The image of Latin America as the backyard of the United States corresponded with Washington’s foreign policy at the beginning of the 19th century when the “Monroe Doctrine” was created, which arose after the president’s statement in 1823 before Congress, in which it was expressly stated that the US would interpret any interference in the region by powers outside America as a hostile act. Washington would react to neo-colonial pretensions. Then it was a policy against European powers and attempts to regain their territories or establish new colonies when most Latin American nations became independent.

What prompted the conquest of the American West?

This policy faced several challenges. The largest of these was the French invasion of Mexico in 1861, which was supported by Spain, the United Kingdom, and the Southern Confederate States of the United States, among others, during the country’s civil war. After this conflict ended, Washington supported the Mexican armies of Benito Juárez with training, money and weapons. However, when the United Kingdom, Italy, and the German Empire blockaded and bombarded the ports of Venezuela in 1902, pressuring the debt collection, the Monroe Doctrine was not used and aggression was tolerated, but this event gave way to the corollary of the same statement by Theodore Roosevelt: The United States appropriated the right to use force to maintain order throughout the Western Hemisphere.

The US remains the most important political influence in the Western Hemisphere, but Latin America is no playground…

In 2013, the Obama administration formally renounced the Monroe Doctrine, but the Trump administration never ratified the idea. Outside of Washington’s visions, the political and international scenario of Latin America in the 21st century makes this impossible. The region has diversified politically. The search for autonomy of many of its countries found more effective channels than disputes with Washington. The extra-regional presences of the present do not resemble, in their practices, those of colonialism from the 19th century. The USA is no longer the most important trading partner of most countries in the region, nor the largest investor, nor the largest space for the exchange of scientific knowledge. Alternatives for relations are, for example, the countries of the European Union and China. In a global sense, initiatives like that of BRICS or the Group of 77 open up different possibilities of positioning on different issues.

BRICS, G7 and the dollar

Most countries in the region are cautious when it comes to joining geopolitical blocs. They keep their options open, and many of them are fickle in their international allegiances because their domestic politics are so volatile. The US remains the most important political influence in the Western Hemisphere, but Latin America, which is diverse, fragmented and disintegrated, is not, beyond rhetoric, Washington’s backyard. The use of military force does not solve the problems of economic exchange, migration or organized crime. The 21st century is not the 19th century. (OR)