American and Chilean authors seem to coincide in their perceptions of US-Chile historical relations. Henry Clay Evans states that “Few countries have had more occasions to regard the United States with unfriendliness and to resent its policies” than Chile. In the same sense, Fredrick Pike has analyzed the historical Chilean Anti-Americanism, and William Sater has depicted the US-Chile relation as a conflict between two imperialistic projects. In a similar way, Heraldo Muñoz and Carlos Portales (Chilean authors) state that US-Chilean relations “have been marked preferably by signs of divergence.” According to them, tension and disputes between both countries have been more common than agreement and cooperation over the years.
As early as 1820’s decade, the Chilean statesman Diego Portales, warned his countrymen about the Monroe Doctrine and US interests in the Western Hemisphere. In Portales’ view the United States had not collaborated in the Latin American independence and represented an imperialistic threat. In Frederick Spike’s words, the anti-Yankee spirit of Portales became in a tradition of the Chilean foreign policy. Some years later, during the war between Chile and the Peru-Bolivia Confederation (1836-1839,) the United States –in spite of its official neutrality- favored the confederation’s position. According to Heraldo Muñoz, Americans believed that a Chilean victory would provoke an imbalance of power in South America, extending the economic protectionism advocated by its authorities and affecting the US trade in the region.
The unfriendly relations between US and Chile continued with the Chilean support to Mexico in its conflict with the United States (1845-1848) as well as during the South American war agains...
... middle of paper ...
...ield, James Blaine was no longer Secretary of State and Trescott –in representation of US government- had to sign the protocol of Viña del Mar (February 1882) accepting “the Chilean principle that peace depended on territorial transfer” from Peru. Chile had imposed its conditions and -as Heraldo Muñoz says- the United States “lost prestige in Chile due to its behavior in the War of the Pacific.”
During the nineteenth century US-Chilean relations were unfriendly or at least, distant. The United States perceived Chile as a critical and resistant voice toward its policy in Latin America, and Chile considered US as a threat for Latin American countries and for its own national interests. This historical background is essential to understand the US and Chilean attitudes during the Tacna-Arica controversy and especially during the attempted plebiscite in that region.
This paper will be exploring the book The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders. This book focuses upon the early 1800 to the 1900 and explores the development of South American political system as well expresses some issues that some Latino counties had with Europe and North America. Thus, Sanders focus is on how Latin America political system changes throughout this certain time and how does the surrounding countries have an effect as well on Latin political system. Therefore, the previous statement leads into some insight on what the thesis of the book is. Sanders thesis is, “Latin American’s believed they represented the future because they had adopted Republicanism and democracy while Europe was in the past dealing with monarchs
This book by Otis A. Singletary deals with different aspects of the Mexican war. It is a compelling description and concise history of the first successful offensive war in United States military history. The work examines two countries that were unprepared for war. The political intrigues and quarrels in appointing the military commanders, as well as the military operations of the war, are presented and analyzed in detail. The author also analyzes the role that the Mexican War played in bringing on the U.S. Civil War.
In February 2, 1848, the final armistice treaty Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, through which the United States government got the access to entire area of California, Nevada, Utah plus some territory in Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Wyoming. As a compensation, the United States government paid 18.25 million dollars to Mexico.( Pecquet, Gary M., and C. F. Thies. 2010) However, apart from the death of people, Mexico lost half of its territory in this war, which initiate Mexican’s hostile towards American. In addition, after the Mexican-American war, there was an absence of national sense in Mexican, which had a negative effect on the unity and development of the country.
The author of Mexican Lives, Judith Adler Hellman, grapples with the United States’ economic relationship with their neighbors to the south, Mexico. It also considers, through many interviews, the affairs of one nation. It is a work held to high esteem by many critics, who view this work as an essential part in truly understanding and capturing Mexico’s history. In Mexican Lives, Hellman presents us with a cast from all walks of life. This enables a reader to get more than one perspective, which tends to be bias. It also gives a more inclusive view of the nation of Mexico as a whole. Dealing with rebel activity, free trade, assassinations and their transition into the modern age, it justly captures a Mexico in its true light.
Bolivar illustrates the relationship between the Spanish American colonies and Spain. The relationship could be described as bitter, at least in the eyes of the Spanish colonies. Inferiority led the Spanish colonies to the ideas of revolution. Although their rights come from the Europeans, they do not acknowledge themselves as Europeans or Indians. The people of the Spanish colonies claim to be, according to Bolivar, “[…] a species midway between the legitimate proprietors of [America] and the Spanish usurper” (411). “Usurpers” meaning a position that is held by forces which entails an unwanted or uninvited relationship. It is because of the Europeans, as stated by Bolivar, that “we have to assert [European] rights against the rights of the natives, and at the same time we must defend ourselves against invaders [which] places us in a most extraordinary and involved situation” (411). This is also evidence of a bitter rela...
Salvador Allende promised to redistribute Chile's income (only two percent of the population received forty-six percent of the income), nationalize major industries (especially the copper companies), and to expand relations with socialist and communist countries. Allende's presidency presented a threat to the United States; a man with such aspirations would have to stray from United States policies and the policies of all other countries. Allende would neither respect nor consider the work the United States had done for them in the past. The United States would no longer be able to act as a parasite, sucking the money out of Chile. The U.S. decided it must stop this man from rising to power as soon as possible.
Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America. It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicitly explain the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a conclusion.
THESIS : “ The United States didn’t want to get involved in the Spanish-American War, but was dragged into it due to yellow journalism, they wanted to control the seas, and wanted complete control over Cuba.”
Higgins' book begins with a brief review of the way United States presidents dealt with Latin America during that era. It starts with President Franklin D. Roosevelt leasing Guantanamo Bay and President Dwight D. Eisenhower invading Guatemala in Operations Fortune and Success, which became the model for President John F. Kennedy's Bay of Pigs operation. The book provides more in-depth information on how Eisenhower's tactics and plans set up the invasion of Cuba, which was later altered, modified, and approved by President John F. Kennedy. The book addresses how the United States intervened around the world to combat communism. The United States focused specifically on Latin America, indicating the imperialistic mentality of the United States during that era, which I believe continues to this day.
The United States dire fight to end communism caused them to severely overlook the evil of Pinochet. In search around the globe for rising communism President Nixon instructed the CIA to cause the downfall of Allende, despite a 1970 CIA report that stated “‘the US has no vital national interest within Chile,’ and that the world ‘military balance of power would not be significantly altered’ if Allende came to power” (Kornbluh 2003, page 19). Even before Allende became President the fear of having a successful socialist or...
Immediately following the war with Spain, the United States had both the political will to pursue imperial policies and the geopolitical circumstances conducive to doing so. But the way in which these policies would manifest was an open question; was the impulse to actively remake the world in America’s Anglo-Saxon image justified? Hence, there were several models of American imperialism at the turn of the twentieth century. In the Philippines, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Samoa, the United States asserted unwavering political control. In Cuba, and later throughout most of the Caribbean basin, the economic and political domination of customarily sovereign governments became the policy. Ultimately, the United States was able to expand its territory
LaFeber, Walter. Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. New York: W.W. Norton, 1984. Print.
Sigmund, Paul E. The United States and Democracy in Chile. Baltimore, MD: Twentieth Century Fund, 1993.
But the idea that the United States was involved in Latin America to encourage the creation of democratic institutions that could effectively enact reform and enable public discourse seemed far-fetched given how President Eisenhower and Nixon dealt the coup that followed in 1960. Before President Lemus caused a full-scale revolution with the massacre of the student protesters that was waiting to happen, moderate military officers organized a coup and overthrew the president. While the officers promised to implement the reforms promised by liberal generals in the late 1940s and to hold elections in 1962, Eisenhower “found the promises insufficient,” and “withheld ...
In 1895, American citizens took notice of a Cuban revolt against their corrupt Spanish oppressor. The Cuban insurgents reasoned that if they did enough damage, the US might move in and help the Cubans win their independence. Not only did Americans sympathize with the Cubans upon seeing tragic reports in the newspaper, but they also empathized that the US once fought for their own independence from Britain. If France didn’t intervene, the Americans probably would not have won their freedom. As if this did not rally enough hate for the Spanish among the American Public, fuel was added to the flame by the Spanish General (“Butcher”)