South America a vast continent, rich with fertile land and exotic materials that are rare in other corners of the world. The acquisition of these goods would be desirable to any other state who is not in possession of any valuable resources themselves and the craving for globalisation and ideological power Mann (2012, p. 1 – 2). The US acquired nations in Latin America by exerting its power and in result made an empire for itself, making the US the most influential nation in the world as it denounced any other countries’ empirical conquests Renda (2001, p. 7). This essay will be analysing in detail the last decade of US imperialism in Latin America, the essay will detail what steps have been made by US Presidents in dealing with the continent economically and culturally. It will argue that progressive steps were taken initially however there has been a turnaround in attitude from the successive administration in Cuba and Colombia.
Cuba’s capital city Havana was riddled with American crime and Americans had a large involvement in the economy of Cuba before 1953 (investopedia.com, 2016). The Communist overthrowal of the Bautista regime revolutionised the Cuban political scene; it was one of the first revolutions against US imperialism in Latin America. Cuba’s new leader was Fidel Castro, a man who angered the US political scene due to his refusal to condemn the communist agenda, and his use of Soviet oil. The US government made that American and British oil companies were to refuse to refine oil for the Cubans and the US began training Cuban exiles, who held negative sentiments towards Castro Mann (2012, p.110). These actions caused Castro to nationalise oil and accept military aid from the Soviets, in turn truly ending US imperialism in Cuba. Although Americans attempted to keep their influence by imposing a trade embargo and planned coups on Cuban soil Mann (2012, p.110 – 111).
The embargo would be laxed in 2016, beforehand during the first year of the Obama administration the US – Cuba relation consisted of tug-of-war politics, overall caution was a sentiment that won Erikson (2011, p.100). Obama visited Cuba in 2016, the visit was monumental as Obama was the first sitting American president to visit Cuba since 1959. Obama was optimistic about the Cuban-American relationship, the president likened the relationship between the two countries to that of estranged siblings, (nytimes.com, 2016). The president of the US stated to the Communist leader, Raul Castro, that ‘the United States had no intention of imposing its economic or political principles on Cuba.’ (nytimes.com, 2016) Which is a very different approach to previous US presidents who have condemned the Communist regime in Cuba and have not done anything to improve the relationship between the two countries. Previous presidents have not done anything to overcome the trade embargo imposed by President John F. Kennedy.
Obama’s decision impacts Cuba politically as it improves Cuba’s global image. The US is a superpower and any alliance with the US is beneficial to Cuba’s political involvement on the global stage. Many global superpowers disagree with the Communist agenda of Cuba but having the US link itself with Cuba is beneficial. Obama’s visit also benefits Cuba economically as the trade embargo eases accessibility of Cuban businesses trading with American businesses where there are a greater number of Cuban nationals, in 2016 Cubans accounted for 3% of the US population with 1.3 million immigrants (migrationpolicy.org, 2017), who would be more receptive of Cuban exports than in Europe. Obama made it clear that his administration would take a different approach and distance itself from the traditional US imperialism with the use of hard power. Obama stated that he would ease the process to apply for Visas for individual travellers and easing political relations with Cuba Erikson (2011, p.101). His administration’s approach has been welcomed by the Cuban leader Raul Castro and by Cuban nationals as it is progressive and beneficial both financially and culturally.
After Obama’s progressive Cuban politics Cubans and Americans and those outside of the two countries watched in uncertainty as Donald Trump was elected into the Oval office. From the point of view of many academics and connoisseurs of politics the newly-elected president knew marginally nothing of Latin American politics. The President knew more of what was passed onto him by anti-communist hardliners of the likes of Republican Marco Rubio and other Cuban descendent politicians (Aljazeera, 2017). The president also called Obama’s actions for reconciliation with Cuba ‘terrible’ (Independent, 2017). Showing that the president will continue his pattern of reversing Obama era policies, which will probably include Obama’s progressive steps to improve trade relations with Cuba and improve travel between the two countries. Throughout 2016, the president continued with his pledges to go back on Obama’s changes; the president tweeted his declaration that he would be ‘cancelling the last administration's completely one-sided deal with Cuba’ John de Bhal (2018, pp 436-453). However, President Donald Trump has not been able to reverse too much on Obama’s Cuba related policies. Trump’s administration has only made small reversals of Obama’s own achievements; American companies are prohibited from doing business that makes them interact with the Cuban government and the Treasury if is permitted to auditing these companies to ensure this is maintained John de Bhal (2018, pp 436-453).
Also, during his election he made comments that marginalised not only Latin Americans in the US but those in South America also. During the early days of his tenure, Trump’s then-nominee for the State secretary position Rex Tillerson stated that the future administration would be against the current agreement between the Colombian government and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) (nacla.org, 2017). US’s new administration’s threat of withdrawing their support from the Colombian government’s deal can further marginalise and put displaced minorities in Colombia in a position where their livelihood is threatened and they are victims of further brutality. This removal of support would further ignite the already tense situation of the rise of the Right-wing political scene in Colombia, which would further affect the unstable situation of ethnic minorities and impoverished people of Colombia (nacla.org, 2017). Trump also made threats to decertify Colombia as a partner in the mission to fight narcotics in Colombia after Colombia sought help from the UN (Colombia Reports, 2018). Trump’s approach to Colombia displays that Trump is taking a traditional approach in terms of the US’ approach to exerting its influence on Latin countries with the use of threats and its imposition of hard power. Indicating that Trump will continue to use a Hawkish approach towards Latin America as is customary with Republican presidents. This move by the president of the US contradicts that of his predecessor Barack Obama, Obama made moves to improve Colombia’s political situation and its economical one also.
The Obama administration was able to grant Colombia with a $450 million aid package called ‘Peace Colombia’ (nacla.org, 2017) with also benefit non-governmental organisations in Colombia. This was the first US aid package to Colombia that was not to primarily fund military aims. The president showed commitment to the continuation of the Plan Colombia funding that had been established for a decade by then Erikson (2011, p.101). Obama also showed a focused approach to Colombia’s politics before a key Colombian Supreme Court on whether their president could have a third term; Obama cited his preference of a continuation of the two-term presidency during his State of the Union address Erikson (2011, p.102 – 113). Obama cited his intentions to strengthen trade relations between the US and Colombia, by investing more in exports and in private sector business Erikson (2011, p.104). Obama’s administration made a request to cut aid money sent to Colombia by 11%, reducing the funding by an estimated $55 million, showing that Obama was to reduce US influence in Colombia and allow for the nation to be more self-sufficient (migrationpolicy.com, 2017). This shows that Obama was to ease US influence in Colombia, however the US would strengthen trade relations with Colombia but would remove traces of US imperialism to the best of its ability. This type of US imperialism was still a coercion with the use of economical means that is habitual of the US government. However, the aid grant can be seen as a move towards a more fortuitous one that can benefit Colombia more than it benefits the US. Trump’s approach is one that returns to the old way of imperialism – like that of George Bush.
In the last decade, US imperialism has taken a radical change. The majority of the change due to the legislation from President Obama. Obama took steps to ‘thaw out’ relations between Cuba and the USA by being the first US president to visit the nation since 1959, a monumental step in US foreign policy. He facilitated travel between the two countries and improved trade and helped boost the Cuban economy in turn with his foreign policy. Consequentially, his ideological opponent Donald Trump chose to take a course of action that would reverse Barack Obama’s foreign policy achievements. Trump made remarks that showed his opposition to any complete reconciliation between the two nations; he reversed some of Obama’s policies that facilitated travel and business between the two countries. Donald Trump has displayed a Hawkish approach to his foreign policy; which has been more visible with his use of threats used towards Latin nations in order to garner a result that would better please him. In conclusion, the development of US imperialism in Latin America has seen major developments in relation to Cuba to only then have reversals done by Obama’s successor Trump; in relation to Colombia not much legislation was put into place by Obama to further trade relations but nonetheless the countries’ relation was strengthened with the US’ decrease of authority in the country. However, Donald Trump was keen to also backtrack on Obama’s strengthening by choosing a much more aggressive and authoritative tone when dealing with Colombia.