Summary: Foreign Intervention In Latin America

Whether it is Hernán Cortés’ rapid conquest of the Aztecs, or the United States-backed military coup in Chile, foreign interference has had a significant, and almost constant, impact on Latin America. Throughout history, however, the manner of intervention has changed. During colonial times, the Spanish and Portuguese colonized Latin America and were responsible for establishing the region’s political and economic infrastructure. During contemporary times, foreign countries intervened subversively in Latin America’s economic and political affairs, pursuing their own business interests and toppling governments that did not abide by capitalist ideologies. In each case, however, Latin American countries have fought the intervention; upper

class, New World creoles fought to gain independence from their colonizers; Che Guevara’s Marxist guerrillas struggled to begin a revolution to remove capitalist influences from the continent; and, the leftist guerrillas of the Uruguayan Tupamaros used kidnappings to resist continued foreign interference in the nation’s police force. The creoles successfully gained independence from colonization, but perpetuated an economic system that would stunt Latin American economic growth, while the leftist revolutionaries failed to rid Latin America of international economic and political interference, yet succeeded in drawing attention to the repression happening within their own country.
Latin America’s struggle against continued European interference was led by upper-class creoles, individuals born in Latin America with Spanish heritage, who did not want to change the system established by the European colonizers, rather, they wanted to control it. As Spanish immigration to Latin America increased during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, competition developed between Spaniards born in Spain, peninsulares(Skidmore and Smith, 2010). The peninsulares used their heritage to claim privileged positions in Latin American society, which came with significant social capital and societal power. During the late 17th century, however, European wars and bankruptcy began to weaken the Spanish empire. As a result, creoles began to take on responsibilities that had previously been assigned to peninsulares—they became involved in mining and agriculture, and soon owned extensive plots of land. They even occupied local political positions, such as town councils (Skidmore and Smith, 2010). When the Bourbon monarchy took over control of the empire in 1713, however, it attempted to tighten its control over Latin America’s governments. The empire performed better, but the creoles were unhappy with their weakened position. Thus, when Napoleon conquered Spain, the creoles took advantage of the opportunity to begin governing themselves, claiming that sovereignty “reverted to the people” (Skidmore and Smith, 2010, 30). They began to form juntas throughout the region, governing in the name of the deposed Spanish emperor, and taking steps towards autonomy, such as pushing the British army out of Buenos Aires with a citizen army. Although Spanish Emperor Ferdinand VII would regain power after Napoleon’s fall, the fight for independence had already begun. Spain failed to hold onto Latin America for much longer, as Simon Bolívar and José de San Martin, creole leaders dedicated to independence, began a remarkable military campaign that would liberate the continent from its Spanish colonizers (it is important to note that Brazil achieved independence in a more peaceful and more legitimate manner, and are therefore mostly excluded from the aforementioned struggle). Thus, Latin American creole leaders took advantage of relaxed imperial rule to consolidate their economic and political power in such a way that they could eventually overthrow their colonizers.
Although former Spanish America was no longer a colony, the creoles had little interest in further developing Latin America; in fact, their struggle for independence contributed to the economic immaturity and foreign dependence that would come to characterize Latin America.

In the aftermath of the wars, mining and agriculture continued to dominate most of the region’s economies (Skidmore and Smith, 2010). These same industries had previously linked Latin American and European trade interests; thus, when Latin American countries began to become autonomous, the relationship resumed. Latin America exported raw materials, such as wheat, tobacco, and coffee, and imported consumer goods (Skidmore and Smith, 2010). Such a free trade ideology meant that European produced goods—superior in quality and prices—quickly replaced those produced domestically. As a result, domestic industry in many Latin American countries was weak, stunting future economic growth and putting the health of their economies at the mercy of the international markets, a problem several Latin American countries continue to have following the Debt Crisis of

1982.
Latin America’s liberal economic system and resulting dependence on foreign investment, however, has left it open to contemporary international economic interventionism, a development that was resisted throughout the region by Marxist radicals led by Che Guevara.
In The Motorcycle Diaries, a pre-revolutionary Che Guevara travels throughout Latin America and encounters immense poverty and oppression.

In one particular scene, he encounters the Anaconda Mining Company, a United States mining enterprise in Chile. At the mine, Guevara is disgusted by how the company’s foreman treats its employees; in fact, he confronts the man and tells him that the workers look thirsty and should be given water. It is in this scene that Guevara begins to understand the oppression of United States’ interventionism, for the mines, according the Professor Stein, were Chile’s number one industry, and yet heavily controlled by the capitalist United States. (“U.S. Involvement in Chile: Clash over Values and Human

Rights”).
As a result of his Anaconda Mining experience, as well as the other signs of poverty he saw on his journey, Guevara would dedicate his life to the struggle against capitalism and foreign interventionism in Latin America, beginning in Cuba. After successfully overthrowing Bautista, however, Guevara wanted to continue the revolution elsewhere. Che and his followers believed in a revisionist form of Marxism, known as “foco theory,” which Professor Stein defines as the belief that popular forces can win a war against an army and that “in an underdeveloped America, the countryside is the base area for fighting” (“Motorcycle Diaries: Discovery of Inequality and Revolutionary Ideals”). Guevara further emphasized the concept of the new man, an individual who was willing to sacrifice himself to help others and a man who would “arise out of the revolutionary struggle to liberate humanity from the egoistic individualism, exploitation, and social alienation of capitalism” (Harris, 1998, 22). Guevara attempted to establish focos in northern Argentina, Central America, and fatally, Bolivia, all with the intention of ridding them of the imperialistic United States presence and beginning a national revolution like that in Cuba (Harris 1998). Although he failed, Guevara’s attitude inspired a significant number of individuals and in the eyes of the United States he presented a real, significant threat to their economic imperialism of the area.