Source: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-12-19/why-is-mexicos-amlo-one-of-the-worlds-most-popular-politicians-we-took-a-road-trip-to-find-out

The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) is a political party in Mexico that was founded in 1929 and governed Mexico for much of the 20th century. The PRI was known for its strong, centralized, and authoritarian style of government, which relied on a combination of corruption, cooptation, and repression to maintain power (Dawson 2022). For much of its history, the PRI was the dominant political force in Mexico, winning every presidential election from 1929 to 2000. The PRI’s dominance was based on a combination of factors, including its control over the government bureaucracy, its close ties to the country’s powerful economic interests, and its ability to co-opt and divide its opposition (Dawson 2022). However, the PRI’s dominance began to wane in the 1980s and 1990s as a result of economic crises, growing social inequality, and widespread corruption. In 2000, the PRI lost the presidential election for the first time in 71 years, and the party has struggled to regain its former dominance since then.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, commonly known as AMLO, is a Mexican politician who has been involved in Mexican politics for decades. He is a member of the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA), a left-wing political party that was founded in 2014. AMLO has a long history of opposition to the PRI and has run for president several times before. AMLO’s ascendancy to the presidency in 2018 was in part due to the widespread discontent with the PRI’s long history of corruption and authoritarianism. In the lead-up to the election, AMLO ran a populist campaign that focused on addressing issues such as poverty, inequality, and corruption, which resonated with many Mexican voters (Linthicum 2022). AMLO’s victory in the 2018 presidential election was also due in part to the fact that he was able to unite a diverse coalition of voters, including indigenous communities, labor unions, and urban progressives. This broad-based support helped him win a decisive victory in the election, defeating his main opponent, the candidate of the right-wing National Action Party (PAN).

One of the main reasons for AMLO’s popularity is his expansion of the nation’s welfare system, which includes cash transfers to millions of older Mexicans, students, young workers, and people with disabilities. These direct payments have had a significant impact on households in the southern state of Oaxaca, where nearly every household is benefiting from at least one of the entitlement programs (Linthicum 2022). In addition, electric bills and gas prices have decreased in the south due to government subsidies.

AMLO’s supporters in the south, such as Carmelo Morrugares, a coconut seller, and Carlos Estrada, a salt mine worker, have seen tangible improvements in their lives. Morrugares’ pay has doubled and his elderly father and student daughter now receive welfare payments from the government (Linthicum 2022). Estrada, who previously had to work until he died due to being in the informal economy and not eligible for a pension, will now be able to retire when he turns 65 thanks to the welfare payments he will receive (Linthicum 2022). In addition to the welfare programs, AMLO has also focused on infrastructure projects in the south, including the repaving of the highway and the refurbishment of a train line (Linthicum 2022). These projects have brought investment to the impoverished region and have been welcomed by residents.

It is clear that AMLO’s policies have had a significant impact on the lives of those living in the southern regions of Mexico. While his approaches and tactics may be controversial, his focus on addressing poverty and inequality in these areas has resonated with many in the south. However, it remains to be seen if his actions will lead to lasting and comprehensive change for the country as a whole.

In the last week, Peru faced a huge turn of events and it is unfortunately currently still an ongoing issue. The former president of Peru Pedro Castillo was arrested and removed from office and all his powers. The reason for this was because he attempted to dissolve the legislature, basically resign everyone in congress and leave him with all the power to decide on things. This was huge because he was already facing charges for conspiracy and corruption. Castillo had multiple cases against him including corruption, the theory was that he was using his power and how big he was to profit from public works. Meaning he would charge and get paid a certain amount from public works that is supposed to go to the government. This is what ultimately led to him attempting to change everything around in this coup. This ultimately led to him being taken down and leaving Dina Boluarte as the president, who is also the first female Peruvian president. This has all led to the whole country being affected. Riots break out in his defense and against him as well, leading to others just taking advantage of the situation and looting stores and taking things. Many acts of violence are being spread around the country at the moment and 6 people have died in the last couple of days. Families of loved ones are going through this, people who own these places are being destroyed, and it just worsens the economy and healthiness of the country as a whole. “After years of democracy, Peru is in the midst of a constitutional collapse that can’t be called anything but a coup”  (The Associated Press). That quote pretty much summarizes what crisis Peru is currently facing as the president attempted to take power and form something very similar to dictatorship. This isn’t the only political crisis Peru has faced in the last couple of years, Peru has had issues with other former presidents that didn’t serve full terms. There have now been 5 different presidents in the last 6 years, leaving Dina Boluarte as our current president who still isn’t in the clear to the people as she just started her term and is already facing controversy due to this whole situation. This crisis reminds me of some of the lessons and topics we discussed and viewed throughout the semester. As we read Latin America since Independence by Alexander Dawson throughout class I discovered many new things on how things were run when a new revolution began in these countries. This reminded me when we read about dictators in some of these countries and how they dealt with it. First part was about Brazil and how a dictator was bringing down their own country. “Dictatorial powers also allowed the regime to drive down the minimum wage. By 1970 a third of Brazilian workers had seen their income drop by 50%” (Dawson 235). This shows how this type of ruling doesn’t really help out the country or the economy and actually makes it drop down so low probably to its poorest. All the money is being taken and spent by the dictator that the people don’t really have a chance to prosper. Then it spoke about the situation that happened in Argentina “By the end of 1975, guerrillas had killed 137 soldiers. The Montoneros attacked the police academy and detonated a bomb next to the army headquarters” (Dawson 237). These readings we read throughout the semester are very similar to what is going on in Peru right now. A country in Latin America facing a political crisis trying to rebuild as a whole while facing violence and protests.

Works Cited:

Dawson, Alexander. Latin America since Independence: A History with Primary Sources. 3^rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2022.

Article: https://www.npr.org/2022/12/07/1141307938/peru-president-dissolves-congress-pedro-castillo

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/04/world/americas/chile-constitution-no.html

The article from the New York Times titled “Chile Says ‘No’ to Left-Leaning Constitution After 3 Years of Debate” published on September 4, 2022 was a major surprise to everyone as they believed that Chile would be more interested in abandoning their current laws and regulations but it is a they are very conservative nation so 62% of the population of Chile voted against this new constitution. This constitution would have introduced laws like legalized abortion and required universal healthcare. It aimed to really pull away from laws and regulations that were introduced in Pinochet’s dictoral rule over the nation. The President of Chile was forced to go back to Congress to go over the constitution so they can attempt to rewrite it to find a common ground with the people of Chile. In 2020 it was voted on whether or not to abandon their current constitution. The government of Chile had this idea of rewriting a new constitution in 2019 after there were protest over the sudden price hike for subway fares which left 30 people dead. This type of violence really sent the message the Chilean government that there should be a change and they decided to start with the constitution as they felt as they could introduce new reforms that would benefit every citizen. But many citizens were skeptical as it did give the government much more power as it would have completely eliminated the Chilean senate and allowed for presidents to run for a second term. The new constitution was viewed as very leftist and that turned many Chileans away from the idea of it going through. The new constitution would have also given Indigenous groups more autonomy as they make up 13% of Chiles population but it became very controversial as it possibly meant they could be recognized as their own nation and would no longer be considered as a plurinational state. Also very controversial in the south of Chile as there has long been conflict between indigenous groups and logging industry which often turned violent. These were all factors that caused the citizens of Chile to reject this constitution for a new one they would be more comfortable passing. Much time has passed from Pinochet’s rule as signified by the citizens voting to remove the constitution that was implemented during his reign and attempt to bring in a new one but many of the people in Chile are not interested in such a drastic change from what they are used too forcing the government to now look for a new constitution.

The article “The U.S. is Trying to Mend Ties with Venezuela. One Big Reason? Oil” analyzes the United States’ sanction, under Trump’s presidential term, that was placed on Venezuela and their oil. Now under President Biden, the United States is in efforts to restore their peace with Venezuela by authorizing “U.S.-based Chevron to resume limited oil operations” (Otis par 4). This action was due to the ban of Russian oil imports that aids Venezuela’s economy and hurts the US. Venezuela’s downhill economy under Maduro is expected to recover due to its exports with the US. The current president of Venezuela, Maduro, who still remains in power due to decree, has been under presidential chaos as Guaido was appointed as acting president and the president’s legitimacy is questioned. However, as Maduro remains in power, the growing economy favors his position. 

With the sanctions former president Trump has placed on Venezuela, it highlights and reinforces the United States previous intervention with Latin American countries. Friedman in “Neoliberalism and Its Prospects” advocates for “radical free-market policies” and eliminate government intervention (Friedman 271-272). To add on, in “Global Neoliberalism” by William I. Robinson, a  “laissez-faire approach” was promoted for “international trade and the elimination of state intervention “ (Robinson 274-275). With both documents, the efforts of Neoliberalism impacted Latin American countries and their governments such as Chile’s experimentation but US intervention under Reagan launched neoliberalism to capitalism (275).  

Several moments listed when the United States has intervened with Latin American countries was with Cuba during the Cold War and not being able to enter foreign trade agreements and/or treaties without the US’ approval, Mexico in 1914 when Wilson imposed a blockade on their port to unallow import of arms, and the halt of communism in Latin American countries and promote democracy. 

There has been constant efforts of the United States intervening with Latin American countries that impacts their economy. In fact, it is still present such as in Venezuela when Trump placed a sanction and now Biden is relieving such. History continues to repeat itself while the United States involves themselves in other countries and then tries to mend the consequences of their actions. 

Works Cited

Otis, John. “The U.S. Is Trying to Mend Ties with Venezuela. One Big Reason? Oil.” NPR. NPR, November 26, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/03/1133615222/us-venezuela-diplomacy-oil-sanctions-negotiations.

Wood, James A., Anna Rose Alexander, and Milton Friedman. “Neoliberalism and Its Prospects.” Document. In Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019. 

Wood, James A., Anna Rose Alexander, and William I. Robinson. “Global Neoliberalism.” Document. In Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2019. 

The news article from The New York Times, “‘Cuba Is Depopulating’: Largest Exodus Yet Threatens Country’s Future“, by Ed Augustin and Frances Robles, goes into detail about the current economic crisis in Cuba, causing mass migration like never before. The article focuses more on the individual people of Cuba and their current situation, while also providing relevant information on the statistics of current and past events.

Facing the challenges of the recent pandemic and sanctions by the U.S., Cuba has had one of the main lifelines for its economy and nation, tourism, decline heavily (Augustin and Robles). Crisis and economic problems in Cuba is not new and has been rampant within the last century. Alexander Dawson states that in the late 50s, “rural workers earned only about $91 annually,…the economic instability of the sugar industry… and foreign domination of the economy” left the country with a Gini coefficient of .57, meaning the economy was highly unequal between classes and many were barely able to get by (Dawson 211). Cuba at the time relied on their sugar industry as the main workforce for the people which was only viable for 8 months out of the year. This led to a revolution led by Castro; Castro’s reign was the cause of many to migrate as “he drove thousands of opponents into exile” (Dawson 209).

In 1965, 3,000 left from the port of Camarioca and in 1980, 125,000 departed from Mariel. The article describes the current migration as “larger than the 1980 Mariel boatlift and the 1994 Cuban rafter crisis combined” and “the biggest migration since Fidel Castro rose to power” (Augustin and Robles). Within the last year alone, 250,000 have migrated to the U.S., this data does not include Cubans who migrated to other countries. The article showcases the many people still in Cuba, to this day, who have failed to flee but won’t stop. Roger García Ordaz has attempted to flee 11 times and plans to try again as he would rather die by the sea than continue to accept his life in Cuba (Augustin and Robles). Currently in Cuba, “food has become even more scarce and more expensive, lines at pharmacies” being before they are even open, as supplies are scarce. Cuba regularly has blackouts for hours; the state tries to fight migration by now accepting flights from the U.S. for deported Cubans. Still, however, Cubans try to escape the troubled economy of a nation whose financial reserves are low and store shelves are inadequately stocked as food and fuel exports have been cut in half within the last 3 years (Augustin and Robles). Many like Yoel Taureaux Duvergel, a Cuban who has attempted multiple escapes, build makeshift boats out of car parts and whatever they can find. Others like Joan Cruz Méndez pay smugglers thousands to sneak them or loved ones into the United States (Augustin and Robles).

The main similarity between all of those who were mentioned in the article is that they will never quit trying for a better life as the state attempts to fight their migration to keep them in a crippling nation. Many Cubans have lost hope, as even though Cuba has faced very similar situations in the past, it only keeps getting worse as time goes on. From the textbook by Dawson to the news article, Cubans have been oppressed for the last century, protestors have been either jailed or exiled and the people go to great lengths to have an opportunity for life, as they view their current situation as not living, but surviving.

Works Cited

Dawson, Alexander S. Latin America since Independence a History with Primary Sources. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2022. 

Augustin, Ed, and Frances Robles. “’Cuba Is Depopulating’: Largest Exodus Yet Threatens Country’s Future.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Dec. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/10/world/americas/cuba-us-migration.html?searchResultPosition=1. 

In recent times there has been a massive inflow of migrants from Venezuela into New York City. According to the New York Times Article “What to Know About the Migrant Crisis in New York City”, there are over 20,000 migrants that have arrived into the city since spring 2022. Many of these migrants fled their country as Venezuela has been struggling economically. While Venezuelans go to neighboring countries, many instead go to the U.S. According to the article there are 7 million Venezuelans who have left the country while Venezuela only has a population of 29 million. Migrants leave their country for many reasons which are often characterized as a combination of push factors (poverty, a lack of opportunity, fear for one’s safety) and pull factors (job opportunities, a chance to be closer to family and friends who have already migrated, freedom from fear).(Dawson 287). It is interesting to note that although many Venezuelans leave because of poverty, there are those that “held assets abroad, and left under circumstances that were favorable to them (many had visas to the US or elsewhere and could migrate with relative ease).”(Dawson 289). For most migrants their reason for migrating is  because of Venezuela’s economy. Venezuela’s economy is in a state of decline which is caused by many factors such as Venezuela’s authoritarian  government along with Trump’s administration placing sanctions on Venezuela oil companies. The oil industry is very important to the economy of Venezuela, with these sanctions put in place it only further harmed their economy.

Venezuela’s migrants are going through what many migrants from other Latin American countries face when they enter the U.S.. One thing that is similar is how Venezuelans often seek asylum in the U.S.. During the 1980’s Central America had over 800,000 migrants who came to the U.S., and seeked asylum claims. President Reagan “insisted that these were economic migrants, not entitled to protection”(Dawson, 275). This led to many of these refugees to obtain legal status to live in the U.S.. Without a legal status many migrants struggled to find work. This can be seen with Venezuelan migrants who aren’t able to work as the article states if “they applied today for asylum, then they would be waiting at least six months before they could get their work permit.”

Attempts to help the Venezuelan migrants have been made. In October 2022, the Biden administration announced a new program that would allow up to 24,000 Venezuealns to be accepted into the country. But it also will expel migrants that cross the U.S. border illegally which has led to migrants being stranded in Mexico. As we can see the migrant crisis has resulted in many issues. Many migrants seek to start a new life in the U.S. but are often put on hold due to the sudden increase of migrants into the country. 

Dawson, Alexander. Latin America since Independence: A History with Primary Sources. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2022.
Meko, Hurubie. “What to Know about the Migrant Crisis in New York City.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Oct. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/article/nyc-migrant-crisis-explained.html.

After independence, much of Latin American foreign policy had been molded by its relationship with the United States. So I would like to discuss two important dynamics in the relationship, currency/ dollar dependence. The first represents the defining dynamic in the modern relationship between the United States and Latin America.

Many Latin American countries have had economies struggling with inflation in past decades. Some have been able to overcome that inflation, while others have failed to implement successful policies eliminating excessive inflation. Two examples are Argentina and el Salvador. The poor stability of the local currencies forces the citizens of these countries to seek dollars as a haven from inflation. In El Salvador, this has created an uncomfortable situation for the government, where their society is built on the dependence on the dollar and the fiscal policies of the United States. It puts el Salvador in a vulnerable position when the federal reserve bank lowers interest rates and effectively lowers the purchasing power of all the citizens of el Salvador. Effectively the United States has the power to export its inflation. Argentina, on the other hand, has a slightly different method of dealing with inflation. Agenrtiians have developed a culture where they spend their paychecks immediately since grocery prices can change in a  week, and what’s left of the pay, they save in the form of dollars and cryptocurrency. Both countries are developing crypto as a tool to exit dollar dependency. 

There has been a lot of media coverage concerning el Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin as a legal tender. There has been a lot of criticism and concern expressed for a country giving bitcoin legal status as a legal tender since that makes it more difficult to ban another nation’s currency. CNBC says that “The country faces plummeting economic growth and a high deficit.”. The media coverage influences bond prices and the ability of el Salvador to borrow. IMF has also spoken out in concern for el Salvador’s use of Bitcoin. The president argues against the US Media coverage critical of his adoption. He thinks it’s a good economic maneuver. In a way, media coverage can influence economies, so whatever the US media covers will have an impact. In this case, this CNBC article, which is very critical of Bitcoin adoption, describes the issues of bitcoin use. But we also have to understand this is in the context of other domestic attitudes critical towards crypto. That can be motivation coverage like this.

Works Cited:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/el-salvadors-bitcoin-holdings-down-60percent-to-60-million-one-year-later.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-04/el-salvador-s-bitcoin-revolution-is-failing-badly?leadSource=uverify%20wall

The war on drugs started 50 years ago in Latin America under the Nixon Administration. The United States would start a hard and rough fight against drug cartels to stop drugs flooding into the country. It first started with Mexican Marijuana in the early 1970s but would be most prevalent during Colombia’s cocaine cartels. The major Colombian cartels of Cali and Medellin started taking over as the main threat in the War on Drugs. Pablo Escobar would bring over “45 tons of cocaine to the United States annually by the early 1980s” (Dawson 357). Escobar would be at large until the early 1990s when he died in Medellin in December 1993. After Escobar cartels would spring up in Mexico, and other parts of Latin America, cartels were the next war on drugs. In 1998 the Zetas, was formed from the Mexican elite. This cartel was linked with brutal violence to send messages that they should not be trifled with. Mexican cartels would grow with many groups per region in the early 2000s. Cartels would recruit many of the poor population, both men and women were recruited for violent and nonviolent business for the cartels. Still today there are a lot of cartels not only in Mexico, but across Latin America, trying to make money and show their power to the world. 

Cartels have recruited and targeted many poor men and women who need money in Latin America across the last couple of decades. Men were mainly to use as muscle and women used to smuggle. In the article, Villain or Victim, written by Lauren Borders, Borders explains how women have gotten to jail more in the last couple years with charges of drug trafficking than ever before. It brings up points about how these women can be viewed as victims and villains of the war on drugs. Women can be seen as villains as they are spreading drugs across the globe which can lead to addiction and possibly death. They are also victims as cartels would target women to smuggle drugs for them for money. More money they would get from another job and at a faster rate. Women who are lower class in cities would smuggle drugs to help them get money. Not only this but that women that have children are more likely to be involved with cartels than women who do not have children. “Behind the statistics of the rapidly increasing number of women incarcerated for drug offenses in Latin America are tragic stories of women, often single mothers, who end up selling small amounts of drugs or transporting drugs in order to put food on the table for their children.” (Borders). This is quite sad for these women as they are turning to cartels and drug smuggling in order to make money for their children. Borders also talks about the idea that mothers should not get as much jail time for drug trafficking as legal administrations make these crimes have longer consequences than murder in Latin America. Families have been destroyed since the mother, who tried to support her children, got arrested and sentenced to 7 years in prison for drug smuggling. 

Women, although they didn’t have a violent role, did have a role in the smuggling of drugs from Latin America to another part of the globe. Women often were not seen as a threat to drug authorities and smuggling drugs with women was an easier option for drug cartels.  In Netflix’s show Narcos it was seen pregnant women were recruited to fly from Medellin to New York, Miami and other parts of the United States with small poaches of cocaine and other drugs with them. I do agree with Borders that there needs to be solutions to stop the lower classes from getting involved with drug cartels. There should be more consideration for these women who are caught smuggling who are trying to help feed their family. I think Borders did a great job with this article as it added insight to Americans about the problems women face with their involvement with drug cartels.

Work Cited:  

Dawson, Alexander S. Latin America since Independence a History with Primary Sources. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2022. 

Borders, Lauren. “Villain or Victim? Understanding the Role of Women in the Latin American Drug Trade.” WOLA, 16 Aug. 2022, https://www.wola.org/analysis/villain-or-victim-understanding-the-role-of-women-in-the-latin-american-drug-trade/. 

Brancato, Chris. “Narcos.” Season Narcos Season 1, episode 1-10, 2015. 

The article published on June 6, 2022 titled “Mexico’s Lopez Obrador to skip Summit of Americas over Cuba, Venezuela snub” was a major event regarding the relationship between the Latin American countries and the United States. President Joe Biden called for the Summit of the Americas, which is a conference that gathers the leaders from North, South, Central, and the Caribbean. It aims to enable warm and friendly relations between the US and Latin American nations. However, the Mexican President decided to boycott the event because the Biden did not leave an invitation for Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. He claimed that the summit cannot be conducted when not all of the countries are present, stating “That would be to continue with the old interventionist policy of lack of respect for nations and their people”. The gathering was set to take place in Los Angeles, which is home to the largest Hispanic and Latino community across the United States. Karine Jean-Pierre, the White House Press Secretary said that President Biden must follow through with his policy of not engaging with dictators or corruptive leaders. This has led to many Latin American nations decided to following in Mexico’s footsteps and boycott the summit. The President of Honduras and Guatemala, Xiomara Castro and Alejandro Giammattei respectively, decided to not go which is not a good look for the United States. Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador and Bolivian President Luis Arce also followed through and decline the invitation. According to the Press Secretary, President Biden had some pressing concerns to discuss with the Mexican leader. Issues such as climate change, COVID-19, and most importantly the migration crisis occurring. The rise of migration has been a growing concern for the United States, as they wanted to discuss methods to reduce the number of migrants among the Northern Triangle nations, which include Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala. When Donald Trump was president in 2019, he stopped foreign aid towards those countries and claimed that over $450 million was being stolen by the corrupt leaders. Trump had also changed the NAFTA agreement established in 1994, in which he raised tariffs and nearly closing the Mexican border for the lack of migration prevention. The nations of Latin America and most importantly Mexico are still feeling the effects of the laws established during Donald Trump’s term. President Joe Biden is ultimately trying his best to overturn those regulations in place while also benefiting the United States, therefore it is hard to blame the Mexicans and other Latin American nations for pulling out of this summit.

Works Cited:

https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/mexicos-lopez-obrador-to-skip-summit-of-americas-over-cuba-venezuela-snub/