Pick ONE of the following terms below and explain:
1) whether you feel this concept has been good for the USA
and
2) whether you feel this concept has been good for Latin America
USE A SPECIFIC FACT TO BACK UP YOUR ANSWER FOR EACH PART ABOVE, AND CITE THE SOURCE for each fact (URL is okay).
Terms to Choose From:
- NAFTA
- CAFTA-DR
- School of the Americas/WHINSEC
- Monroe Doctrine Roosevelt Corollary
- Platt Amendment
- Rio Pact
- Organization of American States
Good Luck!
P.S. This is a 10 point assignment, due by 11:59pm on Monday 5/21/12
Include your first name, last initial, and class period with your post...I might not recognize your "Anonymous" post!
42 comments:
NAFTA seems like it was a good decision; Canada, Mexico, and the USA all seem to have benefited from the trade agreement. The US exports went up 23.4% after the free trade agreement went into effect. Mexico exported 163.3 billion since the trade agreement; a massive increase of imports as well. NAFTA seemed like an all around smart decision on everyone part.
"North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." Office of the United States Trade Representative. Web. 16 May 2012. .
The Platt Amendment of 1903, introduced in 1901 by Oliver Platt, was definitely a one-sided agreement. This amendment, stating that the US could go into Cuba with a military to maintain "friendly governments" and peace, is entirely in the US's favor. The US had spent 5 years after 1898 occupying Cuba and through the Platt Amendment, was able to receive the leases to Guantanamo Bay. Cuba was not happy to have lost rights to Guantanamo Bay and other parts of Cuba as well as have their political freedom taken away from the US. Eventually, the Platt Amendment was abolished in 1934.
"The Platt Amendment, 1901" http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1901platt.asp
I think that overall, the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was a negative to Latin America because if the United States has to assist them in the first place, it shows that they are not stable on their own. For instance, the Dominican Republic faced a crisis and was unable to continue paying off debts of over $32 million to other nations (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1449.html). This would be an instance where the United States should step in and help, but that is not good for the stability of Latin America. However, I think it is good for the United States. Europe is not allowed to get involved in the region, which means that the United States has a good amount of power there, and has the right to get involved when needed. The United States has access to many resources in Latin America that Europe does not. Additionally, with the United States assisting Latin America, it is more likely that they will be supportive of the United States and be on their side. The Dominican Republic has been supportive of many U.S. initiatives in the UN, and the two countries have worked together to stop the trafficking of illegal substances and illegal migration. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominican_Republic%E2%80%93United_States_relations).
Eric W. period 4
I think NAFTA has been good for the US. It has improved trading between the US and Latin America while also helping contribute to improved wages in the US and more jobs and manufacturing. For example, the average real wages rose almost 10% in the years following NAFTA while almost 25 million jobs coincided with the agreement. (http://www.realitycheck-us.com/2008/07/nafta-has-been-good-for-americ.html). I think NAFTA has hurt Latin American countries more than it has helped them. While it has increased manufacturing production in some countries, the agriculture industry has been hurt. For example, in Mexico almost 600,000 jobs were created in manufacturing, but at least 2 million were lost in agriculture. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/01/nafta-anniversary-us-mexico-trade)
Overall the CAFTA-DR, a free trade agreement, seems to have been a positive for both the U.S. and the Latin American countries involved (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic). Even though the U.S. exports to CAFTA-DR countries went down 21.3% from 2008-09, it is up 145% from 1994. For the Latin American countries they get to be part of one of the biggest trading partner groups in the world and they get a trading partners with a superpower in the United States.
(http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/cafta-dr-dominican-republic-central-america-fta)
Hannah G Period 3
I think NAFTA has benefited the US because it has allowed us to freely trade with our neighbors who we export the most goods to (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html). However, I think that it has not helped Latin America. Other than Mexico trading the US 73.5% of their goods (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html), NAFTA has not benefited any other Latin America countries.
Angelica V. pd. 3
I think that the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was a good thing for the United States. It gave us the right to step in when we found it necessary. It is a good thing for the US because then we have more control over Latin America then Europe has over them. Overall it is a good thing for the US. On the other hand I do not think it might be such a good thing for Latin America. I think it is good because they are more close with a major power in the world but it could be bad because they might not like what the US is doing compared to what Europe may have done for them.
The 1993 NAFTA agreerment between the U.S., Mexico and Canada was advantaeous to the United States (Not so much for Mexico). through this agreement, trade between our three nations has been less-restrictive and has led job creation in the United States. 25 million jobs have been added the U.S. since its inception. It also had the added benefit of lower consumer prices throughout North America
http://debates.juggle.com/has-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta-been-beneficial
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/
The 1993 NAFTA agreerment between the U.S., Mexico and Canada was advantaeous to the United States (Not so much for Mexico). through this agreement, trade between our three nations has been less-restrictive and has led job creation in the United States. 25 million jobs have been added the U.S. since its inception. It also had the added benefit of lower consumer prices throughout North America
http://debates.juggle.com/has-the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta-been-beneficial
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/naftas-impact-on-employment/
Marcos C.
4th hour
The Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe doctrine has been a good thing for the United States. This is becasue it opened up the possibility to have the Panama Canal. It also helped to prevent forgien influence in Latin and South America. It has been a blessing and a curse for Latin America. it has prevented forgien influecne in the region but they have had the influence of the Untied States acting as a police force for them.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary)
Emily S. / Period 3
Term: NAFTA (Implemented January 1994)
1. I think the NAFTA concept benefits the United States because we don't have to pay extra taxes on many goods that we get from Canada and Mexico and some other Latin America countries. The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States all are in support of NAFTA.
2. I think NAFTA also benefited Mexico, a Latin-American country that is part of NAFTA. Since 1994, Mexico's GDP increased about 2.7% each year. As well as this, exports to the United States have quadrupled. NAFTA also reduced prices in Mexico for consumers (example: the price household goods has halved).
Source: (http://www.cfr.org/economics/naftas-economic-impact/p15790)
Dylan M Period 3
The Rio Pact
1) For America, the Rio Pact can be both good and bad, as we can get the assistance of other Latin American countries if we are ever attacked, but if small latin american countries are attacked, we might have to send American Soldiers to fight in those countries for causes that may not matter to us.
2) For Latin American Nations, especially small and weaker nations this is a good thing as they are gaining the protection and assistence of large, advanced nations like the U.S. and Brazil.
Dylan M Period 3
The Rio Pact
1) For America, the Rio Pact can be both good and bad, as we can get the assistance of other Latin American countries if we are ever attacked, but if small latin american countries are attacked, we might have to send American Soldiers to fight in those countries for causes that may not matter to us.
2) For Latin American Nations, especially small and weaker nations this is a good thing as they are gaining the protection and assistence of large, advanced nations like the U.S. and Brazil.
Dylan M
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Pact)
Andy Burns
P 3
Nafta
This is for the US, Canada, and Mexico and it eliminated many tariffs so that increased trade in the reason. I think that this is a good thing for the Mexico region because it allows them to trade without tariffs or other fees being put upon them. In addition, the US goods trade deficit with NAFTA was $94.6 billion in 2010, a 36.4% increase ($25 billion) over 2009.
Andy Burns
P 3
Nafta
This is for the US, Canada, and Mexico and it eliminated many tariffs so that increased trade in the reason. I think that this is a good thing for the Mexico region because it allows them to trade without tariffs or other fees being put upon them. In addition, the US goods trade deficit with NAFTA was $94.6 billion in 2010, a 36.4% increase ($25 billion) over 2009.
Olivia K. 3rd
The Platt Amendment has been good for the United States because it allowed us to enter Cuba with a military base to help keep the peace. I do not think this has been good for Latin America because Cuba has been occupied against their will by the Americans for years because of this amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment
The Monroe Doctrine stating that the Western Hemisphere shall belong to the Western Hemispehere is a swell idea, until John Quincy Adams claims that any European interatcion will result in USA intervention. Why would we need to intervene in Latin America? The idea is negative for America as it promotes our giant war machine and in turn elevates government spending. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1850USmn_13ms1n_30#usgs302).
It is just as bad for the Latin American countries that we in turn invaded as they turned to resent America for trying to intervene when they felt they needed no help. It also led to American invasions on Latino soils to evacuate European powers causing stress on the newly developed nations of South and Central America. http://histories.cambridge.org/extract?id=chol9780521232258_CHOL9780521232258A005
Stephen K. - Period 4:
I think that NAFTA was a very good decision. Because of the agreement, the USA was able to trade with Canada and Mexico without restriction. (Trade has tripled! - http://www.ustr.gov/sites/default/files/NAFTA-Myth-versus-Fact.pdf) Trade went up in all countries, which ended up stimulating the economies of all three.
For Latin America, however, this maybe was not so good. In result of this agreement, agriculture has gone down in Latin America. This, in turn, has caused a loss of jobs (Approximately One Million! - http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTAs-Broken-Promises-2011.pdf) and therefore more unemployment.
Matt D. P4
1. The Rio Pact was a bad thing for the US in that we can forced to defend countries in SOuth America. Fortunatly,most of the countries involved in the treaty are not really at risk for being attacked.
2. For countries in Latin Amreica involved in the pact, it is a good thing. Having the US as backup if anything arises is a major positive.http://www.enotes.com/topic/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance
Jon C. P.3
NAFTA seems to have helped Latin america. By improving the trade relations with countries such as The U.S, Canada,and Mexico and being able to trade goods tariff free. This has also helped the united states a great deal, because we import a lot of goods it is helpful to our economy that with the countries who are involved with NAFTA that tariffs are not a factor this ends in an overall benefit to all countries involved. Because of the agreements increased trade has occurred between Latin America and its neighbors to the north.
1. NAFTA has been bad for the USA because it has driven jobs to Mexico for lower wages and NAFTA has increased a deficit of $24 Billion to a $190 billion deficit between Mexico and Canada. http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/nafta.asp
2. NAFTA has been relatively bad for Latin America also because NAFTA didn't create as many jobs as the agreement originally stated. In 2003 there were 1.3 million jobs in manufacturing, about 100,000 fewer than when NAFTA took effect. Because of this, there are still many Mexicans living on a poor income and that have a poor standard of living. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2004/02/25/mexican-employment-productivity-and-income-decade-after-nafta/8te
Jenni M. 4th
The Monroe Doctrine Roosevelt Corollary was a good thing for the US. It was positive for the United States because it allowed the US to exert its influence on other countries in the Western Hemisphere. By maintaining a strong influence in Latin America, the US prevented Europeans from building a strong base in the West. Latin America did not like the Roosevelt Corollary. They resented US troops "invading" their countries to exert influence.
www.ushistory.org/us/44e.asp
The Rio Pact was good for both the US and for Latin America. For the US, it proved to be a simple piece of paper while for Latin America it gave solidarity and security.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/int/rio-pact.htm
The Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary was good for the USA because it made us the dominate country in N.A. But it was bad for L.A. because it put us in control of them.
LAST BLOG EVA?!?!?!
:_____________(
Roosevelt Corollary: Good for U.S. Gave us justification to intervene in Cuba and use the Platt Amendment to ensure the use of Cuban properties, such as Guantanamo Bay.
Bad for Latin America. The U.S. intervened for OUR concerns not LATIN AMERICA'S needs. For instance: Cuba has it in their constitution that the U.S. can use Guantanamo Bay. For obvious reasons, Cuba is not fond of this agreement.
http://blsciblogs.baruch.cuny.edu/his1005spring2011/files/2011/03/teddy3.jpg
Haley Martin, p. 4
NAFTA has been good for the USA because we have been able to save money from the tariff-free trade with Canada and Mexico. In 2010, US imports from NAFTA totaled $506.1 billion. This rose 184% from when I was born, 1994.
However, I think NAFTA hurt the economies of Latin American countries-aside from Mexico. Since US started selectively trading with NAFTA, Latin American countries lost a major source of exports and with it, a major revenue source. This must have hurt many of their economies, especially those countries who were dependent on the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
1) Overall, I believe that NAFTA was definitely beneficial for the USA as it allowed us to trade with both Mexico and Canada without previous restrictions. As a result, from 1993 to 2006 the USA saw 157% increase in goods exports and 231% increase in goods imports.
2) For Latin America, it was also beneficial because the overall trade between all three countries has seen 198% growth since 1993 to 2006, rising from $297 billion to $883 billion which helped all three countries greatly, especially Mexico (Latin America).
(http://export.gov/FTA/nafta/eg_main_017794.asp)
Evan G. period 4
I think NAFTA was a great decision for the US. Mexico and Canada are massive trading partners with the US. Trade from the US to both Canada and Mexico steadily increased after NAFTA's inception in 1994 (http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2000/chapter5/nafta_trade_fig1.html. For countries not in NAFTA, it is not so good. It makes more sense for the US to trade to Mexico or Canada rather than other countries in Latin america. For example, Eggs, corn and Meat, are tariff free for Canada and Mexico, so it's unlikely the US would trade with any countries in Latin america for products like these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Mechanisms)
Maddie L. period 4
The Rio Pact could be considered both positive and negative to the United States. On one hand, it would be guaranteed the support of other nations if it was under attack. On the other hand, it would have to use its resources to defend small Latin American countries in the event that they are attacked.
The Rio Pact would be positive for Latin American countries. Most of them have small, weak armies and would greatly benefit from the assistance of larger, more well-off countries if they were attacked.
Maddie L. period 4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance
Justin L, Period 3...
I think NAFTA has helped USA a lot because it gives us free trade and we tend to keep trading with Mexico, 12.8 % of our exports go there. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html).I think that NAFTA has only really helped large countries in Latin America because the US doesn't largely trade with a lot of countries from Latin America. Mexico is our only main partner.(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html)
I do believe NAFTA is a positive thing for both the USA and Latin America. For the USA is helps keep friendly relations within our hemisphere and it of course leads to revenue and openness between the countries AND it even increased wages 10% in the years following NAFTA. How neat is that!
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jan/01/nafta-anniversary-us-mexico-trade]
Jack H. 3
WHINSEC has been good for the US because we have been in these other countries for many years now and probably influenced their type of governement and how they run things. So if the military training is bad at least we are sending them in the right direction.
For Latin America I would say it has also been good, because they are getting good military leadership and good political guidance in order to move their country forward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
I think that NAFTA is a good thing for the USA because it is free trade aggreement and it is the largest in the world so that must mean it must be doing well. It has also ended tarrifs. I think it has been good for Latin America as well especially for Mexico because it has made them equal in trading with Canada and the US they have exported a lot to the US so that is good and means they are making money and they were second in exporting to the US in NAFTA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine was a good thing for the United States of America. It allowed us to interfere in Latin American policies to further our own economic and social agendas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
It was not good for Latin America, because it allowed them to be exploited by our economic and social policies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
Rio Pact
1) This was good for the USA because it ensures that we will not be attacked from our own continent.
2) This is also good for the Latin American countries because they don't want to be attacked either! They are struggling to make it as it is.
also here's this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Pact
-Chris Janke
Rio Pact
The Rio Pact acted as a continuation of America's Monroe Doctrine, being that it includes the defense of nearby lands of America. I beleive it's a good idea to foritfy who our closeby allies are and reassure them that we're on their side. We mostly did it to make sure they wouldn't turn to the dirty commies but I'd think it's still useful in the world of today.
Jake D. Per. 3
Rio Pact seems to have been a good thing to do but it does not help us at all, after the 9-11 attacks none of the Latin American countries helped us with the war on terrorism.
This has not had any affect on the Latin American countries either because during the Falklands War the US sided with Great Britain rather than Argentina which was the pact's final failure. "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance"
Josh B. 3rd period
The Platt Amendment was great for the U.S. I feel because it allowed us to get involved in Cuba's affairs as well as claim certain territories in Cuba such as Guantanamo Bay. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment)
I feel like the Platt Amendment wasn't good for Latin America or Cuba because it allowed the U.S. to interfere in their affairs and we even did things like creating a tariff that gave Cuban sugar preference in the U.S. market over the Cuban market. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment)
Hey Mr. Hoffman
Post a Comment