National Sovereignty and Latin America

Can national sovereignty coexist with international institutions? Is national sovereignty critical to the international system anymore? While international institutions stress the importance of national sovereignty, this principle has evolved since the creation of the United Nations post-WWII. Under the definition provided by Democracy in Latin America, national sovereignty in Latin America has been violated by international institutions and states alike. Through mostly non-violent forces, the United Nations has attempted to pacify internal disputes within the borders of some Latin American countries. Rather than national sovereignty being a fixed concept, national sovereignty has evolved with both international institutions and the international community. Regardless of its evolution, the United States has continuously intervened in Latin America to further their own interests. National sovereignty derives its worth from a western-centric international system in which the United States has violated the principle. Furthermore, international institutions have changed dramatically as well. International institutions are overwhelmingly affected by, and often led by the United States. The effects of the United States’ involvement in Latin America cannot be understated. The United States has helped define international norms which have shaped international institutions.

Can international institutions exist in Latin America without democratic regimes? The success of the United Nations in comparison to the Organization of American States reflects that democracy is an important factor for international institutions to succeed. When democracy spread throughout Latin America, OAS began to find stability and success. By capitalizing on that fact, the OAS made progress in protecting democracy throughout the region. Yet, the measures of success for these international institutions were heavily based in western political values. The nature of the relationship between OAS and the United Nations reflects Western standards being imposed on Latin America. While the United States has intervened in other regions, Latin America was geopolitically vulnerable. Additionally, the unparalleled rise of the United States in the Western Hemisphere imposed a power dynamic between the United States and Latin America. When Latin America turned democratic for the most part, international institutions like OAS were validated. Yet, can some stability in the region be attributed to the lack of interventions by the United States? Tracing the causal relationship between democratization in the region and the number of United States interventions is difficult since we cannot prove if one caused the other and vice versa. The lesser number of interventions that the United States displayed in Latin America in the 1990s may have been due to the fact that international institutions were present and willing to remedy certain issues in Latin America. Were international institutions more fit to intervene in Latin America? This does not seem to be the case either, instead it seems as if the United States grew tired of entangling themselves in Latin America. By allowing OAS and the United Nations to lead missions in Latin America, the United States has looked elsewhere for opportunities to spread democracy. Once a threshold was reached in Latin America and electoral democracy was widespread throughout the region, the United States choose to spread democracy somewhere else (i.e. the Middle East).

Reflecting on past readings, underdevelopment in Latin America is seemingly best explained by dependency theory. Even then however, dependency theory understates the role of outside forces, specifically the United States. Even though all underdevelopment in the region cannot be attributed to the United States, there is a consistent pattern of involvement—or entanglement by the United States.

Did the Cold War have negative effects on democracy in Latin America? The United States’ goals in the Cold War reacted in negative effects on democracy in Latin America. By implying that the Cold War directly affected Latin America in such a profound way, Smith somewhat glosses over the direct impact that the United States had on democracy in Latin America during the Cold War. The Cold War and the world under U.S.-Soviet bipolarity resulted  in negative prospects for democracy in Latin America. Under the threat of communism, the United States championed authoritarian regimes in Latin America solely because they were the antithesis of communism. Yet the standards for which the United States required for Latin America were unreasonably individualistic. By intervening in both democracies (Ex. Allende in Chile) and authoritarian regimes (Ex. Somoza in Nicaragua) in the past, how could Latin America be successful in avoiding intervention?

1. Anastasio Sr. Somoza; Franklin D. Roosevelt

This is somewhat of a trick question in that the United States, partially fueled by paranoia, could not accomplish their goals of containing and defeating communism without constant intervention. Military failures like the Bay of Pigs resemble not only failures due to poor planning but also failures due to hubris. Believing that the United States could successfully continue to manipulate numerous different Latin American states was based on historical precedent as well as American Exceptionalism. The Cold War reflects another period in which national sovereignty was ignored by the United States. Even outside the context of the Cold War, the United States still attempted to fulfill economic and political goals through interventions in Latin America reflecting that national sovereignty in Latin America has been arbitrarily ignored by the United States over many years.

^1. McAvoy, Thomas D. (Photographer). (1939). Anastasio Sr. Somoza; Franklin D. Roosevelt [digital image]. Retrieved from http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/pres-anastasio- somoza-of-nicaragua-chatting-in-backseat-of-car-with-picture-id50441641