Weekly Reflection 8
Political Geography Part 2: The State & the Military
Early Politics Authoritarian tradition – conquistadors, colonialism; major pre‐
colonial empires Since independence: twin threads – democracy and
authoritarianism, hybrid forms of authoritarian democracy Elite retreat, rise of caudillos agrarian elite reemerge
(modernizing dictators); caciques bring out the vote in rural areas (only 5% of adult males vote in Mexico, Argentina in late 19th century)
Stability, economic growth, immigration brings some new and radical political influences (ex. Anarchist trade movement in Argentina); urban working class harder to control than peasantry
Rise of Populism Catalyst for change: worldwide depression & rise of ISI
ended dominance of agrarian elite and a shift in politics to populism (appealing to the masses); the state replaces the caudillo as all‐powerful provider; Cardenas in Mexico, Vargas in Brazil, Ibanez in Chile, Peron in Argentina Urban‐oriented political model – this model
coincides with ISI and industrialists and industrial workers are a major support base for leaders – more popular in larger countries (more industrialized)
Corporatism – ruling parties set up and controlled labor unions and other mass organizations – they exchanged support by these organizations in return for improvements State/party machine controlled elections; opposition excluded from state’s bounty, hounded by legal system, physical intimidation
Argentina’s Peron
Rise of Populism
Nationalistic – populists condemned Latin America’s dependence on outside powers and often nationalized key industries – Mexico’s oil (1938), Argentina’s railroads (1948) Initial success of ISI helped fund the expanded state and programs
States with smaller, weaker economies military dictators take over in 1930s (Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Dominican Republic); in power for decades, stifling political modernization and sowing seeds of future upheaval, revolutions (Cuba 1959, Nicaragua 1979)
Fall of Populism Downturn of ISI led to a fall in populism, and a number of
factors led to the take over of politics by the military in some state – Brazil (1964), Argentina (1966) Economic crisis (waning of growth) broke down
improbably industrialist/worker alliance; expansion of social groups (middle class) wanting a voice in politics; radical elements such as militant student movements inspired by Cuban Revolution
Military dictatorships that emerged during this period were supported during Cold War by the US, and they also had popular support (especially among the middle class) to restore order (improve economic situation)
Military rule led to National Security Doctrine – promoted the defeat of ‘internal subversion’ – basically, anything that threatened the status quo As a result, human rights and rule of law became
redundant; there was supervision of all activities in the national space; and military governments developed extensive military‐industrial complexes under state‐led ISI (Brazil exports $1B/year in weapons in 1980s)
Argentina’s Military Junta
The Military The military in Latin America had always been a central &
independent political force since the wars of independence Professionalization of the military occurred since the mid‐19th
century – building a national army with a proper career structure and a separate value system – encouraging a self image as a caste apart from – and superior to – the rest of society
This has meant a separation from civilian society – socially and spatially – which separates them from civil values Military schools – high percentage are officers sons = increased sense of separation from society
Other spaces – separate neighborhoods, country clubs/social clubs
Anti‐politics position of the military – they touted themselves as efficient economic planners, since they were not subject to the “whims of politics” (formal and informal) But, by closing down formal and informal (unions, etc.) politics,
they left a political vacuum in which other political actors rose up to fill in the void – begins the rise of “New” Social Movements EX: Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo (Argentina) – use the Junta’s discourse of women’s traditional roles, as mothers, to engage in public protest to find their “disappeared” children
Niños Heroes de Chapultepec
The Fall of the Military The military in Latin America today find themselves
pushed to the background due to a number of factors, which include: Budget cuts from economic restructuring (military budgets halved across region between 1985‐1994); privatization of military industries
Post‐Cold War – makes National Security Doctrine obsolete; US now sees military governments as politically destabilizing, economically less competent than civilian governments
Without popular support – people less willing to endure dictatorship because they also can’t control economic chaos (proven by Debt Crisis)
Mass Destruction of Weapons
Transitions to Democracy Debt Crisis hastened the failure of the military state – bad economic
planning, free‐spending showed they were no better than civilian politicians Some regimes managed orderly exit (Brazil, Uruguay); many other places
investigations, prosecutions for atrocities occurred Crisis of identity, moral (reviled by public, former allies; confused over role;
falling wages) Exception: places with continuing guerilla insurgencies (Colombia)
Encouraged by US to have more involvement in “war on drugs” but leadership fears it opens door to corruption (already on the increase in Central America)
Political Geography Part 3: US Intervention
Rising Power & Early Interventions Occurred in different ways during different phases –
which were a function of both global political processes and internal political culture of the US
Monroe Doctrine (1823): Americas is sphere of influence for the US and Europe should not try to gain political control
“From Sea to Shinning Sea”—Manifest Destiny (the idea that the US was destined to expand to the Pacific): Mexican American War (1846‐48)
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848)—ceded ½ of Mexican territory to US
“Positively No Hunting”
American Progress (1872)
Becoming Imperial During the late 19th century you began to see proponents of American
Empire win out over those who were anti‐imperialist – US policies reflected this change: Platt Amendment (1902)—gave the US the right to intervene in Cuba
“for protection of life, property and individual liberty” Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (1904): Not only are the
Americas within the US Sphere of Influence, but the US has the right to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American nations to protect US interests; Big Stick/Gunboat Diplomacy – use or threat of military force in order to secure advantage or to avert loss
Early Interventions
Backing Off…Until… Good Neighbor Policy (1933‐1945): interventionism was
actually causing a backlash against US interests in the region EX: Marine occupation in Nicaragua resulted in guerilla
war by Sandino But, the COLD WAR changed everything… Domino Theory: if one country falls to communism, it will
also destabilize those around it Foreign Internal Defense: defending the US through
strategic defense abroad; protecting US interests The School of the Americas (first located in Panama) provides training in counterinsurgency; declassified documents show training manuals that recommend threats, bribery, blackmail and torture)
Cold War Alignments in the Americas
Cutting Ties with SOA
Questions for McSherry Reading 1. What was the “US Overseas Internal Defense Policy,” and when did it
emerge? a. What is counterinsurgency, and how is it related to this policy? b. What is the School of the Americas, and what role did it play
during this period? i. What are the critiques of this institution? What is it accused
of? 2. What continuities are there between the Cold War policies of the US
in Latin America and those of the post‐Cold War era? a. What’s the role of the military in the new security paradigm? b. How is “foreign internal defense” exercised today by the US in
the region? 3. What is meant by the phrase “hegemonic stabilizer of the system,”
and how is instability now defined?
Central America Proxy Wars
Guatemala & Cold War Politics CIA orchestrated coup to overthrow
democratically elected president, Jacobo Arbenz, in 1954 Land reform policies particularly opposed
by US‐based United Fruit Company (Chiquita Bananas)
US supported Guatemalan army (1950s‐1990s) with training, money, arms
Civil War from 1960‐1996 killed approximately 140,000 plus 60,000 disappeared By 1990s, considered the worst human
rights violator in Latin America
Check out the National Security Archives: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
Changes in Policy? Today, there’s often a distinction made between Hard versus Soft Power
regarding US intervention Military interventions of the Cold War gave way to economic interventionism through international institutions (IMF, IADB)
However, it’s argued that military interventions are still there backing up neoliberalism (see McSherry)
Political backlash to austerity, restructuring referred to as “Pink Tide”: radicalization of citizens due to the extreme economic hardships of restructuring – electing leaders who oppose restructuring policies (not communist, but a little bit left, center‐left – hence the pink instead of red)
Pink Tide?