Breathe
By Dr. Aribel Contreras Suárez
We are at a very sui generis juncture in the world, but Mexico is certainly no exception. Since months ago, the engines were heated up to take the 'highway without paying toll booths' of a reform in the judicial field. The diplomatic corps accredited in our country was turning on its blinkers to see which way the directional lights were going.
This has generated that different actors in the United States and Canada have set their sights on the interest of transmitting the concerns of the private sector (of their countries) without intervening in Mexico's affairs. I would like to emphasize that these concerns are not only those of investors in those countries, but of many more. In other words, their silence does not mean applause or that they are well regarded by other of our main trading partners.
However, this has raised eyebrows in terms of governmental reactions and other pro-government political actors since their arguments are based on the fact that there was interference. From my perspective, there was no intervention on the part of both ambassadors. What happened is that they expressed the business voices that see from a distance what could threaten their interests on Mexican soil and/or what could be in violation of the trade agreement to which Mexico is a party. Hence the relevance of bilateral meetings in all kinds of international events towards the review of the TMEC.
Some national media have covered the G20 Summit in a superficial manner. They highlight that at last the tenant of the National Palace traveled to a multilateral forum but they only highlight the forms, the photos and the simple speeches. But this should be a subject for a deeper analysis. Mexico was absent from the APEC Summit (held just a few days ago in Peru) due to the tensions between both governments for almost two years. However, it would have been a great opportunity to demonstrate political sanity and not continue with the "political tantrum". Now in Brazil, when the Spanish President, Pedro Sanchez, is attending, it would have been a unique opportunity to iron out the differences, but this was not the case either. In other words, "the suitcases are empty". The political maturity to make assertive decisions and thus build a better country is to recognize that from the outside one can see more certain things.
The G20 Summit 'took flight' amidst high geopolitical tensions, disagreements on agenda items and polarizations between the Global South and the Global North. The epicenter of conversation focused on the following topics:
1️.Hunger
2️.Poverty
3️.Cooperation
Climate change
Gender equality
Global governance
Sustainable development
Some facts to highlight are:
- It is President Biden's last summit so the next one, in 2025 in South Africa, I hardly see Trump traveling for this high-level dialogue mechanism.
- Putin did not go, although Brazilian President Lula Da Silva invited him a year ago with the warning of the International Criminal Court arrest warrant.
- Xi Jinping was present to pursue his own interests with members of the Global South.
- This was the third G20 summit in Latin America as the first one took place in 2012 in Mexico and six years later, i.e. in 2018 it was in Argentina.
- The G20 is made up of 19 member countries plus the African Union and the European Union, which makes it a powerful space in terms of population, GDP and global trade, but at the same time, there is a great diversity of positions and opinions on different issues.
Multilateral forums are a 'ticket' that, beyond protocol, serve to nuance differences and build bridges. Although some undoubtedly believe that with their romantic proposals they justify their presence, but sometimes there are more shadows than lights that do not allow to see the background of the 'baggage or political air navigation'. That is to say, it may be that they are 'late' to the agenda.
Each member 'carries his or her own suitcase' with his or her own concerns and issues. It is difficult for all suitcases to be the same size, color and design. That is why it is difficult for proposals without weight and without real content to convince people to take a collective journey towards a common destination. An "itinerary" of this level makes it possible to redirect the compass of the road to 'arrive on time' and send signals of true global governance.
The opinions expressed are the responsibility of the authors and are absolutely independent of the position and editorial line of the company. Opinion 51.
Comments ()