How Did The US Monroe Doctrine?
could shift and spark the domino effect. The program went in line with the U.S. Monroe Doctrine by allowing the U.S. to reside over countries in the Western Hemisphere. Although implemented to prevent European powers from colonizing in the Americas, much of what the U.S. itself was doing in the region resembled colonization. The U.S. has a habit of interpreting events in a way that benefits them. Before the coup, Argentines wanted to reform policies to recuperate the economy and close the class gap, yet the U.S. saw this as a gateway move towards communism. The U.S.’ involvement in Latin America was rooted in the importance of the Monroe Doctrine and barring European powers, or any powers by that logic, to refrain from involving themselves
…show more content…
influence in all aspects of Argentina’s policies led to its president, General Jorge Rafael Videla claiming in “a press conference in February 1978, ‘A terrorist is not just someone with a gun or a bomb but also someone who spreads ideas that are contrary to Western civilizations.’” Defending its actions against its own citizens was essential in getting support from abroad, but international actors were no longer on Argentina’s side and were beginning to demand answers. The U.S. threatened to cut off its economic support if violations were not addressed. When nothing was done, the U.S. stopped financially contributing to Argentina, leading its finances to be collapse. With little money funding the government, there was only so much terror and repression against its people could do. In a conversation between Argentina’s President Videla and U.S.’ Vice President Mondale in 1978, Videla stressed that he felt relations between both countries deteriorating and was on the U.S. side when it came to human rights issues. Videla expressed concern with the Export-Import Bank of the United States and how the abrupt stop in loan granting had caused Argentine businessmen and citizens to “adopt partisan positions” because they could not finalize deals with the bank. With human rights at the center of all business deals, U.S. business executives worried that their exports and trade overseas would be negatively
influence in all aspects of Argentina’s policies led to its president, General Jorge Rafael Videla claiming in “a press conference in February 1978, ‘A terrorist is not just someone with a gun or a bomb but also someone who spreads ideas that are contrary to Western civilizations.’” Defending its actions against its own citizens was essential in getting support from abroad, but international actors were no longer on Argentina’s side and were beginning to demand answers. The U.S. threatened to cut off its economic support if violations were not addressed. When nothing was done, the U.S. stopped financially contributing to Argentina, leading its finances to be collapse. With little money funding the government, there was only so much terror and repression against its people could do. In a conversation between Argentina’s President Videla and U.S.’ Vice President Mondale in 1978, Videla stressed that he felt relations between both countries deteriorating and was on the U.S. side when it came to human rights issues. Videla expressed concern with the Export-Import Bank of the United States and how the abrupt stop in loan granting had caused Argentine businessmen and citizens to “adopt partisan positions” because they could not finalize deals with the bank. With human rights at the center of all business deals, U.S. business executives worried that their exports and trade overseas would be negatively