The discussion on public security reform in the Senatewas the scene for a new verbal confrontation between the senator of the National Action Party (PAN), Lilly Tellez and the morenistas, Manuel Huerta y Yeidckol Polevnskyaccording to statements by the ambassador Ken Salazar.
Senator Huerta Ladrón de Guevara asked to speak in the debate to point out that he was “astonished seeing the statements of the North American ambassador regarding the policy that has been applied of going to the causes of the problems. What many have not understood, what the President marked as the policy of hugs and not bullets.”
He accused the ambassador of United States in MexicoKen Salazar as an interventionist, “has been speaking against the necessary subordination that in his opinion there should be of our country and that both the president Andrew Manuel like the president Claudia Sheinbaum“Well, they have stated that Mexico is sovereign, that all coordination, but no subordination.”
You might be interested in: “Hugs, not bullets” did not work: Ken Salazar
In response, PAN senator Lilly Téllez acknowledged that the US ambassador’s statement was very strong, “a statement that shakes, that shakes not only our country, but always the Latin America already America as a whole, because Ambassador Ken Salazar makes clear what we all know in Mexico and what they know abroad, that the policy of hugs not bullets did not work, that hugs were for criminals and that in the country it caused more gunshots”.
He said that “when Ambassador Ken Salazar says that López Obrador did not accept help from the United States to fight crime, criminals, to fight cartels and the entire range of criminals who are involved in arms trafficking, human trafficking makes it clear that what López Obrador was doing is protecting the criminals who not only colluded, whom he not only protected, but the criminals who are López Obrador’s partners, the partners of Morena”, he accused.
Ken knows it and everyone knows it pic.twitter.com/yJLYoVN7pZ
— Lilly Téllez (@LillyTellez) November 13, 2024
Given this, the senator from Morena, Yeidckol Polevnsky, made reference to the statements of Lilly Téllez, pointing out that “the PAN It is a party that has an ideology, that has principles, they may not be mine, but it has them, but why do they allow their name to be dragged around, allowing them to come and say a lot of nonsense on this platform, which is unacceptable?
You might be interested in: Jorge Romero receives certification as president of the PAN; insists on party unity
He accused Senator Téllez of not knowing the Constitution, “I want to tell you, because the people of Mexico, and also for the ignorant people who do not know, that the people of Mexico are a nation, we are a sovereign, independent nation, we are not a Colonia. Let it be heard loud and clear, we are not a Colony, there is no reason why anyone from another country should come here to want to do things or decide for us. “Mexico has and can resolve for itself.”
leo
Related
How does U.S. involvement in Mexico’s public security policies impact the relationship between the two countries?
Interview Between Time.news Editor and Security Expert on Public Security Reform in Mexico
Time.news Editor: Welcome, everyone. Today we have a distinguished guest, Dr. Maria Velasquez, an expert in public security policy and Latin American studies. Dr. Velasquez, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Maria Velasquez: Thank you for having me. It’s great to be here.
Editor: Let’s dive right into the heated discussions happening in the Mexican Senate regarding public security reform. Recently, we saw Senator Lilly Téllez of the National Action Party (PAN) strongly criticize the current administration’s approach to violence, labeling it as ineffective. How significant do you think these remarks are?
Dr. Velasquez: Senator Téllez’s comments are quite significant, especially considering her role in the opposition. She has articulated a growing frustration within parts of Mexican society and politics regarding President López Obrador’s “hugs, not bullets” policy. This sentiment reflects a broader debate about how to effectively address the rising violence and crime rates in the country.
Editor: Indeed, and it seems that Ambassador Ken Salazar has also weighed in, claiming that this policy has failed. How do you interpret his involvement in this debate?
Dr. Velasquez: Ambassador Salazar’s remarks highlight the perceptions of interventionism and sovereignty that often define U.S.-Mexico relations. His comments suggest that he sees a lack of cooperation in combating transnational crime, specifically regarding cartel activity and trafficking. This places additional pressure on the López Obrador administration to reconsider its strategies, while also igniting tensions with those who resent external influence in domestic policy.
Editor: Senator Huerta’s accusation of the ambassador being interventionist raises an interesting point about national sovereignty. How does this tension affect bilateral relations, specifically in matters of public security?
Dr. Velasquez: It creates a complex dynamic. While both nations have a vested interest in curbing violence and drug trafficking, there’s a historical wariness on the part of Mexico regarding U.S. interference. This discussion can strain relations, as Mexico may feel pressured to conform to U.S. expectations while simultaneously striving to maintain its autonomy. Ultimately, both sides need to engage in more transparent dialogue about their shared interests.
Editor: Téllez also labeled López Obrador’s policies as protective of criminals. This is a serious accusation. How likely are such claims to sway public opinion in Mexico?
Dr. Velasquez: The potential for these claims to influence public opinion should not be underestimated. In Mexico, there is a palpable sense of frustration regarding violence, and politicians who express dissatisfaction with current approaches may resonate with many voters. However, the political landscape is complex—some support López Obrador’s governance and the philosophy behind his policies. The ultimate impact will depend on how effectively opposition parties can present alternative solutions to security challenges.
Editor: Moving forward, what do you see as the most critical steps for Mexico in addressing these security concerns?
Dr. Velasquez: Mexico must prioritize a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to public security. This includes tackling the root social and economic issues that contribute to crime, such as poverty and lack of opportunity. Additionally, improving law enforcement capabilities and fostering cooperation with neighbors, particularly the United States, is essential. Both nations need to collaborate to create cohesive strategies that respect sovereignty while also addressing shared threats.
Editor: A thoughtful analysis, Dr. Velasquez. It seems the discourse around public security is bound to continue evolving, especially with this push and pull between different political factions and the international community. Thank you for your insights today.
Dr. Velasquez: Thank you for having me. I look forward to continuing this important conversation.