The Massacre of Tlatelolco on October the 2nd 1968 on the Plaza de las Tres Culturas is generally acknowledged to have been a watershed for Mexico’s history. Some call it Mexico’s Tiananmen Square to emphasize the political long of the participants for more democracy. However, it can’t be doubted that the massacre was the climax of Mexico’s state repression during the 70s. The incidents of Tlatelolco had deep impact on Mexico’s political life and on the international perception of Mexico.
By these days, Mexico is the biggest Spanish speaking country in Latin America with enormous economic and historical ties to the United States. The Mexican United States common history has often been depicted by mistrust and mutual suspicion. Nevertheless, the relations between the two countries did vary. During the beginning of the 19th century economic cooperation between Porfirio Diaz and the US administration reached a never known efficiency, where as in the 40s during the Lázaro Cardenas administration the expropriation of the Oil industry caused tremendous confrontation.
With the degree of cooperation also varied the degree of America influence on Mexico’s decision-making process and thus on its history. Due to this constant influence, one who researches the incidents of Tlatelolco therefore has to look on Mexican-American-relations to understand in how far the United States could have been involved or what part the United States has played in the massacre of Tlatelolco.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Framing the historical Circumstances from outside and inside
2.1 Mexico and US relations in the international arena
2.2 Mexico historical development until the massacre of 68
3. The student movement of 1968
4. The US and its role in the massacre of 68
4.1. Interests
4.2 US perception of the Student Movement
4.3 US perception of the Diaz Ordaz Administration
4.4 After Tlatelolco
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines the role and perception of the United States government regarding the 1968 student movement in Mexico and the subsequent Tlatelolco massacre. The central research question explores to what extent the U.S. was involved in these events and how American intelligence and diplomatic entities perceived the actions of the Diaz Ordaz administration throughout the escalation of civil unrest.
- Analysis of U.S.-Mexican bilateral relations during the Cold War.
- Examination of the political climate in Mexico leading up to 1968.
- Evaluation of U.S. intelligence reports and diplomatic correspondence from the era.
- Investigation into the U.S. priority of regional stability over democratic reform.
Excerpt from the Book
4.2 US perception of the Student Movement
The United States started early to investigate the strength of the Mexican student movement. Reasons were the huge student revolts that broke out in France and which had reached a huge degree of momentum. So in June 1968 the US administration had already urged an analysis of the situation in Mexico. The embassy characterized the situation as harmless to political stability: “There are now not present conditions such as appear to have caused French crisis, and it is most unlikely that such conditions will rapidly develop here…“.41 Nevertheless, in the same report was mentioned that the degree of strength of the student movement was closely connected to the authority of the president Diaz Ordaz so the letter goes on: ……at least until 1970 when president Diaz Ordaz terms end…….the degree of effectiveness of the next administration in its measures to cope with the problems will be a key factor.”42 For that moment the US administration was not worried about an escalation such as in France but they considered it to might have negative impact in the future. The US definitely had its concerns or wanted to prevent a situation such as in France otherwise they wouldn’t have continued the research on the situation. On July 6th the embassy repeated the position made in June. This time the argument was based on sociographical investigation: “Student unrest is endemic in Mexico, has almost always focused on local issues.....common life cycle of a young man is to go through Marxist phase (often extreme) and to be absorbed by establishment again….situation is unlikely to reach critical situation.”43
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the Tlatelolco massacre as a historical watershed and outlines the paper's aim to analyze the U.S. role amidst the complex historical relations between the two countries.
2. Framing the historical Circumstances from outside and inside: Details the international context of Cold War polarization and the internal political system in Mexico, characterized by centralized power and social control.
3. The student movement of 1968: Describes the emergence of organized student protest, its expansion, and the subsequent brutal state response that culminated at the Plaza de las Tres Culturas.
4. The US and its role in the massacre of 68: Analyzes specific U.S. interests, perceptions of the movement and the Mexican administration, and the diplomatic handling of the crisis before and after the massacre.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes how U.S. Cold War priorities and a desire for stability led to a policy of loyalty toward the Mexican government, ultimately blinding U.S. officials to the nature of the state's repression.
Keywords
Tlatelolco, Mexico, United States, Cold War, Student Movement, Diaz Ordaz, PRI, Foreign Policy, Political Stability, Intelligence, Repression, Diplomacy, 1968, Plaza de las Tres Culturas, Communism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary subject of this research paper?
The paper investigates the role of the United States government regarding the 1968 student movement in Mexico and the subsequent massacre at Tlatelolco.
What are the central themes addressed in the text?
Key themes include U.S.-Mexican bilateral relations during the Cold War, the nature of the PRI political system in Mexico, the U.S. perception of student activism, and the prioritization of regional stability over human rights.
What is the main research question of the work?
The author seeks to determine the extent of U.S. involvement in the events of 1968 and to understand the specific perspective of U.S. officials toward the Mexican administration's repressive tactics.
Which methodology is employed in this study?
The research relies on an analysis of primary source documents from the American Embassy, the White House, the Department of Defense, and the CIA, contextualized by existing secondary historical literature.
What topics are covered in the main body of the text?
The body chapters cover the historical context of Mexico, the development of the 1968 student movement, the U.S. perceptions of the student protests and the Diaz Ordaz regime, and the diplomatic response after the massacre.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The paper is best characterized by terms such as Tlatelolco, Cold War, PRI, U.S. foreign policy, political stability, and state repression.
How did the U.S. perceive the student protests initially?
Initially, U.S. officials viewed the protests as endemic to Mexican youth and unlikely to reach a critical stage, often dismissing the possibility of a systemic crisis similar to those occurring elsewhere in the world at the time.
What role did the Cold War play in the U.S. approach to the crisis?
The Cold War lens forced U.S. officials to view the student movement through a binary of communist versus non-communist, leading them to maintain support for the status quo in Mexico to ensure regional stability.
Does the author conclude that the U.S. played a direct role in the massacre?
The author states there is no evidence of a direct and active U.S. role in the massacre itself, but concludes that the U.S. shared intelligence with the regime and failed to leverage its influence to prevent the brutal state repression.
- Quote paper
- Nicolas Martin (Author), 2006, The Massacre of Tlatelolco - The role of the United States in the incidents of 1968, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/57180
