The judgment of the ICJ may come within months. In theory it will be final. In practice Venezuela, which President Donald Trump now claims to “run”, is likely to ignore it. Power to enforce it lies with the United Nations Security Council; it has never successfully done so with such a contentious ICJ decision. ■ Sign up to El Boletín, our subscriber-only newsletter on Latin America, to understand the forces shaping a fascinating and complex region. This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//the-americas/2026/05/07/venezuelas-100-year-territorial- dispute-is-back-in-court
Claudia Sheinbaum is in a bind, with her party accused of corruption How she deals with America’s indictment of Morena officials could define her presidency May 7th 2026 Claudia Sheinbaum’s efforts to improve security in Mexico have long had an obvious weakness: her reluctance to pursue high-level officials in Morena, her ruling party, who may be co-operating with narcos. Now the United States has forced the issue, presenting her with a choice that will shape her presidency and relations with Mexico’s northern neighbour. On April 29th the United States Department of Justice published an indictment charging ten Morena-linked officials, three of them party politicians, with conspiring with the Sinaloa Cartel to traffic drugs into the United States. Among the Morena politicians was Rubén Rocha Moya, the
governor of Sinaloa, who has since stepped down. The charges allege years of collusion, including taking bribes and electoral support from gangsters in exchange for impunity. Donald Trump has been pushing Mexico to do more to tackle its criminal groups, including pointing to an “intolerable nexus” with politicians. Few are surprised by the charges. Credible allegations about Mr Rocha Moya have circulated for years. Reports suggested the Sinaloa Cartel helped him win his office in 2021. Rival candidates were kidnapped and threatened, ballot boxes stolen. Mr Rocha Moya and many others deny the charges. Corruption is the unfortunate norm in Mexican politics, says Luis Donaldo Colosio Riojas, an opposition senator from the Citizens’ Movement party. “But the ruling party takes it to another level.” César Prieto, the Morena mayor of Salamanca, a city in central Mexico, says corruption exists in all parties, including his own, but that Mexicans should rest assured that justice will be done. The gangs’ success is part of the problem. As they grew richer and better armed they could more easily encourage, or force, officials to work with them. But Morena has made it easier to be corrupt. Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Ms Sheinbaum’s predecessor, took a hands-off approach to crime while weakening or removing many of the checks that once constrained power, including moving to an elected judiciary. Mr Rocha Moya is just one of several Morena bigwigs suspected of links to gangs. People close to Ms Sheinbaum argue that she has acted: arresting local officials, extraditing gangsters to the United States and dismantling drug labs. They also say the Americans underestimate her constraints. Morena is a loose coalition, still heavily shaped by Mr López Obrador, whose allies include governors accused of links to organised crime. Moving against them could fracture the party. Her critics say caution is an excuse for inaction. Morena did not have to rally around Mr Rocha Moya as enthusiastically as it has. Some suspect the party fears what might come out if corruption were taken more seriously. “There will be a domino effect that will reach the highest levels of power,”
predicts Paola Gárate, a lawmaker in Sinaloa’s state congress for the opposition Institutional Revolutionary Party. The indictment could provide Ms Sheinbaum with cover to take on previously untouchable figures. The arrest of senior members of the Sinaloa Cartel—including co-founder Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada—by the FBI in 2024 is thought to have given prosecutors chunky evidence of corruption. But Ms Sheinbaum’s government says that it has seen nothing which supports the recent charges. Charging or extraditing Mr Rocha Moya could provoke a backlash in the party. But freeing him could worsen relations with the United States. Risks abound. The United States, Mexico and Canada must soon decide whether to renew their free-trade accord beyond 2036, its current end date. The United States may well bring more cases against Mexican officials. Mr Trump has even weighed unilateral military action against Mexico’s gangs. So far Ms Sheinbaum has responded by questioning the charges and accusing the United States of trampling on Mexico’s sovereignty. But some suspect she quietly forced Mr Rocha Moya to go. The involvement of the United States makes it harder for her to handle public opinion. Many Mexicans back action against corrupt officials, but dislike American interference. Corruption has long been tolerated in Mexico. Change has come only when people realise there is a cost, says Oliver Meza of Tecnológico de Monterrey, a university. During the presidency of Enrique Peña Nieto from 2012 to 2018, several governors were jailed as public anger rose over blatant abuses. Morena came to power in 2018 promising to do away with corruption. This time Sinaloense may provide the impetus for change. Violence in the state has been surging. Thousands have been killed in recent months, or have disappeared. If voters begin to link their insecurity with political collusion, Ms Sheinbaum’s hand may be forced. ■ Sign up to El Boletín, our subscriber-only newsletter on Latin America, to understand the forces shaping a fascinating and complex region.
This article was downloaded by zlibrary from https://www.economist.com//the-americas/2026/05/07/claudia-sheinbaum-is-in-a-bind- with-her-party-accused-of-corruption
Narendra Modi has extended his grip on India Asia’s stranded seafarers suffer as the Iran war drags on The energy shock triggers an Asian dash for biofuels The gutting of USAID has left a void China will not fill America is massing troops near Taiwan to deter troublemaking by
Narendra Modi has extended his grip on India India’s ruling party scores a historic victory in West Bengal—but should beware voters’ unhappiness with incumbents May 7th 2026 SIX WEEKS ago Narendra Modi stood on a temple-like stage in Kolkata, before a sea of saffron-clad voters. The event marked the beginning of his party’s campaign to win the populous and important state of West Bengal, one of five states that voted over the past few weeks in elections whose results were announced on May 4th. India’s prime minister, a Hindu- nationalist strongman, was in a typically pugilistic mood. He accused party members from Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress (TMC) of taking “cut money” and conspiring in “infiltration” from neighbouring Bangladesh. “Every single one will be made to pay,” he told the cheering crowd.
Bengalis will now get to see what he meant. Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won a landslide in the eastern state, in one of its most important victories since it came to power nationally 12 years ago. Even as incumbents elsewhere struggled, the BJP also won a third term, with 37.8% of the vote, in neighbouring Assam (see map). Nor was Ms Banerjee the only once- mighty regional leader booted out. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, M.K. Stalin was ejected. In neighbouring Kerala, the incumbent Communists were also kicked out by voters. Controversy has swirled over the way the elections were run. Mr Modi is not the first Indian leader to use his power over institutions to tilt elections in his favour. But he is perhaps the most ruthless in doing so since Indira Gandhi cancelled them altogether in the 1970s. His latest tool, wielded most aggressively in West Bengal, is the revision of electoral rolls that, say critics, left millions unable to vote. Yet as concerning as such methods are, they cannot explain Mr Modi’s dominance, which depends on his ability to unify Hindu voters. His coalition now runs 22 of the 31 states and territories with elected legislatures. The BJP had already begun to march eastwards from its Hindi-speaking heartlands, winning Tripura in 2018 and Odisha in 2024. But West Bengal was the prize it had long wanted. The state has a rich history, notably as a
hotbed of nationalist politics. Kolkata, its capital, is one of the great Indian cities. The state’s main attraction, however, is its size: with a population of 100m and some 42 seats in the Lok Sabha, the national parliament, it carries great electoral clout. Assuming the BJP suffers some attrition in its heartlands in the coming years, says Milan Vaishnav of the Carnegie Endowment, a think-tank, a foothold in West Bengal provides the party with some insurance. The scale of its victory—it won over 45% of the vote and more than two- thirds of seats in the state—indicates how many Bengalis were fed up after 15 years of TMC rule. Under Ms Banerjee, industries moved out and the state’s economy fell behind that of much of the rest of the country. Voters had come to see her party as authoritarian and corrupt; the BJP focused on a teacher-recruitment scandal, while vowing to bring investment and to match Ms Banerjee’s promises of freebies. It did particularly well among urban, middle-class voters. And it won a large portion of the Hindu vote, making the electorate in West Bengal one of the most religiously polarised of any state in India. Even if the way the election was conducted did not sway the result, it is concerning. More than 9m names, 11% of the electorate, were removed from the electoral roll. Disproportionately these were Muslims, women and Dalits