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 5 point assignment, due by 11:59pm on Thursday 5/16/13
Include your first name, last initial, and class period with your post...I might not recognize your "Anonymous" post!
39 comments:
Anthony A. P 8
School of the Americas/WHINSEC
America:
I feel, for America, this was good because it taught anti-communsit counterinsurgency training for these Latin American countries. It helped America to feel much more secure as they did not have to worry about communism finding its way into Latin America. It gave the U.S. another sense of security/another driving force to help them. One of its goals was to help Latin America move away from dictatorships toward democracy, open markets, the professionalization of its military, police and interagency organizations as well as mutually beneficial cooperation with its neighbors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Latin America:
I feel that, for Latin America, it was not as helpful for them as a whole. It has because graduates from WHINSEC have been criticized for human right violations in LA. SOme feel WHINSEC are teaching unethical lessons at the school. They do because these graduates have taken the knowledge they have learned and slipped into governmental or military positions and used their powers wrongly. There have been severe human right violations and many of the people of LA want WHINSEC gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
1. I think that the School of the Americas, or WHINSEC, has been very good for the USA because it has successfully supported US interests abroad. By giving the US some control over the leaders and governments of potentially communist nations, the US helped to limit the number of enemies it would have during the Cold War. For example, Manuel Contreras, a graduate of the School of the Americas, hunted down and executed communists and socialists in Chile.
2. I do not think that the School of the Americas has been good for the stability of Latin America. It has removed their elected leaders from power and ensured that dictatorships remained in place. For example, the popular Ecuadorian president, José Mariá Velasco Ibarra, was forced into exile by Guillermo Rodrίguez, another School of the Americas graduate. More importantly, I feel, is the fact that it degraded the legitimacy and prestige of Latin American nations and governments by causing increased instability and turmoil.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
1. I believe that the Rio pact has been overall an asset to the United States but it hasn't necessarily been very good. The pact allowed the US to be backed up when it placed its naval blockade on Cuba, but after 9/11 when the US asked for help from Latin America in the war on terror, they nearly unanimously declined.
2. I think that the Rio Pact has been a bad thing for Latin America. It has only caused those countries to be liable for messes that the United States gets into. The only time that Latin America asked for the U.S.'s help was during the Falkland Wars which ended in the U.S. only supporting Great Britain. It was a lot of giving and little receiving for Latin America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance
1. I believe that WHINSEC was harmful to the United States in the long run. If the United States absolutely had to train assassins to protect their foreign interests, they should have found a more secretive way of doing it. That is, if they could overlook the massive unethical nature of the actions performed by WHINSEC's "graduates". The US was probably going to train assassins anyway- doing so while damaging their public relations and raising international unrest was unnecessary.
2. WHINSEC was also a bad thing for Latin America because it gave American militants the go-head to commit human rights violations with no consequence. US Major Joseph Blair even said:
"The doctrine that was taught was that if you want information you use physical abuse, you use false imprisonment, you use threats to family members, you use virtually any method necessary to get what you want...[including torture] and killing. If there's someone you don't want you kill them. If you can't get the information you want, if you can't get that person to shut up or to stop what they're doing you simply assassinate them, and you assassinate them with one of your death squads."
Simply giving the militants these rights is bad for Latin Americans- but those who went ahead and acted on these permissions only made WHINSEC worse for civilians and their elected leaders.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHINSEC
1. I think that WHINSEC/ The School of the Americas was good for America in the earlier years of the school. When communism was still a big threat to America, the school trained many foreign soldiers who would be able to do our dirty work and fight the communists in Latin America. It was, for the most part, an effective way to fight communism and protect our country and our foreign interests. However, in recent years, the school has just been a headache for the US. The US is heavily criticized for it and many of the school's graduates have gone on to commit war crimes and human rights violations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
2. The school has been terrible for Latin America. As a result of the school, many innocent people have been killed and Latin American governments have become unstable and corrupt. The former president of Panama said that the school was "biggest base for destabilization in Latin America." Latin American countries are starting to realize that the school does more harm than good for them, and one by one, Latin American countries are withdrawing their troops from the school.
http://www.soaw.org/about-the-soawhinsec/what-is-the-soawhinsec
Mitch Zoellner P. 3
Monroe Doctrine, Roosevelt Corollary
USA:
I believe that these two policies for the USA were negative because we were drawn into many conflicts that were unnecessary such as Haiti (1915-1934) and the Dominican Republic (1916-1924). We used supplies that could have been useful in other places. Troops lives were put at risk for very little benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
Latin America:
I believe it was bad for Latin America because oppressive dictators were given free reign of a country if they helped the USA. The policies gave rise to dictators such as Fulgencio Batista of Cuba and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. The USA did not do this for the countries of Latin America but only for themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
Alex H, Period 3
WHINSEC
United States:
While it did cause a lot of bad publicity, I do feel that the principles behind it were sound. It prevented the spread of communism and trained soldiers in the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Latin America:
This was definitely not a positive entity in the region. Many of the courses taught advocated the use of techniques such a torture, false imprisonment, and so forth. Graduates from WHINSEC also have been knowt to commit human right violations when returning to their countries of origin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Platt Amendment
1. I think that the Platt Amendment has been good for the US because it established an American protectorate that ensured US involvement in Cuban affairs (both domestic and foreign) and gave legal standing to US claims to certain economic and military territories, such as Guantanamo Bay.
2. I think that the Platt Amendment was not good for Latin America, especially Cuba. It severely restricted Cuba's sovereignty because they were not allowed to enter into agreements with foreign powers that could 'endanger its independence', gave the US the right to intervene in Cuban affairs if its independence was at stake, and that Cuba must not build up an excessive public debt. Essentially, the US gave Cuba guidelines for how they could run their own country, and severely restricted their growth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment
Alex B. Period 8
Term: School of the Americas/WHINSEC
USA:
The school of Americas has been bad for the US becuase we have trained dictators here. These include Guillermo Rodríguez and Roberto D'Aubuisson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Latin America:
The graduates from the School of Americas learn here from "manuals advocating targeting civilians, extrajudicial executions, torture, false imprisonment, and extortion." The people of Latin America are the victims of these actions, so WHINSEC is negative for Latin America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Matt H.
P. 3
The Monroe Doctrine was put in place by James Doctrine to stop European countries from intervening with North and South Americas.
This benefited the United States in the way to expand trade relations and future allied countries. Otherwise the European powers would have sucked wealth from the area and created more inequality.
With the last point made, Latin America also benefited from the doctrine. Becoming independent has resolved a lot of violence that would have occurred eventually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
Zach D., Period 3
NAFTA:
1. I think that NAFTA has overall been beneficial to the United States. It has allowed us to increase the amount of trade between two of our neighboring countries. In 2010, 32.2% of all U.S. exports were to NAFTA countries. Because this agreement called for free trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, there are no tariffs on agricultural products that the U.S. imports.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nafta
2. I think that NAFTA has not been good for Latin America. While Mexico has seen positive growth in their economy as a result of NAFTA, they are the only country in Latin America that is a member. Additionally, NAFTA has not allowed Mexico to achieve the same level of economic success as the U.S. If NAFTA were expanded to include other Latin American countries, then it would be beneficial to the region as a whole.
Source: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/0,,contentMDK:20393778~pagePK:146736~piPK:146830~theSitePK:258554,00.html
Sam F. P.3
NAFTA
America:
I feel that NAFTA has been beneficial to the US, as it has kept many of it's imports and exports within the North American region. It also helps to encourage trade between the three countries by eliminating many of the tariffs that had existed in the past. All in all, NAFTA has been beneficial to the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
Latin America:
I also believe that NAFTA has been beneficial to Latin America as well. Mexico is the third largest supplier of goods to the US. NAFTA has also helped the Maquiladoras (Mexican factories) to grow, which has helped to create jobs in Mexico, which in turn has helped to boost the economy as well as improve standard of living for some.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA
1. I believe that the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary were both good for the United States. This is because they both helped to prevent the spread of communism to the Western Hemisphere. They led to the US opposing the Soviet influence in Cuba and taking action to prevent threats so close to home (Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962).
2. I believe that the two policies were again both beneficial to Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine generated wholehearted gratitude from Revolutionary leaders that were trying to create independent countries (like Simon Bolivar). The Roosevelt Corollary was also helpful because it prevented oppressive leaders from staying in/coming to power. Once the Corollary was abolished by the Good Neighbor Policy in the 1930s, many oppressive leaders came to power and violated laws of human rights. An example would be Batista in Cuba.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine
Chris R. 8th Period
Rio Pact
1) I do not believe the Rio Pact benefitted the USA at all. The whole pact was more or less as powerful as the words behind it; apparently strong but ultimately useless. Specifically, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, yes the Latin American countries backed our naval blockade, however it was not really a needed backing, we have always maintained a strong navy, and this being one of very few times the pact went to good use, it more or less had no real application for the USA.
2) The Rio Pact was a waste of time for Latin America. The main country to link wit in the pact was the USA, however due to our ties in other such ideas (NATO and the UN), there were occasions when we favored NATO or the UN over the Rio Pact. specifically the Falklands War, the US stayed on the side of the UK instead of Argentina. This ultimately lead to the absence of Latin American support in "the war on terror" essentially the pact is now just meaningless words on paper.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_Pact
Marcus D.-Period 8
1. I would say WHINSEC/School of the Americas was particularly important and beneficial to the USA because it helped spread our ideology of anti-communism in the region of Latin America by training militant groups. At the time, the threat of communism reaching a nearby continent like South America was probably imminent and this policy helped reassure us that our neighbors wouldn't turn communist.
2. For Latin America, I would say WHINSEC/School of the Americas probably wasn't a good idea in the long run. These American-trained militant groups often took over local governments and installed brutal regimes, like in Argentina during the 1970s.
Kendall L. 8th Period
Monroe Doctrine/Roosevelt Corollary
1. The Monroe Doctrine has been an extremely successful item of US foreign policy. They has not been a single international war take place on US soil since the wars over Mexico. When Pearl Harbor or 9/11 occurred it simply outraged the US people, because this is our hemisphere and everyone else is supposed to stay out of it. Both WWII and wars in with the middle East were fought on foreign soil, not here on the homefront.
2. Both the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary have been extremely beneficial towards Latin America. Countless US backed coups, aid, and general housekeeping has been taken up by the US in places where Latin America would have otherwise been helpless. Like Panama or Brazil or Venezuela. There have also been very few intercontinental wars in Latin America and I would like to think this is largely because of these two documents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
Connor B P3
School of the Americas/WHINSEC
USA
It has been good for us because we have been able to control other countries to a point and prove that we are powerful, intimidation-like.
Latin America
It has led to serious moral problems and has created a lack of freedom for some of the people there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Jordan. W p8
School of the Americas/Whinsec
I think that the school of the Americas is good for the USA because it was an anti communist effort in Latin America. Therefore, it hindered the influence of the USSR in Latin America, and kept it farther from our borders.
However, I think that this was not good for Latin America because the people that the school approved were not always good people and violated human rights laws. In addition, I think forcing government on anyone is a bad idea.
1. I think that the Monroe Doctrine was a great piece of US foreign policy. Early in the nation's history, President Monroe knew that he had to etch out a place for the US in the world, and he knew that a good place for him to start would be near our home turf. By declaring that the West Hemisphere was our hemisphere, he showed the rest of the world (Europe) that they could be players on the world stage.
2. Latin America also definitely received a boost from the Monroe Doctrine . The Latin American countries are relatively weak when it comes to the world stage, and when the US decided to support Latin America it helped their foreign policy just as much as it helped the US. Also, it gave the struggling countries a role model of a country to look up to.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine
Jackson C. 8th
Topic: CAFTA-DR
For the USA, the CAFTA-DR was relatively meaningless. We had already enacted the Carribean Basin Initiative in the 80's, eliminating almost all tariffs on goods moving to and from Central America. The CAFTA-DR did increase trading volume by about 35%, but the total amount spent and received by the United States accounts for a minuscule fraction (only $32 billion annually) of our GDP.
Latin American countries (those in Central America + the Dominican Republic, anyway) saw more marked benefits than those recieved by the US from the CAFTA-DR. The money and goods they recieve from other countries/the US every year is much more significant to their economies than it is to our gigantic economy. However, the CAFTA-DR fell short of some leaders' expectations by not providing enough legislative language regulating workers' rights (and general human rights, for that matter), so it wasn't a total boon for Latin America.
Of course, I used Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAFTA-DR
1. I believe the Rio Pact is a great thing for the USA, because it is a bunch of countries sticking up for one another, and saying "we're all in this together."
http://coldwarworldhistoryproject.weebly.com/rio-pact.html
2. It is also great for Latin America, because it helps out small countries, to have the power of the USA on their side.
http://coldwarworldhistoryproject.weebly.com/rio-pact.html
NAFTA
1. Nafta has been very good for the United States. Terrifs have been eliminated on U.S.A products in Mexico and Canada hence the fact that In 2010 Mexico and Canada were the top two purchasers of goods from the United states.Also The US goods trade deficit with NAFTA was $94.6 billion in 2010 which a 34% Increase from 2009.
2.NAFTA has also been very good for Mexico.NAFTA eliminated most of the terrifs on exports to the United States.Mexico's agricultural exports went up by 9.4 percent annually and imports increased by 6.9 percent a year between 1994 and 2001. But although Mexico has been doing well the amount they are importing from the United states is far more than originally negotiated.
My resources...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta
Matt Arenberg 3rd period
1. I think that the school of the Americas has been very good for the US. It provides a source of creating good relations between us and different countries in Latin America. Several of the graduates of the school have gone on to become leaders in their respective countries.
2.I do not think that the school of the americas has been beneficial for the countries in Latin America because several of the students who went to the school have gone on to perform acts that are against human rights and has caused grief for many Latin American countries.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Marcus T. Period 3
NAFTA
For the USA, this has been primarily beneficial because manufacturing production went up and so did manufacturing jobs, although the amount of jobs did not increase as much as was desired with the deal.
For Latin America as a whole, it does not do much because Mexico is the only Latin American country in the agreement. For Mexico, it has established a main source of trade with their maquiladoras.
Marcus T. Period 3
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
Hank P. 8th Hour
WHINSEC/School of the Americas
1) I believe that this program WAS beneficial for the United States, as it allowed the country to open its doors and attempt to help the Latin American countries by training some 13,000 individuals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
2) I believe that WHINSEC/SOA has been partially beneficial to Latin American countries. First off, the L.A. countries received some assistance in protecting their countries. However, as was the case with Manuel Noriega, these individuals use these skills to do bad things to their own people, thereby negating much of the benefit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
America:
The Platt Ammendment has been mainly beneficial for the US, as it has given the US key outposts, such as Guantanamo Bay, as well as subsidized sugar trade with Cuba.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment
Latin America:
The Platt Ammendment has been an overall negative for Latin America, as it launched Cuba primarily into a stress filled cold war against US starting in the 40s, when most of the Ammendment was repealed. This ammendment was partly a cause for the animosity between the two countries, limiting aid from the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment
Andrew I. P 8
I think that the Monroe Doctrine was good for the U.S. because it made the U.S.feel powerful and mighty.
I think that this was good for Latin America because they could run their countries they way they wanted it to be run without Europeans interfering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine
1. I think that the Rio Pact has been generally unfavorable to the US because they really haven't gotten into trouble where the Latin American countries helped out. An example of this is after 9/11 when the US called for Latin American countries to help fight terrorism. They declined. The US really could have used help because we are still fighting over in the middle east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance
2. I think that the Rio Pact has had the biggest negative effect on the Latin American countries. The only times Latin America has invoked the treaty have been in disputes between Latin American countries that were pretty minor. In 1955 Costa Rica invoked the treaty against Honduras, but other than small disputes like that, nothing major has benefited the region.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Rio_Treaty.aspx
Nick D. period 3
Monroe Doctrine Roosevelt Corollary
For the good ol' U.S. of A., The Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary showed the world that not only that the U.S. is dominant in our own affairs, but in our whole hemisphere. Also, for Latin America, the two policies were a good thing because that gave Latin America reassurance that if any communist parties wanted to get into power, or even any bad guys, the U.S. would stop them and protect Latin America for the greater good.
Roosevelt Corollary
America:
I feel that this was good for the USA because it allowed the USA to protect its interests in Latin America such as the Panama Canal. The Roosevelt Corollary stipulated that the USA had the right to intervene in Latin America when European powers threatened. When the Corollary was put into affect the US Marines were constantly sent into Latin America to protect American interests the region. The Roosevelt Corollary was good for the United States for it gave the power to protect its assets in Latin America.
Latin America:
I think that the Roosevelt Corollary is a double edge sword for Latin America. The Latin American countries were protected from European powers, but as the USA took interest in the land in Latin America the USA become more of a hindrance on the countries. The USA provided protection from others, but the corollary allowed the USA to intervene at will making it a double edge sword for the Latin American countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roosevelt_Corollary
Reference for my post.
Ryan L. 8th
1. NAFTA seems to be a good thing for the USA, for the most part. Since its creation, US employment has risen 24% and inflation-adjusted wages rose 19.3% between 1993-2997, compared to 11% in the 14 years prior.
http://www.cfr.org/economics/naftas-economic-impact/p15790#p5
2. I think NAFTA is also good for Mexico, with Mexican exports to the US increasing from $60 billion to $280 billion per year since NAFTA's creation. Prices of consumer goods have also been halved.
http://www.cfr.org/economics/naftas-economic-impact/p15790#p6
Mathias S. 3rd
School of the Americas/WHINSEC
I believe that the School of the Americas has been beneficial to the United States, because of its ability to establish an anti-communist training site in Latin America. While this provided us with peace of mind back in the day, today WHINSEC is fighting a war on drugs, which may draw even more support from the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
2. It is possible that WHINSEC has had a negative impact on the people of Latin America. Accusations have risen that the School of the Americas has been teaching "the good guys" how to beat and kill innocent civilians. When the basic human rights of many people are being violated by several WHINSEC graduates, it tends to make WHINSEC look bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Jr L. 3rd
1. 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 awesome. It has also ended tarrifs.
2. 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. Mexico and Canada 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
Patrick S 3rd.
Platt Amendment
1. Although the idea may have look good on paper, our ability to "intervene" with Cuba has really only been a negative thing. Both countries do not see eye top eye whatsoever. Between the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis, we're lucky that this hasn't turned into a disaster.
2. Overall, No. The only country that could benefit from it would be Cuba, and the exact opposite has happened.
Source: Me
WHINSEC
1) I think that WHINSEC has been good for the USA because it trained people against the communists in Latin America, doing all the work for us.
2) I think that WHINSEC was bad for Latin America because several Latin American dictators were taught from this school and used their skills to acquire/maintain their power.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Daniel Sikora 8th period
school of the americas/WHINSEC
United States- for the united states I think that it had a positive impact because it trained the leaders to be anti communist. It also gave the United States some control over leaders in latin america.
Latin america- I do not think that this program had a positive effect on latin american countries because a lot of the leaders who went through the program became corrupt and used tactics they learned through the program in wrong ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation
Post a Comment