Modern Neocolonialism Via Public and Private Entities
Brian Crociata
For over five centuries, opportunistic outside powers have been taking advantage of Latin America. During the colonial era, the natural resources and native populations of the region were abused by European countries for profit. Exploitative practices left indelible marks on the area that persist to this day, and even after achieving independence, many countries in the region continue to function under neocolonial domination. Through the direct actions of foreign governments and more subtle acts of economic manipulation, the will of the people in Latin America has been continuously suppressed by intruding parties. In this essay, I will argue that modern neocolonial influence in Latin America largely follows historical precedent. Political and economic affairs in the region are shaped by modern foreign interests in the same manner that they have been throughout history.
With the advent of lithium-ion batteries and their increased popularity in the search for clean energy sources, global interest has been shifted back towards the Latin American mining industry. The trio of Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina contain about 58 percent of all global lithium reserves, a resource which is highly valuable on the global market (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). Consequently, multiple global superpowers have expressed interest in gaining partial-or total-control over South American mining operations. In the first document that I chose, “South America’s Lithium Triangle: Opportunities for the Biden Administration”, authors Ryan C. Berg and T. Andrew Sady-Kennedy suggest that the Biden administration should pursue a higher level of cooperation between the United States and the countries mentioned above. Citing environmentalist concerns, green energy, and the rapidly expanding demand for lithium, the two argue that it would be mutually beneficial for all parties to work together (Berg et. al. “ South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). On its own, this suggestion seems innocent enough. Alternative energy is a burgeoning market, and the modern globalized economy means that investment from foreign sources is not uncommon by any means. However, when the current political climate in these lithium-producing countries is considered, it becomes more clear that the United States’ plans for involvement are not in line with the ideals that these countries have embraced. The elected governments of Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile all express heavy left-leaning ideologies, which are largely incompatible with the concept of investment as it is understood in the article. The newly elected president of Chile, Gabriel Boric, has even suggested that he will seek to nationalize the country’s mining industry, a move that would likely cease all involvement from the United States (Restivo 2021). Berg and Sady-Kennedy briefly address these barriers, noting the “United States’ historically rocky relationship with both Argentina and Bolivia”, but they do not seem to view them as particularly significant (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). To the authors, such concerns can simply be solved by organizing a summit between lithium-producing countries and potential investors (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). No credence is lent to the possibility of countries being disinterested in such a summit. Such arrogance is reminiscent of that displayed by those seeking to spread European-style “progress” into Latin America during the 19th Century. As described in “Neocolonial Ideologies” by E. Bradford Burns, it was inconceivable to Europeans that anybody would disagree with their conception of the optimal society. Burns puts it as such: “…the Enlightenment philosophers concluded that if people had the opportunity to know the truth, they would select ‘civilization’ over ‘barbarism’” (Burns 1980:92). Of course all Latin American people would pursue an industrialized society, as it was objectively the civilized, superior manner of existence. Berg and Sady-Kennedy demonstrate a similar pattern of thinking. Of course Bolivia, Chile, and Argentina would meet with the United States to discuss investment, because it is objectively the best way for them to boost said investment.
This article frequently invokes the ideas of partnership and cooperation, but it subtly betrays its true intentions in one key statement. After discussing the newfound usefulness of lithium and the growing market for it, Berg and Sady-Kennedy say the following: “These trends indicate that control of the lithium industry could reap major benefits in the future…” (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). Notable in this excerpt is the usage of the word “control”. Unlike partnership and cooperation, the idea of control carries a much different -and much more sinister- connotation. It implies a much more forceful involvement, one in which the will of the United States is imposed instead of negotiated. This, of course, is the most familiar modus operandi of the United States. It can be traced back almost two full centuries to the Monroe Doctrine, expressed in 1823. The Doctrine, presented to Congress by President James Monroe, granted the U.S. permission to involve itself in Latin American affairs “in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved” (Avalon Project 2008). There are shades of this approach visible in the article, as Berg and Sady-Kennedy establish that the lithium industry is very much of interest to the United States. However, the authors seem to push beyond this concept and into the realm of the Roosevelt Corollary. The Roosevelt Corollary granted the United States power to exercise more force in its application of the Monroe Doctrine, under the guise of “[desiring] to see the neighboring countries stable, orderly, and prosperous” (Frohnen 2008). It drew heavily from the idea of paternalism, which is based upon the belief that some groups of people are more capable and intelligent than others. This feigned desire to see Latin American countries succeed, as well as the paternalistic tone of the Corollary, can be seen throughout the article. The failure of Chile, Bolivia, and Argentina to “successfully [transform] the majority of [their] available resources into economically viable reserves available for commercial production” is bemoaned, and it is heavily insinuated that the United States is responsible for reversing this trend (Berg et. al. “South America’s Lithium Triangle” 2021). The exact words of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary are much too taboo for modern-day political analysts, but clearly the sentiments expressed within them are still relevant and popular.
The United States is far from the only country perpetuating modern neocolonialism in Latin America. In its efforts to expand its social and economic influence, China has begun to get involved in the region, with much more obvious and direct intentions. Thus, for the second document in this analysis, I chose “Chinese Neocolonialism in Latin America: An Intelligence Assessment”, written by senior airman Steffanie G. Urbano and produced by the U.S. Air Force. The report enumerates a few different grievances that the United States has with China’s action, starting with exploitative lending and the weaponization of debt. Urbano describes a process known as “debt diplomacy”, in which China will issue exploitative loans to Latin American countries that do not have the ability to pay them back. The debt from these loans is then used as leverage by China, allowing them to hold other countries hostage when they cannot repay. This allows China free reign to operate in the region, with actions like seizing key infrastructure and forcibly reworking government contracts being common (Urbano 2021:185-187). China’s strategy of leveraging debt is not unheard of in Latin America; in fact, it is particularly reminiscent of the blueprint set by Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. During this time, major European powers kept newly independent Latin countries in a state of perpetual debt, taking advantage of their young governments and economies. When these countries inevitably defaulted on their loans, loaning countries used it as an excuse to exercise military power and generally institute their own will. In Born in Blood & Fire, John Charles Chasteen lays out a particularly prominent example from Mexico in the mid-1850s: “The civil war had bankrupted the Mexican state, and Juárez suspended payment on foreign debt. France, Spain, and Britain retaliated by collectively occupying Veracruz” (Chasteen 2016:169-170). Using Veracruz as a springboard, the French military invaded the country, kicked out the current government, and installed their own puppet dictator to rule the country on their behalf. This particular brand of gunboat diplomacy is outdated in modern times, but the utilization of debt to excuse aggressive behavior is very much alive. Beyond debt diplomacy, Urbano also notes that large numbers of Chinese immigrants are settling in Latin America. She points to the fact that the Chinese-born population in the area more than doubled from 1990 to 2015, an increase which was sparked by “the migration of families to join Chinese laborers already settled in Latin America” (Urbano 2021:192). This is another familiar strategy, one that was used in the American banana republics in the early 20th century. The United Fruit Company, who effectively controlled much of Central America, created entire towns and communities of U.S. expats. Employees and their families would live in neo-suburban settings, “miniature US neighborhoods of screen-porched houses on meticulously manicured lawns”, isolated at best and actively colonizing at worst (Chasteen 2016:200-201). They spread American culture and ideas into the region, contributing little in the way of actual development and improvement. This parasitic relationship serves as the clear inspiration for China to develop their own isolated communities abroad.
Besides being deeply ironic, the contrasting tones of these two articles demonstrate the power of American exceptionalism to color our perception of the world. How can our government condemn “the detrimental impact of [Chinese-Latin American relationships] on regional stability and US leadership” when it has been just as guilty of destabilizing the region (Urbano 2021:184)? Why is it unacceptable for China to take control of key industries while American think tanks advocate for the same behavior? Do we truly believe that Latin America is only now becoming “overrun by malicious intent”, and that U.S. intervention “to keep our neighborhood friendly” is not malicious (Urbano 2021:197)? After analyzing both of these pieces, it has become clear that the United States sees itself in a different light from other countries. Ryan Berg and T. Andrew Sady-Kennedy advocate for intervention in the lithium industry because they believe that the U.S. must help Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile. They acknowledge that those countries do not want our assistance, but they seem to believe that such relationships can be changed purely by virtue of being the United States. Airman Urbano strongly condemns Chinese intervention in Latin America through the entirety of her writing, but she ends by advocating for U.S. intervention in the region. She seems to believe that the United States has more virtuous and respectable aims in the region, despite a history that suggests otherwise. Only by learning this history can we break such patterns of thinking and work towards achieving justice for the people of Latin America.
Incorporation into the classroom
Although this essay was previously drafted for a college level course, the ideas and the process demonstrated within it could prove useful in any social studies classroom that utilizes document analysis. When working with historical documents, it is important for students to recognize that the content within the document does not exist outside of its historical context. Effective analysis in the classroom should always include a dissection not only of the content itself, but the author, the intended audience, the reasons for the document’s creation, and the broader historical environment in which it was produced. In the above essay, we can see this process being taken with the Berg and Sady-Kennedy article and the broader context of U.S. policy in Latin America. As acknowledged by the author of this essay, the literal verbiage of the article is fairly innocent and mundane, with Berg and Sady-Kennedy advocating for cooperation and partnership in the region. When the historical context of the Monroe Doctrine and interventionist policy is considered, though, the article’s messaging becomes a more concerning indicator of contemporary views about Latin America in the United States.
For students in a secondary education setting, the skill of recognizing and defining a document’s subtext should be targeted for development. Educators can promote this skill by highlighting the aforementioned aspects (author, audience, intention, context) of documents that are used in class, thereby modeling the process for students. This can be scaffolded as well, with educators prompting students to undertake the analysis process on their own until it becomes an automatic part of dissecting a document. If students can effectively utilize this skill, teachers can incorporate a much broader range of documents into the classroom. Material does not need to be nearly as literal and targeted if students possess the ability to consider historical context. For example, a lesson on racial discrimination could incorporate writings about eugenics, redlining, discriminatory legal codes, and much more provided that students are able to recognize the racial connotations of these issues. Outside of the classroom, this skill is just as valuable. Politically active Americans will frequently encounter messaging that relies heavily on connotations and subtext to execute its true intentions. In order to function as a responsible and informed member of our democracy, an individual must be able to pick up on the messaging beneath the surface.
References
Berg, Ryan C. and Sady-Kennedy, T. Andrew. 2021. “South America’s Lithium Triangle: Opportunities for the Biden Administration.” Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/south-americas-lithium-triangle-opportunities-biden-administration <Accessed 4/22/22>
Burns, E. Bradford. 1980. “Neocolonial Ideologies.” In The Poverty of Progress: Latin America in the 19th Century. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pp. 18-20, 29-30.
Chasteen, John. 2016. Born in Blood & Fire. New York:W.W. Norton & Company.
Monroe, James. Monroe Doctrine, December 2, 1823. In The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History, and Diplomacy. New Haven: Lillian Goldman Law Library, 2008.
Restivo, Néstor. 2021. “Cuál es el programa económico de Gabriel Boric para el nuevo Chile.” Pagina 12. December 26.
Roosevelt, Theodore. Roosevelt Corollary to Monroe Doctrine, December 6, 1904. In The American Nation: Primary Sources, edited by Bruce Frohnen. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2008.
Shakow, Miriam. 2022. “Findlay Intro & Ch 1-2 plus Roosevelt Corollary.” Class Lecture, Race & Gender in Latin America. The College of New Jersey. April 8.
Urbano, SrA Steffanie. 2021. “Chinese Neocolonialism in Latin America.” Journal of the Americas. Third Edition 2021: 183–199.
njcssjournal 