Latin America Foreign Policy Essay

Initially, Latin America endures solitude as a result from the negative stereotypes they face from other countries based on inferred connotations from past actions. The chief faction that interrogates Latin America for their differences are the Europeans leaders who “Have thought so, with the childishness of old-timers who have forgotten the fruitful excess of their youth” (Marquez 3). Latin America has been ostracized on

Reading the book Harvest of Empire by Juan Gonzalez, has been very informative to me and has changed my perspective on U.S. foreign policy. Each account of the families from the different Latino countries has similar underlying trends that can be found because of the U.S. involvement in their countries. Every single instance of U.S. involvement in Latin American countries seems to evolve around the idea of greed and profit. The U.S. is like a business that only cares about the income of money and not about the morality of their actions. On top of all the injustice the U.S. government has employed, they don’t bother to own up to their mistakes and they tend to sweep their involvement under the rug. For example, the Iran-Contra scandal mentioned in the book of the Reagan administration was the result of using drug money from Iran to buy weapons for the Nicaraguan contra rebels against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. It infuriates me that the U.S. would support a dictator that suppresses the rights of its citizens and all the while they want to take down the established, popular Sandinista government. The U.S. wants to do all this so that the new government will support U.S. interests in Nicaragua. When the scandal was uncovered, all Reagan could say was “I’m sorry” and “It won’t happen again” even though our involvement had the result of many lives lost in that war/rebellion. Unfortunately, this theme did not only occur in Nicaragua

US interventionism in Latin America started a long time ago with the Monroe Doctrine, in 1823. A policy which stated that any intervention by external power for example from Europe is the Americas is a hostile act against the US. In simpler words, America is for the Americas. From the 1900’s till the beginning of the Cold War, the United States started the military intervention mostly in the Caribbean and Central American regions. This has started a long history of the United States intervening on Latin America issues.

There are three components of the US empire in Latin America. These components are punitive idealism, free market absolutism, and right-wing Christian mobilization. Punitive idealism justifies a hostile diplomacy in order to advance “freedom.” America has the right to do whatever they needed to do in order to achieve their goal. It was believed that “if America acted with moral certainty to defend its national interests, the consequence would, by extension, be beneficial for the rest of the world.” (78). No matter how America acted, as long as they had their own objectives in mind, they would help the rest of the world. There were many at home who did not see eye to eye with Washington. In recent events, America could be seen in two ways. As

Historical Document A and Recent Document A flow on the basis of the United States’ actions in Latin America. The primary document gives one a look into information that the United States could use to take advantage of the people of recently acquired tropical islands, such as Cuba and Puerto Rico. The newer document then informs the reader that in recent years Latin America has become more apprehensive towards U.S. intervention in the region. Historical Document A provides us with the power that the U.S. once had over regions in Latin America, while Recent Document A presents us with the outcome of such endeavors. Latin Americans have seen what the United States has done in the past, and do not wish to relive such abuse.

The type of development that was formed in Latin America was structural dualism because it is able to define the ways of life for the people. This kind of social infrastructure is in a way very similar to the community society, where all people will work collectively to benefit the whole. This is seen in more liberal forms of government. What I have also learned are the concepts of nationalism, patriotism, and that development is a social process. All of these concepts correlate in some way. Education has led to increases in nationalism and patriotism. This created a loyalty and love for the Latin American countries, and in turn increased the want to fight for their sovereignty and rights. Along with these fights for independence the formation of populism came about and the need to make numbers more predominant in political processes as well as to break the stronghold of the elite powers. With the elite powers, corruption was very prevalent during this time and it became one of the major reasons for the economic instability and dependence of the

It must be noted that the America’s security interests in the Caribbean include maintaining friendly states. The realist theory of international relations shows that the new policy takes care of America’s national security interests because it is only through reconsidering its relations with Cuba can the United States truly keep its southern border free of any hostile military power. Nevertheless, beyond the rhetoric, the United States can only hope that the Caribbean and Latin America will contribute to its efforts to encourage Cuba to democratize its governance and modernize its economy. Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Jamaica, and Peru are the potential partners in this regard. From the foregoing, it should be apparent that the resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba is for the most part informed by the need to protect America’s interests, confirming the realist assumption that the state serves as the rational sovereign actor in pursuing its self-interest with the goal of ensuring its security and

Since the mid-1980s, the three most powerful and wealthiest countries in South America have experienced trends toward peace and stability. These countries are Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, also known as the “ABC Triangle.” However, relations among the ABC powers were not always cordial; from rivalry and conflict to alliance and camaraderie, this intertwining and complex relationship has spanned centuries. Given the anarchic structure of the international system, how and why did peace unfold? Scholars believe that as a result of democratization, international institutions, and economic interdependence, cooperation and nonviolence has emerged among the ABC Triangle. By applying one of the major paradigms of international relations, liberalism,

The U.S benefitted Latin America through the implementation of the Monroe Doctrine, which helped prevented further European colonization. Independence and sovereignty were in the U.S’s intentions for involvement in Latin America, while many European governments saw benefits in overturning independence and thereby acquiring resources and global power. This paper will use examples of European colonialism in, Africa, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic, to support my claim. Both the U.S and Europe had very different intentions for getting involved in Latin America and this influenced their relations and the overall status of Latin America. In the end, the United States helped prevent European re-colonization in Latin America through the

From the literature presented in a course dealing with United States relations with Latin America during the Cold War, it is interesting that political and cultural intervention in Central America, as an important and driving social construct, is not a central role in the observations and analyses of the scholars. While it would make sense that our Western understanding of the concept does not translate in the same ways in this particular context, it still seems as though studies of the political, economic, and social situation in the region’s various countries would feature this discussion in a more prominent manner. Noting this discrepancy, this paper includes historiographic works from historians who either directly or indirectly address

“The question shouldn't be what we ought to do, but what we can do” said Rory Stewart and in this decade, US and Latin American policy makers should do just that; think about what they can do instead of what they ought to do. So the question becomes, what issue has brought both the US and it’s Latin American neighbors together to enter into a current Inter-american relation? Throughout the many decades military force between the USA and Latin American countries has seen many changes. In this current era, these changes have lead and brought with them new factors that have developed into the current issue of military cooperation between countries in the Western Hemisphere. Those factors that led up to this cooperation have given both the US

The analysis of Latin America is a compelling argument for the exploitation of peripheries in the WST. There are numerous examples of cases where a core or core countries have benefited from situations where a Latin American state has been unfairly treated within the international economic community. It is natural that some countries in South America were more greatly affected by the inequalities of the modern economic system because there are differences in their their economic structures; some countries interacted more closely, more frequently, or under different agreements with core powers compared to other countries. However, a significant proportion of Latin American experienced some form of exploitation under the conditions of the capitalist

Not all Latin America countries had the same rules and policies when they were authoritarian. Several differences between regimes are the role of leadership; intersect groups or coalitions in supporting their government. Latin countries had different strategies in how a government should move forwards towards the future. Similarities that regimes had were “ interest representation based on enforces limited pluralism “(Malloy, James M, pages 4). When viewing Latin Americas perspective on authoritarian rule can be broken down into three levels “ (1) regime-type authoritarianism running from old-fashioned caudillo, (2) overarching subtypes “ corporation” structural and organizational principles, (3) leaders, supporting coalitions and policy strategies.” (Malloy, James M, pages 3). Overall different countries had differences authoritarian rule but there similarities in structure and organization in principles were still the identical.

Economic development does not play a clear causal role for Latin America, although often economic stagnation does undermine the legitimacy of military governments (e.g Peru and Ecuador). Snowballing might have played a role for the democratisation in 1990 in Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, but Huntington mentions that the desire for democracy must exist for snowballing to work. The policies of external actors like the US have been important for the promotion of democracy during the beginning of the third wave; however, this influence has been waning and some of the (possible) members of the third wave are not as susceptible to US influence. Examples include the Middle East and the undemocratic nations in Africa. Within Latin America, the importance of pacts between ‘softliners’ from the dominant (undemocratic) regime and moderates from the opposition has been highlighted. But we see the need to adopt a separate noncooperative model for the post-communist world. Here, the importance of elite pacts has been limited but mass movements from the below have led to stable democracies unlike in the rest of the third wave where this has largely led to instability. Michael McFaul points out that it is the distribution of power

The prospect of achieving Mercosur’s progressive new vision is fraught with challenges as much as it is inspired by hope. United States interests will continue to resist losing their economic and political grip in the region. This will not be the only obstacle facing the success of this new vision. The sheer magnitude of the project will require a serious commitment, and Latin America’s diversity of political beliefs and cultures could prove to be more marked than its homogeneity.