if only the European countries had been able to colonize the continent without restraint.

I'm sure they certainly would have respected native rights more than the US.

... before the US started its policy of systematic interventions in the continent. By 1820, most South American countries were already independend or on their way to achieve independence and it didn't take more than a decade for the former colonizers to recognize their new status. So I don't get your point. Are you trying to imply that the Monroe Doctrine, somehow, was good for Latin America? That "they were fighting for our freedoms?" Can you please explain how?

of European colonization came much later than the 1820's. Africa and Asia were being split up in the 1880's to 1900. This did not occur in South and Central America because of the Monroe Doctrine. The headline of the article claims that the Monroe doctrine lead to the militarization of Latin America. It did nothing of the sort and LA nations don't spend large percentages of their Gdp on the military.

...came later than the 1820s, but elsewhere in the world. Please, don't bother trying to convince me US was trying to erradicate colonialism in the world. US had several colonies by the end of the 19th century and early 20th century.

There was no possibility of European powers trying to retake controle over Latin America. The most relevant Latin American countries by the end of 19th century had already proper armies and consolidated power structures and their populations would never let their countries be sujbected to direct foreign domination. This has nothing to do with Monroe Doctrine. It's just the usual "self-centrism" of American account of reality being used to justify what can't be justified. Monroe Doctrine was just an imperialist policy and it DID influenced militarization of the region.

that the Monroe Doctrine "was just an imperialist policy and it DID influenced militarization of the region. " can you back that up with any specifics. Which country became militarized because of the Monroe doctrine? When and how was it related to the Monroe doctrine?

The argument is that Monroe Doctrine / Cold War / War on drugs are just three different stages of the same policy. At each stage US created a "buggy man" to justify a policy of continuous intervention: Monroe Doctrine - European colonial powers / Cold War - Communists / War on drugs - Drug trafficking.

The oldest US naval base, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, is a direct product of Monroe Doctrine. The first base created in Latin America under the excuse of fighting "European colonizers", i.e. Spain in Cuba (and so obviously hypocritical that Cuba itself became a US colony right after being "freed&quot . The Cold War / War on drugs gave US the "rationale" to justify the expansion of military bases in the continent.

The claims of expanded US bases in South America lead to links such as the one about the US base in Argentina which has zero US personnel. The article found it very suspicious that the US established the base with the stated purpose of responding to natural disasters at an airport. Very threatening stuff. How many US personnel are on these US military bases in S America? Less than 1,000? You didn't notice how the article implied that Nafta affected all of LA. Even the statement that it harmed small farmers leaves out the fact that urban consumers of food now buy at lower prices or the increased manufacturing jobs that were created in Mexico by Nafta.
The US doesn't have a military presence in Panama. Did you miss that the article stated that?

The article faults the US for not intervening in recent coups (governments the author likes) but generally opposes US intervention in LA. I find it difficult to find a less principled opinion than we should intervene in favor of leftist governments but shouldn't intervene in favor of the right. The entire article is the work of a dedicated hack.

Cuba was never a US colony. We turned the government back over to the Cubans in 1902.

I notice you haven't responded to my question of how the Monroe Doctrine contributed to militarizing LA.

One thing is a regular American not knowing about US past in Latin America and therefore ignoring the points in this article. That's fine. Another thing is an American right-winger who knows about and sees no problem with that. That's not fine, but you'd expect that from a right-winger. But I can't understand a well-informed and supposedly progressive American that knows US record in Latin America and instead of being bothered by that... tries do dismiss it or deny it.

I'm not sure you understand the nature of US interventions in Latin America. The US backed regimes were totalitarian states, facist regimes (and I'm not using the word "facist" just to bash them, I'm giving it the right definition), military dictactorships that promoted mass killings of dozens of thousands of citizens just because of their idelogy. I'm not even talking about leftist guerillas, I'm talking about doctors, teachers, students, nurses, lawyers, housewives, CHILDREN. You bet that if you were a citizen from one of this countries you would find it "very suspicious that the US established the base with the stated purpose of responding to natural disasters at an airport". You would find "very suspicious" ANY kind of action taken by US in your country, for any reason, involving military personal or not. Believe-me.

That said, let's go back to your arguments:
1 - "Cuba was never a colony. We turned the government back over to the Cubans in 1902".

The Platt Amendment was designed to take away Cuba's autonomy and its self-governing capacity. It was only a "republic" in legal terms. In practical terms, it was a colony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment

2 - "How many US personnel are on these US military bases in S America? Less than 1,000?"

Considering its record in the region, it should have none. Not a single man.

3 - "I notice you haven't responded to my question of how the Monroe Doctrine contributed to militarizing LA."

I did. You just pretend to ignore it.

military intervention in the Caribbean doesn't respond to my question of how the Monroe doctrine caused the militarization of LA. Ejecting Spain from Cuba did not militarize a single country in this hemisphere. The Platt amendment was repealed in 4 generations ago.

Can you point to one instance where I have dismissed or denied the US's past interventions in Latin America? I don't think I have and I don't appreciate you implying I did. I wasn't responding to a post about whether the US intervened in LA repeatedly over the past century. I noted that the assertion that the Monroe doctrine militarized LA was a fantasy. If anything the Monroe doctrine allowed LA countries to not over extend themselves militarily.

No I wouldn't find it suspicious in 2013 that the US put in some computers and prepositioned some material handling equipment at one airport in Argentina. If the Argentinean government was nervous about it they would have simply said no.

I don't see the problem in citing a 110 year old intervention as an example of Monroe doctrine incited militarization, since this is exactly the context in which it happened. The Monroe Doctrine is way older than 110.

yet turn a blind eye to -- and even celebrate -- the 50 year reign of the Castro brothers.

It's a rather naive and simplistic view to solely blame the US for the political turmoil that has afflicted Latin America; Latin Americans themselves have been great contributors to their own destinies.

The pervasive corruption of government institutions can be traced back to the Spanish colonial era, when officials were given a mandate to govern but were provided little -- if any -- tax revenue to actually administer the government. The lack of revenue spawned cultures where bribery and graft are used to craft legislation and receive favorable judicial rulings, and has created cynical populations with little respect for government institutions. It has been a vicious cycle, and remains a massive problem.

Creating relationships with such corrupt governments does not mean they were "US backed regimes"; the US establishes intergovernment relationships to provide an avenue for dialog and diplomacy, and to protect US interests. To categorically declare that Latin American governments that exploited and killed their citizens were "US backed" indicates a lack of understanding of the complexities of foreign relations, the Cold War, and centuries of regional history.

American exceptionalism at its best.

I didn't "blame solely the US for the political turmoil that has afflicted Latin America". On contrary. I said US "cooperated with right-wing monsters" of the continent. I've alway said that the Latin American right wing is one of the most pernicious of the planet. It was a cooperation of people equally corrupt and equally despicable. Don't bring the "Spanish colonial era", there were no saints in colonial times, anywhere. And, worst than bribery and the kind of corruption you describe, I believe, is the corruption that happens elsewhere and that is not pointed in those official corruption index, a corruption difused in obscure connections between Wall Street banks, the Military Industrial Complex, the Press, Pentagon, Washington....

As for "Creating relationships with such corrupt governments does not mean they were "US backed regimes" and "To categorically declare that Latin American governments that exploited and killed their citizens were "US backed" indicates a lack of understanding of the complexities of foreign relations"

Not only US (specially CIA) helped organize, plan and finance the coups, as the Pentagon also offered logistical support, military assistance (even an aircfraft carrier to Brazil), as it founded a (&¨*) school to train the military and death squads to commit mass killings of leftists. And you're trying to tell me this is not "backing"?

There's no excuse for that, it doesn't matter what's the nationality of the people who commited these crimes. Now, what the really progressives should be doing is pressuring their government and society to realize that this unacceptable foreign policy towards Latin America that remains in action US has to change. Not trying to smooth things over or pretend that mistakes were not made.

More US Military Bases in Central America
Panama- Posted by: Edgardo HerreraPosted date: 29 September 2009

Panama’s Minister of Government and Justice, José Raúl Mulino, announced that Panama will sign an agreement with the United States by October 30th to establish military naval stations in Bahia Piña and Punta Coca, on the Pacific coast.

The bilateral meeting between the Panamanian leader, Ricardo Martinelli, and the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, held on Saturday the 26th in New York City for ratification of the Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) between the two countries, also addressed the issue of security, in particular the war on drug trafficking.

Panama is a member of the Mérida initiative, promoted by the US government to combat drug trafficking. Last year the US government granted 3.8 million dollars to Panama, with 7 million more to follow this year.

The discussion also touched on the topics of tourism and trade: according to a press release from the State Communications Department, Martinelli proposed lowering taxes for US companies holding conventions in Panama.

Intelligence reports reveal that two thousand locations have been identified on the Pacific coast as strategic drug trafficking points. So far this year, authorities have seized 40 tons of drugs, a figure which reached 53.9 tons in 2008.

http://www.pressenza.com/2009/09/more-us-military-bases-in-central-america/

Let me return the favor. If you want to give unsolicited advice it pays to be correct. The military bases in Panama contains no US personnel; zip, zero, nada. This was discussed in 2009 in threads that you were participating in (hardly current events). This was addressed explicitly by the Panamanian government in 2009.

http://justf.org/blog/2009/09/29/us-help-panama-build-naval-bases


I have to assume that by great poster you are not thinking of yourself but ocpago. I think she's (I assume she) more than capable of taking care of herself and I'm wondering what part of my comments you construed as an attack.

... Latin America would in fact be so much better off. Latin America is traditionally a progressive continent. This current movement, this left wave that elected leaders such as Lula, Chávez, the Kirchners, Bachelet, Morales, Correa, Lugo, Zelaya, all of these was supposed to have happened decades ago. The several dictactorships in the region were attempts of stopping this movement of happening in the 1960s and 1970s. In several countries, there were even earlier movements, like the 1930 Revolution in Brazil. The history of Latin America in the 20th century is basically the history of the fight between the people and its democratically elected leaders and the conservative, reactionary forces trying to stop them.

If people like Goulart, Allende and several others could go on with their governments, many of the achievements that only now Latin American countries are getting would be consolidated already and the entire continent would be today much more prosperous and equal. It's even likely that the entire region could already be fully developed as nations such as Argentina, Chile and Uruguay were not far from what was then called First World status. The US interventions and cooperations with right-wing monsters in these countries only made the entire region move back.

has ALWAYS been the soul-less intention of the greedy murderous whores of US power sources.

It's even likely that the entire region could already be fully developed as nations such as Argentina, Chile and Uruguay were not far from what was then called First World status. The US interventions and cooperations with right-wing monsters in these countries only made the entire region move back.

I agree with most of what you say, but it was the Peron's who destroyed Argentina, paving the way for the US backed murderers. Now the Peronist party Kirchner is again running the country into the ground. That has nothing to do with the US.

Although again I agree with you broadly, particularly as it applies to central america.

At the beginning of the meal I thought there would be a lot of sympathy for Allende. I was mistaken.

The prevailing attitude was that Allende squandered an opportunity to change the arc of Chilean politics, and that his confrontational methods alienated great numbers of the population.

There was little sympathy for his fate.

There are right wingers in Chile too, as everywhere else.

The American Empire in Latin America: “Democracy” is a Threat to “National Security”

Issued on March 18, 1953, the “Statement of Policy by the National Security Council” outlined the primary threat posed to American interests in Latin America:

There is a trend in Latin America toward nationalistic regimes maintained in large part by appeals to the masses of the population. Concurrently, there is an increasing popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses, with the result that most Latin American governments are under intense domestic political pressures to increase production and to diversify their economies… [Thus, a] realistic and constructive approach to this need which recognizes the importance of bettering conditions for the general population, is essential to arrest the drift in the area toward radical and nationalistic regimes. The growth of nationalism is facilitated by historic anti-U.S. prejudices and exploited by Communists [emphasis added].[2]

Thus, the true threat – far from the “strategic sham” of Cold War rhetoric (as Zbigniew Brzezinski referred to it) – was the actualized and very realistic challenge to American domination posed by “nationalistic regimes” which support “the masses of the population” of various Latin American countries. Worse still, the masses were demanding “immediate improvement in [their] low living standards,” thus threatening the traditional elite-dominated system of control and subordination which had been established in Latin America for so many centuries. These “radical and nationalistic regimes” had to be prevented from meeting the demands of the masses. Almost as an afterthought, the document stated that – by the way – these “radical and nationalistic regimes” are given strength “by historic anti-U.S. prejudices and exploited by Communists,” as if to simply brush over the immediate imperial threat with the common rhetoric. The use of the word “prejudices” also portends to portray such views of the United States as unwarranted and unjustified, as if the United States were the victim. Indeed, for the strategists in the National Security Council, the threat of radical nationalism had the potential to victimize them of their vast imperial domains.

Thus, the NSC-144 document listed a number of “Objectives” for the United States to undertake in this highly threatening situation where the poor masses of an entire continent no longer wanted to be subjected to the ruthless domination of a tiny domestic and foreign minority. These ‘objectives’ included: “Hemisphere solidarity in support of our world policies, particularly in the UN and other international organizations,” which, in other words, means towing the line with the United States in regards to American foreign policy around the world; “An orderly political and economic development in Latin America so that the states in the area will be more effective members of the hemisphere system and increasingly important participants in the economic and political affairs of the free world,” which can be roughly translated as supporting the development of a Western-oriented middle class which would support the elites and keep the lower classes – the masses – at bay; “The safeguarding of the hemisphere… against external aggression through the development of indigenous military forces and local bases necessary for hemisphere defense,” which implies allowing America to establish military bases throughout the continent – naturally for “defensive” purposes – in offensively defending America’s resources (which happen to be in other countries), as well as establishing local military proxies through which America can exert regional hegemony. Further objectives included: “The reduction and elimination of the menace of internal Communist or other anti-U.S. subversion,” which equates to purging and liquidating the countries of dissenters, a patently fascistic policy objective; “Adequate production in Latin America of, and access by the United States to, raw materials essential to U.S. security,” which means that American corporations get unhindered access to exploit the region’s resources; and “The ultimate standardization of Latin American military organization, training, doctrine and equipment along U.S. lines,” which implies making every country’s military structure and apparatus of internal repression dependent upon U.S. support, and thus, it would ensure a structure of dependency between domestic elites and the American Empire, as the domestic elites would need the military and police apparatus to repress the “masses” whom they rule over and exploit. Therefore, America would need to essentially subsidize Latin America’s systems and structures of repression.[3]

In identifying “courses of action” to achieve America’s “objectives” in Latin America, the NSC document stated that the United States could achieve a “greater degree of hemisphere solidarity” – i.e., hegemony – if it utilizes the Organization of American States (OAS) “as a means of achieving our objectives,” because this would “avoid the appearance of unilateral action and identify our interests with those of the other American states.” It further recommended undertaking consultations with Latin American states, “whenever possible,” before America took unilateral action within Latin America. The “consultations,” it should not be confused, were not designed to weigh the opinions of Latin American states in the decision-making processes of the empire, but rather to explain “as fully as security permits the reasons for our decisions and actions.” So essentially, it’s more of a courtesy call, a polite announcement of imperial actions.[4]

Importantly, one major “course of action” included the encouraging – via ‘consultation,’ assistance, and “other available means” – of “individual and collective action against internal subversive activities by communists and other anti-U.S. elements.” What this amounts to, then, as a “course of action,” was for America to undertake a comprehensive program aimed at advising (“consulting”), financing, arming, and organizing Latin American states to internally and regionally oppress, control, or eliminate dissidents and activists. Not unrelated, of course, the “courses of action” also stated that the United States should work to “encourage” Latin American nations to “recognize” (i.e., submit) to the idea that the “best” way to “development” for them is through “private enterprise,” which required “a climate which will attract private investment,” which meant to grant favourable concessions, low tariffs, and easy exploitation of resources to foreign conglomerates, namely, American. The document even directly recommended simplifying “customs procedures and reduction of trade barriers” in order to “[make] it easy for Latin American countries to sell their products to us,” which is kind of like saying, “If I give you a large loan, it will make it easier for you to pay a higher interest to me.” What it really implies, then, is not to improve conditions for Latin American countries in “selling” products, but in making it “easier” for Northern countries to buy products, as in, making them much cheaper, and thus, Latin American countries will get less for them, and their resources could be appropriated with greater ease than previously. Naturally, the “courses of action” in the economic realm also stipulated that the United States should “assist” Latin America in playing “a more vigorous and responsible role in economic development of the area.”[5]

More:
http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/12/14/the-american-empire-in-latin-america-democracy-is-a-threat-to-national-security/

~snip~
Propaganda as Policy

Another major facet of the significance of the U.S. operation to overthrow the democratic government of Guatemala was not simply that it was the first post-World War II U.S. coup in Latin America, but that it involved a monumental propaganda campaign aimed at shaping domestic American opinion, which would ultimately come to define much of the methods and substance of U.S. domestic propaganda throughout the Cold War. Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud and the “Father of Public Relations” was pivotal in this program.

Bernays was hired as a public relations counsel for United Fruit Company in the early 1940s in order to help sell bananas during the winter. Bernays began finding new ways to sell bananas by marketing them not simply as a product to be consumed, but as a healthy life choice, and he further emphasized the need that United Fruit not simply educate North Americans about bananas, but about Latin America in general. Thus, Bernays established the Middle America Information Bureau, which was “in part an honest attempt to educate, providing scholars, journalists, and others with the latest information about a nearby place that most Americans knew almost nothing about.” However, Bernays wrote a memo to all employees of the Bureau that, “all material released by this office must be approved by responsible executives of the United Fruit Company.” The information that informed the articles produced by Bureau staff was provided directly by United Fruit.[17]

Bernays had early persuaded the United Fruit Company to begin framing the reformist democratic government of Arbenz as Communist, and had launched a campaign of planting stories in the media embracing this perspective. Articles began appearing in the New York Times, Atlantic Monthly, the New York Herald Tribune, Time, Newsweek, and even the left-leaning progressive magazine, The Nation, which “was especially satisfying to Bernays, who believed that winning the liberals over was essential to winning America over.”[18]

In January of 1952, Bernays took a group of journalists on a two-week tour of the region. The trip was “under the (United Fruit) Company’s careful guidance and, of course, company expense… The trips were ostensibly to gather information, but what the press would hear and see was carefully staged and regulated by the host.”[19] Bernays had control over media information on Guatemala up to and during the CIA coup. The government in Guatemala that came to power then ruled for decades with an iron fist “as it condemned hundreds of thousands of people (mostly members of the country’s impoverished Maya Indian majority) to dislocation, torture and death.”[20]

More:
http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/2011/12/14/the-american-empire-in-latin-america-democracy-is-a-threat-to-national-security/

but not much attention is paid to our neighbors to the South who suffer from US policies.

This article puts it together very well. It really doesn't make sense. Obama seems to be
following a Real-Politik that is about Chavez being aligned with Iran thus all who support
him are suspect. The attitude towards Cuba is consistently hipocritical.

It is the Monroe Doctrine in action, though no one in the administration admits they feel
the same way as Teddy Roosevelt. They believe our system and our people are superior
and that others would benefit from being annexed or quasi annexed by the US

that the US may use with the Colombian forces. The proposal to have new US bases in Colombia was rejected by their congress. The US left the Manta base in Ecuador in 2009. The base still remains an Ecuatorian base as it always has been. The US leases facilities at the Honduran base as they did in Ecuador. I recall the "US base" in Argentina was a grant to construct a building. And as a poster said, if governments in South America are nervous about a US presences they can refuse funding or terminate/not renew leases like Ecuador did. The full story incorrectly mentioned those countries as having bases.

The US should support the results of the upcoming referendum in the Falklands and not support Argentina's insane government.