Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
In Mexico, the response to the phone call between Presidents Trump and Sheinbaum the day before the fateful August 1 was almost unanimous. Jubilation and relief. They agreed to 90 more days to continue “negotiating.” In any case, the question remains: what is being negotiated?
President Sheinbaum, true to form, celebrated the 90-day extension and gave no further details about the agreement. She stated that “the agreement we have does not involve any additional action on Mexico’s part, but simply that we remain as we are and continue talking.” Marcelo Ebrard added that “All this was achieved without any other concessions on Mexico’s part…”
Economic and political analysts welcomed the postponement, some with more joy and certainty than others, who expressed more caution. There were indications that the uncertainty was being postponed for another three months, nothing more.
Reports released in a timely manner by INEGI on income distribution in Mexico and a slight increase in GDP for the second two months of the year served to encourage general optimism about the country’s economic situation. Even Fitch Ratings increased its confidence in PEMEX’s financial situation. In the federal government, at least publicly, there is overwhelming optimism and certainty that the negotiations with the United States will have a happy ending.
Even the linguistic dispute between Mexico and the United States over the talks on the USMCA is considered a “translator’s problem.” Sheinbaum says there will be a review of some aspects of the trade agreement, while the Trump administration is talking about a renegotiation of the entire USMCA. “Review” and “renegotiation” are inevitably different things, and not a source of confusion for translators. It seems that Mexico is seeking a specific review of some (minor?) aspects of the USMCA, when everything indicates that the United States is thinking of something much more profound and structural concerning the agreement. It has even indirectly suggested the possibility of breaking the trilateral agreement, preferring a bilateral arrangement.
In light of all this, what did Trump say about his conversation with Sheinbaum? He posted a message on his Truth Social network giving his version of what was agreed with Mexico, and it is much more extensive than what Sheinbaum had commented on. It contains an enigmatic phrase that deserves the attention of Mexican analysts to understand better Trump’s opinion of Mexico and where he wants to go with the negotiations.
Trump claimed that Mexico had agreed to “immediately” remove the non-tariff barriers it applies, which complicate and increase the cost of the flow of goods from the United States to Mexico, but facilitate the entry of Chinese products into Mexican territory. The White House spokeswoman reiterated on the same day as the conversation between the presidents that Mexico had accepted this condition. So when Sheinbaum said that “we are simply staying where we are…,” Washington inevitably concludes that she is lying or backing out of what was agreed upon in the phone conversation.
Be careful with phone conversations between presidents: they are recorded and can be made public, as Fox learned with Fidel Castro.
In his message, Trump made a revealing comment about Mexico, stating that “The complexities of a deal with Mexico are somewhat different than other nations because of both the problems and assets of the border.” He concludes his message by stating, “There will be continued cooperation on the border as it relates to all aspects of security, including drugs, drug distribution, and illegal immigration into the United States.”
Trump clearly defines what, in his view, makes our country different from the other nations with which he negotiates tariffs: the issue of security. It is not the economic issue in the first place, although the USMCA is an additional irritant in the bilateral wash. Trump defines Mexico as a case of exceptional complexities, which should come as no surprise to anyone. In his analysis set out in this message, we are neighbors and share a border, there is intense economic exchange between the two countries, and Mexico is overwhelmed by drug cartels whose financial, political, and military power is presumably growing.
Based on the analysis offered in his message, Trump concludes that the uniqueness of negotiating with Mexico lies in the existence of its security crisis. Therefore, the use of tariff pressure should serve to obtain results in the area of security, primarily, although not exclusively. When the President of Mexico states that everything has remained “just where we were,” it is plausible to think that Washington concludes that the telephone conversation will not have served its objectives and that the agreements reached will not be respected.
If the Mexican president wants to break the vicious circle in which she is trapped, with the threat of tariffs hanging over her head like the sword of Damocles, she would do well to inform the Mexican people about the current state of negotiations and the potential outcomes. The practice of not providing information beyond trite and ideological phrases for the popular gallery gives the opposition a splendid advantage, as it can manipulate the information as it pleases. This is what Trump did with his message, reiterating that the tariffs will remain in place and that something important will have to happen in terms of security if we want to get out of the cycle of tariffs, extensions, and more tariffs. He politely issued a threat: either the security issue is addressed, beyond ineffective and superficial actions that lack fundamental solutions, or there will be further reprisals, in accordance with the particularities of Mexico’s case for Washington.
While Trump threatens, Sheinbaum celebrates “that everything remains the same.” And the oppressive weakness of the president is that it is clear that nothing remains the same, and that the grave danger to the nation persists. The rigged polls showing 80% popularity are no longer helpful for weathering the storm on the horizon. The self-praise she hears in the palace should not be her compass for knowing where the nation is headed. She must read Trump’s message, compare it with their conversation, and then make the appropriate decisions to serve the nation, not her movement.
ricardopascoe@hotmail.com
@rpascoep
Further Reading: