Mexico excludes King Felipe VI from Sheinbaum inauguration

Mexico excludes King Felipe VI and demands apology for the conquest

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has decided not to invite King Felipe VI to her inauguration because he has not apologized for the conquest, according to the Spanish government. In response to what it considers an unacceptable exclusion, the Spanish government has refused to attend the event. This decision has peine the debate on historical memory, the legitimacy of apologies, and Spain's role in the Americas.

Sheinbaum's gesture is not an isolated incident. It fits within a policy of reclaiming indigenous heritage and distancing itself from colonial legacy. The president, of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, has been criticized for her own record: she is accused of not apologizing for corruption or drug trafficking while demanding apologies from Spain. The controversy has escalated into a diplomatic standoff.

Why is Mexico not inviting King Felipe VI?

The refusal to invite the Spanish monarch is officially justified by the lack of a formal apology for the conquest. However, analysts and critics argue it is a smokescreen to divert attention from Mexico's internal problems: violence, corruption, and economic dependence on the United States. The president seeks an external enemy to consolidate her base.

In Spain, the reaction was swift. The government labeled the exclusion unacceptable and decided not to send representation. This leaves Spain out of an event that other international leaders will attend, reinforcing the view that Mexico seeks a symbolic gesture rather than a serious historical debate.

The double standard of historical memory

Critics note that the demand for an apology for the conquest contrasts with the absence of claims against the United States for half of Mexican territory lost in 1848. The president has not asked Washington for apologies nor demanded the return of Texas, California, or New Mexico. She has also not questioned the role of multinationals or drug trafficking in destabilizing the country.

The paradox is evident: historical responsibility is demanded from Spain, but contemporary responsibility of other actors is ignored. Selective memory thus becomes a political tool. The debate on the conquest is legitimate in itself: it involves reviewing the official narrative and acknowledging abuses, but also nuancing the role of indigenous peoples in the creation of the viceroyalty and subsequent independence.

Diplomatic and economic consequences

Excluding King Felipe VI will have no immediate economic effects: Spanish companies continue operating in Mexico and bilateral trade remains robust. However, the gesture damages Mexico's image as a reliable partner and reinforces the perception of a government more interested in rhetoric than management. For Spain, the absence at the inauguration is a diplomatic anomaly that may repeat if relations are not mended.

In the long term, this standoff weakens Mexico's position in international forums and complicates cooperation on security and migration. The president has bet on a symbolic gesture that earns applause at home but costs diplomatic capital abroad. The question is whether the cost is worth it.

---

Conclusion: Excluding King Felipe VI is a symptom of the politics of gestures dominating Spain-Mexico relations. Apologies for the conquest have become a weapon that prevents addressing real problems. Meanwhile, citizens in both countries still await concrete solutions, not historical apologies.