Military Interventions During Latin America

During the early 1960s, Brazil entered a period of unrest caused by the military’s concern over the direction of government policies. The military’s concern rose toward the end of the 1950s due to the president’s perceived connection to communist world leaders. Prior to the Military Coup, the American government demanded that Brazil either move away from leftist policies or be forcefully changed. When Brazil did not comply, the United States, concerned that Brazil would join the communist block in South America, provided money and weapons to help the military overthrow the government. Although the Brazilian Military Coup of 1964 stimulated the Brazilian economy by investing more money into national growth, it was ultimately unsuccessful because

The United States has influenced many nations in the world throughout history. Some of the ways the U.S. has been able to dominate poor countries are with military action and corporate activities that allowed the United States to influence their governments. Since the United States extends its power with the previously mentioned methods, it is recognized as an imperialist nation. The United States has specifically demonstrated imperialistic forces in Latin America. The effects that the United States’ imperialism had on Latin American economies and politics were negative since it brought violence and caused the poor to struggle even more. When the United Sates government did not like policies that Latin American presidents were creating, they would take military actions to force American ideologies into Latin American countries’ governments by installing puppets into their governments. Generally, these countries would have flourished economically without the United States, but since the U.S. became involved with the countries’ policies, their economies have weakened because the U.S. wants the benefits of controlling countries’ resources without being responsible for the people who reside there. This pattern of the United States’ imperialistic behavior has been demonstrated many times in Latin America.

In the early 20th century, Argentina had a very successful economy that specialized in exporting agricultural goods. Even while the rest of Latin America struggled during the economic hardships of the 1930s, Argentina’s strong export economy allowed the country to flourish due to high international demand for their goods. Despite this early 20th century strength, Argentina’s economy fell behind as the century went on, with roots in the fact that Argentine stayed neutral for most of the war and alienated the United States. Though Argentina’s president at the beginning of the war, Roberto

What are the parallels between American foreign policy during the early 20th century in Latin America and the late 20th century in Asia?

With European conquest spreading throughout the world, the US as a growing nation needed political influence and military influence to protect themselves from imperialism. In the early 1800s, Latin America had been establishing their freedom from the Spanish empire, and the US decided to strengthen its power in the region. After acknowledging some of the first Latin American countries, President James Monroe announced the foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine. President Monroe’s new policy followed three main ideas: no European colonization in the American continents, the US would not meddle with European affairs, and if the Europe did intervene in American matters then it would be considered as an act of war. Despite the lack of US military

The United States has been an important part in the history of all of Latin America. Many times, the United States influenced Latin American countries with its economic, political, and military power. The United States looked down at Latin America as its backyard, constantly using its influence to benefit from the land and supporting dictators in the region. The United States used this power to effectively influence Latin America for decades, even when the U.S. faced communism as a new threat during the Cold War. The United States feared the communist influence of the Soviet Union in countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, because the “evil empire’s” plan for world domination included infiltrating Latin America. Even though these

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.

One major example of a change in politics through industrialization was the Gilded Age, which occurred from 1865-1900. Just like today, the major parties during the Gilded Age were the Republicans and Democrats. The Republicans were mainly in the north and they believed in the theory that we should shield domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing on all imports. The Democrats were Catholic-based, included poorer farmers, and people who favored earning money from hard work. Politics were very corrupt because once either party would win the election, they gave government jobs to their supporters as a reward. One important principle in the Gilded Age was the idea of Laissez Faire, which basically said that the government needed to leave the new business of industry alone and not become involved politically. Laissez Faire capitalism provides the opportunity for superior individuals to work their way up to the top in the business ladder. Laissez Faire capitalism states that the government’s regulation of industry and business is holding back America’s chance at economic growth and production. Finally, throughout the transition from agrarianism to industrialization, the theory of Social Darwinism came into effect. This theory describes the close competition between men in economic society and how those who are superior skill workers in industry and

Imperialism and then colonialism opened the floodgates that are troubled race relations, racism, and misguided societal values. Race has played a vital role in how Americans view each other, and themselves, and the experiences that they have. We constantly hear about institutionalized racism, the school-to-prison pipeline and police brutality on the news. The topic of race has such an enormous presence in our society that it simply cannot be ignored. But what is rarely talked about is how these conditions are incredibly similar to those that people in Latin America have to endure as well. Racism does not end at the borders of the United States, and in fact, they only seem to get worse in countries that are less developed.

While the Cold War does not mark a significant distinction from US involvement in Latin America pre-Cold War, the inclusion of ideology in US foreign policy decisions did mark a change in attitudes and focus. While US policy can be described as rational to a certain point, the Cuban dilemma caused an irrational fear in US foreign policy makers to avoid a second-Cuba. The fear of a “second Cuba” can be seen in the various interventions by the US in Latin America during this period.

As Charles Bergquist observes, "Crises in Colombia tend to generate cycles of violence instead of mutations in the political regime." The reason is simple: regime changes in Colombia tend to produce very little change in anything other than nominal rule. Since Colombia's independence from Spain in the early 19th century, Colombia has seen a series of civil wars and secessions (Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama the last coming rather conveniently at a time when the U.S. was prepared to pay millions for a canal through its nation preparation that later resulted in a multi-million dollar redress to Columbia). Colombia's political history, therefore, has been colored by outside influences pulling on the two dominant liberal and conservative parties, with violent exchanges, and long periods of instability being the consequences. While regime changes have occurred, they have not produced significant improvements. Rather, Colombia in the 20th century has become a nesting ground for paramilitary forces and drug traffickers, with U.S. Central Intelligence operatives contributing heavily to the violent conflict that has risen between regimes. This paper will examine the regime types that preceded the Rojas Pinilla regime in mid-20th century Colombia, analyze their similarities and differences, and discuss the extent to which Rojas Pinilla reached his goals and objectives.

Pinochet was put into power . This is a perfect example of how the US foreign policy replaced genuine democracy with dictatorship for their own benefit, and again, supposedly in the name of National Security. Latin America was a victim of US foreign policy and corporate greed.

"Fueled by the Cold War and transnational corporate interests, the U.S. has covertly tinkered with the governments of Latin American countries since World War 2, producing an extremely violent and unstable political climate."

It is impossible to separate the history of military dictatorships in Latin America from the history of economic exploitation and of US intervention in the region. The history of slavery and other forced labor in the pursuit of large-scale agriculture and resource extraction in the time of the colonies has created a legacy of economic exploitation. This poverty and inequality has in many cases led to popular uprisings and calls for reform, which provided the reason (or the excuse, depending on your point of view) to use military force to restore discipline. The United States' willingness to support strong regimes capable of securing its interests in the region also has played a decisive role. These

Extractive institutions play a huge role in encouraging the elite to dismiss up incoming technological advances that would work towards modernization and industrialization. "World inequality today exists because during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries some countries were able to take advantage of the Industrial Revolution and the technologies and methods of organizations that it brought while others were unable to do so." (271). Acemoglu and Robinson put an emphasis on historical moments such as the industrial revolution which had a role in how countries development played out some nations took what was dealt to them and used it in their favor.