Inevitable Revolutions

"It complements Schoultz’s book well because it focuses, very specifically, on the countries of Central America. It covers a shorter timeframe, picking up when the United States first intervened militarily in Central America at the turn of the 20th century. This was the time when the United States was expanding its commercial interests beyond the borders of the 48 states. That expansion fed most heavily on Central America. As the United States developed commercial interests in the region, it became involved in the internal politics. Ultimately, it intervened militarily to protect U.S. interests whenever and wherever there was instability. LaFeber traces how U.S. influence in the region in the 1920s and 1930s gradually moved from power exerted by military force to economic dominance. He shows how the region became economically, and therefore politically, subordinate to the United States. He then describes in detail how, after World War Two, Central America’s authoritarian systems began to decay. He looks at the rise of popular opposition to these systems and how the United States reacted. Once again, it became militarily involved, propping up these brutal regimes in the face of popular challenge. During the Central American wars of the 1980s, LaFeber’s book was widely read in the United States. It influenced many critics of U.S. foreign policy. Interestingly, the left-wing governments in Latin America today, with the possible exception of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, do not really pretend to be socialist in the traditional sense. Even some of Chavez’s allies – Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua – are pursuing essentially social-democratic policies. They aren’t trying to do away with capitalism, although Chavez would, I think, like to. But he hasn’t managed it. Support Five Books Five Books interviews are expensive to produce. If you're enjoying this interview, please support us by donating a small amount . A major change in the Latin American Left since the 1960s is that no one aspires to the old socialist model of a highly centralised, state-run economy. History’s verdict is that it didn’t work very well. The other difference is, of course, that the Cold War is over. During the Cold War, the United States saw a populist left-wing government in Latin America as a potential Soviet ally, a doorway into the hemisphere through which it could project influence. Today, there is no real extra-hemispheric threat. The United States even sees problematic regimes like Venezuela as more of an annoyance than a threat to its interests. American relations with Latin America have definitely improved recently, although the region is still not stable. In the last 20 years, transnational crime and personal insecurity have become the most pressing issues for most countries in the region – more pressing than economic inequality, poverty and social exclusion."