The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs, Inc.
19 - 22 April 2007
House Committee
on Foreign Affairs
US Relations
with Latin America
Director: Kanad Mukherjee
© 2007 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA)
This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model
Congress 2007. Use for other purposes is not permitted
without the express written consent of IDIA. For more
information, please write us at [email protected]
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1
Background _________________________________________________________________ 3
Monroe Doctrine__________________________________________________________________ 3
Imperialism and Communism _______________________________________________________ 6
Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine ___________________________________________ 7
Good Neighbor Policy _____________________________________________________________ 8
The Cold War and Beyond _________________________________________________________ 9
Current Status ______________________________________________________________ 13
Party Positions ______________________________________________________________ 16
Democratic Party ________________________________________________________________ 17
Republican Party ________________________________________________________________ 17
Summary___________________________________________________________________ 19
Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 20
Works Cited ________________________________________________________________ 21
Rutgers Model Congress
1
Introduction
Political and economic relations between the United States and Latin American
have grown increasingly important, stemming from a growing need for resources and a
turbulent political structure. The first formal relations with Latin American nations
started with the Monroe Doctrine,
and
grew
from
that
point.
Whether or not these relations
proved to be positive for both
regions is an issue that many
Monroe Doctrine:
The Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823, proclaimed that the
Americas should be closed to future European colonization and
free from European interference in sovereign countries' affairs. It
further stated the United States’ intention to stay neutral in
European wars and in wars between European powers and their
colonies but to consider any new colonies or interference with
independent countries in the Americas as hostile acts toward the
United States
question. The Monroe Doctrine
helped dictate the progression of
relations between Latin America
and
the
United
States.
By
Manifest Destiny:
A political philosophy common among American statesman and
business leaders in the nineteenth century that held that United
States was destined to, or deserved to, conquer the heart of North
America from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.
establishing this doctrine, the United States hoped to maintain the interests necessary to
satiate a burgeoning superpower. Manifest Destiny became part of American foreign
policy, and forever changed the political climate of the region. As America expanded,
Latin America grew concerned about American acquisition of Latin American states for
the purpose of furthering economic development. With the inauguration of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt came an era of unity and cooperation, and this time would provide the
greatest alliance of the two regions. This unity, however, would be short-lived as the
political landscape of Latin America would grow chaotic with many revolutions igniting
over the continent.
As governments fell and new governments emerged, the United States intervened
hoping to support governments that would ensure stability for the region and provide the
ability for economic development. Fidel Castro emerged as the leader of the Cuban
government, overthrowing U.S.-supported dictator Fulgencio Batista, and declaring Cuba
a communist nation. The United States became a part of several assassination attempts
and a failed exile invasion, in order to conform to a foreign policy of communist
Rutgers Model Congress
2
containment. Aforementioned events helped to perpetuate a
Fulgencio Batista
volatile relationship between the United States and Latin
America states. As United States presidents came and went,
the relationship remained the same. Acts of cooperation and
mutual respect were done hand in hand with acts of
intervention and bullying. The United States felt that by
containing the revolutionary threat, it would increase stability
in the region and ward off the expansion of Communism. The Cuban missile crisis
provides an example of foreign policy that sought to protect American interests by
intervening in the affairs of Latin America. The presence of nuclear weapons on Cuba
was too threatening for the United States to not intervene. President George H. W. Bush
continued the trend of American intervention when American troops invaded Panama,
seized the airport and captured President Manuel Noriega, who was facilitating the
transport of drugs across his country, and eventually into the United States. President Bill
Clinton stressed diplomatic protocol, as a means of reconnecting with Latin American
countries.
Hugo Chavez, the charismatic and formerly ousted
Hugo Chavez
leader of Venezuela, has reinvigorated Latin American
foreign policy. He has called for Pan Latin Americanism
to help “fight” American imperialism and show the United
States that Latin America should not be a haven for
economic exploitation. The future of Latin American
relations will depend on the stability of the relationship
between the United States and Venezuela, as well as, the
progress that can be made with the future protégé of Fidel
Castro. Latin America is an untapped resource for creative political ideology, and
resources. A mutually beneficial relationship can be attained, but only with cooperation
and respect.
Rutgers Model Congress
3
Background
Although the United States and Latin American states constitute a large portion of
the western hemisphere, their early relationships were “informal, tentative, and almost
never official.”1 Trade between the two only occurred out of necessity—the United
States needing to obtain resources after the Revolutionary War, or the Latin American
states needing trade after being cut off from the Spanish and Portuguese. Ultimately, this
informal relationship became increasingly structured.
Many Latin American states
looked to the United States as a model on how to establish a successful government postrevolution. Consequently, economic ties strengthened, and the need for stability in the
region drove the relationship even further.
Monroe Doctrine
To understand the sentiment Latin American nations have towards the United
States requires analysis of many key events that have taken place over the last 150 years.
After the Revolutionary War, the United States maintained a largely isolationist foreign
policy in order to avoid reprisals from the British. Statesmen in the United States,
however, realized the economic and political value of the Latin American states and their
benefits for the new nation. As a result, the United States quietly involved itself in some
Latin American revolutions by “selling munitions and supplies to groups of
revolutionaries […] and even permitted Latin American leaders to plot inside from the
United States itself.”2
Simultaneously, the United States was in the midst of negotiating treaties with
Spain, France, and Great Britain, the imperial powers of the time, to define its borders
and to expand the continental United States. The most notable events of this negotiation
period were the acquisition of Florida from the Spanish and the Louisiana Purchase from
France.
With borders defined and territory expanded, the United States became
increasingly stable as Latin American states were mired in chaos. To ensure further
1
2
Stewart Brewer. Borders and Bridges. Prager Security International Press: Connecticut. 2006.
Ibid., 33.
Rutgers Model Congress
4
stability, in an 1823 State of the Union Address President James Monroe issued one of
the most notable foreign policy statements of the early United States—the Monroe
Doctrine.3 Its purpose was twofold: to explicitly maintain the independence of the
“freed” Latin American nations after their successful revolutions and to ensure implicitly
the safety of the “interests” of the United States in the Western Hemisphere.4 Latin
Americans impugned the intent of the doctrine and grew suspicious of the true motives of
the U.S. in the region. As Latin American states desired independence and autonomy,
they did not want unnecessary intervention by their neighbors from the north.
Manifest Destiny, the idea that Americans had been granted the God-given right to
territories, became a justification for American imperialism during the 1840s and beyond.
The idea of Manifest Destiny intersected with the goals of the Monroe Doctrine in the
case of Texas. When Mexico first attained its independence, its territory included what is
currently known as Texas, although American settlers moved in to the cheap yet high
quality land, compelling then President James Polk to garner a treaty and purchase Texas
from the Mexicans. Mexico did not agree to the purchase arrangement, and attacked
American settlers in the area. Ultimately, Polk declared war on Mexico and the Mexican
War ensued, lasting from 1846 to 1848. Following the war and the signing of the Treaty
of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Texas became an independent nation for a year but was then
annexed by the United States, along with land that now forms several other states in the
southern United States.5 The most important implication of the victory was that the
United States heightened its status as one of the major powers in the world. Latin
American countries realized that their militaries and economies were weaker than those
of the United States, both of which hinted at further United States expansion into the
affairs of Latin America.6
3
US Info. “The Monroe Doctrine.” United States Department of State.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm (Accessed: October 14, 2006).
4
Ibid.
5
Hispanic Reading Room. “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Ending of the Mexican War.” Library of Congress.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/ (Accessed October 14, 2006).
6
Martha L. Cottam. Images and Intervention: U.S. Policies in Latin America. University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburg, PA. 1994.
Rutgers Model Congress
5
These suspicions proved true. In 1854, the Ostend Manifesto announced that the
United States would purchase Cuba from the ailing Spanish empire for $120 million or
else the United States would use military force to annex the island. The announcement,
though, came as the United States Civil War prevented any further territorial expansion.7
During the Civil War, the United States strayed away from Latin America;
however, three incidents in the Caribbean, Chile and Venezuela exemplify the
relationship between the two regions during that period. In the Caribbean, the United
States asserted the Monroe Doctrine regarding its relations with the Dominican Republic.
The Dominican Republican had won its freedom from the Spanish in 1844, but
deteriorating economic and social conditions forced it under Spanish control once again.
The United States intervened, and threatened hostility if the Spanish were to maintain
control over the Dominican Republic; the Spanish eventually relinquished control. While
it was not out of the question that the United States would then annex the Dominican
Republic, the United States did not pursue such action.8
In Chile, a civil war provided another avenue for United States intervention.
Despite the intentions of the United States, their presence was unwelcome. Historian
Stewart Brewer offers a particularly eloquent analysis of the Latin American viewpoint
on the US involvement in Chile, saying,
the entire incident of U.S. involvement in the Chilean Civil War appeared to Latin Americans to
be nothing but the great blunderings of the obtuse Americans who were perceived to be throwing
their weight around in places where they were neither wanted nor needed.9
Despite such sentiments, the United States continued policies of intervention. The last
notable incident was a border dispute between Venezuela and the British possession of
Guiana. Venezuela, seeking outside help, accused the British of violating the Monroe
Doctrine, and received support from then-president Grover Cleveland. This accusation
essentially confirmed two things: that the Monroe Doctrine could be used for its original
7
American History Leaflets. “The Ostend Manifesto.” American Studies at the University of Virginia.
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/HNS/Ostend/ostend.html. (Accessed October 14, 2006).
8
Ibid, 67.
9
Ibid, 71.
Rutgers Model Congress
6
purpose and that Venezuela acknowledged the United States as being the most powerful
state in the Western Hemisphere.10
Eventually, the dispute was settled, but this event
helped secure the United States as the foremost power in the Western Hemisphere.
Imperialism and Communism
The very end of the 19th Century resulted in a sharp turn in relations between the
Latin American states and the United States. Until that point, U.S. involvement in the
region was minimal. On the surface, the United States viewed its relationship with Latin
American nations as a form of “benevolent paternalism”; however, most of the policies
practiced by the Untied States in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries instilled a sense of
fear and mistrust in all of Latin America.11 Despite how the relationship was perceived,
the United States intended to extend its power through greater control in the Western
Hemisphere.
As mentioned previously, the United States attempted to expand its empire by
purchasing Cuba through the Ostend Manifesto, although the Civil War quashed such
ambitions. At the end of the Civil War, though, United States interest in Cuba emerged
once more due to increases in private investments, primarily in sugar plantations.
Concurrently, Cubans seemed to resent the Spanish rule. These two factors ultimately
led to the Spanish-American War, which proved successful for the United States, and as a
result of the victory it gained territorial control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
Philippines.12 With the securing of more land, American influence in the region became
much more tangible. The new Platt Amendment to the Cuban constitution essentially
gave the United States almost full political and economic control of Cuba.13
10
“American Intervention in the Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute.” Guyana.
http://www.guyana.org/features/guyanastory/chapter84.html (Accessed October 14, 2006).
11
Ibid., Martha.
12
The World of 1898: Spanish American War. “The Spanish American War.” Library of Congress.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/intro.html (Accessed October 15, 2006).
13
“Platt Amendment: 1901.” Mt.Holyoke University: Department of International Affairs.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/platt.htm (Accessed October 15, 2006).
Rutgers Model Congress
7
Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine
Whereas the Monroe Doctrine had implicitly called for appropriate United States
intervention, the Roosevelt Corollary made it explicit. According to the Corollary, the
United States would intervene “politically, economically, and militarily in Latin
American affairs whenever and wherever it was seemed vital.”14 For the next thirty years,
the United States called upon the Roosevelt Corollary countless times, having never
sought approval from Latin American states. Over a thirty year period, the United States
intervened in Colombia three times, Honduras and the Dominican Republic twice, and
once each in Mexico, Cuba, and Nicaragua. Each time, the United States used some form
of military intervention to either contain a specific revolution or further expand the
economic interests in the region.15 This policy caused many Latin American nations to
further distrust the United States.
Under the Roosevelt Corollary, the United States employed some of its most
aggressive foreign policy in the Latin Americas to acquire the land for and build the
Panama Canal. The isthmus
Panama
of Panama has a strategic
location,
allowing
easy
travel between the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans.
Yet
before a canal was even
conceived, the United States
relied heavily on this region
as a link to other parts of the world: during the mid 1850s, the United States built the
Panama Railway, which had the highest volume out of any railway in the world. This
influx of volume ultimately compelled the French to attempt to build a better link.
France, already successful with the Suez Canal in Egypt, proved grossly unsuccessful
14
15
Ibid., 91.
Ibid, 92.
Rutgers Model Congress
8
with the Panama Canal.16 After the French left, Colombia refused United States
intervention for completion of the canal. Interest in the canal was very high, though, but
President Theodore Roosevelt felt military attack on Colombia was unnecessary.
Roosevelt urged Panama to secede from Colombia, and promised American naval
support if the Panamanians were to revolt.
Once Panama successfully obtained its
freedom, the United States secured the rights of the land, and the Panama Canal was
opened in 1941. The United States, in fact, retained the rights of the canal until the
Panama Canal Treaty was signed in 1977, which stipulated the United States would give
full control to the canal to Panama on 31 December 1999.17
Good Neighbor Policy
As distrust towards the United States mounted, President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt knew that the Roosevelt Corollary shouldered the most recent blame. In March
1933, Roosevelt issued the Good Neighbor Policy during his inaugural address, stating:
in the field of world policy I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor--the
neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—
the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a
world of neighbors.18
Roosevelt hoped that the two major regions of the Western Hemisphere could interact
peacefully, and not resort to military intervention. In the spirit of the Good Neighbor
Policy, the United States nullified the Platt Amendment, resulting in a significant
reduction of American involvement in Cuba. Additionally, the United States loosened
control on Panama and increased financial support to the nation. The Good Neighbor
Policy extended to the aftermath of the Second World War. The US and Latin America
enjoyed a great deal of cooperation and goodwill, unlike any relationship the two had
earlier. In 1948, the Organization of American States (OAS) was established as a means
of tangibly proclaiming unity among all American states. The representative body sought
16
Central America. “The Panama Canal.” Global Perspectives
http://www.cet.edu/earthinfo/camerica/panama/PCtopic1.html. (Accessed October 16, 2006).
17
Ibid., Central America.
18
“Good Neighbor Policy.” United States Department of State. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17341.htm.
(Accessed October 16, 2006).
Rutgers Model Congress
9
to provide a forum for discussion among its members, and to avoid potential future
economic or political tension.
The Cold War and Beyond
With the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in
essence replaced by the Good Neighbor policy, the relationship between the United
States and Latin America shifted. No longer the Western Hemisphere’s protector the
United States sought to assuage the distrust in the Latin American region through
successful trade and peaceful relations. Unfortunately, the spirit of the Good Neighbor
policy fell short during the second half of the 20th Century. After the Second World War,
the United States entered the Cold War with the Soviet Union, during which the United
States sought to prevent the spread of Communism. While the war was between the two
superpowers, it drastically affected relations with Latin America.
Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán
In 1954, the United States made its first attempt at
containing Communism in the Western Hemisphere. The CIA
planned a coup d’etat to oust President Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán
of Guatemala; the Guatemalans put up no resistance, making
the coup painless for both sides.19 The implications of the coup,
though, resonated throughout Latin
America: the United States had
Enersto “Che” Guevara
begun to intervene once again to
protect its interests, as it had years before.
A substantial portion of this era, in terms of Latin
American relations, dealt with Cuba. The years between the
incipience of the Good Neighbor Policy and the spread of
communism witnessed the rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba, who
had previously staged revolutionary efforts at overthrowing the
19
William Kamman. “U.S.- Latin American Relations.” Organization of American Historians.
http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/foreignpolicy/kamman.html (October 19, 2006).
Rutgers Model Congress
10
Cuban government in the 1930s and 1940s. Castro had befriended a revolutionary named
Ernesto Rafael “Che” Guevara, the ideology of whom the United States was familiar and
became wary of the potential impact the relationship between the two would have in
Cuba. When Castro officially took power in 1959, he began diplomatic relations with the
Soviet Union.20 As a result, the United States, under President Dwight Eisenhower, cut
off diplomatic relations with Cuba in 1961.
In an attempt to overthrow Castro, the United States financed and provided the
necessary logistics for an invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs on 17 April 1961. The
attack, however, proved a failure for President John F Kennedy, as its failure prompted
Fidel Castro to strengthen his ties to the Soviet Union, later declaring Cuba a communist
state. This course of events led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, a nuclear standoff between
the United States and the Soviet Union. Whether the idea to put medium- to long-range
missiles in Cuba directed towards the United States belonged to Nikita S. Khrushchev or
Che Guevara remains purely for curiosity, but what matters most is the lasting effect that
the event had on the United States. The Soviet Union defended placing missiles in Cuba
as a deterrent to prevent the United States from toppling Castro. Khrushchev’s intent
may have been purely as such, but apparently Castro wanted to send a much stronger
message to the United States. The Russians ultimately removed their missiles in Cuba, in
exchange for the removal of American Atlas missiles in Turkey.21
The effort to thwart Communism was not restricted to just Cuba and Guatemala.
The Dominican Republic was in the midst of a civil war in the late 1960s, as leftist
groups sought change through bloodshed. President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered troops
to the Dominican Republic not only in order to protect American investments and the
lives of American citizens, but also to isolate and destroy the communist uprising.
American support notwithstanding, Latin America obviously considered this event
similar to actions taken by former President Theodore Roosevelt.
20
“Timeline: Post-Revolutionary Cuba.” PBS. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/timeline/index.html
(Accessed: October 19, 2006).
21
Ibid, Border and Bridges.
Rutgers Model Congress
11
Another CIA coup was ordered in Chile after its 1970 election. Salvador Allende
secured the presidency, and this victory disturbed President Richard Nixon and his
National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger.
Allende espoused communism, and the
idea of a stable Latin American nation embracing Communism concerned the
administration. The United States attempted to intervene
Salvador Allende
in many ways, most notably by causing enough
instability to justify a coup from the military. Allende
eventually was captured and executed, and a new ruler
imposed an authoritarian that included “strict curfews,
media censorship, torture, and terrorizing suspecting
socialists.”22
President Jimmy Carter oversaw the agreement of the Panama Canal Treaty in
1977, which would give Panama control of the canal at the turn of the 21st Century.
Additionally, Carter hoped to stop the use of military force as a problem-solving
mechanism in Latin America. When President Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980,
though, he felt that the government needed to be more proactive. Reagan sent millions of
dollars to nations such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, and Nicaragua to
ward off the leftist insurgency groups.23 While these attempts seemed to lend support to
deteriorating relations with Latin American states, Reagan managed to polarize many.
The Falkland Islands War pitted Argentina against Great Britain. Despite an American
attempt to sure up relations with Latin America, Reagan sided with Britain, causing a
question of credibility in much of the region.24
In the end, Latin American states
questioned Reagan’s rationale for supporting systems that destabilized many of the
nations in the region.25
22
Ibid, 134.
Ibid, 136.
24
Argentine Invasion& British Response. “Early Diplomatic Events.” Naval History . http://www.navalhistory.net/F16diplomacy.htm (Accessed October 19, 2006).
25
Sandra Smith. “The Latin American Press on Ronald Reagan.” The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,12900,1234282,00.html. (Accessed October 19, 2006).
23
Rutgers Model Congress
12
One of the central problems facing the United States during the administrations of
Reagan and President George H. W. Bush’s administration was the rise of the illegal drug
trade, as a considerable proportion of the illegal narcotics trafficked in the United States
came from Latin American states. Manuel Noriega, a well-known drug-trafficker, helped
the influx of drugs in the United States through his ties to
Manuel Noriega
regions biggest drug lords; however, his influence on the
region was far greater than the typical drug-trafficker.
Noriega served as military dictator of Panama and was a
former operative of the American Central Intelligence
Agency. Under his regime the appearance of significant
corruption concerned the United States. President George
H.W. Bush launched Operation Just Cause, consisting of a
Marine invasion of Panama, and the removal of Noriega
from power. While Noriega was certainly not a popular
figure in the eyes of most of the world, the event reminded many of the sometimes
aggressive foreign policy of the United States, especially with regard to Latin America.
As of the 1990s, the theme of military intervention or “soft” economic agreements
by the United States in Latin America reigned supreme. When President Bill Clinton
acceded to the presidency, his primary focus on Latin America centered on the
Jean Bertrand Aristide
implementation
of
the
North
American
Free
Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and resolving a humanitarian crisis in
Haiti. NAFTA consists only of the United States, Canada and
Mexico, as the Clinton administration was unable to expand
the agreement to Latin American states. In Haiti, Clinton
ordered troops to restore the popularly elected Jean Bertrand
Aristide to power; however, unlike previous military
intervention, no actual physical conflict ensued.
Rutgers Model Congress
13
Current Status
Entering the 21st Century, relations between Latin America and the United States
were strained. Although the United States had military intervention in the region, a lack
of action further damaged relations between the two regions. President George W. Bush
hoped to turn the tide and re-establish peaceful relations with Latin America, much like
former President Jimmy Carter had done some twenty years earlier. When campaigning
in 2000, George W. Bush stated:
[T]hose who ignore Latin America do not fully understand America itself. And those who ignore
our hemisphere do not fully understand American interests. This country was right to be
concerned about a country like Kosovo -- but there are more refugees of conflict in Colombia.
America is right to be concerned about Kuwait -- but more of our oil comes from Venezuela.
America is right to welcome trade with China -- but we export as much to Brazil. Our future
cannot be separated from the future of Latin America.26
Latin American nations welcomed a chance of a unified Western Hemisphere. President
Bush, however, may have spoken prematurely because the following year the terrorist
attacks of 11 September 2001 forced the nation to alter its foreign policy. Consequently,
the United States started to place less emphasis on the region, as it was not considered to
be a source of radical Islamic fundamentalists. While the War on Terror and relations
with Latin America seem unrelated, the two have more connections than appears on the
surface. American policies throughout the world revolve around monitoring the activities
of potentially dangerous individuals and populations. As mentioned previously, the
American relationship with Colombia became tenuous due to the War on Drugs, despite
funding sent from Washington to finance interdicting the drug trade.
Former U.S.
Attorney General John Ashcroft now proposed a link between the drug trade and terror,
stating that “terrorism and drugs go together […] they thrive in the same conditions and
feed off each other.”27 While Ashcroft was speaking in generalities, numerous Latin
26
George W. Bush. “George W. Bush's Speech on Latin America.” NewsMax.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/26/195405. (Accessed: November 3, 2006).
27
“The Drugs and Terror Connection.” International Broadcasting Bureau.
http://www.ibb.gov/editorials/10130.htm. (Accessed: November 3, 2006).
Rutgers Model Congress
14
American states, Colombia included, felt Ashcroft’s statement was an unfair
characterization, and that it was largely directed at them.28
In 2001, the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) drafted
the Inter-American Democratic Charter, calling for democracy to be the standard form of
government for members of the OAS. Additionally, the states agreed to promote human
rights, combat poverty, preserve democratic institutions, and to promote a democratic
culture.29
In 2005, the United States put forth about $3 million to implement the
objectives of the charter, and spent some $1 million for other “tangential” yet “relevant”
causes.30 The effectiveness of specific actions laid out in the charter has yet to be seen.
The integration of the Americas under the theme of democracy is not the only goal
for the United States in the Latin American region; economic interests still prevail.
NAFTA’s implementation spawned two other free trade treaties, the Free Trade of the
Americas (FTAA) and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).
Both
would eliminate trade barriers among all respective parties in the treaty, but both treaties
saw stern opposition, as Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela expressed
their discomfort with the agreement.
Specific opposition of FTAA and CAFTA stems
from the lack of confidence that such treaties can reduce poverty, ensure environmental
protection, and more importantly, prevent the exploitation of labor in the Latin American
regions.31
One Latin American state not included in either of the treaties is Cuba. Previous
history with Cuba has been fragile, but due to the recent medical issues besetting Fidel
Castro, relations have the potential to shift. In 2006, Fidel Castro transferred presidential
powers to his younger brother, Raul.
28
This transfer could signal a thawing of relations
Ibid., Borders and Bridges.
OAS. “Inter-American Democractic Charter. World Policy Institute.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/treaties/OAS%20Democracy%20Charter.html. (Accessed: December 7,
2006).
30
“U.S.-Brazil Relations.” United States Department of State.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/2005/q1/40989.htm. (Accessed: December 7, 2006).
31
“Less of the Same: Lackluster U.S.-Latin American Relations to continue under Second Bush Administration.”
Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.06%20Bush%202nd%20erm%20th
e%20one.htm. (Accessed: December 7, 2006).
29
Rutgers Model Congress
15
between Cuba and the United States, but considerable questions remain regarding which
direction he will take the country. Raul Castro has stated his willingness to decrease the
tension between the two countries and open up a dialogue, as long as the Untied States
accepts that Cuba is a “country that does not tolerate any reduction of its independence,
and based on the principles of equality, reciprocity, non interference and mutual
respect.”32 If Fidel Castro is to pass away and powers remain with his brother, President
Bush has repeatedly recommended that the Cuban people rise up and demand democratic
governance. This scenario may be the only chance for the Untied States to implement a
Democracy in Cuba.33
Maybe the most symbolic interaction that represents how most of Latin America
views the United States can be seen when analyzing recent relations with Venezuela. In
2002, an internal coup in Venezuela ousted President Hugo Chavez, an unpopular
development within Venezuela and the rest of Latin America. Officially orchestrated by
the Venezuelan military, the coup ended almost before it began. Venezuelan military
officials had reported that Chavez and resigned from the presidency, and took him into
their custody. Mass protests challenged this assertion, and after just 36 hours, Chavez
was released and returned to the presidency. Pedro Carmona, who was installed as
interim president of Venezuela while Chavez was deposed, issued the Carmona Decree,
undoing many of the leftist policies promoted by Chavez. Given their direct correlation
to the wishes of the United States, many analysts, and indeed most Venezuelans, believed
that the coup had been orchestrated by the Bush Administration to remove a longtime
critic of American foreign policy from the presidency.34 The Bush Administration denied
any wrongdoing, and defended its recognition of the Carmona government as working to
ensure that the Venezuelan elected National Assembly would not be dissolved during the
upheaval.
32
Michael Langan. “Raul Castro 'ready' to talk to US.” News.com.Au.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20863359-401,00.html (Accessed: December 7, 2006).
33
“Bush urges Cubans to push democracy.” CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/us.cuba/index.html. (Accessed: December 7, 2006).
34
Karen DeYoung. “Bush Officials Defend Their Actions on Venezuela.” Washington Post.
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-relations/actions.htm. (Accessed: November 3, 2006).
Rutgers Model Congress
16
In ensuing years, Chavez’s influence on Latin America has expanded due to
increased revenues from oil and his very vocal criticism of the United States. Chavez is
lauded by many nations throughout the world as he represents a voice that expresses
contempt towards American foreign policy.
Time Magazine quoted an unidentified
African diplomat saying that “Chavez will stand up and articulate…the notion that many
of our citizens hold—that Bush and the U.S. have kicked us around for some time now
after 9/11 and we would like it to stop.”35 In addition, Chavez’s ties to many American
trading partners, such as China, have strengthened. He has attempted to stabilize Latin
American economies, primarily through constructing gas pipelines and energy integration
in Brazil and other South American nations.36 Additionally, Chavez has indicated on
numerous occasions that he would like to stoke South American unity against United
States policies in order to earn greater respect the region.37 Venezuela’s rise on the
global scene even prompted a potential seat on the United Nations Security Council,
although they did not receive enough votes to obtain one.38
Party Positions
The United States and Latin America have a very tenuous relationship. Wayne
Smith, a former diplomat to Cuba, stated that a poor perception of the United States in
Latin America “is not just a response to the Bush administration, but really a
disenchantment with past US policies and US-inspired policies that have not answered to
the needs of the masses of people, as promised.”39
Therefore, while recent history
suggests the Republican Party shoulder the blame for the poor standing, Latin American
leaders may be blind to American party politics and place the blame equally on any
influential political figure in the United States.
35
Tim Padgett. “Crazy Like a Fox.” Time. October, 6 2006: p40-42.
Ibid., 41.
37
“Chavez douses hopes of U.S. dialogue.” YahooNews.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061207/wl_nm/chavez_usa_brazil_dc_1. (Accessed: December 7, 2006).
38
“United States welcomes Venezuela’s defeat in bid to Security Council seat.” Yahoo!News.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061102/pl_afp/uncouncillatamvote_061102212407. (Accessed: November 3, 2006).
39
Howard LaFranchi. “A gentler touch with Latin America.” CSMointor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/p02s01-usfp.html (Accessed: December, 22, 2006).
36
Rutgers Model Congress
17
Democratic Party
In most respects, the Democratic Party platform regarding relations with Latin
America is really no different than that of the Republican Party. Both Republicans and
Democrats strive toward democracy, economic stability, and other factors in the Latin
American region. Within the Democratic Party, there is a consensus to ensure
“democratic values” in Haiti and the rest of the Caribbean while curbing drug trafficking
and human rights violations in other regions of Latin America.40 The party seeks to
rekindle respectful and peaceful talks with the leaders in the region. As a unifying
statement, the Democratic Party affirms:
that it is time to create a new Community of the Americas that reflects our close relationship with
our regional neighbors. We will return U.S.- Latin American relations to a place marked by
dialogue, consensus and concerted action to address common concerns. We understand that our
collective security and prosperity are furthered by mutual efforts to promote democracy, generate
wealth, reduce income disparities, and provide sound environmental stewardship. We are
committed to strong and steady support for democratic processes and institutions in our
hemisphere.41
While the platform says a great deal, like the Republicans, Democrats have achieved very
little in terms of placing more focus on the region; much of the foreign policy stems
around the War in Iraq.
Nevertheless, it seems as if the Democratic Party has more
appeal to certain leaders in Latin America—namely Chavez of Venezuela and Nestor
Kirchner of Argentina.42 Regardless of which regime Latin American leaders support, a
monumental change in focus is required before the two regions can establish healthy
relations.
Republican Party
In 2000 during the GOP convention, the Republican Party released its official
platform on Latin America, which reads:
The president will work with democracies like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico. His
administration will be guided by the principles of respect for sovereignty, private initiative,
40
“2004 Democratic National Platform for America.” Democrat Party Homepage.
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf. (Accessed: December 22, 2006).
41
“Democratic Foreign Policy: Latin America.” OnTheIssues .
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Foreign_Policy.htm. (Accessed: December 22, 2006).
42
Diego Cevallos. “Latin America has had enough of Bush.” DAWN. http://www.dawn.com/2004/09/17/int5.htm.
(Accessed: December 22, 2006).
Rutgers Model Congress
18
multilateral action, free politics and markets, the rule of law, and regard for variety. A
commitment to NAFTA can enlarge it into a vision for hemispheric free trade, drawing nations
closer in business, common commercial standards, dispute resolution, and education.43
This platform, albeit broad and slightly outdated, appears prima facie a markedly
different approach to the region than in previous years. However, more than seven years
have passed since this official stance was offered and in that time relations between the
two regions have not improved. Among other things, failed coup attempts in Venezuela,
deteriorating relations with Cuba, accusation of terror and drug hubs, and tightened
border security place a massive strain between the two regions. In addition, leaders of
Brazil, Venezuela, and Caribbean countries have criticized the Bush administration and
Republicans for their support of free trade agreements and the way it has conducted the
War on Terror. More recently, however, the Bush administration has taken some internal
measures that could symbolize a tangible change of view towards Latin America. One of
particular note was the appointment of Tom Shannon as assistant secretary of state for
Western Hemisphere Affairs.
The previous two, Otto Reich and Roger Noriega, were
notorious for their “antagonism” towards Cuba and Venezuela, respectively, an attribute
Shannon presumably lacks.44
43
“Republican Party Foreign Policy: Latin America” OnTheIssues.
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Foreign_Policy.htm. (Accessed: December 22, 2006).
44
Ibid.
Rutgers Model Congress
19
Summary
The United States maintains a long, yet tarnished relationship with Latin America.
While early relations were informal and cordial, later interaction changed as the United
States rose to a world power. This particular change can be seen with the Monroe
Doctrine. From this decree, a precedent of United States “intervention” was set. As the
nineteenth century progressed, United States political and economic interests in the
region grew. Consequently during most of the nineteenth century and the first third of the
twentieth century the United States alternated between periods of intervention and nonintervention. Eventually, Latin American states began to question the motives of the
United States in the region. In particular, Cuba and Venezuela represent two states in the
region that are frustrated and tired of “broken promises” by the United States. There
maybe some merit to these sentiments as United States track record in the region became
marred with scheduled coups and strong relations with suspect leaders in Latin America.
The 21st Century saw the promise of improved relations between the two regions.
President Bush called for hemispheric unity and this was welcomed by both portions of
the hemisphere. However the United States focus shifted once again but this time Latin
American states became much more vocal in expressing their feelings towards the United
States. A symbol of current Latin American tendencies is the Venezuelan leader, Hugo
Chavez. The best means of creating the solid foundation for Latin American relations will
come from engaging President Chavez and creating mutually beneficial policies that will
support human rights issues, economic development, and political stability within the
region. The increased revenues from oil sales and charismatic nature of President Chavez
have helped make him the leader of Latin America as a figurehead for greater Latin
American unity. The United States, in its quest for better relations, must emphasize the
autonomy of these Latin American countries. At the same time, it must address the
serious concerns of human rights violations, drug trafficking, political stabilization.
Rutgers Model Congress
20
Discussion Questions
• What would be the best way to describe the relations between the United States and
Latin America?
• How would a transition in power in Cuba influence U.S-Latin American Relations?
• Which Latin American state has the most to gain from United States influence? The
most to lose?
• How does the recent wave of terrorism throughout the world impact the relationship
between the United States and Latin America?
• How should the United States deal with the outspoken Hugo Chavez?
• Would improved free trade strengthen or loosen relations between the two regions?
• Certain countries like Brazil do not support free trade agreements. Why not?
• There are number of ancillary issues that concern the United States, such as drugtrafficking and illegal immigration. How can the United States prevent the two from
occurring through improving its relationship with Latin America?
• How high a priority should relations with Latin America be when other issues such as
the War on Terror seem to dominate the Untied States interest?
• Would a shift in power in the United States truly make a difference in improving relations, or
should the U.S. concede that relations are permanently damaged?
Rutgers Model Congress
21
Works Cited
“2004 Democratic National Platform for America.” Democratic Party Homepage.
http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf. (Accessed: December 22, 2006)
“American Intervention in the Guyana-Venezuela Border Dispute.” Guyana.
http://www.guyana.org/features/guyanastory/chapter84.html (Accessed October
14, 2006).
American History Leaflets. “The Ostend Manifesto.” American Studies at the
University of Virginia. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/HNS/Ostend/ostend.html.
(Accessed October 14, 2006).
Argentine Invasion& British Response. “Early Diplomatic Events.” Naval History.
http://www.naval-history.net/F16diplomacy.htm (Accessed October 19, 2006).
Bush, George W. “George W. Bush's Speech on Latin America.” NewsMax.
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/8/26/195405. (Accessed: November 3,
2006).
“Bush urges Cubans to push democracy.” CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/us.cuba/index.html. (Accessed:
December 7, 2006).
Brewer, Stewart. Borders and Bridges. Prager Security International Press: Connecticut.
2006.
Central America. “The Panama Canal.” Global Perspectives.
http://www.cet.edu/earthinfo/camerica/panama/PCtopic1.html. (Accessed October
16, 2006).
Cevallos , Diego. “Latin America has had enough of Bush.” DAWN.
http://www.dawn.com/2004/09/17/int5.htm. (Accessed: December 22, 2006).
“Chavez douses hopes of U.S. dialogue.” YahooNews.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061207/wl_nm/chavez_usa_brazil_dc_1.
(Accessed: December 7, 2006).
Cottam, Martha L. Images and Intervention: U.S. Policies in Latin America. University
of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburg, PA. 1994.
Rutgers Model Congress
22
“Democratic Foreign Policy: Latin America.” OnTheIssues .
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Foreign_Policy.htm. (Accessed:
December 22, 2006).
DeYoung, Karen. “Bush Officials Defend Their Actions on Venezuela.” Washington
Post. http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/us-relations/actions.htm. (Accessed:
November 3, 2006).
“Good Neighbor Policy.” United States Department of State.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/id/17341.htm.(Accessed October 16, 2006).
Hispanic Reading Room. “Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: Ending of the Mexican War.”
Library of Congress.http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/ghtreaty/ (Accessed October
14, 2006).
Kamman, William. “U.S.-Latin American Relations.” Organization of American
Historians. http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/foreignpolicy/kamman.html
(October 19, 2006).
Langan, Michael. “Raul Castro 'ready' to talk to US.” News.com.Au.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,20863359-401,00.html
(Accessed: December 7, 2006).
LaFranchi, Howard. “A gentler touch with Latin America.” CSMointor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/p02s01-usfp.html (Accessed: December,
22, 2006).
“Less of the Same: Lackluster U.S.-Latin American Relations to continue under Second
Bush Administration.” Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
http://www.coha.org/NEW_PRESS_RELEASES/New_Press_Releases_2005/05.
6%20Bush%202nd%20erm%20the%20one.htm (Accessed: December 7, 2006).
Mitchell, Derek and Michael Bevin. “United States and Venezuelan Relations 1948
2005.” Center for Cooperative Research.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=venezuela. (Accessed:
November, 3 2006).
OAS. “Inter-American Democratic Charter. World Policy Institute.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/treaties/OAS%20Democracy%20Charte.
html. (Accessed: December 7, 2006).
Padgett, Tim. “Crazy Like a Fox.” Time. October, 6 2006: p40-42.
Rutgers Model Congress
23
“Platt Amendment: 1901.” Mt. Holyoke University: Department of International Affairs.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/platt.htm (Accessed October 15, 2006).
Reich, Otto. “United States Interest in Latin America.” Mexican Embassy.
http://www.usembassymexico.gov/st021031Reich.html. (Accessed November 3,
2006).
“Republican Party Foreign Policy: Latin America” OnTheIssues.
http://ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_Foreign_Policy.htm. (Accessed:
December 22, 2006).
Smith, Sandra. “The Latin American Press on Ronald Reagan.” The Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,12900,1234282,00.html. (Accessed
October 19, 2006).
“The Drugs and Terror Connection.” International Broadcasting Bureau.
http://www.ibb.gov/editorials/10130.htm. (Accessed: November 3, 2006).
The World of 1898: Spanish American War. “The Spanish American War.” Library of
Congress. http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/1898/intro.html (Accessed October 15,
2006).
“Timeline: Post-Revolutionary Cuba.” PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/timeline/index.html (Accessed: October 19,
2006).
“U.S.-Brazil Relations.” United States Department of State.
http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/2005/q1/40989.htm. (Accessed: December 7,
2006).
“United States welcomes Venezuela’s defeat in bid to Security Council seat.”
Yahoo!News. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061102/pl_afp/uncouncillatamvote_
61102212407 (Accessed: November 3, 2006).
US Info. “The Monroe Doctrine.” United States Department of State
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm (Accessed: October 14,
2006).