With major geo strategic presence and longstanding ties to the main politically influential Western superpower nations assisted by historic imperialism and neocolonialism, much of Latin America has remained ripe for trade, investment and international relations, further fostering its rapid socioeconomic and political advancements which have accelerated over the course of the last century. However, this has not necessarily resulted in social progress and greater gains for the welfare of society collectively. In fact, it has arguably been the force for greater corruption, and the means by which war and conflict continue to flourish.
While the origins of this can be traced back to the 19th century and further accelerated by the conflict in interest regarding the needs of the population and the means by which the state of the nations can further develop its international influence and rise to the level of maturity that is evident in many of the core Western superpowers, it appears that the obvious tensions between the global north and the global south that is the main reason for these apparent failings. For instance, nine Latin American nations (Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala, Haiti, Cuba, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru) were key founding members of the League of Nations. They, however, realised that this was more down to the fact that the power within the Americas is imbalanced and mainly concentrated within the US, as well as there being a very clear western emphasis placed upon the principles that the League of Nations operates by, in that European issues appeared to have taken centre stage in times of debate (Leonard, 2019). This can also be further reflected on through the apparent isolationist principles of the US with regard to their control of the Latin American region and the means by which they would consider relations with Europe having also appeared as important driving forces for further exacerbating tensions globally, and so acted as a hindrance to attempts to resolve conflict and mitigate against war. One can effectively observe this through the historic Monroe Doctrine comprised in 1823 by US president James Monroe as a means of "set(ting) forth the concept of a republican western hemisphere that was fundamentally different to the Old World", which functioned as a means of demonstrating the US sovereignty and colonial influence over Latin America, so as to effectively maintain their ability to own this region and use it to their own geopolitical advantage, and ensure that Europe cannot influence and engage with it.
During the First World War, Brazil was the only Latin American nation who actively participated int the conflict (which they did through a major campaign against submarines and the sending of support personnel to Europe)- the other Latin American nations, namely Brazil, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama declared War on Germany, while Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru chose to break their existing diplomatic relations with Berlin (Leonard, 2019). This would thus, not only prove to be important in illustrating their varying degrees of internationalism historically and the relevance of this to their relations with the US in the present time, but also provide an explanation for the way in which their relations with Europe became the way they are today, and how this influences their engagement with present day global conflicts. This can be seen through the recurring themes of further development and restoration of international relations through encouraging alliances to be formed with the western world, and for clearly evident internationalist priorities to have become evident so as to promote their advancement as more geopolitically influential nations. Therefore, Latin America's aims appear to mirror yet also somewhat act as the direct antithesis to the core interests of the US. This pattern continued on during the Second World War and through to the Cold War, this transition period appearing to be the point that acted as the beginning of "years of political and social upheaval" (Bethell and Roxborough, 1988). This could likely be attributed to the rising hegemonic influence of the nations, all of which having different views on the US, as a collective, and there having been particular growth in support for the revolutionary leftist and Marxist principles which still remain heavily ingrained within the society of the Latin America of today. The rise to a form of democracy, be that complete or partial, as well as sense of increasing liberalisation at the end of the second war proved to have acted as a catalyst for this change. Particularly notable reforms had become apparent for Cuba since their 1944 election in which Ramon Grau San Martin, who experienced a landslide victory against the comparatively more conservative candidate Fulgencio Batista who previously dominated their political landscape. A thirteen year dictatorship in Guatemala was also terminated, and the success of a popular revolution in Ecuador both took place that same year, and the liberalisation of the Estado Novo in Brazil began in 1945. Furthermore, unlike the US, when the Cold War took place, Latin America was comparatively uninvolved with it and was relegated as a region of low priority for the US, therefore providing them with limited incentive to actively engage them in conflict. This period also marked the beginning of many new intra-regional relations between nations within the Latin American continent, many of which still having their role in the supporting and assisting of the socioeconomic and political situation that they are in today, and in further establishing their international sovereignty (Connell-Smith, 1976). These dramatic gains had mainly become more apparent towards the end of the Cold War, with them appearing to have changed from something of "a pawn of the world powers", to there being "a new diplomatic climate" by the 1960s when the Cold War was largely "out of the way" for them (Parkinson, 1974). This period also appeared, however, to not have entirely been a point of comparative growth and stability for the relations between the US and Latin America in that tensions regarding the rising support for the new progressive communist ideals that conflicted with the US' principle ideals became apparent. This was observed with the Bay of Pigs invasion by which John F. Kennedy ordered troops to Cuba to overthrow Fidel Castro and lead to the election of a non-communist government friendly to the US. This plan failed after counterattacks from the Cuban military brigade, and after the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the imprisoned members of the brigade were released and Operation Mongoose, another plan to destabilise the Cuban government and potentially assassinate Castro was put in place.
These principles still remain very much apparent today in relation to Trump's expansionist imperial agenda, and the key basis of the Monroe doctrine acts as a means by which he can justify his illegal imperially motivated use of warfare and military presence within Europe and Latin America, such as his activities in Venezuela. While these are criminal and unjustifiable acts against international law that have been carried out merely for the US's individual corrupt interests, this has remained a common theme over the centuries with the US's isolationist approach being used to further increase their power over other nations when engaging with their wars. Moreover, the overriding economic dimension of this is also very prevalent in that, as is also the case with his proposals for intervention in European nations, the resources that Venezuela is rich in such as oil and minerals have proved to act as a major incentive for Trump's imperial expansion. This would further appear to present the US's huge capitalist and consumer oriented interests as another primary means by which to gain influence, and a significant means of also effectively justifying environmental exploitation. When looking at this from an imperial lens as applied to Mackinder's Heartland theory, it could also be considered as a means of further expanding the core "heartland" (the region with the most geostrategic influence globally which was immune to - which, according to Mackinder in his 1904 work "The Geographical Pivot to History", consisted of the, at the time, main international superpowers of Russia and parts of Europe (Mackinder, 1904). He was famously quoted saying "whoever rules the heartland commands the world" (Naintarah, 2025). This would thus prove to clearly explain the interests of the US mainly regarding competing against other regions that are equally geopolitically and geostrategically influential, as well as their emphasis being on resources and land of value.
No comments:
Post a Comment