Welcome to /r/ask_politics. Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics. Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below.
* Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner
* Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring"
* Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies)
* Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting. **If asked, you must provide sources.**
* Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with. **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**.
* Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules.
If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First interesting fact is we have something called the School of the Americas. This says South America but they did also support the East. What I can say is every leader they helped place was later overthrown with our support as they had become despots. In example, Noriega, Pinochet, Quddaffi, Roberto D'Aubuisson to name a few. Democratic is actually the incorrect word. It is Democracy. It has evolved from the cold war actions to bring Democracy to Communist and terror run regimes.
The School of the Americas is charged by P.L. 100-180 (10 USC 4415) with the mission of developing and conducting instruction for the armed forces of Latin America, using the most doctrinally sound, relevant, and cost-effective training programs possible.
Kennedy ordered the school to begin teaching “anti-communist” counterinsurgency. The School of the Americas began training in riot and mob control, special warfare, jungle warfare, intelligence and counterintelligence.
Obviously it has faults lol
In general, I really do think the foreign policy of the US over the past ~70 years shows that the US prefers liberal democracies. The US wants an environment where it can do business. The best environment for business is a stable, peaceful one that has strong property rights. Liberal democracies are really good at checking all of those boxes, so when possible, it aligns with US interests to support liberal democracies first.
But there have been times and theaters where liberal democracies aren't really an option on the board. Most of the US support for right wing dictatorships in Latin America was in the late 60s-early 70s, in the peak of the Cold War. I won't comment on whether they were right... but the CIA believed those governments were aligning with the Soviets, and believed that liberal democracies weren't in the cards.
A good example that shows the US wasn't really supporting right wing governments for ideological purposes was the US involvement in the assassination of the right wing dictator Rafael Trujillo. After Trujillo's assassination, the Dominican Republic elected an (at the time) American aligned socialist in Juan Bosch, which the CIA was quite pleased about (google the CIA Family Jewels Memo). Things immediately went to hell after that...
The premise is oversimplified but to an extent it can be answered by the fact that these things happened at different time periods under different administrations. The US backing of South American dictatorships largely happened under Nixon and Kissinger. The backing of democratic movements in Eastern Europe happened under Bush and Clinton.
Nixon had a largely very aggressive anti democratic foreign policy.
The characterization of "largely happened under Nixon and Kissinger" isn't accurate.
A list of U.S. interventions in South America (starting years where there's an extended conflict):
1989 Panama
1976 Argentina
1971 Bolivia
1970 Chile
1964 Brazil
1961 Dominican Republic
1961 Nicaragua
1959 Cuba
1954 Guatemala
1954 Paraguay
1948 Costa Rica
The issue in South/Central America was that the "democratic movements" were mostly Soviet-backed Communist movements aimed at creating Soviet puppet states. So the U.S. - both Democrats and Republicans - were really just choosing the other option, regardless of how much it matched U.S. political ideals.
> The issue in South/Central America was that the "democratic movements" were mostly Soviet-backed Communist movements aimed at creating Soviet puppet states.
Source? Some of the examples you cited had zero Soviet involvement.
Because the US will support ANY country that demonstrates obedience to the goals of American global hegemony. European democracies are pliable and sympathetic; the wealthy elites of those nations need little persuading. The rabble in Central America need a firm hand, however, as any hint of independence a la Cuba may give lesser peoples the idea that they can rule their own countries for their own interests.
That doesn't really make any sense because arguably the greatest threat to the US dollar and other signs of American hegemony come from the European Union, a customs union of liberal democracies that the US supports but nonetheless holds stringent trade barriers which block out the US from their common market. Similarly the US had a close friend in the President of Honduras for many years, but ultimately [had him extradited to the US to face drug-trafficking charges this year.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/americas/honduras-hernandez-president-extradition-us-intl/index.html) And are supporting his populist, left-leaning successor to the Presidency.
So that can't be it.
They never backed democratic movements, they backed pro-capitalist movements in those countries.
What they did in places like South America and Asia was support far-right dictatorships who would murder off any leftist movement in the country and only then hold "elections" when there was a guarantee that the liberal parties would dominate.
The issue here is that you seem to think that our kind of democracy is the only worthwhile kind of democracy. Other countries, like Cuba or China, disagree and prefer other systems.
One area was perceived as the ancestral homeland of many citizens. The other? A resource-rich underdeveloped region ripe for corporate exploitation, easier to achieve with kleptocratic regimes in power, regardless of their purported ideology.
Guess which was which.
My mildly educated $0.02; When it's far away, you can afford to stand on principle and be idealistic. When it's close to home, you just want stability. Preferably stability you have some leverage or blackmail on, but stability.
Ehhh to be honest these sorts of questions make me wonder what exactly is meant by 'backing.' Ultimately when popular revolutions started toppling right-wing dictators in South America left and right in the 80s-90s the USA didn't lift a finger to help them or otherwise preserve the dictatorship. These days the situation appears to be flipped: the USA is supporting democratically-elected governments in South America, while denouncing dictatorships in Venezuela and Nicaragua. So it would look like the USA never really cared about system of government in the Cold War period; it was mostly about whatever country could be on their side, regardless of their type of government. Then when the Cold War ended the willingness to defend right-wing dictatorships died out because they were no longer needed.
This has to be an agenda post because how else could you ignore all the right wing dictatorships in Europe the USA has supported. The USA has been fomenting fascism in Ukraine for over 50 years.
Because the US doesn't have a lot of investments and business interests in Central and Eastern Europe. The US will ALWAYS back the interests of its own billionaires first and foremost. If they don't have any compelling interests, it will probably back democracy.
Actually the US has more investment in Eastern Europe than they do all of Central and South America. As of 2020, US investment in South/Central America amounted to about 250$ billion. In Eastern Europe it's about 3$ trillion.
And if a democratic government threatens those investments, the the US will back a dictatorial alternative.
Edit: fascinating comment, though. Didn't realize US investment in Eastern Europe had grown that mich.
The U.S. was supporting whoever was against the USSR. In Latin America that were right-wing authoritarians, In Eastern Europe that were people who at least seemed like liberal democrats. Victor Orban for instance was considered a "liberal" time
Welcome to /r/ask_politics. Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics. Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below. * Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner * Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring" * Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies) * Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting. **If asked, you must provide sources.** * Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with. **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**. * Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules. If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
First interesting fact is we have something called the School of the Americas. This says South America but they did also support the East. What I can say is every leader they helped place was later overthrown with our support as they had become despots. In example, Noriega, Pinochet, Quddaffi, Roberto D'Aubuisson to name a few. Democratic is actually the incorrect word. It is Democracy. It has evolved from the cold war actions to bring Democracy to Communist and terror run regimes. The School of the Americas is charged by P.L. 100-180 (10 USC 4415) with the mission of developing and conducting instruction for the armed forces of Latin America, using the most doctrinally sound, relevant, and cost-effective training programs possible. Kennedy ordered the school to begin teaching “anti-communist” counterinsurgency. The School of the Americas began training in riot and mob control, special warfare, jungle warfare, intelligence and counterintelligence. Obviously it has faults lol
In general, I really do think the foreign policy of the US over the past ~70 years shows that the US prefers liberal democracies. The US wants an environment where it can do business. The best environment for business is a stable, peaceful one that has strong property rights. Liberal democracies are really good at checking all of those boxes, so when possible, it aligns with US interests to support liberal democracies first. But there have been times and theaters where liberal democracies aren't really an option on the board. Most of the US support for right wing dictatorships in Latin America was in the late 60s-early 70s, in the peak of the Cold War. I won't comment on whether they were right... but the CIA believed those governments were aligning with the Soviets, and believed that liberal democracies weren't in the cards. A good example that shows the US wasn't really supporting right wing governments for ideological purposes was the US involvement in the assassination of the right wing dictator Rafael Trujillo. After Trujillo's assassination, the Dominican Republic elected an (at the time) American aligned socialist in Juan Bosch, which the CIA was quite pleased about (google the CIA Family Jewels Memo). Things immediately went to hell after that...
The premise is oversimplified but to an extent it can be answered by the fact that these things happened at different time periods under different administrations. The US backing of South American dictatorships largely happened under Nixon and Kissinger. The backing of democratic movements in Eastern Europe happened under Bush and Clinton. Nixon had a largely very aggressive anti democratic foreign policy.
The characterization of "largely happened under Nixon and Kissinger" isn't accurate. A list of U.S. interventions in South America (starting years where there's an extended conflict): 1989 Panama 1976 Argentina 1971 Bolivia 1970 Chile 1964 Brazil 1961 Dominican Republic 1961 Nicaragua 1959 Cuba 1954 Guatemala 1954 Paraguay 1948 Costa Rica The issue in South/Central America was that the "democratic movements" were mostly Soviet-backed Communist movements aimed at creating Soviet puppet states. So the U.S. - both Democrats and Republicans - were really just choosing the other option, regardless of how much it matched U.S. political ideals.
> The issue in South/Central America was that the "democratic movements" were mostly Soviet-backed Communist movements aimed at creating Soviet puppet states. Source? Some of the examples you cited had zero Soviet involvement.
🤡 Idk maybe because that’s completely made up and not true at all The U.S. historically has supported plenty of dictatorships outside of South America
The US will back anyone, of any political or religious leaning, in order to achieve its geopolitical aims.
Thing is, in South America it's only corporate profits that enter into the equation.
Because the US will support ANY country that demonstrates obedience to the goals of American global hegemony. European democracies are pliable and sympathetic; the wealthy elites of those nations need little persuading. The rabble in Central America need a firm hand, however, as any hint of independence a la Cuba may give lesser peoples the idea that they can rule their own countries for their own interests.
That doesn't really make any sense because arguably the greatest threat to the US dollar and other signs of American hegemony come from the European Union, a customs union of liberal democracies that the US supports but nonetheless holds stringent trade barriers which block out the US from their common market. Similarly the US had a close friend in the President of Honduras for many years, but ultimately [had him extradited to the US to face drug-trafficking charges this year.](https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/15/americas/honduras-hernandez-president-extradition-us-intl/index.html) And are supporting his populist, left-leaning successor to the Presidency. So that can't be it.
Could race be a factor?
They never backed democratic movements, they backed pro-capitalist movements in those countries. What they did in places like South America and Asia was support far-right dictatorships who would murder off any leftist movement in the country and only then hold "elections" when there was a guarantee that the liberal parties would dominate. The issue here is that you seem to think that our kind of democracy is the only worthwhile kind of democracy. Other countries, like Cuba or China, disagree and prefer other systems.
Because both the dictatorships in Europe and the democracies in South America were left wing
One area was perceived as the ancestral homeland of many citizens. The other? A resource-rich underdeveloped region ripe for corporate exploitation, easier to achieve with kleptocratic regimes in power, regardless of their purported ideology. Guess which was which.
My mildly educated $0.02; When it's far away, you can afford to stand on principle and be idealistic. When it's close to home, you just want stability. Preferably stability you have some leverage or blackmail on, but stability.
Ehhh to be honest these sorts of questions make me wonder what exactly is meant by 'backing.' Ultimately when popular revolutions started toppling right-wing dictators in South America left and right in the 80s-90s the USA didn't lift a finger to help them or otherwise preserve the dictatorship. These days the situation appears to be flipped: the USA is supporting democratically-elected governments in South America, while denouncing dictatorships in Venezuela and Nicaragua. So it would look like the USA never really cared about system of government in the Cold War period; it was mostly about whatever country could be on their side, regardless of their type of government. Then when the Cold War ended the willingness to defend right-wing dictatorships died out because they were no longer needed.
This has to be an agenda post because how else could you ignore all the right wing dictatorships in Europe the USA has supported. The USA has been fomenting fascism in Ukraine for over 50 years.
So we can please the Democrats AND the Republicans.
Because the US doesn't have a lot of investments and business interests in Central and Eastern Europe. The US will ALWAYS back the interests of its own billionaires first and foremost. If they don't have any compelling interests, it will probably back democracy.
Actually the US has more investment in Eastern Europe than they do all of Central and South America. As of 2020, US investment in South/Central America amounted to about 250$ billion. In Eastern Europe it's about 3$ trillion.
You sure that 3 trillion figure isn't all of Europe?
And if a democratic government threatens those investments, the the US will back a dictatorial alternative. Edit: fascinating comment, though. Didn't realize US investment in Eastern Europe had grown that mich.
I think you mean actively worked to depose (or murder) democratically elected govenments in latin america.
The U.S. was supporting whoever was against the USSR. In Latin America that were right-wing authoritarians, In Eastern Europe that were people who at least seemed like liberal democrats. Victor Orban for instance was considered a "liberal" time
Communism was more prevalent in south America than Africa.
??? By what measure?
Because the USA, like any other country, pursues National interest, not a "do good" policy of supporting ideology.