In Latin American politics, diplomatic ruptures have seldom occurred through abrupt decisions; they are typically the culmination of long-standing mutual distrust, accusations of interference in domestic affairs, and deepening ideological divergences. Peru’s decision to sever diplomatic relations with Mexico on the grounds that Mexico granted political asylum to former Prime Minister Betssy Chávez can be understood within this broader context. This development not only signifies a deterioration in bilateral ties, but also reflects the deepening political polarization across Latin America.
The origins of the crisis date back to Pedro Castillo’s rise to power in Peru in 2021. Castillo, a rural schoolteacher and former union leader, came to be known as “Peru’s first poor president.”.[i] His election victory was seen as a watershed in Peruvian politics, which had long been thought to be controlled by powerful elites. However, political stability was gradually weakened by Castillo’s inexperience in government, his frequent cabinet changes, and the accusations of corruption made against his administration.
The Constitutional Court declared Castillo’s effort to dissolve Congress and establish an “extraordinary government” in December 2022 to be a coup attempt. Castillo was detained in a few hours after failing to obtain military assistance. Left-leaning governments like Mexico saw this incident as “the unlawful removal of a democratically elected leader,” despite the fact that it was portrayed domestically as the upholding of constitutional order.
Mexico’s decision in 2022 to grant asylum to Castillo’s wife and children triggered the first major diplomatic rift between the two countries. The Peruvian government characterized this move as an act of “interference in its internal affairs” and expelled the Mexican ambassador. From that point onward, diplomatic relations continued under a persistent atmosphere of tension.
The most recent crisis, which erupted in 2025, was reignited when Mexico granted asylum to Castillo’s former prime minister, Betssy Chávez. Chávez was freed on bond after being detained in 2023 on charges of aiding Castillo’s coup attempt. Her choice to seek safety in the Mexican Embassy, where she could have received a sentence of up to 25 years, was seen by the Peruvian government as a flagrant violation of national sovereignty.
Hugo de Zela, the foreign minister of Peru, called the action “an unfriendly act” and declared that diplomatic ties with Mexico will be severed. Mexico, in turn, deemed the decision “excessive and disproportionate,” arguing that the right to asylum is a humanitarian mechanism recognized under international law. Thus, a new diplomatic rift once again emerged between the two countries.
The two ideologically different approaches that split Latin America were once again highlighted by this development: Mexico continues to support the solidarity-driven reflexes of the Latin American left, while Peru has recently moved toward a policy line in line with center-right administrations. Thus, the Chávez affair has been interpreted not merely as an individual’s request for asylum, but as a clash between two distinct conceptions of state governance.
Mexico has a long history of offering political asylum to people throughout Latin America. From supporters of Chile’s Salvador Allende to refugees from the Spanish Civil War, Mexico has provided sanctuary to a diverse array of political figures and dissidents since the conclusion of the Cold War. For this reason, the asylum granted to Betssy Chávez is consistent with Mexico’s longstanding foreign policy orientation.
However, Peru has interpreted the situation differently. Lima has regarded the protection of Chávez inside the embassy while her judicial process is still ongoing as an “obstruction of justice.” As a result, this event has emerged as a fresh example of the long-standing conflict in international relations between “humanitarian intervention” and states’ “sovereign right.”
The Peruvian government has argued that Mexico has interfered in Peru’s domestic politics not only diplomatically but also at the level of political discourse in recent years. Indeed, former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s public statements expressing support for Castillo provoked significant backlash within the Lima administration.[ii] In this situation, Peru’s choice to “sever relations” served as both an outward expression of the deeply ingrained ideological division in the area and an act of revenge.
The Peru–Mexico crisis has also produced consequences at the regional level. In recent years, the balance of power between left- and right-leaning governments across Latin America has been in constant flux. The return of Lula da Silva to power in Brazil, Gustavo Petro’s progressive agenda in Colombia, and Gabriel Boric’s youthful left-wing vision in Chile have collectively been interpreted as a “second leftist wave” sweeping the continent. By contrast, in countries such as Peru, resistance to this trend has intensified.
Mexico says that by supporting left-leaning figures like Castillo and Chávez, it is defending “Latin American solidarity.” But Peru sees this as a threat to its own internal stability. Because of this, the diplomatic break didn’t just affect the relationship between the two countries it also became a development that helped reshape the political direction of the whole region.
Moreover, Mexico’s stance during this process also drew attention in relation to its complicated ties with the United States. The United States was cautious about Mexico’s decision to give asylum since it was in favor of maintaining Peru’s constitutional order. This dynamic demonstrated how American influence in Latin America continues to play a major role in determining regional politics.
Peru’s decision to sever relations with Mexico has, in the short term, made it more difficult for citizens of both countries to access diplomatic services. A slowdown in commercial interactions is also likely. However, in the long term, there is considerable debate over whether this rupture can be sustained.
In Latin America, diplomatic breakdowns have mostly been brief. After Evo Morales was overthrown in 2019, a similar conflict between Bolivia and Mexico eventually subsided in a matter of years. For this reason, it is expected that a renewed basis for dialogue will eventually emerge between Peru and Mexico as well, particularly through regional forums.
However, the depth of the crisis carries not only a diplomatic dimension but also a symbolic one. Mexico’s language of “solidarity against political persecution” and Peru’s emphasis on “defending democracy” have caused the two nations to create completely different narratives of legitimacy on the international scene. Future attempts at discussion have become much more challenging as a result of this divide.
Peru’s decision to sever diplomatic relations with Mexico has reignited debates in Latin America over the concepts of sovereignty, democracy, and ideological solidarity. This episode has once again exposed the fragile balance between left- and right-leaning governments across the region.
Mexico has described its asylum policy as a “humanitarian responsibility.” Peru, by contrast, has argued that its domestic judicial processes must be respected. As a result, the two countries have come into conflict over differing interpretations of international law.
In the long term, resolving this crisis will depend on strengthening regional dialogue mechanisms. However, given the increase of nationalist discourse in their respective public domains, both nations are unlikely to retreat in the near future. However, it would be premature to rule out the prospect that diplomatic relations would someday be restored given previous examples in Latin American history.
Latin America continues to oscillate between opposing ideological poles, as demonstrated by the most recent break between Peru and Mexico. The fine line that separates state sovereignty from the right to asylum has once again come up for discussion. In the end, the issue has developed into a new turning point in regional politics as both nations have responded to political reflexes created by their own past experiences.
[i] Tian, Yang. “Peru Cuts Diplomatic Ties with Mexico over Ex-PM’s Asylum Claim”, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czdrg9zqnljo, (Date Accessed: 09.11.2025).
[ii] Ibid.
