I will not comment on the quality of the football that the national team showed yesterday, because I know little about the matter. I do think that South Africans would do well to take up rugby; They couldn’t do worse. Nor am I much interested, like so many colleagues, in the passion of our compatriots, nor in the ephemeral disappearance of our political polarizations, and even less interested in the height, or mediocrity, of the FIFA show at the Azteca. I think that the 4T came out flat, simply: the game could be held, the stadium was filled, there were few excesses on Thursday, but the president could not attend either the inauguration or the Zócalo.
However, a small counterfactual exercise can help us assess the magnitude of the lost opportunity, and the level of tensions that predominate between the three host countries. In the World Cup, it is customary for the heads of state or government of the teams with which the tournament starts to attend the first match. In Qatar, Emir Tamim bin Hamad and the vice president of Ecuador attended. In Moscow, Putin and MBS, the true leader of the kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In Brazil, Dilma Rousseff and Ivo Josipovic of Croatia. In South Africa, Calderón and Zuma. And so on. In the only other World Cup with multiple hosts – Japan and South Korea in 2002 – Korean President Kim Dae-Jung and Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi witnessed the opening in Tokyo.
When in 2018, FIFA opted – by votes, it is assumed, although they were like those of the PRI of yesteryear – for the triple headquarters that we enjoy today, the relations between the three countries were correct, and between their three leaders, regular. Peña Nieto was leaving, López Obrador was arriving; Trump was already president, and Justin Trudeau had only been prime minister for a short time. But the renegotiation of NAFTA to convert it into T-MEC had practically been completed, and it was assumed that in the summer of 2026 none of the three would continue to hold office.
So much so that it did not seem unreasonable to think that if the inauguration were in Mexico, along with the leader of El Tri’s opponent, the presidents of Mexico and the United States, and the Canadian prime minister, would attend the Azteca. It would have been logical and desirable: a show of friendship, regional integration, good vibes, in full ratification for 16 more years of the T-MEC. We know that was not the case.
Of course the absence of the three – Sheinbaum, Trump and Carney – is not the Mexican’s fault. Or in any case, only yours is. And given the complicated relationship between Carney and Trump, and the strange bond between Sheinbaum and Trump, it probably wouldn’t have been a great idea to bring the “three friends” (detestable expression). But Trump is not afraid of shouting – like the one he received at Madison Square Garden a few days ago – and the signal would have reassured the powers that be and the societies of the three nations. Obviously I have no idea if Sheinbaum tried – it was up to her – but the fact is that the meeting did not take place, and its non-existence reflects the state of relations in North America. How far we are from the multiple trilateral meetings from San Antonio in February 1992 between Salinas, Bush and Mulroney: between one guy and another, about fifteen.
*This article was originally published in Nexus.
