The Ayotzinapa Case has galvanized contradictions within the government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Yesterday, with a clarity that causes terror because of his implications, he said in somewhat confused and codified phrases that a process of destabilization was underway against his government, whose center was to incite a rebellion within the Army. Where that attempt would come from is a mystery, but because of how he stated it, its origin is in the government itself, which leads to another consideration, its perception of vulnerability, and a slap on the table with a clear recipient: the Secretary of Defense General Luis Cresencio Sandoval.
What he said doesn’t make sense on a one-dimensional plane, but it does make a lot of sense when nuance and context are added.
The blow to the head of the Armed Forces was unnecessary. When he spoke of five soldiers allegedly involved in the crime of the Ayotzinapa normalistas -there are only four detainees-, he stated verbatim: “I gave the instruction to the Secretary of Defense, in writing, to comply with what was established in the report of the Commission (of Truth and Justice for the Ayotzinapa Case). I told the secretary that the five responsible should assume their responsibility”.
Why did you give him the order in writing? The president is the supreme commander of the Armed Forces, so the Secretary of Defense has to obey his orders. Therefore, a written instruction is meaningless, unless it were a public sign that he is the boss, not the general. Having done so was not a symptom of an insurrection in Lomas de Sotelo, but rather a weakness and vulnerability in the presidential house.
It is not because the president has diminished power, but because the military confrontation against the undersecretary of the Interior and head of the Ayotzinapa Case Commission, Alejandro Encinas, is discrediting the investigation. López Obrador said that it was a campaign against the investigation, and that there was no clash between the generals and Encinas for having brought four soldiers accused of the crime to trial. There is not the first, but mere criticism of a work that still does not present legal support and evidence, but there is the second. The president’s denial is appropriate, because the political cost would be much greater if he were to admit that there is indeed a confrontation.
But beyond this collision route in which they find themselves, it must be ruled out that a rebellion has been encouraged from within the Army. There is no way of it, as the president explained it. “There are interests,” he pointed out, “(that) sought to burst the investigation, speaking of more people, in the case, for example, of the military, holding 20 responsible, when in the investigation there are five high-ranking officers (only two are generals). and one brigadier general); the other 15 I don’t know, but I imagine. They are soldiers, but… they put in 20, thinking that this would cause a rebellion in the Army.”
The requests for the 83 arrest warrants came from the report of the Commission for the Ayotzinapa Case, whose special prosecutor, Omar Gómez Trejo, submitted his resignation on September 15, two days after the Attorney General’s Office withdrew from 22, including the of six soldiers. So, was it Encinas who wanted to provoke the rebellion of the military? However, for someone who has shown his animosity towards the Armed Forces over the years, like Encinas, wanting a rebellion that would cause a constitutional crisis would probably be to the detriment of him and his investigation.
Encinas is not a traitor either, because that would be the crime for anyone who attempted a military coup like the one outlined by López Obrador. On the contrary. The president once again supported Encinas this Thursday and said that he felt the criticism against the undersecretary himself. On the other hand, he did not refer in elegant terms to Gómez Trejo, who will leave office this weekend because, the president said, he did not like the Report -which he helped to build-, nor the withdrawal of the orders of apprehension. The departure of Gómez Trejo, who before becoming a special prosecutor was executive secretary of the Group of International Independent Experts (GIEI), was criticized by human rights organizations, several of them close to the relatives of the 43 Ayotzinapa normalistas.
Against these organizations and the lawyers of the families of the normalistas, not coincidentally, the president served three days attacking them. “There are many interests involved,” said the president when speaking of all the turmoil that the investigation into the crime of the normalistas is going through. Which ones?, they asked him in the morning. “Well, these that I am proposing,” he answered ambiguously, “even even the defenders or supposed defenders of human rights who become administrators of the conflict.”
López Obrador has a general view of things, and has maintained that the non-governmental organizations that criticize him are financed by the United States. Yesterday, with his capricious synapsis, he linked the remarks of the NGOs, which are an echo of Gómez Trejo and Encinas, that “it was the Army” that committed the crime in Ayotzinapa, with a complaint from former ambassador Carlos Pascual, who during the government of Felipe Calderón informed his government that the Army was useless. “And I don’t doubt,” he said immediately, “that is, I don’t rule out that the arrest of (former Defense Secretary Salvador) Cienfuegos was revenge.”
The president’s conspiracy logic is clear: his enemies are in Washington, which uses human rights defenders, who through Gómez Trejo built a report for Encinas to blame the military for the Ayotzinapa crime and provoke a rebellion within the military. . The syllogism can be resolved. If you denounce attempted military coups, proceed against those responsible. Otherwise, they will be nothing more than words that only seek to hide the chaos that is taking place inside his cabinet.
#Ominous #messages #President