Mexico President Places Relationship with US Ambassador on Hold Over Judicial Reform Criticism
Mexico’s President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, often referred to as AMLO, said that his relationship with US Ambassador Ken Salazar was “on pause” due to critical remarks about his proposed judicial overhaul, Bloomberg reports.
However, he clarified that he would not request the ambassador’s departure from the country.
Salazar recently expressed concerns about AMLO’s reform plan, which aims to mandate the popular election of federal judges. He warned that such changes could pose a “major risk” to Mexico’s democracy and facilitate drug cartels’ infiltration into the judicial system.
“The relationship is good, but it is on pause since he stated that,” AMLO said during his daily news conference.
In addition to Ambassador Salazar, the president noted that his relationship with the Canadian ambassador were also on hold after that official raised investor concerns regarding the reform plan.
AMLO stressed that the pause would pertain to his communications with both embassies, rather than reflecting a broader issue between the US and Canadian governments and Mexico.
The president described his reform initiative, which advanced from a key committee in Mexico’s Congress on Monday, as a means to combat corruption in the judiciary. Nevertheless, opposition figures and investors have voiced apprehension that the reforms may undermine judicial independence and weaken checks on the ruling party’s power.
AMLO, who had previously labeled Salazar as “disrespectful,” expressed hope that the US government would issue a clarifying statement regarding its stance on the proposed judicial overhaul. He reiterated the need for the US and Canada to respect Mexico’s sovereignty.
In response, Salazar took to social media, saying that the US always operates with “the utmost respect for Mexico’s sovereignty.” He shared a letter from the US embassy dated August 23, which admitted Washington’s support Mexico’s commitment to judicial reform but raised concerns that the election of judges might not effectively address corruption or strengthen the judiciary.
