The Western Hemisphere, a region historically central to U.S. geopolitical interests, has largely remained in the shadow of American foreign policy in recent decades. However, under the administration of Donald Trump, particularly from his first days in office, this area has begun to receive unusually high attention. The tone of U.S. policy toward neighboring countries has taken a distinctly assertive and confrontational turn, with an emphasis on economic pressure and unilateral measures aimed at shaping regional outcomes. This shift echoes strategies rooted in America’s late 19th and early 20th-century efforts, when the United States was emerging as a global power and its foreign policy was heavily focused on consolidating influence in the Western Hemisphere. To understand this renewed focus, it is essential to examine the historical context, the ideological influences on Trump’s approach, and the implications for regional dynamics in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Historical Roots and Echoes from the Past
The geopolitical and economic strategies that serve as a reference point for the Trump administration are deeply rooted in the era of William McKinley (1897–1901) and Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909). These presidents epitomized a period when the U.S. was asserting itself as a burgeoning imperial power, establishing a pattern of intervention, territorial acquisitions, and economic dominance in the Western Hemisphere. McKinley’s policies of protective tariffs and economic expansion, combined with Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” diplomacy and the aggressive construction of the Panama Canal, laid the groundwork for a U.S. strategy that prioritized national strength and regional influence.
In his inaugural address, Donald Trump explicitly referenced this era, highlighting how McKinley’s tariffs enriched the nation and how Roosevelt’s ambitious projects, including the Panama Canal, contributed to America’s rise. Such references are more than rhetorical nostalgia; they signal an intent to revive a form of assertive, interventionist foreign policy that seeks to secure economic advantages and geopolitical dominance in the Americas.
The Militarized and Expansive Legacy
The early 20th-century approach was characterized by a willingness to use force, economic coercion, and political intervention to shape regional affairs. Under McKinley and Roosevelt, the U.S. defeated Spain in 1898, acquiring territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, and exerted influence over Cuba, often through informal or formal protectorates. Roosevelt’s interventions in the Caribbean, including the deployment of military force during the 1906–1909 intervention in Cuba, exemplify an interventionist posture that prioritized strategic interests over diplomatic niceties.
Furthermore, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine represented a doctrine of U.S. interventionism, asserting the U.S. right to intervene militarily in Latin American nations to maintain stability and order. This era also saw the imposition of unequal treaties and trade agreements designed to benefit American companies at the expense of regional sovereignty. Such policies fostered resentment but also established a pattern of dominance that persisted through the 20th century.
Implications for Today’s Latin America
Trump’s admiration for these historical figures and their policies raises questions about the future of U.S.-Latin American relations. His rhetoric and actions suggest a desire to emulate their aggressive stance, with a focus on economic leverage, military preparedness, and an uncompromising assertion of American interests. This approach is at odds with the more diplomatic or multilateral strategies often favored by previous administrations, especially during the post-Cold War era.
A key aspect of this renewed activism is the emphasis on the Western Hemisphere as a sphere of influence. While the early 20th-century policies aimed at territorial expansion and direct control, today’s strategies are more subtle but nonetheless assertive, involving economic sanctions, tariffs, and threats of military intervention. These measures are designed to weaken or coerce regional governments that challenge U.S. interests or pursue independent paths, whether through alliances with China or Russia, or through internal political shifts.
Isolationism and the Return to a Hemisphere-Focused Strategy
The Trump administration’s approach also reflects a broader tendency toward American isolationism, reminiscent of the pre-World War II era, when the U.S. retreated from active global engagement and concentrated on securing its own borders and regional influence. This retreat was characterized by a focus on “America First,” skepticism toward multilateral institutions, and a preference for unilateral action to safeguard economic and strategic interests.
In this framework, Latin America has regained prominence as a key area of concern. While the post-Cold War period saw a relative decline of U.S. influence in the region – surpassed by China’s growing economic presence – the Trump era has rekindled a focus on strengthening regional ties with allies and reasserting dominance through economic and military means.
The Regional Context: Latin America Under Trump
Latin America today presents a complex mosaic of political ideologies, economic dependencies, and strategic alliances. The region’s countries range from right-leaning governments aligned closely with Washington to leftist regimes sympathetic to anti-imperialist narratives. The influence of external powers such as China and Russia further complicate the regional landscape, with Beijing becoming the largest trading partner for many Latin American nations, especially in infrastructure investments and resource extraction.
Under Trump, the U.S. has shifted its policy focus, emphasizing border security, anti-immigration measures, and economic coercion. These policies have targeted countries like Mexico and Colombia, where migration and drug trafficking are critical issues. The Trump administration’s approach reveals an emphasis on short-term strategic gains, often at the expense of long-term regional stability or cooperation.
to be continued
Comments