U.S. Foreign Policies and Actions

¶ … U.S. foreign policies and actions on Latin America

Foreign Policy in the Cold War

The Cold War was a particularly turbulent time period for many parts of the world. Spanning from the conclusion of World War II in which the United States and Russia -- soon forming the Soviet Union -- emerged as the world's sole super powers, the Cold War pitted the ideological differences of a capitalistic, free market enterprise and a communist counterpart. What is significant about this fact is that within each of these two countries, and throughout the vast majority of Europe (parts of which were communist and parts of which remained capitalist) this clash remained ideological and was largely enacted by the amassing of nuclear weapons of destruction. Within other parts of the world, most eminently Asia and in the emerging Third World of Latin America, this clash was literally physical, ideological, and highly bloody. This difference in the battle front of the Cold War in Latin America vs. those in the United States and in Europe is the subject of Hal Brand's Latin America's Cold War. A close examination of this text reveals that U.S. foreign policy only served to exacerbate and heighten the sectional differences in Central and South America, and serve as motivation for insurgencies and counterinsurgencies that would only result in bloodshed and very few differences in political ideologies in these locations.

In order to fully understand how Brand's manuscript supports this thesis and arrives at this conclusion, it is necessary to understand the nature of the partisanship that existed during many Central and Southern American countries during the Cold War. Revolutions were fought in this part of the world primarily due to an imbalance of power, resources, and access to the pursuit of life by the few who possessed such things and the many who lacked -- and therefore desired -- such things. At various times in different countries, the U.S. government implemented foreign policies that would aid one side or another. It did so in attempts to preserve a degree of hegemony over this part of the world that it had claimed control over since the 19th century Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary to that doctrine in the early part of the 20th century. U.S. foreign policy in regards to this matter was fairly simple -- by exercising as much control as possible over Latin American countries, it could disallow the spread of communism in those areas and preserve a capitalist market that would naturally favor the U.S.

What was ironic about this conception on the part of U.S. foreign policy makers in these parts of the world is that one of the principle points of distinction and grounds for warfare that arose in these countries was due to the sense of nationalism that fostered there in response to U.S. involvement. Brands attributes much of the violence that typified the enactment of the Cold War in Latin America to "long-running clashes over social, political and economic arrangements…tension between U.S. power and Latin American nationalism, the ideological ramifications of decolonization and the rise of the Third World; and the influence of… bipolar struggle for preeminence in the developing world" (Brands).

His point in the preceding quotation is quite simple. Many of the partisan groups that arose in Latin American countries during the Cold War revolved about nationalistic tendencies fostered by a dislike for U.S. presence in those areas. It is logical that had the U.S. not been politically and economically involved in those areas, many of the conflicts that arose during this particular epoch would not have escalated to the point that they did.

Still, it would be an immense oversimplification to blame the U.S. As the sole reason for the travesties that occurred in Latin America during the Cold War. Although its presence served to inflame many of the aggravations that indigenous peoples of these countries felt in regards to their social and political situations, the U.S. And its foreign policy merely played supporting roles in the eruptions of violence that took place within Latin America during the Cold War. This fact is one of the principle themes of Brands' book. The author believes that many contemporary historians who analyze the martial conflicts in this part of the world during the Cold War as mere effects of U.S. intervention are incorrect, and that the chronology of such struggles "cannot be reduced to a story dominated by Right repression and U.S. Complicity. Foreign intervention, internal instability and ideological extremism on both Left and Right fueled one another" (Brands).

Despite the following quotation, the U.S. concocted foreign policy that was highly complicit with some of the political turmoil that erupted into violent insurrections within Latin America. It did so via two principle means, both of which helped to aid in the unrest that would result in civil wars within many countries in Central and South America during this epoch. The U.S. devised measures of foreign policy that were created specifically to undermine the efforts of nationalist governments -- one of the most eminent of which was that in place in Cuba following Fidel Castro's Cuban Revolution. In this and in other countries the U.S. attempted to preempt native governments by giving civilians what those governments said they would give -- parity in economic-based resources such as land. Policies such as the Alliance for Progress were created to fuel dissent with nationalist governments by sating the needs of the people that those governments were supposed to take care. When these measures inevitably failed due to U.S. ignorance of Latin America culture, traditions, and insufficient methods of integration (such as a dearth of competent bilingual representatives to implement reforms), the political situations in these regions became even more incendiary.

The other method in which the U.S. instituted foreign policy to aid in the instability and violent climate that typified much of Latin America during the Cold War was significantly more direct. On several occasions, and in several countries, the U.S. trained, supplied weapons, and funded insurgent groups to directly oppose nationalist governments. Oftentimes, the U.S. supported right-wing dictators, some of the most notable of which include Fulgencio Batista in Cuba and the Dominican Republic's Rafael Trujilo. However, they also supported left wing insurgents as well. The effects of this sort of support was predictable and involved a series of retaliatory measures by both sides that led to extreme measures of violence and an astounding loss of life through many of these countries in which the U.S. demonstrated its vested interest. It was due to this sort of foreign influence that inevitably shaped the factionalism existent both between and within countries that led to Brand's conclusion that "the intensity of Latin America's Cold War was due to its complexity" (Brands).

And yet the complex nature of the Cold War in this part of the world was not only due to the external influence of the U.S. Brands' book elucidates the fact that the turning point of the Cold War in this region occurred with the Cuban Revolution, in which nationals exorcised the U.S. influence over its government. Although this was one of the cases in which the U.S. then funded and trained left-wing guerillas in attempts of usurping Castro's regime, the damage has already been inflicted and would lead to the interests of the Soviet Union, through the political maneuvering and machinations of Cuba, to also contest the U.S. In other parts of Latin America. The interests of these three nations, along with partisan groups in other countries, served to complicate the socio-political scenes there, render them more combustible and lead to Brands' argument that "To a greater degree than is often recognized, there was substantial symmetry to the struggle for the soul of Latin America" (Brands). That symmetry, of course, was the fact that there were communist interested represented in the form of the Soviet Union and Cuba to balance out those provided by the U.S.