Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, Good Neighborliness and Fascism, 1938
The most important Peruvian political figure of the twentieth century, Víctor Raúl Haya de la
Torre founded and led the American Popular Revolutionary Alliance. While deeply suspicious of
the United States, this selection provides insight into his understanding of the way that the
imminent global war would affect Latin America.
In regards to the present and future relationship between the United States of the North and the ‘DisUnited States of the South,’ with its new aspect of ‘good neighborliness,’ my fellow citizens of our great
Indo-American nation have directed me towards more than one question…
First question: “Good Neighborliness”— a stable guarantee of security?
Relations between the two Americas have improved immensely during the Roosevelt Administration. It is
true that the “Good Neighborliness” between the U.S. and Puerto Rico leaves much to be desired, and it is
also true that Washington’s suspicious lenience towards some Criollo tyrannies indicates that the imperial
interests of Wall Street could still be more important than these principles. Yet one thing should be taken
into consideration: the U.S. government’s stance on nationalization of oil in Mexico. In this case, and for
the first time in America with a matter of such magnitude, the strong party followed the weak one’s law,
which is almost always the closest thing to real justice…
It is worth mentioning that he faced this dilemma: to choose between either repeating the dualism of
Wilson—apostle of Democracy and Freedom for anything situated above the Tropic of Cancer, bomber of
defenseless populations and imperialist invader of weak countries below the Tropic of Cancer—or be
faithful and consistent in the much trumpeted principle of “good neighborliness.” He decided to be loyal
and the present and future implications of this fact are important to stress.
It is important, however, to consider one thing: this policy started by Roosevelt toward the peoples of
Indo-America… is a temporary policy, with no guarantee of permanence… President Roosevelt and his
party could possibly lose the majority in the next election, and in his place could emerge a Republican
similar to the other Roosevelt, a great advocate of antitrust law within his own country and a perfect
Jingoist outside of it… Or it could be the case that another Democrat will be elected—Mr. Mac Nut or
whoever it may be—who finds it inconvenient to include the “Good Neighbor” policy in his platform and
who returns to the rambling demo-liberal generalities of Mr. Wilson in order to fill the theoretical void,
and once again we find ourselves under the Big Stick policy of Roosevelt I… Let’s remember that Mr.
Hoover came to make a good-will trip in 1928, and his policy is barely distinguishable from that of his
cold imperialist predecessor.
Thus, if history tells us anything, I believe that President Roosevelt’s “Good Neighborliness” policy
towards Indo-American people is a guarantee of security, but not a stable guarantee. It is just a policy
that can vary with the change of personnel or of party in the government of the U.S.
Second question: Will the front of the North forever drive out the risk posed by International Fascism in
the New World?
It will drive it out, as long as the United Front of the North and Indo-America is effective and efficient.
Because a Front of pure words or mere bureaucratic formulas like the ill-fated Pan-American Union are
not enough. And a complicity of tolerance in which, in the name of Democracy, the U.S. government
supports tyrants and despots while denying any sympathy for the oppressed peoples… is also not
enough…
[t]he Northern/Indo-American Front against the conquering plans of Japanese-European International
Fascism should be popular. It should become ingrained in the national masses of both Americas, it should
be based upon the confidence and unity of international action. This involves excluding any tyrants or
countries that use tyrannical methods from membership in this great democratic alliance. Because
Fascism is a system—a system of oppression and penetration—and it pervades in many forms:
Abyssinian, Chinese, Austrian, and now Peruvian forms…
Third question: In light of the need for this defensive front, should we unconditionally and unanimously
align ourselves with the powerful neighbor?
It is evident that Fascist imperialism plans to conquer Indo-American nations, as has been demonstrated
by the irrefutable cases of the Brazilian Integralists, of General Cedillo in Mexico and General Benavides
in Peru, not to mention other minor figureheads of the Japanese-Italian-German Axis. It is also true that
this campaign for domination is now taking advantage of the radical and idiomatic ties between IndoAmerica and destructive Spain for a smoother penetration... The campaigns in favor of “Spanish
Imperialism,” of “Hispanismo” is spreading a great deal. Spanish propagandists… have passed through
Indo-America and they speak of the need to return to Spanish oppression and, clearly, through it we are to
suffer the imperial chains of the Germans, Romans, or Japanese. Fascism has taken Franco as its
executioner in Spain and as an instrument to “Hispanicize” us, a word that is now synonymous with to
“Fascicize” us. Today, the Spaniard-Fascists come to tell us of the glories of their race, of the eminence
and Franciscan charity of the Corteses, the Almagros and Pizarros, and the Isabel the Seconds and of the
Hispanic America which they want to once again belong to them, that of the Fascists, against Indian,
mestizo, “chola,” “pelada,” “gaucho,” “roto” America, which is ours: Indo-America.
All of this—along with the most direct propaganda of International Fascism of buying various
newspapers which are called newspapers “de orden” in our countries—forces us to be alert and makes it
imperative that we form the Democratic Northern/Indo-American Front. Nevertheless, this membership
should be conditional. The New World Front… should not mean our submissive and unrestricted union
with the powerful “good neighbor.”
…And we now move on to the next question, with which I will conclude.
Fourth question: Is there no other option for Indo-America than to forever live under the defensive
tutelage of their grand and “good neighbor?”
And there is.
And here—albeit succinctly—I wish to at least sidestep an interesting aspect of these subjects. In an
attempt to downgrade the imperialist tension in Indo-America, through the “good neighbor” policy, it has
been said that imperialism no longer exists. A U.S. university missionary recently passed through Lima
who proclaimed from the seat of the oldest American University that U.S. imperialism no longer exists
and that there is only Japanese imperialism. The naïve propagandist was friendly and wisely taken in by
the Peruvian youth that welcomed him, hospitable, because they believed he was a good person… Let’s
say this, however, once and for all: this does not convince anyone. “Good Neighborliness” does not
involve denying historical facts because they are bad and produce a guilty conscience. It is better to right
them—acknowledging them—amend them, correct them. It does not mean to turn the brutalities
perpetrated by U.S. imperialism in these countries—of which our glorious Sandino is the latest victim—
into idyllic memories. It means to mark them as punishable offenses, as events that have caused great
damage to the good relations in the Americas and, especially, as events whose negative consequences we
are feeling now, because Fascism is taking advantage of these resentments…
The true path to salvation seems clear: abolish all imperialism in Indo-America and unite her
economically and politically. Gradually nationalize all riches and establish a great republic… which
solidly assures the security and sovereignty of our nation upon the stable foundations of Democracy and
Social Justice…
To work for her is the duty of the Indo-Americans able to understand that what was a dream for Bolívar is
now a necessity. Part of the task is to convince… the U.S. government that it would be better to have a
united and strong neighbor and ally… rather than twenty small countries divided and antagonized by the
Jingoisms of Fascist insufflation.
Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, “The Good Neighbor Policy and Latin American Unity,” Manuel Seoane
ed., Nuestra América y la Guerra (Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Ercilla, 1940). Translation by Katie
Newton.