Diego Escobar-Garcia U.S. - Latin American RelationsDr. Gerald PoyoApril 9th, 2015

Colds War Aftermath: Latin America

After the fall of the pro-Communist USSR, and the rise of the more capitalist-friendly Russian Federation, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Cold War was, for all pragmatic purposes, over. Capitalism won and the United States of America became, militarily, and economically the only super power in the world. The U.S. had prospered and its citizens were living the American Dream. The story in Latin America was different. During the period of the Cold War, Washington paranoia with the spread of communism left Latin American nations thorn. There were military dictatorships, which viewed any sort of socialistic reforms as communist. People began to organize themselves, and many wars, especially in Central America arose. Latin America then resorted to old economic practices to reactivate the local economies, but in order to get funded, government funding was significantly reduced and free trade along with privatizations became part of the new Latin American economic agenda. The social unrest produced by these policies created a new social reality, closely resembling the neo-colonial era, and the Zapatista movement was an example of the new neo-liberal era.The day that the North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect between Mexico, Canada and the United States, the Zapatista movement in the state of Chiapas officially declared wart against the Mexican government. The Zapatista movement was a way of protest by the most affected sector of Mexican society by the neo-liberal policies that the country had adapted to better its economy. The cry was desperate, we can read in the document they dont care that we have nothingno land, no work, no health care, no food, no education (Holden and Zolov 346). The vast majority of people in Chiapas are Indians and peasants and traditionally are the most affected by deep cuts in government spending, the Zapatista declaration clearly shouts about this negligence for the government. Along with the obvious economic disadvantage of the lower classes, the Zapatistas were aware that through Mexico, and in fact, many Latin American nations, it was the work of the lower and middle classes that created the wealth and therefore the prosperity of the country, noted when the Zapatistas state we are the inheritors of the true builders of our nation. The dispossessed, we are million, and we thereby call upon our brothers and sisters to join this struggle as the only path (Zolov and Holden 346). The insurgency thought that because of their entitlement to the nations wealth, and because of the historic abuse of power that had ruled Mexico, they could call people to boycott the government and create a democratic, non-dictatorial way of government. The Zapatistas made this very clear on their document where they state enough is enough we are [not] able to freely elect and democratically elect our political representatives, nor is independence from foreigners, nor is there peace nor justice for ourselves as children (Holden and Zolov 346).For the Zapatista army, the neo-liberal policies that were being put into effect through Latin America, were the same policies that the Spanish had placed upon them during the colonial rule, followed by the neo-colonial policies, and the US interventions during the Cold War. The Zapatistas reasoned that if they were the people, thus they could overthrow the government who was serving others, but the nationals. They wanted a government that spoke the language of the oppressed and who would commit to help them build a new nation, with policies that would reflect the social reality of their particular countries, not the global reality.

Bibliography1. The Zapatista Army of National Liberation, Insurgency After the Cold War in Latin America and the United States A Documentary History. Edited by Robert H. Holden and Eric Zolov 345-347. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. 2. Peter H. Smith. Talons of the Eagle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.