Del anticomunismo al antinacionalismo: la presidencia Eisenhower y el giro autoritario en la América Latina de los años 50

Revista de Indias 08/2007; DOI: 10.3989/revindias.2007.i240.611
Source: DOAJ

ABSTRACT This article offers an explanation of the reasons that led Dwight Eisenhower's Republican Administration (1953-1961) to develop support policies towards the Latin American authoritarian regimes in the 1950's. We think that the two previous Democrat Presidencies –those of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman- had supported the social and political reform projects taken up by a new nationalist elite in charge in Latin America since the twenties. Our main hypothesis is that in the fifties, within an international context designed by Moscow's «Doctrine of Competitive Coexistence», Whashington's perception changed to considering nationalist policies as potential instruments of the Soviet Union's expansive strategies in developing areas. The outcome in Latin America was the break off of US' former compromise with the nationalist policies and the former's subsequent alignment with the antidemocratic tendencies in the continent.Este trabajo ofrece una explicación de las razones que llevaron la administración republicana de Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) a desarrollar una política de apoyo a los regímenes autoritarios latinoamericanos de los años 50. Consideramos que durante las dos precedentes presidencias democráticas de Franklin Delano Roosevelt y de Harry Truman la política exterior estadounidense había mantenido una posición de compromiso con los proyectos de reformas social y política, llevados a cabo por una nueva elite nacionalista que había hecho su entrada en el escenario continental al final de los años veinte. La hipótesis central es que en los 50, en un contexto internacional diseñado por la «Doctrina de la Coexistencia Competitiva» elaborada por Moscú, Washington maduró una percepción del fenómeno político nacionalista como instrumento potencial de la estrategia de expansión soviética en las regiones en vía de desarrollo. En América Latina el resultado de esta percepción fue la ruptura por parte estadounidense del compromiso nacionalista de los años 30-40 y, consecuentemente, su alineación con las fuerzas antidemocráticas del continente.

17 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article seeks to identify and explain the historical links between democracy and revolution in Latin America. It first defines and analyses ‘democratic’ and ‘revolutionary’ traditions in the continent. It notes the precocity of nineteenth-century Latin American liberalism which, stimulated by the independence struggles, carried implications for the subsequent onset of democracy in the twentieth century. It then presents a typology of five twentieth-century political permutations (social democracy, revolutionary populism, statist populism, socialist revolution, and authoritarian reaction), seeking to tease out the corresponding relationships between the two ‘traditions’. It concludes (inter alia) that the current triumph of liberal democracy in Latin America, while in part attributable to historical precedent, is also significantly contingent, and dependent on the apparent exhaustion of the revolutionary tradition.
    Bulletin of Latin American Research 12/2002; 20(2):147 - 186. DOI:10.1111/1470-9856.00009 · 0.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An analysis of the seven daily newspapers with the widest circulation in Argentina, including the Peronist La Epoca, shows the humanisation of capitalism and social justice as the main topics of discussion in Argentine society between 1930 and 1946. Newspapers and parties debated the foundations of a much desired democratic revival and depicted the government of F. D. Roosevelt as a model to be followed. By 1946 most Argentines supported the implementation of policies similar to those of Roosevelt. In the light of this, Perón and the Unión Democrática competed to present themselves as the Argentine version of the US president. The deciding factor in the 1946 elections was not the defence of national sovereignty but rather the impression of which candidate would be capable of developing a democratic system which included economic and social concerns.
    Journal of Latin American Studies 09/1998; 30(03):551 - 571. DOI:10.1017/S0022216X9800515X · 0.54 Impact Factor


17 Reads
Available from