Topic: American Foreign Policy in relation to the Caribbean basin 1901-1913 period.
1. Introduction
“(…) The most interesting manifestation of contemporary imperialism is, for Americans, the expansion of U.S. capital and the colonial power beyond the original borders of the United States. (…) Founded as a phase of the first great period of imperialism and colonization, we have always been an imperialist country from the point of view of developing new areas of control and subjugation of inferior races. (…) It is natural for us first of all we return to Latin America, justifying our action in the official rhetoric on the pretext of defending human justice, but still increase the facilities for investment and acquire while under favorable conditions the precious resources of the occupied lands. (…). We encouraged to Santo Domingo, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador to pay their debts to foreign countries by American loans, then we have established in these countries customs auditors to ensure the recovery of these loans. To protect foreigners, maintain order and defend our investors have established military governments in Cuba, Haiti, Santo Domingo and Nicaragua. (…) “[9]
(H. Barnes, C. J. Kepner and Soothill in “Empire of the banana”)
What is the importance of studying the United States and its relations with Latin America in these times? A central aspect is the emergence of that country as a central player in the Americas.
The study and the implications of U.S. foreign policy in the American sphere are, within the field of international relations and historical sociology, challenging and complex exercise.
Why invasions, interventions, open or covert operations or any other type of involvement, when they occur, they are not called by name? Is it simply that Latin America must accept that their story is that of the U.S. intervention in the region, as acts of rescue attempt to avoid their falling into the clutches of evil? Are some of the questions that arise in addressing the problem in question.
U.S. foreign policy has a whole vocabulary, consciously, even ostentatiously avoiding the use of terms that might imply aggression or imperial domination, and takes refuge in abstract formulas and stereotyped phrases and cliches idealists who really do not explain anything. Phrases like “the Monroe Doctrine,” “not entangled alliances” ( not Entangling alliances ), “freedom of the seas”, “open door”, “good neighbor policy”, “Truman doctrine”, “Eisenhower doctrine “crowd the pages of American history, but cast little light on the dynamics of foreign policy. In the case of U.S. policy in Latin America would not be an exaggeration to say that if United States had not simulated that their interests were synonymous with the conquest of democratic and economic progress in the region, could not have achieved its objectives.
There were various historical manifestations of American interventionism in the rest of the continent has appeared in many different ways: either through direct military intervention, economic, varying degrees of action diplomatic, political and cultural.
This work in general characterized the foreign policy of the United States on the Caribbean Basin in the period between 1901 and 1913.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
U.S. foreign policy toward the Caribbean Basin (Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Venezuela), throughout the twentieth century have fluctuated between different positions. As such the same area of ??America that the United States over the period 1903-1913 prioritized.
The period covered by this work is that covering the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909) and William Taft (1909-1913).
1.2 Objectives of research
1.2.1 General objective
- Analyze U.S. foreign policy in the period 1901-1913 with respect to the so-called “Caribbean Basin”.
1.2.2 Specific Objectives
- Examine the concepts of interventionism and condescending developed by Vargas Llosa.
- Detail the various interventions made by the United States during the period mentioned, within the Caribbean basin.
1.3 Development
The concept of intervention used here, includes the action of government designed to determine or guide the activity of another public or private, through regulations or actions in line with this objective. Focusing further in the direction of this effect, the intervention involves the set of actions that structure a significant decrease in the autonomy of the involved, despite the wide dissemination of the term when developing explanations in the economic field as the effect on the activity economy by the state.
State intervention is a reality of the many areas of public and private life in much of historical human societies. Indeed, the regulatory activity through legal rules, in seeking the social order, and is an interventionist action. However, the term means different degrees cases, according to political and economic sectors that consider it – can be considered counterproductive or not.
In the field of International Relations and international politics, interventionism is considered the act or omission by which a state attempts to influence the decision of another in a non-legitimate or not using force.
Usually, within their own domestic political activity state interventionism is considered the actions of central government efforts to limit the political autonomy of these authorities.
In the field of international relations and foreign policies of government, are recorded different types of interventions, which are passed on to detail below.
Diplomatic intervention occurs to address oral or written representations to the State intervened, by way of an official representative. Viewed from the standpoint of international legal standards, an intervention of this type is within the bounds of law, since its value is recorded previously established by international treaties.
Meanwhile, an armed intervention means the interference by one State on foreign territory, either by mere threat or by occupation. Armed intervention is the use of force. According to the same duration can be divided into permanent and temporary.
Military interventions occur when the country de facto controller acts on its own. Armed intervention is when a country requested asks another to intervene to resolve its internal conflicts. Interventions can be made or requested.
International organizations can make proper use of armed force when they intervene, under some level of consensus, in certain states.
For the liberal approach – and from an economic perspective – the intervention consists of those actions from the State which determines the country’s economic activity by controlling the labor market, pricing and wage levels, control of exchange rate policy, nationalization of certain sectors (financial, specific industries) usually attributed ample capacity to the State as a producer of goods and services (Reisman., 2003).
According to the magazine intensity, economic interventionism takes many supporters and political opponents. For liberals, it is thought that the role of the state in the economy should tend to the least intervention possible, since the public sector tends to artificially protect industries and services it controls, distorting the market, socialism considered that in certain circumstances must be precisely the state that develop certain economic activities, in private hands, would condition an exaggerated the economy of a country and homelessness would leave the rights of the majority. This does not apply to libertarian socialism, which also opposes state intervention.
So much for libertarian socialism and liberalism, excessive state activity is inadmissible, since the mere intervention would be abandoned, to advance the planned economy so vilified.
In the case of the United States of America, the number of times worldwide since 1775 was very high and responded to various causes.
Despite its large economic and trade development, the country played a peripheral role of power in the nineteenth century. At international level he displayed an isolationist policy during his nation-building, opting for trade protectionism and avoiding an agency relationship with its former metropolis. However, despite being a tacit agreement, traveled the same road as the British used to prevent European intervention in Latin, a fact exemplified with eloquent force in the Monroe Doctrine, and despite its isolationist attitude, tried to make the most of the weaknesses of European powers in order to find a way autonomous.
The so-called “Monroe Doctrine” was created on December 2, 1823 by U.S. President James Monroe. It proclaimed that European powers could not colonize more or interfere in the affairs of the newly independent nations of the Americas. Through this, the United States declared themselves neutral in relation to the colonial wars between European countries, but as a threat to national security if any American country was reached.
In structuring the Monroe message, which consists of two parts, show the true goals of the doctrine:
- To prevent and block any attempt to settle or recover the former colonies by European governments.
- Establish a clear-called “doctrine of the two spheres,” which means to warn Europe that remain outside the U.S. sphere of influence
“America for Americans,” the phrase that sums up the Monroe Doctrine is a warning, mainly aimed at the European powers, where stands the new threshold established commercial interest, industrial and political America, whose rationale was inadmissible interference or interference by European powers in America.
The doctrine is not governed by the intervention, but its unifying approach is unilateral while is the result of the disunity of nations and governments of Latin America. The intervention involves an omission not in doing, ie while respecting certain bases in terms of exercising sovereignty, so there will be coexistence in so far as it respects the sovereignty of others. Cooperation, on the contrary, involves a do. Putting the service of all those items have in common.
The United States could become a part of Mexico, despite the intervention remained more loyal to America than to the same Mexican Republic. This war of 1898 and the occupation of Cuba near predicted another century of intervention. However, Vargas Llosa said that there was a pendulum swing between this and condescension.
- Intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Panama, Dominican Republic, Haiti and others.
- The condescension is the pillars in the Good Neighbor policy of Franklin Roosevelt and the Alliance for Progress of JF Kennedy.
Of course, the condescension is not simply two doctrines. Promoting trade and investment is, says the author, forms of this. The contemporary FTAA (Free Trade Area of ??the Americas) is a clear example.
However, the twentieth century would be launched to the U.S. to the international arena and intervention policies of global containment of communism and support the development of Europe and Japan.
Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to assert that the United States should make its influence felt globally, and if their interests clashed with those of any other power, would have to resort to the use of force. This made the Monroe Doctrine will turn more interventionist (pressure to Haiti in 1902 to pay its debts in 1903 helped Panama to secede from Colombia and in 1906 U.S. troops occupied Cuba). Roosevelt believed that the Atlantic and Pacific could not preserve the country from the different threats in the world and such concept-based following Kissinger, in a Darwinian notion of survival of the species.
Roosevelt was not in favor of moderation in American foreign policy, denostando the relevance of international law and the effectiveness of disarmament. For Roosevelt, a tributary of thought somewhat realistic, the ordering of the world responded to the concept of “spheres of influence”, in which regions are structured according to the powers operating in them. Roosevelt is clearly very European tax concepts with regard to International Relations. Europe was gaining an increasing relevance to Roosevelt, whose look was settling with the highest incidence in Germany, whom he considered the greatest threat to U.S. interests, which related to the national interest of Great Britain and France. The first draft of this preference was in the Algeciras conference to decide the future of Morocco, where U.S. subordinated to economic interests geopolitical vision, snubbing German expectations.
In Asia, Roosevelt welcomed the news of the defeat of the Russian navy by Japan, as occurred in the region a balance between powers which did not involve the destruction of one by another. Confirmed this geopolitical vision by sending representatives to Oyster Bay to ensure that the peace treaty effectively put a stop to victory and the Japanese advance on Russia. The personal and political result of this policy for Roosevelt, led to a Nobel Peace Prize for supporting balance and terms of power. Even after the German invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg, the biggest problem for the president was not a violation of international law, but breaking the balance of power, enabling German inertia hit Europe and then America could project into South.
It is during the Roosevelt administration that happens the Panama incident resulting in the loss of Colombian sovereignty over the province, and the construction of the Hay-Herran Treaty, by which is transferred to the United States an area of ??9.5 km width for build an interoceanic canal in exchange for a sum of $ 10 million in cash and an annuity that was not actually canceled.
Thus, in 1904 Roosevelt, sticking Manifest Destiny on the one hand and brandishing the Monroe Doctrine on the other, openly proclaimed the “right” of the United States to pursue in Latin America, features “international police and interfering in the internal affairs American countries. ”
Repeating Monroe, and completing its interventionist doctrine in the annual message of 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt said:
“If a nation shows that it knows how to act with reasonable efficiency and conveniences meaning in social and political, if it keeps order and respects its obligations, need not fear a U.S. intervention. Chronic injustice or importance that are of a general loosening of the rules of a civilized society may require all, in America or elsewhere, the intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the doctrine Monroe may force the United States, but against their wishes, in flagrant cases of injustice or impotence, to exercise an international police power. ”
The “Roosevelt Corollary” clears the U.S. policy of direct military intervention on all Latin American nations, and their first objective is the Caribbean, where the only nations involved to date independent Dominican Republic (1903), Panama (1903) , Honduras (1905), Cuba (1906), Honduras (1906), Nicaragua (1910), Nicaragua (1910), Honduras (1912), Mexico (1913).
Theodore Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1904) in which he speaks also of non-interference in each other, claim this right for the U.S. for the purpose of taking responsibility on the order in the interest of civilization.
Kryzanek considers that the S XX United States begins to expand in the region under direct political and economic domestic development of the United Nation neighbors. North America at this time considered increasingly important area of ??Central America and the Caribbean Basin (Kryzanek 1987).
The U.S. intervention in Latin America must always frame it in the context of international relations not only inland, but outside the continent. In the period covered here are two outstanding facts that are transforming the international system and that somehow affect the style that defines U.S. policy toward Latin America. The first fact is the wave expansionary during the last decades of the twentieth century, produced the launch of Europe over much of the planet. The second fact is the installation of a two-pole in the second half of the twentieth century in Latin America will also intensify the tension between both sides.
Roosevelt from the beginning of his presidency observe the Caribbean and Central America as two areas in which his country had full rights regarding control and management. Roosevelt had achieved very clear that the U.S. position as one of the world powers and the Caribbean and Central America were the means to that end. (Atkins, 1990)
The next step is the construction of the canal, it was essential to the treaty signed in 1901 known as the Hay-Paunceforte, the treaty the British gave the U.S. the right to build the canal, but not allow the construction of fortifications . In November the same year a new Hay-Paunceforte giving Washington the right to build and fortify the control channel Canal future.
It solved the problem British United States should negotiate with the other states involved in the channel, Colombia, Nicaragua and Panama later. All agreed that the Nicaraguan route was more economical and feasible.
This bid of interest would be involved Theodore Roosevelt, the representative of the canal company Phillippe Bunau-Varilla, the Secretary of State John Hay, Thomas Herran Colombian charge d’affaires in Washington. Phillipe Bunau-Varilla persuaded Roosevelt that Panama would be most appropriate route and likewise increase their contributions to the Republican Party. That was how President Roosevelt became a fervent follower of the Panamanian route. In June 1902 the Senate authorized the president to negotiate with the Colombian government on the construction of the canal in Panama, the objective of this negotiation was to separate Panama from Colombian control. (Kryzanek, 1987)
The process was simple: the United States through his Secretary of State Hay Herran offered Thomas $ 10 million and an annual fee of $ 250,000 over the next ten years, in exchange for a canal zone six miles wide on each side thereof. This treaty was rejected by the Colombian government.
Having not achieved success through the Hay-Herran, Roosevelt and Philippe Bunau-Varilla from New York organized an army of liberation of Panama. The November 2 Nashville ship, anchored on the coast of Panama and two days later declared the independence of Panama and consequently the recognition of Roosevelt as a new nation. In November 1903 Bunau-Varilla, representing the Panamanian government signed a treaty with Secretary of State Hay agreement Hay-Bunau-Varilla. In this agreement the United States agreed to pay a sum of10 million dollars and an annual income of $ 250,000 for an area 10 miles wide on each side of the canal and sovereign rights in the canal in perpetuity. (Kryzanek, 1987)
That approach would set an example for all Latin America about how to proceed if any barriers in the U.S. expansion.
Assuming the legacy of Roosevelt William Howard Taft assumed the presidency in 1908. Unlike Roosevelt who took care to carry out the premises of Manifest Destiny, President Taft sought to expand the U.S. financial and banking systems in every state that their economies were threatened, this interest in the Central American economies, Caribbean are was known as Dollar Diplomacy. (Kryzanek, 1987)
1.4 Context 1890-1915 American politician
Towards the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, midway through the speech he was saying, Benjamin Franklin turned his gaze to a painting of the sun was in the room and asked the audience if it was a sunrise or a sunset west. The question, Franklin suggested, could be applied to the model of nation that the delegates were creating at the same time: the American experiment was a sunrise or a sunset?
In the political context of 1890, the answer is, undoubtedly, was clear: America was a rising sun, that is, a nation that was nearing the end of the nineteenth century unified after a bloody civil war and located between the group of nations ” civilized “in whose hands the affairs of the planet.
The 90 was for the United States a decade characterized by complex acceleration of industrialization, labor disputes, mass migration and consolidation of business. This industrialization, which marked the passage of an essentially agrarian country to other urban and industrial base is marked by a simple fact: 1890 is the year for the first time, the value of industrial goods eclipsed the value of agricultural products .
This process of industrialization, however, was accompanied by a strong union and the emergence and acceleration of labor disputes, especially in certain sectors, such as sugar, whiskey, copper and lead, where industries had an extraordinary power from the formation of monopolies or trusts. Thus, the dark side of industrialization and the growing wealth of the country were increases conflicts and the emergence of a monopolistic structure.
From 1890 also coincides with the process just mentioned, there is an acceleration of growth of the cities that soon made the towns and rural areas remain displaced from the place that had been dominant in American life until then. Thus, three axes (industrialization, urbanization, immigration) were conjoined at the time to create the complex web of what was to come from in the years following the new face of the country.
Externally, this was the “American wake” is marked by the war with Spain that ended the nineteenth century. This war was instrumental in the shift from old-style U.S. diplomacy towards a novel. By 1890, those responsible for designing and implementing policies maintained an isolationist stance, his behavior in relation to foreign policy was reactive: they gave little specific guidance to foreign diplomats, and army and navy were not prepared for the international war. But during the 90’s, the United States embarked on a more active role in foreign affairs. Several factors were at the root of this change: depression, which stimulated an unprecedented interest in foreign trade and overseas markets and the maturing of a generation after the Civil War did not share the disappointment of its predecessor by war. Also contributing as much contact with other countries through the missionaries and journalists.
Under the governments of Harrison and Cleveland, United States increasingly involved in hemispheric affairs. Harrison’s management said a tripartite protectorate Samoa, where North America, Germany and Britain prevented Canadian fishermen kill whales in the area. Diplomacy also reached an agreement with Italy in a dispute over the lynching of eleven Italians in New Orleans, and preserved peace with Chile after two American sailors were killed in a brawl in Valparaiso. Cleveland forced Britain to accept the ruling of a U.S. commission in a dispute between London and Venezuela around the border of British Guinea, although he opposed plans to annex Hawaii Harrison.
Cuba, just over a hundred miles away from Florida, was tied to the U.S. for strategic ties, commercial and emotional. For many Americans, the Spanish domination on the island seemed a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, and the Cubans have carried out war for independence in the Ten Days War (1868-1878) and in 1899. Cuban exiles in New York helped finance the insurrection of 1899 and provided the necessary propaganda to incite the U.S. involvement.
The conflict with Spain over the war of independence waged by Cuba against this country is simultaneous to the conflict on the Philippines. There, the war of independence waged by the Filipinos against the Spanish crown after the lifting of General Aguinaldo succeeded another war (which lasted about 10 years) against the U.S. military, whose intervention and aggression was characterized as a “protectorate” by American propaganda.
Thus, if the intervention in the Cuban war of independence is important because it sets a precedent on which will rise further relations between the U.S. and that country (and other countries in the region), the conflict is even more enlightening filipino as and as presented and the foundations of what will be the U.S. imperialist intervention. In that sense, this time of “awakening” U.S. is a time hinge for U.S. foreign policy, in which, at an accelerated pace of internal change (industrialization, urbanization, etc.). Take the step from isolationism to a decisive intervention in the regional and global issues.
1.5 North American Doctrine 1900-1915
Henry Kissinger (Kissinger Henry.. 1994) states that the U.S. had a pendulum swing against the international community. This movement had two positions:
- Lighthouse: U.S. acts as a beacon of the international system, which involves strengthening and consolidating democratic stability internally in order to become a guide (Faro) for the rest of the international states regarding the correct application of political-economic system they have adopted . This position leads to U.S. foreign policies are isolationist in nature.
- Crossover: In this position the United States defends its deepest values ??in the international system is threatened when one of its pillars (Democracy, Capitalism, Planning, Economics) the position will be interventionist in nature.
Furthermore, Alvaro Vargas Llosa (Vargas Llosa 2004) calls a similar position to that of “Crusader” by Kissinger (Kissinger 1994) as “interventionist”, and instead of the position “Lighthouse”, speaks of “condescension” . This term can be understood as the willingness to attend the American states in the stabilization and development. Unlike the interventionist view, this what is at stake is an attitude of leniency toward developing countries.
We will take Vargas Llosa (Vargas Llosa 2004) after the Spanish American war of 1898, which “opened a rate much more interventionist foreign commitment by the United States. The twentieth century brought with policies specifically aimed at Latin America. “(Vargas Llosa, 2004: 101). During the twentieth century the United States ranged from two positions: the intervention, ranging from the occupation of Cuba (1898), Nicaragua (1909), Panama (1989) and elsewhere. And on the other hand, other intervention such as drugs in the Andean region.
The condescension is rooted in the Good Neighbour policy of F. D Roosevelt and the Alliance for Progress J. Kennedy. Despite the U.S. government promoted ah another type of policies regarding trade and investment, although not as consistent a way as some states of the Caribbean Basin. (Vargas Llosa 2004).
This attitude is reflected in the beginning of the first Pan American Conference held in Washington in 1889. The conference objectives were:
- To preserve peace and promote development of the Americas.
- Promote the development of a customs union.
- Adopt a uniform system of weights and measures, and adequate legislation related to trade in patents.
- Adopting a single currency.
- Design an agreement to create a mechanism that had the ability to arbitrate disputes between countries.
Vargas Llosa (Vargas Llosa 2004) defies logic considering that Latin America should have benefited from its proximity to the United States. During the decades reveals a different result, the reasons can be explained from different theories. The various ways in which the colossus of the North was determining the fate of its southern neighbors, are the subject of study for this author. The fact that Latin America has not reached in the course of history, power and political-economic relevance of the United States, would mean that U.S. foreign policy ah tried to delay it. Whether through the search for business partners or, for example, inducing the neoliberal rage of the nineties, actually undertook to stifle every spark anti-capitalist.
But Vargas Llosa (Vargas Llosa 2004) opens the spectrum. It does not determine one way to influence, interventionism, but also includes the doctrine of condescension.
The doctrine of Palo Gordo or Big Stick was the name that received a U.S. diplomatic doctrine of the early twentieth century. The appeal sees the light from a phrase written Theodore Roosevelt, in 1901, where he expressed his appreciation for the committee of the Republican Party of New York had driven a corrupt counselor. The phrase, inspired by a West African proverb was: “Speak softly and shows a big stick and go far” ( speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far ).
This concept realizes the Roosevelt appreciated political methodology, consisting in carrying out negotiations and agreements with internal and external enemies, however display a latent capacity for violent intervention as a means of pressure. Applied to U.S. policy in Latin America, the sentence illustrated the reality underlying the American negotiations with Latin American countries, particularly those bordering the Caribbean Sea, under constant threat of armed intervention.
United States began to take a leading role in politics and the economy of Latin America (early twentieth century) abalando these interventions in the “right” in the U.S. to interfere in defense of the interests of U.S. citizens, found in the “Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine” issued by Theodore Roosevelt in his annual message of 1904.
It marks the beginning of American imperialism and its arrival as a world power with a clear management conveniences in social and political, while maintaining the order observing their obligations, this nation need not fear any action by the United States. “Injustice chronic or importance that are of a general loosening of the rules of a civilized society may require, therefore, in America or elsewhere, the intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine “(Various, 1988) (based on the phrase” America for Americans “) requires this country to intervene in situations of injustice or blatant impotence, climbing as an authentic international police. The Monroe Doctrine stated that the U.S. would carry out actions to prevent interventions from overseas (mainly European countries). Is summarized in “America for Americans.” With the advent of the corollary, the phrase came to acquire the ironic sense of “America for Americans.” (Http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Garrote, 2010)
With the U.S. policy of Palo Gordo gives legitimacy to the use of force as a foreign policy model resulted in a series of interventions throughout the continent.
You can cite cases of policy implementation of Palo Gordo against Latin American countries, even before the First World War: U.S. support for the independence of Panama in 1903 when the Colombian government rejected a proposal to build the Canal Roosevelt of Panama.
The phrase summed up the U.S. intervention as the “inability” of local governments to meet their internal affairs, and otherwise legitimated this policy claiming it was necessary to protect American interests and institutions. In that sense, Roosevelt postulated that alterations to the internal order of the Latin American republics erected a problem regarding the performance of U.S. commercial companies settled in them, so the United States had to assume the obligations entailed all the controls for “restore order” in the first instance by the pressure on local leaders representing enjoy the benefits of political and economic support of Washington (“speaking in a soft way”), and finally get the desired results are not United States would resort to armed intervention “Palo Gordo” (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Garrote, 2010).
Following the period of interest in this paper highlights a U.S. policy of a similar nature: the era characterized by the so-called “good neighbor policy”, which was reflected by the acceptance of the “three successive administrations of President Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt[1] the absolute principle of nonintervention in internal affairs of Latin America and the Caribbean “(Lorenzo, 2006). These policies were set aside only by Democrat President Harry S. Truman (1945-1953), “head of the criminal launching of atomic bombs against Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as star of the subsequent destruction of the Anglo-Soviet-American against Nazi-fascism that was structured for the last four years of the Second World War “(Lawrence, 2006).
However, some authors believe that “Good Neighbor policy” was substituted for “the politics of partners in the war” (Connell-Smith, 1977). United States use this conflict to achieve a better Latin American concept in terms of the main assumptions of the Monroe Doctrine, just knew how to seize much of the economic sector in Central and Latin America.
1.6 Caribbean Basin
This geographic area “Caribbean Basin” is the geographic area covered by the Florida peninsula to the west, comprising the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, continue along the Mexican coast and the Caribbean shores of Central America, and is continued to the east by the north coast of South America, specifically Venezuela and the Caribbean Region of Colombia. It is bounded on the east by the arc of the Antilles archipelago. It is usual to include Bermuda in this region, islands located in the west-central Atlantic Ocean, but who share cultural and historical Antillean marked as being former British colonies. Similarly, despite having no Caribbean coast, is often included El Salvador as a country in the Caribbean Basin to share the cultural and historical heritage of Central American countries that were colonies of Spain (LeBlanc, 2008).
Geopolitically speaking, the term Caribbean Basin or Great Caribbean was used to encompass a set of developing countries that are landlocked in the Caribbean, including Mexico itself, the seven countries of Central America (including El Salvador), Colombia, Venezuela and all the island countries of the West Indies (LeBlanc, 2008).
The countries of the Caribbean basin are listed below:
- Bahamas
- Barbados
- Belize
- Bermuda
- Colombia
- Costa Rica
- Cuba
- Dominica
- El Salvador
- Grenada
- Guatemala
- Haiti
- Honduras
- Jamaica
- Mexico
- Nicaragua
- Panama
- Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico)
- Dominican Republic
- Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- St. Lucia
- Trinidad and Tobago
- Venezuela.
1.7 Why the Caribbean Basin?
The Caribbean Basin is distinguished as an area which produces, refines and transports petroleum, a fact that adds a new dimension to the geopolitics of the area, overlain by a more prominent strategic role between the two Americas, while that route required for different origins and destinations for international navigation, a situation which was increased with the commissioning of the Panama Canal, opened in 1914 (Aguilera, 1982).
The processes in the oil industry within the Caribbean, are (Aguilera, 1982):
In this aspect, the Caribbean Basin oil is produced in both land and sea.
As can be easily stressed in this respect the importance of the Caribbean Basin has oil refining, agreeing to emphasize in this regard that in this region during the period of interest for the purposes of this study, and were located several of the largest oil refineries in the world.
The bulk of oil shipments from the Caribbean basin was formed by flows from Mexico and Venezuela to North America and Europe.
Due to the important role played infield U.S. oil supplies, the Caribbean basin deserves the following comments:
“The production and sale of oil is not only economic fact. Today more than ever it is a strategic and political event. The transit of energy, whether oil, coal or nuclear later, is among other things a movement of political power, both in the internal life of nations and in international “[2] .
The undoubted importance of the Caribbean in the U.S. oil supply, has led many analysts to consider the Caribbean as a key area within the U.S. geostrategic, due to the ability to have, who was able to control that space, to affect the provision of oil to the U.S.[3] .
- Different interventionist policies by the United States with respect to countries of the Caribbean Basin:
Since early last century Colombia has undue influence U.S. economic monopolies, owners of all strategic sectors, obtained with the approval of the different governments complicit liberals and conservatives took turns in power. This subservient attitude has favored the settlement. In 1903 the United States gave its support to a rebellion in Colombia, pointing to the separation of which will be the Republic of Panama with a view to building the Panama Canal.
The canal which is the geography of Panama, led to the foregoing or landing at Port Columbus to propel the country self-determination, which formed a confederation with Colombia, in 1903. “By the way signed the new treaty governing board, humiliating for the country’s sovereignty, assuring them that control topography (posterior canal and control millions in profits derived from exploitation” (Candelas, 2004)
In that year the U.S. president installed collection offices in customs. A�o1916 occurs in the landing of the U.S. Navy, which will remain in the area until 1924.
It is remarkable importance in the Caribbean Basin Cuba. The U.S. interest in Cuba dates from long ago. The island has excellent natural harbors, and any of them could become a threat to be in the hands of potential enemies.
The press and public opinion also showed a sense consistent with the assumptions of Manifest Destiny and militarization. There were also supporters fell short of jingoistic (exalted patriotism, justifying aggressive foreign policy) this is the case of J. Williams Bryan who held “Ah time to intervene. Humanity demands that we act. ” For his part, Senator Thurston (Nebraska) who rejected jingoism declared in favor of the doctrine of Christ. “And that intervention in the affairs of Cuba was the desire of God that was fighting for humanity and freedom” (Krysanek, 1987).
Tom�s Estrada Palma, recently assumed the Cuban government party faced a major revolt. He came to America for help, when Secretary of State William Howard Taft assessed the situation and consider it critical, Estrada Palma had resigned the presidency. (Kryzanek, 1987)
Roosevelt sent 7 000 marines to restore order and take the nation, the United States remained in power until 1909. By the end of the mandate of the United States Roosevelt had a series of protectorates in the Caribbean and Central America, leaving the feeling that in future the country would not hesitate to intervene in the internal affairs of other States.
1.8 On the hypothesis
“The condescension theoretical term created by Vargas Llosa does not apply to the Caribbean Basin in the period 1901-1913. You can distinguish different degrees of intervention, for example, economic, diplomatic, military. In our case study the condescension is just another level of intervention. ”
Throughout the research conducted on the issue in question, were detailed and characterized the different types of intervention that exist.
It also could be seen the importance of the Caribbean Basin, and performed a detail that shows the U.S. to undertake interventions in that area during the period between 1901 and 1913.
When discussing the history of U.S. interventionism, could be observed that throughout its history that interventionism has manifested in many different ways: from the military interventionism, to the economic, through the diplomatic, political and cultural.
Assistance from the United States of America in the world were numerous and had different causes as the reason.
United States observed the Caribbean and Central America as two areas in which his country had full rights regarding control and management.
One of the most important features presented by the Caribbean Basin is its oil-producing character. To which should be added but not least is that not only produces oil but there is a space in which it also refines and transports, plus an area that is strategically located between North, Centre and South. And she laid her eyes on the U.S. foreign policy, as observed along the preparation of this work.
References:
Alvaro Vargas Llosa. Road to freedom. Buenos Aires: Planet Arg 2004. 336 p. ISBN: 950-49-1257-5
Michael J. Kryzanek. The U.S. political strategies in Latin America. Buenos Aires: GEL. 1987. P. 314 ISBN: 950-9432-96-2
Roberto Cortez Conde. World economic history. Buenos Aires: Ariel. 2003. 320 p. ISBN: 950-9122-78-5.
G. Pope Atkins. Latin America in the international political system. Mexico: Ed Gernika. 1992. ISBN: 988-6599-23-1.
Kissinger. Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Simon & Schuster. 1994. ISBN 0671510991.
Douglas. North. Empirical Studies in Institutional Change, Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Matthew Leblanc What is meant by the Caribbean? Institute of International Relations (undated).
[1] Period of office: March 1933-April 1945.
[2] Escobar Salom, Ramon, “Geopolitics of Oil.” Newspaper “El Nacional”. Caracas, 1981.
[3] Tambs, Lewis A.: “Crisis in the Caribbean: A Look Ahead.” Weekly “New Venezuela”, No. 54. Caracas. August 29, 1980.