for Trade of Organic Food.” Ca, Government of Canada, 15 Feb. 2023, www.canada.ca/en/food-inspection-agency/news/2023/01/canada-and-the-mexico-reach-arrangement-for-trade-of-organic-food.html.
15. Crouch, David. “Fair Trade Food Schemes Battle to Promote Better Standards.” Financial Times, Financial Times, 7 Jan. 2019, www.ft.com/content/83247fda-e0f1-11e8-a8a0-99b2e340ffeb.
16. Hackbarth, Kurt, et al. “American Think Tanks Are Fueling the Mexican Right.” Jacobin, 4 Sept. 2022, jacobin.com/2022/04/us-think-tanks-amlo-morena-energy-reform-baker-institute.
17. “Mexico’s Corn – DW – 11/17/2010.” Com, Deutsche Welle, 17 Nov. 2010, www.dw.com/en/genetically-modified-corn-takes-root-in-mexico/a-6239684.
18. “Canada Joins US in Trade Dispute Hearings against Mexico’s Proposed Ban on GM Corn.” AP News, AP News, 9 June 2023, apnews.com/article/mexico-us-canada-gmo-corn-usmca-trade-0132baa2f950dacdde7de41a611bcb58.
19. “Mexican Scientists Refute U.S., Canadian Claims of Genetically Modified Corn’s Safety.” The Organic & Non-GMO Report, non-gmoreport.com/articles/mexican-scientists-refute-u-s-canadian-claims-of-genetically-modified-corns-safety/. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023.
20. “Canada and US Challenge Mexico’s Ban on GM Corn.” CBAN, cban.ca/gmos/issues/trade/canada-and-us-challenge-mexicos-ban-on-gm-corn/#:~:text=Canada%20does%20not%20export%20any,white%20corn%20is%20non%2DGM. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023.
21. Barrera, Adriana, and Cassandra Garrison. “Exclusive: Mexican Official Says US Refuses to Cooperate on GM Corn Studies.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 3 Aug. 2023, www.reuters.com/science/mexican-official-says-us-refuses-cooperate-gm-corn-studies-2023-08-03/.
22. “United States Establishes Second USMCA Dispute Panel on Canadian Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Policies.” United States Trade Representative, ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2023/january/united-states-establishes-second-usmca-dispute-panel-canadian-dairy-tariff-rate-quota-policies. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023.
23. Frieden, Joel Trachtman and Jeffry, et al. “U.S. Trade Policy: Going It Alone vs. Abiding by the World Trade Organization.” Econofact, 5 Oct. 2023, econofact.org/u-s-trade-policy-going-it-alone-vs-abiding-by-the-world-trade-organization.
24. Wise, Timothy “Mexico’s Highest Court Rejects Appeal of GM Corn Ban.” FAO, Food Tank, 2021, foodtank.com/news/2021/10/mexicos-highest-court-rejects-appeal-of-gm-corn-ban/.
25. Johnson, Lise, et al. Alternatives to Investor-State Dispute Settlement – Columbia University, scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=sustainable_investment_staffpubs. Accessed 7 Nov. 2023.
26. Zavala, Oswaldo. Drug Cartels Do Not Exist Narcotrafficking in US and Mexican Culture. Vanderbilt Univ Press, 2022.

References

Castañeda, Jorge G. 2014. “NAFTA’s Mixed Record: The View from Mexico.” Foreign Affairs, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 134–41.

Cavanagh, John, et al. 2002. “Debate: Happily Ever NAFTA?” Foreign Policy, no. 132, pp. 58–65.

Klassen, J. (2014). Joining empire: The political economy of the new Canadian foreign policy. University of Toronto Press. Pp, 5, 205.

Staff, N. (2023, August 25). Canada to join U.S. trade fight with Mexico over genetically modified corn products. CityNews Halifax. Web: https://halifax.citynews.ca/2023/08/25/canada-to-join-u-s-trade-fight-with-mexico-over-genetically-modified-corn-products/

With murders, contract killings, ambushes, war zone deaths and fatal injuries, a staggering total of 1668 journalists have been killed worldwide in connection with their work in the last two decades (2003-2022), according to the tallies by the Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) based on its annual round-ups.

This gives an average of more than 80 journalists killed every year. The total killed since 2000 is 1787.

RSF secretary-general Christophe Deloire said:

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning examine political events taking shape in South America.

In particular, Buchanan and Manning detail how there is a presidential run-off election in Colombia this Saturday and examine the outcomes of recent elections in Chile, Nicaragua, Honduras and Peru.

Paul takes us through the political landscape and highlights what this means for populism, left-right ideologies and for the South American continent and its respective political partners.

For example; in this episode Buchanan and Manning examine the so-called Pink Tide of (supposed) indigenous socialism started by Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales – and what relevancy this has had with regard to the Summit of Americas.

And, with respect to the Summit of Americas, this event is used as a test of how far the United States has fallen as a global leader.

QUESTIONS:
What is the latest emerging from the political hot-bed of South America?
What are the political trends there with populism, pragmatism, and left-right ideologies?
Why has the Summit of Americas been regarded as a fiasco and how does this impact on the United States’ reputation?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

By Rafael R. Ioris
From Denver, Colorado

Confirming what scientists had been saying for the last several years, a new global pandemic has brought the entire world to a halt in the last three months. The rapid spreading of a new form of Coronavirus, called COVID-19, stalled global commercial chains among countries and forced societies to find new ways to run business, educational systems, and even the very operations of political deliberation. Teleconferencing, online education, and zoom-based legislative sessions became the new normal and no one is certain of when things can go back to the dynamic before the pandemic. Mirroring these events, Latin America has now become the epicenter of the spreading of the new virus, especially in its largest countries, Brazil^[1] and Mexico,^[2] where contagion rates and death tolls are on the rise.

A continent historically plagued by weak and non-democratic political institutions and entrenched huge socio-economic inequalities, Latin America’s experiences with COVID-19 have been largely defined, very much along the situation unfolding in the US, by political inability and ideological polarization. And even though there are notable exceptions, these factors have mired the region’s ability to cope with the new challenges brought up by the rapid spread of the new virus.

In a general sense, size has mattered in the ways COVID-19 infection rates were manifested in Latin America. Several smaller countries, like Uruguay^[3] and Paraguay,^[4] managed to almost stop contagion with rigid border controls, something which tragically hardened some nationalist feelings present across the region prior to the arrival of COVID-19. Addition to these strategies, Nicaragua^[5] had a different approach, keeping borders open so they could incentivize people coming through border controls and allow examinations by health authorities, something that seems to have been working well so far.

Counter-intuitively, larger countries, like Brazil, which usually possess better public health resources have fared more poorly though it is likely that things would have even worse were it not for institutions such as its Unified System of Public Health (SUS^[6]). In effect, conversely to what is undergoing in Argentina,^[7] a country with the region’s fourth largest population and where rigid stay-at-home policies were successfully implemented, and echoing events that also hindered the decision-making process in the US, Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro at first denied the very threat posed by COVID-19 and then continued to undermine efforts promoted by their country’s important scientific, academic and public health professionals. Also in tandem with experiences of the United States, it is likely that Brazil’s federalist constitutional^[8] framework helped minimize the impact of COVID-19 in the country as it allowed local governors to act more assertively in mandating stay-at-home policies Bolsonaro’s efforts to maintain commercial activities open, notwithstanding.

In any event, Brazil faces today its most challenging public health crisis. The country has recorded^[9] at least 930,000 coronavirus cases, registered a death toll around 46,000, and displays the steepest curve of ascending cases in the world. Intensifying the regional challenges, a country where COVID-19 cases have taken a bit longer to gain momentum, Mexico now sees a rapid worsening of cases, having recorded^[10] its worst week since the outbreak, both in confirmed cases (around 150,000) and deaths (around 18,000).

It should be noted that even though any nation with the social stratification existing in Latin America would equally face tremendous hurdles to attend to the many sanitary crises accentuated by the new coronavirus, the lack of efficient, coherent leadership and inclusive decision-making processes present in Latin American has certainly made things much worse. For one, stay-at-home policies could not be put in place in efficient ways since significant portions of workers simply could not afford to stop working in the streets since their very livelihood would thus be denied.

Regionally the informal sector^[11] employs from a third to half of each country’s workforce and, especially where government economic aid was not forthcoming or was otherwise insufficient, it became extremely challenging to many not to venture outside in search of some form of remuneration or gain. Much in the same way, the halting of in-classroom education and its replacement for online education, though present across the region, impacted people differently depending on their socio-economic position. To be sure, the manifestation and especially the impacts of COVID-19 in Latin America varied according to people’s zip codes and racial composition. In effect, facing COVID-19 depended largely on one’s socio-economic reality,^[12] i.e. one’s economic means, type of employment, educational background, place and type of residence, etc.

In short, being able to have access to online education, managing social or physical distancing, and following stay-at-home policies, all depended on one’s place in the entrenched stratified societies of Latin America. These challenges have been intensified by both the political fragmentation and economic slowdown most countries in the region faced prior to the arrival of COVID-19. Latin America’s political fragmentation^[13] is today at its highest degree since the dawn of the 21st century and their most of the region’s domestic political arenas are largely defined by intense political polarization, which means that the anti-COVID-19 policies have been, in most places, mired in ideological disputes and conflicts. Coronavirus will also worsen the mediocre economic growth^[14] most countries in the region have seen in the last five years, thus also intensifying existing regional economic disparities.

Adding to the many existing and growing challenges each country in the region faces, regional political coordination, such as the sharing of successful policies put in place in one country, has become a more difficult, though still a potentially important line of action. In fact, even though Latin America, particularly South America, has experienced its most promising period of regional cooperation in the first two decades of the 21st century, regional multilateralism has rapidly eroded in the last two years.

This was a process involving the coordination of US policies to the region in order to undermine rising levels of autonomy created by new regional agencies, such as UNASUR, including by resorting once again to turning the Organization of American States^[15] into a diplomatic instrument for the promotion of US interests in the region. The arrival to power of Jair Bolsonaro and its policy of direct alignment^[16] with the US has consolidated these new trends. In effect, deepening his xenophobic isolationism, and mimicking Trump’s views and policies, the Brazilian president has recently accused the World Health Organization of being an ideologically driven organization, from which Brazil could possibly withdraw in the near future.^[17]

All in all, Latin America’s landscape in the context of the regional spread of COVID-19 is one defined by growing economic, social, sanitary, and political challenges. It is to be expected that heightened short-sighted nationalist views, deep political polarization, and entrenched economic inequalities will harden across the region, impacting more sharply and painfully historically marginalized social segments, such as afro-descendants and indigenous communities. Reversing these disheartening trends will take continued and asserted mobilization of broad sectors of all regional democratic forces. And it is very unfortunate therefore, that in such a challenging context, Latin America’s burgeoning experiences with regional cooperation in the last decade have been severely reversed in the last few years.^[18]

Rafael R. Ioris is Associate Professor of Latin American History at the University of Denver.

Patricio Zamorano, Co-Director of COHA, contributed as Editor of this article

[Main photo-credit: Pixabay, open license]

End notes

^[1] “Covid cases in Brazil,” https://www.google.com/search?q=covid+cases+in+brazil&rlz=1C1GCEJ_enUS891US891&oq=covid+cas&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l3j0l2j69i57j0l2.1440j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

^[2] “Covid cases in Mexico,” https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEJ_enUS891US891&ei=vILiXr3ZEIrbtQar2puoBw&q=covid+cases+in+mexico&oq=covid+cases+in+mexico&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCAAQsQMyBQgAEIMBMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADoECAAQR1CLmwVYvqMFYJemBWgAcAF4AIABaYgBvQOSAQM1LjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwi9p_W6vPrpAhWKbc0KHSvtBnUQ4dUDCAw&uact=5.

^[3] “Uruguay quietly beats coronavirus, distinguishing itself from its South American neighbors – yet again,” https://theconversation.com/uruguay-quietly-beats-coronavirus-distinguishing-itself-from-its-south-american-neighbors-yet-again-140037.

^[4] “Paraguay Closes Borders and Suspends Flights,” https://www.worldaware.com/covid-19-alert-paraguay-closes-borders-and-suspends-flights-through-april-12.

^[5] “Nicaragua battles COVID-19 and a Disinformation Campaign,” http://www.coha.org/nicaragua-battles-covid-19-and-a-disinformation-campaign/.

^[6] “While Brazil’s president fights social distancing, its public health system is fighting the pandemic,”  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/05/04/while-brazils-president-fights-social-distancing-its-public-health-system-is-fighting-pandemic/.

^[7] “How Argentina’s Strict Covid-19 Lockdown Saved Lives.” https://www.wired.com/story/how-argentinas-strict-covid-19-lockdown-saved-lives/.

^[8] “Brazil’s President Still Insists the Coronavirus is Overblown. These Governors Are Fighting Back,” https://time.com/5816243/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-coronavirus-governors/.

^[9] “Brazil: Coronavirus Cases,” https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/brazil/.

^[10] “Mexico: Coronavirus Cases,” https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/mexico/.

^[11] “It’s time to tackle the informal economy problem in Latin America,” https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/it-s-time-to-tackle-informal-economy-problem-latin-america/.

^[12] “Covid-19 Exposes Latin America’s Inequality,” https://www.csis.org/analysis/covid-19-exposes-latin-americas-inequality.

^[13] “Latin America: political change in volatile and uncertain times,” https://www.idea.int/news-media/news/latin-america-political-change-volatile-and-uncertain-times.

^[14] “Latin America faces a second ‘lost decade’,” https://www.ft.com/content/07f0e09e-0795-11ea-9afa-d9e2401fa7ca.

^[15] “How the Leader of OAS Became a Right-Wing Hawk – And Paved the Way For Bolivia’s Coup,”  https://inthesetimes.com/article/22181/oas-bolivia-coup-venezuela-maduro-trump-luis-almagro.

^[16] “Brazil: From Global Leader to U.S. Follower,” https://fpif.org/brazil-from-global-leader-to-u-s-follower/.

^[17] “Brazil could quit WHO, warns Bolsonaro,” https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/brazil-could-quit-who-warns-bolsonaro/article31768510.ece

^[18] “Is Regional Cooperation Dead in Latin America?,” https://www.americasquarterly.org/article/is-regional-cooperation-dead-in-latin-america/.

By Nestor Corrales in Manila

Despite the Philippine government’s brutal war on drugs, President Rodrigo Duterte has admitted that the drug problem in the country has “worsened” and warned that the country might end up like Mexico controlled by drug cartels.

“Things have worsened. My policemen are at the brink of surrendering,” he said in a speech during the campaign rally of the Partido Demokratiko Pilipino–Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-laban) in Cagayan de Oro.

“You can see the headlines — every day billions worth of drugs are entering the country. Look at the main screen and the crawler, the running news at the bottom. It’s always about drugs, drugs, and drugs,” he added.

READ MORE: Duterte’s ‘war on drugs’ in the Philippines

The President cited the recent 1 billion pesos (NZ$28 million) worth of shabu seized by authorities, which he said could just be a diversion of drug traffickers in the country.

“Don’t believe that it’s one billion. The next day there will be another one-point-three billion. That’s just an excuse. That’s a bait,” he said.

-Partners-

“Actually there are other billions coming in. The Philippines is contiguous, island for island. There are seven thousand islands. Just choose where you want to land,” he added.

Duterte said the Philippines could end up like Mexico with the current drug situation.

“In the end, we will be like Mexico. We will be controlled by drug cartels. The Sinaloa has already entered the country and that is why drugs are being thrown in the Pacific. The same is happening in the West,” he said.

Data from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) death count in the government’s war on drugs was now at 5,104 since the President launched his brutal war on drugs in July 2016.

However, human rights organisations and campaigners for victims cite much higher death tolls ranging between 12,000 and 20,000.

Nestor Corrales reports for the Philippines Daily Inquirer.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz