Diplomacy of the Big Stick

Under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, both Latin America and the US witnessed a shift in relations. For the longest time, relations between the two regions had been tense; Mexico resented the US for the Mexican-American war and its taking of Texas, the Caribbean was being held hostage as “banana republics” only necessary to produce goods for the US, and most Latin American nations disliked the US. The United States had always promised to protect Latin America using whatever means necessary. The Monroe Doctrine, though mostly theoretical, was America’s first promise of safety – to keep Latin American nations safe from European recolonization.

(Chasteen 157) Then came the Roosevelt Corollary. This provision brought the Monroe Doctrine to life; the US Marines would become a police force for the hemisphere to expand and keep Europe from interfering, but that did not mean the US could not intervene. Theodore Roosevelt thought the nations in Latin America would need correction. Sometimes that correction came in the form of intervention, sometimes it would be occupation.

Teddy Roosevelt’s “Big Stick Diplomacy” was implemented to discipline Latin American countries militarily when and ver international trade/economy was threatened. (Chasteen 221)

This was the main form of US engagement in Central and South America for nearly thirty years. (Freitas) The US used the countries of Latin America for their benefit – whether it was through the exploitation of multinational corporations, cheating its way to gaining the Panama Canal, or having their soldiers occupy Central American nations. Rather than continuing “hard power” through involvement in America’s backyard, FDR opted for a transition from intervention to one of friendship.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified

Proficient in: Monroe Doctrine

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

With his Good Neighbor Policy, FDR abandoned aggression and swore off military interventions. (Chasteen 258) The relationship between the Americas became much improved. FDR committed the US to non-interference, and new economic opportunities enlisted some Latin Americans in US business, and even partially demilitarized the “American Lake.” (Freitas) FDR freed Panama and Cuba of “protectorate” status, removed Marines from Haiti and Nicaragua, and more. A major test to this agreement came in 1938 when the US agreed to negotiate with Mexico instead of retaliating when Mexican oil workers asked for compensation for oil nationalization under Cardenas. (Chasteen 258) Relations between the US and Latin America were better than ever thanks to the Good Neighbor Policy. Before FDR’s policy, the US saw Latin Americans as inherently lesser than they; this is evident not only in the numerous occupations and exploitations but in Jose Martí’s “Letter to the Editor” he makes it very clear that the US saw Cubans specifically as “vagrants or immoral.” (Martí) The US would not annex Cuba because the US saw them as incapable, while Martí writes that they just wanted to be free. The US under 19th century Presidents, under the Monroe Doctrine, and the Roosevelt Corollary saw Latin America as below them. Latin America chased after Progress so they would be seen as strong like Europe and America, but still, the US treated them poorly as children that needed constant supervision. This radical change in relations after FDR was much different than anything that came before him and would change after him – the US would intervene again and prop up military dictatorships.

Import-substitution industrialization (ISI) was a new economic policy that boosted much of Latin America’s economies after the stock market crash in the US in 1929. Although ISI had technically begun during WWI’s interrupted import-export system and made several cities huge industrial centers, it was most notable in the 1930s. (Chasteen 249) While big countries like the US and Great Britain were in shock and hurt by the collapse of international trade, Latin American nations instead got a positive phenomenon, ISI. (Chasteen 249) The basic features of this policy were an effect of new interventionist states. The practice led to the state providing credit to entrepreneurs, investing in infrastructure, and raising tariffs to protect the national industry. (Freitas) The state expanded in its activism and looked inward for development, especially regarding the national economy. Not every Latin American country benefitted from ISI, but the larger ones like Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil did; Chile and Uruguay experienced considerable ISI too. (Chasteen 250) The two main sources of the notion of ISI were nationalism and the desire for economic self-sufficiency and the ECLA. (Freitas) Commodities were experiencing a slow rise in prices while manufacturing quickly became expensive, so commodities had no real value; the ECLA offered trade agreements, industrialization, and integration of Latin American markets, so the countries that could afford to be a part of this agreement were more than happy to enjoy the benefits of industrialization that they had never been a part of before. This helped ISI guide economics in Latin America for decades to come. One major factor that had to be met for ISI to take off was steel. (Chasteen 250) Without steel, one could not truly join the league of powerful countries like the US. All sorts of the industry grew; light industry (everyday items like soap, shoes, cloth) benefited as much as or more than heavy industry (machinery like cars, radios, refrigerators).

As Latin American industry increased, nationalists made that part of their platform. It was prideful to experience such growth; it meant that finally, Latin America was moving out of the shadows of colonialism and into the spotlight to control its fate, meaning Latin America could succeed economically as well. (Chasteen 250) So, ISI reflected not only the economics of the time but the politics too. Populism was the style of politics of the time; nationalism and ISI worked hand-in-hand in populist nations. Pure nationalism was also pretty popular, notably in Brazil. It offers a perfect example of ISI and its effects on politics. Getúlio Vargas’ presidency highlights well the political consequences after the crash of 1929. Economic nationalism replaced oligarchic politics. Vargas’ constitutional presidency led to his centralization of powers, a new constitution, and new nationalist measures – restricting foreign ownership of land for example – but then he assumed the powers of a dictator. (Chasteen 252, Freitas) His “Estado Novo” banned political parties, censored the media, and appointed people to direct state governments. But he remained true to nationalism; he wanted nothing more than to further the goals and welfare of Brazil. ISI was also evident in Mexico under Cárdenas; his agrarian reform and nationalization of oil helped even rural society transform into something greater. (Chasteen 256) Nationalism helped ISI flourish. After the Depression and WWII nationalists took credit for leading Latin Americans through desperate times and making the nations there prosperous. Unfortunately, most of Central America and the Caribbean were still hurting; neither ISI nor nationalism hit these countries and they were still living in desperation. But even though not every country was affected, ISI had a major impact in Latin America, although rhetoric often outran reality. No matter how much preaching was done to explain the wonders of nationalism and the economic strength it would bring from ISI, the industry here was still behind Europe and the US. (Chasteen 261) Competition after the disasters of the 1930s and 1940s was a challenge, no matter how much nationalism had brought countries together.

During the dictatorships and military regimes in much of Latin America from the beginning of the Cold War to the end, there were several cases of abuse of power. Disappearings, murders, and so much more characterized the era. In two different texts “Open Letter to the Military Junta” and “Human Rights Violations Committed by Government Agencies” it is easy to see the effects these regimes had on everyday people – and just how awful these effects were. Although the two texts differ in decades written as well as what countries they are about, both show the aspects of military power. “Open Letter to the Military Junta” by Rodolfo Walsh is a letter written in pure desperation – Walsh was extremely concerned about the working class in Argentina and wrote this letter to address his diagnosis of the military regime and its connections to repression and economic transformation. (Walsh 227) His investigative journalism touched on the press censorship and other liberties stolen, the missing and imprisoned “traitors,” the Junta’s refusal to name those it had imprisoned and so many other shocking violations of human rights. Walsh writes that the Argentine Junta had suspended freedom of the press and persecuted several intellectuals. (Walsh 227) Walsh notes pretty bluntly that the Junta was calling mistakes successes and mistakes crimes. It did not matter what the Junta did, no matter the tragedy, it would not be stopped. The administration ended all chances for democracy and was utterly illegitimate since its start. (Walsh 228) The Junta banned political parties, controlled unions, and struck ultimate terror into the minds of everyday Argentines.

The Junta did not stop with the just suspension of civil liberties, it was incredibly violent as well. Human rights violations did not just begin and end with the thousands missing, imprisoned, and imprisoned simply for opposing the military regime; Argentina was brutal in the way it treated its people. Habeas corpus was rejected, thousands of people were “disappeared,” and people were tortured. (Walsh 228) People were waterboarded and tortured with cattle prods; there were also thousands of executions and the Junta would not even publish the names of those it had tortured and killed. This sort of ignoring the facts of what was going on was seen in Chile as well. “Human Rights Violations Committed by Government Agents” talks about what Chileans faced under the military regime in Chile. In Chile people were rounded up and tortured, oftentimes in Chilean soccer stadiums; people who were detained for their opposition were held, tortured, and systematically executed. (Wood 250) This particular report on Chile discusses the deaths of prisoners in the Chile Stadium; the Chilean National Commission released these details after the fact. People ranging from lawyers to students to factor workers to singers were killed in these stadiums. The military regime would lie and say people were killed because they shot first, even when witnesses say they were arrested at peoples’ workplaces. (Wood 251) The regime did not just kill people, some were shot upwards of eight times, clearly killed without due process or a trial, and overall killed because of human rights violations. Some people who were killed were never found. Some had their bodies left at the stadium, but others died alone and afraid and their families never even got their bodies back. (Wood 251) Every single person written about in “Human Rights Violations Committed by Government Agents” was killed without due process of the law, without a fair trial/conviction, and many were interrogated by army recruits. (Wood 252) Multiple bullet wounds plus being stored in a stadium with other prisoners goes to show the suffering these people endured. As stated in the lecture, bureaucracies are to blame for their stabilization programs, control of government policies, control of labor through violence, and widespread humans right violations. (Freitas) Through firsthand accounts, one can see the unfathomable types of pain people during military regimes endured. Whether it was in the 1960s or the 1980s, people faced similar experiences – anti-personalism, coups, and then military regimes that rounded up “traitors” or communists that threatened national security. Overall, the damage done was great and heinous; it is hard to imagine forgiveness coming quickly if at all.

The Pink Tide that swept across Latin America in the late 1990s and 2000s occurred as a response to neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus. As neoliberalism attempted to stop inflation, introduce free trade, and boost the economy, leftist governments popped up across Latin America as a protest against the increasing economic problems – poverty, inequality, and corruption. (Freitas) Electoral democracy put several cases of abusedemocrats in place – though they were quite moderate, hence the term pink tide. One unique example of a country that experienced a turn to the left was Venezuela. Venezuela, a petrol-state dependent on oil, had avoided the disruption caused by military dictatorships in the years before the pink tide. Nationalization of the oil industry and stable politics kept Venezuela safe from dictatorships, but after neoliberalism was implemented and economic activity increased gasoline prices alongside the rethought implementationand of martial law, protestors and common Venezuelans were extremely unhappy. (Freitas) One very important man took these matters into his own hands. Hugo Chávez led a group of paratroopers against the unpopular Peréz, but he failed and was imprisoned. Fortunately for him, that only increased his popularity among the poor; he was their hero for doing what they could never do – challenge the president. Peréz was impeached and after he got released from prison, Chávez was elected president of Venezuela, getting 56.2% of the vote. (Freitas) The poor people of Venezuela saw Chávez as their hero; they reathoughtand ough his election would turn the country around. By presenting himself as a modern-day liberator, Chávez centralized government power and dismantled the Supreme Court, disbanded the legislature, and commissioned a new constitution that allowed his reelection, enhanced executive powers, and created a unicameral legislature. (Freitas) But people still loved Chávez; 59.8% of the vote went to him in the next election and people were okay with his policies because they believed he was ridding the government of a corrupt congress and court. (Freitas) His anti-corruption, anti-oligarchy, and he expandedanti-American perspective were appreciated. He controlled the oil economy and replaced/restructured the entire administration. He faced an attempted coup, became an enemy of the United States, and still worked towards progress. Socialism became associated with the Chávez regime, but it was not a dictatorship. (Freitas) Though it packed the courts, eliminated checks and balances, and more, Chávez was happy to accept the rules of his referendum-based democracy by allowing his ideas to be voted for or against (Freitas).

Chávez was strong, and Venezuela loved him. In “On the Legacy of Hugo Chávez,” Grandin writes that Chávez left behind “the most democratic country in the Western Hemisphere.” (Grandin) Chávez submitted himself and his plans to fourteen national votes; Venezuela had quite transparent elections and his people supported him until the end. (Grandin) People liked Chávez because of his expansion of expanded state services (i.e. healthcare and education) even though Venezuela still has real problems with crime, corruption, shortages, and inflation. (Grandin) Others saw Chávez and his agenda as one newthe socmovementents. Minorities flocked to him; feminists, the LGBT organization, environmental coalitions, getaway, and more saw Chávez’s regime like the one that would allow them the growth they desired. (Grandin) Though the results of Chávez’s regime ignoring Venezuela have not seemed to be positive since his death in 2013. His successor Maduro does not have the charisma or “chavismo” to carry on without Chávez. (Freitas) Maduro governs by decree and ignoring congress – a congress now controlled by the right. Checks and balances are eroded even more than before Chávez and political opponents andand are persecuted. (Freitas) Oil prices have plummeted and PdVSA is broke; economic crisis, inflation, an extreme poverty plague Venezuela today. People are fleeing and migrating to Colombia to getaway. (Freitas) The many things Chávez implemented are not working for Venezuela currently. Money is useless and the whole country is facing serious poverty. Though Chávez did a lot for Venezuela and tried to make his country a beacon of hope by implementing socialism, when he died his successor could not lead the way Venezuela needed. Other nations in Latin America also faced a pink tide, Brazil for one had a great experience under “Lula,” but unfortunately the turn to the left did not affect every country in the same way or in a good way long-term.

Works Cited

1. Chasteen, John Charles. Born in Blood and Fire. W.W. Norton and Company, 2016.
2. Freitas, Frederico. Class Slides. 2018
3. Grandin, Greg. On the Legacy of Hugo Chávez. 6 March 2013. ..
4. Martí, José. “Letter to the Editor”, New York Evening Post, March 25, 1889
5. Walsh, Rodolfo. “Open Letter to the Military Junta,” in Keen’s Latin American Civilization, vol 2, 10th ed. Edited by R. M. Buffington and L. Caimari, 226-236
6. Wood, James A., editor. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Fourth ed., Rowman & Littlefield, 2014.