Latin America's troubled ties with the US

Following the capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro by American forces, and suggestions that Washington might also target Cuba or Colombia, Danny Bird spoke to GREG GRANDIN about the history of US engagement with Latin America

- 

Danny Bird How have US views of Latin America changed over time?

Greg Grandin When the United States first emerged, what was then known as 'Spanish America' was part of the Spanish empire. Early US leaders therefore viewed the region through the lens of imperial geopolitics rather than as a collection of future sovereign republics.

Figures such as [third president] Thomas Jefferson saw Spain as a declining empire that would fragment slowly - to the benefit of the US, which could absorb parts of its territory over time. That is largely what happened. Initially, US engagement was with Spain as an empire, not with Latin America as an independent entity.

By 1823, around the time of the Monroe Doctrine [asserting the primacy of US interest in the western hemisphere], it had become clear that Spanish America was winning its wars of independence. Compared with the American Revolution, these conflicts were longer, more violent and far more destructive, unfolding across multiple theatres: Mexico; northern South America under Simón Bolívar; and the southern cone [Argentina, Uruguay and Chile]. By then, Mexico was independent, Colombia was close, and the imperial order was collapsing.

At that moment, the US began to shift from dealing with a disintegrating empire to engaging with newly formed nations.

In many ways, Spanish America (still not called 'Latin America' at that point) marked the United States' entry into international diplomacy, because it was now required to conduct relations with other nation states within the western hemisphere.

What methods has Washington used to impose its will on this region - military or otherwise?