International Contexts

This week’s chapter on international influence on Latin American Democracy ties in interestingly with Schoultz’s article. The article discusses at length the positive correlation between US Aid given to Latin American countries and human rights violations happening in those countries. Though there was no discussion of weather or not one caused the other, we are presented with information that supports this correlation by examining the amount of aid given both in total and per capita to each country.  Smiths Chapter on international forces discusses the different global influences Latin America experienced during three different time spans. The United States was constantly one of these influences, weather it be through aid, military occupation, or a number of different situations.

Latin America is often referred to as a secondary power in each text. Ideas from Smith and Schoultz have demonstrated that outside influence has affected the development of the area and its democratization. I would say that this outside influence has also affected its sovereignty in a big way. The United States has intervened a number of times, influencing elections and staging coups to help over throw powers they considered a threat. I think its possible that this constant intrusion could have hindered or distorted efforts of self sovereignty. This was happening while many countries in Latin America were trying to or were in the process of a regime change to democracy. The constant push and pull not only from the US and other powers, but economic crisis’s and other political change, has taken away some of these individual countries power to lead themselves in different instances. Latin American countries have already had a shorter and differing experience of democratization compared to the West. It’s difficult to say exactly how Latin American politics have been altered because of this influence, but looking at trends from more recent years might give some insight.

Going back to Schoultz’s discussion, the correlation between human rights violations and US aid was quite prominent. Though its tempting to consider the causes of this correlation, we can more clearly see some of the implications it has had on US foreign aid policy. Schoultz discusses how the relationship between the two was brought to the attention of US law makers, and that the result was provisions were eventually added to ensure aid was being used more appropriately. This included a clause added in 1977 to the PL480. Again, the supply of food, funds, and military support was not always to the benefit of democratizations, or even the well being of the Latin American people. When addressing these problems concerning foreign aid, the US government did so on a case by case basis. Though I see the benefit of addressing each country’s situation individually, I think that it may have been to some benefit to consider clusters of nations together. Nations that are closely related whether it be geographically or economically, ones that greatly influence and effect each other should perhaps be considered together while dispersing aid. This isn’t to suggest ignoring size, population, or need, but rather to more closely consider how to use aid in a way that will be most beneficial to several countries that may share similar or interconnected problems.