“The Mexican people are capable of judging what is in their own best interest. The United States should not disenfranchise them by suggesting otherwise.”
Those two sentences form part of the response from incoming foreign affairs minister Juan Ramón de la Fuente and soon-to-be economy minister Marcelo Ebrard to remarks made by United States Ambassador to Mexico Ken Salazar and The Washington Post about the federal government’s judicial reform proposal.
A day after the judicial reform bill was approved by lawmakers in Mexico’s lower house of Congress, the Post published a letter written by De la Fuente and Ebrard in response to Salazar’s Aug. 22 statement on the reform proposal and an editorial published by the Post three days later.
In his statement, Salazar said he believed that the “popular direct election of judges is a major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy.”
He also said that “the debate over the direct election of judges … as well as the fierce politics if the elections for judges in 2025 and 2027 were to be approved, will threaten the historic trade relationship we have built, which relies on investors’ confidence in Mexico’s legal framework.”
The Washington Post editorial board broadly agreed with Salazar and declared he “had every right to weigh in” on the issue, an opinion in sharp contrast to the view expressed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
It said that the “mutual interests” of Mexico and the United States “in issues spanning commerce, migration, organized crime and national security … justify Mr. Salazar’s concern that Mr. López Obrador’s ‘reform’ lacks the ‘safeguards that will ensure the judicial branch will be strengthened and not subject to the corruption of politics.'”
The editorial board also said that claims from López Obrador and President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum that the objective of the reform is to eliminate corruption in the judiciary are a “smokescreen.”
“Mexico’s judiciary often dared to resist Mr. López Obrador’s more capricious policies, and those of his party. He wants to defeat it once and for all,” the Post said.
The editorial board also said that “it would be a shame if judicial independence in Mexico died because Ms. Sheinbaum lacks political independence from Mr. López Obrador.”
Sheinbaum, a political protégé of the president, fully supports the reform and this week declared that it won’t “affect our trade relationships or private national and foreign investment.”
In their letter to the Post, De la Fuente, a former federal health minister who recently served as Mexico’s U.N. representative, and Ebrard, a former foreign affairs minister and Mexico City mayor, wrote that “Mexico is undergoing an internal process to address much-needed reform of its justice system, with the purpose of strengthening and reinforcing its transparency and efficiency.”
“These are values both the United States and Mexico share,” they said.
In their letter, published under the headline “The U.S. doesn’t have standing to criticize Mexico’s judicial reforms,” the two incoming ministers described claims by Salazar and the Post that the direct election of judges “somehow threatens Mexico’s democracy” as “both worrisome and puzzling.”
“Contrary to The Post’s argument that Mexico’s domestic affairs are a matter of hemispheric concern, such interference is contrary to the U.N.-recognized principle that nations have a duty not to intervene in matters within the internal jurisdiction of any state,” they wrote.
“And the specific nature of the argument made by The Post and Mr. Salazar suggests a double standard: What is virtue in the United States is vice in Mexico,” De la Fuente and Ebrard added.
They argued that Americans “seem to consider” the practice of electing judges in many states of the U.S. “reliable” (no U.S. federal judges are elected), and asserted that “Mexico has never suggested that U.S. democracy is in peril because of this.”
The incoming officials said that “a comprehensive judicial reform deserves a broad domestic debate,” but charged that such a debate occurred “in Mexico during the recent electoral process” — a process that culminated in comprehensive victories for Sheinbaum and the ruling Morena party that put lawmakers in a strong position to approve the constitutional bill.
“… Just as Mexico respects America’s right to self-determination through its political processes, even when the results might not favor Mexican interests, the United States must show the same respect for Mexico’s sovereign quest for a more transparent, accountable and independent judiciary, conducted through our internal constitutional legal procedures,” De la Fuente and Ebrard wrote.
Their next two sentences were those that appear at the top of this article.
De la Fuente and Ebrard also said that Sheinbaum — who will be sworn in as Mexico’s first female president on Oct. 1 — “could simply fill the Mexican Supreme Court with loyalists, as leaders do in many other countries,” given the majority Morena obtained in the June 2 elections.
“Her support for direct elections of the judiciary is an expression of support for Mexican democracy and for judicial independence from any one administration or leader,” they added.
They also said that “Mexico will remain open to any constructive engagement and exchange of ideas in line with our democratic values as long as those conversations are rooted in the deep respect Mexico and the United States have for each other and their sovereignty.”
After earning a rebuke from López Obrador over his remarks, Salazar said that “the concerns” he expressed about the direct election of judges were made in the “spirit of collaboration” and that “as partners we seek honest and open dialogue to continue with the great democratic and economic progress we have achieved.”
Four days later, López Obrador announced that the Mexican government’s relationship with the United States in Mexico was “on pause” over what he characterized as an “intervention” in Mexico’s internal affairs by the U.S. ambassador.
At the conclusion of their strongly-worded letter, De la Fuente and Ebrard seemed to dismiss Salazar’s concern that the trade relationship between Mexico and the United States was at risk.
“We are neighbors, we are friends and we are partners in growth, building prosperity for our common future,” they wrote.
Mexico News Daily
It has all the hallmarks of revenge – the independent judiciary stood up to much of his crackpot schemes and now he wants payback – sadly the costs of any probable failures will be bourn by ordinary people if and when there is reduced investment, fewer jobs, less tax income and potentially catastrophically, capital flight
I have read no one who has established why one method is preferable over another. The US appoints federal judges (nominated by the president, approved by the Senate), and we see how that has turned out. Trump, during his 4-year term as president, with approval by a partisan GOP Senate, put in ideologues who were not even respected judges at lower levels. Lower level non-federal judges are elected in a supposedly non-partisan manner, but most voters know the party candidates prefer. If Mexico could keep politics out of judicial decisions, perhaps rule of law could prevail. How to do it is the question.
I am glad you mention this exact point. It doesn’t mean the existing system or the reform are perfect. It means that this is a step forward because if Mexico had permission to meddle with other countries the same as USA does. Then they would mention why these justices are partisan political appointees. They can literally reference the last few nonsense issues that the supreme court caused. If Mexico didn’t have to worry about the threats the USA would give, they would directly reference the past few years of judicial nonsense that have occurred in the USA. Maybe even mention Project 2025 as a sort of political hackery where everyone is a political appointee and anyone who isn’t gets removed.
It is easy to speculate what method of sitting judges is preferable. Abuses both ways but in Mexico there is a wild card…..Cartels. Cartels have shown themselves adept at involving themselves in elections, and using Sinaloa as an example including as high as the Governor of the State. To think they wouldn’t control judges, especially locally, is extremely naive IMHO. AMLO is a first magnitude egoist who only wants retribution on those who contradict or oppose him so electing judges is his answer. Another short man desperately trying to be taller. Beware of unintended consequences. BTW, what part of speaking out a la Salazar is NOT part of democracy?
Funny how the politicians from Morena automatically jump to saying that the U.S. is meddling
I’m wondering how the Sheinbaum administration will find people willing to be a judge in municipalities controlled by the cartels. An election requires at least two candidates in all open positions. If the cartels get behind one candidate who they buy off, they will probably encourage the the other candidate to pull out. I see a potential for violence. Lots of it
We should be thankful that we have an English language news source of this quality.
The independence of Mexico to control its internal politics and policies is fundamental. Also, however, the points about the widespread criminal influence in Mexican politics is also a reality. A mayor elect in the state of Chiapas was just kidnapped, and he a coalition partner of AMLO/Sheinbaum. What will they do? Hugs? So to have all federal judges ( not in the U.S.) and the Supreme Court (same), elected by state and country would expose the entire system to cartels and mafias. Who would do business in that environment? More hugs in the face of extortion?
Hugs not bullits, hahahahaha, It has really worked, 25,000 dead in MX per year and the mafias have been exported to Ecuador to kill 4000 Ecuadorians per year. mX knows how to export their 4th branch of government. Tears for Ecuador
The number of murders has actually gone down the past few years under AMLO
Mexico will do what it will as is their right…and so will foreign investors. The Mexican spokespersons are whistling passed the graveyard, if they think the judicial reform won’t have an effect on Mexico’s investment profile. The peso has taken a beating at the suggestion that the newly elected legislature would enact the “reform”. At least one major brokerage house has recommended not to buy Mexican stocks. At least one credit agency has downgraded Mexican debt. Surely, these spokesmen know better.
Do these foreign business interests know what is best as foreign investors who are arguably in favor of lax environmental regulations and inexpensive labor or what is best for the average Mexican citizen? I can see the downgrade as a method to influence people in Mexico ( and it seems ti be working) but knowing the history if México, central America and South America, I question the motivations of US industry: history says the people suffer abd the oligarchs prosper.
Concerns about cartel influence are addressed by the judge being ananomous in cases against cartel members under this reform. That might make a huge difference. When the judge is known, the cartels threaten or kill them directly or their family members. That hasn’t worked. Making the judges unknown in these cases might help.
AMLO is as narcissistic as Trump, the opposite side of the same coin.Trump is a brutal person who just wants a billionaire class, Amlo more than doubled the minimum wage of the poorest people of MX. So the choice is simple. However, MX has exported their violence to central America and has brutally harmed Ecuador with its deportation of drug mafias. It’s Ecuador which i feel sorry for.
I wondered how I missed a Washington Post editorial from these authors after stumbling on this article just today. Clicking through, indeed, it’s a letter to an editor. That’s a very different thing than an invited editorial. This was in with things like letters from Aunt Mary thanking PC County firefighters for rescuing a cat in a tree.