He President López Obrador with his reactions he could achieve what the debate Sunday: focus on the cases of corruption of his government. On Monday he had said that the debate was very good, but by Tuesday everything had already become, once again, a great conspiracy. Yesterday the president on a strange morning (aren't they all strange?) sheltered by the governors of Morenainsisted that in his government there was no corruption and attacked the debate organizerssaid the questions were biased against him, He criticized moderators, participants, the media and the INEand what it achieved is that the issues that had not been addressed in depth on Sunday can be debated again.
But ultimately this political turn was a kind of warning to Claudia Sheinbaun whom he implicitly reprimanded for not defending him in the debate before the accusations that were launched. ClaudiaIn that sense, she did what she had to do: not get into topics that could only affect her. Even Xochitl Galvez He criticized her for not responding to them, perhaps without understanding that Claudia gained nothing by doing so.
But the president wanted the ruling party's candidate to turn the debate into a kind of morning branch, he wanted them to defend him, his administration, Dos Bocas, Segalmex, the Mayan train, his children and his partners. What is notable is that these issues did not end up being imposed by Xochitl, were ignored by Claudia, who I imagined thought that hers was the future, not the past, and resurrected by the president in the post-debate. It was reflected yesterday morning, it was affirmed by those close to him and it was exposed by the hopscotch of Monday's day, the presidential criticism was for Claudia.
Salvador García Soto wrote yesterday that “the problem is that in presidential susceptibility, which worsens as the end of the six-year term approaches, Claudia's attitude in the debate, of distancing herself from criticism of the federal government, was interpreted as the beginning of an unchecking that could come on June 3.” And she is right. At some point Claudia has to put a little distance with the current administration. If her candidacy is only perceived as a second floor of the transformation, sooner or later that ends: no one can govern following a line of absolute continuity. That is called maximato and we have already experienced it a century ago.
Claudia received the message and yesterday said that she “defended the 4T with her heart and soul.” But this episode, which should be minor, shows the dimension of the problem that Claudia will face if she wins the June elections. That the president will retire to his ranch in Palenque and that he leaves politics is saying something. López Obrador will not accept that anything that has been done be disqualified or minimized, much less that cases of corruption be investigated. And the Morena radicals are going to use that to maintain their presence.
Claudia said in the debate that if there was evidence of cases of corruption, complaints should be filed. I was amazed that videos and phone calls that show these cases. And the format of the debate was undoubtedly bad but it does not justify it.
The truth is that Claudia, who had navigated the debate well, was complicated by a front that is, for her, the most delicate: the internal one, marked by the growing presidential susceptibility and the weight around the president of the most radical characters. of the 4T. The same characters and the same reasons that boycotted the candidacy of Omar García Harfuch promoted by Sheinbaum, who filled the lists of multi-member deputies and senators with characters far from Sheinbaum and who promoted characters in many mayors of Mexico City who would prove to be impassable. On notice there is no deception.
Embassies
What happened with the takeover of the Mexican embassy in Quito is an unacceptable event but it does have previous precedents. On February 13, 1981, about 30 Cubans entered the Ecuadorian embassy in Havana and took the ambassador, Jorge Pérez Concha, counselor Francisco Proaño, and two other employees of the headquarters hostage with the aim of obtaining political asylum. Days later, on February 21, the special forces of the Cuban government, with the presence of Fidel Castro himself, took over the embassy and detained the asylum seekers.
The Cuban government maintained that it had authorization from Ecuador to enter, but President Jaime Roldós categorically denied it: “Ecuador did not and could never authorize the headquarters of its Embassy to have been the object of such an action,” and described it as “ intolerable” the assault. Daniel Novoa should have remembered it. Relations were not broken but they were frozen for years. A similar incident had already occurred in the 1960s at the same Ecuadorian embassy in Havana.
Another terrible event occurred on January 31, 1980, in Guatemala, when a group of peasants entered the Spanish embassy in that city. The security forces led by General Fernando Romeo Lucas García entered the embassy without authorization and the clashes ended with a fire that left 38 dead, including seven Spanish officials. Spain broke diplomatic relations with Guatemala until 1984.
More from the same author:
#call #Claudia
