From Trotsky to Morales, Mexico’s asylum tradition

1 / 2
Leon Trotsky and his wife Natalia Sedova, in Mexico, where Trotsky was assassinated by one of Stalin’s agents, Ramon Mercader, in 1940. (AFP)
2 / 2
Bolivian ex-President Evo Morales waves upon landing in Mexico City, where he was granted asylum after his resignation. (AFP Photo)
Updated 13 November 2019

From Trotsky to Morales, Mexico’s asylum tradition

  • Exiled from the Soviet Union in 1929 by Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky drifted from Turkey to Norway to France before finally landing in Mexico in 1937
  • Taking in Bolivian ex-president Evo Morales could be a politically risky bet for Mexico’s President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a fellow leftist elected last year

MEXICO CITY: From Leon Trotsky to Luis Bunuel to Salvador Allende’s widow, Mexico has a long tradition of offering asylum to political exiles — right down to newly arrived Bolivian ex-president Evo Morales.
Whether Republicans fleeing Francisco Franco after Spain’s Civil War or Argentines, Chileans and Brazilians fleeing military dictatorships in the 1970s, Mexico has welcomed many thousands of political asylum-seekers over the years.
“I’m very proud to head a government that guarantees the right to asylum,” President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Tuesday, as Morales arrived after resigning amid growing unrest triggered by his controversial re-election to a fourth term.
Morales, for his part, said Mexico “saved my life,” after exiting the Mexican air force plane sent to fetch him from a Bolivia in flames.
According to retired Mexican diplomat Agustin Gutierrez Canet, one of the first political figures granted exile in Mexico was Nicaraguan revolutionary Cesar Augusto Sandino, who led an uprising against the US military occupation of Nicaragua in the 1920s.
However, Sandino left Mexico in 1930, frustrated at what he called the Mexican government’s broken promise to aid his cause.
An even more famous figure arrived seven years later: Trotsky.
Exiled from the Soviet Union in 1929 by Joseph Stalin, the Marxist revolutionary drifted from Turkey to Norway to France before finally landing in Mexico in 1937.
“It was the muralist Diego Rivera who asked President Lazaro Cardenas to grant (Trotsky) asylum. But we all know the consequences. Mexican protection failed and Ramon Mercader came along,” said Gutierrez.
Mercader, a Spanish communist and secret agent for the Soviet intelligence services, infiltrated Trotsky’s inner circle, then assassinated him with an ice axe at his home in 1940.
Under Cardenas, who was president from 1934 to 1940, Mexico also welcomed more than 20,000 Spanish exiles fleeing Franco’s regime after the Republicans’ defeat in the Civil War.
The Republican government-in-exile was based in Mexico from 1939 to 1946.
The exiles included the poet Leon Felipe, a friend of Che Guevara and Fidel Castro — who himself fled to Mexico after waging an aborted rebellion in Cuba, then went on to launch the Cuban Revolution from there — and Bunuel, the legendary filmmaker.
Bunuel, a one-time spy and propagandist for the Republicans, moved to Mexico in 1946, becoming a Mexican citizen and filming his classic movie “The Young and the Damned” there.
More exiles arrived during the brutal Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s. They included Hortensia Bussi, widow of Chile’s late socialist president Allende, who fled to the Mexican embassy in Santiago and ultimately Mexico itself after her husband died during the coup that ousted him in 1973.
Mexico also took in Central Americans during the wars that rocked that region in the 1980s, including Guatemalan indigenous activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchu. Taking in Morales could be a politically risky bet for Lopez Obrador, a fellow leftist elected last year.
It could strain the “peace and love” relationship he has sought to maintain with US President Donald Trump, who openly detests Morales.
At home, Lopez Obrador’s opponents were quick to pounce.
Morales “is a dictator clinging to power! He’s a persona non grata in Mexico,” tweeted former president Vicente Fox, of the conservative National Action Party (PAN).
Even celebrated Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska, a Lopez Obrador ally, joined in.
“Why do presidents want to stay in power forever? Why does Evo Morales insist on believing there is no one but him?” she tweeted Saturday.
However, Gutierrez, the diplomat, said granting Morales asylum was in line with Mexico’s commitments under international treaties.
“It’s important that political asylum not be subject to ideological considerations,” he said.
“It’s for people who are being politically persecuted, endangering their lives, liberty or safety.”
That was the case for Morales, he said.
Marta de Cea is glad for Mexico’s asylum tradition.
The 74-year-old Argentine woman fled to Mexico in 1976 after being kidnapped by the military regime.
“They helped us very much. I’m still here after more than 40 years. I’m a Mexican citizen. My home is here, my daughters are Mexican,” she said, her voice breaking.
“I’m very grateful to this country.”

Indians demonstrate against ‘divisive’ citizenship bill

Updated 11 December 2019

Indians demonstrate against ‘divisive’ citizenship bill

  • The bill, which goes to the upper house on Wednesday, would ensure citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and Buddhists from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, but exclude Muslims

NEW DELHI: Protests erupted across various parts of India on Tuesday, a day after the lower house of Parliament passed the controversial Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) which makes religion the basis for granting Indian citizenship to minorities from neighboring countries. 

The bill, which goes to the upper house on Wednesday, would ensure citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Parsis and Buddhists from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan, but exclude Muslims.

“After the CAB, we are going to bring in the National Register of Citizens (NRC),” Home Minister Amit Shah said after the passage of the bill. 

The fear among a large section of Indians is that by bringing in the CAB and the NRC — a process to identify illegal immigrants — the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is trying to target Muslim minorities. 

They insist that the new bill protects all other communities except Muslims, who constitute around 14 percent of India’s total population.

The opposition Congress Party said that the bill was a move to “destroy the foundation” of India.

“The CAB is an attack on the Indian constitution. Anyone who supports it is attacking and attempting to destroy the foundation of our nation,” party leader Rahul Gandhi posted in a tweet.

Priyanka Gandhi, Rahul’s sister and a prominent opposition leader, called the bill “India’s tryst with bigotry.”

However, BJP spokesperson Sudesh Verma said: “The opposition is communalizing the bill. 

The CAB saves minorities who owe their origin to India from being prosecuted on grounds of religious status. The same is not the case with Muslims since they have not been prosecuted because of their religion.”

Eight northeastern states observed a day-long strike against the CAB. 

“Once the bill is implemented, the native tribal people will become permanent minorities in their own state,” Animesh Debbarma, a tribal leader who organized the strike in the state of Tripura said.

“The bill is against our fundamental rights and it is an attack on our constitution and secularism,” he told Arab News.

In Assam, some places saw violence with a vehicle belonging to the BJP state president vandalized.

In New Delhi, different civil society groups and individuals gathered close to the Indian Parliament and expressed their outrage at the “open and blatant attack” on what they called the “idea” of India.

“The CAB is not only against Muslim minorities but against all the minorities — be it Tamils or Nepali Gurkhas — and is a blatant attempt to polarize the society in the name of religion and turn India into a majoritarian Hindu state,” Nadeem Khan, head of United Against Hate, a campaign to connect people from different faiths, said.

Rallies and protests were also organized in Pune, Ahmadabad, Allahabad, Patna and Lucknow.

On Tuesday, more than 600 academics, activists, lawyers and writers called the bill “divisive, discriminatory, unconstitutional” in an open letter, and urged the government to withdraw the proposed law.

They said that the CAB, along with the NRC, “will bring untold suffering to people across the country. It will damage fundamentally and irreparably, the nature of the Indian republic.”

Delhi-based activist and a prominent human rights campaigner, Harsh Mander, said: “I feel the CAB is the most dangerous bill that has ever been brought by the Indian Parliament. We need a mass civil disobedience movement to oppose this legislation.”

Meanwhile, the international community is also watching the domestic debate on the CAB. 

Describing the initiative as a “dangerous turn in the wrong direction,”  a federal US commission on international religious freedom has sought US sanctions against Shah and other Indian leaders if the bill with the “religious criterion” is passed.

EU ambassador to India, Ugo Astuto, in a press conference in New Delhi on Monday said that he hopes: “The spirit of equality enshrined in the Indian constitution will be upheld by the Parliament.”