IPLA quiz 2

Cuba: 

U.S. Involvement in Guatemala:

• Intervened after land redistribution threatened U.S. business interests. Used a militia of exiles to bypass non-intervention policies during the Good Neighbor Era.

• Success in Guatemala influenced U.S. strategy for Cuba.

Lessons Learned by U.S.:

• Realized that communist/socialist movements in Latin America threatened its interests.

• Reused the militia of exiles strategy in Cuba (e.g., Bay of Pigs invasion).

Lessons Learned by Castro:

• Learned from Guatemala’s experience by eliminating the existing army and creating his own loyal military, preventing internal coups.

• Sought protection from U.S. intervention by allying with the Soviet Union.

U.S. Actions and Consequences:

• Economic Embargo & Isolation: Strengthened Castro's regime and pushed Cuba closer to the Soviet Union.

• Support for Anti-Castro Groups: Led to failed covert operations, including the Bay of Pigs invasion, damaging U.S. credibility.

• Strategic Failure: Efforts to undermine Castro’s government backfired, solidifying his power.

Did the U.S. Drive Cuba into Soviet Arms? NO

• Castro’s Ideological Leanings: Castro was already leaning towards Marxism-Leninism and admired socialist models. His decision to align with the Soviet Union was driven by his political vision, not just U.S. actions.

• Soviet Initiatives: The Soviet Union actively courted Cuba with economic and military support. Castro saw an alliance with the USSR as a way to counterbalance U.S. power in the region.

• Internal Cuban Reforms: Castro’s agrarian reform and nationalization policies were aimed at consolidating power and fulfilling revolutionary promises. These were driven by domestic goals and ideological motivations, not just U.S. pressures.

• Economic Support and Sugar Trade: The U.S. bought Cuban sugar at above-market prices to support Cuba’s economy and prevent radical reforms. This shows that the U.S. tried to maintain positive relations and avoid pushing Cuba towards the Soviets.

• Breakdown of Relations was Mutual: Mutual distrust and miscalculations contributed to the deterioration of the U.S.-Cuba relations. Castro’s anti-U.S. rhetoric and actions (e.g., nationalizing U.S. property) played a significant role, not just U.S. policies.

• Initial Diplomatic Engagement: The U.S. recognized Castro’s government after the revolution, showing a willingness to engage diplomatically. The U.S. initially hoped to influence Castro’s policies through diplomatic means rather than force him towards the Soviet Union.

Dominican Republic: US intervention and use of military force after 1930s 

Communists were weak, but the civil war raised U.S. fears of a communist takeover.

• The U.S. intervened due to concerns over instability and potential communist influence.

• This military intervention was unusual post-1930s, as the U.S. had shifted to multilateral approaches but chose direct action to protect its interests.

Incoherence and Paranoia:

• DR and Cuba highlight U.S. incoherence, paranoia, and misperception.

• Fear of leftist forces led to exaggerated U.S. reactions.

• Bay of Pigs failure showed trained militias were ineffective, leading to direct intervention in DR.

• U.S. actions made Castro more anti-American, worsening U.S.-Cuba relations.

• Mutual misperceptions fueled paranoia on both sides.

Chile:

September 11, 1973 military coup in Chile. On that day:

• Chilean President Salvador Allende was overthrown by a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet.

• The U.S. government was involved in supporting opposition groups due to its concerns about Allende's socialist policies.

• This coup led to Pinochet's dictatorship, which lasted until 1990.

Reasons for U.S. Opposition to Allende:

• No Promotion of Democratic Socialism: Allende aimed for a peaceful, democratic path to socialism, which threatened U.S. influence in Latin America.

• State Ownership of Resources: Allende's nationalization of industries, especially copper mining, threatened U.S. corporations with over $1 billion in capital in Chile.

Hostility Driven by Business and National Security Interests:

• Business Interests: U.S. corporations opposed Allende’s nationalization policies that impacted their profits.

• National Security: U.S. feared socialist policies could lead to a communist takeover and regional instability.

U.S. Actions Against Allende:

• Supported opposition groups and used covert operations to undermine Allende’s government.

• Led to Allende's overthrow and the rise of Pinochet, whose regime aligned with U.S. interests. 

Context and Influences:

• Alliance for Progress: Chile was meant to model this U.S. initiative, which worked in Bolivia and Venezuela through economic reform and social democracy.

• Cuban Influence: Chilean socialists were more influenced by Cuba than communist parties.

Political Dynamics in Chile:

• Centralists formed a coalition to gain a majority over leftists.

• Leftists were dissatisfied with the 50/50 copper initiative and wanted full nationalization.

• Leftist party eventually won the election in 1970, leading to Allende's presidency.

Nicaragua: 

U.S. Concerns and Opposition:

• The U.S. opposed the Sandinista government because it viewed them as a threat to U.S. interests in Latin America.

• The Sandinistas' land reforms and nationalization of industries raised fears of communist influence.

Support for Contras:

• The U.S. provided significant support to the Contra rebels, aiming to undermine the Sandinista government.

• This included funding, training, and military aid despite controversy over human rights abuses by the Contras.

Human Rights Criticism:

• The U.S. criticized the Sandinistas for suppressing political opposition and censoring the press.

• These actions were used to justify U.S. support for the Contras as a fight for democracy and freedom.

Impact on Nicaragua:

• The conflict deeply divided and destabilized Nicaragua.

• It caused economic damage and long-lasting social issues that affected the country's development.

Context and Legacy:

• The U.S. involvement was part of its Cold War strategy to contain communism in Latin America.

• The Iran-Contra Affair scandal emerged from secret U.S. funding for the Contras.

Watergate (1970s) and U.S. Foreign Policy:

Context:

• Happened after Guatemala, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and during Chile.

• Public became skeptical of U.S. foreign policy.

• Anti-communism was no longer a priority.

Changing Approaches:

• Different foreign policy strategies emerged.

• Nixon adopted a realist approach, focusing on practical national interests rather than ideology.

National Security Confusion:

• National security goals became unclear after the Bolivarian Revolution in Latin America.

• The U.S. struggled to define its role and interests in the region.

Panama (post cold war)

Why did the U.S. invade Panama in 1989?

• To remove General Manuel Noriega from power.

Key reasons:

• Noriega’s involvement in drug trafficking.

• Increasing repression of democracy.

• Safety concerns for U.S. citizens in Panama.

Domestic & personal factors:

• President George H.W. Bush’s desire to appear strong ("wimp factor").

• U.S. national security and democracy promotion.

Was the invasion justified?

Arguments for:

• Addressed drug trafficking and human rights abuses.

• Removed a corrupt leader.

Arguments against:

• Violated Panama’s sovereignty.

• May have been driven by U.S. political motives rather than necessity.

Conclusion: The justification depends on one’s perspective.

Cuba (post cold war)

Why does U.S. hostility toward Cuba persist?

• Cold War legacy: U.S. saw Cuba as a strategic threat due to its Soviet alliance.

• Symbol of defiance: Cuba challenges U.S. influence in the region.

• Political pressure: Cuban-American community in Florida strongly supports a tough stance.

Has the U.S. embargo on Cuba been effective?

Supporters say:

• Weakens Cuba’s communist government.

• Prevents resources from propping up the regime.

Critics say:

• Hurts ordinary Cubans more than the government.

• Used by Cuba’s leaders to blame the U.S. for economic troubles.

• Should the U.S. improve relations with Cuba?

Yes, because:

• Boosts trade and economic opportunities.

• Encourages political change through engagement.

• Increases cooperation on migration, security, and climate issues.

• Improves access to food, medicine, and education for Cubans.

Haiti (post cold war)

Why has the U.S. intervened in Haiti?

• Early 20th-century intervention:

• Protecting U.S. business interests (e.g., sugar and rubber industries).

• U.S. military occupation (1915-1934) to maintain control.

Modern reasons:

• Security concerns: Haiti’s political instability and violence.

• Migration: U.S. policies aim to control Haitian immigration.

• Geopolitical competition: U.S. counters China’s influence in the region.

• What should the U.S. do about Haiti’s instability?

• Provide humanitarian aid (food, water, medicine).

• Support democratic elections and governance reforms.

• Strengthen law enforcement to address gang violence.

• Work with regional partners (e.g., CARICOM) for long-term stability.

Key Takeaways (US intervention post cold war in LA)

• Panama: The U.S. invasion was driven by security concerns but also domestic political motives.

• Cuba: U.S. hostility is rooted in Cold War tensions, domestic politics, and strategic concerns.

• Haiti: U.S. involvement has shifted from economic interests to security, migration, and geopolitical rivalry.

Different Approach/Intervention from U.S presidents: Cases of US intervention & US foreign policy (the main motives and goals successful/unsuccessful)

Realism and Security in the U.S. Foreign Policy (Nixon):

Focus on Security, Not Ideals:

• Realist approach: Prioritized basic security over ideologies or values.

• Cold-blooded realism – no focus on morals, only on strategic interests.

• Believed U.S. was overextended and should avoid conflicts in non-strategic areas like South Vietnam and Latin America.

Delegating Regional Control:

• Cooperated with regional powers like Brazil to maintain order and prevent communism in Latin America.

• Brazil monitored the region and reported concerns to the U.S., allowing indirect control without direct intervention.

Global Priorities: 

• Main focus was on containing Communist China and the Soviet Union to prevent them from becoming a joint superpower.

Panama Canal Stance:

• No negotiation with Panama over the Panama Canal.

• Nixon preferred to bully and impose U.S. will rather than diplomatic compromise (unlike Carter).

Carter's Idealist Human Rights Focus in Foreign Policy:

Why Carter Embraced Human Rights:

• Wanted to promote American values and distance himself from the realpolitik of previous administrations.

• Saw human rights as a way to improve the U.S. global image and influence.

• Aimed to treat countries like Panama as sovereign, leading to the Panama Canal Treaty with a friendly, diplomatic approach (no bullying).

• Shifted focus from East-West (Cold War) to North-South (global development and HR).

Why He Shifted Focus to National Security:

• Realized human rights policy conflicted with other U.S. interests like national security and economic stability.

• Criticism for being too critical of U.S. allies who were anti-communist but had poor human rights records.

• The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan highlighted national security threats, leading to a more security-focused approach.

Challenges and Criticisms:

• Pressure on Latin American countries to respect human rights was unpopular, as some wanted to govern sovereignly without U.S. interference.

• U.S. influence on human rights depended on having strong alliances – couldn’t influence anti-American countries.

• Lost allies to leftists and anti-Americans as U.S.-backed regimes couldn’t use human rights violations to suppress opposition.

• Example: Lost Nicaragua to the Sandinista Revolution.

Outcomes of Human Rights Policy:

Positive:

• Torture decreased in Latin America.

• Democracies grew stronger and became more prevalent.

• Lives were saved by advocating for human rights.

Negative:

• Lost influence in countries that didn’t align with U.S. ideologies.

• Revolutionary movements gained power where the U.S.-backed governments were overthrown.

Reagan's Focus on the Communist Threat in the Caribbean Basin: (During cold war)

Why Reagan Focused on the Caribbean Basin:

• Cold War ideology: Saw communism as a major threat to U.S. national security.

• Focused on Central America because communism was spreading there, even though it wasn't economically or politically important.

• Neglected South America, leading to debt crises and democratic strain as countries needed U.S. support.

Anti-Communist Actions:

• Supported anti-communist groups and used military interventions to stop the spread of communism.

• Example: Invasion of Grenada (1983) to oust a Marxist government.

• Embargo on Nicaragua (declared national emergency) and CIA mining of harbors to weaken the Sandinista government.

Controversial Tactics:

• Congress refused to fund his anti-communist efforts, so he used illegal arms sales from the Middle East (Iran-Contra Affair).

• Criticized for undermining democracy and human rights in the region.

Outcomes and Criticisms:

• Short-term success in curbing communism, but at the cost of democratic processes and human rights.

• Lacked a clear vision for promoting democracy – focused more on showcasing U.S. strength.

• High-stakes strategy: Risked international backlash but aimed for significant geopolitical rewards.

Bush:

Key Focus Areas:

• Economic Cooperation and Free Trade: Promoted market-oriented reforms and free trade agreements to boost economic growth in Latin America.

• Supporting Democracy: Focused on strengthening relationships with democratically-elected governments and putting pressure on dictatorships to become more democratic.

• Combating Drug Trafficking and Terrorism: Prioritized security by fighting drug trafficking and terrorism in the region.

Policy Approach:

• Pragmatic Strategy: Combined realism, liberalism, and idealism, moving away from Reagan's anti-communist focus.

• Balanced Approach: Wanted a more balanced policy towards all of Latin America, not just Central or South America.

Central and South America Differences:

• Central America: Aimed to contain and limit revolutions (worried about Cuban influence) but avoided direct interference or military action.

• South America: Placed more emphasis on economic potential and helping with debt crises in exchange for economic liberalism and free trade.

Economic Strategy and Timing:

• Supported neoliberal reforms and economic liberalism as long as countries moved towards free markets.

• Benefited from ending the Cold War and weakening Soviet influence, making it easier to promote democracy and free trade.

• Latin American countries were already adopting neoliberal reforms, so Bush's policies aligned with existing regional changes.

Success and Impact:

• Strengthened U.S. economic ties and regional alliances in Latin America.

• Promoted democracy and economic growth, but the long-term impact of neoliberal reforms varied by country.

• Seen as more pragmatic and less interventionist compared to previous U.S. policies in the region.

U.S. Foreign Policy After Vietnam and Watergate: Human Rights Concerns

Panama Canal Treaty:

• Ended U.S. control of the Panama Canal Zone.

• Transferred ownership to Panama gradually but allowed the U.S. to defend the canal's neutrality beyond 2000.

Nicaragua:

• Avoided open hostility with the FSLN (Sandinistas).

• Concerned about Nicaragua's influence on Central America and the Caribbean.

Public Opinion and Domestic Resistance:

• Public became more critical of U.S. actions in Latin America after Vietnam and Watergate.

• Congress limited presidential power and kept a closer watch on Reagan, especially after the Iran-Contra Scandal.

• Reagan fixated on Nicaragua, leading to domestic pushback and congressional restrictions.

Readings:

Devine or Kornbluh (Chile) - Showdown in Santiago

Devine: a former CIA officer stationed in Santiago during that period, argues that the CIA's actions between 1970 and 1973 aimed to protect Chile's democratic institutions from President Salvador Allende's Popular Unity government. Devine contends that 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. He asserts that the subsequent military coup and the rise of General Augusto Pinochet were unintended consequences, not direct objectives of U.S. policy.

Kornbluh: challenges Devine's portrayal, asserting that the CIA maintained an active role in efforts to remove Allende from power. Kornbluh argues that U.S. covert operations went beyond merely supporting democratic opposition; they included initiatives designed to destabilize Allende's government and create a climate conducive to a military coup. He emphasizes that the 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.

Pastor's "Whirlpools" Theory

• Whirlpools: U.S. gets stuck in Latin American conflicts by intervening without fully understanding the region's political and social complexities.

• Short-Term Focus: Prioritizes economic and strategic interests over long-term stability and democratic governance.

• Historical Legacy: Past interventions and support for authoritarian regimes have created mistrust and resentment towards the U.S.

• Inconsistent Policy: U.S. actions are often reactive and inconsistent, lacking a clear, proactive strategy.

• Neglect of Human Rights: Insufficient focus on human rights, development, and social justice has led to inequality, poverty, and instability in the region.

Assumptions in Pastor's Account:

• Political and Economic Interests Matter: Pastor believes that U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America is heavily shaped by the U.S.'s political and economic interests.

• Collaboration and Partnership: He thinks the U.S. should work with Latin American countries as equal partners, not just act out of self-interest.

• Mutual Respect: Pastor advocates for policies that show respect between the U.S. and Latin America, with a focus on shared responsibility.

Theoretical Approach Pastor is Closest To:

• Realism: Pastor's ideas are most closely related to realism, a theory in international relations that focuses on power and national interests. Realists believe countries act mainly in their own self-interest, often prioritizing security and economic benefits.

Is Pastor's Account Persuasive?:

• Pastor’s approach makes sense because it takes into account the complex realities of international politics. His focus on cooperation and respect in U.S.-Latin America relations is pragmatic, recognizing the need for balance between interests and diplomacy.

• Some might argue that realism can lead to prioritizing power over values like human rights or democracy. If U.S. foreign policy is too focused on its own interests, it could overlook the needs of Latin American countries.

U.S. Foreign Policy Goals After the Cold War:

• Promoting Democracy and Human Rights: The U.S. aims to support democracy and human rights in Latin America.

• Economic Development: The U.S. wants to help the region develop economically.

• Fighting Drug Trafficking and Crime: Another goal is to combat drug trafficking and organized crime in the region.

• Respect for Sovereignty: The U.S. aims to respect the sovereignty of Latin American countries while pursuing its goals.

Challenges with U.S. Policy:

• Inconsistent Policy: U.S. foreign policy has often been inconsistent and focused on short-term issues, which makes it less effective.

• Not Addressing Root Causes: Critics say the U.S. has not dealt with the deeper problems in the region, such as poverty and inequality.

Desirability and Feasibility of a Coherent Policy:

• Desirable: A more consistent and coherent policy would be good because it could lead to long-term stability and prosperity for Latin America.

• Challenging to Achieve: It's difficult to create a coherent policy because Latin America is diverse and complex. Different countries in the region have different needs and problems.