The federal government has placed three additional airports under military control, further entrenching the prominent role the armed forces play in civilian life in Mexico.
The Ministry of Infrastructure, Communications and Transport (SICT) on Tuesday published documents in the government’s official gazette that grant control of the airports in Uruapan, Michoacán; Palenque, Chiapas; and Puebla to the Olmeca-Maya-Mexica Airport, Railroad and Auxiliary Services Group, a state-owned company run by the National Defense Ministry (Sedena).
Those airports were previously operated by other state-owned companies.
The SICT also published a “concession title” that places the airport in Puerto Escondido, Oaxaca, under the control of the Mexican Touristic Airport Group, another state-owned company that operates the airport in Tepic, Nayarit.
The Olmeca-Maya-Mexica group – which already operates a number of other Mexican airports and will control the Tulum airport once it opens – will take charge of the airports in Uruapan, Palenque and Puebla for an indefinite period of time.
Among the airports that Sedena already operates via the state-owned company or independently are the Felipe Ángeles International Airport, which the army built during the current government, and the airports in Nuevo Laredo, Campeche and Chetumal. The newspaper El Financiero reported that the army will now control 12 airports across Mexico.
President López Obrador announced in June that the navy would be given complete control of the Mexico City International Airport, where it has been in charge of security since early 2022.
In addition to operating airports, Sedena will soon launch a new state-owned airline to operate under the long-dormant Mexicana de Aviación brand.
The military has been given a wide range of non-traditional tasks during the current government, including public security, infrastructure construction and the management of customs and ports.
Sedena also controls the state-owned company that will operate the Maya Train railroad, which is set to begin operations next month. The navy will take charge of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec trade corridor, which will include a modernized train line between Salina Cruz, Oaxaca, and Coatzacoalcos, Veracruz, that is set to begin operations in December.
López Obrador said earlier this year that the military is a “fundamental pillar of the Mexican state,” but denied claims that he has militarized Mexico during his presidency.
“Despite what our adversaries maintain, … it’s important to point out that the greater participation of the armed forces in security tasks doesn’t imply authoritarianism or militarization … of the country,” he said during an Army Day address in February.
“… It has been proven that society feels safer and more protected with the army’s fulfillment of this mission. In other words, people feel that a soldier is one of them in uniform … and – like the majority of Mexicans – maintains a great reserve of cultural, moral and spiritual values,” López Obrador added.
With reports from El Financiero and Reforma
Doesn’t it seem rash in the light of history to empower the military like this?
A large number of countries have their military in charge of airports, seaports, communications and other vital services.
Can you give some examples of democracies that do this? I do not know of any and google does not either.
The problem with Mexico is that corruption is found all through the countries police forces, state run businesses and private businesses. The only group of people that the president has under his control is the military. I don’t think he has a lot of choice in the matter and I’m not sure he understood this when he went after the corruption in Pemex at the beginning of his term but he did after.
If the President can “assure” all the people that using the Military to operate all “public services”, the “”trains”, the irports, will guarantee and eliminate “ALL CORRUPTION ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, that’s the right and only way to operate the entire country.
The President has no other choice, but to operate this way. GO FOR IT MR. PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE MY VOTE AND CONFIDENCE.
Ben Reina
Retired NASA Engineer
Houston, Tx.
Doesn’t it seem dangerous to empower the military like this? Latin American history hasn’t been kind of this kind of action.
You obviously have spent no time – or very little time in foreign nations: the majority place the military in control of air, sea, rail and communications within sovereign boundaries. Some do well, some not so – regardless, they are able to make it all work. Contemporary thought is that such control protects against labor strikes which could cripple a country.
In isolation, the transport infrastructure is one thing probably not to be too concerned about. It’s possible Elizabeth also had in mind the myriad of other roles the military has taken on in this administration. As an admitted layman with limited historical data to inform my opinion I’m still conflicted. If you take the U.S. military as a counter-reference it has unfathomable power of force and no-one anywhere bats eyelid. On the other end of the stability scale, much weaker militaries have toppled states and I’m sure countless more have extorted them. What I’d imagine the key to preventing such events are keeping the military power brokers happy in their respective roles. That means giving them airports to run or facilities to construct might not make them more eager to seize the state, but taking those roles away might attract some push back. Sure it may be a little uncomfortable to see one-way non-defense, non-transport roles (like running hotels and resorts) accumulated by a military in Western society, but maybe some segments of some societies work well under military structures? I know the Mexicas did pretty well under such a model so who knows…
What could possibly go wrong?!
In isolation, the transport infrastructure is one thing probably not to be too concerned about. It’s possible Elizabeth also had in mind the myriad of other roles the military has taken on in this administration. As an admitted layman with limited historical data to inform my opinion I’m still conflicted. If you take the U.S. military as a counter-reference it has unfathomable power of force and no-one anywhere bats eyelid. On the other end of the stability scale, much weaker militaries have toppled states and I’m sure countless more have extorted them. What I’d imagine the key to preventing such events are keeping the military power brokers happy in their respective roles. That means giving them airports to run or facilities to construct might not make them more eager to seize the state, but taking those roles away might attract some push back. Sure it may be a little uncomfortable to see one-way non-defense, non-transport roles (like running hotels and resorts) accumulated by a military in Western society, but maybe some segments of some societies work well under military structures? I know the Mexicas did pretty well under such a model so who knows…
Never trust government. Military > government