This week’s reading was about war and violence in Latin America that happened in the years 1959-1990. Not only is it called the terror, but can also be called the “Dirty Wars”. Reading about the wars the happened in Latin America was sort of overwhelming. I did not know there was so much violence and insurgencies in Latin America during that time period.
There were many causes to these wars. It was the U.S. intervention which led to counterculture, the youth who rebelled because they were afraid of their future, and the fight between the left and the right wings. I thought it was interesting how Dawson explains the wars that happened in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Peru. What stood out to me in this chapter is the events that happened in Peru. “Peru’s dirty war began during the cold war, and was characterized by a struggle between a Marxist left and a free-market right..” (Dawson, p.292). It was specifically Alberto Fujimori that made the events in Peru standout. As said earlier, I thought this chapter was somewhat overwhelming. I was just puzzled about Fujimori’s story. He was promoted to a high position because “he was an ethnic outsider to Peru’s elite community” (p.298). Further, Fujimori was able to fight Sendero and catch President Gonzalo. Later on he gets arrested in Chile, then goes back to Peru in 2006 to run again. He was then put in trial because of corruption and responsible for many killings.
This story leaves me with a question: Did you think Alberto Fujimori was a great politician or not?
Answering your question, I totally agree that he was an impressive politician to me. This is because the way that he used to express his proposals in public and more important that people believed him, that was a great achievement. On the other hand, I think that he was the kind of politician with the characteristics of being a populist but also an authoritarian. A populist because he promised everything to the people of Peru, taking the advantage that the country was in a very bad economic and social situation. Furthermore, an authoritarian ruler because he did not care about the opinion of institutions such as the congress and courts.