How are you? Good night. Welcome once again to Third Grade. Here at the table is Denise Merker. Good evening. Today we will miss Virillana Ríos, but fortunately Enrique Acevedo is with us. Good night. Leo Zuckerman, good evening everyone. Raimundo Rivapalacio, good evening. And of course, but from a distance, Leopoldo Gómez.
Good evening. Well, today has been a day of intense information. There are, of course, the remarks stemming from President Claudia Shembun’s Sunday speech, and in contrast to the shift in tone she made in her speech towards the United States, there is the recognition by the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Marwa Mulin.
recognition of Mexico’s cooperation and even of sovereignty itself. [snort] If you like, Leopoldo, I’d like to start by asking you if Sunday’s speech marks a turning point and how to understand the fact that the Secretary of Internal Security acknowledges cooperation and even recognizes sovereignty. Yes, the truth is that when I saw what he said I was surprised.
I was already expecting a stronger, more direct reaction from someone in the United States government after Sunday’s speech. The truth is that this has not happened. Uh, it has been interpreted, for example, that the response to that speech was what the New York judge said in the hearing of the former security secretary of the Sinaloa government.
I do n’t think the judge is speaking for the Trump administration. The leaks to the LA Times might also be interpreted, but it’s not a direct, frontal reaction as one might have expected. In fact, what we are finding is the opposite. These statements, in which he acknowledges the unprecedented cooperation that has been achieved, at least compared to the previous government of López Obrador, and also the importance of sovereignty as a concept for Mexico, must be respected.
And just a day ago, Marco Rubio in Congress, when he spoke about the governments that are, let’s say, against the United States, speaking about those that are in favor of the Shield of the Americas, did not include Mexico in those groups, neither in one group nor the other. And when he talks about the drone problem, he doesn’t directly attack the Mexican government either.
So, I don’t know what’s behind all this, but the only hypothesis I can venture is that there’s some kind of conversation, negotiations, talks that would be leading to this, but I’m putting it on the table only as a hypothesis. In relation to this, Raundo, perhaps the possibility is that the version released of that meeting on May 21st did not have the speed that was said and that a list of possible extraditable persons was not delivered either.
How do you interpret these somewhat conflicting signals? Because at the same time they talk about an understanding, right? I don’t take anything away from the version not only published on Monday by two journalists, but also from all the information that has come out about Mulin’s proposal. The meeting was tense.
Well, he didn’t complain, as far as I understand, about the cooperation, but what he asked for was compliance with the extradition treaty in the case of Rubén Rochamoya and nine other Sinaloans. Now, the phrasing of the Secretary of National Security is interesting because he clearly establishes that this is a level of cooperation unlike anything they’ve had compared to the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, which Leopoldo emphasizes very well.
But I would expand on this a bit because what we’ve seen this week, starting on Monday, is a deepening of this, let’s say, judicial, political, diplomatic, economic, and even media harassment from the United States. This phase concludes this morning with what the Los Angeles Times published, and then Mul comes along to slow things down a bit.
Let me just give a quick recap of what’s happening on Monday, and I’ll tell you why. What does Monday’s events have to do with? With what Judge Catherine Pulk declared in the Southern District Court in Manhattan, where the case of Rubén Rochamoya and the other Sinaloa public officials is being heard. She said there is sufficient, abundant evidence in the appearance of the general there.
Gerardo Mérida and waves will come , literally waves of accusations. Point number one. Point number two was Ambassador Johnson’s message that same afternoon, picking up or rather reacting to the President’s Sunday speech where she asked that the issue of security cooperation not be politicized. On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marcos Ruiz is coming, which is what Leopoldo mentioned in his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is extremely powerful.
While he didn’t refer to the Mexican government, he was referring to Mexico in the drone case. Furthermore, 15 days ago, in the Senate Armed Forces Committee, the Chief of the Joint Staff of the Armed Forces also addressed the issue of the lions, but we are so distracted by other related issues that it went unnoticed. In the afternoon, practically finished, this information came from the trade representation office about possible 10% tariffs for countries that are using or receiving products derived from forced labor. While it
wasn’t just Mexico, but six countries, they are part of this pressure that has been present in the trade negotiations. On the side, there’s the Los Angeles Times report this morning, and there’s a setback there. And Mulin’s statement is interesting regarding the phrasing because this morning, when the president was asked about the case of Alfonso Durazo and Américo Villarreal, the two governors named in the Los Angeles Times.
She, unlike how she originally reacted in the case of Rubén Rochamoya, is much more careful. She does n’t get involved, she makes a comment that I think is correct, she even quotes Miguel de la Madrid’s memoirs about how pressure is applied, but she didn’t dive in to defend you. He said, they will have to explain it and that will be seen with the evidence.
Your investment, Denis, what catches my attention is the contrast between the tone of the speech and, in a way, the reaction we are seeing. Okay, let’s start by talking about the speech. The president’s speech is clearly a radicalizing one, where she effectively states that the Rocha Moya issue is a clear case of interference by the United States, and above all, she speaks of a strategy that could be——that she hadn’t been foreshadowing in the morning press conferences, but let’s say that Sunday’s speech was a
strong, harsh, very forceful, very clear speech. There is nothing ambiguous where the president is saying, the United States and the government of Donald Trump have a logic and that logic is interventionist and the Moya Rocho issue is interventionist and has the phrase that we have all picked up on because it seems to us to be the most revealing where he says first they come for some, then they come for others and then a main office, an office of the State Department ends up defining, the Department of Justice would have defined
that discourse because of its special character, because of the radicalization, because it is radicalized, because it confronts directly, well, it makes us all wait to see what the reaction of the United States will be. I agree with Leopoldo that the reactions that have caught my attention are, what has been talked about? It has been said that if General Mérida appeared in shackles, that ‘s a message. I doubt it.
I think that’s going in a different direction. The two things that seem relevant to me are Marco Rubio, who yesterday, when he spoke about Mexico, without mentioning it, spoke about Mexican cartels fighting each other with drones and said that at some point they could affect his country. But the United States has not moved from a discourse in which what they are against is the drug traffickers, not the Mexican government.
This is reaffirmed by Marco Rubio when he speaks of the unfriendly countries of the region, in which he does not mention Mexico, but mentions Brazil, Colombia, Nicaragua, and Cuba, and notes that Venezuela was included and that they are already there, but he does not mention Mexico because he is arguing against criminals.
And I think today’s Mulan thing is very interesting because he says that it’s an extraordinary collaboration. He is the one who allegedly had this disagreement with the president, which is not alleged because the president herself narrated how that meeting had been and then says because they still believe in sovereignty, which catches my attention because that is how it is phrased and we have to respect that.
Yes, what I want to imagine is that the gentleman left the meeting saying, well, they presented me with a series of arguments that I accepted and that they are collaborating and we have to respect what they are proposing to us. But the important thing is that the United States is not responding government to government, but rather continues with the logic of the United States government against Mexican drug cartels.
that includes, as the Department of Justice did, a governor, or that today a report appears in the Los Angeles Times that there are other ambassadors whose visas have been revoked by governors. Uh, it’s interesting, but the discourse so far, because in a minute it can change, and it can change especially the moment Trump addresses the issue, because Trump hasn’t addressed the issue, right? For now, the message from the United States is, “We are not fighting with the Mexican government.
” That’s how I’m interpreting it. This, by the way, seems unnecessary to me, what Andrés Manuel López Obrador is bringing up today, as if the president needed it. The president, after what she said on Sunday, needed the former president to come out and say something more or less similar, but what is supporting her at this moment? The sequence of events you describe is clear, I think she said it on Sunday, we were waiting for the response and it is unnecessary and counterproductive that a statement from the former president has been presented at this moment, which I don’t
understand what it contributes to. It is a very short letter of five pages that I truly believe is not the right time or place to carry it out. The impression of this sort of paradox of the radicalization of discourse with a reaction on the one hand pointing to cooperation and on the other hand the president herself trying not to involve Donald Trump in this media campaign that she denounces as interference .
I find it fascinating because for years we have seen that this conversation or this bilateral dialogue and debate takes place on the subject of security, how it should be executed, how it should be operated, who is doing it well, who is not doing it well. And I actually think that here it evolved into a discussion about legitimacy between Mexico and the United States.
And who has the right to accuse, who has the moral authority to point the finger, who doesn’t—that’s what this bilateral conversation has evolved for me, which takes place through all the messages already mentioned in the president’s speech , especially this part: first they come for some and then they come for others, because here the others are no longer the drug traffickers, they are rulers, politicians, members of the movement, right? This is actually a discussion on Washington’s side, not about who governs Mexico or what party,
movement, or ideology governs Mexico, but whether the government in Mexico is capable of confronting these threats. So, the competition starts to focus more on legitimacy than strictly on security, right? And going back to the topic of the messages, the responses to the president’s speech, I think it’s very important not only to talk about what Secretary Molen said, but who Secretary Molen is, because for many days, in fact, after Sunday’s speech, came Monday’s speech, and the president reiterated that there is a sector within the
White House, not President Trump, from the far right, that wants to derail or undermine the relationship between the two countries and that this sector is allied with the far right in Mexico. Well, Secretary Mullen and DHS today report directly to Steven Miller. He is Trump’s closest advisor who handles internal security issues, including immigration policy, which is handled by ICBP.
We ‘ve seen it before. That is the person the president is surely referring to when she speaks of sectors within the movement or the circle of President Trump that manage the agenda with Mexico, who want to derail that agenda. And if Molen answers that today, well, it ‘s a kind of acknowledgment, saying, “No, we’re not in the business of getting involved in deciding who governs Mexico.
We’re interested in the Mexican government doing its part to return to this conversation about cooperation.” That’s why I find it revealing who the message is coming from. Clear. Clear. The investment. Well, look, Dení was wondering why Andrés Manuel López Obrador is releasing this five-page statement now, and I would relate it directly to today’s news , which I believe is the LA Times article, saying that the visas of the governor of Sonora and the governor of Tamaulipas have been revoked, but—and this is the important thing—they continue to enter the
United States under, I quote, a special permit generally reserved for cooperating witnesses. So, when I read the LA Times article, they deny it, uh, they deny it. It’s important they came out publicly to deny it. This permit is not only for that purpose, it’s for appointments, it’s for medical matters, it’s a one-time permit for that reason .
But look, I don’t know what happened to you guys when you read the LA Times article. My immediate question was, are Durazo and Villa, and Villarreal, collaborating with the United States? What happened to me is that I was left wanting to read the tests. The tests. Well, let’s see, I mean, not to repeat the speech of, I mean, because if I could publish saying citing anonymous sources, well, that would be cl.
Well, that’s why, but look, it’s clear that this is a leak. Yes, absolutely. It is clear that this comes from the United States government, which is probably giving it to a journalist who was the one who first leaked that Rochamoya’s accusation was coming. So, it seems the gentleman has good sources, doesn’t he? Plausible, aren’t they? So, uh, let’s see, the United States has a technique that you know, you’re familiar with, a very effective, very old technique of filtering out that there are informants in criminal organizations, right? Because that
stirs things up, does n’t it? They get nervous, they get nervous. What could General Mérida be saying? Now that he’s in New York, what could Díaz be saying? What’s the name of the former secretary who’s nowhere to be found? By the way, I spoke to the finance guy, he’s nowhere to be found, he’s disappeared.
There is a missing Mexican man who supposedly turned himself in; he is missing, we don’t know where he is. That’s why he’s disappeared, that is, he ‘s disappeared from the public eye. He may be in Guantanamo for those purposes. because they are already international terrorist organizations. So there are these two who surrendered, there’s this idea that Durazo and Villarreal continue to enter the United States with these special permits.
Who’s blowing? Who are they saying? I think they are very nervous in Morena, including Andrés Manuel López Obrador. And that’s what I’m saying, I’m completely speculating, that I think that’s why this letter from López Obrador is coming, where what he fundamentally says is, “It’s not Trump’s fault, Trump is being deceived.
” It reminds me a bit of what they used to say in Cuba, doesn’t it? Fidel is being deceived, kid. Fidel, Fidel is good here again. And by the way, that’s a version that also supports President Shabon, because President Shabon gave a very harsh speech on Sunday, but on Monday she said, “But I don’t think Donald Trump is to blame. [snort] It’s the far right, not as if Donald Trump were the center or the far left, right? Or as if he doesn’t surround himself with sycophants who are just telling him, ‘Mr.
President, what he ‘s doing,’ right? Look, this is Donald Trump, it’s the responsibility of Donald Trump and his government . To say that he’s being deceived by hacks and opportunists, etc., is a way of shifting the blame onto the real person responsible for this very harsh policy against the Mexican government, which is President Donald Trump.
I think that in Morena they’re feeling the pressure and are reacting. Of course, it’s also a way of creating space to try to negotiate. Did you think you were going to say something? Yes, it’s just that I think that the one who If López Obrador’s letter— the short, succinct letter, as you say—if, in my interpretation, it reflects López Obrador’s fear, then it’s completely inappropriate.
It doesn’t help the president, it doesn’t help the government, it doesn’t help anyone. But I do believe it’s a reaction of fear, a preemptive move, a feeling that the heat is coming . To put it colloquially, why is Rochamoya being accused? Alfonso Durazo and Américo Villarreal have already been singled out . Anything can happen, and in a few days, an accusation could be made against one of them or another member of Morena.
More accusations are coming; they’ve already anticipated that they will come. Who? We do n’t know. But when I mention fear, it’s because these three governors are directly connected to López Obrador. And I can add that Durazo’s case is very important because he was Secretary of Public Security under López Obrador, and today he’s the president of the most important body of the ruling Morena party, the National Council.
from Morena. There’s another very relevant point, and I’ll just conclude . He was the Secretary of Security during the Culiacánazo of October 2019, when López Obrador, at his suggestion, ordered the release of Ovidio Guzmán López, one of the Chapitos, who years later had to be arrested due to pressure from the United States.
What’s going on there, Leopoldo? How do you reconcile, on the one hand, the call to defend sovereignty when you don’t act decisively against those who have been, in some way, indicted by governors who have been indicted for their links to crime— that’s the part he does? Look, yes, let me make a few brief comments, and I’ll conclude with what you’re saying about the speech, because when I was thinking about how to describe the president’s speech on Sunday, four or five descriptions came to mind, right? I think it’s very
revealing because it reflects the president’s state of mind. She seems to be fed up with so many requests and pressures from Trump and his administration. It’s very honest because she’s already Without mincing words, she’s really saying what’s motivating her to take the position she’s taking, and it’s not this issue of evidence, it’s not due process, it’s the political issue, the defense of sovereignty, and the danger of her own movement collapsing.
I think it’s unsettling because of the anti-American tone and what it could imply for the bilateral relationship, because what I do believe is that if there hasn’t been a strong reaction from the US government to the United States up to this point, that doesn’t preclude us from seeing one tomorrow or the day after. We already know what Trump is like and what his administration is like.
But I also think it’s disturbing how she labels the opposition, the media, everyone who isn’t with her. Basically, she calls them traitors, sellouts, and I think I’m choosing this because while she talks about sovereignty, which you can agree with, she doesn’t tell us what she’s going to do or how she’s positioning herself in these cases legally, what her government is going to do, or what her political stance is, because it is It’s true that she suddenly mentions, in a way, that there will be no impunity, but it almost seems like
a footnote to the speech. So, I think that all that defense of sovereignty, all this argument she builds throughout the second part of her speech, well, it doesn’t help if there isn’t at least a desire to investigate these cases in Mexico. We know that the polls, all the polls we know, show that the population does think there is some guilt or some reasons to investigate Rocha Moya and his co-defendants.
If the president doesn’t do it, if she doesn’t address this issue head-on, I think she ends up losing. If she could, it’s because what Leopoldo says in this part of the speech seems central to me, because it’s true, every time a prosecutor, a U.S. justice system points to a Mexican politician, the consequences are inevitably political. The problem is that if, in Mexico, every time there’s an internal accusation—it doesn’t necessarily have to be external—an accusation against one of these figures, especially figures from the movement, the response is interference, and I do
n’t know… It’s accompanied by an investigation, a serious, transparent process. So, that only reinforces the notion that accountability only comes when there’s external pressure. That’s right. That’s right. Do you think so? I think that, speaking of what Leopoldo was saying and the terms, the adjectives he used, the president’s speech is a speech in defense of sovereignty. Hmm.
In that part, she made an argument that does make sense to me, this issue of what we see from Trump and his administration and the way he behaves in other countries. It continues to impress me that, for example, this week Trump appeared to say that he’s with the right-wing candidate in Colombia. Well, it was almost as if they sent him to Claudia Sheinbaum to tell her, “You’re right, here you go.” I mean, this man…
Let’s see what happens in Colombia, but clearly it’s not the role of the President of the United States to dedicate himself now not only to supporting candidates, but also to saying that they owe him their position, as he did in Miami. Well, that part of the The discourse seems solid to me.
Where do I think it starts to lose strength? In the confusion between the country and its movement, because it’s one thing for the country to deserve to be defended against interference, and another for the very discourse defending sovereignty to contain such confusion between the country and the movement. They cannot be the same, and the president cannot confuse us about this, however large the majority of that movement may be.
The country is much more than the Fourth Transformation movement. Creating this confusion weakens us as a country; it may strengthen her movement, but it weakens the country. And today, again in the letter, the president, former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, says that the attack is not on the country, but on his movement.
And that’s the part of that argument that seems absolutely flawed to me, because you can’t confuse these two things. It’s extremely serious to confuse them. Obviously, Leopoldo is absolutely right . If you create this confusion, as they are doing— which, by the way, is an old one in our political history, because the PRI instilled that same confusion in us by using the flag in its party emblem—you’re making a mistake.
So then [laughs] what are all those on the outside? Traitors, as I was saying. And I think that’s extremely serious. And then I think it’s a blow to President Claudia Sheinbaum that the president, the former president, came out today. She ‘s setting an agenda, she’s delivering a speech, and what the former president is doing today, which is either paternalistic or I don’t know what to call it, but excuse me, the president didn’t need Andrés Manuel López Obrador to appear. I don’t know if it’s out of fear, I don’t
know if it’s for the spotlight, I don’t know, but she didn’t need him, and neither did the country, because the president was already doing what she had to do. So, it seems to me that it’s a speech that complains, that falls short in two parts. In the part where Leopoldo says, where I think the issue of justice being done in our country continues to be a footnote, and we have institutions that have never been capable, never in history, not now in history, of even touching a single person with the petal of a rose.
in the political elites. The PRI didn’t do it, nobody has. Odebrecht, and we remember, cost me, I think, three presidents in Peru, very important people in Brazil, in short, a corruption scandal that had consequences for the elites of those countries. We don’t have a justice system, nor have we ever had one, that is capable of holding those powerful people, those linked to power, accountable.
I think the same thing is going to happen, and that’s why it’s a footnote. Yes, yes, you meant yes. Yes, because it’s true that there’s a political and ideological alignment that Trump is forcing in Latin America. Colombia is next, I mean, that’s undeniable, transparent, transparent. He doesn’t care about anything at all.
I mean, of course, whatever the president says is the same because he did what he did with Colombia and he did it with other countries previously. Now the strategy is confrontation, the appropriate strategy because the most ideological and dogmatic wing is following that logic, and that’s where President Shammah is.
By the way, she’s not on board with this López Obrador’s approach isn’t exactly pragmatic; he has this flexibility characteristic of PRI-style politics, where he leans one way and another, but he’s not an ideological man, unlike the president, and there’s a very strong line of thought within Morena that believes this is the right path. The problem is, let me provoke you, Raimundo.
Today, a politician from Nuevo León—uh, who perhaps hadn’t been from Nuevo León, everyone’s like that [laughs]—was telling me that maybe the strategy, based on the reaction we ‘re seeing, managed to restore containment. Uh, I mean, I’m just saying this to provoke. Yes, as a provocation. But what’s the risk of this strategy? What Leopoldo and Denis said is that it gets confused with defending the nation, sovereignty, non- intervention, or that it’s disguised as protecting Rubén Rochamoya.
And that’s where there’s a point of contention here, and we discussed it about a month ago. What kind What decision will President Shem make? As head of state or as part of a movement? Now, is she turning this into a battleground, or is what she’s proposing up to this point simply to defend any Morena politician who has been accused? And this is going to reach Oigan again, and why not even? Well, like the case of Rubén Rochamoya, which should have been done back in 2021, they open an investigation file, at least creating the perception that they’re trying to
do justice, but they’re not . And we’re here, as you said at the beginning, with the issue of legitimacy; we’re in a war of perceptions. So, who’s going to win this war of perceptions? Well, whoever has more credibility will win. That’s one variable, isn’t it? And above all, who can withstand the most? I think Mexico can’t, not because of the political situation, not because of the Morena politicians with alleged crimes.
Gyms organized for economic reasons, and because if President Donald Trump says something in economic terms tomorrow or the day after, we’ve already lost. I just wanted to mention the Colombian election; the second round is coming up, which will determine the winner of the presidency in that country, and I was talking about provocations.
Uh, Ray, let me make a provocation. It seems to me that with all this talk about November coming and the result of the midterm legislative elections in the United States being fundamental for establishing a strategy in the bilateral relationship, I would say that the result of the Colombian election, Donald Trump’s support for Abelardo de la Espriella, is more important than the November election itself.
Because if what happened , for example, with Orbán and the support for the Trump-backed candidate, and all the backing that this tweet and his public pronouncement represent, doesn’t work, and the other option ends up winning in Colombia. Uh, it’s also a very powerful call to action regarding the scope of this capacity to interfere that has always existed, the drive and the desire to US political interference in Latin America.
Well, now we’re seeing it in full force. I do think it will be very interesting to gauge that strength and capacity and to heed the message from Mexico, because I insist, to say that Trump will lose his majorities in November in one or both houses of Congress is to ignore the fact that the Democrats aren’t going to support a radical change in Colombian politics either, because we complain about Donald Trump’s interference, and rightly so, his meddling in Colombian politics.
But what can we say about the interference of President Claudia Sheinbaum, who plays into President Petro’s nonsense by saying it was fraud? Even this leftist candidate, Cepeda, said there was no fraud at all. Well, he’s unhinged. Today he denounced the interference. But it’s fair to say, I said it was a provocation.
Well, it’s not that they talk a lot about interference, but when it comes to defending leftist governments, they get involved right in the kitchen. Let me address the issue of interference because what’s also paradoxical here is that, on the one hand, laws are passed to annul elections in cases of foreign intervention, but there are no laws in cases of criminal intervention in elections.
How do we explain this? It’s very clear, René, it’s crystal clear that Morena is afraid the electorate will hold them accountable for this alleged pact they made with organized crime. I see it very clearly. It’s so obvious, it’s plain as day, as they say, right? Look, they pass the constitutional reform, but the regulatory reform doesn’t, which means it will be left to the very broad interpretation of the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary, controlled by Morena.
But they also give these magistrates of the tribunal more years so they can be re-elected, right? So it’s crystal clear the bet is that if we lose, we’ll challenge that defeat in the tribunal and we’ll control the elected tribunal. Leopoldo, How do you explain it? Dení was talking about the weak points in the speech, in a way.
For me, this is one of them, that is, legislating against foreign intervention and annulling the election if there is such interference, but not if there is intervention and interference from organized crime. Well, look, it seems to me that this is a deliberate political strategy. I mean, when I mentioned that the speech was very revealing, I was referring to the president’s state of mind, right? She was fed up with all these demands and interferences from the Trump administration, or at least pressures from the Trump administration.
It’s also because it’s clear that she stood there before her supporters to establish a different narrative from the one that was dominating. The dominant narrative was this one of narco-politics, and she tried to shift this to a narrative based on surrender rather than the defense of sovereignty. And I think that the legislation does have to do with f
oreign interference and not with the issue of… The penetration of organized crime into politics or elections—that’s why , because everything they want to build is related to that, cornering the opposition on that axis. It’s not in their best interest for the discussion to continue focusing on the penetration or participation of drug cartels in politics. So, I see it as a very deliberate political and communication strategy .
It’s just that, excuse me , no, it seems very important to me because the president is convinced, and she feels, about this issue, that she’s besieged, that the United States asked, asked, asked, she gave , gave, gave, and the United States simply doesn’t take note of the matter, they keep asking. It’s very clear that she sees this danger, and surely the tweet from Colombia only confirmed what she fears could happen in our country.
But it seems to me that this state of mind and this conviction of the president and Morena—and if we also consider Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s position—seems extremely delicate for the elections in our country, because who is going to determine that? The topic? And from that idea that there is this offensive, the possibilities of incurring a number of annulments, or, for example, leaving the same court members, which is incredible, are, well, it’s a court without any respect, they haven’t earned it, anyway.
So, the problem here is that a series of discourses are being configured, and so on, that leads us to a very delicate situation for the elections of the 27th, the 30th, and so on, leaving us with a democracy very vulnerable due to an argument that could have some basis in reality, but taken to the extreme as they are taking it, what it will imply is that dispute that Ana Laura Magaloni mentioned on Leo Zuckerman’s program, a dispute between patriots against…
the narrative is that in the election there will be two sides: on one side are anti-interventionist patriots, I’ll finish in a minute if you like, and on the other side are the traitors to the homeland, but against the drug traffickers, right? Because it’s precisely to complement this idea, Few ideas in politics are as powerful as sovereignty, because it truly serves to unite, to mobilize consensus in a broken country, a broken country, but at the same time it’s a tool that helps you avoid uncomfortable questions,
right? Or that helps you direct those questions into something very, dual, simplified, right? Very simplified, which isn’t about whether it’s true, it’s about which side you’re on. Here you define yourself. But let’s take a break, I’ve been lengthening the first segment. We’ll be right back. Well, we’re back and we’re just 8 days away from the opening of the World Cup and in that context it seems that the National Coordinator of Education Workers is determined either to achieve its demands, or to sabotage what would be
the football celebration. You were writing about the matter today. What are you seeing with the coordinator? No, the coordinator is doing what it has done for decades, but it just has an excellent opportunity. Of course, it’s the World Cup, but also The fan fest in the Zócalo, which I know opens beforehand.
And what is he doing? What he’s always wanted is money. Of course, in his more than 70 lawsuits, he includes money, and especially the repeal of the 2007 Income Tax Law, which, of course, is where a contradiction arises because both Andrés Manuel López Obrador and Claudio Shimano said during their campaigns, “We’re going to repeal it.
” It’s just not the same thing to be on the campaign trail. It’s like sitting in the presidential chair and looking at all the numbers and saying, “What they ‘re saying just doesn’t add up.” “Budget-wise, it doesn’t work for me .” What are people doing? Well, we have to see them not as a movement of dissident teachers from the union, but as what they define themselves as.
It’s a mass front. The mass front already has other kinds of manifestations because it also has other kinds of strategies that we’re seeing. What have they done? In nine days, they raised the temperature here in Mexico City, something that in other years has taken two to three months. But of course, raising the temperature with the implicit ultimatum they’re giving the government regarding Fanfest and the opening of the World Cup.
Well, explicit. You’re absolutely right. Not implicit at all. Explicit. What are they doing? Forcing them to give them what they want, driving up costs. Even the violence we saw yesterday here in the Alameda and today, but today’s violence we ‘ve already seen particularly in Oaxaca and Guerrero.
Now that kind of violence is coming here, right? But Yesterday’s incident is very particular because they hadn’t done that before. They had committed acts of violence against educational facilities. In other words, they’ve cut back on part of their old strategy to accelerate everything and achieve their goal in less than two weeks.
What’s the dilemma? It’s that there’s no money. There’s no money because if there were, they would have already resolved it. I’m not sure. In the end, I think the government will have to give in to their demands once again and will have to provide the money because we’ll see about the other option, because the cost is very high.
Your impression? Well, I think this isn’t the first World Cup where this has happened, nor the first country where it has happened, because a World Cup is a great showcase, and groups that have problems with the authorities at that time take advantage of it. I think this is an excellent moment for extortion, and I think what we ‘re seeing—and I was also hearing one of the leaders say, implicitly— after destroying these cardboard cutouts of the players , which are also the work of Mexican artists, They threw those cardboard boxes out,
and she said, “This is just so you can imagine what might be coming.” In other words, they’re clearly sending the signal that we’re going to ruin the World Cup for them. They’re using that, and they’re doing it— the owners of the VIP boxes—and those who are going to join in, because, as happened to Brazil, the days leading up to the tournament are the most delicate, when different groups decide to go out, and some have more legitimacy than others.
I want to tell you that the one I consider legitimate is that of the mothers, for example, the searchers who raise their hands and say, “Excuse me, yes, we would like to, right?” Saying, “Here we are.” But there are others who are simply creating a perfect opportunity for extortion. Leo, I want to quote the old saying , “Raise crows and they’ll peck your eyes out.
” Because the people responsible for empowering the National Coordinator of Education Workers were the members of the Morena party . The CENTA, well, let’s see, the CENTA was very weakened at the end of Peña Nieto’s term and there was a clear political-electoral alliance in Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s 2018 campaign.
And when López Obrador came to power, he kept his word to reverse the education reform, right? Well, they treated López Obrador relatively well , didn’t they? But then came the next election cycle in 2024 with Claudia Shainbound, and there Claudia Shainbound did indeed promise them that she would repeal the ISE law, and they are more empowered than ever.
I see them like never before, I mean, yes. Well, I mean, we’ve had demonstrations, crow, but you raise crows and you’ll get the ones responsible here are Morena and they’re living off having empowered a group of professional extortionists like Leopoldo, I’m left with the idea of extortion.
It was elevated to the status of a serious crime with the possibility of preventive detention, and yet the government seems to say, “No, it’s them, they are surely infiltrators,” and in the idea of boasting that it is not repressed, it is not contained either. How can that be explained? Well, look, the first thing I would say is that I totally agree with what Leo says.
They revived this monster. Peña Nieto’s education reform did indeed greatly limit their power of blackmail, as the whole issue of teaching positions, promotions, and so on was taken out of their control. López Obrador’s counter-reform gave them back that power. So now they are experiencing a problem that they themselves somehow created.
My second comment would be that, however, since this is blackmail or, as Dení said, extortion, I think that in the end this will be sorted out before the World Cup starts. However, there are other groups there, I would highlight the search mothers, whose logic is not one of blackmail, not one of extortion, and I believe they will be there outside the Azteca Stadium and will make their case so that the media will give them the attention that the Mexican government has not given them.
Tonight in Toluca, the most passionate fans were at the Bombonera stadium, were n’t they? Two things. Yes. Uh, clearly many years ago, if not decades, the sentencing ceased to be this social group that led the labor causes of teachers in Mexico, because it was born with that legitimacy, right? At a time when in Mexico the union movements did not really represent the interests of the workers.
Well, but that legitimacy was lost because, I mean, it has long since become a political actor with the legitimacy that this brings, but one would also expect the responsibilities that it entails, and they enjoy all the benefits of being a political actor with the capacity for territorial mobilization, for electoral mobilization, as a mass pressure group, as they describe themselves, referred to.
Uh, but there isn’t this other dimension of responsibility. And I ask myself, speaking of the costs, uh, as a society we already know how people operate, it is explicit the way in which they are blackmailing the government at this moment and how they have turned up the volume, how uh at the cost of the freedoms of the rest of the population, because that has always been the strategy, the greatest possible social disruption of the people who also require that mobility in a city like Mexico City.
So, I ask myself, what will the social cost be? If the matter is ultimately resolved with money, well, it will be resolved that way, but if it reaches the limit, I don’t see a government, neither in Mexico City nor in the federal government, that would prefer to raise the volume and stop an attempt to interfere with the inauguration rather than allow the interference and have people end up not getting to the stadium.
So, do you think that if we reached the limit? I hope that won’t happen, I mean, simply because since they can’t get to the Zócalo they won’t be able to accept, but it was that they were protesting the government’s incompetence, right? They arrived at the Zócalo and took over all the streets that connect to the Zócalo.
So it doesn’t matter, either way people can’t get to the Zócalo. Well, it’s been an intense few days, so our time has run out and I thank you for joining us here on Third Grade. Thank you so much.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
