On August 27, AMLO announced that he would put diplomatic relations with the ambassadors of the United States and Canada on “pause”. According to the Mexican president, this measure was taken due to the “interfering” declarations of both diplomatic representatives given the (almost) imminent approval of the Judicial Reform promoted by the Executive, which, among other things, proposes the election by popular vote of the different judges in Mexico.
Read: What is AMLO’s judicial reform and why is the Mexican right uniting to try and stop it
It is likely that the parliamentary majority of AMLO’s political party, MORENA, in the Constitutional Points Commission of the Chamber of Deputies will approve the initiative and will soon institute the Judicial Reform in Mexico.
Opposition to the Judicial Reform waged by big business and embassies
In addition to the internal pressure promoted by pro-business groups and the opposition to AMLO’s government, there is also a strike by the judiciary that aims to stop the Reform in progress. But there is also external pressure. The US Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, had maintained a rather conciliatory attitude with AMLO’s government.
However, in reference to the Judicial Reform, his statements have not been so “balanced”. Salazar expressed concern of the US government over the Mexican Executive’s proposed transformation of the judiciary; he said that the reform means “a risk to democracy” and a “threat” to trade relations between the two countries. He also suggested that this is a new way for drug traffickers to place people they trust in the judicial system. Regarding the election by popular vote of judges, the representative of Washington said that “when judges go out to campaign, raise money and be politicians [it is not a] good model.”
For his part, the Canadian Ambassador, Graeme Clark, also showed his concern for the approval of the Judicial Reform due to, according to him, the legal security of Canadian investments in Mexico. “We are going to have some constitutional changes. As an ambassador, it is difficult for me to speak publicly about these issues, but what I can say is that my investors are concerned. They want stability, they want a Judicial System that works if there are problems,” said the Ottawa representative.
International pressure comes not only through the ambassadors of wealthy countries but also through big business, such as Morgan Stanley, which downgraded Mexico’s equity investment safety rating. “We believe that replacing the judicial system should increase Mexico’s risk premiums and limit equity investments. That is a problem as nearshoring is reaching key bottlenecks,” said the multinational firm. Along the same lines, Fitch Ratings warned that AMLO’s judicial reform “could negatively affect” the country’s rating.
Faced with these statements, Mexico’s President-elect, Claudia Sheinbaum, said that multinational companies “have nothing to worry about. Mexico is sovereign and investors should not have any concerns. On the contrary, we are going to have a better justice system…. Whoever knows the Judicial Power, including investors, knows the corruption problems there, and if we have said that one of the biggest problems Mexico has historically had is corruption, well, I don’t think any investor is in favor of corruption.”
AMLO responds to “interfering” comments
In the face of this diplomatic pressure, AMLO has opted to “halt” diplomatic relations with the US and Canadian embassies. “They have to learn to respect Mexico’s sovereignty,” said the Mexican President. This “pause,” however, does not imply cutting off diplomatic relations entirely with those countries. Rather, it is a wake-up call to the ambassadors in Mexico. “The relationship continues, but hopefully there will be a ratification from them that they will be respectful of Mexico’s independence, of our country’s sovereignty, but as long as there is not that and they continue with that policy, there is a pause,” said López Obrador.
However, Washington has been quick to respond to AMLO and stated that it supports the statements of its ambassador to Mexico, insofar as everything Salazar said corresponds to the general opinion of the US government. “We share our concerns over proposed constitutional reforms as partners & friends,” wrote Brian A. Nichols, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for the Western Hemisphere.
AMLO, however, does not appear to be budging on his decision. In a press conference on August 28, he insisted that ambassadors “have no say in matters that belong only to Mexicans. It is a matter of respect for our country”. He also alerted the countries in question that it is the sovereign power of the Mexican people to transform their mode of government if so decreed by the will of the people.
AMLO defends the proposal by stating that the judicial system is corrupt from the grassroots to the top. In the judiciary, he says, there are economic and political powers that are resisting as best they can the transformation proposed by his government. That is why there are so many “investors” who, according to the Executive, have already agreed on certain pacts with some judges, and who today do not want this situation to change. “Judges [of different ranks] at the service of foreign companies,” declared AMLO.
The head of state also highlighted that part of the international campaign of opposition to the Judicial Reform is being led by major US media outlets. The Washington Post argued in an editorial that the US government is “right to weigh in” regarding the judicial reform in Mexico. It argues that because there are bilateral agreements between Mexico, Canada, and the United States, Mexico cannot transform its laws, its constitution and other legal instruments, since this would imply reforming previous economic agreements.
AMLO underlined that corporate media of other countries has no right to decide whether Mexico can change its laws and constitutions and that only the Mexican people can decide that.
In addition, he pointed out that there is a “natural” resistance from judges to the Judicial Reform, as it changes the system of salaries and benefits in the judicial system. For example, the monthly salary and economic benefits of a high judge in Mexico can reach 792,258 pesos (almost USD 40,000), about 106 times more than a worker earning the minimum wage (about USD 382). These judges earn more money than the President of the Republic himself (who receives a salary of 200,000 pesos (almost 10,000 dollars)). According to the constitution, this is in fact illegal, since no public official should earn more money than the Head of State himself.
