Key Policies

Why This Matters

U.S. policy toward Latin America isn't just a list of dates and doctrine names—it's a window into how great powers justify intervention, how Cold War ideologies shaped entire regions, and how economic tools can be wielded as instruments of foreign policy. You're being tested on your ability to recognize the underlying logic behind each policy: Was it about containing communism? Protecting economic interests? Responding to domestic political pressures? Understanding these motivations helps you analyze continuity and change across two centuries of hemispheric relations.

These policies demonstrate core concepts you'll encounter throughout the course: sovereignty vs. intervention, hard power vs. soft power, unilateralism vs. multilateralism, and the tension between security interests and human rights. Don't just memorize that the Monroe Doctrine happened in 1823—know that it established a sphere of influence framework that every subsequent policy either reinforced or challenged. When you can connect a specific policy to its conceptual category, you're thinking like the exam wants you to think.

---

Foundational Doctrines: Establishing the Rules of the Game

These early policies created the legal and rhetorical frameworks that justified all future U.S. involvement in the region. The key mechanism here is the assertion of regional hegemony—the U.S. claiming special authority over the Western Hemisphere.

Monroe Doctrine

• Declared the Western Hemisphere closed to European colonization (1823)—established the foundational claim that the Americas were a distinct sphere under U.S. protection
• Framed as defending Latin American sovereignty but actually asserted U.S. dominance over regional affairs without consulting Latin American nations themselves
• Created the template for intervention by establishing that the U.S. could act unilaterally to "protect" the hemisphere—a justification invoked for the next two centuries

Roosevelt Corollary

• Extended the Monroe Doctrine to justify direct U.S. intervention (1904)—transformed a defensive posture into an offensive one under Theodore Roosevelt
• Asserted "international police power" in cases of Latin American "wrongdoing or impotence," particularly regarding debt defaults to European creditors
• Led to repeated military occupations in the Caribbean and Central America, including Haiti, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic—the era of "Big Stick" diplomacy

---

Soft Power Experiments: Cooperation Over Coercion

These policies represent attempts to achieve U.S. objectives through economic incentives and diplomatic engagement rather than military force. The underlying theory is that development and prosperity reduce the appeal of radical alternatives.

Good Neighbor Policy

• Renounced military intervention as a policy tool (1930s)—Franklin Roosevelt formally abandoned the Roosevelt Corollary's interventionist approach
• Emphasized non-intervention and mutual respect as principles governing hemispheric relations, withdrawing troops from Haiti and Nicaragua
• Served strategic purposes by building Latin American goodwill before World War II, demonstrating that soft power can advance security interests

Alliance for Progress

• Launched as a Cold War development initiative (1961)—Kennedy's program promised $$20 billion in aid over ten years to promote economic growth and democratic reform
• Explicitly designed to counter Cuban revolutionary appeal by addressing the poverty and inequality that made communism attractive
• Achieved mixed results—some infrastructure improvements but failed to deliver promised land reform or reduce inequality, partly due to U.S. support for anti-communist elites regardless of their reform credentials

---

Cold War Interventionism: Security Over Rights

During the Cold War, containment of communism became the overriding priority, leading to U.S. support for authoritarian regimes and covert operations. The operating logic was that leftist governments—even democratically elected ones—posed unacceptable security risks.

Operation Condor

• Coordinated campaign of political repression across South America (1970s-1980s)—linked intelligence services of Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Bolivia
• U.S. provided intelligence support and training while governments systematically eliminated leftist opposition through assassination, torture, and forced disappearance
• Resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and represents the starkest example of U.S. willingness to prioritize anti-communism over human rights

School of the Americas

• U.S. military training facility for Latin American officers (founded 1946)—located at Fort Benning, Georgia (now called WHINSEC)
• Curriculum included counterinsurgency tactics that graduates later applied in human rights abuses across the region, including in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Chile
• Became a symbol of U.S. complicity in authoritarian violence, prompting ongoing protests and demands for closure

Cuban Embargo

• Comprehensive economic sanctions imposed after Castro's revolution (1960)—the longest-running embargo in modern history
• Aimed to destabilize the Cuban government through economic pressure, but Cuba survived with Soviet support and later Venezuelan aid
• Demonstrates limits of economic coercion as a regime-change tool—over six decades without achieving stated objectives while imposing humanitarian costs

---

Drug War and Security Partnerships

Beginning in the 1980s, drug trafficking replaced communism as the primary justification for U.S. involvement in Latin America. The framework shifted from ideological containment to criminalized security threats.

War on Drugs

• Militarized approach to drug trafficking launched under Reagan (1980s)—framed drug use as a national security threat requiring military solutions
• Funded eradication programs and security forces throughout the Andes and Central America, often strengthening military institutions at the expense of civilian governance
• Criticized for exacerbating violence without significantly reducing drug supply, while contributing to mass incarceration in both the U.S. and Latin America

Plan Colombia

• Massive aid package combining counternarcotics and counterinsurgency (1999)—initially $1.3 billion, eventually totaling over$10 billion
• Funded aerial fumigation and military operations against both drug traffickers and FARC guerrillas, blurring the line between drug war and civil conflict
• Produced contested results—Colombia's security improved dramatically, but coca production shifted to other countries and human rights concerns persisted

---

Economic Integration: Trade as Policy

These agreements use market access and economic rules to shape regional relationships. The mechanism is interdependence—binding economies together creates shared interests and leverage.

NAFTA/USMCA

• Created a trilateral free trade zone (NAFTA 1994, USMCA 2020)—eliminated most tariffs between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada
• Dramatically increased trade volumes but also displaced Mexican farmers who couldn't compete with subsidized U.S. agriculture, contributing to migration pressures
• USMCA updated labor and environmental standards while maintaining the basic integration framework, showing how trade agreements evolve rather than disappear

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two policies represent the shift from passive hemispheric claims to active intervention, and what changed between them?

2. Compare the Good Neighbor Policy and the Alliance for Progress: both rejected military intervention, so what distinguished their approaches to achieving U.S. objectives?

3. If an FRQ asked you to evaluate U.S. support for authoritarian regimes during the Cold War, which policies would you cite as evidence, and what justification did policymakers offer?

4. How does Plan Colombia illustrate both continuity with the broader War on Drugs and a distinct approach to the drug issue?

5. Trace the evolution of U.S. economic engagement with Latin America from the Alliance for Progress through NAFTA—what shift in development philosophy does this represent?