U.S. Foreign Policy and Peru is a collection of twelve essays and two official statements dealing with the multifarious aspects of Peruvian-U.S. relations. The essays bear witness to the significance of U.S. policy on almost every aspect of Peruvian social, political, and economic organization: the fishing industry, international loans, the military agrarian reform, private foreign investment, labor relations, education, and the Indian.
The volume was provoked by the deterioration in Peruvian-U.S. relations which followed the military coup of October, 1968. The policies of the new government were nationalistic and reformist, including the expropriation of the properties of the International Petroleum Corporation (an affiliate of Standard Oil), a strong reaffirmation of the 200 mile limit for fishing, and an agrarian reform affecting U.S. owned properties. In an effort to clarify the positions of the two countries and thereby “improv[e] relations” (p. xii) between them, a group of liberally minded U.S. citizens organized a series of discussions at the Adlai Stevenson Institute. Participants included officials of the U.S. and Peruvian governments, prominent members of the private sectors of both countries, and the “experts” who wrote the essays included in the volume.
Given the existing crisis that brought the contributors together, the essays tend to focus mainly on immediate policy alternatives; however, each treats to some extent the history of the particular problem with which it deals. In fact, the essayists were given a specific guideline; they were asked to respond to four questions:
“What has been United States policy?”
“What have been the results of that policy?”
“What are the alternative policies available to the United States?”
“What are the probable consequences of each?” (p. xiv)
Further, they were asked to be “objective” and “neutral” in articulating the positions of both countries. Thus U.S. Foreign Policy and Peru is not the standard type of academic work—it purports to affect positively U.S. policy in the future and to bring about conciliation. Although it is premised on the assumption that there is compatibility between U.S. and Peruvian needs, it avoids strongly controversial topics—the stated reason for excluding two significant problems: the IPC nationalization and population control (pp. xx-xxi).
Many readers will not appreciate the degree of “neutrality/objectivity” achieved in the essays. In most of them, the writers’ attempted neutrality merely disguises how their values affect their interpretation of events. For example, the essays dealing with U.S. private investment assume that the operations of U.S. corporations are compatible with Peru’s needs for economic development. In fact, perhaps the most illuminating contributions come from two partisans who renounce “objectivity.” William J. McIntire offers a very critical interpretation of U.S. involvement in Peruvian labor organizations, and William A. Douglas provides a sharp defense. Their opposing statements give the reader some feeling for the ideologically charged atmosphere within which U.S. policy is made—the real conflicts of values and interests involved.
In spite of the reservation voiced above, I found the volume worth consultation. The variety of topics it covers and the amount of factual information it provides recommend it as a useful reference. Luigi Einaudi’s discussion of “U.S. Relations with the Peruvian Military” and David C. Loring’s essay on “The Fisheries Dispute” stand out as particularly informative. In short, I would recommend it to anyone interested in U.S. foreign policies in Peru and in Latin America in general.
