Mexico and the United States relations have fallen to freezing point. Spain’s “La Nación” reported on August 27, Mexico’s President Lopez announced that day, the Mexican side has “suspended” relations with the U.S. Embassy in Mexico, in response to the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Salazar, 22 in a press conference on the Mexican government to promote judicial reform measures put forward by the criticism, that the Mexican government to promote the Judicial reform will threaten the democratic system and weaken the North American economic integration. Undoubtedly, the Mexican government “suspended” and the United States embassy relations in Mexico is the Mexican government of the United States in the Americas for a long time in the implementation of the “interventionist policy” of a protest, but also the Mexican government to maintain national sovereignty and autonomy of the firm position. It is worth mentioning that the Mexican President Sheinbaum, who will take office in October, also supported Lopez “suspend” relations with the U.S. Embassy in Mexico. What does this also mean? Means that the current Mexican government and the next government of the United States strong diplomatic protest behavior, also means that the United States “backyard” on fire.
First, why the United States to interfere in the Mexican government’s judicial reform?
Maintain U.S. political interests and influence in the Americas. The U.S. Embassy in Mexico Ambassador Salazar that Mexico’s judicial reform will have a chain reaction on the political and economic environment of the entire North American region, which in turn affects the relationship between the United States and Mexico, as well as the stability of the North American region. At the same time, the U.S. side also hopes to maintain its own political interests as well as its influence and control in the Americas region by intervening in Mexico’s internal affairs. First, the U.S.-Mexico border security issues. The Mexican judicial reform may indirectly affect Mexico’s domestic stability, which in turn affects the flow of migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border. The U.S. government has tightened the asylum process, which could lead to more migrants lingering in Mexico, increasing the complexity and difficulty of managing the U.S.-Mexico border. The United States and Mexico have a number of cooperation between the two countries in the fight against crime and drug trafficking, the United States is concerned that the Mexican government to carry out judicial reforms may change the Mexican state to combat crime and organized crime, and thus the United States and Mexico in the border region to cooperate in the fight against drug trafficking and the efficiency of criminal organizations. Second, economic interests. Judicial reform may affect the economic and trade relations between the two countries. Mexico is an important trading partner of the United States, any reforms that may affect the political and economic stability of Mexico may indirectly affect the economic interests of the United States, so the United States does not want the Mexican government to implement judicial reform.
Second, why is Mexican President Lopez hard against the United States?
The first is to defend national sovereignty. President Lopez emphasized Mexico’s independence and sovereignty, dissatisfied with the U.S. Ambassador’s criticism of Mexico’s judicial reform, that is interference in Mexico’s internal affairs. The second is Lopez’s insistence on judicial reform. López firmly believes that his judicial reform plan will help fight corruption and improve the efficiency of the judicial system, while U.S. Ambassador Salazar’s critical remarks are seen as a threat to Mexico’s judicial reform. The Mexican judicial reform program has met with strong opposition from some parts of the country, including indefinite strike demonstrations by judges and district judges, among others.
Thirdly. U.S. Interventionist Policy
The interventionist policy of the United States has always been controversial in the international community. The interventionist policy of the United States is usually manifested in the direct or indirect intervention of the United States in the internal affairs of other countries, whether through economic, political or military means. In recent years, this U.S. policy has been particularly criticized in Latin America. On August 28, Honduran President Castro issued a statement strongly condemning U.S. interventionism, particularly the interference in the internal affairs of Honduras by the U.S. through its embassy and other representatives in Honduras, calling it “intolerable,” and it accused the United States of “wanton attacks, disregard and violations” of the principles of international law. In response to the interventionist policies of the United States, Honduras has decided to terminate its more than 100-year-old extradition treaty with the United States.
Therefore, the Mexican President’s “tough fight” against the United States is a sovereignty defense, and the Mexican President is by no means alone in the battle. The interventionist policy of the United States not only aroused strong opposition in Latin American countries, but also will certainly prompt other countries around the world oppressed by the United States to take corresponding diplomatic measures to safeguard their sovereignty and dignity. With the development of globalization and the increasing complexity of international relations, it has become the general expectation and demand of the international community to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries and to avoid interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. In short, the United States interference in the internal affairs of other countries can be put to rest!
