In what aspect of governance does Claudia Sheinbaum's decision signify a stance against intervention?

Claudia Sheinbaum's decision signifying a stance against intervention is best understood in the context of military intervention. This aspect of governance often involves a country intervening in the affairs of another, typically through the use of military force, to impose its will or influence. When a leader or government expresses opposition to military intervention, it generally reflects a commitment to non-interference in the sovereignty of other nations and supports a preference for resolving conflicts through diplomatic rather than aggressive means.

In her role, Sheinbaum would be asserting the importance of respecting international norms regarding sovereignty and might advocate for peaceful resolutions rather than resorting to military action. This position can play a crucial role in shaping national defense policies and foreign relations, especially in scenarios where military intervention could be considered a viable course of action.