The war has brought peace to Mexico
Mexico’s experience of World War II shows a path for Sheinbaum to thrive under Trump.
“As a wartime leader, [Mexico’s] president was also able to obtain a degree of support from organizations on the left and the right that would otherwise have been inclined to be more sharply critical of the government and many of its policies.”
This line can be found in Halbert Jones’ book The War Has Brought Peace to Mexico (quotes from it will be in italics). It tells the story of the lead up to and entanglement of the Mexican government and its people in World War II. The book doesn’t linger too much on the war itself but rather on Mexico’s domestic situation—and how it brought a country from strife and anarchy to stability… and one-party rule.
One cannot help but replace the names and references to the 1940’s with the geopolitics of today. But how much will the coming trade war with the United States reflect that real war 80 years ago? Will the current crisis result in a stronger or at least more unified Mexico?
Let us delve into the past to glean hints of the future.
United by force
“The president recognised that if he handled the situation carefully, he might be able to gain greater acceptance within Mexico for the view that the world was in crisis and that therefore national leadership under him was of vital importance for the good of the country.”
Getting the obvious out of the way first: Any conflict with the US will be magnitudes greater than the far off European and Pacific theatres. But, for Mexico, World War II was, like today, an economic war.
“Patterns of production were substantially reordered to meet the demands of the war economy in the United States and to fulfill domestic needs that could no longer be met from abroad due to the unavailability of many imports.”
Tariffs may well act in the same way. Thus far, when faced with Trump’s threats, Mexico’s approach has been one of conciliation and moderation. The tone, since he promised that 25% tariffs would be a reality from February 1st, has shifted to defiance. “Bring it on,” said Kenneth Smith Ramos, something one never would have expected to hear from one of the free-trade negotiators behind NAFTA and the USMCA.
As a worst case Trump scenario closes in, Mexico’s opposition parties and business have rallied around the government.
Last week, every mayor and every Mexican governor (save two who were abroad securing semiconductor investments from Asia) gathered with the president. Though it wasn’t the original purpose of the meeting, the imminent threat of Trump resulted in governors from the three main opposition parties stepping up to the podium to express their backing of Sheinbaum.
The rallying around the flag effect is perhaps the most predictable. Either because of a real sense of patriotism as well as its perceived political expediency. A bit of hindsight provided by Jones helps understand this second point:
“The PAN [still Mexico’s most important opposition party], aware of the difficulties it might well face as an opposition group in a country at war, suggested that what the Mexican people fundamentally desired was “the realisation of an authentic programme of national unity in which the Government established the Common Good as its supreme goal”.”
Similarly, business has vigorously expressed its support of Sheinbaum’s “defence of national sovereignty.”
In many cases, these companies and industrial chambers are reverting back to type. Business backing of Mexican governments in exchange for leniency and support is a longstanding tradition—especially at a time when the government will not only be the main bulwark between the Trump administration but also a newly empowered actor in the domestic economy.
The only real remaining pushback from the private sector is that Mexico’s new hands-on approach to industrial policy does not go far enough. There seems to be an understanding that investment cannot be expected to flood from the US and must now—somehow—come from within.
Cool heads strike the iron while it’s hot
“The war also provided the Mexican State with an opportunity to assert a wider role for itself in a variety of areas [while looking to] confront threats of national sovereignty arising from US pressure for security cooperation.”
As in 1942, Sheinbaum is making the most of this crisis. “Cool heads must prevail,” she said smiling as she unveiled her government’s approach to Trump’s Monday executive orders.
Even before Trump was sworn in, and as opposed to her Canadian counterparts who have struggled with how to approach the US president, Sheinbaum’s administration has effectively mobilised to do things that might have previously been seen as an embarrassing U-turns or as onerous overreach.
Apart from its more muscular industrial policy, the government is approaching drugs and migration differently. It went from claiming fentanyl was the US’s problem to actively passing constitutional laws to punish criminals dealing in the stuff and shifting security policy to cracking down on it.
Meanwhile, Sheinbaum’s approach to migration could generously be called pragmatic. While Mexico has a dedicated migrant catching branch of the armed forces, looking to stop and turn back non-Mexican migrants, Sheinbaum claims her approach to Trump’s mass deportations will be “humanitarian”. If it works, it could also be an unexpected win for the president:
On arrival, Mexican migrants will be given $2,000 pesos ($100 dollars) to reach their hometowns safely. They will then, said the government, be afforded social housing and jobs in the local activities like fishing or agriculture. The bet is that the costs of relocating and incorporating deportees will be offset by the economic boost to local—often rural and impoverished—economies.
Whether these Mexicans will want to keep those jobs will be another matter.
And Sheinbaum will have to do it quickly. Even an enormously popular president like her—with approval ratings at 80%—could see support whittle away if market jitters or trade wars cripple the economy.
Democratic backsliding
The war in 1942 provided Mexico the chance to slide into a one-party State. The government back then was able to appeal to patriotism and national security instead of needing to resort to repression. Trump may provide similar cover.
Today, the biggest crisis in recent Mexican constitutional history has been overshadowed by the challenges from the US. The issues facing the judicial system, transparency, and the rule of law in Mexico remain more pressing than ever.
In the weeks since the US election, the National Electoral Institute (INE) has struggled to set up the rushed judicial elections set to be held next year. These will be the first in which all judges and magistrates in the country will be directly elected. The concept of justice and judicial impartiality will be on the ballot. Yet, the rush to get it done despite budget cuts limiting the number of ballot boxes, and a general disinterest in the process could result in a 10% turnout, say some analysts.
Given the opposition’s disarray and predictions of a low participation, it is likely that the ruling party will be able to mobilise its base to get its desired judges in place. The result may well be pleasing to casual observers and investors on the outside; the Mexican state, at least on paper, may suddenly appear to work seamlessly with new pro-government judges in place.
A cash-strapped Mexico’s push to attract investment may well result in Sheinbaum leaning on these judges to be more pro-business than many originally thought they would be. These judges would not be independent though, and their effect on Mexican democracy is as of yet unknown.
This isn’t mere conjecture; it is close to what happened in Mexico during and in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.
Fears of democratic backsliding are related but separate from worries about the rule of law—the main difference being that investors don’t mind authoritarianism so long as it’s good for business. This is why, internationally, Sheinbaum wants to present Mexico as a country of laws. One that upholds international treaties in the face of predatory and arbitrary measures from the US.
She may have a point: Mexico remains a flawed but still clearly democratic society with humanitarian ideals at the core of its government’s policy. As Trump moves against the press, social media, political opponents, and migrants, that is less and less clear of the US.
Despite all this, one aspiration reigns supreme. It is and always has been a desire for peace and friendship with Mexico’s northern neighbour, given that, in the words of the country’s first post-war president: “We are geographically side by side, and [I do] not know any cure for such a situation.”