IPLA quiz 2

Nixon 1969-74

Was a realist, didn’t want the Panama Canal to go ahead, delegated control of LA to Brazil, wanted to contain communism in China and the Soviet Union. Covert military coup in Chile to overthrow Allende with Pinochet. Controversy of Watergate.

Carter 1977-81

Idealist, focused on human rights, development and cooperation over the Cold War. Successfully initiated Panama Canal Treaty (1977). He emphasised diplomacy and aimed to improve relations with Latin America.

Reagan 1981-89

Promoted a strong anti-communist stance, emphasised military buildup, largely ignored South America, causing a debt crisis. Supported the Contras in Nicaragua and placed an embargo. South America/Central American Divide. Invaded Grenada (1983) ousted Marxist NJM under Bishop.

Bush 1989-93

Pragmatic, combine liberal, realist and idealism. promoted economic cooperation in LA, hoping for growth and stability after the Debt Crisis. Focus on Drugs/terrorism, the end of the Cold War, less communist threat. Supported/strengthened democratic ties in LA to help debt crisis in exchange for economic liberalisation and free/open markets/trade.

• Contain and limit revolutions in Central America (Panama- instil democracy)

• Emphasis on debt crisis assistance, and economic potential in South America

Grenada

US military with Caribbean allies, intervened. Operation Urgent Fury to protect the lives of US students, restore democratic government and eradicate Cuban influence on the island. NJM movement flirted with Cuba (example of Escalation, misperceptions, whirlpool (Pastor). US intervened where there was no legitimate government, to restore democracy (worked)

^^ Under Reagan (barely on a map? a threat?)

Nicaragua/El Salvador

Historically was a dictatorship, but anti-communism (aligned w US). U.S pressure on Sandinista Guerrilla government to work in interest of U.S. Nicaragua, provided arms to El Salvador U.S worried about spread of revolution, and Cuban influence. US hesitant to invade post Vietnam. Employed exiles (contras) with U.S help hoping to could invade dislodge the Sandinista government.

• Exiles stopped arms, moving between Nicaragua and El Salvador.

• U.S mines around Nicaragua, and embargo (1985). To "halt its export of armed insurrection, terrorism, and subversion in neighbouring countries." To end its military ties to Cuba and the Soviet Union.

^^ Done under Reagan (Iran-Contra scandal) willing to lose presidency over this.

Panama

Bush sucked in Panama whirlpool (grow) - full scale military invasion to instil democracy. Concern w the Panama Dictator Noreiga (drug tarafficking), remained civil as wanted allies in LA with Nicaragua. Pressured dictatorship to step down through economic sanctions. Next election was rigged, the winner violated democracy, U.S applies more pressure, Panama declares a state of war, and U.S intervenes.

• Motivations: security threat (drug war), priority of values/democracy, Reputation.

• four objectives: Safeguard the lives of Americans in Panama, protect the democratic election process, apprehend Noriega for drug trafficking, and to protect integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty

• Result: Success, installed previously elected government, been democratic since.

Cuba (post cold war)

Until the 1990s, hostility was unsurprising, given the general communist threat. After the Soviet fall, Cuba no longer posed a threat. Cuban immigrants influencing US FP (realists say this hijacks US foreign policy, liberals say this is normal/encouraged).

Embargo in 60s fell apart when the US weakened, leading to its allies to undermine it. The U.S forced companies to adhere to the embargo, undermining, punishing them with no access to U.S markets if not adhering.

Lack of soviet power provides an opportunity for better relations.

• generational change

• weak economy allows this.

Obama wanted to normalize relations with Cuba, Trump wants to keep embargo, there is some business and economic potential.

Haiti

From dictatorship to populism, mass immigration seen as a problem to U.S security (interest-driven realism). A left-wing populist priest wins election, promotes the needs of the populations. Populists don't want to be constrained by institutions, they want to do what they think is best, this is more dominant than the liberal. Conservatives take over in a suppressive coup causing many to flee. Bush/Clinton not happy, want to restore democracy. The U.S. can only help enforce democracy in the short term, hard to upkeep without institutions, and a weak system.

• peacekeeping mission in 2004 restored some democracy

• struggled after the earthquake

US intervene because of a brutal military regime causing an immigration surge.

Chile coup 1973

Covert Military operation, Allende overthrown by Pinochet, Allende nationalised copper mining (economic), Allende becoming close with Cuba and Soviet ties, Pinochet aligned more with U.S interests than Allende. (fear of “another Cuba”)

Track I - encourage a coup in

Track II - CIA would fund/ support military coup, but not be directly involved

Devine vs Kornbluh (Chile)

Devine:

• Former CIA argues that the CIA's actions were aimed at protecting Chile's democratic institutions from President Allende's.

• The U.S. government's primary strategy was to support opposition parties and media outlets to create conditions for Allende's electoral defeat in future elections.

• The military coup and the rise of General Pinochet were unintended consequences, not direct objectives of U.S. policy

Kornbluh:

• Asserts that the CIA maintained an active role in efforts to remove Allende from power.

• U.S. covert operations went beyond merely supporting democratic opposition; they included initiatives designed to destabilise Allende's government and create a climate conducive to a military coup.

• U.S. did not abandon its objective of ousting Allende and that the CIA's activities significantly contributed to the events leading up to the coup and Pinochet's subsequent dictatorship.

Cuba (During cold war)

• Us Defeat

The U.S. and Castro learned from the Guatemalan experience. attempted embargo failed. The Bay of Pigs (exile) invasion in 1961 to overthrow Castro failed.

• Castro was already Communist/Marxist before US troubles, Soviet aligned with them more.

• Initially, the US wanted to provide support to Cuba, hoping they’d become democratic. e.g. Sugar trade (US buy lots of sugar at higher than market price, they didn’t even need to help the Cuban economy/markets)

• Mutual breakdown of relations.

• There was an initial diplomatic engagement, neither side planned on becoming enemies. (Escalation of the whirlpool)

Dominican Republic

• US Victory

US direct intervention 1965 (Nixon) In civil war to restore peace and stability, and remove communist/soviet threat, brought through revolution.

Supported and assisted by Organisation of American States (OAS).

• led to a peaceful political settlement.

Pastor (Exiting the Whirlpool)

• The process of escalation in the US in LA countries, the deeper the US gets involved, the harder it is for them to get out.

• In Grenada, the U.S didn't intervene because Grenada was a threat, but rather because of the potential influence in the region

• gets worse and worse, escalation hard to get out of the whirlpool.

• Cuban conflict emerged through escalation on both sides but could've been avoided. (not wanted)

• conflict starts small but blows out of proportion, often avoidable, leads to a series of mistakes, misinterpretations, and overreactions, often brought about by paranoia and mutual reinforcement of misperception.

• US doesn't pay all that much attention to Latin America, there's a lack of understanding of the politics and FP in the area (root cause of U.S getting sucked in)

• The Pastor’s account is more liberal. He assumes actors have a compatibility of interest. They work together and they want the same things and act in the same way for the same reasons.

Grow

• The US cannot prosper without security.

• Security and the fear of Communism is central to US foreign policy

  Realism emphasises national security and power dynamics, whereas liberalism recognises the role of International corporations and institutions.

• Grow disagrees with radicalism. He rejects the idea that business interests drive US foreign policy. Security concerns are more important than economics. Economic self-interest does not play a decisive role in US decisions to intervene.

• Says the Presidents believe a passive response makes the US look weak.

• Grow argues that it was not threats to U.S. national security or endangered economic interests that were decisive in prompting presidents to launch these interventions. Rather, each intervention was part of a symbolic geopolitical chess match in which the White House sought to project an image of overpowering strength to audiences at home and abroad-in order to preserve both national and presidential credibility.