The Mexican government signaled this week that its approach to fighting drug trafficking in the region could change after voters in the U.S. states of Colorado and Washington decided to legalize the recreational use of marijuana on Tuesday.

A top aide for Mexican President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto, who will take office in December, said Thursday that the passage of the two controversial voter referendums in the U.S.—Amendment 64 in Colorado and Initiative 502 in Washington—were potentially “game-changing.” Peña Nieto advisor Luis Vidagaray said the president-elect does not think that drug legalization will solve cartel violence in the region, but that Mexico’s drug strategies would now have to be revisited.

“Obviously we can’t handle a product that is illegal in Mexico, trying to stop its transfer to the United States, when in the United States, at least in part of the United States, it now has a different status,” Videgaray said.

About half of all marijuana consumed in the U.S. comes from Mexico, but it is not clear how much legalization of the drug in two U.S. states will impact the revenue of Mexican drug cartels. Eric Olson, deputy director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center, said that revenue from marijuana comprises about 20 percent of cartels’ total revenue. A 2010 study by the Rand Corporation said that drug cartels derive about 15 to 26 percent of their revenue from marijuana sales.

However, a different study, by the Mexican Competitiveness Institute, said that legalizing marijuana in just the state of Washington could cut drug cartel profits by $1.37 billion, or 23 percent.

Residents of Mexico City had mixed reactions to the news on Thursday. “What they do there, they do here, and for us that is a big problem,” said a Mexican woman interviewed by Univisión after the elections.

Another woman was less certain that legalization is a mistake. “I don’t know what the result will be, but I think it’s a path that we need to start looking at: the idea of legalizing certain drugs, certain things.”

Los movimientos estudiantiles en México no son nada nuevo. En 1912 una huelga estudiantil dio origen a la Escuela Libre de Derecho y en 1929 otra huelga de estudiantes consiguió la autonomía para la Universidad Nacional. Pero el gran momento llegó en 1968 cuando, enmarcado en un movimiento global de rebelión juvenil del cual muchos quizá no tenían conciencia, los estudiantes mexicanos encabezados por las universidades públicas, salieron a la calle en busca de un México más democrático y justo. Fueron duramente reprimidos el famoso 2 de octubre en Tlatelolco, y cuando quisieron volver a levantar cabeza en 1971, recibieron una nueva dosis de contención gubernamental.

Tuvieron que pasar casi treinta años para que, en 1999, los estudiantes de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) volvieran a dar la cara en defensa de la educación gratuita y del carácter público de la misma. Después de un largo año, el gobierno volvió a reprimir. Al tiempo que eso pasaba en la capital, en las principales ciudades de provincia se desarrollaron diversas huelgas estudiantiles locales, especialmente en Michoacán y Jalisco. Todos estos movimientos tenían, sin embargo, algo en común: todos tenían su origen en las universidades públicas.

En mayo de 2012 vimos el nacimiento de uno diferente. Durante la visita que el entonces candidato del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) a la presidencia de México, Enrique Peña Nieto, realizó a la Universidad Iberoamericana, de tradición jesuita, una gran cantidad de alumnos de ésta decidieron rechazarlo. El mal manejo que el PRI hizo de la situación, acusando de infiltrados a los alumnos que se manifestaron, así como minimizando el acontecimiento, aunado al silencio informativo de los principales medios de comunicación, impulsaron a un grupo de 131 alumnos de dicha universidad a realizar un video en el que mostraban su credencial de alumnos y aseguraban haber estado en la protesta. A raíz de eso surgió Yosoy132, un movimiento de estudiantes que rápidamente se propagó a otras instituciones educativas y que pronto se convirtió en el más importante desde 1968.

¿Qué lo hizo diferente a otros movimientos anteriores? El hecho de haber surgido en una universidad privada, a la que acuden en su mayoría jóvenes de familias acomodadas, y no en una universidad pública, donde tradicionalmente se han desarrollado este tipo de movimientos. Mucha gente se sorprendió al ver que estos jóvenes dijeron “ya basta” pues la mayoría de ellos eran muy pequeños cuando el PRI dejó la presidencia en el año 2000 como para recordar aquellos tiempos, y es poco probable que sus padres hubieran participado en algún movimiento anterior. En eso radicaba la novedad. Y más asombro causó en la sociedad cuando jóvenes del Tecnológico de Monterrey (ITAM), de la Universidad Panamericana e inclusive de la Universidad Anáhuac (ésta última perteneciente a los Legionarios de Cristo y la anterior al Opus Dei) se sumaron a ellos.

Eso sí que era histórico: jóvenes de las más elitistas universidades mexicanas saliendo a exigir elecciones limpias y a protestar por el monopolio de los medios de comunicación, que en México se encuentran en manos de dos grandes consorcios, Televisa y TvAzteca. Y para complicar aún más las cosas, pronto aparecieron células del movimiento en prácticamente toda la República e inclusive en muchas ciudades del mundo. En cualquier lugar donde hay mexicanos, han surgido pequeños grupos de Yosoy132, desde Nueva York hasta Arabia Saudita o China, situación que ni siquiera en el movimiento estudiantil de 1968 se había presentado.

Y así salieron a las calles. Al poco tiempo los vimos organizar manifestaciones frente a las oficinas centrales de Televisa, llamar a la gente a no votar por el PRI e invitar a las universidades públicas a sumarse a ellos. Comenzaron también a organizarse creando asambleas y mesas de discusión, incluyendo una para estar en contacto con los grupos internacionales. Al igual que en 1968 decidieron hacer un movimiento horizontal, sin líderes, para evitar así ser contenidos por el gobierno. Inmediatamente comenzaron a sufrir agresiones, las cuales denunciaron ante medios y gobiernos locales.

El 1 de diciembre Enrique Peña Nieto asumirá sus funciones como presidente del país. ¿Qué hará entonces Yosoy132? Al margen de las previsibles protestas que se realicen ese día, el movimiento necesita definirse y plantear claramente cuál es su intención a futuro, a riesgo de perder fuerza y terminar por diluirse. Es innegable que vienen días aciagos y que deben esperar un aumento significativo de la represión. Pero a fin de cuentas son jóvenes y el futuro es suyo. Si ellos no se encienden, ¿quién iluminará ésta oscuridad?

Most people outside of Mexico may have never heard of Ruy Salgado. But during the most recent electoral contest here, that name not only became known throughout Internet circles in Mexico, but was arguably one of the most influential voices of opposition in the country.

Ruy Salgado, a pseudonym, has an online alias known as el 5anto. Salgado is a nonprofit video blogger whose notoriety increased during these past elections for his very critical view of both the transparency of the process and the role of the mainstream media in “manipulating the truth.” He was also one of the most vocal in denouncing what he referred to as institutionalized fraud in the results that will bring the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party—PRI) back to power on December 1.

El 5anto’s modus operandi was to webcast himself live, wearing a blue luchador mask, providing news and opinion rarely present in mainstream media. This approach was part commercial flair, part self-protection. During the time his project was online, he attracted a growing audience whose members may not have all supported his beliefs, but who did attest to the professional way in which they are always presented: stating sources, structuring analyses and providing informed and argumentative opinion.

For his views and his attempts to “provide information”—always his prime objective—el 5anto became a target of multiple death threats. At one point he even fled the country and started streaming from an undisclosed location for fear of becoming yet another communicator permanently silenced by those who have made journalism an extremely dangerous profession in Mexico.

The conditional invitations for Mexico and Canada that were first extended during the G-20 Summit in Los Cabos, Mexico, this past June, have now become permanent. Both North American governments announced yesterday that they had joined the now-11-strong Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a cross-oceanic trade zone, in a move that was widely expected.

Public hearings for Canada and Mexico conducted by other TPP members were necessary prior to full invitation, according to TPP guidelines. Specifically, the U.S. Congress just completed a 90-day consultation that allowed the accession process to move forward.

Canada and Mexico now join the United States, Chile, Peru, New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam in a trade alliance that encompasses 658 million people and a combined GDP of $20.5 trillion—or 26 percent of global GDP.

Mexico and Canada will join their nine allies in Auckland, New Zealand, for the next round of TPP talks from December 3-12.

Dean Martin said it often: “You’re nobody till somebody loves you.” And right about now, Mexico’s political Left is feeling the pinch after its alpha leader, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), exited the strongest of the left-of-center parties, the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (Party of the Democratic Revolution—PRD), after Mexico’s electoral tribunal declared Enrique Peña Nieto of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (Institutional Revolutionary Party—PRI) president-elect.

Many, including Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard (PRD) saw the writing on the wall, but not the millions who watched AMLO become PRD party president, Mexico City mayor under the PRD and twice PRD’s candidate for president. At a public event at the nation’s zócalo (central plaza) on September 9, AMLO made two major announcements. First, that he would not recognize Peña Nieto as Mexico’s legitimate president; and second, that he was leaving the PRD with hopes of transforming his social movement, the Movimiento Regeneración Nacional (National Regeneration Movement—MORENA) to a new, left-of-center party.

In 2005, MORENA became AMLO’s grassroots arm with local committees all over Mexico. It developed coalitions with civil society organizations and other local groups in an effort to promote AMLO in the run-up to the 2006 presidential race. On paper, MORENA served as a civil society organization. In reality, and interestingly, MORENA had no formal statutes or rules for its members, except to follow the dictates of its grand leader AMLO. Fast forward to 2012 where AMLO plans to use this base of social soldiers to develop what he hopes will become the party “that will save Mexico.”

Many question whether MORENA will find its way. First, analysts note that AMLO is no strategist—and that he loathes counsel. Second, tearing the Left at a time when the Left needs unity in the upper and lower chambers of congress will only paint AMLO as inconsiderate and selfish, and portray its newly elected deputies and senators as incompetent and disorganized.

Fears of a trade war between the United States and Mexico escalated on Thursday following a preliminary decision in the politics of tomatoes. In a surprising and premature ruling, the Commerce Department sided with Florida tomato producers in terminating an agreement that has set a minimum price on Mexican tomatoes imported into the United States over the past 16 years.

The Mexican Government has already threatened to retaliate, with ramifications for other commodity producers caught in the cross-fire. Earlier this week, Secretary of Economy Bruno Ferrari had promised that if the United States makes a hasty decision, instead of conducting a standard 270-day review, “Mexico will use all our legal means to defend our producers.” A final ruling could also endanger talks over other bilateral trade disputes.

For Mexican tomato growers, termination of the agreement would allow U.S. growers to file formal complaints accusing the Mexicans of unfair trade practices, which they did repeatedly before the agreement’s adoption in 1996. The Mexicans argue that they are being punished for their success—for growing a superior product and for honoring the pact over 16 years.

Thursday’s announcement seemed particularly harsh given the timing: Mexican tomato producers were scheduled to meet with officials at the Commerce Department on Friday to discuss ways to resolve the dispute. The growers have said they are willing to accept a higher floor price for their tomatoes.

Fears of a trade war between the United States and Mexico escalated on Thursday following a preliminary decision in the politics of tomatoes. In a surprising and premature ruling, the Commerce Department sided with Florida tomato producers in terminating an agreement that has set a minimum price on Mexican tomatoes imported into the United States over the past 16 years.

The Mexican Government has already threatened to retaliate, with ramifications for other commodity producers caught in the cross-fire. Earlier this week, Secretary of Economy Bruno Ferrari had promised that if the United States makes a hasty decision, instead of conducting a standard 270-day review, “Mexico will use all our legal means to defend our producers.” A final ruling could also endanger talks over other bilateral trade disputes.

For Mexican tomato growers, termination of the agreement would allow U.S. growers to file formal complaints accusing the Mexicans of unfair trade practices, which they did repeatedly before the agreement’s adoption in 1996. The Mexicans argue that they are being punished for their success—for growing a superior product and for honoring the pact over 16 years.

Thursday’s announcement seemed particularly harsh given the timing: Mexican tomato producers were scheduled to meet with officials at the Commerce Department on Friday to discuss ways to resolve the dispute. The growers have said they are willing to accept a higher floor price for their tomatoes.

Top stories this week are likely to include: Enrique Peña Nieto tours Latin America; United Nations General Assembly gets underway; Venezuela’s presidential election intensifies; European Union continues free-trade talks with Canada; and Paraguay seeks reparations from Mercosur. 

Peña Nieto Visits Latin America: Mexican President-elect Enrique Peña Nieto departed yesterday evening for his six-country Latin America tour, which will take him to Guatemala, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Peru this week. Eduardo Sánchez, spokesperson for Peña Nieto, says that the trip’s purpose is to strengthen “the position that Mexico has in the region and the possibilities that it has as a country to build itself as a facilitator” in Latin American relations. Issue topics that are expected to dominate the agenda include security, migration and trade. AQ Senior Editor Jason Marczak adds, “each visit will highlight how a Peña Nieto government will seek to elevate Mexico’s role in the region and in working with each country bilaterally. Strengthened cooperation with Guatemala is critical for improving security and migration flows, Colombia has important lessons learned in security, the Chile and Peru visits are linked to trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Brazil visit will likely seek to set the two countries on a path toward trade collaboration rather than trade competition.” Peña Nieto told Brazil’s Época magazine that “free trade, far from protectionism, is the path that we should take to make Latin America a thriving actor in the global economy.” 

UNGA Gets Underway: The sixty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly opens debate tomorrow afternoon at 3:00p.m. in the New York secretariat. Access the agenda here. Heads of state are expected to arrive next week, where they will make their plenary addresses. 

Venezuela's Presidential Election: In the lead-up to Venezuela’s October 7 presidential contest, it was revealed over the weekend that incumbent President Hugo Chávez would not select a running mate in spite of his widely speculated deteriorating health. Chávez’ challenger, Henrique Capriles, has not selected a likely vice presidential candidate either. Further, Venezuelan polling firm Consultores21 released a poll over the weekend putting Capriles Radonski two percentage points ahead of Chávez – 48 percent to 46 percent.

Related: Americas Society and Council of the Americas will host a discussion on September 18, titled “The Road to Venezuela’s Elections: A Look at the Media, Public Opinion, and the Economy.” The president of Consultores21 will speak on the panel.

EU - Canada Trade Talks Continue: Officials from the European Union will arrive in Ottawa this week for the penultimate round of negotiations with Canada on a free-trade pact. An agreement is farther behind schedule. As Americas Quarterly reported in early 2011, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement was anticipated to be signed in the middle of last year. 

Paraguay to Demand Reparations from Mercosur: The Paraguayan foreign ministry filed grievances with the Argentine, Brazilian and Uruguayan embassies in Asunción a few days ago on the charge of “grave arbitrariness” since its suspension from Mercosur following the ouster of former President Fernando Lugo. In a separate release, the foreign ministry noted that “Paraguay has the right to demand moral reparation for the offences infringed upon the dignity of the Republic, as a State and as a member of the international community, as well as claim compensation for the economic losses and damages suffered.” President Federico Franco has charged Mercosur as an “ideological club of friends,” and is intensifying his rhetoric against the South American trade bloc that does not recognize his presidency as legitimate. Expect Argentine, Brazilian and Uruguayan responses from the grievances this week. 

Extra: Today begins the first full week of National Hispanic Heritage Month in the U.S., which lasts from September 15 to October 15. 

On October 8, Mexico is set to become a full partner in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations.  As Mexican Ambassador to the United States Arturo Sarukhan is fond of saying, with TPP Mexico and the U.S. are playing chess, not checkers. Indeed, Mexico’s participation in the high-standards pact represents a unique opportunity to consolidate our strategic bilateral partnership and deepen our economic integration in the context of like-minded countries along the Pacific Rim.

Yet even as we celebrate cooperation at the level of geopolitics and multilateral negotiations, we cannot ignore the more prosaic frictions that inevitably arise in such a broad and dynamic relationship. Recently, these have included spats over chickens and washing machines, while the latest issue revolves around tomatoes.

Tomato disputes have a long history. With the advantages of ideal soil and climate conditions and low labor costs, Mexico became a major player in the U.S. market following the embargo placed on Cuba in 1962. After decades of tomato trade wars, the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1992 eliminated tariffs on Mexican tomatoes over a ten-year transition period, despite the opposition of Florida agricultural producers. In 1996, at the behest of Florida’s tomato industry, the U.S. Commerce Department initiated an anti-dumping investigation to determine whether tomato imports from Mexico were being sold at less than fair market value. To suspend the investigation, Mexican producers agreed to a minimum price for imports. This so-called “suspension agreement” has been honored for 16 years, with two renewals as well as adjustments of the reference price.

Fast forward to the electoral year of 2012, and Florida tomato growers have requested that the Commerce Department end the suspension agreement so they can initiate a new anti-dumping investigation against Mexican tomatoes. They argue that the agreement is outdated and fails to protect them against the Mexican competition; their critics accuse them of a transparent attempt to use a swing state’s political clout on behalf of protectionist interests. 

Top stories this week are likely to include: a political fracture among the Mexican Left; one month before the Venezuelan election; impact of U.S. suspension of intelligence sharing with Honduras; and the tenuous El Salvador gang truce. 

A Split among Mexico's Progressives: Presidential runner-up Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) departure from the Partido de la Revolución Democrática (Party of the Democratic Revolution—PRD) that he led since 1996 sent shockwaves around the Mexican political establishment. AMLO, who made the announcement yesterday at a rally in Mexico City’s zócalo, ran for president under the PRD label in 2006 and 2012, and placed second both times. He announced that he would focus his efforts through the Movimiento Regeneración Nacional (National Regeneration Movement—MORENA) movement, which has not been formally registered as a party according to BBC. How will the formation of MORENA affect the PRD, and will it mean a great split among the electorate of the Mexican Left?

Venezuela Election Countdown: The presidential contest in Venezuela between incumbent Hugo Chávez and challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski occurs in less than one month, on October 7. While Chávez claims that his victory is “written in stone,” Univisión reports that he is been falling in the polls, resulting in attacks on Capriles Radonski. Before the weekend, Capriles Radonski challenged Chávez to a debate anywhere in the country.

Related: Americas Society and Council of the Americas will host a discussion on September 18 entitled “The Road to Venezuela’s Elections: A Look at the Media, Public Opinion, and the Economy.”

Fallout of U.S.-Honduras Intelligence Cooperation Suspension: After two separate incidents in which Honduran forces shot down a suspected drug plane in July, it was likely that counternarcotics cooperation with the United States would be affected in some way. Over the weekend, the U.S. State Department announced that it was suspending intelligence sharing efforts with Honduras. This comes after a steady build-up in cooperation between the two countries. What will be the effect in overall security cooperation and on efforts such as the Central America Regional Security Initiative?

A Break in the El Salvador Gang Truce: Break in the El Salvador Gang Truce: After negotiation of a truce earlier this year between the Mara Salvatrucha and Calle 18 gangs, El Salvador has observed a dramatic drop in its murder rate. But is this delicate truce beginning to unravel? A new report from Fox News Latino seems to suggest that recent killings may point to a new reality in which gangs operate. “The truce was never intended to be the answer to El Salvador’s crime problems, but what it has done is placed increased urgency on finding solutions to prevent crime in the first place. This fragile peace is an opportunity for the country that cannot be missed,” notes AQ Senior Editor Jason Marczak.