Latest news with #AMLO
New Straits Times
6 days ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
When the world tilts, so do its waterways
You can tell the world is heating up—not just by the record-shattering temperatures in Phoenix or the floodwaters swallowing neighbourhoods in Jakarta—but by the receding water levels in the Panama Canal. What was once a marvel of 20th-century engineering has become a symbol of 21st-century fragility. For over a hundred years, the Panama Canal stitched the Pacific and Atlantic together like a global zipline for trade. But today, that zipline is fraying—undone not by war or sabotage, but by a slow-motion environmental crisis. The canal's vulnerability lies in its invisible lifeline: Gatun Lake, the massive freshwater reservoir that powers its locks. A prolonged drought—intensified by El Niño and long-term climate change—has dropped the lake to near-record lows. This has forced authorities to slash the number of permitted transits, reduce vessel draught, and turn away some of the world's largest ships. In a global economy that runs on just-in-time logistics, a few feet less water in Central America can send tremors through supply chains from Shanghai to Rotterdam. This isn't just a Panamanian problem. It's a preview of how climate disruption rewrites the rules of global commerce. Infrastructure built for yesterday's planet is now colliding with the physics of a warming world. The Panama Canal was designed for hydrological stability; it's now operating in an era of extreme volatility. And so, as Panama narrows, strategists around the world are dusting off old maps and draughting new ones. Some are turning north, to the Northern Sea Route, where the very crisis shrinking Panama is thawing open a new path through the Arctic. This route, hugging Russia's Siberian coast, shaves thousands of kilometres off Asia-Europe shipping times. But it's fraught with seasonal limitations, infrastructure gaps, and geopolitical landmines—especially in the aftermath of Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Others are looking inland—literally. South America's long-deferred dream of a "dry canal" has returned to the conversation. Proposed transcontinental rail corridors, such as one linking Peru's Pacific coast through Bolivia to Brazil's Atlantic port of Santos, are being reimagined as permanent logistics alternatives. These "land bridges" would shift the center of gravity away from Panama and toward a more distributed network of continental trade routes. Mexico, too, has entered the race. The Isthmus of Tehuantepec, historically eyed as a rival to Panama, is seeing renewed investment under AMLO's administration. A modern interoceanic rail corridor is being developed to link the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific, giving shippers a faster route to bypass Central America altogether. But don't be seduced by the cartographer's fantasy of southern Patagonia. On paper, the southern cone of South America looks tantalisingly close—where the Pacific almost kisses the South Atlantic. Yet this region is a geographer's nightmare: rugged, glacial, remote, and geopolitically inert. Even if the terrain could be tamed, the cost would be astronomical, and the payoff minimal. You'd have better odds of threading a needle during a hurricane than building a viable canal across Patagonia. Then comes the Trump factor. True to his style of grievance politics, Donald Trump has looked at the climate-stressed Panama Canal and declared that the real crisis is… that the United States no longer controls it. During his first term, Trump publicly lamented the handover of the canal in 1999—an act that fulfilled the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Now, as he toys with another run at the presidency, he's hinted at "retaking" the canal—not with warships, but through influence: tighter treaties, economic leverage, or even military posture. This posture isn't entirely new. U.S. strategic interest in the canal has persisted long after the handover. But what's different now is Trump's personal grievance. His ill-fated venture—the Trump Ocean Club in Panama City—ended in lawsuits, brand stripping, and allegations of money laundering. For Trump, Panama is more than a geopolitical talking point. It's a scar, a reminder of how global entanglements can bruise both ego and enterprise. But the real story here isn't Trump, or even Panama. It's the dawning realisation that climate change is reprogramming the GPS of globalisation. What once seemed permanent—like the centrality of Panama—is suddenly conditional. Ports rise, canals falter, and new trade corridors open or close not by fiat, but by rainfall and river depth. Today, infrastructure is not destiny unless it can float. This is the age where Mother Nature has become the world's most powerful geostrategist. And the next great scramble isn't just about oil or chips—it's about who controls the routes between them. Superpowers are no longer just racing to dominate trade—they're scrambling to future-proof it. And the battleground won't be some backroom in Geneva. It will be drawn in sediment, drought forecasts, and satellite images of a shrinking lake in Panama. So the next time someone tells you climate change is about rising seas, remind them: it's also about shrinking canals. And in the new geopolitics of climate, the nations that endure won't just be those with aircraft carriers or semiconductors—but those with shipping lanes that can survive a drought. ————————————————————————— Samirul Ariff Othman is an economist, public policy advisor, and international affairs analyst. He is currently a senior consultant with Global Asia Consulting and an adjunct lecturer at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS (UTP).
Al Jazeera
05-06-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Supreme Court strikes down Mexico's lawsuit against US gun manufacturers
The United States Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit from the government of Mexico that argued American gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson failed to prevent illegal firearm sales to cartels and criminal organisations. In one of a slew of decisions handed down on Thursday, the top court decided that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act shielded the gun manufacturers from Mexico's suit. The court's decision was unanimous. Writing for the nine-member bench, Justice Elena Kagan explained that even 'indifference' to the trafficking of firearms does not amount to willfully assisting a criminal enterprise. 'Mexico's complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers' unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,' Kagan wrote (PDF). 'We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place — and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers 'participate in' those sales.' The Mexican government's complaint, she added, 'does not pinpoint, as most aiding-and-abetting claims do, any specific criminal transactions that the defendants (allegedly) assisted'. The case stems from a complaint filed in August 2021 in a federal court in Boston, Massachusetts. In that initial complaint, the Mexican government — then led by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador — argued that the sheer volume of firearms illegally smuggled into its country amounted to negligence on the part of gun manufacturers. Those firearms, it said, had exacted a devastating toll on Mexican society. The country has some of the highest homicide rates in the world, with the United Nations estimating in 2023 that nearly 25 intentional killings happen for every 100,000 people. Much of that crime has been credited to the presence of cartels and other criminal enterprises operating in Mexico. The Igarape Institute, a Brazil-based think tank, estimated that Mexico's crime cost the country nearly 1.92 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) from 2010 to 2014. The US is the largest arms manufacturer in the world — and also the largest source of illegally sourced firearms. The stream of firearms that pour into Mexico and the broader Latin America region, for instance, has been dubbed the 'iron river'. Nearly 70 percent of the illegal guns seized in Mexico from 2014 to 2018, for instance, were traced to origins in the US, according to the Department of Justice. That has led countries like Mexico to demand action from the US to limit the number of firearms trafficked abroad. In its lawsuit, Mexico targeted some of the biggest names in gun manufacturing in the US: not just Smith & Wesson, but also companies like Beretta USA, Glock Inc and Colt's Manufacturing LLC. But the firearm companies pushed back against the lawsuit, arguing they could not be held responsible for the actions of criminals in another country. The Supreme Court itself cast doubt on some of Mexico's arguments, including the idea that the gun manufacturers designed and marketed their products specifically for cartel buyers. 'Mexico focuses on production of 'military style' assault weapons, but these products are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers. Manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting criminal acts simply because Mexican cartel members also prefer these guns,' Justice Kagan wrote. 'The same applies to firearms with Spanish language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history,' she added. 'While they may be 'coveted by the cartels,' they also may appeal to 'millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.'' On Thursday, an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a 'tremendous victory' against an unfair charge. It had filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in the case. 'For too long, gun control activists have attempted to twist basic tort law to malign the highly-regulated U.S. firearm industry with the criminal actions of violent organized crime, both here in the United States and abroad,' the group's senior vice president, Lawrence G Keane, said in a statement. Keane added that he and others in the firearm industry felt 'sympathetic to plight of those in Mexico who are victims of rampant and uncontrolled violence at the hands of narco-terrorist drug cartels'. But he said the issue was about 'responsible firearm ownership', not the actions of gun manufacturers.
Bloomberg
04-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
The Real Trouble With Mexico's Judicial Overhaul
This truth defies any sugarcoating: Every alarming article you may have read about the consequences of Mexico's decision to elect its judiciary, in a vote that took place on Sunday, is essentially accurate. This was a capricious exercise designed by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to radically change Mexico's justice system after the courts ruled against the government in several instances of his mandate, which ended in September. In the last months of his presidency, the septuagenarian leader known as AMLO channeled his inner tech bro and decided to move fast and break things — i.e, the judiciary: Half the country's judges would be replaced, starting with the Supreme Court, and an oversight body would be created to make sure judges don't deviate from their mandates. The remaining half will be changed in 2027. No real effort was made for a serious, well-thought reform to tackle the undeniable shortcomings of a judicial system that wasn't particularly helpful to Mexicans; everything would have to be done at maximum speed, no questions asked please.
Bloomberg
03-06-2025
- General
- Bloomberg
Mexico Vote Count for Top Court Shows Majority With Morena Ties
By and Maya Averbuch Save Mexico's new Supreme Court will feature a clear majority of justices with direct ties to the country's former leftist president or the ruling Morena party he founded, according to preliminary election results. The leading candidates from Sunday's election for the nine-member high court include three justices who were all originally nominated to the court by ex-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, known as AMLO and the mastermind behind the election. Three other likely winners worked for him in the past or for Morena.
Wall Street Journal
01-06-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Mexico's Judicial-Election Farce
Mexico held elections Sunday to fill nine seats on its new Supreme Court, five seats on its new judicial disciplinary tribunal, half the seats on federal circuit and district courts, and two vacancies on the Federal Electoral Tribunal. Learning the full results could take a week or more. The rest of the circuit and lower-court bench will be elected in 2027. Government critics and independent analysts warned that the sweeping overhaul of the judiciary through popular elections would politicize the courts, putting them under the thumb of the Morena Party's corporatist populism. They aren't wrong. It's the goal of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who pushed through the constitutional change as he was leaving office last year. This way when the state wants to discriminate against private investors in favor of its own interests, property rights and contracts won't get in the way. AMLO, as the former president is known, wants Mexico to look more like it did in the 1970s. This is a leap in that direction. The number of open judicial seats varied across the country with 19 states also electing nearly 1,800 local judges. The average voter in Mexico City was given nine ballots and asked to choose 51 judges out of 293 candidates, according to Mexico City-based Integralia, a political-risk consultancy. Most citizens would have found it almost impossible to be well-informed about their decisions.
