Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America. Edited by Abraham F. Lowenthal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991. 422p. $55.00 cloth, $12.95 paper. - U.S. Policy in Central America: The Endless Debate. By Dario Moreno. Miami: Florida International University Press, 1990. 186p. $26.95 cloth, $14.95 paper. - The Ordeal of Hegemony: The United States and Latin America. By Guy Poitras. Boulder: Westview, 1990. 214p. $34.95.

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 289-290
Author(s):  
Howard J. Wiarda
Author(s):  
James Dunkerley

This chapter examines US foreign policy in Latin America and the historical evolution of US relations with the region. It first considers the Monroe Doctrine and manifest destiny, which sought to contain European expansion and to justify that of the United States under an ethos of hemispherism, before discussing the projection of US power beyond its frontiers in the early twentieth century. It then explores the United States’ adoption of a less unilateral approach during the depression of the 1930s and an aggressively ideological approach in the wake of the Cuban Revolution. It also analyzes US policy towards the left in Central America, where armed conflict prevailed in the 1980s, and in South America, where the Washington Consensus brought an end to the anti-European aspects of the Monroe Doctrine by promoting globalization. Finally, it looks at the impact of the Cold War on US policy towards Latin America.


2006 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 57-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Soares

This article discusses the Carter administration's policies toward Nicaragua and El Salvador after the Sandinistas took power in Nicaragua in July 1979. These policies were influenced by the widespread perception at the time that Marxist revolutionary forces were in the ascendance and the United States was in retreat. Jimmy Carter was trying to move away from traditional American “interventionism” in Latin America, but he was also motivated by strategic concerns about the perception of growing Soviet and Cuban strength, ideological concerns about the spread of Marxism-Leninism, and political-humanitarian concerns about Marxist-Leninist regimes' systematic violations of human rights.


Author(s):  
Brian Loveman

U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America in the 19th century initially focused on excluding or limiting the military and economic influence of European powers, territorial expansion, and encouraging American commerce. These objectives were expressed in the No Transfer Principle (1811) and the Monroe Doctrine (1823). American policy was unilateralist (not isolationist); it gradually became more aggressive and interventionist as the idea of Manifest Destiny contributed to wars and military conflicts against indigenous peoples, France, Britain, Spain, and Mexico in the Western Hemisphere. Expansionist sentiments and U.S. domestic politics inspired annexationist impulses and filibuster expeditions to Mexico, Cuba, and parts of Central America. Civil war in the United States put a temporary halt to interventionism and imperial dreams in Latin America. From the 1870s until the end of the century, U.S. policy intensified efforts to establish political and military hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, including periodic naval interventions in the Caribbean and Central America, reaching even to Brazil in the 1890s. By the end of the century Secretary of State Richard Olney added the Olney Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (“Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition . . .”), and President Theodore Roosevelt contributed his own corollary in 1904 (“in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of wrongdoing or impotence, to exercise an international police power”). American policy toward Latin America, at the turn of the century, explicitly justified unilateral intervention, military occupation, and transformation of sovereign states into political and economic protectorates in order to defend U.S. economic interests and an expanding concept of national security.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (318) ◽  
pp. 98
Author(s):  
Roy Nuñez ◽  
María Isabel Osorio-Caballero

<p align="center"><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p><p>In the last two decades, remittances have acquired great importance as a source of external income for various developing economies. In the particular case of Latin America, the United States represents the most important destination, with 62.1 million Latinos living there according to U.S. Census Bureau. This paper analyses the effect that migration and remittances have on poverty in Mexico and Central America. The results show that a 10% increase in migration to the United States (as a percentage of the population in the destination country) translates into an 8.6% reduction in the population living on less than US$ 1.90 a day, while the poverty gap is reduced by 12.8%. With regard to remittances, a reduction of 6.7% is observed in the poor population and 10% in relation to the poverty gap.</p><p align="center"><strong> </strong></p><p align="center">REMESAS, MIGRACIÓN Y POBREZA. UN ESTUDIO PARA MÉXICO Y CENTROAMÉRICA</p><p align="center"><strong>RESUMEN</strong></p><p>Recientemente, las remesas han adquirido gran importancia como fuente de ingresos externos de diversas economías en desarrollo. En el caso particular de América Latina, Estados Unidos representa el destino más importante, con 62.1 millones de latinos viviendo en ese país según el U.S. Census Bureau. El presente trabajo analiza el efecto que tienen la migración y el envío de remesas en la pobreza de México y Centroamérica. Los resultados muestran que un incremento del 10% en la migración hacia Estados Unidos (como porcentaje de la población en el país de destino) se traduce en una reducción de 8.6% de la población que vive con menos de US$ 1.90 al día; mientras que la brecha de pobreza se reduce en 12.8%. Con relación al envío de remesas, se observa una reducción de 6.7% en la población pobre y de 10% respecto a la brecha de pobreza.</p>


1988 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. M. Schuch

Introduction During the period of May 15–19, 1987, an International Workshop on Above-Knee Fitting and Alignment Techniques was held in Miami, Florida. Conceived and organized by A. Bennett Wilson, Jr. and Mel Stills, the workshop was supported and sponsored by the International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics with the support of the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service of the Veteran's Administration. Hosting the workshop was the Prosthetics and Orthotics Education Programme of the School of Health Sciences, Florida International University, and more specifically, Dr. Reba Anderson, Dean of Health Sciences and Ron Spiers, Director of Prosthetic Orthotic Education. More than 50 physicians, prosthetists, engineers and educators from the United States, England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Israel, the Netherlands and Germany participated.


Author(s):  
Sebastian Bitar ◽  
Tom Long

Latin America exhibits some of the world’s most worrisome patterns of insecurity. Homicide rates have reached alarming levels in dozens of cities in Mexico, Central America, Brazil, Venezuela, and Colombia. Drug and other illicit trafficking generate massive income for criminal organizations. Fighting among these organizations, and between criminal groups and the state, threatens human security in zones of production and along transit routes. Refugee crises—especially an exodus of 4 million Venezuelans by 2019—could increase substantially. Receiving countries struggle to respond. Insecurity in Latin America cannot be fully understood through comparison of the domestic challenges of each country in the region. The sources of contemporary insecurity are not contained within countries, but extend to transnational criminal networks, flows of illicit goods, and human trafficking and displacement. Likewise, isolated state responses are insufficient to respond to transnational dynamics; although some coordination has been achieved, intergovernmental responses have produced limited gains and substantial unintended consequences. Thus, we consider security challenges in the region as a “security complex” that includes Latin American and Caribbean countries, but in which the United States remains significant. On the other hand, international conflict and civil war, as traditionally defined, have almost vanished from Latin America. Threats of military coups and politically motivated violence have declined after being a key security issue for decades. However, some troubling cases and trends complicate this positive trend. Venezuela’s governing civilian–military alliance eroded basic democratic institutions and produced an economic, political, and humanitarian crisis. In response, the United States has raised the specter of military intervention or coup sponsorship. Honduras and especially Nicaragua have turned to authoritarianism, accompanied by alarming levels of repression of protesters and civil society activists. U.S. policies under the Trump administration toward migrants from Central America and Mexico are creating great tension in the region and fear of reprisals. Although most border disputes have been settled a few still are unresolved or contested and could generate tensions between countries in the region. The academic literature about international security in Latin America reflects the complex dynamics described above, covers historical and contemporary security challenges in the region, and presents debates and developments on Latin American security at the international and national levels. Despite its wide scope, the existing literature presents areas where more work is needed to account for emerging trends of (in)security.


1990 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
William M. Leogrande

Many foreign policy analysts in the United States expected a shift in US policy towards Latin America when George Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan as president. Though Bush had been a loyal supporter of Reagan's policies throughout the preceding eight years, Bush nevertheless seemed more pragmatic than his mentor. Whereas Reagan was the leader of the Republican Party's right wing, Bush was a scion of the East Coast Republican establishment, stronghold of the party's moderate centre.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document