Before Latin America declared independence in the late 18th century from European powers, U.S. intervention already prevailed to establish America’s intentions of gaining power against European forces. While Latin American countries were gaining independence in the 19th century, America wanted to secure their involvement in achieving policy objectives. America’s involvement would carry over to the next decade, where an increase in military missions reinforced authoritarian rule in Latin America. On one hand, historians like Alexis Heraclides, Stephen G.Rabe, and Joseph S. Tulchin believe that the little the U.S. intervened in the Caribbean was beneficial, however as made clear by James L. Dietz,, and Austin Long, Md Lanham, U.S intervention in fact hindered the progress of Caribbean countries by using the American military as an influential role of foreign policy in the Caribbean and historian such as Heaclides, Tulchin, and Rabe justify for military occupation and altering Caribbean countries into political and economic protectorates for U.S. economic interests through the analysis of national security, territorial expansion, and assertive nationalism. To answer the question, how U.S intervention affected the Caribbean, this essay will analyze Alexis Heraclides, Stephen G.Rabe, and Joseph S. Tulchin’s claim that the U.S intervention in the Caribbean did not affect the Caribbean because of the little U.S intervention applied as military occupation for three interests. The three U.S interests; national security, territorial expansion, and assertive nationalism, will be evaluated to determine American intentions and determine the motives of the U.S and results in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Cuba, and Central America. The essay will then compare the first set of historians to the opposing side which argue that through national security, territorial expansion, and assertive nationalism, the U.S military occupation resulted in negative effects in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Central America, and Cuba.
Firstly, U.S intervention in fact hindered the progress of Caribbean countries by using the American military as an influential role of foreign policy in the Caribbean, but Alexis Heraclides, Stephen G.Rabe, and Joseph S. Tulchin justify for military occupation and altering Caribbean countries into political and economic protectorates for U.S. economic interests through the analysis of territorial expansion. In the late 15th century, when Europeans settled in the Caribbean, the area became central to European imperialism and colonialism. The availability of resources made the region a hot spot to other European nations. By the 16th Century, England, Holland, and France began occupying parts of the Caribbean. Economically, the late 17th century and the early 18th century was a time of growing wealth and trade for all the nations who controlled territory in the Caribbean. In the 17th and 18th century, the Caribbean would face a territorial evolution, where European countries would take control over Caribbean islands, marking the start of territorial expansionism. However, the focus is on American intervention is particularly prevalent from the 18th to 20th century. The Haitian Revolution from 1791 to 1804 marked the period where Latin America would work on independence movements from their colonizers. Starting with the Mexican-American War, the United States began attempts to obtain territorial possessions in the Caribbean, but were not successful. After the Spanish-American war, the United States connections with Caribbean area were strong, the U.S. sought to use the Caribbean to gain power through increase of territory. Heraclides advocates for the U.S intervention in the Caribbean by stating that “More generally, the intervention in Cuba was to prove a turning point. As Charles Fenwick has put it: ‘Henceforth the role of the United States was to be no longer that of a leader of the American States in opposing intervention of Europe in American affairs but was to be itself the intervening power with the other American States ranged against it’” (Heraclides,“Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century”. Heraclides admits that the U.S had gone against the policy of non-interventionism, highlighting that three main principles of the Monroe Doctrine which included “(1) that the Americas were ‘henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization’ by any European power; (2) that the US would abstain from interfering in European affairs; and (3) that there will be no ‘interposition’ by the European powers in ‘this hemisphere’. Conversely, there was to be no US interference in the existing European colonies in the Americas.” (Heraclides, “Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century”) Heraclides weakens his argument by emphasizing the violation of the Monroe Doctrine and justification as an increase in territory would be in the interest of the United States. Heraclides expresses that U.S expansionism was not a main focus when he says “President William McKinley, was by all accounts against resorting to war and innocent of expansionist intentions until mid-1898. When he finally decided that war was on” (Heraclides,“Humanitarian Intervention in the Long Nineteenth Century”). Heraclides not only contradicts his justification for U.S. intervention, but also confirms that although expansionist intentions may have not been the initial intention of the U.S., eventually territorial expansion does become an intention in mid-1898. Dietz verifies that the first stage of U.S. intervention is identified through territorial expansion, “during which the continental empire was extended and consolidated and the first overseas possessions were gained through war…this period definitively demonstrated the lengths to which so many were willing to go in the pursuit of their own selfish interests at the expense of the rights and lives of those who dares to stand in their paths” (Dietz, Destabilization and Intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean). After the territorial acquisitions of the 1840s and during the Spanish-American war, many pro-slavery Southerners sought to expand southwards, allowing for more territory where slavery could continue to grow and expand. Dietz makes it clear that the idea of territorial expansion was achieved through war, otherwise known as military force. In 1902, Cuba became “independent”, but, according to the Platt Amendment of 1901, under US protection. The effects of military occupation for territorial expansion were seen as negative in the cases after the Platt Amendment with the countries in the Dominican Republic and Grenada. In the Dominican Republic, instability in the country would result in U.S marine intervention in 1916 to 1922. Roosevelt announced the so-called Roosevelt Corollary, which gave the right for the U.S. to intervene in Dominican affairs. The U.S. directly occupied Dominican Republic from 1916 to 1924 and supported the reign of Rafael Trujillo, despite Trujillo’s mass murdering of Haitians and manipulation of his party. In Grenada, Reagan ordered an invasion in which twenty American troops were killed and over a hundred Caribbean soldiers/ civilians died as well. As stated by Dietz, the U.S. was selfish and did not care about the harm done to the latter. Dominican Republic and Grenada are examples of how U.S. intervention harmed the Caribbean islands, despite historians arguing for justification for military occupation for territorial expansion.
U.S intervention continued to hinder the progress of the Caribbean and Central American countries by using military occupation as an influential role of national security. While some historians argue that U.S. intervention was a humanitarian act that protected Caribbean countries in national crisis, other historians contend that the U.S. used national security as a blanket for all the outcomes of the intervention. Tulchin states “The two civil wars in Central America were a product of years of social and economic inequity…the debate during the Reagan administration was whether the sources of the unrest were of domestic origin or of external origin” (Tulchin, “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science”). Tulchin claims that the cause of war in Central America was not due to U.S. intervention, but because of the chaos that was already in Central America. Tulchin further states “the assertion of the Reagan government that there would have been no unrest in El Salvador or Nicaragua had it not been for outside subversion” (Tulchin, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science). Tulchin brings to the point that America had the intention to help countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua that were in turmoil. However, after World War II, the United States emerged as the worlds main superpower and the U.S. began to intervene in countries to top the spread of communism, demonstrating the personal interest of U.S. and it’s selfish alternative motives. Tulchin expresses that “Central America voiced their opposition to the U.S intervention in the region and to the militarization of the entire isthmus. It was the alarming militarization…that led to the peace process” (Tulchin, “The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science”). One one hand, Tulchin shows that militarization was a positive impact on Central America by explaining that the chaos in Central America would have further continued had it not been for the involvement of U.S. armies triggering the citizens in Central America to take peaceful actions, however acquiring peace in Central America caused many people to die. According to Austin Long, “the Army was successful, if often brutal…ugly but geographically limited violence resulted in courts martial for some officers but also destroyed the remaining guerrilla element.” (Long, “Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence—The U.S. Military and Counterinsurgency Doctrine”). Long agrees with Tulchin in the way that the U.S. did take action to stop chaos and violence in the Caribbean and Central America, but the U.S. military also had to use extreme force and violence that was brutal. The U.S stood by El Salvador’s military even though they were horrendously killing and torturing people. The effects of the military in the Caribbean in respect to national security paint the U.S. as a hero, but that was not entirely the case as shown by the mass murdering of the people in El Salvador.
U.S intervention had negative effects on the progress of the Caribbean and Central American countries through military occupation as an important role of nationalism. The United States repeatedly intervene militarily in the affairs of Mexico, and the Caribbean and Central America. Stephen G. Rabe points out that “the United States tried to maintain peace and order, exclude foreign (European) influence, expand U.S. trade and investment, and shape Latin America’s development” (Rabe, “The Johnson Doctrine”). The intention of the United States, according to Rabe, did not include asserting American Nationalism. Rabe fails to recognize the contradiction in the statement “exclude foreign (European) influence” because this action was not done in favor of Latin America, instead, the United States wanted to maintain all control for themselves. To justify the military occupation of El Salvador, Rabe notes that “U.S. investments were threatened by the Latin American nationalism engendered by the economic depression…the United States also tried to revivify trade with Latin America through the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act (1934) …The Roosevelt administration expected Latin Americans to respect U.S. foreign investments and follow the U.S. lead on the global stage “ (Rabe, “The Johnson Doctrine”). Rabe’s statement shows how the United States was seeking selfish interests and only sought to make themselves prevalent to become a stronger force. Lanham opposes Rabe’s argument, and states that historians who justify U.S intervention are “arrogant, chauvinistic, and wrong” because “historians have analyzed the motives and impact of both the pre– World War II military interventions…They have concluded that the U.S. interventions degraded the political, military, and socioeconomic structures of these Western Hemisphere societies” (Lanham, “The American Historical Review”). The United States intervening in Caribbean affairs was because of the belief that the United States was superior to Caribbean countries, therefore giving the United States “authority” to do what they feel necessary. Latham continues to stress how nationalism and domination are selfish intents when he says “Throughout the twentieth century, U.S. policy makers have practiced hegemonic supremacy and professed an air of moral and racial superiority toward Latin Americans” (Lanham, “The American Historical Review”). The Monroe Doctrine is an example of the United States overstepping and taking matters into their own hands without permission from the foreign countries. This is because of the United States intends to grow power and maintain power, President Monroe declared that the U.S. would not tolerate European involvement if fear that European countries would take power away from the U.S. It is important to emphasize and repeat that the military interventions cause a great deal of death and Latin American resentment towards the United States, putting a crack in between their once strong relationship.
This is not to say that U.S. military caused only harm, however, the benefits were for selfish intentions and the United States should not be pictured as a hero like the U.S. does to justify the mass murders and uprising throughout the Caribbean and in Central America. The U.S. needs to find a way of balancing intervention and use their strength in the Western Hemisphere for good motives. Unfortunately, the U.S. continues to intervene in foreign affairs through military use, as seen in U.S. involvement in the Middle East. If the United States is not careful with making sure their intentions are pure when aiding a country, history will go on to repeat itself and relationships with the United States will continue to break causing a negative impact on economy and politics. Historians like Alexis Heraclides, Stephen G.Rabe, and Joseph S. Tulchin shows the U.S. intervention in the Caribbean was beneficial, but also do not shed light on the negative effects that come with intervention if the intent is selfish like James L. Dietz, and Austin Long, Md Lanham do. Through looking at the three interests of the U.S, it is clear that faulty intentions by U.S intervention, in fact, hindered the progress of Caribbean countries by using the American military altering Caribbean countries into political and economic protectorates for U.S. economic interests through the analysis of national security, territorial expansion, and assertive nationalism.
Originally published 15.10.2019