It is well known that Latin America has suffered from many political, social and economic setbacks that have stunted its growth and development. Latin American governments have been plagued by corruption and inevitably instability. This has led to “less enthusiasm [as opposed to that in Europe] for new private investments in Latin America, because of Castro and the unsettled conditions in the area.” Unequivocally, political instability has kept many investors out of Latin America. This translates to a low standard of living as well as less education, consequently thwarting ability to create a stable social, political and economic atmosphere. The Unites States has sought to intervene in the development of democratic government in the area, not by encouraging education and development but by supporting those seeking power who would pretend to be pro-American and pro-democracy. Once in power, these “allies” would show their true agendas not to be that of a democratic leader. The United States efforts to successfully promote democracy in Latin America have had the opposite effect as many Latin Americans distrust America and its democracy. During the Cold War the U.S. implemented policies towards Latin America to contain the spread of communism. It sought to aid nations who had gained their independence by imposing on them how they should enjoy their new found independence.
The Cold War was an ideology war between two super powers and their corresponding form of government. Each opponent sought to ensure its survival at any cost. However, American intervention in Latin American began long before the cold war. The Monroe doctrine in 1823 stated that any power who sought to or attempted “to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” would be viewed as a danger to American security. President Roosevelt strengthened the Monroe Doctrine by stating that America was willing to act as a police power to ensure that no system should interfere with the independence of newly established nations, as it is the right of nations who had gained independence to make good use of it. Intervention was indeed embedded in American policies towards Latin American long before the 19th century.
The Truman Doctrine in 1946 ironically states that nations in the world had a choice between two alternative ways of life. “The choice is too often not a free one.” The Truman Doctrine offered support for free people who had to choose between two systems, just as long as the chose capitalism. If nations chose the other way of life then they had to be aided to see the error of their choice. This of course applied to Latin America as well. It appears that these doctrines were hypocritical at the very minimum. It was in the United States best interests to increase the “‘capacity and will of such peoples and nations to resist International Communism’…” America was at war and in order to succeed it did what it had to do to contain the enemy. In doing so it took on the roll of a parent towards Latin America. The Cold War gave America an excuse to further its intervention in Latin American affairs and it encroached on Latin, independent nation’s right to their sovereignty and it did not allow them to make good use of their independence.
It seems apparent that Latin America viewed the United States not as a protective force but as an invasive and overpowering one. A prime example of Latin American sentiment towards the U.S. manifested itself after Chile’s Salvador Allende was elected and decided to nationalize U.S. businesses. President Nixon responded with an economic embargo “which brought Allende sympathy even from non-Marxist Latin Americans. Like Castro, he was viewed as a heroic David standing up to the American Goliath.” Recently, Latin America has opted to endorse trading agreements where the U.S. is not involved. Perhaps American historical intervention in Latin American has created irreconcilable differences. Perhaps the U.S.-Latin American relationship can be viewed as when a parent wants to live his life through its children, inevitably the children will be unhappy, aloof and perhaps even vengeful.
Early in the cold war Latin American was disillusioned with the U.S., not because of its Cold War policies toward Latin America but by its historical pattern of unfulfilled promises. In 1961, former United States ambassador to Mexico, Robert C. Hill, expressed his believe that Latin American people had become skeptical about the promises of development made by their own government and the United States. The U.S. had made grandiose promises and attempts to aid Latin America. These attempts were viewed as one sided and not in the best interest of those receiving the aid. In 1977, Alejandro Orfilla, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, points out that U.S. policies have been perhaps “too ambitious in scope and, in consequence, their goals were not fully realized in practice." He also states that what Latin Americans might appreciate more than grandiose plans from the U.S. are more convincing policies of interests such as the "good neighbor" policy and the Alliance for Progress. President Franklyn D. Roosevelt encouraged local leaders, investments and the training of armies through his “good neighbor policy. President John F. Kennedy sought to aid Latin American with its social and economic planning to avoid excessive inflation and also to distribute wealth as evenly as possible.
President Carter recognized the need to have good relations with Latin America and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. However, during the Reagan Presidency, in which America enjoyed great strength and growth, U.S. policies had changed little if at all towards Latin America. The Iran-Contra affair sought to fund the Contra-insurgents in Nicaragua. This was a détente attempt against communism in Nicaragua; it was business as usual.
Historically, the U.S.-Latin America relationship has been unsettled but peaceful. Its become apparent to the U.S. government that its old policies of intervention towards Latin America have not worked and that in order to improve this relationship, U.S. priorities must be balanced out with its interest for Latin America. This will create more acceptable U.S. policies for its hemispheric neighbors. On the other hand, Latin American countries seeking U.S. aid and private investments must make an effort to create democratic governments that instill trust and stability.

Works cited


Buckman,Robert T. Latin America 2007. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia: Stryker-Post Publications, 2007.

Chasteen, John Charles and Wood, James A. eds. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.,
2004.

Hill, Robert C. "Alliance for Freedom." Vital Speeches of the Day 28, no. 4 (December 01, 1961): 104. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).

Orfila, Alejandro. "Can Latin America and the United States Modernize Their Traditional Special Relationship?." Vital Speeches of the Day 44, no. 1 (October 15, 1977): 21. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).