These two books—one by a historian on economic issues in U.S.-Latin American relations in the aftermath of World War I; the second, a collection of integrated essays by prominent political scientists—would appear at first glance difficult to assess in a dual review. They deal with different eras and markedly different contexts for assessing U.S. policy. In the 1920s, the United States exercised an unquestioned economic hegemony over Latin America. Since 1961, U.S. power in shaping Latin America has diminished. Latin America has not followed the Cuban model, certainly, but the North American alternative—perhaps best symbolized in the Alliance for Progress—has not taken firm hold in the hemisphere, either.
What makes for dual consideration of these two books is the persuasiveness of Krenn’s argument that the character of U.S. policy in Latin America from 1917 to 1929 continues to influence modern U.S. approaches to the hemisphere. Undeniably, before 1917, the United States had developed a distinctive policy toward the region, but its economic and political might found expression in the Caribbean and Central America. World War I enabled the United States to extend its economic sway over South America and break the European grip. In the process, U.S. diplomats were less cooperative with Europeans than opportunistic. Their goal was to persuade private U.S. business interests to take advantage of new market opportunities. In their own defense, Latin American governments, seemingly powerless before this onslaught, were able to frustrate U.S. economic “guidance” with their own brands of economic nationalism. In exploring this, Krenn follows a general assessment with case studies on U.S. economic policy in Colombia, Venezuela, and Brazil.
In assessing this era of challenge and crisis in Latin America, historians and political scientists, who often have very different ways of looking at things, nonetheless are in agreement on the centrality of the East-West versus North-South perspective, not only in the rhetoric but in the policies of every U.S. president. Policy makers who look at Latin America through the East-West prism, for example, emphasize strategic interests, reluctantly accept authoritarian regimes, and are generally suspicious of leftist governments; the North-Southers (perhaps best identified in Jimmy Carter) point to the “new Latin America” and its determination to rid itself of U.S. domination, the need to emphasize dialogue, and the U.S. mission of promoting social and economic justice and human rights in Latin America.
The depression severely weakened U.S. economic domination but did not kill the North American spirit of determination to shape the continent by its own economic philosophy. In the early sixties, which is the starting point for the essays of the second volume, the issue was raised again, on this occasion in the context of an undeniable challenge from the Cuban Revolution and the reality that modern Latin America was at a crossroads in its economic and political development. Essentially, some Latin American countries had modernized their economies but not, it was said, their political systems. The result was perpetuation of social inequities. Resolving them while preserving U.S. security interests presumably established the agenda for every U.S. administration from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan.
In successive essays (placed between the cogent introduction and summation by John Martz), the authors explore U.S. policy toward Latin America since 1961 in three broad areas—politics and policy making, crisis management, and prospects for the twenty-first century. As political scientists are inclined to do, the authors place much emphasis on the formulation of policy within the U.S. government, but they are alert not only to the domestic and international context in which policies evolved but to the historic legacy in the U.S.-Latin American relationship, especially the infuriating contradictions between U.S. words and actions. From Kennedy to George Bush, every U.S. leader has spoken of democracy as our goal in Latin America (often with the same spiritual convictions as his predecessors), but our understanding of the word and our manner of promoting it have too often reminded Latins of Simón Bolívar’s warning of a United States that menaced the continent in the name of liberty.
