The Good Neighbor Policy (GNP), according to American Historical Association, is dedicated to the idea that nations shouldn’t intervene with one another instead they should respect and help each other and keep peaceful relations with each other. The purpose of the policy was to mend the relations with Latin Americans countries after the incident where they criticized the Coolidge Administration during the Sixth Pan-American Conference in Havana in 1982 for armed intervening in Hati and Nicaragua (US History, Good Neighbor Policy) During the Hoover Administration, polices were put into place to improve these relations, such as declaring that only the US could collect the debts that were owed to foreigners by countries in the Western Hemisphere. According to US History, this was part of the Clark Memorandum policy but what this did not do was accept the right to intervene itself. However, Hoover taking the action to withdraw troops from Nicaragua and Haiti was a step towards an improved relation with Latin America. President Roosevelt wanted to be equal, fair and maintain peace with their neighboring countries. He made promise to improve these relations with Latin America in his famous speech on GNP, he promised to “dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor-the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the right of others.” President Roosevelt took much action on maintaining this policy and improving relations with Latin America. In order to do this he assigned the Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, to go through with the vision of this policy, to improve the ties between US and other countries to ensure no hostility or tension between the border of their neighbors.
With the Good Neighboring Policy on whether it was a success and benefited the nations brought on a lot of different perspectives anda voices on the policy and what it has and has not benefited to the nations and their citizens. Fedrick B. Pike was a white male historian who wrote a book on his perspective on the Good Neighbor Policy, “FDR's Good Neighbor Policy: Sixty Years of Generally Gentle Chaos.” Where Pike discusses his views on the US policy toward Latin America over the last 60 years. Fedrick Pike outlook on the policy seems to be a positive one and rewards President Roosevelt on his success of maintaining peace, order and capitalism within the hemisphere. He does not put blame or have nay harsh words towards the policy or Roosevelt by stating, “Perhaps, though, as is generally the case in human events, the ultimate consequences of polices were not foreseen by those who formulated them. (Fedrick B. Pike, 207) Pike say his option on what policy was targeting and what it did for the public. “Throughout the Roosevelt years, various interest groups and various individuals representing disparate philosophical, economic and social positions, some of which were downright hostile toward Latin Americans, struggled with each other to gain control over the Good Neighbor Policy’s targeting mechanism. (Fedrick B. Pike,199) ” Pike seems to shows the difficulty of some who were not to kin on the idea of the policy and associating themselves with Latin America. Since for a long time, America never had a good, strong relationship with Latin America.
Another historians who had a positive perspective on the Good Neighbor Policy (GNP) and its success was, Bryce Wood in his book, The Dismantling of the Good Neighbor Policy. He shared his thoughts on the GNP statin that the policy was a “principled action, demonstrating in promise and behavior over a period of time such evidence of continuity that assumptions stability may with confidence be based upon it (Wood, ix)” He calls it a principled action because the US did keep its word and not intervene with their affairs, when before it was a different case where America would intervene and involve themselves with their nation relations. Wood focuses a lot on the good that occurred due to the policy. He mentions very consistently the nonintervention and noninterference as negative features of “the nonaction in the Good Neighbor Policy” (Wood, 1). But he is quick to say that it was necessary for the United States if “there were to be a society of twenty-one juridical;;y, but not military, equal nations. (Wood, 1). This shows how easily Wood defends the Good Neighbor Policy and the actions it took. Wood briefly mentions what fallback the policy it did have but after backs it up with something positive to prove that it was necessary and to place this policy in a positive light. Wood’s outlook makes the policy seem as a complete success unlike Pike where he mentioned both the negative and the positive affects of the Policy and how it did and did not benefit the nations. Wood’s opine on the policy was that the success of the policy was mainly due to the majority of the Latin American nations joined the United States in the war effort.
David Green was a historian that counter-argues against both the historians, Pike and Wood (mainly Wood), with his opinion on the Good Neighbor Policy. In his book, “The Containment of Latin America,” Green argues that the policy was mainly motivated by “economic imperialism an investment opportunities in Latin America.” It seems as though that Green belies that. The policy was something to make the United States look good. He does not believe the policy to much of a success compared to Wood. Green states in his book was “unsuccessful in resolving basic inter-American conflicts” (Green, X) While Latin America was trying to spread revolutionary nationalism through the nations, Roosevelt saw the revolutionary nationalism as a three to America. Which then lead to the Good Neighbor Policy expanding and strengthening the influence the U.S. had over Latin America economy. Which seemed as an over-bearing and over controlling thing to do, which lead Green to his next statement “the roots of the tragedy of modern inter-American relations.”(Green, x) Green views the Good Neighbor Policy has something that mainly benefited the United States and that the policy only boost and strengthen the American economy in Latin America.