On November 10, 1975, the representative of Mexico, Emilio Rabasa, voted at the UN General Assembly in favor of Resolution 3379, which defined Zionism as a form of racism. As a result of the vote of the Echeverría government, the Jewish economic leadership of the United States declared a tourist boycott, an industry that was in full expansion, to Mexico, which emptied the beaches of foreigners.
As president, Echeverría had adopted a leftist (or rather, according to the times, third world) discourse and embraced all revolutionary causes, even if internally he persecuted urban and rural guerrilla members. The concept of the Third World, let us remember, appeared in academic and political circles, within the framework of the American-Soviet bipolarity.
The Mexican president was about to end his term and aspired to be the leader of the so-called Third World and in this way reach the UN General Secretariat. However, he was far from reaching either position.
On the contrary, that vote against Jewish interests did serious damage to Mexican industry as a result of a travel advisory (“travel advisory”) to Americans who intended to winter tourism in Mexico.
It was relatively simple, as the so-called tour operators (many of them run by Jewish businessmen) simply inserted a false total occupancy rate in the Mexican hotel industry into the sales systems, thus emptying the country’s main tourist destinations. This represented one of the worst crises for our tourist activity.
A remake of the 1970s tourist crisis?
Recently, President López Obrador blew up the so-called Summit of the Americas by warning that if “not all countries in the region were invited, he would not attend.” He was followed by other representatives and Chancellor Marcelo Ebrard finished off the gesture in Los Angeles, reaffirming López Obrador’s position. The summit turned out to be a fiasco, and after days of meetings, no major political agreement was reached on essential issues.
A few days after the Mexican repudiation, the US State Department launched a harsh offensive against the Mexican government, calling on its citizens to avoid traveling to Mexico. And if they do, that they take security measures because of the violent environment.
The summons is for an indefinite period, given the situation of violence throughout the country, says the document, with the exception of the states of Campeche and Yucatán, which have greater guarantees. However, to reach them, it is unavoidable to go through risky areas and, to go no further, just look at the violence in Quintana Roo and Chiapas.
The US State Department has no shortage of reasons to warn its citizens of the danger that exists when traveling through the country, given the constant acts of violence and the limited capacity of reaction of the State security forces as a consequence, in part, of a “hugs, not bullets” deterrent.
But, given the president’s indelicacy, it is inevitable to imagine that the US government is responding to the Mexican government, and the first measure precisely exploits this government’s weak point: insecurity.
But in addition to pointing out the weaknesses of the government, the measure affects tourism, one of the most important sources of foreign exchange. And it would not be surprising that, if this is the logic of the reaction to disdain, very soon new measures could affect other areas, such as the substantial remittances that citizens send to Mexico and for which the president is grateful, as if it were a question of support. to his political project of the Fourth Transformation.
How long will the travel warning last?
That the US Department of State has issued this travel warning complicates the situation, as it puts fear into potential tourists from their country who make plans for the coming months and in this way could end up turning to safer destinations.
This measure comes in a context in which, for years, an intense campaign by the United States government has been trying to dissuade Americans from traveling abroad and in solidarity with their country, in order to keep these currencies within their borders.
On the other hand, the US economy is already showing signs of weakness (lack of growth and rampant inflation) and this leads to a contraction in consumption. In these circumstances, one of the expenses that falls more quickly is that of tourism.
In short, President López Obrador’s disdain and interest in political leadership in Latin America, as Echeverría Álvarez tried to do fifty years ago among the countries of the so-called Third World, has consequences. The first of these is the travel alert, which in the face of a complex global context could discourage many Americans from traveling to Mexico, thus seriously affecting the national tourist industry. And as the months go by, the US government could take new measures that affect the Mexican economy.
At the moment, in government circles, the correct reading is not being made and this new measure is interpreted as an unfair decision “between friends”. In fact, the president of the Morenista chamber of the tourist destination of Mazatlán went so far as to censure that “the United States has more violence”. This shows us once again that presidents should better read the messages of their opponents and, above all, choose their battles well.
In conclusion, in politics there are often no coincidences. Generally, an action provokes a reaction, and even more so when that action is a contest for the space of a powerful leadership. The history of Mexico demonstrates this and, almost always, we lose when it comes to playing “venciditas” with our neighbor to the north.
*Translation from Spanish by Giulia Gaspar.
