A Compact History of Latin America's Cold War

by Vanni Pettiná, Quentin Pope (Translator)

While not commonly centered in the Cold War story, Latin America was intensely affected by that historic conflict. In this book, available for the first time in English, Vanni Pettina makes sense of the region's diverse, complex political experiences of the Cold War era. Cross-fertilized by Latin American and Anglophone historiography, his account shifts from an overemphasis on U.S. interventions toward a comprehensive Latin American perspective. Connecting Cold War events to the region's political polarizations, revolutionary mobilizations, draconian state repression, and brutal violence in almost every sphere, Pettina demonstrates that Latin America's Cold War was rarely cold.

In the midst of the tumult, some countries showed resilience and capacity to bend the disruptive dynamics to their advantage. Mexico, for example, drew on a mix of nationalism and anticommunism, aided by the United States, to achieve strong economic growth and political stability. Cuba, in contrast, used Soviet protection to shield its revolution from the United States and to strengthen its capacity to project power in Latin America and beyond. Interweaving global and local developments along an insightful analytical frame, Pettina reveals the distinct consequences of the Cold War in the Western Hemisphere.

224 pages, Hardcover

First published October 18, 2022

Reviews

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read it for my diss and was super helpful #nicaragua 😜

[Andres Mendoza · Rating 2 out of 5]

Discussions of the Cold War in Latin America often focus squarely on US regime change operations, while less attention is paid to internal dynamics. For example, conservative elites making fortunes from resource extraction often took on an anti-communist tilt, while the toiling masses advocated for varying degrees of social change and wealth redistribution. The focus placed in this book on internal conflicts is invaluable, especially given how they often go overlooked. So why only two stars?

Time and time again, the author refused to reckon with the imperial nature of the relationship between the United States and Latin America. To be clear, the relationship between the US and this region is an imperialist one; that is, there are ultra-wealthy circles within the US that derive their wealth from the land, labor, and natural resources of Latin American countries. In the post-war era, the US' desire to maintain and expand this system of exploitation has been the primary pillar of its Latin American policy. Corporate interests motivated interventions against not only communist countries, but liberal democracies, social democrats, and nationalist movements that promised to redistribute wealth away from US companies and toward social development.

The author does not grasp this. Perhaps the best example comes from page 54 in a discussion about the 1954 Guatemala coup. In this action, reformist Arbenz was removed from power in a US-funded coup after advocating for land redistribution that would have seized property owned by US-based United Fruit Company. Here, the author claims that the primary motivation for the coup was not corporate interest, but "the bipolar conflict" with the USSR; that is, America's aim to contain communism. However, given how corporate interests inform the US' anti-communist impulse, we can see that this sentiment is nonsensical. The US knew that Arbenz was no communist, but it didn't matter; he was ousted from power in the name of an anti-communist crusade in order to justify an action that would protect corporate assets abroad. The author needlessly tries to distinguish between corporate interest and anti-communist policy, when they were in fact one in the same.

Further illuminating the author's lack of understanding of American imperialism is his characterization of Jimmy Carter's administration. He claims, "...the issue of human rights was at the core of the Democratic administration's policy for Latin America." To support this claim, he points to the reduction of aid sent to right-wing authoritarian despots in countries like Argentina and Chile. In other words, Carter decided to continue sending aid to dictatorships with abhorrent human rights records. Does this make him a champion of human rights? Or does this make him a savvy politician who understood that these right-wingers served as a bulwark against progressive movements that could challenge corporate power in the region?

In a particularly bewildering passage on page 138, the author claims the Carter Administration supported "noninterventionism," while in the same paragraph describing their attempts to prevent the Sandinistas from taking power. On the eve of the triumph of the Sandinista revolution, Carter tried to organize an international peacekeeping force to put an end to the violence in Nicaragua. Interestingly, the right-wing despot Somoza had been brutalizing the country's people for years, and Carter had never considered deploying forces to quell the violence. However, now that a progressive movement was on the precipice of taking power, the drastic move was suggested. These actions do not point to a foreign policy centered on human rights. Instead, they point to a leader loyal as ever to corporate interest; however, he was undoubtedly taking a less confrontational stance than the presidents that came before and after him.

While the author's analysis regarding the nature of the US relationship with the region is severely lacking, there are also moments where the facts presented are baldly untrue. In the epilogue, the author claimed that during the 1990s, Cuba decided "to prioritize the survival of the revolutionary regime, even above the immediate well-being of its own citizens", but this is patently false. Unlike the post-communist countries of eastern Europe, which saw welfare programs cut and life expectancy plummet during this time, social spending in Cuba increased by double digits after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Despite the fact that its economy was in freefall as the result of the intensifying US embargo, Cuba continued to prioritize the health and welfare of its citizens in the face of incredible challenges. The author also claimed that, for better or worse, "an acritical shift toward the neoliberal model" took place in the region in the 1990s. This would be news to countries like Ecuador and Venezuela, which saw massive civil unrest during this time due to growing inequality and the social cost of austerity measures. Despite the fact that liberation movements fizzled out, no longer enjoying support from an anti-colonial power like the USSR, the end of the Cold War "restored greater political autonomy to the region." Political autonomy for who, I wonder?

Finally, the author asserts quite perplexingly that the end of the Cold War freed the region from "direct foreign interference" from the United States. This might surprise the people of Cuba, who had to weather a terror campaign waged by the CIA in the late 1990s, not to mention the US embargo (which, according to US law, can only be lifted after capitalist restoration). This might surprise Jean Bertrand Aristide, former President of Haiti who was deposed in a US-backed coup and flown into exile on a US military plane in 2004. This might surprise Manuel Zelaya, former President of Honduras who was ousted by a US-backed coup and flown into exile from a US military base in 2009. This might surprise the people of Venezuela, who have weathered not only terrible sanctions, but an attack in 2020 directed from Florida where a handful of former US military personnel attempted to capture or kill President Maduro. This came six years before a more ambitious operation would succeed in his kidnapping.

All of that being said, this book can be interesting, informative, and genuinely valuable if paired with a prior understanding of the imperial nature of US foreign policy. I would recommend reading something like Michael Parenti's Against Empire before taking this book on.

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent overview of the Cold War in Latin America. As someone who doesn’t have much prior knowledge of the region’s history, I found it to be a great introduction. The book does a great job of presenting a broad look Latin America’s Cold War as a whole, rather than just focusing on a couple of countries or moments. I especially appreciated the attention the author pays to the economic side of the story, as well as the interrelationship between local conflicts and external intervention. The book also has some helpful suggestions for further reading. Overall, I’d highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in Latin America or the Cold War.

[Jeff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Focused mostly on how Latin America was impacted by the Cold War. It didn't focus on the Soviet or USA perspective which was refreshing.