Invisible Hand In Latin America

INTRODUCTION:

The ‘invisible hand’ has been a staple in American literature ever since it was first coined by Adam Smith in the mid 18th century. Actions made in pursuit of one’s self-interests will always prevail, demonstrating the hands influence. This same concept can be used to describe the actions the United States took towards Argentina during the mid-1970s when it was embroiled in a Dirty War. People went as far as to kidnap and report their own neighbors to the authorities–believing them to be radicals who were against the authoritative regime. Given due time, it would be discovered that the U.S. aided in the Argentine efforts to silence its people in exchange for economic assistance. However, once the international sphere was

U.S. foreign policy in Latin America did not take into account that countries would want to opt out of monolithic block set up by U.S. corporations and the U.S. government. In Nicaragua, the “Marxist regime allied to the Soviet Union and Cuba” was a constant danger. Nicaragua had previously been a U.S. ally under President Somoza, who like U.S.-backed Chilean Eduardo Frei, held American ideals, but the U.S. lost its influence in the country. The U.S. saw itself as the protector of the Western Hemisphere and intended to keep its influence over Latin America. Partly because of the Monroe Doctrine, in which the U.S. could intervene in American countries that were in danger of European invasion, the U.S. was able to exercise much authority over weak Latin American states. U.S. foreign policy in Latin America began to shift in a way that benefited the U.S. through opening trade, lower tariffs and political allies. After an economic collapse, knowing that countries needed to reconstruct themselves and were in grave need of economic assistance, the U.S. manipulated the situation to persuade countries to adopt policies. The combination of loosening strongholds in Latin America and Cold War threats pressured the U.S. to reevaluate the durability of other Latin American

During the early-1970s, Argentina began to be seen as an emerging nation that could prevent communism from reaching South America. Having already involved itself in El Salvador, Chile and Cuba, the U.S. turned its attention to Argentina who was beginning to exhibit signs of civil unrest primarily due to class conflicts and inequality. Hoping to stomp out a communist revolution before it began, the U.S. funded capitalist economic policies to promote a much friendlier U.S.-favoring Argentine government. The development of policies adopted by the U.S. were done for the benefit of the U.S. without regard to what the people of Argentina wanted. Eventually, the internal affairs in Argentina led to several foreign social movements rallying behind humanitarian change, influencing the decisions Argentina made. To what degree did these transnational networks impact foreign policy change? Throughout my paper, I argue that the U.S.’ primary goal was to maintain its superpower status and prove that capitalism was the most superior social system. Over the course of my research, I analyzed U.S. economic policies that span several U.S. presidencies. Changing attitudes and a presidential shift in priorities, profoundly changed American relations