Paul Sigmund\'s (1981) Latin America:

Paul Sigmund's (1981) Latin America: Change or Continuity? does not actually introduce new data. The article is constructed in a manner which captures the attention of the reader, but the reader remains aware of the fact that, with the change of each political regime, the country's national and international policies will change alongside. As such, it was only natural for U.S.' approach of the relationships with Latin America to suffer alterations as presidential cabinets changed.

Similarly, regardless of the actual presidential administration ruling a country, it is natural for there to be advocates as well as disclaimers. It is then understandable that some people, generally the more traditional and conservative ones, militated for the continuation of Carter's international agenda, and an incremental emphasis placed on the importance of the growing powers of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the people supporting Regan desired a greater emphasis to be placed on the improvement of the relations with Latin America, neglected by the previous administration. The opposing views created an ideological conflict regarding the most adequate steps to be taken in setting the international relations policies.

Stanley Hoffmann (1968) looks at the international relations established by the United States throughout the years through the lenses of national style and national identity. While it is generally accepted that the notion could raise challenges in explaining the global political context, I hold Hoffmann's beliefs true. In this instance, I tend to believe that each country, not just the United States, perceives itself in a certain manner. This also means that it perceives its history in a manner which might be slightly different from the actual events. While the outcomes are generally documented and verifiable, it is still true that an element of subjectivity interferes.

With humans for instance, the part of the brain holding the memories is influenced by emotions, so we will remember the emotions raised by a certain event. If the respective happening has given birth to different feelings in different individuals, then their perceptions and memories will also differ. The same is true for countries. And as the insights vary based on subjectivity, the same can be said about the decisions affecting the state, and taken by the state in relationship with its citizens, neighbors or the overall global community.

In this context then, it is understandable that the very personal characteristics of the country make the United States' citizens and political wings portray the state as the strongest and most important one in the global arena. But as the report quoted by William Rogers (1984) shows, it is not sufficient for the U.S. To be strong, resourceful and important, and as such impose its ways onto the other states. It is however expected of them to get involved in the problems of the foreign countries and offer their support in finding solutions, but their intervention has to be adequate.