Mexico’s ‘social fabric coming apart’

An Australian academic says the United States policy of sending illegal immigrants and asylum seekers across the border into Mexico should be reconsidered as “Mexico is no longer a safe place to go”.

Luis Gomez Romero of the University of Wollongong said recent events in Mexico “had split the social fabric” of the nation.

He was referring to the recent death of drug lord Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes (also known as El Mencho) in a firefight with security forces.

Oseguera Cervantes (pictured) headed an extensive criminal network in the country, responsible for trafficking fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine into the United States.

In many ways is operated as a state-within-a-state in Mexico and regularly carried out attacks and assassinations against Government officials.

The organisation he headed immediately responded to his death with violence in many parts of the country, blocking roads and setting fire to vehicles.

Commentators fear that Oseguera Cervantes’ death will spark a power struggle among his lieutenants, plunging Mexico into chaos.

Several foreign governments have urged their citizens to leave and Australia has issued a warning against travel to Jalisco State, the epicentre of the current violence.

Romero, an advisor to former Mexican President Vicente Fox, also said US President Donald Trump had tightened his control over Venezuela’s Interim leader, Delcy Rodriguez, after the seizure of President Nicolas Maduro in a US raid.

“When the President is removed, there should be new elections in 30 days, but Rodriguez has got round that by saying Maduro is still President even though he is in custody in the US,” Romero said.

“Trump has successfully sidelined the popular Opposition Leader, Maria Corina Machado, who remains in exile.

“He is also using his embargo powers to choke off Cuba from Venezuelan oil, causing widespread chaos and misery in that country – it is criminal.”

Romero said Trump’s actions on the world stage were giving the international community a taste of what Latin America had had to put up with from successive US administrations over more than a century.   

 

 

A remote island of which we now know a lot

A few years back on my bucket-list trip to Iceland I saw regular flights to Greenland advertised in a Reykjavik travel agents’ window. I was mildly interested but did not inquire further, mainly through time constraints but also because I knew nothing about the destination.

 What was there? Where could I stay? I was in my teens before, listening to a radio program about life in the Arctic Circle, I discovered people actually lived there. Greenland was off my radar, and I suspect that of 99 percent of the world’s population at the time.

 How things have changed.

 I am now aware Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark with a capital and largest city called Nuuk. I have seen and admired pictures of its sturdy buildings amid the snow. I have learnt there are a number of smaller settlements along its coast and that the name of its Prime Minister is Jens-Frederik Nielsen.

 Its 57,000 people send representatives to a Parliament, the Inatsisartut (I have yet to know how to pronounce this but I am sure I will learn) in what is a thriving democracy, still supported by Denmark but moving towards independence.

 My steep learning curve and, I suspect, that of many others with an interest in international current affairs, has been driven by United States President Donald Trump’s desire to ‘acquire’ Greenland for Arctic defence and security purposes.

 This demand is so outrageous it was treated as a bad joke at first, until we had to realise he was serious when he said he would not rule out using military force to achieve it.

 Quite properly, Denmark has resisted this, but most importantly PM Nielsen has stated that while complete independence is the eventual aim, Greenlanders would rather stay a territory of Denmark than have anything to do with the US.

His quite reasonable position has found support among Denmark’s partners in the European Union, with France, Germany, the UK and the Netherlands sending token forces to Greenland in an attempt to show the island’s security can be left safely in the hands of NATO’s European partners without any change of sovereignty.

This has apparently outraged Trump who is threatening to slap a 10 per cent tariff on imports from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, Netherlands and Finland if they do not fall into line with his plan to “purchase” Greenland.

Greenlanders have reacted by taking to the streets of Nuuk in an unprecedented show of defiance shouting slogans such as “Greenland is not for sale” and “Hands off Greenland”.

One marcher said that while Greenlanders had never wanted it, they were now at the forefront of the fight for democracy and human rights.

Will Trump back down? There is an obvious way out as the US has a long-established military base in Greenland that could be expanded to address any security concerns without infringing the island’s sovereignty. The takeover plan also happens to be deeply unpopular with Americans, with just 17 per cent approving of it in a recent poll, dismissed by Trump as “fake”.

While it appears that Trump has backed himself into a corner, with his very particular brand of politics and diplomacy it is quite possible he may take the expanded base option and claim that was his objective all along.

If nothing else, the latest White House brouhaha has given us all a lesson in the history and geography of this remote Arctic island and its people.