Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
When it was announced that Ovidio Guzmán had reached an agreement with federal prosecutors in Chicago to plead guilty to drug trafficking, President Sheinbaum’s smile vanished. Severe but trembling, she uttered an enigmatic phrase full of double and triple meanings and connotations: “The US authorities will have to present evidence” to support Ovidio’s accusations against Mexican authorities.
The newspaper Reforma said that the president was trying to preempt harm when she uttered the phrase. But the truth is that the words, coming from the president’s mouth, seem to confirm what millions suspect: that we are one step away from learning the true extent of the possible complicity between the political class and drug trafficking in Mexico. And Sheinbaum knows it, and she doesn’t like what’s coming.
She doesn’t like it because she is caught between having to enforce the laws of the nation in the face of evidence of serious crimes committed by public officials, possibly even a former president, and, on the other hand, defending her party comrades without excuse, starting with the real owner of her party.
The first time I remember hearing that phrase from Andrés Manuel López Obrador was when General Cienfuegos, former secretary of National Defense, was arrested in Los Angeles, California, accused by the United States of being an ally and protector of drug trafficking in Mexico.
The second time was when it became clear that Mayo Zambada was in the hands of the US authorities, whether of his own free will or kidnapped, it didn’t matter. At that time, there were many rumors that he would give US judges compelling evidence of the former president’s personal involvement in unspeakable deals with drug traffickers, granting them protection in exchange for political and economic support for his government and Morena.
The phrase resonated because it reflected fear, along with a previously decided strategy: defiance and resistance behind the protective wall of the ruling party. In response to any accusations against him, the US authorities “will have to present evidence,” López Obrador said when Cienfuegos was arrested, and he repeated this when Mayo Zambada fell, now referring to himself.
There are precedents for the arrest and imprisonment of former Latin American presidents accused of being partners in drug trafficking. The most recent case is that of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was extradited after a criminal trial to the United States, where he was sentenced to 45 years in prison in 2022.
Further back in time, but much more controversial, was the US military invasion of Panama in 1989, which culminated in the overthrow of President Manuel Antonio Noriega, who was ultimately sentenced to 40 years in prison for drug trafficking in the United States.
López Obrador is undoubtedly fully aware that the United States is capable of requesting his extradition from the Mexican government to face charges of association with drug traffickers in Mexico. At this point in the history of the 4T, it is clear that key figures in Morena politics have colluded with drug traffickers for electoral purposes and to achieve supposed political stability. Whether by commission or omission, the former Mexican president had a direct role in these activities and his government’s complicity.
The irony of it all is his double standard on this issue. On the one hand, he celebrated García Luna’s criminal trial and, every day in the mañaneras, reported in great detail and with considerable sarcasm, the barrage of accusations against García Luna and, by extension, against Felipe Calderón, his nemesis.
One after another, drug gang and cartel leaders explained the payments they made to García Luna to protect their drug shipments to the lucrative US market. It was all hearsay, sometimes even contradicting dates, places, or amounts of money, but none of that mattered. What was relevant to López Obrador, for the 4T, and his acolytes, was the delicious gossip that served to smear Calderón. Nothing that would be considered documentary or graphic “evidence” in a Mexican trial was ever presented. That was not necessary when the real purpose, from the Mexican government’s perspective, was political propaganda.
López Obrador reveled in his morning show. He even offered García Luna a deal if he directly implicated Felipe Calderón as an active partner in a drug cartel. Obviously, García Luna did not accept the agreement because there was never any link between Calderón and the case against García Luna.
And while López Obrador continued with his media circus in the mañaneras, he was the one leading his government toward a close alliance with elements of drug trafficking. To cover his tracks, he even authorized national, state, and municipal leaders of Morena to associate with organized crime in their communities, under very clear premises. These premises consisted of never acknowledging the associations, always demanding their electoral support, and facilitating criminal operations.
That was the double standard. On the one hand, he celebrated García Luna’s trial because it exposed that government’s relationship with drug trafficking, while he did the same with his own government, but to a thousand times greater extent and turned it into public policy.
By demanding proof, not statements, Sheinbaum is taking the same path chosen by López Obrador. When she talks about the non-existent “fraud” of 2006, about García Luna, about his policy of “no stealing, no lying, no betraying” and “courageous honesty,” it is because they are doing precisely the opposite. Double standards are tragically spreading their wings with this new 4T government.
The president is trapped. And she cannot find a way out of this crossroads for one simple reason: there is none. By resorting to the excuse of saying “they will have to present evidence,” she unwittingly reveals her political weakness.
ricardopascoe@hotmail.com
@rpascoep
Further Reading: