American thread in the Latin American Patchwork

A man, a plan, a canal, Panama. In addition to being the title of a historical documentary on the construction of the Panama canal and one of the coolest character palindromes* discovered by man, this short phrase encapsulates an odd moment in history, in which the determination of a single enthusiastic man fueled a mighty revolution that led to the founding of an entire nation. Although this series of unfortunate events was one of a kind, the domineering attitude that lies at its core has characterized much of American foreign policy toward Latin America for the past hundred years.

Until the 1900s, the United States essentially followed a policy of isolationism under the Monroe Doctrine—foreign engagements were few and spread apart, as the nation followed in the footsteps of its non-interventionist founding father. In 1902, charismatic President Theodore Roosevelt put an end to this era when he boldly announced his vision for the United States as a military power exercising imperialistic control over the western hemisphere in the Roosevelt Corollary. This policy bluntly justified the U.S.’s military intervention in any Latin American state in order to prevent any other imperial power from gaining a foothold in America’s backyard.

This new and aggressive foreign policy quickly caused uneasy rumblings among the Latin American states when President Roosevelt demonstrated his willingness to prioritize American security interests over all else, even if it meant inciting a revolution and establishing an entirely new country. Following the Spanish-American war, many Americans perceived it to be in their nation’s best interest to construct an interoceanic canal through Latin America, thus establishing profitable trade routes that connected the Pacific and Atlantic and allowing the U.S. to more easily defend its Pacific holdings (i.e. Hawaii and the Philippines). When the Colombian government steadfastly refused to sell the rights to the requisite strip of land in present-day Panama, the administration, waving its metaphorical “big stick,” fomented political unrest within the state, and expediently appointed French canal investor (Bunau-Varilla) as American ambassador to the young nation. The need to fulfill U.S. security interests easily triumphed over the established regional order, as the young imperial state rampaged through its Latin American neighbors.

In the 1940s, the immense security threat posed by the rise of Hitler and other European dictators encouraged a temporary shift away from US dominance to collective security and reciprocal trade agreements. Yet this transition towards being a “good neighbor” gave away with the growing tension of the Cold War and global front against Communism. Under President Reagan, the U.S. became notorious for sending military support to revolutionary groups that sought to overthrow leftist governments. In El Salvador, America backed the military government, which became notorious for cases of human rights abuse against its citizens, in order to resist the build-up of guerrilla groups, backed by Cuba. Similar ideology-based foreign policy decisions thus perpetuated the political chaos that shook Central American states for the final decades of the 20th century.

Through the late 19th and 20th centuries, the U.S. left a mixed legacy in Latin America, one that remains in the consciousness of Latinos even in the modern era. As we observe furious calls for the construction of a “Mexican border wall” and similarly polarizing rhetoric arising from the presidential candidates, we must be wary of the painful history of aggression that such claims call to mind.