The Place of the American Republics and Canada in the New World Order

1946 ◽  
Vol 3 (02) ◽  
pp. 161-167
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Thorning

In the terrible flames of World War II, the Good Neighbor policy, as conceived by its architect, Sumner Welles, and promulgated by its popularizer, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, met the supreme test of “blood, sweat and tears.” Tried in the crucible of worldwide conflict, inter-American friendship met the challenge of totalitarian Nazi-Fascism triumphantly. As our Good Neighbors themselves often proclaimed in the course of the last five years, “Las Américas unidas, unidas vencerán.” “The united Americas will find victory in their united front.” To emphasize the contribution of the other American Republics and Canada to our recent victory is a simple act of justice. The historical record discloses that, almost immediately after the Japanese sneak-attack at Pearl Harbor, the tiny Republic of Costa Rica, democratic to the core, hours before the Congress of the United States of America swung into action, had declared war upon the warlords of Tokyo. Although only Canada and the United States of Brazil actually despatched complete army divisions to fight on the battlefields of Europe, the other peoples in this Hemisphere, in overwhelming numbers, sympathized effectively with our cause, while their Governments, one by one, broke diplomatic relations with the Axis powers. In a most critical hour for the peoples of the Western Hemisphere, the spiritual unity of the American Republics and Canada established itself as a precious, sacred reality. Our enemies were regarded as the enemies of America; our friends the faithful allies of humanity, liberty and democracy.

1946 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-167
Author(s):  
Joseph F. Thorning

In the terrible flames of World War II, the Good Neighbor policy, as conceived by its architect, Sumner Welles, and promulgated by its popularizer, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, met the supreme test of “blood, sweat and tears.” Tried in the crucible of worldwide conflict, inter-American friendship met the challenge of totalitarian Nazi-Fascism triumphantly. As our Good Neighbors themselves often proclaimed in the course of the last five years, “Las Américas unidas, unidas vencerán.” “The united Americas will find victory in their united front.”To emphasize the contribution of the other American Republics and Canada to our recent victory is a simple act of justice. The historical record discloses that, almost immediately after the Japanese sneak-attack at Pearl Harbor, the tiny Republic of Costa Rica, democratic to the core, hours before the Congress of the United States of America swung into action, had declared war upon the warlords of Tokyo. Although only Canada and the United States of Brazil actually despatched complete army divisions to fight on the battlefields of Europe, the other peoples in this Hemisphere, in overwhelming numbers, sympathized effectively with our cause, while their Governments, one by one, broke diplomatic relations with the Axis powers. In a most critical hour for the peoples of the Western Hemisphere, the spiritual unity of the American Republics and Canada established itself as a precious, sacred reality. Our enemies were regarded as the enemies of America; our friends the faithful allies of humanity, liberty and democracy.


2021 ◽  
pp. 61-81
Author(s):  
Payam Ghalehdar

This chapter serves as an introduction to the first three case studies of the book’s empirical analysis, which comprise Part I. It sketches the evolution of US attitudes toward states in the Western Hemisphere. It shows how US interpretations of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine became more hegemonic with the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary and how US expectations toward hemispheric states were relaxed in the interwar years, culminating in the Good Neighbor Policy. The chapter briefly illustrates how the attenuation of hegemonic expectations allowed Franklin D. Roosevelt to abstain from intervening in the 1933 Cuban Crisis. The aftermath of World War II put an end to the Good Neighbor Policy. Following the 1959 Cuban Revolution, John F. Kennedy expanded hegemonic expectations again, now to include domestic economic policy decisions of hemispheric states. The chapter concludes by showing that after the end of the Cold War, the United States has continued to harbor hegemonic expectations toward the Western Hemisphere.


1984 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger R. Trask

Between 1945 and 1947, Argentina posed a complex and exasperating problem for the United States as it endeavored to develop policy to guide its relations with Latin America. Among the questions involved were how to deal with an alleged neofascist dictator in Argentina, how to preserve the aura of the so-called Good Neighbor policy, whether to provide arms and economic aid to Latin America, and whether to enter into a collective security agreement for the western hemisphere.


1936 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 400-413
Author(s):  
John H. Spencer

The recent changes effected in the foreign policy of the United States both as regards the relations of that State with its neighbors in the Western Hemisphere and as regards its position as a world Power have brought again to the fore the question of the validity of the Monroe Doctrine. There are reasons to believe that this traditional policy, if not completely repudiated by the very State which brought it into being, will, at least, remain uninvoked during some period of time. In fact, it would appear that in so far as it is concerned with the problem of intervention, the doctrine has been definitely rejected by the present administration through the so-called “good neighbor policy.” Furthermore, it has but recently been observed in the Congressional debates preceding the passage of the Neutrality Joint Resolution of August 31 of last year, that the imposition of an impartial arms embargo against belligerents would preclude the United States from applying the Monroe Doctrine in case a weak American State should be the object of aggression by a foreign Power.


Author(s):  
Max Paul Friedman

In the first three decades of the 20th century, the United States regularly intervened militarily in the circum-Caribbean, sending the Marines to govern directly or rule by proxy in Nicaragua (1912–1933), Haiti (1915–1934), and the Dominican Republic (1916–1924). The end of this era of U.S. occupations, and the relatively harmonious period that followed, is typically credited to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy, although his predecessor Herbert Hoover began the process and both drew upon Latin American traditions and yielded to Latin American pressures to change traditional U.S. policy. The new approach to relations with Latin America included not only abjuring the use of military force but respecting the full sovereignty of Latin American states by not interfering or even commenting upon their processes of political succession. The Roosevelt administration signed agreements formalizing this new respect and sought to negotiate mutually beneficial trade agreements with Latin American countries. The benefits of the Good Neighbor Policy became evident when nearly every country in the region aligned itself with the United States in World War II. Measures taken against Axis nationals strained the policy during the war. By 1945, and during the Cold War, the policy unraveled, as the United States resumed both interference (in Argentine politics) and intervention (with a CIA-organized coup in Guatemala in 1954).


1980 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 365-396 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. A. MacDonald

In Argentina during World War II the US stepped outside the limits of the Good Neighbor policy proclaimed by the Roosevelt administration in 1933 and attempted to overthrow the government of a major Latin American power.1Between 1941 and 1945 Argentina was not only treated differently from the rest of Latin America by the United States, but was also singled out for harsher treatment than other neutrals, despite its large material contribution to the Allied cause. In 1944 Washington was readier to compromise with Franco's Spain, a country whose Axis connections were notorious, than it was to seek a settlement with the government in Buenos Aires.2The purpose of this paper is to examine the development of US interference in Argentine affairs after Pearl Harbor and the reasons for US hostility to the rise of Perón following the military coup of June 1943.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 60-84
Author(s):  
Christine Ehrick

During World War II, US–Latin American relations were shaped by the noninterventionist Good Neighbor policy and the projection of soft power via US government-orchestrated public relations and propaganda campaigns. This included extensive film and radio propaganda overseen by the US Office of Inter-American Affairs (OIAA) and disseminated throughout the region. One dimension of that campaign involved radio propaganda aimed specifically at women, who were regaled with stories of heroic Latin American women and carefully curated female perspectives on life in the United States during wartime. In much of this material, the United States was presented as a dominant yet gentlemanly hemispheric partner, offering Latin America protection and material abundance in exchange for loyalty and deference. As the war wound down, such propaganda took a sharp turn toward the Cold War, when Good Neighbor chivalry gave way to more strident rhetoric, prefiguring a return to US interventionist politics of the prewar era.


1965 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 146
Author(s):  
Henry Zamensky ◽  
Stetson Conn ◽  
Rose C. Engelman ◽  
Byron Fairchild

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 186-216
Author(s):  
Leonardo Luiz Silveira Da Silva

Resumo: A descolonização do Oriente Médio que originou novos Estados na região da Bacia do rio Jordão, coincide temporalmente com um novo arranjo da ordem mundial que se reorganizava no período pós-Segunda Guerra Mundial. A trajetória da política externa da Jordânia na segunda metade do século XX é extremamente didática para entendermos os efeitos das relações de poder entre as nações em âmbito regional e global para a mudança de comportamento dos Estados que praticavam políticas anti-hegemônicas. Nesta trajetória destaca-se a intensa disputa pelos escassos recursos hídricos regionais, à medida que o recurso é fundamental para o desenvolvimento das atividades econômicas e para a própria soberania do Estado. Na já distante década de 1950, poucos anos após o conflito da Guerra de Independência que opôs Israel e os Estados árabes vizinhos, a Jordânia passou a adotar uma postura intransigente em relação à aproximação com Israel, apesar dos esforços dos Estados Unidos para promover a estabilidade regional. Com o acordo de paz entre Egito e Israel, mediado pelos Estados Unidos e costurado na virada das décadas de 1970 e 1980, o tabu da oposição sistemática a Israel foi rompido. Desta forma, este artigo tem como objetivo apresentar as mudanças na política externa da Jordânia na segunda metade do século XX, associando estas mudanças às novas estratégias norte-americanas para região, permitindo a compreensão das novas formas de imperialismo que dominam o cenário do Oriente Médio desde a década de 1970.Palavras-Chave: Jordânia, Estados Unidos, Israel, políticas anti-hegemônicas. Abstract: The decolonization of the Middle East that originated in the new states of the Jordan Basin region coincides temporally with a new arrangement of the world order, which is rearranged in the post - World War II period. The trajectory of the Jordanian foreign policy in the second half of the twentieth century is extremely didactic to understand the effects of power relations between nations on a regional and global level to the changing behavior of States which practiced anti - hegemonic politics. On this path there is the intense competition for scarce regional water resources, as the feature is essential for the development of economic activities and the very sovereignty of the state. In the distant 1950s, a few years after the conflict of the War of Independence which opposed Israel and neighboring Arab states, Jordan adopted an uncompromising stance towards rapprochement with Israel, despite U.S. efforts to promote peace in the region. With the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, brokered by the United States and sewn at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s, the pattern of systematic opposition to Israel was broken. This paper aims to present the changes in Jordan's foreign policy in the second half of the twentieth century, linking these changes to the new US strategy for the region, allowing the understanding of new forms of imperialism which dominate the Middle East scenario since the decade 1970.Keywords: Jordan, United States, Israel, anti - hegemonic politics.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document