BBC Mundo news

AMLO “is going to realize that you can not always accept the demands of a bully like Trump”: Roberta Jacobson, former US ambassador. in Mexico – Accent

Roberta Jacobson.

Getty ImagesRoberta Jacobson labored for greater than three many years at the US State Division

When Roberta Jacobson resigned as US ambassador to Mexico last yr, several warned that she would go away an amazing hole in Washington's relationship with Latin America.

In any case, Jacobson was thought-about one of many US diplomats. with extra expertise within the area, after 31 years of profession that included her efficiency as Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere.

His resignation was seen as a gesture of discrepancy with the insurance policies of the current US president, Donald Trump, which tensed the connection with Mexico on account of its demands within the area of ​​migration or commerce.

The bilateral link continued to be subjected to harsh proof, corresponding to Trump's current menace to impose tariffs on Mexico to cease the stream of migrants arriving in america. from Central America

The menace was deactivated this month with a last-minute settlement, which raises doubts to Jacobson about its viability or the sustainability of the “peace and love” technique followed by Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, earlier than Trump.

López Obrador “will discover that you could not all the time reconcile and accept the demands of a bully like Trump,” Jacobson warns in an interview with BBC Mundo.

He also questions that Trump has annulled part of the US policy of rapprochement. to Cuba, which had her as key negotiator in the course of the Barack Obama administration, and argues that the previous strategy that failed on the island now applies in Venezuela.

What follows is a abstract of the telephone dialogue with Jacobson, who’s presently a senior adviser to the Albright Stonebridge Group, an influential international consulting group based mostly in Washington.

What is your assessment of the current US-Mexico migration agreement to stop Trump from imposing tariffs on its southern neighbor? ?

The stability is dependent upon the aspect. On the Mexican aspect, it appears a hit as a result of at the very least they do not have tariffs for 90 days. They need to implement kind of what they’ve already committed. In fact there are more troops on the southern border (of Mexico) of the Nationwide Guard. And the migrant safety program is expanding, extending from three cities on the border to the whole border. These will not be modifications that aren’t actual, but they don’t seem to be one thing totally new.

 AMLO and Trump Getty Pictures “President López Obrador should determine if he needs to continue with love and peace or if he must confront him” Trump, anticipates Jacobson.

Trump argues that without the threat of imposing tariffs on Mexico, he would not have a signed settlement like this. Do you agree?

I have to admit that yes. As a lot as I’m embarrassed to say, the menace did work because we might see virtually half of the cupboard (from Mexico) touring to Washington in panic, paying consideration and agreeing to issues that they may not have been ready to simply accept before.

One of the The pillars of the settlement are to make migrants wait in Mexico whereas their asylum purposes are processed in the USA immigration courts. Is that this something that Mexico can do successfully?

That's probably the most dangerous half for Mexico and I don’t assume it's going to be successful. If we take a look at the figures that the overseas minister mentioned on the time they have been writing that settlement, that they had between 8,000 and 10,000 migrants ready in Mexico. After every week there are individuals who say that the determine is like 20,000 individuals. I have no idea exactly, but the number of people who have to attend in Mexico is growing.

And we now have the enlargement of the program all through the northern zone of Mexico. That appears to me that it’s going to put strain on the López Obrador government very a lot, because I don’t see the countless endurance, generosity or assets of the states in the north of the nation to simply accept these individuals. How can they feed them, give houses and perhaps jobs to all these individuals who have to wait for 2 years for their asylum course of?

 Migrants en route from Central America to the United States Getty ImagesJacobson believes that a rising variety of migrants in northern Mexico “goes to put strain on the López Obrador government very a lot.”

It was an error on the a part of the Mexican government to simply accept all this without considering exactly the best way to end that process. The settlement stated solely that the US It should velocity up the asylum process, however what does that mean? The issue is throughout the method. Not only does it improve the frustration of individuals ready, however they’ll find another option to enter the US

. He hopes that Mexico will implement a “protected third country” agreement, based on which immigrants should apply for asylum in the first protected nation they enter. However might Mexico be thought-about a “protected” nation for migrants? Would that dissuade migrants from getting into the US? 19659002? Because of what I’ve learn, we are going to think about the likelihood that migrants from El Salvador, Honduras or different nations stay in Guatemala as refugees. And those of Guatemala in Mexico.

Now, I don’t see the capability of Mexico to process all these migrants, let alone Guatemala. They do not have the human or financial assets to prosecute all these individuals. And ready for a course of in Mexico will encourage individuals to continue their trip to the USA. So I don’t assume that may work.

Above we have now in the “protected third country” regulation a certification that the nation the place the migrants keep, Mexico on this case, is protected enough in order that they will apply for refugee status . I do not know what the standards are to certify that a country is protected, however it will be a bit of troublesome to certify Mexico, where the number of homicides continues to be growing.

Another key to the agreement is using as much as 6,000 troopers in Mexico to try to cease Central American migrants making an attempt to succeed in america. The query is whether it is going to be attainable to stop the migration with using drive …

The brief reply is not any. If we now have seen the southern border of the USA and the increase of troops of the Border Patrol, which has tripled in the final 10 or 20 years, we nonetheless cannot cease the migration without documentation. How can we now have expectations that Mexico will have the ability to shut the southern border with Guatemala and Belize, which is a really troublesome area of ​​the forest, typically to watch and patrol?

 Military and migrants AFP “I don’t see how feasible the potential of stopping or stopping the stream of migrants with pressure, “says the former US ambassador. in Mexico

I don’t see the feasibility of stopping or stopping the move of migrants with pressure. But if they deploy extra Military or Police personnel to the southern border, they’re more likely to find more migrants than now and deport extra to their nations in Central America.

The one strategy to have an effect on migration in a everlasting means is to vary the roots of the issue: poverty, the state of affairs in the countryside in those nations, and security.

This settlement is the clearest example of how López Obrador has tried to avoid confrontation with Trump, rehearsing a “love and peace” technique. Is it a sustainable technique or, lastly, will AMLO need to face Trump?

Just as President López Obrador has found that “love and peace” as a domestic policy on migration doesn’t work infinitely, he will even find that it cannot be reconcile and all the time settle for the calls for of a bully like Trump.

If these measures don’t lower the numbers of migrants from Mexico to the US, (Trump) will return to the difficulty of tariffs. And what’s a big low? Ten % of the individuals? Twenty %? And for a way lengthy? We now have greater than a yr until the election within the USA. and the problem that a country has to fulfill a bully like Trump is that every time he starts one other lawsuit.

Sooner or later President López Obrador should determine if he needs to proceed with “love and peace” or if he needs to confront him, because he has his own problems in Mexico with such a policy.

Trump is formally launching his re-election campaign in 2020. What would four years of his presidency mean for US relations with Latin America?

It's onerous to see, however I feel it might be very dangerous for the relationships as a result of he’s all the time using sticks and never incentives. The coverage here seems to me that it is just threats, the potential for using pressure in Venezuela, or tariffs in a business warfare, or taking help to Central America … It isn’t a constructive relationship coverage. It is even returning to a coverage that has totally failed prior to now towards Cuba and the change they deserve.

 Donald Trump ReutersSi Trump is re-elected “it will be very harmful for relations” with Latin America, says Jacobson.

If we now have four extra years, unfortunately, they may solely encourage this president and his administration to continue treating other nations in this method, spending all their will in Latin America to work with us and think about the USA. your ally and most important companion on the earth.

That unfortunately will push the nations of the region to other powers akin to China or Russia. I don’t assume it's a Chilly Warfare or the previous, but if nations are in search of prosperity and relationships which are somewhat more predictable and not capricious, they'll look elsewhere.

Trump argues that Obama's settlement with Cuba was “utterly unilateral” and allowed US dollars help a “army monopoly” that abuses Cubans. The query is whether Obama might have been firmer within the negotiation with Cuba, with extra demands in political matters or human rights …

One of the issues that maybe (Trump) doesn’t perceive is that this negotiation was a method to assist to the Cuban individuals, to vary the island from under and never from above. Say that we did not receive the US enough on the a part of the Cubans is improper to know the rationale for initiating the coverage.

The coverage was not a gift to the Cuban government. And the most effective proof of that is that sadly the Cuban authorities has not taken benefit of these years of openness to get extra in business and financial matters, as a result of they have been very afraid that with an financial and business opening their political control can be lost.ç [19659002] And that was part of the rationale for the policy: that with exchanges, visits from People, extra know-how and so on, the island is going to be opened in a means that may be advanced politically afterwards.

 US Embassy in Cuba. AFP Jacobsson denies that the strategy to Cuba initiated in the Obama administration was “a present to the government” of the island.

Making an attempt to strangle the Cuban authorities of monetary assets won’t work. We’re returning to a coverage of the '60s and' 70s that has not worked. We’ve to keep in mind that one more reason for the Obama administration's policy was to take the difficulty of Cuba as an irritant in our relationships with the remainder of Latin America. And that was a spectacular achievement.

Has something failed in US coverage in the direction of Venezuela to get Maduro out of energy?

It's one of the hardest things to consider: how can we within the US? find an exit for Venezuela? An exit from Maduro, from a legal authorities, could be very troublesome to see now. Apart from the potential of convincing the Russians or the Chinese language – who nonetheless have affect, I feel – to convince Maduro to go away. But I do not see that as very possible both.

How do you observe the strategy of recognizing Guaidó and establishing robust sanctions in the oil area to drive Maduro out of energy?

Recognize Guaidó I see it as constructive. That gave a little bit of encouragement to the opposition and we have been accompanied by more than 50 governments. So we aren’t talking a few unilateral US coverage

One other thing is far stronger sanctions, particularly in oil. That is based mostly on the thesis that in the event you proceed to strain the federal government financially, there will probably be a change of presidency. It was the strategy towards Cuba and others that I see as failures in many places.

 mature. Getty ImagesDespite Trump's sanctions, Nicolás Maduro stays in energy in Venezuela with the help of the army, Russia and China.

If we are talking about sanctions within the oil area, that affects the entire country. That is to say that we are going to strain the Venezuelan individuals to cut off the struggling of that same individuals. I see it a bit cruel to assume on this approach, that maybe they may endure even more to accelerate the change. The problem is that the change just isn’t accelerating, and that was foreseen. It is just accelerating the individuals's personal struggling.

I cannot say that these sanctions have been a mistake, however the instruments of a completely destructive and non-positive policy that I see very problematic continue.

Keep in mind which you could obtain notifications from BBC News World. Download the newest version of our app and activate them to not miss our greatest content. = itBuHehfea0 & t = 9s