U.S.-Panamanian Relations since 1941

1970 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester D. Langley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American States ◽  
Economic Sphere ◽  
History Of ◽  
Latin American Countries ◽  
Postwar Decade

Since 1941 United States relations with Latin American countries have fluctuated between the ofñcial cordiality of wartime cooperation, which provided the basis for the Organization of American States and the Rio Treaty, and deep-seated hostility and malaise, which erupted in the Nixon visit and in Castro's revolution, as well as in more recent unpleasant incidents. Latin American leaders have contended that the United States violated its wartime commitments, particularly in the economic sphere, by concentrating on the recovery of Europe in the first postwar decade and on Asian upheaval in the second. The history of U.S.-Panamanian relations since 1941 provides an excellent case study in order to test the validity of these contentions.

U.S. Influence in the Organization of American States

1975 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 311-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Meek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
Latin American ◽  
New York Times ◽  
The United States ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American States ◽  
Pro Forma

Literature on U.S. influence in the Organization of American States reveals a marked diversity of views. Some authors consider that U.S. influence is absolute or very nearly so; others hold that it is relative; still others think it is minimal.In the nearly-absolute school, former Guatemalan President Arévalo (1961: 126) says that the United States “always wins” in the OAS. The Ecuadorian writer Benjamín Cardón (1965: 29) says that the OAS “receives orders and complies with them, with the appearance of discussion, and the appearance of votes that satisfy pro-forma the hypocritical quakerism of the masters.” This view might be summed up by a comment attributed to a Latin American delegate to one Inter-American Conference: “If the United States wanted to badly enough, it could have a resolution passed declaring two and two are five ” (New York Times, March 8, 1954).

The Coup d'Etat in Bolivia: Internal and External Factors

2021 ◽  
pp. 131-142
Author(s):  
Konstantin S. Strigunov ◽  
◽  
Andrei V. Manoilo ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
External Factors ◽  
Political Support ◽  
Political Regimes ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
Coup D'etat ◽  
Political Situation ◽  
American States

The aim of the article is to reveal the mechanism of the coup d'etat in Bolivia in November 2019. Based on the research of Russian and foreign experts, as well as official documents of international organizations, a research center, speeches by world leaders, and the media, the authors analyze the internal causes and external factors that contributed to the overthrow of Evo Morales and the coming to power of the right opposition, oriented to the United States and supranational structures. The methods for the research were selected based on the requirements of a multilateral and systematic analysis of the domestic political situation in Bolivia, its cultural, historical, territorial, and economic characteristics, as well as foreign policy factors that influenced the situation in the country. A comparative analysis of the coup d'etat in Bolivia with the situation in some other Latin American states was done. The first section analyzes the domestic political situation in Bolivia, economic factors, and a number of actions by Evo Morales which led to the weakening of his position on the eve of the presidential election. The second section discusses the mechanism of influence of the Organization of American States on the election process in Bolivia. The influence of neo-fascist organizations, which receive external support and financing and became the main shock force of the coup d'etat, is investigated. The channels of influence of international players and organizations on the internal political processes of Bolivia are studied. The authors infer that the ousted president did not solve the task of creating and implementing a development project for all social and ethnic groups of Bolivia while maintaining their own support and state sovereignty. In addition, the authors give a critical assessment to the decision of the Bolivian leadership led by Evo Morales to entrust election monitoring exclusively to the Organization of American States where the US position dominates. The authors suggest that, for political support, in the monitoring of the election, Evo Morales should have involved representatives of states and organizations not controlled by Washington, for example, from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. For the first time, the authors reveal and thoroughly study the trigger mechanism for activating a coup d'etat using technologies for dismantling political regimes adapted to Bolivian conditions. They conclude that, in fact, counteraction to left-wing political regimes by the United States in Latin America is de facto a continuation of the formally completed Operation Condor, but using modern technologies to eliminate the unwanted regime in a particular country in new geopolitical conditions.

scholarly journals Issues, Threats, and Institutions: Explaining Oas Responses to Democratic Dilemmas in Latin America

2007 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Arceneaux ◽  
David Pion-Berlin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American States ◽  
Clear And Present Danger ◽  
Over Time

AbstractOver time, the Organization of American States has become institutionally and normatively more capable of defending democracy in the region. Yet the OAS is as selective in its interventions on behalf of democratic promotion today as it was in the early 1990s. To explain this puzzle, this study disaggregates democratic dilemmas according to issue areas, threats, and contingencies. It finds that the OAS responds more forcefully when the problem presents a clear and present danger both to the offending state and to other members. As threats become weaker or more ambiguous, the OAS tends to act more timidly, unless domestic constituencies cry out for its assistance or the United States puts its full weight behind the effort. Case study capsules provide empirical evidence to illustrate these arguments.

‘Responsibility of the Great Ones’: How the Organization of American States and the United Nations Helped Resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 883-904
Author(s):  
Renata Keller
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Cuban Missile Crisis ◽  
International Organisations ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American States ◽  
History Of ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Latin American Countries

AbstractThis article draws on an international assemblage of sources to recover the history of the involvement of the Organization of American States (OAS) and the United Nations (UN) in the Cuban missile crisis. It argues that, through the mechanisms of the OAS and the UN, Latin American citizens and officials helped shape the peaceful outcome of the crisis. This article challenges dismissive portrayals of both Latin American countries and multilateral organisations and, in so doing, joins the growing literature on how supposedly weak Latin American countries have used international organisations to influence world affairs.

The Tlatelolco regime and nonproliferation in Latin America

1981 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Redick
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Careful Consideration ◽  
Free Zone ◽  
Legal Traditions ◽  
American States ◽  
Latin American Region ◽  
Latin American Countries

The regime established by the Treaty of Tlatelolco is supportive of peace and security in the Latin American region and global nonproliferation efforts. Circumstances leading to the creation of the nuclear-weapon-free zone include careful preparations and negotiations, individual leadership, existence of certain shared cultural and legal traditions of Latin American countries, and the temporary stimulus of the Cuban missile crisis. Lack of overt superpower pressure on Latin America, compared with more turbulent regions, has permitted continued progress toward full realization of the zone. Tlatelolco's negotiating process, as well as the substance of the Treaty, deserve careful consideration relative to other areas.The Treaty enjoys wide international approval, but full support by certain Latin American States (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Cuba) has been negatively affected by the failure of the U.S. Senate to ratify Tlatelolco's Protocol I. Nuclear programs of Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico are expanding rapidly and these nations are forming linkages with West European countries, rather than the United States. The May 1980 Argentine-Brazilian nuclear agreement foresees significant cooperation between the two nation's nuclear energy commissions and more coordinated resistance to the nuclear supplier countries. Argentine-Brazilian nuclear convergence—and the response accorded to it by the United States will have significant implications for the future of the Tlatelolco regime and nonproliferation in Latin America.

Organization of American States

1964 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 210-212 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Organization Of American States ◽  
American States ◽  
Social Council ◽  
Alliance For Progress ◽  
Development Committee

Alliance for Progress: On June 15, 1963, recommendations for revitalizing the Alliance for Progress were presented to the Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) by the ex-Brazilian President Juscelino Kubitschek and the ex-Colombian President Alberto Lieras Camargo. The studies had been requested in October 1962 by the Inter-American Economic and Social Council (IA-ECOSOC). Although the two reports differed somewhat in their interpretation of the causes for the deficiencies noted to date in the Alliance for Progress, they coincided in recommending the establishment of a new coordinating agency with in the OAS framework. The new body, which would be called the Inter-American Development Committee, would coordinate the implementation of the Alliance. It would be composed of five Latin American representatives (one from each of five geographical areas) and one representative from the United States.

The History of Immigrant Deportations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Torrie Hester
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Mexican Immigrants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Us Government ◽  
History Of ◽  
Post Entry ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Latin American Countries

Since the 1880s, the US government has deported more than 55 million immigrants, the majority of whom came from Latin-American countries. But the history of immigrant deportations from the United States dates back further, as both colonial and state governments practiced expulsions. Many expulsions were not based on immigrant status, but rather integration or membership in a town or state. Citizens from the United States, for example, found themselves expelled from Massachusetts between the 1840s and 1870s under laws that targeted the migrant poor. In the 1880s, US federal authorities constructed the nation’s first deportation policy, building off earlier state expulsion policies. Early federal deportation policy reflected the racism and nativism of the era. In an expression of anti-Chinese racism, one of the very first deportation provisions passed by the federal government targeted Chinese immigrants. Other early federal deportation provisions included ones aimed at idiots, prostitutes, alcoholics, and public charges. The earliest federal deportation policy was narrow in scope, at least initially, in part because the laws held primarily that only people who entered the country in violation of an immigrant exclusion were deportable, and there were time limits that protected most long-term immigrants from deportation. Beginning in the second decade of the 20th century, lawmakers slowly expanded deportation policy to make actions on US soil deportable offenses or for what has been called “post-entry infractions.” The newly created post-entry infractions included a small number of crimes and provisions that targeted political radicals. After the 1920s, immigration authorities focused their enforcement actions more on Mexican immigrants than on any other group under an expanding deportation policy. They did so on racial grounds, for racist reasons. The numbers of Mexicans deported increased with each passing decade, eventually reaching as many as a million people a year. Almost all immigrant deportations from the United States—more than 48 million—have taken place since 1965. In that year, the federal government entered the business of mass and constant deportations. As deportations multiplied, the proportion of Latin-American countries other than Mexico that received deported people also escalated. Although the majority of deportations in US history have been carried out for entering or remaining in the country in violation of immigration law, major anti-crime campaigns in the last forty years have resulted in a growing number of deportations for post-entry infractions.

“America’s Scapegoats”

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (138) ◽  
pp. 39-59
Author(s):  
Michael Staudenmaier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
First Century ◽  
Present Moment ◽  
Far Right ◽  
National Liberation Movement ◽  
Latin American Countries

Abstract In the 1970s and 1980s, Puerto Rican and Chicana/o/x radicals from across the United States developed a sophisticated theory of fascism as part of a broader effort to defend themselves against government repression and apply the lessons of the rightward trajectories of many Latin American countries. In the process, they built panethnic alliances that helped spur the emergence of Latina/o/x identity as it is commonly understood in the twenty-first century. This article uses the Movimiento de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Movement, or MLN) as a case study of this broader process because of its binational character and its persistent willingness to grapple with both the theory and practice of fascism and anti-fascism in the United States and in Latin America. While the MLN abandoned its own panethnic structure in the early 1980s, its legacy of Latina/o/x struggle against far right and white nationalist forces persists into the present moment.

scholarly journals History of Relations Between Argentina and Countries of Latin America and the United States in XXI Century

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oleg Iurevich Kazenkov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Regimes ◽  
History Of ◽  
Latin American Countries

The article analyzes the history of difficult relations between the United States and Latin American countries in recent times. The author, using a wide source base, examines the prospects for US participation in the overthrow of legitimate political regimes in the States of the region.

scholarly journals Drug prices in Latin American countries: the case of rheumatoid arthritis Biosimilars

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela Bittencourt Gonzalez Mosegui ◽  
Fernando Antõnanzas ◽  
Cid Manso de Mello Vianna ◽  
Paula Rojas
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
United States ◽  
Latin American ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Purchasing Power Parity ◽  
The United States ◽  
Power Parity ◽  
Drug Prices ◽  
The Us ◽  
Latin American Countries

Abstract Background The objective of this paper is to analyze the prices of biological drugs in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in three Latin American countries (Brazil, Colombia and Mexico), as well as in Spain and the United States of America (US), from the point of market entry of biosimilars. Methods We analyzed products authorized for commercialization in the last 20 years, in Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, comparing them to the United States of America (USA) and Spain. For this analysis, we sought the prices and registries of drugs marketed between 1999 and October 1, 2019, in the regulatory agencies’ databases. The pricing between countries was based on purchasing power parity (PPP). Results The US authorized the commercialization of 13 distinct biologicals and four biosimilars in the period. Spain and Brazil marketed 14 biopharmaceuticals for RA, ten original, four biosimilars. Colombia and Mexico have authorized three biosimilars in addition to the ten biological ones. For biological drug prices, the US is the most expensive country. Spain’s price behavior seems intermediate when compared to the three LA countries. Brazil has the highest LA prices, followed by Mexico and Colombia, which has the lowest prices. Spain has the lowest values in PPP, compared to LA countries, while the US has the highest prices. Conclusion The economic effort that LA countries make to access these medicines is much higher than the US and Spain. The use of the PPP ensured a better understanding of the actual access to these inputs in the countries analyzed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document