The Relationships Between The United States and Latin America

Introduction

The beginning of U.S. involvement with Latin America began with the seemingly heroic creation of the Monroe Doctrine by John Adams in 1823, which stated no non-American countries could interfere with Latin American politics. However, in reality, this act was skeptically received by many locals and was viewed as a tool of imperialism that the U.S. could use against Latin America. The U.S. policies that were implemented throughout the 20th century in Latin America, although disguised as beneficial for all parties involved, revealed that failure in democracy and economic development in Latin American countries was imperative for the U.S. agenda of preserving their power. National sovereignty, on behalf of Latin America, was not a public goal of the United States government and was actively opposed to establish political supremacy.

The Cold War and U.S.-Latin America Relations

By examining U.S.-Latin America relations during and after the Cold War, we can begin to understand why the U.S. government so often failed to achieve its proclaimed goals for Latin America. As communist ideologies branched from Russia and the Russian Revolution of 1917, they began to influence great leaders across the globe and transition into the actualization of political control. Latin American governments in Honduras, Argentina, Guatemala, El Salvador, and many more began to adopt similar political views. Tensions increased between U.S. relations with Latin America throughout the Cold War (1947-1991) as the achievement of abolishing communism—by any means necessary—became a priority for U.S. policies. When Latin American democratic governments veered too far from the United States’ regulations of what an anti-communist country should behave like, the U.S. military intervened to undermine and attempt to overthrow these opposing governments (Gilbert, 2010). An example of the lengths the United States government would go to support their political agenda were the human rights violations by the U.S.-endorsed and sponsored militant guerrilla death squads during El Salvador’s civil war, which led to the death of 80,000 citizens and countless unclassified tortures, rapes, and other acts of brutalization.

Economic Interests and Political Interference

Under U.S. President Nixon's reign, Latin American leaders began to seek control of large-scale industries and natural resources in order to eliminate the pandemic of poverty and dependency on other nations. In 1973, Nixon engaged in toppling the regime of Salvador Allende—the then-president of Chile who had many communist and socialist connections and planned to expropriate American-owned copper industries without compensation to alleviate Chile's economic crisis. Nixon began by authorizing $10 million to the CIA to stop Allende's regime and denied Chile multilateral loans through international financial institutions, which weakened the Chilean economy. He then encouraged right-wing conspirators to overthrow Allende (Legler, Lean, & Boniface, 2007, p. 75). The definition of successful economic growth and the strategies to attain it were completely different between Latin America and the United States. The most beneficial policy, from the U.S.’s point of view, was the Free Trade Agreement (FTA). They promoted it as the next world economic system because it helped guarantee the continued existence of U.S. democracy and foreign control. So when countries and leaders, like Allende and El Salvador, tried to separate themselves and oppose the U.S., they were met with the full violent and corrupt wrath of the government. Ironically, in places where the U.S. asserted only limited influence, like Costa Rica and Venezuela, democracies flourished (Legler, Lean, & Boniface, 2007, p. 69).

The True Motives Behind U.S. Policies

The reason that the United States government so often failed to achieve its proclaimed goals of democracy and economic development in Latin America boils down to one general reason—it never cared in the first place. Latin America was viewed from a greedy and narcissistic point of view. Its luscious and fertile land, mineral extraction potential, fisheries, and agriculture were the only reasons the U.S. became involved in creating a faux sense of loyalty. Human rights and democratization have not historically taken top priority among the list of U.S. national interests in Latin America or in any other part of the world (Fryer, 2011). Establishing a stable and reliable way of controlling anti-communism was the U.S.’s main focus for Latin American relations. One of those ways was to pay off corrupt militants into becoming dictators or enforcing the dictatorship that was already prevalent in the Latin American countries. The leaders whom the United States chose to support in the name of capitalism, stability, and anti-communism repeatedly acted against the moral principles the U.S. rhetorically emphasizes (Fryer, 2011). They would rather have violent and gruesome tyrants and dictators than invest in politicians who had the potential to become great democratic leaders.

Conclusion

In summary, the U.S. involvement in Latin America has been marked by a prioritization of its own interests over the professed goals of democracy and economic development. While the U.S. maintained a facade of promoting these ideals, its actions often revealed a different agenda focused on political and economic control. The historical context and specific interventions illustrate the complexities of U.S.-Latin America relations, shedding light on the true motivations behind U.S. foreign policy in the region.