Nicaragua, whose side are we on?

Some parts of the government’s foreign policy have been inconsistent. Different signs show this between the National Palace and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ahead of the fifteenth re-election of Daniel Ortega as President of Nicaragua.

In the meritology in which the members of the group of “corks” are placed, Ebrard puts down a medallion, which some refer to as effective diplomatic acts, the elected president of Chile also divided Rosca de Reyes. .

However, everything indicates that it was advanced in the case of Nicaragua. Not so much because he proposed a misguided strategy by not sending a Mexican representation to the event in Managua, what happened was that the president had a different way of looking at things, which, no matter how suspicious, was overlooked. is not done. The decisions that the President makes and at times when he directs excessive traffic.

Many decisions made by López Obrador in matters of foreign policy deserve analysis and criticism. Some issues in this matter relate to what happens within the dynamics of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the way things are done and decided, but many others go through the will of the singular President, without the encouragement of reflection and consultation. Can make decisions on the fly. To be commended, as it seems to have happened with Nicaragua and with the appointment of diplomatic representatives.

It is losing the radar that the Foreign Service has a formidable Mexican history in terms of hand-in-hand diplomacy, which has been essential to representing Mexico to the world through thick and thin.

Some of the recent appointments of ambassadors leave the impression that they have become political identities that have nothing to do with the practice of diplomacy and, therefore, with the importance of representing Mexico abroad.

The Nicaragua incident reflects the terrain of a roller coaster of sorts that sometimes involves foreign policy. It is clear that it is the President who directs the traffic, but what is striking is that the President narrows down his view of things to an issue that is of immense relevance to Central America, which we are part.

It is quite possible that at some other time in our country there was a distinction between the Sandinista revolution and critical thinking. López Obrador was certainly among those who sympathized with the struggle of the people of Nicaragua, led by the so-called “comandante”.

Let’s also not forget the strategic role played by the Mexican government in this process. Aid and political support was a strategic piece for the consolidation of the Nicaraguan process.

But all this is a thing of the past. Daniel Ortega has nothing to do with the stage in which he played an episodic role. Today he has come to power and has adjusted the life of the country to his image and likeness, intimidating, imprisoning opponents, attacking the press, electing his own way and putting the country under the rule of fear. keeps.

The world knows all this. That there are governments that show solidarity, the only thing that shows is an identity or earned commitments. Our country did not make a single comment on the electoral process, but supported it with its silence, and the President put himself on the opposite side of history, changing the original decision of the Ministry of External Affairs.


Once again we have entered critical moments in the face of the pandemic. The circumstances are different for vaccines, among other things. However, the scenes in hospitals and health centers these days reflect the situation; Yesterday the record of infection was broken, 33 thousand 626 new cases, a little more than half the population was vaccinated with two doses.