“Peoples that are poor, and without hope, are not free peoples. A stagnant and impoverished country cannot uphold democratic institutions. On the contrary, it is fertile soil for anarchy and dictatorship. The United States cannot stand aloof from the fact that almost 200 million individuals live in poverty on our continent.”
Arturo Frondizi
President of Argentina, in an address to a Joint Session of the U. S. Congress, January, 1959.
Unfortunately it is only when Communist violence spreads flaming headlines across the press of the United States that the attention of the average U. S. citizen is directed, momentarily, to a major area of the world. This area which comprises the greater part of the Western Hemisphere, the vast Heartland of the Free World, is Latin America. The Communist seizure of political control of the Guatemalan government and the Communist inspired violence against the Vice President of the United States in Peru and Venezuela, the riots and demonstrations against the United States in Bolivia, are symptoms of an infection which is at work unceasingly to destroy our security and that of the rest of the Free World.
There is little question of the soundness of the military dictum, “Know thine enemy.” Too often we forget the corollary, “Know thy friend.” The majority of the readers of this article, naval officers, are by virtue of their profession well-traveled individuals. The Far East, the Mediterranean, the North Atlantic, and the distant atolls of the South Pacific form a background of common experience and understanding whenever a group of naval officers gather. Yet how many of this versatile and world ranging group could name the twenty sovereign nations which comprise Latin America?
An educated United States citizen, though possessing a background knowledge of European history and literature, would have difficulty in identifying Andrés Bello, San Martín, Rubén Darío, Sarmiento, Simón Bolívar, Rómulo Gallegos, Benito Juárez, Gabriela Mistral, José Marti, Dom Pedro Segundo, or Toussaint L’Ouverture. Yet each of these individuals has occupied, or is occupying, an important role in the history or literature of various Latin American countries.
Why is it that we as a nation know so little concerning the vast area that lies to the southward and forms such a vital and major portion of the Western Hemisphere? An obvious answer is that our historical and cultural ties lie largely with the northern European countries, particularly England. To a considerable extent this is the answer; however, there is much that lies beyond. Within the limiting factors of this article, let’s take a look at, and gain something of an understanding of, these brother Americans. But first, definitions and a few concepts.
What Is Latin America?
Physically Latin America comprises twenty independent republics which occupy all of the Western Hemisphere except Canada, the United States, the dependent areas of other countries, and the recently constituted West Indies Federation. Ten of the Latin American countries lie in South America, three are island republics, and the remainder occupy the southern portion of the North American Continent.
Before leaving this physical concept of Latin America, let’s consider one of the basic misconceptions concerning Latin America—that of size. Naval officers are thoroughly conversant with the distortions of the Mercator projection. Our textbook atlas and wall maps generally use that projection, making the United States (almost one-half of which lies to the northward of 40° latitude) and all of Canada appear as immense land masses—as do Russia, Siberia, and parts of China. The Equator, where the Mercator projection is most valid, cuts across the upper part of South America; thus, almost all of Latin America is shown in relatively correct proportion. The United States, including Alaska, can be placed inside Brazil, with plenty of room to spare. Figure 1 shows Latin America in black compared with the United States in white, as drawn to the Mercator projection. Incidentally, how many of the Latin American countries shown in outline can you identify? Figure 2 shows the same area drawn to the gnomonic projection.
Culturally these countries are related by a common Latin heritage. Although the majority of Latin American countries derive this heritage from Spain, two of the countries—Brazil and Haiti—are not of Spanish origin and, as a result their language, history, and cultural background differ from the other eighteen. Certain of the Latin American countries, particularly those where advanced Indian cultures existed before the discovery of the new World, are still profoundly influenced by the indigenous Indian cultures. It is principally because of the different cultural background—Anglo Saxon vs. Latin and some Indian culture—that most North Americans tend to accentuate the differences rather than the similarities of what might be called our common, or American, culture.
The following is a brief listing of some of our similarities: We all began our political existence as colonies of Western European nations. The majority of us achieved our independence as a result of revolutionary wars. (In the case of many Latin American countries the struggle for independence was a long and bloody one, more closely resembling a civil war, which lasted the better part of a quarter of a century.) As a result of achieving our independence we all ultimately chose the republican form of government. Our constitutions, which emphasize the dignity and freedom of the individual, are very similar. In fact, some Latin American constitutions are almost a literal translation of the Constitution of the United States of North America.
To be quite specific the initials of our own country should be U.S.N. (United States of Northamerica) instead of U.S.A., since there are four United States in the Western Hemisphere: The United States of Mexico, The United States of Brazil, The United States of Venezuela, and our own country. We Americans all agree that a state, regardless of its power or weakness, is entitled to its sovereignty, and we all subscribe to universal suffrage.
Since most of these similarities have existed from our historical beginnings as independent nations, why haven’t we developed closer ties and a greater mutual understanding? This question and its corollary: “What have we done to achieve greater mutual understanding?” will be discussed in terms of the political-historical, economic, and military background of Latin America. Geography, which makes us all Americans, supplies in part an answer to the first question above. Except for the Latin American nations bordering the Caribbean basin, distance—even in terms of today’s concepts—was and is a very important contributing factor. Almost all of South America lies to the eastward of North America, most of the West Coast of South America lies near the meridian of New York City. Buenos Aires is 5,871 sea miles and 5,300 air miles from New York. Valparaiso, Chile, on the West Coast of South America is closer, 4,634 sea miles and 5,122 air miles. Compare these distances to the voyage of 3,262 sea miles to Southampton and the 3,465 air miles flight to London. Until the completion of the Panama Canal a scant forty-seven years ago, a passage to Valparaiso, Chile required an arduous and dangerous trip across the Isthmus of Panama, plus the off-loading and reloading of cargo. As a result, the voyage was usually made around Cape Horn, in waters beset by storms, the calms of the Horse Latitudes, tropical heat, and a long struggle against the prevailing westerly gales off Cape Horn. Only the Gold Rush and the growing demands of our infant industries for lubrication and illumination and the lucrative trade with the Far East gave sufficient incentive to the whalers and clippers to make such a voyage.
Political-Historical Background
The common heritage of Latin America and the United States is that of Western Man as derived from the Greek, Roman, and Christian civilizations. From Rome our two cultures separate, one—ultimately to become the Latin American culture—moved with the Roman armies to Spain where it was later profoundly influenced by the advanced oriental culture of the Moors who ruled Spain, or rather most of it, for eight hundred years; years which correspond to the Dark Ages in most of Europe. The other culture—ultimately the North American culture—moved northward with the Roman armies to Germany, Gaul, and Britain. There it mingled with crude barbaric peoples and finally was profoundly influenced by its own concepts of English common law and representative government. Both cultures shortly before they moved westward to the New World were infused by the splendor of the Renaissance.
Each culture produced its own form of colonization and types of colonists. The English and other northern Europeans won colonies for their various kings and, in some instances, achieved greater religious freedom. We oft times forget that certain North American colonies were founded as a business proposition, or in repayment of a political debt. Regardless of the original purpose for founding the colony, the type of colonist favored was the husbandman or skilled artisan. The North American colonist with rare exceptions came to the New World with his family and the tools of his trade, with the intention of remaining permanently and to establish to the best of his ability a better way of life than he had known. No tremendous sources of relatively accessible wealth existed in North America, such as the mines of Potosi and the treasure seized by the Conquistadores from the advanced Indian cultures. The wealth in North America, such as it was, lay in the land and its husbandry, to be achieved by years of patient toil. The Indians of North America possessed no wealth that the white man valued except land; they were savages to be fought and eliminated, an often brutal process extending from the days of King Phillip’s War in the middle of the seventeenth century to the “Winning of the West” in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
The Spaniards and other Latins won an empire for their kings and brought the “True Religion,” the Roman Catholic Faith, to the heathens for the salvation of their souls. The early founders and colonists of Latin America were the Conquistadores, hard-bitten, amazingly audacious and courageous soldiers who brought no wives or families with them; their tools were sword and gunpowder. Their astounding success in seizing large amounts of treasure, flourishing cities and what would amount to several respectable kingdoms in Europe, from the highly developed empires of the Aztecs and Incas, encouraged in them and their descendants the concepts of plunder. Later with the discovery of silver mines in Mexico and the fabulous mines of Potosi in Peru, the utilization of Indian manpower to work these sources of wealth necessitated the preservation of the Indian. Only later does the development of land become important to the Latin American colonist; even then the land was not developed by a small freeholder, but in vast ducal-sized estates, encomiendas, utilizing the slave—later semi-slave—services of Indian and Mestizos. So, after the initial battles of conquest, it was to the interest of the Conquistadore to conserve rather than to kill off the Indian. Most North Americans do not realize that cathedrals had already been built in various Latin American colonies and universities were in session in Mexico City and Lima three generations before the Pilgrim Fathers landed at Plymouth Rock.
Equally courageous monks and priests carried the cross to the most remote and dangerous outpost. Their interest was the immortal soul of the Indian. Obviously the Indian must remain alive if he was to be converted and become a good son of Holy Mother Church. The Spanish king at the urging of various religious orders and some of his governors signed humane and practical edicts to protect the wellbeing of the Indian. When grants of land were made by the king, the grant included all Indians living within the boundaries of the encomienda and the Patron, or encomendero, was especially enjoined to see to the physical and spiritual welfare of these Indians.
Although the encomendero and his descendants were charged by the Spanish king with the welfare of their Indians, the king was far away and the mines, the cattle, and the crops had to be worked. As their wealth increased the Encomiendistas became more powerful locally, the king’s edicts were ignored and large numbers of Indians perished—particularly in the mines—as a result of this form of virtual slavery. Bartolome de las Casas (1474-1566), a student of the University of Salamanca, arrived in the New World in 1506; he later entered holy orders and by 1520 was Bishop of Chiapas. Bishop de las Casas early displayed a concern for the well-being of the Indians, a concern that was to earn him the title, Apostal de Indios. In 1520 he wrote Historia de los Indios, in which he denounced the abuses of the Indians by the encomenderos. In 1522, filled with righteous anger, he forwarded to the Spanish king, via several messengers, Brevisima Relacion de la Destruccion de los Indios, a condemnation of practices in effect and a plea for royal intervention. The good bishop, carried away by his zeal, cited instances of cruelty as a general rule and added a few zeros to the total number of Indians claimed to have perished. One of the copies fell into the hands of the English who utilized it with great effectiveness. “What cruel and villainous creatures the Spanish are.” They proclaimed, “There can be no gainsaying the fact, here they are shown in their true colors and condemned by a Spanish bishop.”
Thus the black legend grew that the Spanish, hence Latin Americans, are cruel and bloodthirsty. Only recently have our movies and western fiction ceased to portray the Latin in this role. I venture to say that many readers of this article still have reservations along this line, citing bull fighting as an example. These matters are relative. Many Latins look with horror on our version of football which has claimed a number of lives and maimed human beings.
The Development of Inter-American Relations
As early as June of 1818, Simón Bolívar of Venezuela, who, together with José de San Martiń of Argentina, was the principal liberator of most of the South American countries, wrote to Juan Martín de Pueyrredon, the Supreme Director of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (Argentina), of the importance of creating “ … an American pact, which, forming all our republics into a single body politic, will present America to the world in an aspect of majesty and grandeur unexampled among the nations of antiquity.” Henry Clay in the United States Congress and later, as Secretary of State, proposed a mutual organization with the new republics to the south in what he termed “A New World System.”
The first concrete step towards forming a Pact of American States was The Great American Assembly, or Congress of Panama as it is generally known, which met at Panama in 1826 in response to a call from Simón Bolívar. The United States of America was invited to attend the Congress of Panama. Our reaction was somewhat prophetic, after some political haggling two delegates were appointed but neither arrived in Panama until the Congress had ended.
The early phases of Inter-American relations were based on upon goodwill and confidence. George Washington was a hero to most Latin Americans and the organization and of the state and the ideals of democracy expressed in our Constitution were universally admired and copied. The promulgation of the Monroe Doctrine was taken by the Latin Americans as a further evidence of our close association with and concern for the sister republics to the south.
The Monroe Doctrine was one of the earliest statements of Latin American Policy on our part. As formulated in 1823 by President James Monroe and his able Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, the Doctrine stated in essence that the American continents, “are not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” This amazing bet in the international poker game of the period paid off, not only because of the calm audacity of its conception, the fortuitous moment of its presentation and the consummate skill with which it was handled, but also because of the equilibrium of political pressures, or implied pressures, brought about by Pax Britannica and the power politics of the day. In any event, the gamble was successful and the new Latin American nations looked to the Republic of the North for active assistance—men, money, and supplies.
Although the Monroe Doctrine would continue to exert a significant and, in some cases, a vital influence in the destiny of Latin American nations, the United States of America in 1823 and for the next century would be almost totally engrossed in the tremendous task of settling and developing its vast interior and the lands beyond. This westward expansion engaged the attention and afforded an outlet for the restless energies of the original eastern seaboard states, energies which otherwise would have been expended in developing trade and political ties with nations of the Western Hemisphere to a far greater extent than was actually the case during the nineteenth century. Our War with Mexico and the subsequent annexation of Texas and California came as a jolt to most Latin American countries. Our Civil War with the attendant problems of Reconstruction, together with the accelerated westward expansion of our population and economy, further hampered the development of ties with the Latin American countries.
In 1889-1890 at the incitation of the United States Government, the First International Conference of American States met in Washington, D. C. Eighteen of the nineteen Western Hemisphere republics then in existence created the International Union of American Republics. This was not a political union; it was a union based on trade relationships. A Commercial Bureau of American Republics was organized as a standing organization to continue the work of the Union. This Commercial Union was later to develop into the Pan American Union.
Subsequent to the formation of the International Union of American Republics, the following International Conferences have been held: at Mexico City (1902), Rio de Janeiro (1906), Buenos Aires (1910), Santiago (1923), Havana (1928), Montevideo (1933), Lima (1938), Bogotá (1948) and Caracas (1954). Other Conferences of Ministers and the recent (1956) Meeting of the Presidents of American Republics have also dealt with Inter-American affairs. Later in this article a brief summary of some of the more important results of the Inter-American Conferences will be given. A growing awareness was apparent for the need of political (in the large sense of the word) cohesion and mutual support within the Western Hemisphere. In August, 1910, during the Fourth International Conference of American States at Buenos Aires, the International Union of American Republics changed its name to the Union of American Republics and the Commercial Bureau became the Pan American Union.
Imperialismo Yanqui
Several incidents occurred about the turn of the last century which aroused Latin American suspicions as to our foreign policy and are today the basis for the still potent cry of “Yankee Imperialism!” which can be used indiscriminately to suit the needs of any Communist, extreme nationalist, or as a handy catchword for a local Latin American politico. When Spain gave up all claim to Cuba after the Spanish American War, Cuba was at first governed by United States military governors. In 1901 the Cubans adopted a Constitution, however, at the insistence of General Leonard Wood, USA, then military governor of Cuba, an amendment named after its proponent, Senator Thomas C. Platt of New York, gave to the United States the right to intervene in the new republic’s affairs and in particular gave to the United States the approval or veto power in the conduct of foreign relations. This right was voluntarily abrogated by the United States in 1934.
President Theodore Roosevelt, in order to prevent European powers from intervening directly in Latin American affairs to collect money due them from debtor nations, formulated what has become known as the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. In effect the Corollary was a declaration of intent to prevent foreign intervention in the case of Latin American countries which could not maintain economic stability. The United States undertook to straighten out the finances, collect the taxes and, on a negotiated basis, to pay the indebtedness due the foreign powers. The United States intervened in the case of Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, collected excise taxes, paid the foreign indebtedness and after putting financial affairs in order, returned control of finances to the country concerned.
Another catchword that is dragged out of the past to suit the needs of anyone desiring to stir up feeling against the United States is “dollar diplomacy.” In the past the great commercial nations, particularly England, utilized diplomacy to open new markets and sources of trade. President Taft’s Secretary of State, Philander Knox, reversed this procedure and utilized trade and commerce to further our diplomatic status. In order to encourage U. S. private loans to Nicaragua and Honduras, the United States obtained the right to collect taxes; the amounts thus collected could be applied to interest on the loans. In short, instead of trade following the flag, the flag followed trade.
All of these concepts are now things of the past. Our relations with Latin American countries are based upon non-intervention, mutual respect for the dignity and sovereignty of all countries large and small—and upon our common defense as a result of common efforts and agreements.
The Good Neighbor Policy
The Latin American policy of the United States, which has been epitomized in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s phrase “The Good Neighbor,” had its beginning in 1928 when Calvin Coolidge appointed Dwight Morrow as Ambassador to Mexico. Ambassador Morrow’s understanding approach to U. S.- Mexican problems was an unqualified success. President-elect Herbert Hoover in the same spirit made a tour of eleven Latin American countries and in his inaugural address summarized the United States policy as follows: “We have no desire for territorial expansion, for economic or other domination of other peoples.” This was borne out during President Hoover’s administration when Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State, declared in 1931: “The Monroe Doctrine was a declaration of the United States versus Europe—not of the United States versus Latin America.” His department later the same year, in the Clark Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, stated that the Monroe Doctrine confers no superior position on the United States and that it does not give us the right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations.
President Roosevelt’s happy phrase was expressed in 1933 as follows: “I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects himself, and because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.” This point was underscored a year later in 1934 when the United States voluntarily abrogated the Platt Amendment.
The fulfillment of Bolívar’s vision of “An American Pact” was realized at Rio de Janeiro in 1947 when the American Republics signed the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, generally referred to as the Rio Pact. This treaty is basically a mutual agreement to halt aggression in the Western Hemisphere and is binding upon all parties by a two-thirds majority vote; however, no state is required without its consent to use force to carry out the provisions of the Pact. The Rio Pact recognizes the participating parties as members of and dependent upon the larger grouping of sovereign nations under the United Nations. It also included the principle adopted at the Conference of Foreign Ministers at Chapultepec, in Mexico in 1945, that an attack against one American state would be considered an attack against all. A principal provision of the Rio Pact provides that an act of aggression in the Western Hemisphere may be stopped by collective action of the subscribing nations, even though a veto in the Security Council of the United Nations could slow down action in the larger body. It is a matter of considerable interest that the Rio Pact influenced the subsequent concept and organization of NATO.
A further step was taken in creating the Organization of American States (OAS). The constitution of the OAS was adopted at the Ninth Conference of American Republics at Bogotá, Colombia in 1948. The Organization functions as a Regional Agency of the United Nations under the provisions of the
UN Charter which permits regional groupings. The Pan American Union became the secretariat of the OAS. The OAS is not a paper affair. It maintains its headquarters in Washington, D. C., and the subscribing states are represented by ambassadors. In some instances a state will maintain two ambassadors in Washington, one accredited to the United States Government and the other to the OAS. The supreme body of the OAS is the Inter-American Conference which meets every five years and determines general policy and any changes in its organizational form. Each state has only one vote. Two additional organs, the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and the Council of the Organization, have been established to assist in conducting the functions of the OAS.
The charter of the OAS states the purposes of the organization as:
1. To strengthen the peace and security of the continent;
2. To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among Member States;
3. To provide for common action on the part of those states in the event of aggression;
4. To seek the solution of political, juridical and economic problems that may arise among them, and
5. To promote, by co-operative action, their economic, social and cultural development.
Communism in the Western Hemisphere
As elsewhere in the world, the tentacles of International Communism are seeking holds in Latin America and are using every opportunity to exert political pressure to create dissatisfaction with democratic procedures and to create ill will toward the United States. The Communist Party of Brazil is probably the largest in Latin America, but that of Chile appears to be the best organized and most powerful. Recent events in Latin America, as in every other part of the world where the pattern is repeated, have shown that a small, fanatic and well-disciplined group can seize power, or at critical moments paralyze organizations through which a state exerts its power.
At the Tenth International Conference of the American Republics in Caracas, Venezuela, a clear-cut agreement was reached on the following declaration introduced by Secretary Dulles:
“That the domination or control of the political institutions of any American State by the international communist movement, extending to this hemisphere the political system of an extra-continental power, would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and political independence of the American States, endangering the peace of America, and would call for a meeting of consultation to consider the adoption of appropriate action in accordance with existing treaties.”
After the adoption of the declaration, Secretary Dulles stated, “This momentous declaration may serve the needs of our time as effectively as the Monroe Doctrine served the needs of our nation during the last century; it made clear that collective action to eradicate international communism is not an act of intervention but an act to uproot intervention.”
The most recent step in the development of Inter-American relations occurred in July, 1956, when, to commemorate the 130th anniversary of the Congress of Panama, a meeting of the Presidents of the American Republics and the Council of the Organization of American States resulted in the “Declaration of Presidents of American Republics,” which outlined the concepts that unify the member countries of OAS. At the suggestion of President Eisenhower, a Special Committee of Presidential Representatives will continue the cooperative work outlined in the Declaration.
Unrest and violence are likely to continue flaring up in many Latin American countries. One country is in the difficult period of reconstruction after a drawn-out and bloody revolution; several others contain essentially explosive situations. In all of these countries a watchful core of trained communists stand ready to exploit any incident and to divide honest men who hold differing views as to how each country may best be served. Under the guise of “land reform,” “improved labor laws and conditions for workers,” “social betterment” and other catchy phrases, they seek to gain control of instruments of power within the state; by vote if possible, by intrigue and violence if necessary. The inevitable consequence of the gaining of such power by communists was all too clearly demonstrated in Guatemala and at present in the Indian State of Kerala.
The only effective cure for this malady is to assist our brother Americans in their efforts to preserve democratic ideals and to improve the economic situations which, if allowed to continue on a laissez faire basis, will only lead to a bitter reckoning. As indicated above, we must stand ready to help—however, the principal and oft times painful effort must be made by the individual Latin American countries. The experiences of the Federal Republic of Germany, England, France and Spain, provide the example that must be followed: without an initial stage of austerity, there can be no economic recuperation. Loans and grants are like medicines, they assist in controlling infections—only the body itself can rebuild and, with rest, proper diet and a gradual increase in exercise, achieve health. Some Latin American countries are now courageously undergoing this painful course of treatment.
Economic Background
If we agree mutually that the nations of the Western Hemisphere are bound by certain political considerations, the corollaries of economic and military considerations follow. In fact these three concepts are so closely inter-related that it is difficult to say where one begins and the others leave off. That which affects any of our brother nations in this hemisphere, affects us. No man, nor nation, is an island in the sense of isolation from a political-economic-military relationship imposed by geography, common ideals and aspirations. We are indeed our brother’s keeper. How then does this apply to our hemisphere in terms of economics?
The average North American’s appraisal of the economic importance of Latin America would be to list the principal products associated with that area: sugar from Cuba; rum from Haiti; mining and some oil from Mexico, prompted by a dim recollection of expropriations; oil from Venezuela; coffee from Brazil (Remember, “There’s an Awful Lot of Coffee in Brazil”?); bananas from Central America; tin from Bolivia; nitrates and copper from Chile and meat products, wheat and hides from Argentina, to name a few of the countries and their products. Certain products have been associated with individual countries in the past because to too great an extent many Latin American countries have been bound to a “one crop” economy. However, the pattern is changing and a greater diversification is taking place.
The overriding importance of Latin America to the United States is the unchangeable fact that it lies in the Western Hemisphere. Increasingly the economies of the various countries of Latin America are becoming aligned with that of the United States. The strengths and weaknesses of the Latin American economies are therefore of vital interest to us, as our economy is to them. The following table of Percentage of Foreign Commerce and Investments illustrates this point:
|
Latin America |
Canada |
Western Hemisphere |
U. S. Exports to |
22 % |
20 % |
42% |
U. S. Imports from |
32 % |
23 % |
55% |
Exports to U. S. |
50 % |
|
|
Imports from U. S.
Percentage of foreign |
56.7% |
|
|
commerce with U. S. |
43 % |
66.3% |
|
Private investments |
|
|
|
in U. S. |
$822 million |
$2,332 million |
$3,154 million |
Percentage of private |
|
|
|
investments in U. S. vs. total investments abroad |
35 % |
33 % |
|
An Expanding Economy
The economy of Latin America is not static as is the case in many areas of the world; it is rather an “awakening economy” of tremendous potential. The natural resources of this area of the world stagger the mind. First, its human resources—the basis of any economy. The population of Latin America is increasing at a faster rate than any portion of the world, 2.7% annually. This burgeoning population is not compressed into the restrictive confines of an island or a peninsula as is the case with Japan and Italy, nor is it being superimposed upon a worn-out soil. Even the smallest Latin American countries have considerable undeveloped lands and welcome immigration. Here in our own hemisphere an expanding market is channeling an ever-increasing percentage of its trade to us.
The economy of Latin America is basically agricultural and about 60% of its people are engaged in agriculture. The agriculture of this area not only has kept abreast of the requirements to support an ever-increasing population, but has increased its output by a ratio of 3.1% as compared to a 2.7% population growth. Approximately 25% of the land in Latin America could be farmed profitably, but only about 5% of the land is under cultivation.
There is relatively little heavy industry in Latin America; however, the output of manufactured goods has topped the figures of its population and agricultural growth by the following ratio of annual increase: Population, 2.7%; Agriculture, 3.1%; Manufactured Products, 5%. Every year since 1947 the value of manufactured products has exceeded that of agriculture.
The Central American Economic Union
Based upon the success of the economic union of the Benelux countries, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua in June, 1958, signed two treaties in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, which will produce far-reaching effects. The first treaty established what amounts to a Free Trade Zone within the boundaries of the signatory powers. All export-import duties have been abolished on some 237 items which constitute about 25% of the total trade of the area. Present plans are to increase the number of duty free items to almost one-half of the total trade between the countries concerned. The second treaty establishes conditions favorable to introducing new industries into the area.
The five small sovereign states (the largest—Nicaragua—is about the size of the State of Michigan) could not support industries of any size; the entire area however could provide natural resources and a common market for various small and medium-sized industries. U. S. private concerns in the light of favorable conditions resulting from the integration of national economies under the provisions of the two treaties are planning to build a plant to produce farm implements, a pulp and paper mill and a fertilizer plant. General Tire and Rubber Company recently opened a tire plant in Guatemala.
In addition to the economic aspects of the Union, the Central American countries are also pooling other resources. A Regional Institute of Industrial Research and Technology has been started in Guatemala, an Advanced School of Public Administration in Costa Rica—and the old dream of a single law for Central America is again under study by a commission of jurists. Another important step toward union was taken in June, 1958, when visa requirements were abolished for persons holding passports of any of the five Central American countries.
The Republic of Panama, though geographically a part of Central America has not participated in any of these activities. Panama, once a part of Colombia, has traditionally thought of itself as a South American country. However, the economic benefits to be gained from participating in a market which would total eleven million people, if Panama entered the Union, might well overcome any cultural inclination to remain separate from the Central American countries.
An economic union of the Central American countries, particularly if Panama becomes a member, should prove a major asset to the Western Hemisphere. An improvement in economic conditions will also result in greater political stability for a part of the world which is well known for its frequent political upheavals. The Communist threat, which thrives on economic and political instability, will be considerably reduced. This union of nations will also provide for a more effective aid to Western Hemisphere defense as a large integrated unit, rather than as small separate states.
Transportation
The greater part of Latin American economic problems can be summed up in one word—transportation. Some of the highest and longest mountain ranges in the world, vast jungles, utter deserts, torrential rains, tropical heat and humidity are the barriers which must be overcome to make possible the development of this major portion of the Western Hemisphere. Many Latin American countries are making significant headway against this problem. In recent years modern roads have reached high into the Andes and have opened immense areas of hinterlands elsewhere in Latin America.
The Inter-American Highway is a symbol of our united efforts to overcome the problem of transportation. Many portions of the Highway are now in use; however, several years must pass before the 800-odd miles of uncompleted sections are built over some of the most difficult terrain in the world. When completed, the Inter-American Highway will stretch 3,200 miles from Laredo, Texas to the southernmost part of South America and will pass through every continental Latin American country.
In an area divided by such formidable natural barriers, air travel has assumed a role of considerable importance. Many cities and towns where paved roads end at the corporate limits, possess relatively modern airports; even remote areas in the jungles and mountains have a cleared strip and a windsock. The runways in the larger cities are being lengthened for the jet age. As an indication of the importance of air travel, the trip from Quito, the capital of Ecuador, to Guayaquil, the busy port city, requires two days by train under pioneering conditions; the flight between the same two cities requires less than an hour and a half.
An extensive network of inland waterways is made possible by the four great river systems of South America. The Amazon, which carries ocean freighters 2,000 miles inland to the great port of Manaus, Brazil, handles three times the volume of traffic carried by the Mississippi.
International Finance and Banks
A growing economy such as that of Latin America requires loans. The governments of many countries require loans to meet the increased demands for facilities and services brought about in turn by the increase in population and development of resources. Most Latin American governments are members of the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development which, since its inception in 1947, has loaned some $650 million to Latin American governments and private borrowers guaranteed by their respective governments, for long-range productive programs. In addition to the loans, the Bank has made available to member countries economic counseling, engineering aid and other professional services.
The Export-Import Bank (EXIMBANK), an agency of the United States Government has, since 1934, loaned more than $2.5 billions in Latin America. Recently EXIMBANK’s policy has been liberalized to include loans to both private and governmental borrowers for sound economic developments, when such borrowers cannot obtain loans at reasonable rates from private sources or the International Bank.
Co-operation by the United States in helping Latin American countries meet financial emergencies has resulted in various emergency grants of aid to countries which could not meet certain needs from their own resources. The greater part of these emergency grants were made to assist countries which had suffered earthquakes, destructive storms, or economic and political upheavals which could not have been foreseen. The Mutual Security Program has since 1954 provided $75 million of such emergency aid. Under this program, as authorized by an amendment proposed by Senator Smathers, $12.8 million has been loaned to Latin American countries for developments in the field of health, education, and sanitation.
In 1958 the United States Government made funds available to the Development Loan Fund to finance projects in the Free World which contribute to the economic development of the borrowing country which otherwise cannot be financed by private or international institutions. An interesting feature of this program is that loans made by this fund, in addition to being long-term loans at low interest rates, may be repaid either in dollars or in local currency. Several Latin American countries have made application for these loans.
Private Enterprise and Investors
Private enterprise is basic to our concept of the American way of life. The word American as used in this expression refers to the United States; however this statement is true in the larger meaning of the word American. The individual and collective efforts and enlightened self interest of citizens can do more than any government to create new industries and enlarge older ones, thus creating additional employment. Governments are expected to supply those services which are not normal to private industry.
Latin America needs private investment; the requirements of the various economies far outdistance the potential for private investment available within Latin American countries. To encourage U. S. investors, the United States Government is prepared to enter into arrangements with Latin American governments whereby the private investor is insured against certain nonbusiness risks; nationalization of investments, or inability to convert local currency earnings into dollars, to mention two such risks.
Military Background
As a matter of royal policy the Spanish colonist was forbidden to hold any office of importance in government, civil or military. As a result the armed forces raised in the various colonies during the early days of the struggle for independence were officered by ardent but in most cases amateurish patriots, rather like our own colonial forces. The colonial soldiers were mostly mestizos, Indians and Negroes, who often pledged their allegiance to an individual rather than to the Cause. Leaders such as San Martín, who had been a colonel in the Spanish Army and had served with distinction in Europe, and Bolívar, who was the embodiment of the charismatic leader—the man who inspires devotion and the wild enthusiasm that will charge the cannon’s mouth—were rare indeed.
Although troops from the various Spanish colonies fought side by side and a certain amount of correspondence passed between leaders and Juntas of the various colonies, there were no effective Committees of Correspondence, or Articles of Confederation such as bound the North American colonies together. As a result, no sooner had the final battles of independence been won, indeed even before this achievement, the various regional groups—despite Bolívar’s great dream of a “single body politic,” or Gran Colombia, as he now termed the union of states for which he had written a “Constitucion Vitalicia”—began to separate into sovereign states. For a while three states, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela, did join what could be termed a loose confederation under the name of Gran Colombia, but finally these states too, under the increasing dominance of military leaders, went their separate sovereign ways.
Within the scope of this article it is impossible to follow the development of the various Latin American states after independence. Brazil for instance made a peaceful translation from a colony of Portugal to a monarchy and so remained for most of the 19th century; Haiti’s black slaves revolted against their French masters; Mexico twice was ruled by emperors after gaining her independence. The pattern followed in most Latin American countries resulted in a man on horseback, a “Caudillo,” arising to power and retaining power by military force until, as happened in many instances, he too was overthrown. Gradually civil authority gained experience, the political parties acquired sophistication and power as the people gave increasing support to civil authority. Military backing has always been a potent factor, even to this day, in Latin American politics.
Latin American military forces have functioned primarily to maintain internal security. Certain countries have fought wars against one another; Brazil during World Wars I and II sent expeditionary forces to aid the Allies; almost all the Latin American countries declared war against the Axis and the Japanese Empire, and Colombia sent an expeditionary force and ships to Korea. The principal function of Latin military forces, however, is as indicated above.
The Inter-American Defense Board
The first article of the purposes of the Organization of American States is, “To strengthen the peace and security of the continent”; the third article states, “To provide for common action on the part of those states in the event of aggression.” It is obvious that some organ of Inter-American military planning and co-ordination is necessary to implement these purposes and to provide effective support to the principles adopted at the Conference of Chapultepec, Mexico in 1945, and reaffirmed in the Rio Pact, 1947, that an attack against one American State would be considered an attack against all and established provisions for mutual assistance among American States in the event of an armed attack or any form of aggression. The Inter-American Defense Board (IADB) composed of senior officers of the armed services of member nations of the OAS and appropriate staff personnel provide this essential function.
The Inter-American Defense Board, together with the Advisory Defense Council and the Inter-American Peace Committee, report to and operate under the guidance of the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs. The IADB conducts professional military studies for the coordination and conduct of the mutual defense of the Western Hemisphere. A flag and general officer of all U. S. Armed Forces serve as U. S. representatives and a senior U. S. flag officer or general serves as Chairman.
A Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs is held to consult on problems of an urgent nature. In case of an armed attack on the territory of a member nation, the Meeting of Consultation or the Council of the Organization, which is a permanent representative body of OAS in Washington, may call into session the Advisory Defense Committee for advice on military co-operation. The Advisory Defense Committee is composed of the highest military representatives of the American States participating in the Meeting of Consultation.
A Summing Up
Although Latin America occupies more than one-half of the Western Hemisphere, the United States of America is unquestionably the dominant power of the hemisphere. This dominance is not evidenced in a ring of satellite states held in alignment by occupying forces, satellite states whose political aspirations and manifestations are bloodily repressed, whose economy has been ruthlessly subjected to the needs and requirements of the dominant power, whose right to academic freedom of inquiry, of freedom of the press and other means of communication are subject to a rigid censorship. Under the protection of the Monroe Doctrine, the Latin American countries have been and are free to work out their separate destinies without fear of intervention of the Great Powers. Whenever the power of the United States was deemed incapable of enforcing the Monroe Doctrine intervention has occurred. The French intervention in Mexico during our Civil War and the German attempt in the Venezuelan Affair are cases in point.
No one can question the right of any government to protect the legitimate interests of its own people. By the same token the legitimate interests of groups of peoples living in a major portion of the world have the same right to protection by means of agreements freely entered upon and administered by a common body such as the Organization of American States.
In terms of enlightened self-interest the United States should continue its policy of non-intervention in the affairs of our hemispheric neighbors. This requires moral courage, for we are open to charges and countercharges from opposing groups in Latin American countries. The recent upheaval in Cuba is a good example. When the delivery of Military Assistance arms and equipment to the Batista Government were halted—arms and equipment which the Cuban Government had agreed to use only in defense of the Western Hemisphere and not in local police or military actions—the Cuban Government complained that we were interfering with a legitimate government of a Latin American country. On the other hand, the Castro Government when it came to power claimed that we had been aiding a dictator.
It is to our enlightened self-interest to assist the economies of Latin American countries whose products are in competition with other parts of the world, particularly Africa whose economy duplicates that of Latin America in many respects. Certainly in any war or major upheaval, we cannot assure ourselves of a supply of strategic materials located in distant parts of the world which might be overrun by, or whose lines of communications are readily accessible to, aggressor forces. We cannot assure ourselves of tin from the Malayan States, for example, yet Bolivia is a ready source with far less vulnerable lines of communication. This same reasoning applies to ninety odd commodities of critical importance and to 30 of the 77 strategic materials listed for stockpiling. In assisting our brother Americans we have neither the right nor desire to prescribe the economic system they should develop; however in terms of enlightened self-interest the help we give should be consistent with our national philosophy of supporting private enterprise and with those concepts which our own experience has shown will achieve effective economic progress.
The Inter-American defense system is built upon the solid foundation of United States military strength, which relieves the Latin American countries from the burden of having to maintain large military establishments to assure freedom from intervention from major powers in other portions of the world.
From a military standpoint, it is distinctly to the advantage of the Western Hemisphere that all Western Hemisphere nations contribute to the defense of their joint homeland with forces which are integrated both as to concepts and procedures and with each country assigned and trained to accomplish realistic missions.
Upon the basis of actual performance on land, sea, and in the air, as well as in competition with their opposite numbers from other parts of the world, Latin American military men and forces are proving that they can accomplish realistic missions in defense of our Hemispheric Homeland. United by common interests, not by force, we stand before the World and say,
“WE ARE ALL AMERICANS”
Captain Toner is Commanding Officer of the NROTC Unit at Northwestern University where he received his own bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He has had extensive command experience in destroyer types and most recently as commanding officer of the USS Mississinewa (AO-144). Long a student of Latin American affairs, he was Chief of Naval Mission to Ecuador and Chief, Navy Section MAAG, Ecuador Head, Foreign Naval Training Branch in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.