free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

Mfischhoff · Joined: 14 Sep 2009 Posts: 51

Please reflect on the reading by responding to the following questions or the responses of your peers. Write at least 100-200 words and don't forget to include a question!

How is foreign policy evolving during the Cold War? Do you agree with the decisions of the policy makers? What are the risks and benefits to "the third way"?

Free Forum

mmcgowan18 · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 27

America wanted to stop the spread of communism but with doing as little as possible. The Western Hemisphere agreed that an on one country would be an attack on all of the countries in the Western Hemisphere, and that countries in the Western Hemisphere couldn’t seek help from any country that any relations with communism, in The Act of Chapultepec. This contained the entire Western Hemisphere. But America didn’t have such good relations with Europe, so instead of meeting with the countries in Europe, so we sent money. Even though Latin America needed money more than Europe, we sent money to Europe to contain communism. President Truman says, “The problems of countries in this hemisphere are different in nature and cannot be relieved by the same means and the same approaches which are in contemplation.” The US is cheap and sneaky. Do Latin Americans realize this? And does it turn them into dependencistas?

helens · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 25

This reading felt really easy because I got really into it. I was surprised on how the U.S led Latin America on false hopes and promises that were never fulfilled. On page 13, what I got from it was that the U.S was more ready to support Turkey and Greece than Latin America. This was wrong since they were supposed to be having a “special” connection with Latin America. Its states further down on the left side page “The Unites States seemed to ignore Latin America’s demands for increased economic aid that would give a backbone to the middle class democracy”. Later on in that paragraph it goes on to say how that contradicts Roosevelt when he talked about defending the “four freedoms” throughout the world. I also thought it interesting how the definition of democracy began to shift during that time period of the Cold war. It states that the new U.S definition for democracy “limited itself to a few political freedoms for the individual and it separated individuals from traditional societies so as to thrust them into new highly bureaucratic and commercialized societies”. I was wondering if anyone could agree that the U.S still sees this as the definition of democracy today with all the issues we have now? Like it seems as when you hear democracy and countries living under that, that it is right…so yea. Just my thoughts on things.

jpressman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

The U.S wanted to change the social/economic/political climate of Latin America without being to face consequences if their plan failed. We refused to take responsibility for our dealings in Latin America. It's like one second we want to help them, then the next we give them the cold shoulder. Perfect example... Truman not offering financial aid to L.A. by way of the Marshall Plan because "the problems of the countries in this hemisphere are different in nature and cannot be relieved by the same means and same approaches which are in contemplation in Europe." (page 14). While Europe was not rich, it was comparatively much better off than economically devastated L.A.

The sense that I got was that the US government was very corrupt and would pretty much implement any system that would directly benefit them and help maintain their dominance of the Western Hemisphere. We pretty much said "whatever" to dictatorships because we reasoned "it is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government." (page 15). Is this because we thought that if the Latin Americans were left to formulate a government themselves, it would fail (because Latin Americans are weak, lazy ,etc, etc.) ? Its like the US foreign policy makers were scolding this "gang of schoolboys" (pg 12) and so they could then "pat them a little and make them think you are fond of them" (page 13).

My question: What are the pros and cons of diffusionism?

rbennett · Joined: 14 Oct 2009 Posts: 39

I think one of the main ways U.S. foreign policy was changing during the Cold War was that now the U.S. was basing its foreign policy around the fight against communism. The U.S. government was completely willing to help countries in need, such as Greece and Turkey, if by helping them they were fighting against communism. When Latin America was not associated with communism, the U.S. had no desire to help them out. But when communism began to appear more in Latin America, suddenly the U.S. was all for helping them.

My question: On page 16 of the reading, it says that Roy Rubottom, the head of Latin American affairs in the State Department, said that “sincere anti-Americanism was a result of miscommunication, not divergent interest.” I am wondering if you think this is true or not?

jcho · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 22

I think this reading put quite a bad spin towards the US. It made it seem as if Latin America was the victim of the scheme of the US. This may have been the case with the US giving false hopes of aid to Latin America, but there were also flaws in Latin America. Although the two were getting closer through trade and compromises, Latin America shouldn't have expected much from the US during the Cold War. I mean, they should have foreseen that the "protector" of the world wouldn't be concerned much with countries that were not a threat to "World Peace". I can understand how Latin America would be pissed at not getting aid during the Cold War, but "What could Latin America do to become a threat to the US?" Not much. They may have had an interdependent economy with the US, but the US almost always had the upper hand. So I think this packet puts too much of a bad spin towards the US, not considering that what led to their actions was actually caused by their mindset of being "protector of the world." The end of the packet was a little confusing, with the Thrid Way, did the Third Way work? Or did it just fade away?

soldsman · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

this reading kind of surprised me in how one sided it was. it seemed to me that U.S. was definetly made out as the bad guys (which may or may not be true). I don't really understand why Latin America would trust the U.S. at all when the U.S. was pushing more for dictatorship for them when the U.S. itself is a democracy (therefore believes it is the best approach). Kennan said, "'It is better to have a strong regime in power than a liberal government if it is indulgent and penetrated by Communists. At this point it seems very clear that the U.S. is only looking out for themselves since they only gave only to Europe at first and are rallying for dictatorship in L.A; both trying to suppress communism.

In response to your question julia, from the reading it seemed to me that the pros of diffusionism for L.A. was that they would be more stable economically (with help from the U.S.) but the con is that they wouldn't be as independant. Then the dependancy theory has the opposite pros and cons. I am sort of confused as to why the Third Way is beneficial at all because it seemed to me that there were no large pros..

mlockery · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 7

In response to Maggie’s question:

This is yet another example of how the United States treats Latin America as its back yard. In Europe, it was in the best interests of the United States to send money and military support to help the “frontier” nations establish stable, anti-communist governments and fight off the Soviets. (Here, “communist” and “Soviet” are pretty much interchangeable.) In Latin America, however, the United States plays a role similar to the one played by the Soviet Union in eastern Europe: the dominant, overbearing figure dictating who can and cannot do what. Latin America at this time was heavily dependent on the United States for the majority of their processed and manufactured goods. For this reason, the Latin American governments could not afford to displease the United States government at the risk of losing all their imports they relied upon so desperately. They definitely realized this horrible fact, but not until after they had sacrificed all the diversity in their markets in favor of one particular market that the United States was interested in.

My question is, Do you think the United States would have allowed any Latin American nation to diversify its market if doing so made that nation less dependent on imports from the United States?

esumner · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

This reading made the US seem horrible. Especially on page 14 where Truman spoke. I really think they should have put more effort into helping Latin America, if the soviet union got a hold of Latin America, the US could be easily accessible for the soviet union to attack.

In response to Macon's Question:
I really don't think the US would. The US is extremely power-crazed and wants to stay on top of the food chain no matter what they do. If they let Latin America do that, they fear that they will begin to become more independent and not need the US anymore which would be horrible for the US's economy in the long run.
I'd like to see other answers to Macon's question, so I'm going to leave it at that.

azellweger · Joined: 19 Oct 2009 Posts: 20

I thought the reading was interesting because the US had a choice between Greece and Turkey or Latin America (Like others have said). Both offered economic gain for the US. But Communism posed a bigger threat, so the US chose Europe. The foreign policy evolved into a policy against communism. With the 'huge threat' communism faced they needed to adjust their foreign policy.

I don't really have a question

RRubbico · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 23

I disagree with a lot of the decision made by US policy makers. Throughout the reading there is a pattern of the US taking advantage of Latin America. We seemed to have only made the Good Neighbor act in order to make sure that Latin America would not side with the soviets. Then we did the least we could to aid them unless it was completely necessary. We gave Latin America the copout answer when we said that we had to aid Europe but the situation in this hemisphere could not be settle the same way. I was surprised at how long most of the countries in Latin America listened to what we were saying and to some extent believe it. I thought that both diffusion and Dependency had some good and bad concepts. Like always diffusion was the US’s attempt at convincing Latin America that they should participate in unbalanced business with the US. I did think however that Latin America did have to build an economic system that worked for them which in some ways diffusion offered. Dependency was Latin Americas attempt at exposing the US’s unbalanced trade with them.

I was unsure of which of the third ways worked if any. Do any of you guys know?

carterp · Joined: 22 Nov 2009 Posts: 6

I found this reading very interesting over all. But as Sophie said it did seem a little biased even though i have no doubt that that is how it happened, the over all tone seemed a little anti-US. Which I guess is justified after all of the manipulation that I took place.
I got the sense from the reading that the U.S. in Latin america was a little like a bull in a china shop, trying desperately to suppress communism but as soon as they installed a dictator in one state, communist supporters would pop up in another. I didn't seem like the U.S. foreign policy makers were playing with a real endgame in mind and could easily be manipulated by power hungry officials (15). If the u.s. had not looked at Latin america as a subordinate then but as a equal, as it did with Europe, then maybe it would have been able to suppress communism by a similar plan of action. Policy makers weren't thinking from the peoples perspective, such as a population probably won't like a dictator who degrades their quality of life and breaks human rights, and they probably won't like the foreign government that supports that dictator, and through the transitive property (geometry is useful) they probably aren't going to like the economic system that lets the dictator take all their money.
Do you think that if the U.S. had treated L.A. as equals and utilized a similar plan to that which was used in Europe L.A. countries would have all turned to democracy and capitalism?

spsmith · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 8

This reading I thought showed the hypocrisy of US foreign relations towards Latin America. During World War II when the US thought that Latin America was in danger of becoming communist, made promises of money and help governing. Then, when Truman went to Rio and told all the representatives from Latin America that they would not be getting the support of the US they realized the true nature of US promises. I think that the US acted immorally towards Latin America in all accounts. On pg. 13 Henry Stimson said “I think that its not asking to much to have our little region over here which has never bothered anybody.” This shows that the US thought of Latin America as insignificant in worldviews, which is why they gave their money to Europe, which showed its self as very important. It also shows that the US did not want the Soviet Union to take over Latin America, which is why they would have still wanted control over the region.
My question is the same as Ryan's--
whats the third way?

blee · Joined: 20 Nov 2009 Posts: 9

Some parts of this eading was really interesting and understable while other parts of the reading was confusing. I really liked readig the first part of the reading which talked about the U.S markets in Latin American and how deeply it influenced Latin America. I wanted to know more about the pros and cons of the market in Latin America and just to read more about it. The confusing part were the terms such as dependencistas, and diffusionists. I felt like I should've knew the words before I went ahead with the reading to understand it better. I think that the relationship between latin america and U.S was ironic. While U.S was willing to help Latin America from communists and commuism, they supported the dictatorship. Also, U.S angered Latin Americans by having Marshall Plans for only European country where U.S thought had the most communist influence. This eventually broken relationship led the latin americans to say "the worst thing that could happen to us would be to transform ourselves into second-class Yankees."
My question about the reading is what did U.S want? Did they want Latin Americans on their side or European countries? If they wanted the lasting relationship with Latin Americans, why did they support the dictatorship?

Free Forum