- Alliance for Progress
The Alliance for Progress initiated by U.S. President
John F. Kennedy in 1961 aimed to establish economic cooperation between North and South America. The aid was intended to counter the perceived emerging communist threat fromCuba to U.S. interests and dominance in the region.Origin and goals
In March 1961, President Kennedy proposed a ten-year plan for Latin America:
cquote|...we propose to complete the revolution of the Americas, to build a hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living and all can live out their lives in dignity and in freedom. To achieve this goal political freedom must accompany material progress...Let us once again transform the American Continent into a vast crucible of revolutionary ideas and efforts, a tribute to the power of the creative energies of free men and women, an example to all the world that liberty and progress walk hand in hand. Let us once again awaken our American revolution until it guides the struggles of people everywhere-not with an imperialism of force or fear but the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the future of man. cite web
title =President John F. Kennedy: On the Alliance for Progress, 1961
work =Modern History Sourcebook
url =http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1961kennedy-afp1.html
accessdate=2006-07-30 ]The program was signed at an inter-American conference at
Punta del Este ,Uruguay , in August 1961. The charter called for:
*an annual increase of 2.5% in per capita income,
*the establishment of democratic governments,
*the elimination of adult illiteracy by 1970
*price stability, to avoid inflation or deflation
*more equitable income distribution, land reform, and
*economic and social planning.cite book| last = Smith| first =Peter H| authorlink =| coauthors =| year =1999| title =Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American Relations | publisher =Oxford University Press| location =| id =ISBN 0-19-512998-9 p. 150-152] cite encyclopedia | ency=The Columbia Encyclopedia| edition=6 | year=2001 | article= [http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlliancPro.html Alliance for Progress] ]First, the plan called for Latin American countries to pledge a capital investment of $80 billion over 10 years. The United States agreed to supply or guarantee $20 billion within one decade.cite encyclopedia | ency=The Columbia Encyclopedia| edition=6 | year=2001 | article= [http://www.bartleby.com/65/al/AlliancPro.html Alliance for Progress] ]
Second, Latin American delegates required the participating countries to draw up comprehensive plans for national development. These plans were then to be submitted for approval by an inter-American board of experts.
Third, tax codes had to be changed to demand "more from those who have most" and land reform was to be implemented.
U.S. aid to Latin America
Because of the program economic assistance to Latin America nearly tripled between fiscal year 1960 and fiscal year 1961. Between 1962 and 1967 the US supplied $1.4 billion per year to Latin America. If new investment was included, this amount rose to $3.3 billion per year.
But economic aid to Latin America dropped sharply in the late 1960s, especially when Richard Nixon entered the White House.
Authors L. Ronald Scheman and Tony Smith state that the amount of aid totaled $22.3 billion. [cite book| last = Smith| first =Peter H| authorlink =| coauthors =| year =1999| title =Talons of the Eagle: Dynamics of U.S.-Latin American Relations | publisher =Oxford University Press| location =| id = 0195129989 p. 152
"Citing:"
cite book| last =Scheman | first =L. Ronald | authorlink =| coauthors =| year =1988| title =The Alliance for Progress: A Retrospective| publisher =Praeger| location =New York| id =p. 10-11
Smith, Tony "The Alliance for Progress: The 1960s," in cite book| last =Lowenthal| first =Abraham F. | authorlink =| coauthors =| year =1991| title =Exporting Democracy: The United States and Latin America | publisher =Johns Hopkins University Press| location =Baltimore| id = p. 72]But this amount was not necessarily net transfers of resources and development. Latin American countries still had to pay off their debt to the US and other first world countries.
In addition, profits usually returned to the US, and profits frequently exceeded new investment.
In March 1969, the US ambassador to the
OAS , William T. Denzer, explained to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs:"When you look at net capital flows and their economic effect, and after all due credit is given to the U.S. effort to step up support to Latin America, one sees that not that much money has been put into Latin America after all."
Business lobbying
The alliance charter included a clause encouraged by US policy makers that committed the Latin American governments to the promotion "of conditions that will encourage the flow of foreign investments" to the region.
U.S. industries lobbied Congress to amend the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to ensure that US aid would not be furnished to any foreign business that could compete with US business "unless the country concerned agrees to limit the export of the product to the US to 20 percent of output". In addition the industries lobbied Congress to limit all purchases of AID machinery and vehicles in the US. A 1967 study of AID showed that 90 percent of all AID commodity expenditures went to US corporations. [cite book| last =Cox| first =Ronald W | authorlink =| coauthors =| year =1994| title =Power and Profits US Policy in Central America| publisher = University Press of Kentucky| location =| id =0813118654 p. 83-85]Military version
During the Kennedy administration, between 1961 and 1963 the U.S. suspended economic and/or broke off diplomatic relations with several countries which had dictatorships, including Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru. But these suspensions were imposed only temporarily, for periods of only three weeks to six months.cite book| last =Bell| first =P M H | authorlink =| coauthors =| year = 2001| title =The World Since 1945| publisher =Oxford University Press| location =| id =0340662360]
By 1964, under President Johnson, the program to discriminate against dictatoral regimes ceased. In March 1964 the US approved a military coup in Brazil, and was prepared to help if called upon under
Operation Brother Sam .In 1965 the US dispatched 24,000 troops to the Dominican Republic to stop a possible left-wing take over under
Operation Power Pack .The Alliance for Progress included U.S. programs of military and police assistance to counter Communist subversion, including
Plan LASO in Colombia.Rockefeller study
Because the perception was that the Alliance for Progress was a failure, shortly after taking office, on February 17, 1969, President
Richard Nixon commissioned a study to access the state of Latin America. Nixon appointed his most powerful political rival, New York GovernorNelson Rockefeller to direct the study. The poor relationship between the two politicians suggested that Nixon would not be that interested in the results of the study. There was a lack of interest for the region in the late 1960s to early 1970s. cite book
last =Taffet
first =Jeffrey
authorlink =
coauthors =
date =April 23, 2007
title = Foreign Aid as Foreign Policy: The Alliance for Progress in Latin America
publisher = Routledge
location =
id = ISBN 0415977711 page 185-188]In early 1969, Rockefeller and his advisors took four trips to Latin America. Most of the trips turned out to be an embarrassment. Rockefeller wrote in his report preface that,
:There is general frustration over the failure to achieve a more rapid improvement in standards of living. The United States, because of its identification with the failure of the Alliance for Progress to live up to expectations, is blamed. People in the countries concerned also used our visit as an opportunity to demonstrate their frustrations with the failure of their own governments to meet their needs...demonstrations that began over grievances were taken over and exacerbated by anti-US and subversive elements which sought to weaken the United States, and their own governments in the process.
The major part of the Rockefeller report suggested a reduction of U.S. involvement, "we, in the United States, cannot determine the internal political structure of any other nation". Because there was little the United States should or could do toward changing the political atmosphere in other countries, there was no reason to attempt to use economic aid as a political tool. This was the justification to reduce economic aid in Latin America. The Rockefeller report called for some aid to continue, but the report recommended creating more effective aid programs.
uccess and failures of the plan
Growth in regional output in Latin America in the 1960s was 2.4 percent, nearly matching the Alliance for Progress goal of 2.5 percent.
In contrast to 2.1 percent growth in the 1950s, GDP growth rate in Latin America reached 2.7 percent in the later part of the 1960s and climbed 3.8 percent between 1970-1974.
Overall seven countries reached the target goal of 2.5 percent GDP growth, twelve nations didn't reach the goal, and Haiti and Uruguay had lower GDPs.
Adult illiteracy was not wiped out, although it was reduced. In some countries, the number of people attending universities doubled or even tripled. Access to secondary education also showed increases.
Health clinics were built across Latin America. However, success in improving health care was hindered by population growth.
Of the 15 million peasant families living in Latin America, only one million benefited from any kind of land reform. The traditional elites resisted any land reform.
Minimum wage laws were created but the minimum wages offered to Nicaraguan workers, for example, were set so low as to have no appreciable effect on the wages received. cite book
last =Bethell
first =Leslie
authorlink =
coauthors =
date =June 29, 1990
title =The Cambridge History of Latin America
publisher =Cambridge University Press
location =
id =ISBN 0-521-24518-4 p. 342.] In other nations, such asEl Salvador , minimum wage laws encouraged employers to use labor-saving machinery. Fact|date=February 2007In Latin America during the 1960s thirteen constitutional governments were replaced by military dictatorships. According to some authors, such as Peter Smith, this was a failure of the Alliance for Progress. Peter Smith wrote, "The most striking failure of the Alliance of Progress occurred within the political realm. Instead of promoting and consolidating reformist civilian rule, the 1960s witnessed a rash of military coups throughout the region...By the end of 1968 dictators were holding sway in several countries." cite book
last =Wright
first =Thomas C.
authorlink =
coauthors =
year =
title =Latin America in the Era of the Cuban Revolution
publisher =
location =
id = p. 68 "...the Alliance of Progress was announced in 1961, Latin America a dozen years later was dominated by men in uniform as at no time since the Great Depression triggered coups throughout the region. ] cite book
last =Schmitz
first =David F
authorlink =
coauthors =
year =
title =The United States and Right-wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989
publisher =
location =
id = Page 89. ]Results
The Alliance for Progress achieved a short-lived public relations success. It also had real but limited economic advances. But by the early 1970s the program was widely viewed as a failure. cite web
title =Encyclopædia Britannica
work =Alliance for Progress
url =http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9355044/Alliance-for-Progress
accessdate=2006-09-05 ]The program failed for three reasons:
*Latin American nations were unwilling to implement needed reforms, particularly in land reform.
*Presidents after Kennedy were less supportive of the program.
*The amount of money was not enough for an entire hemisphere: $20 billion averaged out to only $10 per Latin American.
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
