Latin America cannot be categorized as one homogenous block. In spite of sharing multiple aspects—culture, language, and history—there is not a single standard culture that distinguishes the region. One aspect of Latin American culture, regarding foreign policy, is a prevalent respect for the norm of sovereignty and non-intervention. There exists a strong disposition to follow international law as a means to prevent war or at the very least ward-off potential intervention by extraregional powers. Accordingly, the factor of self-interests and self-preservation creates a divergent spectrum of foreign policies within these countries. Thus, there is a unique propensity of domestic politics—primarily from those leaders in power—playing a major role in the development of foreign policy. These polices vary from balancing, bandwagoning, to omnibalancing be careful introducing terms without defining.
Within this strong respect for the norm of sovereignty, a security dilemma starts to emerge in the region. International recognition is vital for these countries, for it is within this construct that sovereignty is built upon—it gives individual countries a sense of independence. Since the region does share an Ibero/Luso patrimony of colonialism, their territorial disputes have not been immune to conflict. In essence, Latin American behavior is indifferent to how the rest of the international community behaves with each other. Drawing from Kenneth Waltz’ neorealism theory where he establishes the belief in a self-help system of international politics, states must rely on their own resources and capabilities defend itself from external forces. From this realist perspective we start to see a foundation to the region’s for...
... middle of paper ...
...rnational organizations. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001.
Sotomayor, Arturo C. “Peacekeeping Effects in South America: Common Experiences and Divergent Effects on Civil-Military Relations.” International Peacekeeping 17. No. 5 (2010).
Santa Cruz, Arturo. “Constitutional Structures, Sovereignty, and thie Emergence of
Norms: The Case of International Election Monitoring.” International Organization 59. (Summer 2005): 663-692.
Redick, John. “The Tlatelolco Regime and Nonproliferation in Latin America.” In
International Organization 35. No. 1 (Winter 1981): 103-34.
Shaw, Carolyn M. Cooperation, Conflict and Consensus, in the Organization of American States. New York: Palgrave, 2004.
Recent Trends in Mercosur.” Inter-American Development Bank. Accessed on May 31. 2013. http://actrav.itcilo.org/actravenglish/telearn/global/ilo/blokit /mercor.htm.
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
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
All throughout the 20th century we can observe the marked presence of totalitarian regimes and governments in Latin America. Countries like Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic all suffered under the merciless rule of dictators and military leaders. Yet the latter country, the Dominican Republic, experienced a unique variation of these popular dictatorships, one that in the eyes of the world of those times was great, but in the eyes of the Dominicans, was nothing short of deadly.
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
America had begun to indulge in the unilateral environment afforded to it during the Cold War. As the Soviet Union began to collapse in the 1980s, the United States was on its way to becoming a solo super power. This acquisition of complete power would inevitably lead the country into new problems, including those foreign and domestic. One of the main issues that came around in the 1980s for the Unites States was the Iran-Contra Affair, which involved the Reagan Administration. With the United States readily inserting influence across the globe, the Iran-Contra Affair proved how foreign intervention can lead to scandal and disgrace in the modern world. Along with detrimental scandals, the Iran-Contra Affair showed how America’s imperialistic behavior in South America was beginning to catch up. In order to remain a dominant influence in South America, the United States had no choice but to topple governments that did not align with American ideology. Using guerillas like the Contras insinuates America’s cornerstone of doing what is necessary in order to satisfy foreign interest.
Today I bring to your forefront of thought, the island of Hispaniola. This island is the namesake for the two countries who run the land, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Both nations hail from a joint introduction into the world market and post-European colonization, but as time progressed, each one had a different outlook to the world stage. The present day Dominican Republic and Haiti are worlds apart on an island which keeps them together. Their culture is separated by the colonial residuals that lay imbedded into their communities. They are on different sides of the spectrum of structural growth due to the resulting outcomes from decades of political ruling and policy making. On one side we have the second independent state of the Americas,
Burns, E. B., & Charlip, J. A. (2007). Latin America: an interpretive history (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
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.
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
War and violence in Central America is a result of governmental injustice due to the United States’ foreign policies. The United States supported El Salvador with weapons and money throughout the civil war. As a result of enforcing these policies, El Salvador’s poverty, population and crime rate increased. The books “.After.” by Carolina Rivera Escamilla and “The Tattooed Soldier” by Hector Tobar give us a glimpse of the issues Central Americans face.
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The Idea of Latin America (pp. 1-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand [cited 12 September 2011]. Available from: http://www.questiaschool.com>. US Department of State.
Wiarda H. J. and Skelley E. M., 2005, Dilemmas of Democracy in Latin America: Crises and Opportunity, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc
Mingst, K.A. and Karns, M.P. (2007). “The United Nations and Conflict Management: Relevant or Irrelevant?” In C. Crocker, F. Hampson & P. Aall (Eds.), Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World (pp.497-520). Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Scholars have debated not only the nature of Iberian colonialism, but also the impact that independence had on the people of Latin America. Historian Jaime E. Rodriguez said that, “The emancipation of [Latin America] did not merely consist of separation from the mother country, as in the case of the United States. It also destroyed a vast and responsive social, political, and economic system that functioned well despite many imperfections.” I believe that when independence emerged in Latin America, it was a positive force. However, as time progressed, it indeed does cause conflict.