Civility of Yankee Imperialism

The dynamic interaction between American policy and political developments in Latin America during the period from 1944-1954 is the subject of considerable debate. One side emphasizes the importance of the influence of the Second World War and the growing Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union in explaining Latin American political developments between 1944 and 1954. It focuses on specific instances of overt and covert intervention and often stresses the importance of US condescension and racial prejudice in determining US policy. The approach of this school is articulated in the work of the following scholars, among many others: Leslie Bethell and Ian Roxborough, editors, Latin America between the Second World War and the Cold War, 1944-1948 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); David Rock, editor, Latin America in the 1940s: War and Postwar Transitions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: A History of U.S. Policy toward Latin America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998); David F. Schmitz, Thank God They’re on Our Side: The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1921-1965 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999); and Piero Gleijeses, Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991).

A would-be new school presents a challenge. It emphasizes the importance of civility in determining US policy toward Latin America during the period 1944-1954. It maintains that different expressions of concern for the common good (civility) determined the ways in which more particular American interests were understood and pursued. It emphasizes the ways in which US officials, depending on how much they cared for the human rights of individuals relative to the dignity of nations, expressed concern for the common good in support for democratic solidarity and in respect for the national autonomy of others. This would-be new school holds that there is a liberal tradition in American policy that has promoted a shared commitment to democratic progress as a foundation for international cooperation in the pursuit of common interests, as well as for the pursuit of more particular American interests as well as a conservative tradition that has promoted mutual respect among diverse countries for the autonomy of each as such a foundation. It focuses on the ways in which these traditions have informed the conduct of US policy. It also holds that Latin American politics are largely autonomous relative to US policy and also focuses on the role of political developments in Latin America in determining US policy. Finally, it claims that US Cold War interests were of vital importance throughout the period from 1944-1954. It insists that the ways in which these interests were defined and pursued depended on the relative ascendancy of liberalism or conservatism among US officials and the strength of largely autonomous democratic movements on the ground in Latin America.

The approach of the would-be new school has been articulated in Steven Schwartzberg, Democracy and US Policy in Latin America during the Truman Years (Gainseville: University Press of Florida, 1993). The autonomy of political and economic developments in Latin America relative to US policy (and relative to Latin American dependency on the United States and the emerging global market) has been maintained in Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan, editors, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978) and in Larry Diamond, Juan Linz, and Seymour Martin Lipset, editors, Democracy in Developing Countries (Boulder: Lynn Reinner, 1988-). The concept of civility has been elaborated in Edward Shils, The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, Tradition, and Civil Society edited by Steven Grosby (Indianapolis: Libery Fund: 1997)

Reviews of Schwartzberg’s work include:

A. J. Dunar, CHOICE Review (Distributed by Syndetic Solutions):
“In a thoughtful, reasonable analysis, Schwartzberg challenges revisionist historians who portray US Cold War policy toward Latin America as imperialist and reliant on covert operations or military intervention, often in support of pro-US dictators. He focuses on Americans posted in Latin American capitals and ranges from Peron’s Argentina to Haya de la Torre’s Peru and Betancourt’s Venezuela, with briefer stops in Costa Rica, Cuba, Brazil, Ecuador, and Guatemala. Schwartzberg finds that during Truman’s presidency, policy reflected less the imperatives of the Cold War than the desire to encourage democracy. Beginning in 1945, optimistic Cold War liberals, exemplified by Spruille Braden, ambassador to Argentina and then assistant secretary of state for inter-American affairs, encouraged nascent democracies and aided democratic movements. Furthermore, not all Latin American leaders opposed US involvement. Democrats such as the influential Haya de la Torre, while critical of US economic influence, concluded that there were advantages to working with the Americans. By 1949, as prospects for democracy in Latin America dimmed, Cold War conservatives directed policy; to a fault, they abstained from actions that might have been construed as interference, at times unwittingly assisting antidemocratic forces in the process.”

Philip Chrimes, International Affairs, Volume 80, Issue 4, Pages 769-804:
“Steven Schwartzberg utilizes his study of the US stance towards the postwar democratic opening in Latin America during the Truman administration to extrapolate a boldly revisionist interpretation of the fundamental motivations behind US foreign policy over the longue durée; one which flies in the face of much recent scholarship on US-Latin American relations, whether it has pertained to more general attitudes of US condescension and racial superiority (as embodied, for example, in the work of Lars Schoultz and David Schmitz) or to specific instances of overt or covert intervention. Indeed, he calls on the reader, on the basis of his findings, ‘to have a greater measure of confidence in the legitimacy and viability of an American international leadership that genuinely holds itself accountable to the twin principles of democratic solidarity and respect for the national sovereignty of other peoples’. This leadership can make mistakes, but ‘it can also advance the general welfare by the coherence and decency of its endeavor’ (p. xii).... Schwartzberg attributes a greater autonomy to Latin American politics than is customarily allowed and suggests that regional leaders exercised considerable influence on the shaping of US policy. To this end he attempts to show how the Latin American ‘democratic left’ arrived at an accommodation with ‘Yankee imperialism’ and at an awareness of its essential ‘civility’ (‘the virtue of concern for the common good’). The chapters on the postwar democratic opening in Peru and Venezuela are prefaced by a lengthy consideration, reaching back to the 1920s, of the political trajectories of the Alianza Popular Revolucionaria Americana caudillo Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre and of Acción Democrática leader Rómulo Betancourt, who over the course of their early political careers gradually moved from a strident nationalism towards the political centre.”

Richard J. Walter, Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 85, No 2 (May 2005), pp. 369-70:
“This is an important book that will benefit all those interested in Latin America and U.S. diplomacy. The Allied defeat of the Axis dictatorships at the end of WWII seemed to offer promise to Latin American democrats, suggesting that shifting political tides would work to replace authoritarian regimes with freely elected ones throughout the globe. Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru, and Venezuela (with Argentina under Juan Perón, perhaps, a more ambiguous example) experienced transitions to democracy, although only in two cases (Brazil and Costa Rica) did these shifts last past the immediate postwar decade. Schwartzberg’s book examines these transitions in detail, focusing on the role of U.S. policy in this process. While the study covers the entire Truman administration, the emphasis is on 1945-48. Although others have written on this period before, Schwartzberg argues that the originality of his approach is to underscore and explain in detail the interaction between U.S. diplomats and policy makers and Latin American political leaders…. Schwartzberg marshals an impressive amount of research, especially in official diplomatic correspondence and private papers. The writing and organization are solid, and despite frequent lengthy quotations, the narrative—even of well-known events—is often riveting. This book’s value is not only in its new material. The author demonstrates, he argues, the ‘inadequacy’ of what might be called ‘the cynical school’ of diplomatic history that discounts the role of idealism in driving U.S. policy in the region. ‘The rivalry between liberals and conservatives . . . was defined by competing conceptions of how the common good should be pursued far more than by differences over what constituted American economic and political interests’ (p. 223)…. Whatever the opinion of Schwartzberg’s conclusions, this is an important book that will benefit all those interested in Latin America and U.S. diplomacy. There is much that is fresh and original in the narrative and the analysis. We learn more not only about the various U.S. diplomats and policy makers but also about familiar characters such as Haya de la Torre and Betancourt. The focus on the relationship between U.S. policy and democratic development in Latin America undoubtedly will continue to remain one of the most enduring and important aspects of hemispheric relationships. This book provides a valuable historical framework and set of lessons for those who, as Schwartzberg puts it, ‘place a high value on democratic solidarity and respect for national sovereignty . . . part of the common culture of the modern world’ (p. 220).”

Richard Feinberg, Foreign Affairs (September/October 2005):
“An iconoclastic diplomatic historian lauds liberal internationalists for skillfully supporting struggling democrats during the early Truman years. He also faults U.S. diplomats for blowing numerous opportunities to tilt the balance toward democratic forces after 1948—a neglect attributed to demoralizing reversals and to the ascendancy of conservative cold warriors tethered to a rigid and sometimes opportunistic doctrine of nonintervention. A passionate pro-labor Social Democrat, Schwartzberg recognizes that early U.S. attempts to bolster divided or inept democrats were sometimes ineffective. Still, he criticizes the cultural pessimism of George Kennan and Louis Halle (who ghosted the famous ‘Y’ article in Foreign Affairs in 1950) for aligning U.S. diplomacy with despots and faults contemporary scholars for their ‘easy cynicism’ toward U.S. motives. Schwartzberg’s copious evidence for the earlier American idealism comes primarily from White House and State Department sources, even as he occasionally admits competing and less broad-minded perspectives in the CIA, the Pentagon, and the business community.”

Paul J. Dosal, The Journal of American History, Vol. 91, No. 4 (March 2005):
“This book is a refreshing return to an earlier generation of American diplomatic historians. Since the days of Samuel ‘Wave the Flag’ Bemis, few historians of United States relations with Latin America have dared to applaud the noble intentions of American policy makers. Instead, we are so accustomed to denunciations of paternalistic, imperialistic, and anti-democratic policies that Steven Schwartzberg’s patriotic promotion of the democratic, anticommunist Cold War liberalism of Spruille Braden may surprise a few readers. Historians should embrace this opportunity to reconsider standard tenets of New Left historiography.... A bold challenge to other historians who are quick to criticize and reluctant to put their own values and policy prescriptions on the line.”

Steven Schwartzberg

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu