Evil is temporary, truth and justice always prevail”
Romulo Gallegos, Doña Barbara.
President López Obrador, in exercise of his constitutional powers, appointed Leopoldo de Gyves de la Cruz as the new Mexican ambassador to Venezuela. Of Oaxacan origin, the next representative of Mexico to Caracas has on his resume that of a social leader in addition to being mayor of Juchitán, Oaxaca. Giving the benefit of the doubt to the character who will be ambassador, the senators, at least from the opposition, must honor their seat and ask the new Mexican representative to explain what he expects in Venezuela and what his strategy is.
The Venezuelan case became an issue on the public agenda in Mexico when the PAN and some sectors of the PRI described that Chavismo was approaching Mexican society through the figure of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Chavismo’s apparent similarity to AMLO was evident to many, and Caracas gauged the bilateral relationship with caution. Chavismo’s alleged economic support for AMLO, first via the PRD and later MORENA, remained a mist.
Another issue that went beyond government order and moved to the private sector was the series of expropriations made by the Venezuelan government of the infrastructure of Mexican companies that had invested in Venezuela. The case of CEMEX and FEMSA were peculiar and forced the Mexican government to act.
Mexico, which in 2024 will stop exporting crude oil as recognized by PEMEX, knows the strategic importance of Venezuelans as the owners of the largest oil reserves in the world. In a scenario of energy crisis in Mexico, wouldn’t Venezuela be an important supplier given Mexico’s delay in its energy transition driven by López Obrador?
The Mexican government, rather than seeing the reflection of Venezuela as “partners in the struggle,” should carry out a prospective exercise in the face of a possible internal explosion in the South American country, a greater exodus of Venezuelans from their homeland (Mexico has just imposed a visa on Venezuelans) and a drop in crude oil prices.
A scenario of internal crisis and proven violation of Human Rights to citizens and political opponents, will merit a position that goes beyond invoking the traditional principles of non-intervention and self-determination of the peoples.
The Mexican and Venezuelan regimes are united by a reality beyond oil: both disarmed an old party system and the apex of power is the populism of the omnipresent leader. It seems that the two countries are equalized by a divided opposition, atomized, without narrative and proposed in two democracies with the danger of breaking down more every day, but that apparent “normality” may be the exception tomorrow in one or another country.
The new Mexican ambassador will be able to take note of another meager Venezuelan point reflected in the Mexican reality. The militarism that has even enveloped the old oil company and the increasingly marked role of drug trafficking routes from Venezuelan soil to clandestine tracks in Mexico on the way to the United States.
The Oaxacan should have the initiative to draft communications to his government that touch on aspects of the State, rather than congratulations between alleged revolutionaries. Perhaps the alleged scandal of the mystery that embodied the exchange of oil for food will explode, where the evidence indicates that high officials of the Mexican government may be involved.
Hopefully the new diplomatic chief of the Mexican representation before the Venezuelan State will act as the circumstances demand, rather than think that the embassy is a consolation prize for the defeat in the internal candidacies for the governorship of Oaxaca.