Pavel Blanco: Mexico's social democratic governments have yielded to U.S pressure
[](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUiagn2IIS5wTXDXVph8ZfrvdJl8jU8eBLc0K00dOw3DGciC5GQpiuwrSJjXFK5eBes17ZsbNn_E8eadST5vxpAforZgDFFrOMhZwOVvh0pwMEw1CcixaOe6qpQFga9bhaCCZsLwwZks65UTOZUATvXpNWj6WD2Lv_ju9wlHmgUBsrp8_NwiJGkLJHNcs3/s1091/Pavel%20Blanco%20Cabrera.png)
During the 24th IMCWP Working Group meeting held in İstanbul, soL TV
- [the Youtube channel of the soL News Portal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXZgttKhgdg) - spoke with Pavel Blanco,
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Mexico. In this interview,
he assesses the latest developments on the recent imperialist aggression
against the Americas.
The interview's transcript is the following:
**— You are in Istanbul at this moment for a meeting of the
Communist and Workers' Parties of the world. And of course, the entire
world today is discussing this imperialist aggression, especially in our
region, in the Middle East, due to the ongoing wars. However, until
recently, the focus of imperialist aggression—specifically from the
'Yankees'—was actually on the Latin American continent, with what has
happened in Venezuela, the threats to numerous Latin American countries
including Mexico, and also with what is still happening with Cuba.
First, I would like to start with how this aggression—this new policy of
the Trump administration—is reflected in Mexico. How is it felt in a
political sense, but also how is it understood by the public? How is it
being debated?**
Well, since Trump's first administration,
he wielded the threat of imposing tariffs on the Mexican state.
Primarily, if there was no agreement or submission to his anti-immigrant
policy. The government of López Obrador at that time submitted to that
anti-immigrant policy and, following the threat of tariffs, accepted the
request to become a 'safe third country' and a containment barrier
against the wave of labor migration heading from Central American
countries toward the United States.
At the start of the second
Trump administration, the threat of tariffs was wielded once again for
several reasons. First, the fight against drug trafficking; and
secondly, a set of economic measures that the Mexican state should
adopt, such as lowering sovereign barriers regarding the presence of
troops, drones, and security instruments inside Mexican territory, as
well as ending the oil trade relationship with Cuba. Unfortunately, in
all these cases, the Mexican state—the social-democratic government of
Sheinbaum—has yielded, despite a certain rhetoric that claims this is
not the case.
Mexico respects its sovereignty, but well, without
complying with legal deadlines, the extradition of several drug lords is
allowed to proceed. We, of course, stand for the drug lords and
criminals paying for their crimes, but let them serve their sentences in
Mexican prisons. We oppose extradition on principle. We know that
extradition has been used by the United States not in legal terms of the
fight against drugs, but in political terms. One of these cases is that
of the FARC commander, Simón Trinidad, who remains imprisoned in the
United States, but there are also many other cases.
And well,
there has been a series of concessions. It is said, 'no, the United
States does not dictate terms to the Mexican government,' but well, in
January, the shipment of oil tankers from Mexico to Cuba ceased—which
are not gifts, but rather a commercial relationship, right? Well,
effectively, the pressures of US imperialism on the people of Mexico are
very strong. The threat of aggression exists. As far as we understand,
it is not simply a threat. The United States has always had territorial
and economic ambitions regarding Mexico. Let us remember that in 1847,
it appropriated more than half of the territory, and well, their
expansionist zeal, as demonstrated by the Trump administration regarding
Alaska and Venezuela, we do not doubt is also real regarding Mexico.
Therefore, we try to warn that the possibility of imperialist aggression
is possible, but we must understand what it is about. It is not an
anti-American position, because the people and workers of the United
States are our brothers; it is a policy against imperialism, against
imperialist ambitions, and also against the 'sell-out' policies of the
Mexican government.
**— To speak a bit more about the
relationship between Mexico and Cuba: Of course, the commercial
relationship between the two countries was extremely important for Cuba,
the economy of the socialist island. As you said, that relationship has
been greatly weakened by the political pressures of the imperialists of
the Trump administration. But also in Mexico, for decades, there has
existed a very strong movement of solidarity with Cuba, of which you and
the Communist Party of Mexico form an important part of those
solidarity efforts. What has the solidarity movement done in these last
few months against this US aggression?**
Well, first of
all, let’s put the following into context: to substitute the issue of
not sending oil tankers—thereby failing to comply with interstate
agreements between Cuba and Mexico—the Mexican government has presented a
humanitarian aid campaign for Cuba.
Of course, all solidarity
with Cuba is positive from our point of view, but it seems to us that
Cuba does not fall into the category of states that require humanitarian
aid. That is to say, it is not experiencing a catastrophic situation
caused by the State or the revolutionary process, nor by a natural or
environmental tragedy, but rather it is the result of the imperialist
blockade. Therefore, we do not accept the category of humanitarian aid,
and even less so when it is used to mask the concession—the surrender—of
Mexican sovereignty.
In 1938, as a result of the oil workers'
strikes, the general strike held in solidarity with the oil workers, and
the struggle of the Mexican people, oil was expropriated. Since 1938,
oil has been national property so that Mexico can sell it, trade it, or
give it away to whomever it deems fit. Therefore, accepting pressure
from the United States is to completely surrender Mexico's sovereignty.
Now
then, since January 3rd, when the U.S. imperialist aggression against
Venezuela took place—where unfortunately there was no adequate
resistance, with the exception of the Cuban revolutionaries who fell
heroically there—we all know that a campaign of threats and aggressions
against Cuba began. When I speak of aggressions, we refer to the Trump
administration's memorandum to prevent the oil trade and to
energetically suffocate Cuba. Well, an important wave of solidarity was
unleashed among the people of Mexico, focused on this area of
humanitarian aid.
In our case, we have opted to direct the
solidarity efforts we can unleash and mobilize toward a campaign for an
oil ship for Cuba. We know it is something possible. In 1992, we did it.
We ran a campaign, and an oil ship was sent to Cuba, purchased through
grassroots resources. We believe that now, despite many difficulties, it
is possible and, furthermore, it is our duty to try. Regardless of what
the outcome may be, our duty is to close ranks with the people of Cuba
so that they are not energetically suffocated. So, we are currently in
that dynamic.
We understand that there is great solidarity from
the Mexican people with the people and the government of Cuba. In
contrast to the category of 'humanitarian aid,' we developed the slogan:
'People to people, Mexican oil for the Cuban people.'
**— Finally,
I would like us to look into a topic that is very well known in Latin
America, but which the public here in Turkey might not know in a broad
context: drug trafficking. Before the September 11th attacks, the main
theme of imperialist aggression was indeed the 'War on Drugs.' Now we
see a return to that discourse to try and legitimize imperialist
interventions, especially in the Latin American continent. And of
course, Mexico is one of the key countries in this issue, which affects
the entire continent and has a global aspect. Could you give us a
perspective on this topic—not only regarding the U.S. discourse but also
the reality in Mexico concerning drug trafficking? How should this
issue be approached, especially from the perspective of the working
class in Mexico and across the continent?**
It is a true
problem and a drama for the people of Mexico. There is something called
the 'War on Drugs,' which began in 2006 during the government of Felipe
Calderón and has continued until today. As a result of that war, there
are nearly half a million dead and disappeared. The 'disappeared'—well,
that term is used with the hope of finding them, but they most likely
already swell the ranks of the dead. This shows that it is a true war
against the people, where those dying are primarily Mexicans within the
age range of being young.
In Mexico, we all know—and there is a
set of evidence to prove it—that drug trafficking in our country goes
hand in hand with, and functions in relation and subordination to, the
State. In the United States, theories like the 'narco-state' emerge. It
is not like that. The 'narco' is not above the State; the bourgeois
State remains the dominant force and organizes the different groups and
drug gangs according to its interests.
It is a very complex
problem because it involves production, distribution, circulation, and
consumption. We understand that the chain of combatting this phenomenon
is not limited to a single country; for example, if the primary
consumer—which is also proven—is the United States, then it should be
understood that there are also distribution and circulation networks
there. If the problem is not fought head-on in all its facets, it will
be truly difficult to solve, especially with other more significant
aggravating factors.
Being a capitalist process of capital
accumulation, it is clear that on one hand, there is the dark side—or as
Marx would say, 'dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with
blood and dirt'—but on a second level, where does that money flow?
Evidently, it flows through the financial system, through the banking
system. It ends up, for example, in the real estate industry, the
construction industry, agro-industry, the service industry, and
investments; but we insist, it primarily goes to the sphere of financial
capital. Drug trafficking is listed on the stock exchange. We
understand the phenomenon of drug trafficking as part of the same
process of expanding capital accumulation, and therefore we believe that
the solution to that barbarism, to that grave problem, lies in the
liquidation of the system itself. One more element: the problem of drug
trafficking in Mexico and Latin America is also associated with the
state needs of the United States.
When the cultivation of opium,
poppy, and marijuana was promoted in Mexico, it was linked to the
military needs of World War II. Likewise, it is linked to the need for
migrant labor in the United States. Well, we all know that during the
Iran-Contra conflict, the United States also promoted the creation of
cartels for the purpose of funding resources for the counter-insurgency
struggle in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua—and well, against Iran
as well.
That is to say, the issue of cartels is associated not
only with the Mexican state but also with the United States. The
illusion of fighting drug traffickers as individuals is simply that: an
illusion, a publicity stunt. For example, a few weeks ago—as one more
example of the surrender of the Mexican state's sovereignty—in an
operation where the United States participated and provided
intelligence, a leader of one of the Mexican cartels, the Jalisco New
Generation Cartel (CJNG), was detained and executed. That did not solve
any problem. In other words, the drug problem in Mexico did not end.
There are simply changes in command; like any company, it has its
replacements, and the problem continues.
So, well, it is a drama.
For example, there are what are called 'narco-camps,' where people are
recruited through deception to work. People look for a job, look for a
salary, see advertisements for good opportunities, and in reality, they
are held for slave labor or to be trained as hitmen (sicarios). Several
camps have been found that Mexican journalists have rightfully called
'extermination camps.' One of them in Teuchitlán, Jalisco, where
hundreds of skeletal remains have been found. In other words, it is a
very serious problem. And in our opinion, it will only be suffocated via
a revolutionary workers' power that is willing to go to the ultimate
lengths to liquidate that problem.
**— Would you like to add anything else?**
Yes—at
the base of these problems, of these U.S. aggressions against the
peoples of Latin America, is above all the economic conflict with
capitalist China. If one reviews China's economic development in Latin
America over the last 25 years, an ascending phase can be seen. For
example, China is currently the primary economic partner of at least
four countries: Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. It is also a very
important partner for Peru, and its presence in Mexico is growing.
It
has developed significant infrastructure projects, such as the Port of
Chancay, its presence in the Panama Canal, and well, we understand that
there is an acute competition between China and the United States for
Latin America. Only through this can one understand what is known as the
new U.S. Security Doctrine—or the 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe
Doctrine. This security strategy, which also has the declared objective
of combating China's economy in Latin America and the world, explains
first the presence of the American fleet in the Caribbean starting in
October, and then the aggression on January 3rd against the people of
Venezuela to seize their oil. Just to explain that this is the objective
basis for it, and well, the peoples have the duty to fight against
capital, against imperialism.
[icp.org.tr](http://icp.org.tr/)
---
**From [In Defense of Communism](https://www.idcommunism.com/feeds/posts/default) via [This RSS Feed](https://www.idcommunism.com/feeds/posts/default).**
During the 24th IMCWP Working Group meeting held in İstanbul, soL TV
- [the Youtube channel of the soL News Portal](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXZgttKhgdg) - spoke with Pavel Blanco,
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Mexico. In this interview,
he assesses the latest developments on the recent imperialist aggression
against the Americas.
The interview's transcript is the following:
**— You are in Istanbul at this moment for a meeting of the
Communist and Workers' Parties of the world. And of course, the entire
world today is discussing this imperialist aggression, especially in our
region, in the Middle East, due to the ongoing wars. However, until
recently, the focus of imperialist aggression—specifically from the
'Yankees'—was actually on the Latin American continent, with what has
happened in Venezuela, the threats to numerous Latin American countries
including Mexico, and also with what is still happening with Cuba.
First, I would like to start with how this aggression—this new policy of
the Trump administration—is reflected in Mexico. How is it felt in a
political sense, but also how is it understood by the public? How is it
being debated?**
Well, since Trump's first administration,
he wielded the threat of imposing tariffs on the Mexican state.
Primarily, if there was no agreement or submission to his anti-immigrant
policy. The government of López Obrador at that time submitted to that
anti-immigrant policy and, following the threat of tariffs, accepted the
request to become a 'safe third country' and a containment barrier
against the wave of labor migration heading from Central American
countries toward the United States.
At the start of the second
Trump administration, the threat of tariffs was wielded once again for
several reasons. First, the fight against drug trafficking; and
secondly, a set of economic measures that the Mexican state should
adopt, such as lowering sovereign barriers regarding the presence of
troops, drones, and security instruments inside Mexican territory, as
well as ending the oil trade relationship with Cuba. Unfortunately, in
all these cases, the Mexican state—the social-democratic government of
Sheinbaum—has yielded, despite a certain rhetoric that claims this is
not the case.
Mexico respects its sovereignty, but well, without
complying with legal deadlines, the extradition of several drug lords is
allowed to proceed. We, of course, stand for the drug lords and
criminals paying for their crimes, but let them serve their sentences in
Mexican prisons. We oppose extradition on principle. We know that
extradition has been used by the United States not in legal terms of the
fight against drugs, but in political terms. One of these cases is that
of the FARC commander, Simón Trinidad, who remains imprisoned in the
United States, but there are also many other cases.
And well,
there has been a series of concessions. It is said, 'no, the United
States does not dictate terms to the Mexican government,' but well, in
January, the shipment of oil tankers from Mexico to Cuba ceased—which
are not gifts, but rather a commercial relationship, right? Well,
effectively, the pressures of US imperialism on the people of Mexico are
very strong. The threat of aggression exists. As far as we understand,
it is not simply a threat. The United States has always had territorial
and economic ambitions regarding Mexico. Let us remember that in 1847,
it appropriated more than half of the territory, and well, their
expansionist zeal, as demonstrated by the Trump administration regarding
Alaska and Venezuela, we do not doubt is also real regarding Mexico.
Therefore, we try to warn that the possibility of imperialist aggression
is possible, but we must understand what it is about. It is not an
anti-American position, because the people and workers of the United
States are our brothers; it is a policy against imperialism, against
imperialist ambitions, and also against the 'sell-out' policies of the
Mexican government.
**— To speak a bit more about the
relationship between Mexico and Cuba: Of course, the commercial
relationship between the two countries was extremely important for Cuba,
the economy of the socialist island. As you said, that relationship has
been greatly weakened by the political pressures of the imperialists of
the Trump administration. But also in Mexico, for decades, there has
existed a very strong movement of solidarity with Cuba, of which you and
the Communist Party of Mexico form an important part of those
solidarity efforts. What has the solidarity movement done in these last
few months against this US aggression?**
Well, first of
all, let’s put the following into context: to substitute the issue of
not sending oil tankers—thereby failing to comply with interstate
agreements between Cuba and Mexico—the Mexican government has presented a
humanitarian aid campaign for Cuba.
Of course, all solidarity
with Cuba is positive from our point of view, but it seems to us that
Cuba does not fall into the category of states that require humanitarian
aid. That is to say, it is not experiencing a catastrophic situation
caused by the State or the revolutionary process, nor by a natural or
environmental tragedy, but rather it is the result of the imperialist
blockade. Therefore, we do not accept the category of humanitarian aid,
and even less so when it is used to mask the concession—the surrender—of
Mexican sovereignty.
In 1938, as a result of the oil workers'
strikes, the general strike held in solidarity with the oil workers, and
the struggle of the Mexican people, oil was expropriated. Since 1938,
oil has been national property so that Mexico can sell it, trade it, or
give it away to whomever it deems fit. Therefore, accepting pressure
from the United States is to completely surrender Mexico's sovereignty.
Now
then, since January 3rd, when the U.S. imperialist aggression against
Venezuela took place—where unfortunately there was no adequate
resistance, with the exception of the Cuban revolutionaries who fell
heroically there—we all know that a campaign of threats and aggressions
against Cuba began. When I speak of aggressions, we refer to the Trump
administration's memorandum to prevent the oil trade and to
energetically suffocate Cuba. Well, an important wave of solidarity was
unleashed among the people of Mexico, focused on this area of
humanitarian aid.
In our case, we have opted to direct the
solidarity efforts we can unleash and mobilize toward a campaign for an
oil ship for Cuba. We know it is something possible. In 1992, we did it.
We ran a campaign, and an oil ship was sent to Cuba, purchased through
grassroots resources. We believe that now, despite many difficulties, it
is possible and, furthermore, it is our duty to try. Regardless of what
the outcome may be, our duty is to close ranks with the people of Cuba
so that they are not energetically suffocated. So, we are currently in
that dynamic.
We understand that there is great solidarity from
the Mexican people with the people and the government of Cuba. In
contrast to the category of 'humanitarian aid,' we developed the slogan:
'People to people, Mexican oil for the Cuban people.'
**— Finally,
I would like us to look into a topic that is very well known in Latin
America, but which the public here in Turkey might not know in a broad
context: drug trafficking. Before the September 11th attacks, the main
theme of imperialist aggression was indeed the 'War on Drugs.' Now we
see a return to that discourse to try and legitimize imperialist
interventions, especially in the Latin American continent. And of
course, Mexico is one of the key countries in this issue, which affects
the entire continent and has a global aspect. Could you give us a
perspective on this topic—not only regarding the U.S. discourse but also
the reality in Mexico concerning drug trafficking? How should this
issue be approached, especially from the perspective of the working
class in Mexico and across the continent?**
It is a true
problem and a drama for the people of Mexico. There is something called
the 'War on Drugs,' which began in 2006 during the government of Felipe
Calderón and has continued until today. As a result of that war, there
are nearly half a million dead and disappeared. The 'disappeared'—well,
that term is used with the hope of finding them, but they most likely
already swell the ranks of the dead. This shows that it is a true war
against the people, where those dying are primarily Mexicans within the
age range of being young.
In Mexico, we all know—and there is a
set of evidence to prove it—that drug trafficking in our country goes
hand in hand with, and functions in relation and subordination to, the
State. In the United States, theories like the 'narco-state' emerge. It
is not like that. The 'narco' is not above the State; the bourgeois
State remains the dominant force and organizes the different groups and
drug gangs according to its interests.
It is a very complex
problem because it involves production, distribution, circulation, and
consumption. We understand that the chain of combatting this phenomenon
is not limited to a single country; for example, if the primary
consumer—which is also proven—is the United States, then it should be
understood that there are also distribution and circulation networks
there. If the problem is not fought head-on in all its facets, it will
be truly difficult to solve, especially with other more significant
aggravating factors.
Being a capitalist process of capital
accumulation, it is clear that on one hand, there is the dark side—or as
Marx would say, 'dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with
blood and dirt'—but on a second level, where does that money flow?
Evidently, it flows through the financial system, through the banking
system. It ends up, for example, in the real estate industry, the
construction industry, agro-industry, the service industry, and
investments; but we insist, it primarily goes to the sphere of financial
capital. Drug trafficking is listed on the stock exchange. We
understand the phenomenon of drug trafficking as part of the same
process of expanding capital accumulation, and therefore we believe that
the solution to that barbarism, to that grave problem, lies in the
liquidation of the system itself. One more element: the problem of drug
trafficking in Mexico and Latin America is also associated with the
state needs of the United States.
When the cultivation of opium,
poppy, and marijuana was promoted in Mexico, it was linked to the
military needs of World War II. Likewise, it is linked to the need for
migrant labor in the United States. Well, we all know that during the
Iran-Contra conflict, the United States also promoted the creation of
cartels for the purpose of funding resources for the counter-insurgency
struggle in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua—and well, against Iran
as well.
That is to say, the issue of cartels is associated not
only with the Mexican state but also with the United States. The
illusion of fighting drug traffickers as individuals is simply that: an
illusion, a publicity stunt. For example, a few weeks ago—as one more
example of the surrender of the Mexican state's sovereignty—in an
operation where the United States participated and provided
intelligence, a leader of one of the Mexican cartels, the Jalisco New
Generation Cartel (CJNG), was detained and executed. That did not solve
any problem. In other words, the drug problem in Mexico did not end.
There are simply changes in command; like any company, it has its
replacements, and the problem continues.
So, well, it is a drama.
For example, there are what are called 'narco-camps,' where people are
recruited through deception to work. People look for a job, look for a
salary, see advertisements for good opportunities, and in reality, they
are held for slave labor or to be trained as hitmen (sicarios). Several
camps have been found that Mexican journalists have rightfully called
'extermination camps.' One of them in Teuchitlán, Jalisco, where
hundreds of skeletal remains have been found. In other words, it is a
very serious problem. And in our opinion, it will only be suffocated via
a revolutionary workers' power that is willing to go to the ultimate
lengths to liquidate that problem.
**— Would you like to add anything else?**
Yes—at
the base of these problems, of these U.S. aggressions against the
peoples of Latin America, is above all the economic conflict with
capitalist China. If one reviews China's economic development in Latin
America over the last 25 years, an ascending phase can be seen. For
example, China is currently the primary economic partner of at least
four countries: Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay. It is also a very
important partner for Peru, and its presence in Mexico is growing.
It
has developed significant infrastructure projects, such as the Port of
Chancay, its presence in the Panama Canal, and well, we understand that
there is an acute competition between China and the United States for
Latin America. Only through this can one understand what is known as the
new U.S. Security Doctrine—or the 'Trump Corollary' to the Monroe
Doctrine. This security strategy, which also has the declared objective
of combating China's economy in Latin America and the world, explains
first the presence of the American fleet in the Caribbean starting in
October, and then the aggression on January 3rd against the people of
Venezuela to seize their oil. Just to explain that this is the objective
basis for it, and well, the peoples have the duty to fight against
capital, against imperialism.
[icp.org.tr](http://icp.org.tr/)
---
**From [In Defense of Communism](https://www.idcommunism.com/feeds/posts/default) via [This RSS Feed](https://www.idcommunism.com/feeds/posts/default).**