As tension over Taiwan mounts and military alliances form around South China Sea we face the remarkable situation that the world’s principal artery of trade and investment is threatened by talk of war. You might think that economic stakes to the tune of trillions of dollars would rule out the possibility of a clash. But both the Chinese and the US currently envision fighting not just over the sovereignty of Taiwan but also over far more trivial territorial disputes.
Interesting piece bringing together a lot of useful information, but the author’s repeated cartoonish characterizations of Republicans as wild-eyed, irresponsible xenophobes undercut the message he is trying to convey. A less partisan piece would have been more convincing and could have been taken more seriously.
1 AMLO is NOT a leftist. He takes this position when it is convenient, for example to show friendship to Lula showing independence from USA. He is a Mexican populist nationalist which means a return to the PRI which was the party that controlled Mexico for 70 years and which had some fascistic characteristics.
2 The whole discussion on USA recalls the decline of the Roman Empire. Attack here and there forever until the fall is inevitable.
“ ... Republican discourse disrupts this neat packaging with its lack of enthusiasm over Ukraine. But also with the disinhibited aggression which it directs towards Mexico.”
The fact that Ukraine is on the other side of the globe and Mexico shares a border, could be a factor in this disruption of the packaging, no?
The author also seems to lament that our constitution provides for dissent, even if the arguments/ideas sometimes seem a bit unhinged. I see over-the-top arguments as a feature, not a bug.
Useful long view, and I offer two points with respect. First, the war party in the United States is on the left, not the right. Second, any president needs to have war plans in every direction. We've had plenty of wars with Mexico, and it would be rash to plan on the basis that there will never be another.
I'm glad you mentioned the abject failure of the US to address the most salient domestic feature of its drug problem -- that its own population is an apparently inexhaustible source of demand. Until the demand side is addressed, all of this flailing at foreign sources of supply is a dangerous performative distraction.
I am glad this topic is getting some attention. Our system can better manage and mitigate the drug crisis. States need to better realize their sovereign duty to treat but more importantly go after the local illicit drug infrastructure: the small businesses and asset owners that prey on locals and offer the conduit for interstate illicit markets. Without states being focused and responsible on their sector the federal role will probably always be chasing the problem. A castle strategy seems to miss the reality of our open markets.
Interesting piece bringing together a lot of useful information, but the author’s repeated cartoonish characterizations of Republicans as wild-eyed, irresponsible xenophobes undercut the message he is trying to convey. A less partisan piece would have been more convincing and could have been taken more seriously.
Latinx, seriously?
Two comments:
1 AMLO is NOT a leftist. He takes this position when it is convenient, for example to show friendship to Lula showing independence from USA. He is a Mexican populist nationalist which means a return to the PRI which was the party that controlled Mexico for 70 years and which had some fascistic characteristics.
2 The whole discussion on USA recalls the decline of the Roman Empire. Attack here and there forever until the fall is inevitable.
“ ... Republican discourse disrupts this neat packaging with its lack of enthusiasm over Ukraine. But also with the disinhibited aggression which it directs towards Mexico.”
The fact that Ukraine is on the other side of the globe and Mexico shares a border, could be a factor in this disruption of the packaging, no?
The author also seems to lament that our constitution provides for dissent, even if the arguments/ideas sometimes seem a bit unhinged. I see over-the-top arguments as a feature, not a bug.
Useful long view, and I offer two points with respect. First, the war party in the United States is on the left, not the right. Second, any president needs to have war plans in every direction. We've had plenty of wars with Mexico, and it would be rash to plan on the basis that there will never be another.
I love you Adam, but Latinx is not a term for serious people
I haven't been able to find any evidence that Mexico was ever a member of OPEC.
mexican nationalism bad,ukrainian nationalism good.territorial langrabs,of course,depend on who's wearing the hood.
Excellent read on US Mexico. Especially instructive for us In India and South Asia who think there is no neighbourhood as hellish as ours!!
I'm glad you mentioned the abject failure of the US to address the most salient domestic feature of its drug problem -- that its own population is an apparently inexhaustible source of demand. Until the demand side is addressed, all of this flailing at foreign sources of supply is a dangerous performative distraction.
I am glad this topic is getting some attention. Our system can better manage and mitigate the drug crisis. States need to better realize their sovereign duty to treat but more importantly go after the local illicit drug infrastructure: the small businesses and asset owners that prey on locals and offer the conduit for interstate illicit markets. Without states being focused and responsible on their sector the federal role will probably always be chasing the problem. A castle strategy seems to miss the reality of our open markets.