From Political Asylum to Diplomatic Breakdown: The Escalation of the Mexico–Peru Crisis

Latin America once again became the stage of a major diplomatic crisis at the end of 2025, when Peru officially announced the severance of its diplomatic relations with Mexico. The decisive event was the Mexican government's decision to grant diplomatic asylum to Betssy Chávez, former Prime Minister under President Pedro Castillo, who was under investigation in Peru for her alleged involvement in the crimes of rebellion and conspiracy. Chávez sought refuge in the Mexican Embassy in Lima in November 2025 after repeatedly failing to appear at court hearings in the trial she was facing, which Peruvian authorities viewed as an unacceptable provocation by the Mexican state.

However, viewing this episode as the beginning of the conflict would be an oversimplification. In practice, it was merely the latest chapter in a dispute that had already been unfolding for nearly three years. Everything began with Castillo’s failed self-coup attempt in December 2022. At that time, Mexico had already demonstrated its position by granting asylum to the family of the ousted president and, through then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, refusing to recognize Dina Boluarte as Peru’s legitimate president, even referring to her as a “spurious president.” The Mexican government went so far as to offer protection to Castillo himself, an effort ultimately blocked by Peruvian authorities.

Relations between the two countries gradually deteriorated from that point onward. López Obrador openly expressed political sympathy for Castillo, particularly because of his humble background as a rural schoolteacher and his close ties to Peru’s Indigenous communities. For the former Mexican president, Castillo’s removal from office represented not merely a constitutional dispute but rather a “technical coup d’état” driven by the historical racism embedded within Peru’s elite. This position was defended publicly and consistently, to the point that the Peruvian Congress declared López Obrador persona non grata in 2023. The episode involving the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum illustrates the level of tension between the two governments. When Mexico was required to transfer the presidency of the forum to Peru, it postponed the handover as long as possible, hoping for a reversal of Peru’s political situation—a change that never materialized.

With Claudia Sheinbaum’s arrival to the Mexican presidency in 2024, the Peruvian government expected at least a reduction in diplomatic tensions. However, the new president maintained the stance adopted by López Obrador. Sheinbaum chose not to attend the APEC summit that year, which was hosted by then-President Dina Boluarte, who governed until October 10, 2025, when she was impeached. Furthermore, when commenting on Boluarte’s removal by Congress, Sheinbaum emphasized the unanimity of the decision, reiterated the interpretation that Castillo’s downfall had constituted a “coup d’état,” and once again expressed support for the imprisoned former president. The position adopted by the Mexican executive branch suggests that, at least on the surface, Mexico’s motivations in its dispute with Peru are more closely related to the defense of human rights and principles of equality and democracy than to purely political alignment. This perspective is reflected in Sheinbaum’s statements: “Our wish is that he be released because he is imprisoned unjustly,” and “A certain number of votes was required to remove him from office, and the vote count fell below that threshold.”

The dynamics of political and humanitarian conflicts reveal that the unfriendly and offensive nature of bilateral relations between Mexico and Peru had already become entrenched, leaving only the form of future disputes uncertain. The Mexican government’s decision to grant asylum to Betssy Chávez was simply the culmination of the conflict. The measure was based on Article 11 of the Mexican Constitution, which grants the right to asylum within Mexican territory to individuals facing political persecution, and was further justified by the United Nations’ position that political asylum should not be interpreted as a “hostile act” between states, but rather as a “peaceful and humanitarian act.”

“In cases of political persecution, any person has the right to seek political asylum, which shall be granted for humanitarian reasons.”

— Constitution of the United Mexican States (1917)

“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14

“The grant of asylum by a State to persons entitled to invoke Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a peaceful and humanitarian act and, as such, cannot be regarded as unfriendly by any other State.”

— United Nations Declaration on Territorial Asylum

Following this logic, Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued that Chávez had been the target of political persecution since her imprisonment in 2023. During her detention, the former prime minister carried out several hunger strikes and reported mistreatment, extortion attempts, and incidents of drugging within the prison where she was being held, which Mexico cited as evidence supporting its narrative. Consequently, the Mexican government declared that it “regretted and rejected” what it described as a unilateral decision by Peru.

The Peruvian government responded immediately. Foreign Minister Hugo de Zela stated that, in light of what he considered an “unfriendly act,” the government had decided to sever diplomatic relations with Mexico. Peruvian President José Jerí adopted an even harsher—and certainly more offensive—tone on social media, announcing that Mexican Ambassador Karla Ornela had been formally notified to leave the country within what he described as a “peremptory” deadline. The seriousness of the crisis is such that Brazil was entrusted—at the request of Sheinbaum’s government—with assuming responsibility for Mexico’s embassy in Peru, a role it has performed since January of this year. Despite Jerí’s firm position, Peru chose to preserve consular relations with Mexico, signaling that although the diplomatic conflict had reached a high level of intensity, the minimum channels of communication between the two countries would remain open.

The episode demonstrates tensions that extend beyond the bilateral dispute itself. The situation highlights how domestic political crises can directly affect relations among countries in the region and how ideological differences between governments can deepen diplomatic strains, even among states that do not share borders. In this context, the Betssy Chávez case served as the catalyst that intensified a crisis already in progress rather than originating it.

In February 2026, interim President José Jerí was removed from office, and one day later Congressman and former magistrate José María Balcázar assumed the Presidency of the Republic. It is worth noting that Balcázar is Peru’s eighth president in ten years, a period marked by political instability involving resignations, removals from office, and recurring political crises.

Although the asylum granted to Chávez was announced months ago—the process began in November 2025—the climate of hostility between Mexico and Peru has shown no progress toward restoring bilateral diplomatic relations. The Peruvian government’s position, centered on defending the country’s institutions and condemning the attempted coup, remained strong even after Balcázar’s arrival in office, despite the fact that he belongs to the same political party as Pedro Castillo. According to Sheinbaum during a morning press conference, although there had been some expectation that Balcázar’s presidency would bring an end to the Peru–Mexico dispute, “So far, there has been nothing from the current president to restore the relationship.”

Even now, relations between the two countries remain essentially unchanged from the period before Balcázar took office. In this sense, although Peru’s political landscape is characterized by frequent government turnover and, consequently, a high degree of domestic instability, a consistent pattern can be observed in its foreign policy regarding the diplomatic crisis with Mexico. In other words, the persistence of a firm stance opposing the Mexican government demonstrates the continuity of the decision-making line followed by Peru’s most recent administrations. As a result, prospects for the restoration of diplomatic relations between Mexico and Peru remain unfavorable.

Even though no radical change appears likely in the short term, it is necessary to recognize the uncertainty surrounding the relationship between the two countries. The individual level of analysis—that is, the personal characteristics and preferences of national leaders—also plays a significant role in shaping Peru’s position toward Mexico. Given Peru’s ongoing political instability and the successive replacement of leaders, and considering that a country’s political and ideological alignment often depends on the beliefs and preferences of its rulers, a future Peruvian president may adopt a different approach from his predecessor and reverse the hostile dynamic previously established with Mexico. In sum, while the diplomatic impasse remains firmly in place today, a future political realignment could decisively alter the course of Mexico–Peru relations and have broader repercussions throughout Latin America.

Mariana Canuto and Maria Clara Gueiros