Reading Response #3: Zolov’s The Last Good Neighbor

Allison Brown HIST 4494 Dr. Hampton April 13, 2022 Reading Response #3: Zolov’s The Last Good Neighbor Zolov’s chapters fromThe Last Good Neighbor discuss how the Cold War impacted the diplomatic, economic, political, and trade relations between the U.S. and Latin American countries. A superficial observation about these chapters and time is the undeniable connection between the USSR and the socialist and communist movements in Latin America. How these bilateral and multilateral relations are impacted by larger political discourses and how the policies of “containment” would shape relations. In the third chapter,Mexico’s New Internationalism: Regional Leadership Amid the Tumult of the Cuban Revolution Zolov analyzes how nationalism and how socialist policies in Latin America impacted the relationship s between the U.S. and Latin America and the “Good Neighbor” policies which defined international relations prior to this new era. Zolov summarizes this combination between nationalism and socialist leanings, “The nationalist pageantry tied to the commemorative celebrations in the fall of 1960 showcased Mexico as a politically mature, economically vibrant nation primed to assert a larger international presence. An American businessman on hand for the events described a “sense of tensity that has not been evident in Mexico for many years” (Zolov, pg. 105). This showcase of Mexico stood in the juxtaposition of American investments and economics in the region. It’s also interesting to break down the “pageantry of nationalism” and how this impacts the relationship with the U.S., especially given the signs of U.S. nationalism and pageantry at this time in the post-WWII era and moving closer to the Cuban Missile Crisis which would profoundly change U.S.-Latin American relations. Similar to Cuba and other nations at this time which were acting opposed to the U.S., Mexico would nationalize oil and electricity at different times with Zolov denoting it as an “... important turning point … [which was] technically the process was far less dramatic than the expropriation of the oil companies in 1938, and the economic stakes for foreign investors were nowhere near as significant, the action was framed by the administration as the endpoint in a trilogy of the recovery of national resources: land, oil, electricity” (pg. 106). In the fourth chapter, The Spirit of Bandung in Mexican National Politics, Zolov discusses the power transfers and changes which took place in Mexico, “Lázaro Cárdenas sent a clear message to the United States that López Mateos was indeed in charge … But while removing Cárdenas from the domestic front was reassuring to investors, the consolidation of presidential authority also emboldened López Mateos” (pg. 138). This period in Mexico continually redefined the relationship between Mexico and the U.S. as Mexico acted more as an autonomous nation and the U.S. “control” shifted to that of economic pressure as the text summarizes, “... while Washington could impede a geopolitical reorientation that was deemed too independent, how and where that line was defined became the subject of intense internal policy debate within the State Department” (pg. 139). Questions: 1. In what ways are economic trade policies and countries nationalizing resources worsen the “good neighbor policies” between the U.S. and Latin American states? Why do nationalizations of resources (both in LAC and globally) often lead to further escalation economically or politically? 2. How does the U.S. with a continued economic presence maintain international pressure and power within Mexico? And what are the impacts of this economic influence today?