With USMCA (“Nafta 2.0”arbitrators expected to issue a preliminary rulng in September (after the ingauration of the next Mexico President) and a final ruling in November (following the US presidential election) whether or not Mexico must accept imports of glyphsoated corn products. Although the US has presented no particular body of evidence beyond just asuring that such corn is safe for human consumption, the Mexicans have submitted 200 pages of documentation outlining the dangers posed to human health.
Mexican humansin particular. The US claims, such as they are, assume a person consumes 12.4 Kg of corn and corn produts per year as is the average in the United States1, not the 125 kilos consumed by the average Mexican… yes, that is 10 times the US average. Furthermore, the Mexican studies detail the effects of glyphostate on a number of mammals, whereas what US studies have been made have been limited to laboratory animals (and, while all mammals are pretty much the same, the Mexicans are also arguing that by importing and planting glyphosate-resistant corn seed, there is potential damage to the larger ecosystem).
Mexico’s submissions, in the words of Timothy A. Wise, senior advisor at the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), are “impressive and full of scientific evidence”.
Conversely, so far, US (and its junior partner in the dispute, Canada) are making their arguments, or have so far, merely on the economic issue, upsetting the balance of trade and… unspoken… losing politi al support among corn-growers (an important constituency in much of the US midwest, and the Canadian prarie provinces).
That defense of the US economy clicked for me, when I noticed, buried in Jim Cason and David Brooks regular correspondences from the United States for La Jornada, this time on on testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee by General Gregory Guillot of the US Nortern Command on “cartels” in Mexico . The US has for some time — at least as far back as 2010 — that it MUST intervene in Mexico, even if it means redefining its mission2.
What stood out, though, was that in justifying, or marketing, a role for a US military presence (in some fashion) in Mexico was this paragraph:
Para el general encargado de seguridad de América del Norte, uno de los éxitos más importantes es definir junto con México un enemigo común. Concluyó que los esfuerzos conjuntos "simultáneamente han fortalecido nuestra seguridad, mientras han reducido la dependencia de México de equipo y contratos de Rusia y PRC (China)".
Loosely translated, the General is claiming that “fighting a common enemy” would be a win-win, with the added benefit of “reducing” Mexican dependence on, or purchases of, Russian and Chinese military hardware and other imports. Furthere testimony by Guillot’s colleage at Southcom, General Laura Richardson. is meant to bolster the argument for US “assistance”:
Explicó que China busca sustituir a Estados Unidos como el principal poder económico y militar del mundo, pero aseguró que ella no permitirá eso y estará buscando promover la cooperación con "nuestros socios muy dispuestos" de las 28 democracias con las que trabaja en el hemisferio.
[General Richardson] explained that China seeks to replace the United States as the main economic and military power in the world, but assured that the United States will not allow that and will be seeking to promote cooperation with "our very willing partners" of the 28 democracies with which it works in the hemisphere.
Although Mexico is producing more of its own miltiary hardware of late, maybe it buys some Chines and Russian products (including Russian fighter planes) either bevcase they’re better suited to Mexico’s nees, or the price is better.. or both. Hell, maybe the Russians throw in a free undercoating and bucket seats.
One has to ask, is it really just the corn, just the “cartels”, just purches from China (though maybe if the US made decent trains, or EV trucks, Mexicans would buy them instead of the better built, less costly Chinese ones), just AMLO and his “danger to democracy” that worries the United States should… as everyne expets… the Morena/leftist coalition continues in office after the election?
The United States feels it is being challenged by China for title of “principal power” ….whateve the Hell that means, but moreover, it still thinks of Mexico as its “backyard”… and the idea that Mexico is somehow obligated tobuy US goods (or bads…. if we’re speaking of corn products) and has tno right to make decisions in its own best interest.
Add in the recent claims of “undemocratic” governmance in Mexico (claims covered extenively on the nformative “Sobernia” podcasts (hosted by Mexican journalist José Luis Granados Ceja and US journo Kurt Hackworth… worth subscribing to and supporting) and one almost comes to the conclusing that the United States economic and political leaders are very, very afraid they are going to “lose” Mexico
Just a thought… but one assumes the US average includes recent migrants, and those Mexican-Americans who maintain a traditional diet, consuming substantially more than 12.4 Kg per year.