The Migrant Caravan is knocking at the doors of the United States to warn them “it’s your fault we were forced to leave.” This is yet another chapter in a difficult relationship between the United States and Latin America. A story more than a century long. It is a story that began in the early 1900s with the United States’ intent to establish itself as a regional and world power and to transform the Caribbean into the desired “American Lake.” It is a story that saw Latin America’s dependence increase between the two world wars. It is a story of multinationals, investors, U.S. administrations, international organizations, doctrines, revolutions, coups, and the myth of Pan-Americanism. It is also the history of the Cold War, drug trafficking, development projects, the CIA and terrorism. Our Caravan can now set off on a historical journey to discover a history where anti-Americanism has been transformed into hope.
American interventionism historically developed under the Monroe Doctrine, whereby the United States would not tolerate intervention by European powers in the Western Hemisphere’s affairs.
The first major act, as a regional and emerging world power, was to wage war against Spain over the Cuban question in 1898. The war ended after 4 months and led to the acquisition of the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam. These outposts were vital to extend the American power in the Chinese market, where the Japanese rise had begun to threaten the liberty of trade in the region. Another important effect was to have a greater grip on the Caribbean with a de facto nominal independence of Cuba.
In 1904 Theodore Roosevelt, president of the United States between 1901 and 1909, added a corollary to the Monroe doctrine that claimed the right of the United States to intervene in the affairs of an American republic if it ran the risk of occupation or intervention by an European state.
Roosevelt was a firm believer of the doctrines of Mahan and of Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is a theory according to which the history of human societies responded to the logic of survival of the fittest. This theory provided the foundation for numerous theories of racial supremacy and for advocates of the “white man’s burden”, that is the role of the “white man” as a civilizer.
The ideas of Mahan, a U.S. admiral, on the other hand, focused on the position of the naval power and on the assumption that the development of trade is essential in terms of power increase.
He also believed that, because the sea is the fastest and cheapest means of transporting goods it is in the interest of a state to develop a commercial fleet and to ensure its security through an adequate navy that can prevent the routes from being destroyed by any external threat.
These two theories have been translated, on the one hand, into the desire to export “progress” through investments and capital, and, on the other, to ensure that these investments were made in countries which were important from the point of view of trade routes.
With these objectives in mind, the administration of the time, obtained the independence of Panama from Colombia with a treaty that authorized the United States to build and control what would later become the Panama Canal in 1913; fundamental to reduce the timing of trade routes.
Moreover, to further consolidate the American dominance over the Caribbean, the Platt Amendment was included in the Cuban constitution. This amendment established the criteria for intervention in Cuban affairs and allowed the United States to maintain a naval base in Cuba (Guantanamo).
The United States used this amendment by intervening in some Cuban affairs in 1906, 1912, 1917, and 1920. The amendment was repealed in 1934 but control of the Guantanamo military base remains to this day.
The United States also took control of the finances throughout the Dominican Republic and Haiti – requiring these two countries to ratify the Platt Amendment.
Woodrow Wilson’s administration (1913-1921) intended to abandon direct armed intervention in Latin America because it had not brought the desired results.
Indeed, for instance, shortly before his election there had been an intervention in Nicaragua, which ended with the rise of General Chamorro. The intervention had been dictated by the need to protect the growing investments of the United Fruit Company, since 1984 Chiquita Brands, in the Caribbean region.
Moreover, already in the second decade of the 1900’s the United States had succeeded in transforming the Caribbean into an “American Lake” and, to maintain control over the area, armed interventions had been necessary.
The same fate occurred to Mexico, which saw the presence of armed troops from 1914 until 1917, the year in which new elections were held and a new constitution was ratified in which a strong anti-American sentiment was easily discernible.
It should be noted that in the 1920’s the economic influence of the United States was relevant in Latin America.
The United Fruit Company and the Standard Fruit Company (today Dole Fruit Company) in fact, controlled most of the profits in the region. These two companies competed for dominance in the region and held strong control in countries that came to be known as the “banana republics”, namely: Honduras, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.
Time and again, Latin American journalists have accused the companies of bribing national governments for preferential treatment or to consolidate their monopoly.
In addition, there have been accusations of environmental degradation, deforestation, drainage and depletion of water systems, and devastation of biodiversity.
Moreover, they often practiced monoculture which, by exhausting the fertility of the land, eventually led to economic collapse as well as dependence on the export of that product. Exportation that often did not create profit for the nation.
In Cuba, the United States owned 2/3 of the sugar production, practically the only product of the island.
This logic also applied to raw materials and consequently the United States in Venezuela owned almost half of the oil and in Chile the price of copper, the main export product, was directly decided by Washington.
It should also be noted that a company such as the United Fruit Company did not only deal with fruit but had invested in transnational railways and telecommunications. In addition, at this time, Latin America received 20% of total US exports and in most cases Latin American states exported up to 90% of their production to the US. In practice, that of Latin American states was to all intents and purposes a strong economic dependence.
The impossibility of bringing stability to the region and the need to have “allied” governments, as well as the strengthening of Japan in the Pacific Ocean, led the United States to support the so-called “Strong Men” (such as Batista in Cuba, the Somoza family in Nicaragua and Trujillo in the Dominican Republic).
For this reason, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945) the “good neighbor” policy was established, with “eminent” people who continued to see their wealth increase increased while the population was forced to live in the most terrible poverty.
The folklore assigned to the American President the slogan “He might be a son of a bitch, but at least he is our son of a bitch”, which, beyond the veracity or not of the message, represents the figure of dictators, representatives, or guardians, of American influence.
Special case, however, was that of Mexico, which saw the achievement of compromises due to friction over oil.
With the constitution of 1917 Mexico wanted to nationalize the resources, causing the alarm of the American company Standard Oil (from which later ESSO and Chevron were born).
In this first case there were international negotiations that ended with the United States being granted the property rights in exchange for diplomatic recognition of Mexico in 1924.
A second incident took place in 1938 with the nationalization by Cardenas. This sparked a lobbying action by Standard Oil, which saw it accuse the Mexican president of being a communist.
Also, in this case there new negotiations were held that led in 1941 to the recognition of Mexico’s right to control raw materials in exchange for compensation to be paid to the American company.
It should be noted that this has been possible only because the United States were preparing for war and needed allies with many raw materials. This, in fact, was also dictated by the fact that between 1930 and 1940 the purchases of Mexican oil by the Axis powers had increased.
In the wake of this view of “war opportunities”, Roosevelt tried to consolidate the Pan-American movement.
The United States exploited the activism of the Nazis in Latin America (especially in countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) to justify greater cooperation and to revitalize the Pan American Union born in 1910.
With the Panama Declaration of 1939, a security perimeter around the Western Hemisphere was outlined and an economic coordination committee was established. This made it easier for the United States to block transactions between Latin America and future enemies.
In addition, the United States with the “rent and loan” law became, at first, the “arsenal” of Great Britain. By doing so, they guaranteed profits from war production using Latin American raw materials.
But the situation worsened, and the United States had to enter the war dragging the Latin American countries with them. The latter were fundamental to the war effort because of their easy access to raw materials.
It was in this way that the fires of war became vivid throughout the world, representing the only glow in a long night. In half a century, the United States had managed to establish a controversial relationship with a vast region. A relationship that was initially economic, then political and finally a necessity for the war against the Axis powers. But now our caravan must rest. The journey is still long. The seeds of anti-Americanism have been sown and have yet to sprout. Soon we will resume our journey….
