The New York Times' project is currently vying for the most embarrassing journalistic venture of the new year, along with the silliest venture in the galaxy.
Plucky reporters at the Times believe that President Donald Trump's designation of drug cartels controlling the southwest border as “terrorists” could have a negative impact on the U.S. economy.
reason:
Given that criminal organizations operate in sectors such as agriculture and tourism, it may be nearly impossible to insulate U.S. companies from cartel activity, making some U.S. companies more susceptible to sanctions. .
Similarly, as reporters have pointed out three times, the avocado trade, which is rife with cartels, could be in great trouble.
perhaps. But stopping the cartels, regardless of Mexico's license, could save some of the roughly 100,000 American lives lost each year to fentanyl overdoses, not to mention methamphetamine addicts.
story
On his first day in office, President Trump designated cartels as terrorists by executive order.
The Times, citing “former government officials and analysts,” complained that it had been labeled a terrorist.
Some U.S. companies may be forced to refrain from doing business in Mexico rather than risk U.S. sanctions…given the depth of their economic interdependence, this could have a significant impact on both countries. These are the possible consequences.
The Times acknowledged that President Trump wants to pressure Mexico to “curb the dangerous drug trade.” But the problem is that “separating cartel activity from U.S. interests in Mexico can be very complicated.” Mexico is the United States' largest merchandise trading partner, and many American companies have manufacturing operations there. ”
To make matters worse, cartels operate legitimate businesses such as tourism and avocado cultivation. If that happens, it will be much harder to isolate American companies from cartels.
And, of course, the Times reporters may just be worried that attacking the cartels will affect the avocado supply.
specified risk
Until now, the United States had not designated cartels as terrorists. “(Analysts) have been considering what the impact would be on trade, economic and financial relations between Mexico and the United States,” said Samantha Saltoun, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, a globalist and anti-Trump group. ” he said.
She continued:
The previous administration had a very different view of the U.S.-Mexico relationship than the incoming Trump administration has in mind, and they all agree that such a designation would actually be very short-sighted and imprudent. I came back thinking.
Similarly, the Times worried that companies that paid ransoms or extortion to cartels could face “heavy fines” because their payments could be considered “material support.” are.
plus,
U.S. companies could also fall into the trap of standard payments made by cartels to Mexican companies that the U.S. companies control without their knowledge.
To elaborate on that, the paper's reporters rushed to a man named Pablo Zarate of globalist FTI Consulting, who had “published a report outlining some of the risks of terrorist designation.” . It will come as no surprise that Señor Zarate was primarily educated in Mexico.
Zarate's background aside, former U.S. officials and analysts have questioned which companies employ cartel members, given that tens of thousands of people are involved and operate in a variety of industries, including cartels. , noted that it is nearly impossible to determine who may be affiliated with cartel members. hotels and the agricultural sector,” the Times reported.
Cartels use the legal economy to launder money. That means unwitting employees working at resorts and avocado packing companies may technically be on the cartel's payroll, but they may not know it.
As a result, risk-averse companies in the American financial sector may simply refuse to transfer money, for example to facilitate cross-border production or trade, or between personal accounts.
“Banks may turn away customers because they may think it's not worth the risk if they have ties to Mexico,” said Eric Jacobstein, a former State Department official in the Biden administration.
So the Times worried about avocados again. Banks may not lend to industry players because the risks are too high. “Banks may say, 'We don't want to be close to people who are considered terrorists, so we want to avoid that risk,'” said Fabian Teichmann, a Swiss lawyer and expert on terrorist financing.
Running out of avocados will be a huge challenge for Times gourmets.
money angle
Venmo and PayPal may also be affected. The Times hastened to report that President Trump's “aide Elon Musk” was instrumental in discovering the latter.
Teichmann said the terrorist label would also “push large parts of Mexico's economy further into the shadows.” In Mexico, “cash is used instead of transactions that can be tracked electronically.”
“If you can't bank legally, you take refuge in what's called an underground banking system,” Teichmann said.
Perhaps, but one reason the terrorist label might be a good idea is another fact uncovered by the Times. Of the 218 companies surveyed, 12% claimed that “organized crime has partial control over the sale, distribution and pricing of their products.”
In the United States, authorities are trying to stop organized crime from gaining a foothold in legitimate businesses and using them to launder money and file seemingly legitimate tax returns.
The Times also noted “American companies that rely on Mexican labor despite being firmly located north of the border.” The designation is so broad and vague that a Texas ranch or California farm could be subject to penalties if its employees send money to family members in Mexico who are involved in organized crime. ”
Worse, companies like Western Union could stop sending some of the $63.3 billion in remittances from Mexicans in the U.S. to their families back home. That would have a negative impact on Mexico's economy, as remittances account for 5% of Mexico's gross domestic product.
Mutual defense?
Finally, this designation would give Mexico the possibility of directing U.S. military intervention. Of course, that's exactly what border czar Tom Homan promised at the Republican National Convention in July.
“Unilateral action would be disastrous,” said Craig Deere, a U.S. diplomat who was stationed in Mexico 30 years ago. “It would undermine decades of cooperation and hard work by the Democratic Party.”
He added: “If you don't like the current cooperation, just wait until Mexico cuts off all ties.”
Regarding the mindset of Mexicans, the Times quoted President Claudia Sheinbaum as saying, “We will always protect Mexico above all else.”
Surprisingly, the Times did not contact Mr. Homan or anyone else to explain the terrorist support designation and why it is essential to U.S. national security.
The Times also failed to report that U.S. border agents seized 856,000 pounds of illegal drugs at the southwest border in fiscal year 2022 and December. Of that amount, 463,000 pounds was methamphetamine and 66,000 pounds was fentanyl.
“Pure propaganda”
That's one reason Musk made this comment in response to Robbie Starbuck's screenshot of the headline “Pure Propaganda.”
I wrote to Starbucks: “I can't believe this is a real headline. It's insane.”
But as one X user pointed out, is there another reason for the Times besides its obsession with bashing Trump for attacking the orders of Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim? Maybe.
Slim rescued the company from bankruptcy in 2009 with a huge loan.
In 2015, a Mexican telecommunications giant became the newspaper's largest shareholder. He sold half of those shares in 2017.
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish