Hemispheric Quest
June 15, 2011

By Dennis L. Pearson
Copyright (c) 2009 by Dennis L. Pearson
All Rights Reserved --- No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying
and recording or by any information storage\or retrieval system, without
permission from the author.


Latin America is in the broadest sense, the western hemisphere south of the
United States. In a more restricted sense, Latin America comprises those
countries of the Americas that developed from the colonies of Spain,
Portugal, and France. The name Latin America was devised because these
three countries used languages derived from Latin.

II. Colonization
Beginning with the voyages of Italian-Spanish explorer Christopher Columbus
in the late 1400s and early 1500s, Europeans sailing from Spain and Portugal
reached, conquered, and colonized large areas of South America and
Central\America, and North America as far as the present southern border of
the United States. They developed a highly bureaucratic colonial system and
imposed their language, culture, and institutions on the native inhabitants.
The Roman Catholic church converted the Native Americans to Hispanic
Christian culture and acquired large land holdings, and its clergy assumed
important positions as governmental, financial, and spiritual leaders. Spanish
and Portuguese conquerors and settlers were few in number but superior to
the Native Americans in military skills and weaponry. Native Americans also
were decimated by diseases brought by the conquerors. The survivors
became a servile class that worked the mines and plantations. The
colonists also imported African slaves. By the end of the colonial period,
people of mixed blood formed the majority in many Latin American colonies.

A tiny corps of royal officials governed the colonies in collaboration with the
clergy, landholders, and
merchants. These European and American-born ( Creole) families and
bureaucrats dominated the
majority population and controlled a centralized mercantile system. In the
18th century Portugal and
Spain instituted economic and governmental changes to increase production
and revenues in the
colonies. These changes contributed to dissatisfaction among the Creoles
and the masses. By 1825
all of Latin America, except Cuba and Puerto Rico, had renounced allegiance
to Spain and Portugal
and had achieved independence.

III. Liberal Republics and Dictatorships
Political turmoil and economic decline characterized the early years of most
of the new nations. By
the mid-19th century, conservative dictators dominated the region. Liberalism
soon triumphed,
however, and many countries instituted modernization programs. Power
generally remained in the
hands of a small national elite. The United States became the principal market
for Latin American
exports. In the 20th century the United States intervened frequently in the
internal affairs of
individual states.

Despite modernization, national economies remained dependent on the
export of raw materials.
Although a small middle class benefited from industrial growth, progress was
limited for the vast
majority of Latin Americans, many of whom moved to cities but did not find
jobs. In the early 1960s
trading associations aimed to improve the region's economy. By 1977, faced
with meager results,
most of the countries were disregarding the trade agreements. The rapid rise
of external debt during
the 1980s and the rampant inflation that has plagued several countries are
key problems facing Latin
America in the late 20th century.

Several political changes have also affected Latin America since the 1960s.
Military dictatorships
have generally given way to democratically elected governments, although
these governments tend
to support their own interests, or those of elite groups. Most investment is
still directed to the
growing urban centers, leaving rural zones underdeveloped. In several
countries the desperation
stemming from poverty, governmental neglect, corrupt politics, and
unrealizable progress has
stimulated regional protest movements. A number of governments have
turned to brutal repression
to silence the voices of protest.


Dialogue 1 ---  by Dennis Pearson

Western Hemisphere Idea

The Western Hemispheric Idea was the affirmation that Europe and America
constituted separate
distinct and naturally antagonistic spheres of influence. It was created out of
the hemispheric desire
to rid itself of European domination. To men who subscribed by this theory"
the greatest spectacle in
nature would be the liberation of the American continent "from the  European
shackles" and the
formation of a "distinct community of American States."

Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd President of the United States, can be associated
with the development
and growth of the Western Hemisphere Idea. Jefferson, of course, was not
the originator of the idea
but his written words proved to be the solid base from which the political
expressions of James
Monroe, Simon Bolivar, Domingo F. Sarmiento and James G. Blaine were
derived. Nevertheless, we
must give credit to Alexander Von Humbold in his Political Essay on New
Spain for awakening
Jefferson's interest in the hemispheric system that would develop after the
independence of the
Spanish colonies was achieved. Humbold spoke of the American continent as
not united in the real
sense of the word, New Spain according to Humbold was divided into a local
"hemispheric sphere"
just as Europe was divided from America due to differences in climate, soils,
vast distances, and
mode of existence.

Thomas Jefferson made a clear and forcible expression of this idea in a letter
dated 1811 when he
characterized the European system as an atrocious and resulting tyranny
which sought to
subordinate America to its will through the mandatory compliance of its laws,
regulations and wars.
Two years later Jefferson refined the idea further when he observed:

"History furnishes no example of a priest ridden people maintaining a free
civil government, But in
whatever governments they end, they will be American governments no
longer to be involved in the
never ceasing broils of Europe. The Europeans constitute a separate division
of the globe; their
localities make them part of a distinct system; they have a set of interests of
their own in which it is
our business never to engage ourselves. America has a hemisphere to itself.
It must not be
subordinated to those of Europe. The insulated state in which nature has
placed the American
continent should so far avail it that no spark of war kindled in other quarters of
the globe should be
wafted across the wide oceans which separate us from them."

Indeed when Jefferson spoke of the inner unity or systems of the American
continent he meant that
the future nations of the new world would be unified by these factors: 1. That
they would be separate
geographically from Europe; and 2. That these nations whatever form their
governments take will be
American nations " no longer embroiled in the never ceasing conflicts of

But it was the fate of the American continent to be embroiled in the never
ceasing conflicts of
Europe. Importantly, the tense situation the United States found itself in
Central America in the 1980's
must be regarded as another attempt by a divided Europe ( this time by a
Marxist element) to
reestablish its influence on the American continent to the detriment of Pan-
American unity. But while
this effort is going on we who live on the American continents must not
overlook the fact that Pope
John Paul II is seeking to end the divisions that are now found in Europe. That
many of the existing
European states are coming together to form a new European political union.
Why? That could be a
very important development affecting the welfare of all the

Discussion 1

Biography of Thomas Jefferson

His early career

Jefferson was born at Shadwell in Albemarle county, Virginia, on April 13,
1743. His father, Peter
Jefferson and his mother Jane Randolph were members of the most famous
Virginia families. Besides
being well born, Thomas Jefferson, was well educated. He attended the
College of William and Mary
and read law (1762-1767) with George Wythe, the greatest law teacher of his
generation in Virginia.
He was admitted to the bar in 1767 and practiced until 1774, when the courts
were closed by the
American Revolution.

He had inherited a considerable landed estate from his father, and doubled it
by a happy marriage on
Jan. 1, 1772, to Martha Wayles Skelton. He was elected to the House of
Burgesses, when he was 25,
he served there from 1769 to 1774, showing himself to be an effective
committeeman and skillful
draftsman, though not an able speaker.

The Revolutionary Era.
From the beginning of the struggle with the mother country, Jefferson stood
with the more advanced
Patriots, grounding his position on a wide knowledge of English history and
political philosophy. His
most notable early contribution to the cause of the Patriots was his powerful
pamphlet A Summary
View of the Rights of British America (1774), originally written for presentation
to the Virginia
convention of that year. In this he emphasized natural rights, including that of
emigration, and denied
parliamentary authority over the colonies, recognizing no tie with the mother
country except the king

Prelude to the presidency

As a member of the Continental Congress (1775-1776), Jefferson was chosen
together with John
Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingstone and Roger Sherman in 1776 to
draft the Declaration of
Independence . He wrote the declaration all by himself and was amended by
John Adams and
Benjamin Franklin .

Jefferson left Congress in the autumn of 1776 and served in the Virginia
legislature until his election
as governor in 1779. He was governor from 1779 to 1781.

During this brief private interval (1781-1783) he began to compile his Notes on
the State of Virginia,
which was first published in 1785. In this document there are some of his
thoughts on the question of
slavery. From 1783 to 1784 he was a member of the Continental Congress.

Minister to France.
Jefferson's stay in France (1784-1789), where he was first a commissioner to
negotiate commercial
treaties and then Benjamin Franklin's successor as minister, was in many
ways the richest period of
his life. He was confirmed in his opinion that France was a natural friend of
the United States, and
Britain at this stage a natural rival.
Toward the end of his mission he reported with scrupulous care the unfolding
revolution in France.
Eventually he was repelled by the excesses of the French Revolution, and he
disapproved of it when it passed into an openly imperialistic phase under

Because of his absence in Europe, Jefferson had no direct part in the framing
or ratification of the
Constitution of the United States (17 Sept. 1787), and at first the document
aroused his fears. His
chief objections were that it did not expressly safeguard the rights of
individuals, and that the
unlimited eligibility of the president for reelection would make it possible for
him to become a king.
He became sufficiently satisfied after he learned that a bill of rights would be
provided and after be
reflected that there would be no danger of monarchy under George
Washington .

During Jefferson's service at this post as secretary of state from 1790 to 1793,
Alexander Hamilton,
secretary of the treasury, defeated the movement for commercial
discrimination against Britain,
which Jefferson favored. Jefferson's policy was not pro-French, but it
seemed anti-British. Hamilton
was distinctly pro-British.
By late 1792 or 1793 the opponents of Hamiltonians constituted a fairly
definite national party, calling
itself Republican. Early in 1793 the Virginians in Congress forced Hamilton to
quit his office.

Jefferson retired as Secretary of State at the end of the year 1793. During a
respite of three years
from public duties, he began to remodel his house at Monticello and
interested himself greatly in

He was supported by the Republicans for president in 1796, and running
second to John Adams by
three electoral votes, he became vice president.


Jefferson and his running mate Aaron Burr defeated John Adams in the
elections of 1800. Jefferson's
own title to the presidency was not established for some weeks because he
was tied with his running
mate under the workings of the original electoral system. The election was
thrown into the House of
Representatives. The Federalists voted for Burr through many indecisive
ballots. Finally, enough of
them abstained to permit the obvious will of the majority to be carried out.
And so Jefferson became
the 3d president of the United States of America. And what also was
important that the transition was
effected by strictly constitutional means. Jefferson emphasized this in his
conciliatory inaugural
His first term as president was rather successful. That had various reasons.
First, he was the
undisputed leader of a party that had acquired cohesion during its years in

Second, he had loyal and competent lieutenants like the secretary of State,
James Madison, and the
secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin.

And, last but not least, he was very popular because of his policy of economy
and his tax reduction.

Jefferson restored the party balance in the civil service, but he was relatively
unsuccessful in his
moves against the judiciary, which had been reinforced by fresh Federalist
appointees at the very
end of the Adams administration.
The effort to remove partisan judges by impeachment was a virtual failure,
and the Federalists
remained entrenched in the judiciary, though they became less actively

The most notable achievement of Jefferson's presidency was the purchase of
Louisiana in 1803.
Robert R. Livingston and James Monroe were sent to France to negotiate with
Napoleon. The treaty
they sent home aroused constitutional scruples in Jefferson's mind. It
seemed to him that this vast
and large acquisition of territory would change the character of the Union.
And so it should be
authorized by a constitutional amendment. But he recognized that there was
no time for such a slow
procedure otherwise the purchase could be in danger. And so became
Louisiana, for 15 million
dollars, a part of the United States.

Although he was still the undisputed leader of his party, Jefferson
encountered greater difficulties,
on both the domestic and foreign fronts, in his second term than in his first.
One of the domestic
problems was the Burr-Conspiracy. Former vice president Burr stood on trial
for treason. But the
rulings of judge John Marshall made conviction impossible. And Jefferson
erred gravely in saying in
advance that Burr's guilt was beyond dispute.
One of the largest foreign problems was the Embargo adopted in December
1807. It was regarded by
Jefferson as the only alternative to war and submission. The act barred all
exports to Britain and
France. But it had less effect abroad than had been expected and caused
economic difficulty at
home. Toward the end of his administration, he assented to the embargo's
repeal, to save the Union,
he said. Amore moderate measure was adopted, but it did not avert war with
Britain in 1812.

Jefferson was succeeded as president in 1809 by his loyal lieutenant, James
Madison. During the last
17 years of his live, Jefferson remained in Virginia. As the 'Sage of Monticello'
he engaged in a vast
and rich correspondence with John Adams and others. Jefferson's last great
public service was the
founding of the University of Virginia in 1819. He died at Monticello on July 4,
1826 on the 50th
anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

Text prepared by Harrie Scholte Albers for The American Revolution - an .
HTML project. ( 10/19/1999
11:40:05 ) All rights reserved.  

Dialogue 2 --- by Dennis L. Pearson

Simon Bolivar
South America: Wars for Independence

For more than a decade, Simon Bolivar dedicated his life to South America's
independence from
Spain. After fighting and leading patriot forces in more than 200 battles, he
succeeded in liberating
an area five times larger than Europe from colonial rule. Bolivar, envisioned a
united Spanish

He  secured independence for Quito (now Ecuador) in 1822, which then
became part of Colombia.  In
1824 he led the revolutionary forces of Peru in their fight for independence.
Victorious, he was
elected president of Peru in February 1825, and the following May he
organized in southern Peru a
new republic, which was named in his honor.

From 1826 to 1830 Bolivar sought unsuccessfully to maintain the political
unity of the republic of
Colombia. He resigned the presidency of the republic in August 1828, then
assumed dictatorial
control the next month. Unable to pacify contending factions, he relinquished
power on April 27,
1830.  He died on December 17 of that year, a defeated, disillusioned, and
hated man.  

Today, Latin American public opinion has changed. Bolivar is regarded as the
area's greatest hero.
His memory  is revered throughout South America, and in Venezuela and
Bolivia his birthday is a
national holiday.  The book of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, The General in his
Labyrinth, is devoted to
Bolivars last months and his travel from Sanata Fe de Bogota up the river to
the coast where he died.

Like George Washington, Simón Bolívar (1783-1830) was a member of the
slave-owning colonial
aristocracy of his country. He came from a rich and powerful family, with
investments in agriculture,
ranching and sugar mills. Along with many other talented creoles (that is,
American-born colonists)
throughout the Western hemisphere, he resented the ceilings and limitations
that European
government from overseas placed on advancement by those who were not
themselves European.

Profoundly influenced by the ideas of the French Enlightenment, Bolívar was
a rare instance of the
intellectual who was also a man of action. He was a firm believer in legal
equality for all men,
regardless of class or color. He was opposed to slavery and freed his own
slaves in 1821. He saw that
the freedom of America from Spanish control required the complete conquest
of the royalists, lest a
base remain on the continent from which a counterrevolution could be

Without question the greatest figure in the revolutions for independence in
Spanish America, both in
eloquence and in military leadership, he died in disillusionment with the
results of his heroic efforts.
Everywhere in America he saw chaos and political instability. Few of his
plans for social, economic,
and political reform were realized. Only a month before he died he wrote to a
friend: "America is
ungovernable. Those who serve the revolution plow the sea."

Discussion 2


Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar was born in Caracas on
July 24, 1783, to don
Juan Vicente Bolívar y Ponte and doña Maria de la Concepción Palacios y
Blanco. An aristocrat by
birth, Simón Bolívar received an excellent education from his tutors,
especially Simón Rodríguez.
Thanks to his tutors, Bolívar became familiar with the works of the
Enlightenment as well as those of
classical Greece and Rome.

By the age of nine, however, Bolívar lost both his parents and was left in the
care of his uncle, don
Carlos Palacios. At the age of fifteen, don Carlos Palacios sent him to Spain to
continue his education.

Bolívar left for Spain in 1799 with his friend, Esteban Escobar. En route, he
stopped in Mexico City
where he met with the viceroy of New Spain who was alarmed when the
young Bolívar argued with
confidence on behalf of Spanish American independence. Bolívar arrived in
Madrid on June of that
same year and stayed with his uncle, Esteban Palacios.

In Spain, Bolívar met Maria Teresa Rodríguez del Toro y Alaysa whom he
married soon afterwards in
1802. Shortly after returning to Venezuela, in 1803, Maria Teresa died of
yellow fever. Her death
greatly affected Bolívar and he vowed never to marry again. A vow which he
kept for the rest of his

After losing his wife, Bolívar returned to Spain with his tutor and friend, Simón
Rodríguez, in 1804.
While in Europe he witnessed the proclamation of Napoleon Bonaparte as
Emperor of France and
later the coronation of Napoleon as King of Italy in Milan. Bolívar lost respect
for Napoleon whom he
considered to have betrayed the republican ideals. But it was while in Italy
that Bolívar made his
famous vow on  top of Mount Aventin of Rome to never rest until America
was free.

Bolívar returned to Venezuela in 1807 after a brief visit to the United States. In
1808 Napoleon
installed his brother, Joseph, as King of Spain. This launched a great popular
revolt in Spain known
as the Peninsular War. In America, as in Spain, regional juntas were formed to
resist the new king.
Unlike the Spanish juntas, however, the American juntas fought against the
power of the Spanish
king, not only the person of Joseph Bonaparte.

That year, the Caracas junta declared its independence from Spain and
Bolívar was sent to England
along with Andrés Bello and Luis López Mendez on a diplomatic mission.
Bolívar returned to
Venezuela on June 3, 1811, and delivered his discourse in favor of
independence to the Patriotic
Society. On August 13 patriot forces under the command of Francisco de
Miranda won a victory in

On July 24, 1812, Miranda surrendered after several military setbacks and
Bolívar soon had to flee to
Cartagena. From there, Bolívar wrote his famous Cartagena Manifesto in
which he argued that New
Granada should help liberate Venezuela because their cause was the same
and Venezuela's freedom
would secure that of New Granada. Bolívar received assistance from New
Granada and in 1813 he
invaded Venezuela. He entered Merida on May 23 and was proclaimed
"Libertador" by the people. On
June 8 Bolívar proclaimed the "war to the death" in favor of liberty. Bolívar
captured Caracas on
August 6 and two days later proclaimed the second Venezuelan republic.

After several battles, Bolívar had to flee once more and in 1815 he took refuge
in Jamaica from where
he wrote his Jamaica Letter. That same year, Bolívar traveled to Haiti and
petitioned its president,
Alexander Sabes Petión, to help the Spanish American cause. In 1817, with
Haitian help, Bolívar
returned to the continent to continue fighting.

The Battle of Boyacá of August 7, 1819 resulted in a great victory for Bolívar
and the army of the
revolution. That year, Bolívar created the Angostura Congress which founded
Gran Colombia (a
federation of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador) which
named Bolívar
president. Royalist opposition was eliminated during the following years.
After the victory of Antonio
José de Sucre over the Spanish forces at the Battle of Pichincha on May 23,
1822, all of northern
South America was liberated. With that great victory, Bolívar prepared to
march with his army across
the Andes and liberate Peru.

On July 26, 1822, Bolívar met with José de San Martín at Guayaquil to discuss
the strategy for the
liberation of Peru. No one knows what took place in the secret meeting
between the two South
American heroes, but San Martín returned to Argentina while Bolívar prepared
to fight against last
Spanish bastion in South America.

In 1823 Bolívar took command of the invasion of Peru and in September
arrived in Lima with Sucre to
plan the attack. On August 6, 1824, Bolívar and Sucre jointly defeated the
Spanish army in the Battle
of Junín. On December 9 Sucre destroyed the last remnant of the Spanish
army in the Battle of
Ayacucho, eliminating Spain's presence in South America.

On August 6, 1825, Sucre called the Congress of Upper Peru which created
the Republic of Bolivia in
honor of Bolívar. The Bolivian Constitution of 1826, while never enacted, was
personally written by
Bolívar. Also in 1826, Bolívar called the Congress of Panama, the first
hemispheric conference.

But by 1827, due to personal rivalries among the generals of the revolution,
civil wars exploded
which destroyed the South American unity for which Bolívar had fought.
Surrounded by factional
fighting and suffering from tuberculosis, El Libertador Simón Bolívar died on
December 17, 1830.


Discussion 3

Simon Bolivar

Events in the Life of Simon Bolivar

July 24,1783 - Birth of Simon Bolivar in Caracas, Venezuela.  

1799 - Bolivar travels to Europe to complete his education.  

1801 - Bolivar marries, but his bride dies in Caracas less than a year later.  

1804 - Bolivar returns to Europe for additional studies with tutor Simon
Rodriguez who exposes him
to such writers as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Francois Voltaire, Charles
Montesquieu and Jean
Rousseau. -

Bolivar swears to liberate his homeland while standing on Mount Aventin in
Rome - 1807 - Bolivar
returns to Venezuela.  

Apr.19,1810 - A junta replaces Spanish governor of Venezuela. Bolivar goes to
London in search of
recognition and arms. He fails to achieve either objective, but brings
Francisco de Miranda back to
Venezuela from exile.  

July 5,1811 - National congress declares Venezuela's independence. Six
months later, Venezuela has
a new constitution, and a new three-man executive with Miranda serving as
vice president. Bolivar
and Miranda begin to disagree on how the revolution should proceed.
Spanish royalists refuse to accept these changes, and begin a 10-year civil
war over control of the

July, 1812 - Miranda is betrayed, with Bolivar's knowledge, to the Spanish.
Bolivar flees to Cartagena,
where he writes the Manifesto of Cartagena, New Granada (modern
Colombia), calling for the
destruction of Spanish forces in Venezuela.  

Aug. 6,1813 - Bolivar returns to Caracas at head of a New Granadan army.
Eleven months later,
Bolivar's army is defeated by a royalist force led by Jose Thomas Boves, who
rides at the head of the
cavalry composed of native cowboys, known as llaneros. Bolivar flees to
Colombia and returns with
another army. Defeated at Santa Mara, Bolivar escapes to Jamaica.  
1815 - While in exile, Bolivar writes the Letter from Jamaica, in which he
outlines his vision of South
America. After eliminating the Spanish colonial presence, Bolivar wanted to
create constitutional
republics, having a hereditary upper house, and elected lower house and a
president elected for life,
throughout the continent. - Venezuela VEN1979G24.3  
December 1816 - Unable to obtain aid from the Great Powers, Bolivar finds
support in Haiti, whose
president, Alexander Sabes Petión, provides needed financing and weapons. -

1817 - Changing his military strategy, Bolivar returns to the Orinoco region of
Venezuela, establishing
his base of operations in the river city of Angostura (modern Ciudad Bolivar).
He organizes veterans
from the Napoleonic Wars into his "British Legion", and begins to formalize
plans to consolidate his
various forces into an army.  

Spring, 1819 - Political and military planning begins to coalesce. Venezuela's
second national
congress convenes in Angostura to create a new independent state. Bolivar
speaks before the
assembly, and echoes the vision outlined in the Letter from Jamaica. -

June 11, 1819 - Bolivar's army leaves the Orinoco on and joins with
independent forces led by
Francisco de Paula Santander (Colombia Scott 1013) and Jose Antonio Paez
(Venezuela Scott 1279).
The 2,500-man army crosses Venezuela, fords seven rivers and climbs the
Andes to cross into
Colombia 11 months after leaving Angostura.  

Aug. 7, 1819 The Battle of Boyacá takes place between Bolivar's army and an
approximately equal
Spanish force defending the approaches to Bogota. At the start of the battle,
Santander's men are cut
off from the Spanish advance force near a bridge over the Boyacá River,
about one-half mile from the
Spanish main body. Bolivar sends his right against the Spanish left, while the
veteran British Legion
launches a frontal assault and repulses the Spanish cavalry. The Spanish
force is routed, with 100
men killed and between 1,600 and 1,800 taken prisoner. -

Aug.10, 1819 - Bolivar enters Bogota, and is hailed as the liberator of

December 1819 - The Republic of Colombia is proclaimed. Only Colombia has
been freed from
Spanish domination. The departments of Ecuador and Venezuela are still held
by royalist forces.
Bolivar is elected president.  

1820 - Bolivar campaigns against royalists in Venezuela.  
November 1820 - Bolivar and royalists agree to a six-month armistice.
Fighting resumes at Venezuela
Scott the conclusion of the armistice.  

June 25, 1821 - The Battle of Carabobo opens the way for Bolivar to liberate
his homeland. Spanish
general Miguel de la Torre divides his command in the face of Bolivar's army.
The British Legion and
Paez's cavalry crush the Spanish right and center, putting the remainder of
Torre's force to route. -

May 24,1822 - The Battle of Pichincha is won by Bolivar's lieutenant, Antonio
Jose de Sucre at the
conclusion of the campaign to liberate Ecuador. With all of northern South
America liberated, only
Peru remains in Spanish hands

July 26,1822 - Bolivar meets with Jose de San Martin at Guayaquil to discuss
strategy for the
liberation of Peru). While no record is kept of the meeting's conversations, it
is clear from later
correspondence and personal memoirs that the two leaders have
irreconcilable differences of
opinion on the subject. Bolivar assumes command of the operation to liberate
Peru, while San Martin
retires from public service and goes into exile in France.  

September 1823 Bolivar arrives in Lima and begins preparations to assault
the Spanish positions in
the mountains to the east.  

Aug. 6,1824 - Bolivar and Sucre lead 9,000 men against the Spanish in the
Battle of Junín. Only part of
each force is engaged in an all-cavalry action easily won by Bolivar. Sucre
pursues the retreating
Spaniards, while Bolivar returns to Lima to establish a government.  
Dec. 9, 1824 - Sucre routs a larger Spanish army in the Battle of Ayacucho,
ending Spain's presence in
South America.

April 1825 - Sucre liberates Upper Peru, and establishes a new nation known
as Bolivia. Bolivar's
now extends from the Caribbean to the Argentine-Bolivian border.  

1827 - Bolivar returns to Venezuela from Lima to mediate a dispute between
Paez and Santander that
threatens to erupt into civil war. His efforts are not completely successful,
and Venezuela secedes
from Gran Colombia in late 1829.  

Dec. 17,1830 - Suffering from tuberculosis Bolivar dies near Santa Marta,

Discussion 3



Simón Bolívar was a declared republican. Borrowing from the ancient Roman
Republic and Anglo-
French political thought combined with his own original ideas, Bolívar
established his vision for
republican government which blended the Enlightenment ideals of civil
liberties with the Greco-
Roman vision of civic virtue and restraints on the popular will. Bolívar
rejected monarchic or Imperial
government as both unsuited for Spanish America and inconsistent with the
principles of liberty and
equality. Republics, as opposed to monarchies, "do not desire powers which
represent a directly
contrary viewpoint, have no reason for expanding the boundaries of their
nation to the detriment of
their own resources" (Jamaica Letter). American monarchies, Bolívar argued,
would fall into the trap
of European-style wars over territory, succession, and power.

In discussing civil liberties such as political equality and freedom of religion,
Bolívar presented ideas
similar to those of Rousseau and Locke; the Libertador's views on civil
responsibilities reflected the
influences of Plato and Cicero. Education was also touched upon by Simón
Bolívar, especially in his
Essay on Public Education, as a tool for governments to reeducate their
citizens to the
responsibilities and duties of participation in public life. Bolívar also
commented on the weaknesses
and limits of liberal democracy when writing to explain the necessity of a
strong, republican form of
government. All these ideas, which are discussed later, are distinct and
separate from the
Libertador's model for republican government presented throughout many of
his writings. The
specific attributes of Bolívar's model state are essential and are discussed in
length below, but the
basic principles of Bolivarist republicanism are:

•        Order as most important necessity.
•        Tricameral legislature with varied and broad powers composed of
•        A hereditary and professional Senate.
•        A body of Censors composing the state's "moral authority".
•        A popularly elected legislative assembly.
•        A life-term executive supported by a strong, active cabinet or ministers.
•        A judicial system stripped of legislative powers.
•        A representative electoral system.
•        Military autonomy.

Simón Bolívar asserted as early as 1812 in his Cartagena Manifesto that the
government's primary role was to restore order "without regards for laws or
constitutions until
happiness and peace have been destroyed". Historical conditions had
deprived Spanish America of
training and ability for self-rule after the break with Spain; Bolívar recognized
that without order and
stability the ensuing chaos would destroy what the heroes of the revolution
had fought to establish --
political sovereignty for the people of Spanish America. Bolívar argued that
the new nations of
America needed "the care of paternal governments to heal the sores and
wounds of despotism and
war" (Jamaica Letter) and latter added that "[w]ithout responsibility and
restraint, the nation becomes
chaos" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia).

A strong government would not be despotic, but rather would allow the state
"to use force in order
to liberate peoples who are ignorant of the value of their rights" (Cartagena
Manifesto). To Simón
Bolívar, the independence armies had gained freedom from Spain for the
Spanish American nations;
the struggle for the political liberty of its people was to be the next phase of
the revolution. Lacking
the traditions of political activity present in North America and England, the
Spanish American people
required that their new states be organized in such a way as to maintain order
by checking the
popular forces until they could be trained in the civic virtues. Bolivarism
emphasizes the common
good over the individual; unrestrained democratic expressions that harmed
the general well-being
of the state and nation must ultimately result in the loss of freedom for the
individual. "The most
perfect system of government is that which results in the greatest possible
measure of happiness
and the maximum social security and political stability ... we must hope that
security and stability will
perpetuate this happiness" (Angostura Discourse). Strong, central
government prevents the anarchy
that would destroy true freedom. The state, Bolivarism argues "molds the
character of a nation and
can set it upon the path to greatness, prosperity, and power" (Essay on

The core of the Bolivarist state is the Tricameral legislature. In his Message to
the Congress of
Bolivia, Bolívar argued that a bicameral legislature is inefficient since it
means that both houses "are
always found in conflict". The solution Bolívar proposed was the Tricameral
legislature ensuring that
at all times at least two of the legislative bodies would be in agreement. The
Tricameral legislature
Bolívar proposed is composed of a Chamber of Tribunes with the "right to
initiate laws pertaining to
finance, peace, and war"; a Senate to "enact the codes of law and the
ecclesiastical regulations and
supervise the courts and public worship ... appoint the prefects, district
judges, governors,
Corregidor's, and all the lesser officials of the department of justice"; and a
body of Censors to
"exercise a political and moral power ... [as] persecuting attorneys against the
government in
defense of the Constitution and popular rights ... [and] the power of national
judgment, which is to
decide whether or not the administration of the executive is satisfactory"
(Message to the Congress
of Bolivia).

The Chamber of Tribunes Bolívar proposed is to be the main legislative body
of the government. It is
this legislative body or chamber that Bolívar most frequently referred to as
the "government". The
executive and all other parts of the state are often written of as balanced
against the government in
a variety of ways; the executive and other legislative bodies are organized to
act as checks to this
first and greatest power of the state. These checks were created by Bolívar to
prevent the Tribunes
from becoming despotic and assuming the role of the executive branch of
government. Following
Montesquieu, Bolívar asserted that the "representative assembly should
exercise no active function.
It should only make laws and determine whether or not those laws are
enforced" (Angostura
Discourse). In his Message to the Grand Convention of Ocaña, Bolívar
insisted that the legislative
branch "should have only limited sovereignty", clearly distinguishing that its
role, while central, must
not be that of complete sovereignty over the state.

The republican Senate Bolívar envisioned would act as a "neutral force" in
the state. Borrowing from
the Roman and British models and Plato's Republic, Bolívar's republican
Senate is an hereditary, not
an elective, body. Justifying a hereditary legislative body, Bolívar argued that
the role of the Senate
is to act as a "neutral body to protect the injured and disarm the offender ...
[it] would arrest the
thunderbolts of the government and would repel any violent popular
reaction" (Angostura
Discourse). Bolívar's Senate is designed to act as a moderative force
between the people and the
government to prevent either from usurping too much power -- only a
hereditary body can assume
such a position. "To be neutral, this body must not owe its origin to
appointment by the government
or to election by the people, if it is to enjoy a full measure of independence
which neither fears nor
expects anything from these two sources of authority" (Angostura Discourse).

The Senate is composed of a body of virtuous, patriotic, and intellectual
republican citizens through
"enlightened education". Future Senators are to be educated in "a colegio
designed especially to
train these guardians and future legislators of the nation ... From childhood
they should understand
the career for which they have been destined by Providence" (Angostura
Discourse). While the
Senate does also reflect many of the attributes of the British House of Lords,
the pre-condition of
education maintains the integrity of the republican Senate; Senators must
prove themselves worthy
and knowledgeable to hold public office. These "guardians" are not expected
to govern, but rather
to act as political philosophers and guide the people and the government
through the hazards of
politics. Governments seek power and people seek liberty; the Senate is a
force in the republic to
balance the needs of both.

Moral authority in the republic rests upon the Censors. Alluded to in several
writings, Bolívar
elaborated on this third legislative body in his Message to the Congress of
Bolivia. The Censors are
designed to act somewhat like the Supreme Court of the United States
although it is not a judicial
body. Bolívar's censors "are the prosecuting attorneys against the
government in defense of the
Constitution and popular rights" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). It is the
Censors who hold the
keys to the Constitution and protect its integrity; they check the other
branches of the state to keep
them from abusing their powers unconstitutionally. The Censors also
maintain "the power of national
judgment, which is to decide whether or not the administration of the
executive is satisfactory"
(Message to the Congress of Bolivia). Bolívar did not elaborate on this point
but it appears that he
intended for the Censors to have a power equivalent to impeachment. The
Censors "exercise the
most fearful yet the most august authority" (Message to the Congress of
Bolivia). This branch of the
legislature works to maintain and "safeguard morality, the sciences, the arts,
education, and the
press" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). While the Tribunes create laws
and the Senate holds
the keys to republican virtue, it is the Censors who protect the people and
their civil rights from
government abuses.

Bolívar headed his model republic with a restricted, life-term President who
appoints his own
successor "but his office will never be hereditary" (Jamaica Letter). The
establishment of a life
President or presidente vitalicio prevents the executive power from relying
on or abusing popular
support for policies; he uses his personal authority, much like the British
monarch, to act as a
figurehead to the republic while his ministers and legislature hold the real
power of the executive.
This President "is deprived of all patronage. He can appoint neither
governors, nor judges, nor
ecclesiastic dignitaries of any kind" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia); the
only powers he holds
is to name "the officials of the Ministries of the Treasury, Peace, and War; and
he is Commander in
Chief of the army" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The government
functions without the
personal direction of the President; the Bolivarist republic, once set into
motion, continues on with
its own momentum. The personal demands on the President are not great, he
is there to act as a
symbol or hero for the republic and cannot constitutionally become a tyrant,
nor can he hinder the
republic with ineffective leadership. "Should the president be a man of no
great talent or virtue ... he
will be able to discharge his duties satisfactorily ... the ministry, managing
everything by itself, will
carry the burdens of the state" (Angostura Discourse).

While arguing in his 1819 Angostura Discourse that "[n]othing is more
dangerous with respect to the
people than a weak executive", Bolívar stressed the need for a non-active
president when writing
his Message to the Congress of Bolivia in 1826. The apparent conflict can be
explained in this way:
Bolívar saw the strength of the legislative body in 1819 Colombia and saw it
as too powerful as a tool
of government in relation to the contemporary constitution; for the proposed
Bolivian model, the
branches of government were divided to give each a separate role, not
merely a separate power.
The legislature creates laws and maintains the constitution -- without
executive interference;
likewise, the executive branch runs the bureaucracy of the state without
legislative interference.

The executive cabinet envisioned by Bolívar is a bureaucratic body
empowered to deal with the
everyday running of the state and conducting foreign policy. The President
can best be described as
an icon for the people who holds no real authority other than his presence but
who oversees the
workings of the state. In Bolívar's republican model, the executive functions
are conducted by the
cabinet ministers and their subordinates. Working under a restricted
President, the "ministers, being
responsible for any transgressions committed, will actually govern"
(Angostura Discourse). The
President appoints a Vice-President "who will administer the affairs of the
state and succeed the
President in office" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). Under the Vice-
President, the cabinet
ministers run the executive branch managing the finances and diplomatic
relations of the state and
enforcing the legislation of the Tribunes.

Unlike the United States' model of government, Bolívar's republic does not
include a judicial "third
branch" of government. Bolívar described the courts as "the arbiters of
private affairs" (Message to
the Congress of Bolivia) and did not grant them the power to revoke or
challenge legislation. The
only role of the justices and magistrates is to abide by the laws approved by
the Tribunes or
legislative assembly; the Anglo-American power of "judicial review" is
reserved for the Censors -- a
part of the legislative branch. Bolívar argued that "the judges are responsible
for the enforcement of
laws, they do not depart from them" (Angostura Discourse).

While limiting the positions available to direct popular election, Bolívar
recognized that there is
"nothing more important to a citizen than the right to elect his legislators,
governors, judges, and
pastors" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The central republican state --
with the exception of
the Tribunes -- is not popularly elected, but local government is left to the
hands of the citizens. For
the republic, Bolívar proposed a representative electoral system where "[e]
very ten citizens will
elect one elector" (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The electors are the
citizens that will
actually vote in republican elections. An elector is not required to own
property, but he must "be able
to write out his ballot, sign his name, and read the laws" (Message to the
Congress of Bolivia). In the
Angostura Discourse, the Libertador also divided citizenship into the
classifications of "active" and
"passive" citizenship. Only active citizens participate as electors in the
republic and act as a "check
on popular license" (Angostura Discourse) to prevent the masses from
inadvertently acting against
their own interests.

The limits on direct popular participation are consistent with the development
of a life-term President
and an hereditary Senate in the republican state proposed by Bolívar. Bolívar
recognized that the
people need to participate in government if they are to learn and develop
civic virtues. But to ensure
the triumph of justice over free will, Bolívar "confers only powers of control
on the majority (Pouvoir
majoritaire) and leaves the business of government to a minority (Pouvoir
minoritaire) constituted by
authority based on natural qualities of competence, honor, and will to
command" (Belaúnde, Víctor
Andrés, Bolivar and the Political Thought of the Spanish American Revolution,

The last foundation of the Bolivarist republic is an autonomous military. In his
1828 Message to the
Grand Convention of Ocaña, Bolívar declared that the army "was the glory of
freedom ... its
obedience to the law, to the chief of state, and to its general were worthy of
the heroic age of
republican virtues" and then regrets that "these generous virtues have
somehow been eclipsed by
the new laws designed to regulate and control the army". The armed forces
which had fought for
Spanish American independence, Bolívar believed, deserve a special place in
the republic; it is an
institution that is to be honored and respected, not regulated by civilian
leaders. "[T]he liberators ...
are entitled to occupy forever a high rank in the Republic that they have
brought into existence"
(Angostura Discourse). Writing to General Nariño in 1821, Bolívar supported
an autonomous military
when he stated that "command of the army and the direction of the Republic
must be kept separate"
(Letter to Nariño). The military is not instituted as a tool of the government in
the republic, but rather
as another patriotic symbol -- much like the President -- of the republic's
sovereignty and liberty.

( The above is only one section from a larger work entitled "Bolivarist
Ideology" written under the
direction of Dr. Thaddeus Zolty, Central Michigan University. The complete
work was submitted for
approval on December, 1995. )

Discussion 4

Works by Simon Bolivar
Discurso en la Sociedad Patriótica

On the first anniversary of independence, Bolivar urges the need for action
(en español)
(3 June 1811)

Manifiesto de Cartagena

In New Granada after the defeat of the first Venezuelan republic, Bolivar
proposes invading
Venezuela to liberate it (en español)
(15 December 1812)

Proclamation to the People of Venezuela

Known as the "Declaration of War to the Death," Bolivar opens a campaign
against all Spanish-born in
(15 June 1813)

Manifiesto de Carúpano
(7 September 1814)

Congreso de Angostura

Venezuela liberated, Bolivar presents ideas for a political constitution (en
(15 February 1819)

Discurso ante el Congreso de Cúcuta
(3 October 1821)

Mensaje al Congreso de Bolivia

Asked by the Constituyent Congress of Bolivia, Bolivar presents his ideas for
a political constitution
(25 May 1826)

Convención Nacional de Ocaña

Bolívar criticizes the constitution of Colombia and presents ideas for its
remedy (en español)
(29 February 1828)

Congreso Admirable

Gran Colombia disintegrating, Bolivar presents his last message to its
congress (en español)
(20 January 1830)

Proclamation to the People of Colombia

Nearing his death, Bolivar once more emphasizes his desire for a unified
Gran Colombia.
(10 December 1830)

Works by Other Authors


Gerald E. Fitzgerald
"The Political Thought of Bolívar"
Brief introduction to the political thought of Bolivar
(The Hague, 1971)

Hendrick Barreto y Eli Saul Rojas
"Analysis de la Carta de Jamaica y Nuestra América" (en español)
(Barquisimeto, 1996)

Dialogue 3 by Dennis L. Pearson

James Madison and the Monroe Doctrine

On December 2, 1823, United States President James Monroe presented to
joint-session of Congress
a policy statement that firmly upheld the two-hemisphere concept as
advocated by former American
President Thomas Jefferson. Interestingly, the Monroe Doctrine, as the
statement became known in
history, proved to be a disappointment to Latin American advocates of Pan-
Americanism who
believed that a new world hemispheric security could be best served by
making it the joint
responsibility of all American States. But President Monroe refused to give
the new American
Republics treaty guarantees to protect their new won independence. Rather,
President Monroe on
the recommendation of his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams preferred
unilateral action. This
policy, in analysis, allowed the United States to have freedom of action when
it came to any war or
rebellion in Latin America. Thus the United States did not have to resort to
war by fulfilling its treaty
obligations when a hemispheric state was threatened.

Adams, of course, understood the military position of the United States in the
first quarter of the
nineteenth century. Therefore, he realized that the United States could not
defend Latin America by
its own might alone; however, he knew the government of Great Britain
would support any unilateral
policy pronounced by the United States even though the State Department
refused a prior offer by
Prime Minister Canning that the two countries announce a joint communiqué
closing the new world
to future adventures by the European Monarchies.

Unfortunately, such a pledge would nip the feeling that was growing in the
United States of "Manifest
Destiny" and it's inevitable expansion across the continent and into Canada
and Cuba if possible.

Canning, of course, wanted to stop future attempts by Spain supported by
Metternich's Holy Alliance
to recapture its lost colonies in the new world.

Historically , the net effect of the Napoleonic Wars and interlude in Spain
produced sixteen "Green
Young Nations" by 1830 on the American continent.

But unilaterally, President Monroe announced on December 2, 1823 to a joint-
session of Congress
that the United States firmly held to the following principles of foreign policy:
1. That America would
not involve herself in Europe's internal affairs.:2. That Europe was to keep her
hands off the new
world; and 3. That Europe was to cease further efforts at colonization in the
western hemisphere.

World reaction to the Monroe Doctrine was varied. For example Metternich
called the doctrine "
Indecent." England welcomed it with mixed feelings, for she was tacitly
included in the doctrine, in
spite of the fact it was not jointly issued. But interestingly, a leading Mexican
political philosopher
Louis Alaman, became alarmed by the Monroe Doctrine for he feared that the
Doctrine would prove
to be the first utterance of a "possible threat of North American Imperialism."

But at the time, the major importance of the Monroe Doctrine was that it
allowed the new Republics of
Latin America to work out their own destiny. Up to the time of the Monroe
Doctrine, Latin America had
been a frontier of Europe; now it was part of the independent American
continent, free to organize
itself without danger of intervention.

Indeed these "Green Young Nations" or Republics had to rebuild from the
destruction and
devastation of their wars of independence which ended December 9, 1824
with the surrender of the
entire Spanish army and the Viceroy to Jose Antonio Sucre in the valley of
Ayacucho. The fact is, vast
areas of Latin America had been devastated in the long period of fighting. The
cattle industry was
ruined where marauding soldiers had slaughtered the herds for food. Mining
had been handicapped
by the loss of laborers and damage to installations. Plantations had suffered
when freed slaves had
wandered away or had been drafted into the armies. Gachupin owners of
property had gone back to
Spain. The wars had broken up families, driven people from place to place,
siphoned off the leaders
among the young men, disrupted the lives of cities, driven away the trained
bureaucrats who carried
on the public work, left taxes uncollected, government obligations unpaid,
and government itself
nonexistent. Even Church organization had broken down since most bishops
and archbishops had
been loyal to Spain, and anticlerical feelings became a factor in subsequent
politics. As after any long
destructive civil war, society itself was partially destroyed. The wars for
independence opened the
way for most of the changes of the nineteenth century.
Dialogue 4 by Dennis L. Pearson

Simon Bolivar and  the Monroe Doctrine

As a contrast to the unilateral policy favored by the United States, the
internationalist movements
was promoted by statesmen and writers of several Spanish-American
countries. The foremost
spokesman of the idea being Simon Bolivar of Greater Colombia. Bolivar
favored multilateralism
based on the recognition of the inherent equality of hemispheric actions and
substituting joint action
for unilateral action in dealing with threats to regional security or crises
among nations of the new
world. Bolivar's proposals for compulsory arbitration of disputes arising
among the members of the
American community reflects this underlying demand.

In 1815 Simon Bolivar vaguely envisioned international cooperation when in
his famous Jamaica
Letter, written during his exile on that island, he stated:

" How beautiful it would be for us what the Isthmus of Panama could be for us
what the Isthmus of
Corinth was for the Greeks! Would to God that someday we may have the
good fortune to converse
there an august assembly of representatives of republics, kingdoms, and
empires to deliberate upon
the high interests of peace and war with the nations of the other 3/4ths of the
globe. This type of
Organization may come to past in some happier period of our regeneration."

But we ask - Did Bolivar's vision of international cooperation as contained
within the Jamaica Letter
include the United States and the British Colony of Canada at this point? The
answer is no if one
listens to the consensus of historians who have studied Bolivar. Thus
consensus has it that Bolivar's
proposed Congress was designed to include the participation of South
American nations only.
Consequently, of historical importance, we therefore conclude that Bolivar
was not truly converted to
the hemispheric idea  and to the internationalist position until the Monroe
Doctrine was declared;
and it should be noted that even with this declaration, it required great
pressure from Latin American
writers such as Bernardo Monteagudo and others to make Bolivar accept the
idea to any degree.
Therefore, Bolivar, desiring to internationalize the Monroe Doctrine,
summoned a Pan-American
Congress in 1826 at Panama. The Congress would be an attempt to bring
together the unilateral
approach to the protection of Latin America with the internationalist position
to form some sort of
hemispheric unity in accordance with the hemispheric idea of Jefferson. But
interestingly, Bolivar,
himself, would not be able to attend this Conference for he was tied up with
activity in Lima.

Please note - the apparent "  main achievement" of the Pan-American
Congress of 1826 was the
codification of a Treaty of Perpetual Union, League and Confederation. By its
terms the parties sought
to create a mutual alliance and Confederation among themselves which
would be binding in periods
of war and peace in order to maintain the sovereignty and independence of
the region from foreign
aggression; and in addition, to secure peace and promote harmony and
understanding between
themselves, as well as with other nations. To carry out the alliance, the
contracting nations bound
themselves to mutual defense against every attack endangering their political
existence and
pledged themselves to employ all means at their disposal against the
enemies of any or all nations of
the region.

However, the treaty unraveled after the participants ( that is - Mexico, the
Central America
Federation, Greater Colombia and Peru ) left the Isthmus of Panama. The fact
being, of participant
nations in attendance, only Greater Colombia, the home nation of Bolivar,
actually ratified the treaty.
But historically we must stress that despite the influence of Bolivar, Greater
Colombia's adoption of
the work of the Pan-American Congress of 1826 was not given without
serious stated reservations.

The fact being, the Congress lost some of its importance with the unexpected
absence of delegates
from Brazil, Chile and Bolivia. Then too, also expected was a delegation from
the United States. But
as it happened the delegation sent by President John Quincy Adams to the
Pan-American Congress
arrived in Panama much too late for the Congress. Unexpectingly, they were
delayed by a death of a
delegate en route. In the end the United States refused to adopt partially or in
full any agreed to
instrument of the Congress. The net effect being the United States had
voluntarily isolated itself from
making political deals with Latin America for many years thereafter.

Of importance, after the completion of the work of the Pan-American
Conference the idea of
hemispheric unity, although not dead, was to indeed enjoy a sound slumber
in the United States for
over forty years. This fixed reality virtually assuring that there would be a
temporary parting of ways
between Latin America and the United States. As it happened, reconciliation
indeed would come but
this would not be attempted until the eras of James G. Blaine, the American
Secretary of State  and
Domingo F. Sarmiento, the Argentinean President and well known writer. In
the interim the idea of
Manifest Destiny would fascinate the American ethos in the eighteen thirty's,
forty's and fifty's.

Discussion 5

James Monroe

I. Introduction

Monroe, James (1758-1831), fifth president of the United States (1817-1825).
Monroe was president
during the so-called Era of Good Feelings, a period of few political battles. It
was a time in which the
nation's democratic institutions were taking form and a national identity was
growing. President
Monroe successfully pursued a policy that served both to protect the United
States from European
interference and to foster unhampered growth of the nation and its economy.

II. Early Career
Monroe grew up in Westmoreland County, Virginia. In 1774 he entered the
College of William and
Mary, and in 1775 he left college to fight in the American Revolution. In 1779
he traveled to Virginia,
where he became an aide to Virginia governor Thomas Jefferson. He also
became Jefferson's pupil
in the study of law.

Monroe was elected to Virginia's state legislature in 1782. The next year he
was elected to the
Congress of the Confederation, where he served for three years. It was
during this time that Monroe
became interested in American expansion. In 1784 he journeyed through the
Western territories,
gathering information that helped to lay the groundwork for territorial
government. In 1786 Monroe
married Elizabeth Kortright. That year he also attended the Annapolis
Convention, at which the
delegates decided to seek a new constitution for the United States.

Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Monroe became a delegate
to Virginia's ratification
convention. Monroe voted against ratification, arguing that the new
Constitution created too strong a
central government and that it should contain a Bill of Rights. (Such a bill was
eventually written, in
the form of ten Amendments.) When Monroe was elected to the U.S. Senate
in 1790, the Senate was
dominated by two factions. The Federalists favored an active federal
government and a pro-British
foreign policy. Monroe aligned himself with the opposing faction, the Anti-
Federalists, of whom
Thomas Jefferson was most prominent. They favored a limited federal
government and a pro-French
foreign policy.

In 1794 Monroe resigned from the Senate to become minister plenipotentiary
to France. Although he
was instructed to calm French fears of American favoritism toward Britain, his
openly pro-French
sentiments found disfavor with President George Washington, and he was
recalled in 1796. When he
returned to the United States, political differences had deepened between his
friends and the
Federalists. From this time on, Monroe increasingly identified with the Anti-
Federalists, soon to be
called the Democratic-Republican Party.

Monroe was part of the diplomatic mission to France that negotiated the
Louisiana Purchase in 1803.
By adding the entire Louisiana colony of France to the United States, the
purchase more than
doubled the size of the nation. In 1805 Monroe went to Britain to negotiate a
treaty, but he was
unable to deal with the vital issues of a British blockade of French ports and
the impressments of
American sailors into the British Navy. President Thomas Jefferson refused
to submit the treaty to the

Monroe returned to Washington, D.C., shortly before Jefferson signed the
Embargo Act of 1807,
which was designed to end British harassment of U.S. shipping. Monroe was
bitter over the rejection
of his treaty, and his relationship with Jefferson and Secretary of State James
Madison deteriorated.
Monroe then returned to Virginia politics, and the rift with Jefferson was
gradually healed. In 1811
Madison, now president, invited Monroe to become his secretary of state.

When Monroe became secretary of state, relations with Britain had worsened
and war seemed
certain. While Monroe worked to avert conflict, Madison's administration and
the Congress of the
United States seemed determined to have war, influenced partly by the
prospect of annexing British-
held territory in North America. Monroe served as secretary of state
throughout the War of 1812 and
simultaneously as secretary of war for part of it. The war ended without
resolution of most of the
issues that had started it. At the end of Madison's second term, Monroe was
the logical presidential
nominee for the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalist Party had been
ruined by its opposition to
the War of 1812, and Monroe was easily elected. Daniel D. Tompkins served
as Monroe's vice

III. President of the United States
Monroe's first administration faced two major crises, one foreign and one
domestic. After a series of
raids by members of the Seminole tribe in Spanish-held Florida in 1817,
Monroe sent General Andrew
Jackson to drive them out. Jackson did so and executed two British subjects
for inciting the raids.
The incident brought a threat of war with both Britain and Spain. Monroe's
secretary of state, John
Quincy Adams, not only maintained peace but also managed to negotiate
Spanish relinquishment of
Florida to the United States and the extension of the western boundary of the
Louisiana Purchase to
the Pacific Coast.

The second major crisis had to do with slavery. When Monroe took office, the
states were equally
divided between slave and free states. In 1819 the territories of Maine and
Missouri both sought
admission to the Union. Maine petitioned for entrance as a free state, and
Missouri as a slave state.
Northerners objected to the admission of a slave state that had been formed
out of the Louisiana
Territory, while Southerners would not agree to restrictions on slavery in
Missouri. In 1820 Monroe
signed the Missouri Compromise, admitting Maine as a free state and
authorizing Missouri to be
admitted as a slave state. It also stipulated that all other new states carved
from the Louisiana
Territory north of 36°30' north latitude were to be free states.

Monroe supported the return to Africa of blacks illegally seized and brought to
the United States. The
capital of Liberia, where many slaves were resettled, was named Monrovia
after him.

Concerned with the fate of Native Americans in the West, Monroe adopted in
1825 the policy of giving
the native peoples land in the Great Plains.

IV. Second Term as President
His popularity at a high point, Monroe was virtually unopposed for reelection
in 1820. The major
accomplishment of his second term was the formulation of the Monroe
Doctrine. Responding to
threats of European intervention in the Americas, Monroe declared in 1823
that the United States
would oppose any further colonization or intervention by European powers in
the western
hemisphere. This policy, which became known as the Monroe Doctrine, was a
keystone of U.S.
foreign policy for many years.

As the election of 1824 neared, Monroe had no thought of seeking a third
term. A struggle broke out
within his Cabinet when three of its members sought the candidacy. His
refusal to take sides is often
blamed for the collapse of the Democratic-Republican Party into warring
factions during the
succeeding administration of John Quincy Adams.

Discussion 6

The Monroe Doctrine (1823)

The Monroe Doctrine was expressed during President Monroe's seventh
annual message to
Congress, December 2, 1823:

. . . At the proposal of the Russian Imperial Government, made through the
minister of the Emperor
residing here, a full power and instructions have been transmitted to the
minister of the United
States at St. Petersburg to arrange by amicable negotiation the respective
rights and interests of the
two nations on the northwest coast of this continent. A similar proposal has
been made by His
Imperial Majesty to the Government of Great Britain, which has likewise been
acceded to. The
Government of the United States has been desirous by this friendly
proceeding of manifesting the
great value which they have invariably attached to the friendship of the
Emperor and their solicitude
to cultivate the best understanding with his Government. In the discussions
to which this interest
has given rise and in the arrangements by which they may terminate the
occasion has been judged
proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the
United States are
involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent
condition which they have
assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for
future colonization by any
European powers. . .

It was stated at the commencement of the last session that a great effort was
then making in Spain
and Portugal to improve the condition of the people of those countries, and
that it appeared to be
conducted with extraordinary moderation. It need scarcely be remarked that
the results have been
so far very different from what was then anticipated. Of events in that quarter
of the globe, with
which we have so much intercourse and from which we derive our origin, we
have always been
anxious and interested spectators. The citizens of the United States cherish
sentiments the most
friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side
of the Atlantic. In the
wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have
never taken any part, nor
does it comport with our policy to do so. It is only when our rights are invaded
or seriously menaced
that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the
movements in this hemisphere
we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must
be obvious to all
enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers
is essentially different
in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which
exists in their
respective Governments; and to the defense of our own, which has been
achieved by the loss of so
much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most
enlightened citizens, and under
which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. We
owe it, therefore, to
candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and
those powers to declare
that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to
any portion of this
hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies
or dependencies of
any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with
the Governments who
have declared their independence and maintain it, and whose independence
we have, on great
consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any
interposition for the
purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny,
by any European power
in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward
the United States. In
the war between those new Governments and Spain we declared our
neutrality at the time of their
recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere,
provided no change shall
occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this
Government, shall make a
corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their

The late events in Spain and Portugal show that Europe is still unsettled. Of
this important fact no
stronger proof can be adduced than that the allied powers should have
thought it proper, on any
principle satisfactory to themselves, to have interposed by force in the
internal concerns of Spain. To
what extent such interposition may be carried, on the same principle, is a
question in which all
independent powers whose governments differ from theirs are interested,
even those most remote,
and surely none of them more so than the United States. Our policy in regard
to Europe, which was
adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter
of the globe,
nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal
concerns of any of its
powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government
for us; to cultivate
friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and
manly policy, meeting in
all instances the just claims of every power, submitting to injuries from none.
But in regard to those
continents circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is
impossible that the allied
powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent
without endangering
our peace and happiness; nor can anyone believe that our southern brethren,
if left to themselves,
would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we
should behold such
interposition in any form with indifference. If we look to the comparative
strength and resources of
Spain and those new Governments, and their distance from each other, it
must be obvious that she
can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave
the parties to
themselves, in hope that other powers will pursue the same course. . .

Discussion 7

Monroe Doctrine

Statement of United States policy on the activities and rights of European
powers in the western
hemisphere; it eventually became one of the foundations of U.S. policy in
Latin America. President
James Monroe made the statement in 1823. He asserted that European
powers could no longer
colonize the American continents and should not interfere with the newly
independent Spanish
American republics. Monroe specifically warned Europeans against
attempting to impose monarchy
on independent American nations but added that the United States would not
interfere in existing
European colonies or in Europe itself. Monroe emphasized the existence of
distinct American, and
specifically U.S., interests.

As far as the United States was concerned, the Monroe Doctrine meant little
until the 1840s, when
President John Tyler and his successor James Polk used it to justify the U.S.
annexation of Texas and
U.S. expansion in California and Oregon. During the 1870s and 1880s the
United States began to
interpret the Monroe Doctrine both as prohibiting the transfer of American
territory from one
European power to another and as granting the United States exclusive
control over any canal
connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans through Central America.

In 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt claimed, in what became known as the
Roosevelt Corollary,
that the United States could intervene in any Latin American nation guilty of
internal or external
misconduct. Roosevelt's corollary was used to justify subsequent U.S.
intervention in Caribbean
states. From the 1920s through the 1940s the United States reduced the
doctrine's scope by favoring
action in concert with the other American republics. Subsequently, however,
fear of Communism in
Latin America prompted the United States to return to unilateral actions,
without consulting its Latin
American allies.

The Monroe Doctrine has had strong support in the United States. It has
served other American
nations, too, particularly because it asserts their right to independence.
Because the doctrine
originally made no clear distinction between the interests of the United States
and those of its
neighbors, however, the United States has used it to justify intervention in
other American nations.

Discussion 8


A United States statesman. His genius for compromise won him the titles of
"the Great Pacifier" and
"the Great Compromiser" in the era proceeding the Civil War. He was also a
master parliamentarian
and an eloquent orator. Clay was an unsuccessful candidate for President
three times. Later he
remarked, "I would rather be right than President!" Clay was secretary of
state under President John
Quincy Adams. Twice he sat in the Kentucky legislature, the second time as
its speaker. He served 11
years in the U.S. House of Representatives, most of the time as speaker, and
16 years in the U.S.

In politics, Clay was a spokesman for the border state Kentucky and the
middle-of-the-road Whig
party. He sought to reconcile differences between the North and South on
slavery. Clay also
represented the nationalist outlook of the young, expanding Middle West. In
support of the region’s
territorial interests, he boldly urged war with Britain in 1812. Through his
"American System" political
platform, which called for protective tariffs for eastern manufacturers,
federally finance internal
improvements for the West, and a national bank, he sought to link the
industrial east with the
agrarian west.

                             Early Career

Clay was born in Hanover County, Virginia. His father, a Baptist minister, died
when Henry was barely
four. Clay had little formal education but was able to study law under one of
Virginia’s most famous
lawyers, George Wythe. At the age of 20, Clay was admitted to the bar. Soon
after he moved to
Kentucky. He became a successful criminal lawyer, and his reputation grew.
In 1803 he was elected to
the Kentucky legislature representing a district near Lexington, where he
lived on a plantation called
Ashland. He served from 1803 to 1806 and from 1807 to 1809. During 1806-7
and 1810-11, he filled out
terms of two deceased Kentuckians in the U.S. Senate.

Clay was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1810 and soon was
chosen its speaker. As
the leader of the aggressive, Midwestern "War Hawks," Clay helped push
President Madison into war
with Great Britain in 1812. In 1814, Clay resigned from Congress after Madison
chose him to be one of
the American delegates to the peace conference. During this period Clay
developed hostility toward
Andrew Jackson, whom he viewed as a dangerous political rival and who he
felt had slurred the
honor of Kentucky troops by accusing them of cowardice at the Battle of New
Orleans. Clay was
reelected to the House in 1815 and was again chosen speaker.

In 1820 Clay’s talents as a compromiser where first demonstrated when he
played a leading role in
steering the Missouri Compromise through Congress. This law reduced
tension between the North
and the South over slavery.

Political Battles

Clay returned to Kentucky in 1821, remaining there for two years. He was
reelected to Congress in
1823 and again became speaker. In 1824 he ran for President and finished
fourth. No candidate
received a majority in the Electoral College, however, so the House of
Representatives chose from
the top three. Clay threw his support to John Quincy Adams, the second-
highest man, who thereby
won over Jackson, the original leader. Clay became Adam’s secretary of
state. Since Adams
represented eastern financial interests, who views were opposed to those of
Clay’s Midwesterners,
Clay was accused of having made a traitorous deal. While secretary of state
(1825-1829), Clay was a
strong advocate of Pan-Americanism, the movement to foster cooperation
among nations of the
Western Hemisphere.

Jackson defeated Adams for Presidency in 1828, an in 1832 defeated Clay,
who thus lost his second
bid for the high office. In the meantime, Clay had been reelected to the
Senate, in 1831.

"The Great Compromiser"

In 1832 the South Carolina legislature voted to nullify a federal high tariff law
originally sponsored by
Clay. The state threatened to secede if President Jackson carried out his
threat to enforce the law.
Early in 1833 Clay piloted through Congress a compromise tariff act that
smoothed over the crisis

Clay resigned from the Senate in 1842, deeply disappointed over the failure of
President John Tyler, a
Whig, to support his legislative program. In 1844, however, Clay received the
Whig nomination for
President. He was narrowly defeated by Democrat James K. Polk. The
campaign issue was the
annexation of Texas as a slave state. Clay took an ambiguous stand and
thereby lost vital support
from both slavery and anti-slavery factions.

Clay was returned to the Senate in 1849. Again he helped head off civil war,
this time by proposing
the  measure that made up the Compromise of 1850. They included admitting
California as a state,
organizing territorial governments in lands won from Mexico, and granting the
South a stringent
fugitive-slave law.  Speaking in the Senate, Clay pleaded for national unity. He
denied that any state
had the right to secede, and predicted "ferocious and bloody" civil war should
it be tried.
(Compromise of 1850; Fugitive Slave Laws).

©1991 New Standard Encyclopedia – Standard Education Corporation –

Dialogue 5 by Dennis L. Pearson

Positivism Leads to Rebirth of the Western Hemisphere Idea.

A philosophy which had its birth or genesis in Europe played an important
part in reawakening the
Western Hemisphere Idea. Auguste Comte, a Frenchman, developed a vogue
called Positivism.
Positivism was more than a method: it was a system of affirmations, "a
conception of the word and
man." Comte believed that humanity required nothing less than the
reorganization of society to
produce social change. And as expected, political change would follow in the
same manner.

Clearly , Comte's reasoning is very scientific on this matter. In fact, scientific
reasoning is an
essential point of Positivism. Just the same, Positivism is able to be
interpreted in different ways. It
could appeal to the emotions as well as the intellect. The potential user of the
philosophy could pick
out what he/she found true or useful and ignore the rest. The philosophy
spurred all the Liberal
of the second half of the nineteenth century

According to Leopoldo Zea no other philosophical current since Scholasticism
has gained the stature
that positivism has achieved in Latin America. Scholasticism historically
representing the
philosophical movement dominant in western civilization from the 9th until
the 17th century and
combining religious dogma with the mystical and intuitional traditions of  
patristic philosophy
especially of St. Augustine and later Aristotelianism.

Scholasticism's conception of the world was imposed on Latin America by its
European conquerors;
and in the context of shedding off the vestiges of old empire,
countermovement's were begun
against the philosophy so associated with Spanish and Portuguese colonial
rule. Clearly many of
these new movements more often than not were destructive philosophies
designed primarily to free
Latin America from intellectual and political restraints  imposed upon them by
Spain and Portugal. But
none of these new movements gained the importance of Positivism.  
Positivism, in fact, as it
developed in Latin America proved to be a constructive instrument of
intellectual order comparable
to Scholasticism. Positivism as it spread from country to country in Latin
America contributed to a new
feeling about the United States and thus, fostered the renewal of the Western
Hemisphere Idea.

The Enlightenment ( a philosophical movement of the 18th century marked by
a rejection of
traditional social, religious , political ideas and an emphasis of rationalism)
had been the inspirational
philosophy, the symbol of a new order, for the first general of political
leadership in Latin America.
But as the first generation entrenched itself and system into power a general
disillusionment set in
among members of the second generation. The system that was dedicated to
despotism" degenerated into a pattern of alternating dictatorship and civil
war. The second
generation was looking for something better. Thus, Comte's philosophy
influenced learned scholars
throughout Latin America. Just the same, some men as Domingo F.
Sarmiento of Argentina and
Victoriano Lastarria of Chile developed a Positivism-like philosophy
independently of Comte and
Herbert Spencer. But in any case, upon the introduction of Comte's
Positivism and Spencer's brand
of Positivism known as Spencerism into the New World, Lastarria and
Sarmiento became converts to
the new system. Interestingly, Spencerianism is the synthetic philosophy of
Herbert Spencer that has
as its central idea the mechanistic evolution of the cosmos from relatively
simple to relative

In Europe, Positivism called for the establishment of a general system of
universal education for all,  
the establishment of a small circle of persons united by devotion or
allegiance to an artistic or
intellectual movement or figure and the establishment of political direction by
the enlightenment of
public opinion through periodical publications. In Latin America, Positivism
was taking on a distinct
form. Latin American Positivism was significant for its Liberalism except in
Mexico where it became a
tool of Profirio Dias. Secondly, it contained a strong anti-Spanish sentiment
which formulated itself as
Americanism. Naturally, the chief benefactor of the rejection of Spanish ideas
was the United States.


Dialogue 6 by Dennis L. Pearson

Positivism Leads to Rebirth of the Western Hemisphere Idea.

The United States represented a new model of progress that Latin American
writers rallied upon.
Their aim was to destroy in Latin America the destructive spirit that made
anarchy and despotism
possible. Spain to these writers represented the epitome of what was bad in
the world, and thus,
generated their scorn and discouraging word. Domingo Sarmiento upon
arriving in the Spain he
called "Barbaric" commented. "This Espana that has pleased me so much is
finally in the
amphitheatre under my hand. I came to Spain with the holy aim of putting it
on trial to give foundation
to accusation. As an already known prosecutor I must do this before the
tribunal of opinion in
America." Unlike many of his nationalistic contemporaries in South America,
Sarmiento did not see
the problems and destiny of each separate country as distinct and
independent. He found the
similarity of national experience in the Spanish speaking world during the
nineteenth century as a
sign of a common Spanish heritage. In the El Mercurio he remarked that Spain
and her colonies
began to move toward constitutional  government at the same time - the
difference being the fact
that whereas Spain tried to improve its institutions while the Americans
Colonies tried to free itself
from its foreign yoke. However, these institutions met with little success , and
a period of political
turmoil occurred throughout the Spanish speaking world. Expanding the idea
further in his Facundo,
Sarmiento said with emotion: " Do not laugh. Oh People of Hispanic America,
at seeing so much
degradation! Remember that you are Spanish, and the Inquisition educated
Spain in that matter! We
carry that disease in our blood!" Thus, Sarmiento developed the theory that
the situation could only
be attributable to the common Spanish heritage. He stated that the Spanish
race was condemned to
consume itself in civil war and soil itself with all kinds of crimes; thus, offer a
depopulated and
exhausted country as easy prey to a new European colonization. Sarmiento
bemoaned this fact in El
Nacional when he observed: " Any form of government is impossible in
South America, considering
the fact that the Spanish race inhabits the continent." Sarmiento looked for a
program to rescue Latin
America from this continuing curse. He found the possible solution in the
education system of Horace
Mann, a North American. Therefore, Sarmiento came to the conclusion that "
the dignity and glory" of
Latin America would come only when the education level of its people was
raised; thus, Positivism in
all countries of Latin America was dedicated to the promotion of education
and national betterment
for all classes of society.

Dialogue 7by Dennis L. Pearson

Latin American Response

More and more, Latin American writers tended during the Positivism
decades, though reluctantly and
with reservations, to see in the United States the idea in which their society
should follow. In this
regard Domingo F. Sarmiento,  an Argentinean, was a particular advocate .
Still, Latin America  could
not easily accept the Colossus of the North as a friend. The United States
alienation of many Latin
Americans is reflected in the following statement from J.M. Yepes, Colombian
jurist and historian of
Inter-American Relations:

"The predatory expeditions of the filibuster Walker against Nicaragua; the
imperialist war of the
United States against Mexico in 1847, under the questionable guise of the
Monroe Doctrine which
culminated in the dismemberment of the Aztecan republic and the loss of its
most flourishing
provinces; and the policy of 'Manifest Destiny' which then made its
appearances in some influential
spheres of North American public opinion aroused growing uneasiness in
Latin American peoples.
Justly alarmed by the dangers to their security the territorial policy implied,
the Latin American
republic again turned their thoughts to the warning that Bolivar had given in
the last years of his life
when he exclaimed: 'Unite America, for anarchy will devour you.' "

In the 1860's a new threat to the America's by European powers began to
change Latin American
views about the United States. In the United States the first half of the decade
marked the years of a
great Civil War. In Latin America it marked the last ditch effort of Europe to
intervene in the Americas
until the Twentieth Century. Between 1861 and 1865 Spain reacquired her
former colony of Santo
Domingo. In 1865, the Spanish Navy seized the Chinca Islands off the coast of
Peru and threatened
the security of all the west coast countries of South America, whose
independence Spain had never
accepted. In 1862, France, Spain and England blockaded the gulf ports of
Mexico, which was followed
by the establishment of the Maximilian Empire under French protection from
1863-1867. Involved in
its own Civil War the United States could little more than protest these
European expeditions in the
Americans. However, as the situation in the United States improved, the
United States put more
pressure on the Maximillian Empire which collapses in ruin with the pullout of
the European powers.

In analysis, the withdrawal of the European powers was due primarily to the
resistance of the Latin
American governments and people, but the attitude of the American
government was an important
contributory factor. The United States by its moral support of the deposed
Juarez government won
many friends in Latin America. Additionally, many friends were gained in the
Latin America for the
United States when the abolition of slavery deprived critics of one of their
favorite criticisms. Then
again, the cessation of filibustering deprived them of many more. By 1867
Francisco Bilbao, who was
very critical of the United States, began to write.

" Those Puritans or their descendants, have given the world the most
beautiful of constitutions,
directing the destinies of the greatest, the richest, the wisest and the freest of
nations. That nation is
today in history what Greece was to civilization, the luminary of the world, the
world of time, the most
positive revelation of divinity, in philosophy, in art, and politics. That nation
has given us the word
self-government, as the Greeks gave us autonomy; and what is better, they
practice what they preach
... Their free individual and political life all of its marvels depend upon the
rational basis for this
sovereignty: freedom of thought. What a contrast with South America with
what was Spanish America."

Francisco Cuevos Cancino said:

" ... In their attitude toward the United States and Europe, the Spanish
Americans began to reveal a
greater sense of understanding ... There is no longer the panic and fear of the
forty's, but a mere
exact appreciation of their historic significance, and if they continued to look
with wary eye on the
Colossus of the North, they were unmindful of the benefits they have derived
from its power."
Discussion 9

Comte and Positivism

(Glenn Everett, Associate Professor of English, University of Tennessee at

The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857) developed a secular
religion known as
positivism, which emphasized reason and logic, that he later systematized as
the Religion of
Humanity, complete with priests and a calendar of saints.

Comte divided the progress of mankind into three historical stages:

Theological: relies on supernatural agencies to explain what man can't
explain otherwise.

Metaphysical: man attributes effects to abstract but poorly understood

"Positive": because man now understands the scientific laws which control
the world.

Comte also founded the social sciences, and it is important to remember in
our more cynical times
the ideals to which they aspired. Comte and other early social scientists
assumed that human
behavior must obey laws just as strict as Newton's laws of motion, and that if
we could discover them,
we could eliminate moral evils -- in exactly the same way that medical
scientists were then
discovering how diseases worked and were eliminating much of the physical
suffering which had
always been an inevitable part of the human condition.

Comte left three major works, the Système de politique positive (1823), the
notes for his Cours de
philosophie positive (1830-1842), and the complete Système de politique
positive (1851-1854). In his
earlier, less systematic works he influenced such figures as J.S. Mill, T.H.
Huxley, George Henry
Lewes, and George Eliot; all gradually fell away as his philosophy became
more rigidly systematic.


A doctrine or system of philosophy inculcated by Auguste Comte (1798-1857),
French philosophy and
mathematician, and characterized by its respect for positives only, excluding
all knowledge except
that gained by actual experiment and observation of natural phenomena.
Comte asserted that all
speculative thinking passes through three stages: the theological, the
metaphysical, and the positive
("science"). In the first and second, deductions, founded upon either
superstition or hypothetical
data, are worthless. Only in the positive stage can human knowledge be
placed on a more sure
foundation, he said. Comte was thus convinced that a positive obligation to
the welfare of others was
the only real morality. See Altruism.

SIDEBAR: It's important to read Comte, Kant and all the others, to perceive
the issues and judge their
ideas for yourself. However, here's our bottom line. The 18th and 19th century
philosophers were attempting to break the hammerlock of the Church, and
they did so by defining
their theories of knowledge in such a way as to draw a line between the
revelations of faith and the
demonstrable facts of "science." Comte was typical of this effort, and his
morality of altruism was
typical of the philosophical consequences -- no divine right or wrong; only
Comte's preference for
human welfare, which he saw as "scientifically" provable.

The Renaissance came to a civilization that had sat in intellectual darkness
since the days when the
pagan gods had withdrawn before the assaults of the Galileans. Man began to
reassemble the
fragments of Greek culture (Platonism and Aristotelianism via Thomas
Aquinas) and the ancient
wisdom of the sages, which began the awakening of the soul of man. Hence,
the rebirth of reason --
which produced the Reformation, the scientific method, and finally, the
Industrial Revolution. What it
did not do was end the influence of Christianity, because guys like Kant and
Comte segregated
human knowledge into two separate spheres: the scientific and the divine.
Kings and popes were
placated and appeased with an unassailable social role that shared power
with the new "scientists."
Peasants remained peasants.


Devotion to the interests of others, a term coined by Auguste Comte (1798-
1857); the opposite of
Egoism. When practiced as a concept of morality, altruism is usually
accompanied by a code of
behavior imposed by church, state, or culture. To serve God's purpose or
your neighbor's welfare, or
to please someone beyond the grave, the altruist must surrender her self-
interest and her mind. The
opposite of the altruist is one who lives for her own sake. See Objectivism.

As women are typically the ones who tend to serve others (children, family,
etc), it is important to
understand the difference between a conscious choice to be of service for
something you value, and
coercive obligation dictated by an authority whose interest is said to be more
important than yours.
This is called slavery.


1. The tendency to deal with external reality rather than thoughts or emotions.

2. The philosophical doctrine of Ayn Rand O'Connor (1905-1982), Russian-born
American writer and
philosopher who emphasized the objective existence of reality, accepted the
validity of evidence
manifested by the senses, and restricted the validity of mental processes to
those which are
demonstrable in logic; also, her steadfast dedication to individualism and
laissez-faire capitalism (see
Political and Economic Isms).

The basic principle which inspired Rand was a revulsion for Russian
mysticism and Bolshevism,
which impelled her to research and formulate a rational alternative. Her
philosophy, described as a
bridge between Aristotelianism and the modern world, was articulated in
several novels (most
notably Atlas Shrugged) and nonfiction essays -- which were almost
completely ignored by
professional philosophers, primarily because her system entailed a
wholesale rejection of Kantianism
and Altruism.

Ayn Rand's writing is a must for every woman, even though she'll make you
uncomfortable at first.
She's simply stepping on your "altruistic" nerve, because you were taught to
put the welfare of
others before your own self-interest.

"Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." (Ayn Rand)

Discussion 10

Positive Science

The field of Geography stemmed from the evolution of scientific methods
dating back to the early
Nineteenth Century. In the years predating the concept geography as an
academic arena, there was
positive philosophy. Positive philosophy is a branch of thought sprouting in
the late Nineteenth and
early Twentieth Century's. In a movement named positivism, this
philosophical movement
emphasized that science and scientific method are the only sources of
knowledge. Positivism
branched from empiricism, the western philosophy that believes human
knowledge is born from the
senses and experience not from imagination, theoretical reasoning, or
supernatural beings.

Auguste Comte

Positivism came into the realm of philosophy in the early Nineteenth Century
from Auguste Comte.
Comte was a French philosopher, who applied scientific method to social
problems. His works
suggest that explanations in positive science can only be described through
experimentation and
experience. Comte wrote about three theoretical stages that human thought
has passed through.

In the theological state, all phenomena is the result of a single action from a
supernatural being.

The metaphysical state explains phenomena by relating its creation to a
veritable entity.

The positive state moves beyond a singular explanation of the Universe and
instead examines the
laws of the Universe through reasoning and observation, all phenomena is
subject to invariable
natural laws.

Comte explained how positive philosophy is beneficial as a new philosophy
through four

Logical laws are only described rationally, unlike the previous stages.

Positivism will reshape education with a new method of scientific inquiry.

Positivism will aid the progress of respective positive sciences.

Offers a basis for the reorganizing of society that follows the critical
conditions that most civilizations
then existed.

Comte organized the sciences in increasing complexity as such:
mathematics, astronomy, physics,
chemistry, and biology. But Comte committed himself to making sociology
the most complex of
sciences, with the implementation of positive philosophy. Comte grew up
with an interest for social
and economic problems. After he left Ecole Polytechnique in France, Comte
devoted himself entirely
to improving the study of people and cultures. He incorporated his positive
science theory into the
study of society, to evolve sociology to a scientific state.
Effects of Positivism on Geography

Positive science influenced parts of geography through positivism's effects
on education. After
Comte's writings, changes began occurring worldwide. With this
revolutionary philosophy,
Universities began changing the way in which the schools were teaching.
During the late Nineteenth
and early Twentieth Century, a New Geography grew from research in human
science in the

Sociology is the science of society and study of human social relations. As
geography developed,
several braches of geography evolved from the study of human relations, but
related more toward
man's relationship with land. From the study of man-land relations, geography
evolved to also
encompass the study of spatial analysis and area studies.


Works Cited
Aron, Raymond. Main Currents in Sociological Thought. New York: Basic
Books, 1965.
Comte, Auguste. "Account of the Aim of this Work; View of the Nature and
Importance of the Positive
Philosophy" and "View of the Hierarchy of the Positive Sciences." Chaps. in
Auguste Comte and
Positivism: The Essential Writings. Edited by Gertrude Lenzer. New York:
Harper and Row, 1975, 71-

Mill, John Stuart. Auguste Comte and positivism. London: Truber and Co.,

Discussion 11

A Brief History of 19th Century Argentina

Heath S. Douglas
Graduate Student in History
Mississippi State University

The biggest mistake that a student can make when studying Argentina in the
1800s is to assume
that it was a true union from independence.  The country declared itself
independent of Spain in
1810, but it was decades before there was a true unity in Argentina, and some
people will
argue that unity is not complete even  today.  Old Argentina, or the northwest,
was not under the
power of emerging Buenos Aires in the early 1800s, and sectionalism was
rampant throughout the
country.  The mainly rural northwest resisted all attempts by the porteños of
Buenos Aires to
exercise power.  

By 1826 the people began to realize something had to be done to unify the
country.  So there was a
meeting in Buenos Aires.  A new constitution was written and Bernardino
Rivadavia was elected

The provinces took offense to this, so Rivadavia resigned and civil war
ensued from 1826-1828.

It was at this time of civil war that the most influential man in
19th century Argentine history arose, Juan Manuel de Rosas.  In 1829 he was
elected to a three year
term as a federalist, meaning he was an advocate of a government sharing
power between the
national and provincial sectors, as opposed to an unitario, who would support
the idea
of a strong central government.  Rosas was really nothing more than a
gaucho (an Argentine
cowboy).  But he managed to make alliance with the Catholic Church and
even was successful in
enacting laws to improve education.  Yet despite his success, he left after his
term ended in 1832
to help drive out natives in the south and open up more lands for civilization.  
These achievements
of course made Rosas a national hero, and all the while his wife was back in
Buenos Aires stirring
things up.  

This would eventually give Juan Manuel de Rosas the chance to again be the
savior of Argentina.  As
the situation worsened in Buenos Aires, it became ever easier for Rosas to
ride back in and take
power.  He did this in 1835 and was elected to a five year term as president.  
What he did
was establish a dictatorship.  Opponents were exiled or killed, and school
children were taught of the
"Great Rosas".

Rosas was constantly involved in foreign crises during his tenure.  These
escapades with countries
such as Bolivia and Brazil served to take the public's eye off the prevalent
domestic problems of
Argentina.  Montevideo was blockaded from 1842-1851, and Britain blockaded
Buenos Aires from
1845-1847 because of disputes with Rosas

But as discontent bubbled in the interior because of increased taxes caused
by the blockades,
Rosas' hold on power became tenuous.  In 1851 Justo José de Urquiza, a
larger landowner from the
province of Entre Riós, cultivated alliances with anti Rosas parties from
Uruguay and
Brazil and some Argentine exiles and decided to take on Rosas.  There was a
battle at Monte
Caseros, and Rosas was defeated.  He was now forced into exile in England.  
But now who would
govern Argentina?

A Federalist constitution was written at Santa Fé and Urquiza was made
provisional governor.  But
Buenos Aires seceded and declared itself independent and the true
Argentina, led by Bartolome
Mitre.  Eventually,
Mitre's forces lost to Urquiza in 1859 and Buenos Aires became a part of the
Federation.  Yet fighting
broke out again in 1861 and Mitre won and was elected to a six year term in
Domingo Sarmiento served as president from 1868-1874.  He was very
education minded, and had
written extensively on the subject while traveling over much of the world.  
During his administration
the government invested heavily in education, building new schools and
improving the quality of
Argentine teachers.

Julio Roca followed Sarmiento and served from 1880-1886, and he by Juárez
Celman (1886-1890).  But
the elections were far from open and honest, which led to the rise of
university students in politics at
the turn of the century.  Out of this student movement grew the Civic Union
of Youth, which eventually split and the Radical Civic Union emerged.  Led by
Hipólito Yrigoyen, this
group wanted free suffrage and open and honest elections.  They allied with
dissident military groups
to try and overthrow the government in 1890, 1892, and 1893, and were
in all three attempts.  But as the century turned the Radical Civic Union was
already a very powerful
element in Argentine politics.

For Further Reading:

Ferns, H.S. Argentina (1969).

Kirkpatrick,   Frederick.   A History of the Argentine Republic (1931).

Pendle, George.  Argentina   (1955).

Rennie, Ysabel F. The Argentine Republic  (1945).

Rock,  David . Argentina:  1516-1982  (1985).

Rudolph,  James D., ed., Argentina:  A Country Study  (1985).

Scobie, James R. Argentina:  A City and a Nation, 2nd ed. (1971).

White,   John W. Argentina:  The Life Study of a Nation  (1942).

April 9, 1996

Discussion 12

Sarmiento, Domingo Faustino

1811–88, Argentine statesman, educator, and author, president of the republic
(1868–74). He was born
in San Juan and was largely self-educated. A man of letters, one of the most
illustrious individuals of
19th-century South America.  In the civil war that raged in Argentina in the
late 1820s, Sarmiento
fought on the liberal side, and when Juan Manuel de Rosas established his
dictatorship in 1835, he
went into exile in Chile becoming known as a journalist and an educational
reformer. There he  
published his Facundo (1845), an essay that has become a classic of
Argentine literature. In 1842 he
was appointed director of a new teacher-training institution in Santiago, and
three years later the
Chilean government sent him to Europe and the U.S. to study educational
systems  In the aftermath of
that tour Sarmiento was impressed by the school system and the political
organization of the United
States. He helped Urquiza to overthrow Rosas in 1852 and became active in
politics. Sarmiento was
Argentine minister to the U.S. from 1864 to 1868, and at the end of his tenure
he was elected
president. On Oct., 1868, he succeeded Bartolomé Mitre as president. His
administration was marked
by the conclusion of the War of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay, by
material progress, expansion
trade, opportunities, improved  transportation, and the promotion of  
immigration  Additionally, his
administration was vigorous and progressive in regard to the organization of
schools and the reform
of educational methods . . Sarmiento was succeeded by Nicolás Avellaneda.  
In his post-presidential
years he returned to his main interest, education. As director of schools in
Buenos Aires, he
reorganized the school system.

His essays on education and politics, historical studies, and critical works are
distinguished by crisp
style. Best known is Facundo, o Civilización i barbarie (1845; tr. Life in the
Argentine Republic in the
Days of the Tyrants, new ed. 1961), nominally a biography of Juan Facundo
Quiroga, but actually an in-
depth study of caudillismo, personalism in politics.


See Sarmiento's Travels in the United States in 1847, tr. by M. A. Rockland
(1970); A Sarmiento
Anthology (tr. and ed. by S. E. Grummon and A. W. Bunkley, 1948);
biographies by A. W. Bunkley (1952)
and F. G. Crowley (1972).


The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition Copyright ©1993, Columbia
University Press. Licensed from
Inso Corporation. All rights reserved.

Dialogue 8 by Dennis L. Pearson


In the United States the history of Spanish America is generally overlooked.
Consequently, the names
of past South American presidents and dictators ( some who are extremely
able, and others who were
less than satisfactory) are generally not household words in the United
States. These men in their
own nations are noted in history and their merits are debated by historians;
however, as I already
indicated outside their nations their fame is virtually unknown. But out of the
mass of these historical
figures stands one man whose fame did transcend national boundaries.
Domingo Faustino Sarmiento
being the man whose human story could not be enclosed within the borders
of Argentina for an
entire continent and hemisphere was affected one way or other by his public
message. Sarmiento
was a thinker, a writer, a diplomat, a journalist , a sociologist, an educator and
a politician who did so
much to change the history of Argentina and regenerate the Western
Hemisphere Idea.

Sarmiento was the man most responsible in developing a feeling of
Americanism in Latin America. He
was an advocate for better relations between Latin American Republics and
the United States when
such a view during the James Knox Polk years ( March 4, 1844 - March 4,
1849) might have been
considered treason in his own country. But because if the events of the
turbulent 1860's, Sarmiento's
views became accepted by the majority of leaders and intellectuals of Latin
America by necessity, if
not out of heart.

Sarmiento was schooled in the Enlightenment, although much later he
independently developed
views which made him the inspiration and forerunner of Positivism in the
South American continent.
His views being said to be developed in both negative and positive forms.
Negatively, he sought to
eradicate the tradition of the Hispanic man. To him the dictatorship of Manual
Rosas reflected what
was wrong with Spain and Europe. Accordingly , Sarmiento surmised that the
Spanish world reverted
to the traditional Spanish corruption of the Old Regime which was clerical,
feudal, bigoted, and
rejected the philosophy of the Age of Reason. In these words Sarmiento
bemoaned the dictatorship
of Rosas and Spanish Tradition:

" ... The revolution that the philosophers of the Eighteenth Century worked in
America, the example
of North America and France, and example that the Spaniard there and here
once followed, that
revolution that promised many benefits, was destroyed by a barbarian
educated by his barbaric
stepmother and who wants to realize in the Argentine Republic what Phillip II
realized in Spain.

In article after article, Sarmiento attacked the Spanish heritage. Stated
Sarmiento it was this common
Spanish heritage that all the evils and ills of Latin America could be blamed.
That is - civil wars and
hatred that were "tearing out her entrails," the lack of original culture or
learning, the attachment to
tradition and blindness to progress, the social control by clerical superstition
rather than reason, and
finally, the complete lack of original thought.

Positively, Sarmiento, at first, expressed great admiration for the French idea
of progress and
science and above all liberty, equality and fraternity. But as it happened
Sarmiento soon became
disenchanted with a system he initially advocated when in 1845 he journeyed
to France. To
Sarmiento's disappointment, he did not find in France the cradle of civilization
as he expected. What
he found was the following:

1. In France he found the Orleanist monarchies in a state of decline;
2. In France he found a society which was rampant in political corruption, in
social injustice, in self
aggrandizement, in complacency, and above all promoted the stagnation of
the masses.

France to Sarmiento would still be the cultural center of the world. But France
no longer would be
the system he wanted his own society to be based on. The French Society
was defective, it too
needed reform. Therefore, Sarmiento left France seeking a new rock to base
his society upon.

Sarmiento came to the United States in 1847. He observed:

" The United States is without precedent, a sort of extravaganza that at first
sight shocks and
disappoints one's expectations because it runs counter to preconceived
ideas. Yet this
inconceivable extravaganza is grand and noble, occasionally sublime, and
always follows its genius.
That social body is no misshapen being, no monsters of known species, but
rather a new creature ,
the offspring of a political generation, as strange as the fossil monsters
whose bones are still being
uncovered. In order to know how to observe it, it is essential first to educate
one judgment to
overlook its apparent organic defects in order to appreciate it in its true
character, the risk must be
run, however, that, having, overcome one's first surprise, one may become
deeply attached to it, find
it beautiful, and proclaim a new judgment about human affairs."

Sarmiento thus found a new model to pattern his Latin American society
after, it was not absent from
faults or injustices, but its vigor of life and spirit made Sarmiento succumb to
its will. Like Alexis fe
Tocqueville, he was awed by its untapped resources, its territorial extent, and
its unique republican
institutions. Unlike Tocqueville his faith in democracy and the united States
did not wane. In fact, his
enthusiasm increased as years passed.

In a letter to a friend dated November 12, 1847 he expressed the reasons for
his developing love of
the United States.

" God hath at last permitted the concentration in a single nation of enough
virgin territory to permit
society to expand indefinitely without fear of poverty. He has given it iron to
supplement human
strength, coal to turn its machines, forests to provide material for naval
construction, popular
education to develop the productive capacity of every one of its citizens,
religious freedom to
hundreds and thousands of foreigners to its shores, and political liberty which
views despotism and
its special privilege with abhorrence. It is the republic, in short strong and
ascendant like a new star
in the firmament. All these factors are interdependent : freedom and
abundant land, iron and genius,
democracy and the superiority of American ships. Try as you will to disjoin
this theory, assert that  
liberty and popular education have nothing to do with this unexplained
prosperity which is leading
inexorably to undisputed supremacy, that fact will still remaining revolution,
poverty, ignorance,
barbarism, and the degradation of the majority.

Sarmiento's enthusiasm was increased by his experience as Argentine
Minister to the United States
from 1865 to 1868. During Sarmiento's term as minister this enthusiasm made
him endorse the
Monroe Doctrine on the condition that it would be a doctrine of equality and
reciprocity among
Western Hemisphere nations, not an instrument that the United States could
use to subvert the
territory of its neighbors.

Dialogue 9 by Dennis L. Pearson


Domingo Faustino Sarmiento spent many years pondering what was
essential to achieve the goal of
fostering the betterment of the Latin American Republics. Finally, he
concluded that Inter-American
cooperation was essential to achieve this objective. He believed that such
cooperation could be
useful if it was generated in a social, industrial or economic basis rather than
political. Unfortunately,
that is not the way it is normally done. Such agreements to exchange
information on economic, social,
and industrial basis must be made in the political arena.

Honoring tradition, Sarmiento found himself representing Argentina at the
Lima Conference of 1864-
65 of Latin American nations. Sarmiento arrived in Lima, Peru with the belief
that the United States
was most able to bring Latin American advancement in education, industry
and science.

The Latin American Congress that met in Lima, Peru in 1864 and 1865 had a
multi-purpose objective. It
was to make an open declaration of the fact that Latin American nations were
one family united by
common principle and interests. It was an attempt to facilitate the movement
of mail across national
boundaries and to settle boundary disputes among nations where they
occurred as to prevent future
war. But as the esteemed representatives assembled at Lima it came
apparent that the most
important topic that was to be discusses would be the Spanish Naval action
off Chinca Island.

Upon assuming a position of leadership at the conference, Sarmiento wrote to
a contemporary.

"Without trying to, and only by the force of circumstances, I have acquired in
the American Congress
that position you saw me hold at the Santa Fe Convention, giving impulse to
the point of
exaggeration, and often serving as a common ground for meeting of
opposing ideas, often finding
the right phrases to conciliate divergences."

Sarmiento supported a resolution of the protested Spanish aggression off
Peru. Sarmiento even
went to the point of suggesting a plan wherein the Latin American republics
would use military force
to stop Spanish aggression. However, in suggesting this course of action,
Sarmiento went beyond
the powers given him by Argentine President Bartolome Mitre. Mitre attacked
the actions of his
ambassador and eventually pulled the nation from the conference.

The Lima Conference ended by adopting four treaties. The most important
was the Treaty of Union
and Defensive Alliance. Unfortunately like previous Latin American
Conferences not one of these
treaties were eventually ratified by the Congresses of the seven participating
sovereign states. Latin
American intellectuals had no choice but to move on  from the debacle by
beginning a new search for
fresh ideas or ingredients that would bring closer cooperation between Latin
American states.
Indeed during the time period, Latin Americans were able to accept Thomas
Jefferson's two-
hemisphere theory, but they were not prepared to accept Simon Bolivar's
plan for hemispheric peace.

Upon coming to the United States for the second time, this time as foreign
minister, Sarmiento was
able to speak out about the problems which beset his homeland and its
neighbors; and thus, he
instilled in the United States the urgency to aid her hemispheric sisters
escape from the tradition of
the Hispanic man. This point of view was evident in a speech made before
the Rhode Island Historical
Association. The title of the discourse being  North and South America. In this
speech he compared
the civilization of Anglo-Saxon North America with that of Iberic South
America finding personally the
former stronger by far. According to Sarmiento the reason for this strength
could be attributed to the
North American process of education, the industry of its peoples, and its
economic base. Then he
went on to extol those Americans and Rhode Islanders who aided Latin
America in the past. Noting,  
however, that these efforts were indeed noble but not enough to end Latin
American ills. Thus, he
called upon the United States to again assume the role of leadership, to send
school teachers,
inventions, new methods, and new products to bring a better world for his
people. Sarmiento
affirmed: " This is the only conquest worth of a free people; this is the
'Monroe Doctrine' in practice."
What then did Sarmiento advocate? Sarmiento declared that the Latin
American nations must North
Americanize themselves and draw closer to the United States in a
hemispheric association conceived
in the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine. This fixed reality according to Sarmiento,
if achieved, was
Samiento's vision of the hemispheric idea.

Sarmiento schooled in the Enlightenment was a product of the Positivism era.
He understood the
philosophy before it conquered Latin America. In the last decade of
Sarmiento's life, Positivism would
be at the height of influence. Thus, Sarmiento's views would come to
represent in Latin America the
opinion of the age. Definitely, at the end of the Sarmiento era and the
beginning of the James G.
Blaine era, a new spirit was developing toward the United States as the result
of renewed European
intervention in Latin American affairs and enthusiasm for the United States as
generated by the
Positivism philosophy. Indeed all over Latin America the spirit of
multilateralizing the Monroe
Doctrine to form an American system was definitely alive, especially since in
the United States the
idea of Manifest Destiny appeared to be abandoned by the American
government from the Latin
American viewpoint.

Discussion 13

James G. Blaine

Blaine, James Gillespie (1830-1893), American legislator, who was the
controversial Republican
candidate for the presidency in 1884. Blaine was born in West Brownsville,
Pennsylvania. After
graduating from Washington College in 1847, he studied law, taught school
and edited a newspaper
before entering the world of politics. His political career began in 1859, when
he became chairman of
the Republican state committee in Maine. A lifelong Republican, he served
two terms in the Maine
state legislature (1859-1863), then seven terms in the House of
Representatives (1863-1876), the last
four as speaker of the House. He was intelligent and well-informed, a dynamic
speaker, a relentless
campaigner and a skillful behind-the-scenes negotiator:  in short, a
consummate politician.

He was the early frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in
1876, but revelations of
influence-peddling damaged his reputation.  Instead, he ran successfully for
the Senate, where he
served from 1877-1881  

Blaine received the nomination as Republican presidential candidate in 1884.
Citing charges of graft
in a railroad deal, disaffected party members, known as Mugwumps, seceded
and helped defeat him
by a slim margin  in the election.   Nonetheless, he remained a powerful
leader of the national
Republican party.  He served two tenures as secretary of state in the Garfield
(1881-1883) and
Harrison (1889-1893) administrations.  In that role, he sought to extend U.S.
political and economic
influence in Latin America under the slogan "Pan-Americanism."Four years
later President Benjamin
Harrison appointed Blaine secretary of state. Blaine directed a foreign policy
shift to increase
protection of expanding U.S. commercial interests, thus initiating U.S.
expansionism in the Pacific and
Latin America in the following decades. Blaine retired from the Cabinet in

SOURCE:  Encyclopedia of American Biography.       

© 1999 Board of Regents, University of Wisconsin System

Discussion 14

Blaine and Pan-Americanism

President-elect Garfield named James G. Blaine, his former rival for the
Republican presidential
nomination, to his cabinet as Secretary of State. Blaine took office in March
1881.  As Secretary,
Blaine continued his long interest in Latin America, "first, to bring about
peace and prevent futile
wars in North and South America; second, to cultivate such friendly
commercial ties with all American
countries as would lead to a large increase in the export trade of the United
States."  He sought
exclusive U.S. control over any canal to be built in the Central American
isthmus, a goal finally
realized in the 1901 Hay-Pauncefote treaty with Great Britain.  He sought to
keep Hawaii as "part of
the American System," although Hawaii was not annexed until 1898.  He tried
and failed to resolve the
1879-1883 War of the Pacific between Chile, Peru and Bolivia.  President
Garfield’s assassination in
July 1881 elevated Chester Arthur to the presidency, and since Arthur
belonged to a different wing of
the Republican party than "the plumed knight," Blaine’s days in the cabinet
were numbered. After
Arthur canceled a planned Pan American Congress, Blaine resigned as
Secretary of State in
December 1881.  When Benjamin Harrison was elected President in 1888, he
invited Blaine to become
Secretary of State once again.  In 1889, a Pan American Congress was finally
convened in
Washington. Blaine followed up by campaigning tirelessly for arbitration
treaties with Latin American
nations and for Congressional authority to negotiate trade agreements on the
basis of reciprocity.  
Blaine’s "spirited foreign policy" also included settlement of a dispute with
Germany and Great
Britain over the Samoan Islands, long-running negotiations with Great Britain
over the right of
Canadian vessels to hunt seals in the Bering Sea, and resolution of serious
disputes with Chile and
Italy over the murder of American citizens.  Blaine’s major accomplishment in
his second tenure as
Secretary was the promotion of closer political and commercial relations
between the United States
and the nations of Latin America.  But even here these good feelings began to
deteriorate with rising
jingoism in the United States, which stirred latent Latin American suspicions
of the "Colossus of the
North."  Whether because of worsening relations with President Harrison,
deteriorating health, or
ambition to again secure the Republican nomination for the presidency,
Blaine resigned in June
1892.  James G. Blaine, "the man from Maine," died in January 1893 at age 63.

Dialogue 10 by Dennis L. Pearson


In a hemisphere wherein the idea of multi-national participation in some form
of peace keeping
organization was conducive, the United States, the Colossus of the North,
regained the leadership of
the Pan-American Unity movement in the 1880's. Please note --- the Norte
American most responsible
for this reversal of Estados Unidos or Gringo policy was James G. Blaine.
Blaine , thwarted by political
enemies from consideration as a presidential candidate in 1889, agreed to
become Secretary of State
in the Republican Administration of James Abram Garfield.

The imperious "Plumed Knight" from Maine, whose profession aside from
politics was that of
journalism, entered diplomatic service wholly without diplomatic experience.
As stated by Thomas A.
Bailey in "A Diplomatic History of the American People, Blaine's long years of
service in Congress had
developed for him an oratorical brilliance and unbending partisanship rather
than appreciation of an
adversary's point of view - a prime essential in diplomacy.

The Garfield Administration took office March 4, 1881. But last only a short
time as James A. Garfield
died September 19, 1881, the second American President to die prematurely
from an assassins bullet.
Of historical interest, Blaine within the short-lived Garfield Administration had
much influence
generally, but in the formulation of foreign policy with Garfield's backing he
ruled supreme. However,
Blaine's supreme influence did not survive Garfield's death and the ascension
of Chester Alan Arthur
to the presidency for he resigned as Secretary of State December 19, 1881.

In regards to Latin America, the Secretary of State developed a policy based
upon economic or
pragmatic influences rather than idealistic motives. As a politician who
happened to factor big
business, Blaine was concerned that his country's balance of trade with Latin
America was in the red
for $100 million annually. Please note - the period's trade trend was for Latin
American nations to ship
huge quantities of raw material to the United States, but buy the bulk of their
manufactured goods
from Europe. Therefore, Blaine's aim was to beat foreign competitors by
forming closer commercial
ties with hemispheric states. But commercial ties could not flourish amid
constant warfare and

Thus, in his own words, Blaine would observe:" Peace, is essential to
commerce, is the very life of
honest trade, is the solid basis of international prosperity."

Consequently Blaine wrote that the foreign policy of the Garfield
Administration had two objectives in
regards to Latin America:\

" First to bring about peace and prevent future wars in North and South
America, second to cultivate
such friendly relations with all American countries as would lead to a large
increase in the export
trade of the United States by supplying those fabrics in which we are
abundantly able to compete with
the manufacturing nations of Europe."

Thus, the essential point of Blaine's Pan Americanism was the maintenance
of peace. But the fixed
reality was plainly evident that Latin America was again in the time of
troubles. The terrible War of the
Pacific, pitting Chile against Peru and Bolivia, continued on the west coast of
South America as it had
since 1879; and territorial differences between Chile and Argentina brought in
another belligerent.
Then too, Mexico and Guatemala were at odds in a diplomatic controversy
threatening to involve the
two nations in a separate war of their own. At the same time, Costa Rica and
Colombia searched for a
method to agree on their boundary.

Dialogue 11 by Dennis L. Pearson


Latin America was a powder keg that indeed needed attention. Therefore,
Blaine and President
Garfield decided that it should be the policy of the United States " to induce
the Spanish States to
adopt some peaceful mode of adjusting their frequently reoccurring
contentions." Such an attempt
was regarded as "the most honorable and useful ends to which the diplomacy
of the United States
could contribute." The United States role in the system was that of a friendly
counselor whose
function was to mediate, advise but not forcefully intervene. The idea was
similar to the one
suggested by Argentinean Domingo F. Sarmiento that hemispheric nations
would be respected with
equality and reciprocity, that arbitration would replace the settlement of
disputes by force, that the
Monroe Doctrine was extended to mean a positive aid to the development of
that part of the world
which it affected.

Following the new foreign dictum, United States diplomats engaged in the
business of acting as a
mediator between disputes in Latin American nations. But it became apparent
that the United States
was not achieving what it desired.

In the Chiapas border dispute between Guatemala and Mexico, the United
States " acting as the
natural protector of Central American integrity" was pleased to use its good
offices to bring about a
peaceable settlement of the crisis. Blaine feared that in a war so unequal,
Mexico would extend her
borders by conquest. Thus, Blaine feared "another lamentable demonstration
of the so-called right of
conquest.," which would postpone indefinitely " that sympathy of feeling, that
community of purpose,
and that development of which depends the future prosperity of the country.
" Blaine accordingly
urged the conflict to be averted by diplomatic means, or these failing, by
resort to arbitration.
However, the Mexican government did not receive the suggestion with favor.
They accused the
United States with siding with Guatemala; and thus, Blaine in his last dispatch
on the subject
expressed deep regrets that Mexico was unwilling to join the United States in
establishing the
principle of arbitration to end foreign discord. Blaine hoped to see in a distant
day "such concord
and cooperation between all nations of America as will render war

Simultaneously with his endeavor to effect a settlement between Mexico and
Guatemala, Blaine was
shriving zealously to restore peace among belligerents of the War of Pacific.
In this effort Blaine also
failed for his ambassadors Stephen A Hurlburt and Hugh Judson Kilpatrick
became partisans of the
nations they served in and their replacement William H. Trescott could not
effect peace. Therefore,
the war which then was in its second year was destined to last three more

Only in the dispute between Argentina and Chile over Patagonia did American
mediation of
hemispheric disputes achieve its desired ends; and in this case, both nations
deemed settlement
necessary because of extenuating circumstances.

Consequently, it became apparent to Blaine that a new comprehensive plan
must be formulated to
bring peace to the hemisphere. Thus, in pursuance of his policy of promoting
peace and commerce in
America, he urged the calling of an International American Conference at
Washington to consider
methods of preventing war. The basic idea, of course, dated back to Henry
Clay, and since then had
received considerable support in Latin America itself. Blaine cited these
reasons for such action:

" The Spanish American States are in a special need of help which the Peace
Congress would afford
them. They require external pressure to keep them from war. When at war
external pressure to bring
them peace... If our government does not resume its efforts to assure peace
in South America some
European government will be forced to perform the friendly office. The U.S.
cannot play between
nations the part of the dog in the manger. We must perform the duty of
human intervention
ourselves, or give away to foreign governments that are willing to accept the
responsibility of the
great trust, and secure the enhance influence and numberless advantages
resulting from such a
philanthropic and beneficent course... At present the trade with Spanish
America was so strongly in
channels adverse to the U.S that besides our inability to furnish manufactured
articles, we do not get
the profit on our raw materials that are shipped there. Our petroleum reaches
most of the Spanish
speaking ports after twice crossing the Atlantic paying after a better profit to
the European middle
men who handle it than it does to the producer of the oil in the Northwest
Counties of Pennsylvania."

But President Garfield was shot on July 2, 1881 and remained in intensive
care until death claimed
the President September 19, 1881. As a result, plans for the Conference were
postponed until the
new President, Chester Arthur, could give his assent to the calling of the
Peace Conference. Blaine
secured lukewarm assent from Arthur and promptly issued invitations to the
Latin American Republic
on November 29, 1881 through his ambassadors. Unfortunately, three weeks
later, the Secretary of
State resigned from Arthur's cabinet as a result of a disagreement.

Blaine's successor, Frederick Frelingshuysen, immediately canceled the Inter-
American Conference
on the grounds that the War of the Pacific had not terminated as expected. Of
interest, nine nations
had already accepted the invitation. However, on the whole, the idea of a
hemispheric assembly
under the auspices of the United States evoked little enthusiasm at that
moment in Latin America. In
some cases the reaction was one of apathy. Yet in a few isolated cases the
invitation was viewed as
an attempt of the United States to extend its influence over Latin America. An
extreme illustration of
this suspicion was voiced among Chileans who were still embattled in War
with Peru and Bolivia and
resented what they considered was an open American intervention on behalf
of their enemies.

Dialogue 12 by Dennis L. Pearson


Historically, James G. Blaine, between leaving the post of Secretary of State
in 1881 and his return to
the post in 1889, was mainly preoccupied with other matters than Pan-
Americanism. Please note - one
such diversion was his unsuccessful campaign for president in 1884. Just the
same Blaine's goal of
enhanced relations between the United States and Latin America was not
entirely forgotten in the
interim between Blaine's two terms. The fixed reality being that in every
session of Congress, the
introduction of bills dealing with some phase of the subject made it clear that
members of Congress
were not satisfied with conditions affecting relations with its sister republics
to the south.
Consequently, commerce and trade with Mexico, Central America and South
America were the prime
issues dealt with in all proposed legislation. It plainly evident that Congress,
rather than the
Republican administration of Chester Alan Arthur ( September 20, 1881 to
March 4, 1885) or the
Democratic Administration of Grover Cleveland ( March 4, 1885 - March 4
1889), undertook the
initiative in developing the United States position in regard to hemispheric
issues such as trade,
development and peaceful resolution of regional disputes.

Historically, the Democratic Administration of Grover Cleveland having the
distinction of being the
first Democratic Administration since the outbreak of the American Civil War.

Leading the fight were Congressmen William McKinley of Ohio, John T.
Morgan of Alabama, and
publicists Hinton Rowan Helper, the author of Impending Crisis and William
Elroy Curtis, the author of
The Capitals of South America.

Curtis and Helper encouraged the movement toward hemispheric
cooperation by applauding it in
their writings and in appearance before Congressional committees. The
Congressmen pushed the
movement by introducing bills at intervals on such subjects as the
establishment of an American
Customs Union, an arbitration conference, and the feasibility of constructing a
Pan American
Railroad, an idea that particularly appealed to Helper.

The fate of these bills introduced by McKinley and Morgan often ran the
following cycle; that is, they
were introduced at intervals, reported on with hostility, killed in committee,
only in the future to be
brought to life again and re-introduced.

For McKinley and Morgan, a breakthrough would occur in 1884.  A  bill to
create a committee to
investigate conditions in South America actually received Congressional
approval. The bill created a
commission to consist of three people who then at the governments expense
be sent on a fact
finding mission to South America. Upon their return from this political junket ,
they were obligated to
give a report to Congress and the nation in regard to their findings.

Four years later, a bill designed to "promote the establishment of an
American Customs Union or
"Zollverin" was introduced January 4, 1888.

Of great significance, this bill in its normal course through the slow working
democratic process of
Congress was severely modified and  toned down in scale without divesting
it of its historical intent
when it achieved passage May 10, 1888. The bill, with amendments added,
provided for the calling of
a conference to consider various economic and commercial problems and to
formulate some scheme
of arbitration.

Most interestingly, the act became law without the signature of then
President Grover Cleveland.

Of interest too, James G. Blaine who eventually would preside over this
conference upon his return
to the office of Secretary of State can claim no responsibility for its calling.
Historically, this credit
must go to the foursome of McKinley, the future President, Morgan, Helper
and Curtis.

Dialogue 13 by Dennis L. Pearson


President Cleveland's Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard, under
Congressional mandate,  invited
the nations of the new world to send delegates to Washington D.C. for the
purposes of discussing
problems of common interest: questions of peace, trade and communication.
The historic reality
being that in October, 1889, representatives of Latin American states
assembled in Washington to be
greeted by the Secretary of State of a new American Administration.

It transposing that the Republican Administration of Benjamin Harrison (
March 4, 1889 to March 4,
1893) had replaced the Democratic Administration of Grover Cleveland. Thus
it happened that James
G. Blaine "The Plumed Knight" from Maine was back in his old job as
Secretary of State.

Immediately, Secretary of State Blaine invited the delegates to the
Washington Peace Conference to
tour the industrial centers of the United States as the gusts of the nation. The
object of the trip was
to impress upon the delegates the size and wealth of the nation, presumably
as a step toward
weaning them away from their European commercial connection and to
dispel Latin American fears of
the Colossus of the North.

Reassembling on November 18, 1889, the Conference settled down to do
some work with the
questions considered by the delegates the same as provided in the historic
act of Congress, that is:

1. Measures designed to preserve and promote the prosperity of the
American States;
2. Measures designed to create an American Customs Union;
3. Measures designed to benefit inter-American transportation and
4. Measures designed to create uniform customs and port regulations;
5. Measures designed to promote uniform weights and measures and uniform
laws of copyrights and
patents and extradition of criminals;
6. Measures designed to promote the adoption of a common silver coin;
7. Measures designed to establish a plan for arbitration of all disputes;
8. Measures designed to address any other subject relating to the welfare of
the several states that
might be represented.

Blaine vigorously tried to make the delegates accept all eight proposals. But
fate would have it that
he would be unsuccessful in this goal. Simply put, there were too many petty
hemispheric jealousies
which had to be resolved before universal accord  could be reached on all
matters. The Conference
closed on April 19, 1890. Importantly, the groundwork for future hemispheric
cooperation was laid.

Unfortunately, in regard to the main issue, the Congressional Customs Union
Project Proposal, the
Conference was a complete disillusioning failure. Why? As the meeting came
to an end, the project
was killed by its opponents.

For example, Argentine delegate Roque Saenz Pena made the point for
universalism against
regionalism in economic policy when he observed:

"What I lack is not love for America, but suspicion and ingratitude toward
Europe. I cannot forget that
in Europe and Spain, our mother; Italy, our friend; and France our older

Alluding to the motto of Custom Union Advocates," America for the
Americas," he offered in its place,
"America for all mankind."

Yet in other areas, however, the Conference was more successful in
comparison with other
attempted Inter-American Peace Conferences. Why? First, the Washington
Conference was far better
attended than any previous Conferences in Latin America. Eighteen American
states had attended
the Conference. Secondly, the Washington Conference actually enacted
measures which lived far
after its demise. For example, an arbitration convention was adopted, which
paved the way for the
elaborate Organization of American States peace organization of today.

Importantly - the arbitration convention as adopted by the Conference
granted the United States no
more power and no more important a position than the least of the Latin
American States.

Then too, the First Washington Inter-American Conference had a clear-cut
accomplishment in the
creation of the Commercial Bureau of the American Republics also known as
the Pan-American Union.

Please note - it being the main function of the Pan-American Union to collect
and distribute
commercial and general information among the republics in the hopes of not
only fostering the
exchange of inter-American trade, but also, to remove the great ignorance
among the respective

The fixed historic reality of note being that before the Pan-American Union
got under way twenty Latin
American States in addition to the United States would become Charter
members.  However, one
notable member of the American Community of nations was absent - The
Dominion of Canada
choosing not to be a member. Its preference was to maintain close ties with
the United Kingdom and
its Commonwealth of nations. Not until Canada entered into a Free Trade
Treaties with the United
State and Mexico in the late 1980"s and early 1990's would it assent to joining
the Organization of
American States.

As it happened, William E. Curtis, known earlier for his support of the
hemispheric idea, would be
appointed August 26, 1890 the first director of the new organization and would
serve to May 19, 1893.
Curtis's charge was to organize the administrative body which would operate
the Union and also
publish the initial Inter-American Bulletin of the Pan-American Union.

Discussion 15

By Jose Marti

(Essay appearing in La Nacion of Buenos Aires on December 19 and 20, 1889)

"Pan-Americans," says one newspaper; "Clay's dream," says another; a
third, "The right influence"; a
fourth, "Not yet"; a fifth, "Steamers to South America"; a sixth, "Manifest
destiny"; a seventh, "The
Gulf is ours." And still others: "That Congress!" "The subsidy hungers,"
"Actions against the
candidates," "Blaine's Congress," "The bread parade," "Blaine's myth."

The parade of delegates is ending and the sessions of the Pan-American
Congress are about to
begin. Never in America, from its independence to the present, has there
been a matter requiring
more good judgment or more vigilance, or demanding a clearer and more
thorough examination, than
the invitation which the powerful United States (glutted with unsalable
merchandise and determined
to extend its dominions in America) is sending to the less powerful American
nations (bound by free
and useful commerce to the European nations) for purposes of arranging an
alliance against Europe
and cutting off transactions with the rest of the world. Spanish America
learned how to save itself
from the tyranny of Spain; and now, after viewing with judicial eyes the
antecedents, motives, and
ingredients of the invitation, it is essential to say, for it is true, that the time
has come for Spanish
America to declare its second independence. . .

Dangers must not be recognized only when they are upon us, but when they
can be avoided. In
politics the main thing is to clarify and foresee. Only a virile and unanimous
response, for which there
is still time without risk, can free all the Spanish American nations at one time
from the anxiety and
agitation - fatal in a country's hour of development - in which the secular and
admittedly predominant
policy of a powerful and ambitious neighbor, with the possible connivance of
the weak or venal
republics, would forever hold them. This powerful neighbor has never
desired to incite them, nor has
it exerted control over them except to prevent their expansion, as in Panama;
or to take possession
of their territory, as in Mexico, Nicaragua, Santo Domingo, Haiti, and Cuba; or
to cut off their trade
with the rest of the world, as in Colombia; or to oblige them to buy what it
cannot sell, as it is now
doing, and to form a confederacy for purposes of controlling them. . .

. . . It is generally agreed that the (Pan-American) Congress will be nothing but
a worthless meeting,
or a presidential campaign banner, or a pretext for a subsidy hunt. Those who
know the benefits of
independence, and who cannot conceive of dispensing with it unless
absolutely necessary, are
expecting all this from the independent nations of America. Will the Gulf
islands be admitted to the
presence of the new master on their knees? Will Central America consent to
divide in half, the Canal
blade slicing through its heart, or to unite on behalf of the South as Mexico's
oppressor? Mexico is a
nation with the same interests, the same destiny, and the same racial
background as Central America.
Will Colombia pawn or sell its sovereignty? Will the free nations sweep the
isthmus clear of obstacles
to the juggernaut - those free nations that dwell there and will climb into its
car as did the Mexicans
in Texas? Through hopes of support against the European alien, because of
an illusion of progress
that is excusable only in a provincial mentality, will Venezuela, being nearer
and more ambitious,
stand up for the dominance of an even more dreadful foreigner who
announces that its eyes must
be, and are, fixed upon the entire American family of nations? Or must
admiration for the United
States go so far as to lend a hand to the exhausted young bull, like the
peasant woman in La Terre?

This blind admiration, because of the novice's enthusiasm or lack of study is
the main force in
America upon which the policy of control depends in this matter. It is a policy
invoking a dogma that
needs no foreign supplication in the American republics, for centuries ago,
even before entering the
innocence of childhood, these republics learned how to bravely repulse the
most stubborn and
powerful nation on earth. And with no assistance from outside sources, they
obliged it to respect
their natural strength and the evidence of their abilities. What is the use of
invoking the doctrine that
originated as much with Monroe as with Canning, to extend its dominion in
America in order to
prevent foreign domination there and assure a continent of its freedom? Or
must the dogma be
invoked against one foreign nation only to bring in another? Or does one
shake off foreign
domination - which has a very different character, different interests, and
different purposes - by
putting on the appearance of freedom and surrendering it in action? Is it
because the poison of
loans, canals, and railroads comes with the foreigner? Or does the doctrine
have to be crammed
down the throats of the weaker nations of America by the nation that has
Canada to the north, the
Guiana's and Belize to the south, and sees to it that Spain is supported?

. . . The free nations of America have reason to expect that the nation whose
influence threw the
French out of Mexico will rid them of the troublesome foreigner, brought their
perhaps because of a
desire to raise a barrier against Saxon power in the world's imbalance. . .
Walker went to Nicaragua
for the United States; for the United States Lopez went to Cuba. And now
when slavery is no longer
an excuse, the annexation alliance is afoot. Allen is talking about helping that
of Cuba; Douglass is
going to obtain that of Haiti and Santo Domingo. In Madrid Palmer is gauging
Spain's feelings about
the sale of Cuba; in the Antilles the bribed Central American newspapers are
stirring up interest in
the Washington-based annexation plans; in the lesser Antilles the Northern
newspapers are
constantly giving reports on the progress of annexationist ideas. Washington
persists in compelling
Colombia to acknowledge its dictatorial rights over the isthmus, and in
depriving it of the authority to
discuss its territory with other nations. And the United States, by virtue of the
civil war it instigated, is
acquiring the Mole St. Nicolas peninsula in Haiti. Some people consider
"Clay's dream" an
accomplished fact. Others consider it advisable to wait another half-century.
Still others, born in
Spanish America, believe they ought to help further the cause.

The Pan-American Congress will be an illustrious inventory showing in a
dignified and energetic way
which countries are defending the independence of Spanish America, the
fulcrum of the world's
balance of power. Or it may show whether or not any nations on a continent
occupied by two peoples
of different character and objectives can, through fear or confusion of
ingrained slavery or by being
induced to consent, decrease by their own desertion the indispensable and
already too meager
forces by which the family of a single nationality will be able to contain, with
the respect it imposes
and the wisdom it displays, attempts at domination by a nation reared in the
hope of ruling the
continent. Present-day events are proof of these attempts at dominance, and
this at a time when the
eagerness for markets on the part of its inflated industries, the opportunity to
impose the predicted
protectorate upon the distant nations and the weak ones nearby the material
strength needed for the
assault, and the ambitions of a bold and rapacious politician, are described as
reaching a peak.

Discussion 16

CHILE - History & Culture

The present-day country of Chile was born out of a very turbulent past. Her
people have been guided
through the years by a variety of different leaders, philosophies, and

Surrounded on three sides by virtually impassable barriers, Chile's rich
central valley remained
largely unknown to the outside world until the middle of the fifteenth century,
when the Incas began
their great conquests of much of the continent.  Under Tupac Yupanqui, an
Inca army succeeded in
crossing the six hundred mile string of salt basins that are the Atacama
Desert, moving from oasis to
oasis in a region so dry that some parts of it show no evidence of ever having
been rained upon.  
After coming at last into the central valley, the Incas encountered the
Mapuche, one of the three
Araucanian peoples who occupied the region.

The invading army seemed at first to be enjoying the same success that the
Incas were experiencing
all over South America, and they advanced about half way down the valley's
five hundred mile length.
However, the Incas soon found that they had met their match in the Mapuche,
who decisively
defeated the Incan attempt to cross over the Rio Maule into the Lake District.  
The Incas established
a stable presence in the territory they had gained, but they did not see fit to
pursue the redoubtable
Mapuche any further.

Less than a century later, a Spanish army attempted to do just that. In 1541,
Pedro de Valdavia
crossed into the central valley, having followed the Inca road south from
Peru. He founded Santiago
in February, and soon afterward crossed into Mapuche domains and
established strongholds there.
In 1553, in a gesture no doubt familiar to the Spaniard Valdavia, they bound
him to a tree and
beheaded him.

For the next four hundred years the Spanish, like the Incas before them,
found it appropriate to
maintain a massive defensive presence in the central valley. During these
centuries the regions
under Spanish control were permitted to trade directly with Peru: smuggling
flourished, and
privateers swarmed along the coasts.

Chile gained its independence from Spain in 1817, after seven years of
warfare. The Mapuche region
to the south, which had remained largely independent of Spanish rule, also
resisted the new Chilean
government. Capable of marshalling full cavalry forces and even modern
artillery, the Mapuche
succeeded in holding onto their autonomy until the middle of the century,
when large numbers of
armed settlers gradually moved into the region.

La Patria Vieja

The first government body was formed in 1810 and lasted until the "Battle of
Rancagua" in 1814.  In
1811, a "provisional" constitution was adopted which vested temporary
powers in the Chilean
congress. In 1812, it was decided that Fernando VII would be ruler, but that
the currently existing
congress would be accepted. Under the government of José Miguel Carrera,
executive power was
vented in a government "junta", and it was declared that no foreign law would
be recognized in
Chile. At this same time, a Senate was comprised of seven members who's
responsibility was to
support the Junta. The era of the Patria Vieja came to an end in 1814 when
power was removed from
the executive and vested in a "Supreme Dictator."

La Nueva Patria

The Nueva Patria lasted from 1814 until the end of Bernardo O'Higgins'
government in 1823. O'Higgins
was the first Supreme Dictator, and sought to regulate the lives of citizens
through the following
constitutional changes:
1818 - Executive power would be vested in the Supreme Dictator and the
system would be primarily
1822 - The term of the Supreme Dictator would be limited to six years, but he
could be re-elected for a
period of four more. Since the new law would not be retroactive, this assured
O'Higgins of ten more
years as dictator, a situation which was not acceptable to many of the
country's aristocracy.

National Disorganization

The period of time between 1823 and 1830 was one of anarchy. During these
years, there were
various attempts to control the country through a variety of laws which met
only the barest standard
of needs. In 1823, the Acta de Unión de Provincias was signed with the
objectives of electing Ramón
Freire as Supreme Dictator, organizing the nation politically, and creating a
Constitutional Congress.
This congress was presided over by Juan Engaña, and was commissioned to
write a new constitution
which was enacted later in 1823. This constitution was very "moralistic" in
nature, and it turned out to
be impractical to enforce because it attempted to regulate the private lives of
the citizens.

In 1826, Freire was renounced, and Manuel Blanco Encalada was elected as
provisional Chief of State
under the title, "President of the Republic." Encalada commissioned the
creation of yet another
constitution. Before work on the new constitution began, however, he
approved a series of new laws
known as the "Leyes Federales" which accomplished the following:

Divided the country into eight provinces in which provisional assemblies
would be elected and
composed of publicly elected deputies;

Municipal councils, governors, and parish priests would be elected by popular
vote; and  Executive
powers would reside in the President of the Republic who would be elected
for a period of three

Application of this federalist regime created all kinds of problems. The self-
serving ambitions of
some leaders and rivalries among provinces combined to create a political
crisis. In 1827, in order to
appease the growing numbers of people who wanted change, a liberal named
Don Francisco Antonio
Pinto was placed in power as Vice President.

In 1828, yet another constitutional congress came up with a new document.
This new constitution was
more liberal than the previous, but was still impractical. In 1829, as a result of
the presidential
election, a revolution developed in which the conservatives defeated the
liberals, and this upheaval
led to great public support regarding the need for a strong government. In
1833, José Joaquín Prieto
assumed power, and another constitution was created.

Constitutions of the Republic

The constitution of 1833 had an "authoritarian" feel to it. Great executive
power resided in the
President of the Republic; so much power, in fact, that consideration was
given to creating additional
legal tools which could be used by congress to control the executive. Still,
this constitution remained
in effect until 1925.

In 1925, under the leadership of Jorge Alessandria, power between the
executive and legislative
branches was equalized. With this change, the constitution remained in effect
until it was suspended
at the beginning of the Pinochet regime in 1973. This suspension was in place
until the foundation of
the Constitution of 1980, the constitution which is still in effect today.

Although Chile's war of independence brought into place a system of
representative democracy, the
country's political history has not always been smooth. In 1970, a Marxist
government under Dr.
Salvador Allende came to power, having responded to the perceived failure
of the established liberal
party. Allende's attempts to radically change the structure and direction of the
country brought about
a second political crisis however, and in 1973 a right-wing government under
General Augusto
Pinochet Ugarte seized power with assistance from the United States Central
Intelligence Agency.
Allende was killed in the coup, and Pinochet's government maintained power
for the next decade and
a half, frequently resorting to terror in order to stifle discontent.

In 1990, having failed in his bid to gain popular ratification for his rule,
Pinochet handed over the
presidency to the rightfully- elected Patricio Aylwin Azocar. Chile's political
climate has since
remained stable, although there is still considerable tension between the
military and the
government concerning the human rights violations of the Pinochet era.

Chile's population is composed predominantly of mestizos, who are
descended from marriage
between the Spanish colonizers and the indigenous people. The surviving
indigenous groups
consist of the Aymara, in the north, and the Mapuche, who number roughly
100,000 and continue to
inhabit the forested areas of the lake district. Chile is also home to a number
of significant immigrant
groups, including minority populations from virtually every European country.
There are signifcant
numbers of Basques and Palestinians. The high proportion of mestizos
among Chile's people has
made race a minor issue in comparison to class, which continues to be a
source of considerable
tension. The great majority of Chile's people, as one might expect, are
concentrated in the central
valley. Spanish is the country's official language, but some of the Indian
dialects remain. In the north,
they speak Aymara, in the south Mapuche, and on Easter Island the
Polynesian language of Rapa Nui.


Copyright (c) 1998 interKnowledge Corp. All rights reserved

Discussion 17

*Signed in Bogotá in 1948 and amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires in
1967 and by the Protocol
of Cartagena de Indias in 1985. In force as of November 16, 1988.



Convinced that the historic mission of America is to offer to man a land of
liberty and a favorable
environment for the development of his personality and the realization of his
just aspirations;

Conscious that that mission has already inspired numerous agreements,
whose essential value lies
in the desire of the American peoples to live together in peace and, through
their mutual
understanding and respect for the sovereignty of each one, to provide for the
betterment of all, in
independence, in equality and under law;

Convinced that representative democracy is an indispensable condition for
the stability, peace and
development of the region;

Confident that the true significance of American solidarity and good
neighborliness can only mean
the consolidation on this continent, within the framework of democratic
institutions, of a system of
individual liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights
of man;

Persuaded that their welfare and their contribution to the progress and the
civilization of the world
will increasingly require intensive continental cooperation;

Resolved to persevere in the noble undertaking that humanity has conferred
upon the United
Nations, whose principles and purposes they solemnly reaffirm;

Convinced that juridical organization is a necessary condition for security and
peace founded on
moral order and on justice; and

In accordance with Resolution IX of the Inter-American Conference on
Problems of War and Peace,
held in Mexico City,

upon the following



In 1889-1890 delegates from the nations of the Americas assembled in
Washington, D.C. for the First
International Conference of American States. Most of the session held on 10
April 1890 was spent
debating the nature of a memorial of the first gathering of representatives
from the American
nations. The distinguished and eloquent Delegate from Colombia,
Ambassador Carlos Martinez Silva,
stated his views in the following manner:

"...the memorial to be erected ought to be something at once useful and
made up of elements, to
which each government might contribute independently, [and] it occurred to
me that the only plan
which would satisfy all these requirements was the establishment in
Washington of a memorial
library, to which each government could send, on its own account, the most
complete collection
possible of historical, literary, and geographical works, laws, official reports,
maps, etc., so that the
results of intellectual and scientific labor in all America might be collected
together under a single
roof... That would be a monument more lasting and more noble than any in
bronze or marble."

By a unanimous vote the motion was approved.

Almost immediately thereafter the collection of books and provision for
reading and housing them
were provided by the Director of the Bureau of the American Republics. The
first book actually
registered in the "Accessions Catalogue of the Library of the Bureau", on 27
October 1890, was
Delmar's Classified Trades Directory, 1889-1890, published by Belford, Clark
and Company of Chicago.

The formal establishment of the library as the Columbus Memorial Library
occurred on 24 January
1902, when the Second International American Conference, meeting in
Mexico, adopted a resolution
on the reorganization of the Bureau. In part, this resolution read as follows:

Under authority of the Governing Board of the International Union of the
American Republics, and as
a division of the Bureau of said Republics, a Latin American Library, to be
known as the "Columbus
Memorial Library" is hereby established...

On 7 April 1902, the Governing Board appointed as first Librarian, Dr. Jose
Ignacio Rodriguez, noted
Cuban scholar and book collector. He guided the affairs of the Library in its
infancy, never ceasing to
work for its constructive organization. One of his endeavors was to see the
fulfillment of the project
mentioned in the following resolution of the Rio de Janeiro Conference held
in 1906:

The Third International American Conference resolved...to express its
gratification that the project to
establish a permanent center of information and of interchange of ideas
among the Republics of this
Continent, as well as the erection of a building suitable for the Library in
memory of Columbus, has
been realized...

This permanent center of information was located in the Pan American Union
Building, which was
constructed through the largesse of Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who gave $
750,000 for the erection of the
Building. The Columbus Memorial Library prospered and grew in this location
until the size of the
collections far exceeded the space available for housing them in the Building.

In 1982 the Librarian recommended that the collections and staff of the
Columbus Memorial Library
be relocated to the Administrative Services Building in order to increase shelf
space and to provide
additional space for readers. Upon approval by the Permanent Council, the
renovation of the
Basement and Ground Floor of the Building was initiated. The Columbus
*Signed in Bogotá in 1948 and amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires in
1967 and by the Protocol
of Cartagena de Indias in 1985. In force as of November 16, 1988.



Convinced that the historic mission of America is to offer to man a land of
liberty and a favorable
environment for the development of his personality and the realization of his
just aspirations;

Conscious that that mission has already inspired numerous agreements,
whose essential value lies
in the desire of the American peoples to live together in peace and, through
their mutual
understanding and respect for the sovereignty of each one, to provide for the
betterment of all, in
independence, in equality and under law;

Convinced that representative democracy is an indispensable condition for
the stability, peace and
development of the region;

Confident that the true significance of American solidarity and good
neighborliness can only mean
the consolidation on this continent, within the framework of democratic
institutions, of a system of
individual liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights
of man;

Persuaded that their welfare and their contribution to the progress and the
civilization of the world
will increasingly require intensive continental cooperation;

Resolved to persevere in the noble undertaking that humanity has conferred
upon the United
Nations, whose principles and purposes they solemnly reaffirm;

Convinced that juridical organization is a necessary condition for security and
peace founded on
moral order and on justice; and

In accordance with Resolution IX of the Inter-American Conference on
Problems of War and Peace,
held in Mexico City,

upon the following

Memorial Library inaugurated services in its new quarters on 15 January 1988
continuing the
mandates of the farsighted delegates of the First International Conference of
American States.

The Columbus Memorial Library is responsible for serving the entire OAS
Secretariat, missions,
researchers and scholars from Member countries and the rest of the world. In
addition to acquiring,
cataloging and providing reference services for traditional library materials,
the library is also
responsible for a manuscripts collection, the archives and records
management program and
documents control programs.


Chapter I
Article l

The American States establish by this Charter the international organization
that they have
developed to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their
solidarity, to strengthen their
collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and
their independence.
Within the United Nations, the Organization of American States is a regional

The Organization of American States has no powers other than those
expressly conferred upon it by
this Charter, none of whose provisions authorizes it to intervene in matters
that are within the
internal jurisdiction of the Member States.

Article 2

The Organization of American States, in order to put into practice the
principles on which it is
founded and to fulfill its regional obligations under the Charter of the United
Nations, proclaims the
following essential purposes:

To strengthen the peace and security of the continent;

To promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for
the principle of

To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement
of disputes that may
arise among the Member States;

To provide for common action on the part of those States in the event of

To seek the solution of political, juridical, and economic problems that may
arise among them;

To promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social, and cultural
development; and

To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it
possible to devote the
largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the
Member States.

Chapter II


Article 3

The American States reaffirm the following principles:

International law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal

International order consists essentially of respect for the personality,
sovereignty, and
independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived
from treaties and other
sources of international law;

Good faith shall govern the relations between States;

The solidarity of the American States and the high aims which are sought
through it require the
political organization of those States on the basis of the effective exercise of

Every State has the right to choose, without external interference, its political,
economic, and social
system and to organize itself in the way best suited to it, and has the duty to
abstain from intervening
in the affairs of another State. Subject to the foregoing, the American States
shall cooperate fully
among themselves, independently of the nature of their political, economic,
and social systems;

The American States condemn war of aggression: victory does not give

An act of aggression against one American State is an act of aggression
against all the other
American States;

Controversies of an international character arising between two or more
American States shall be
settled by peaceful procedures;

Social justice and social security are bases of lasting peace;

Economic cooperation is essential to the common welfare and prosperity of
the peoples of the

The American States proclaim the fundamental rights of the individual without
distinction as to race,
nationality, creed, or sex;

The spiritual unity of the continent is based on respect for the cultural values
of the American
countries and requires their close cooperation for the high purposes of

The education of peoples should be directed toward justice, freedom, and

Chapter III

Article 4

All American States that ratify the present Charter are Members of the

Article 5

Any new political entity that arises from the union of several Member States
and that, as such, ratifies
the present Charter, shall become a Member of the Organization. The entry of
the new political entity
into the Organization shall result in the loss of membership of each one of the
States which
constitute it.

Article 6

Any other independent American State that desires to become a Member of
the Organization should
so indicate by means of a note addressed to the Secretary General, in which
it declares that it is
willing to sign and ratify the Charter of the Organization and to accept all the
obligations inherent in
membership, especially those relating to collective security expressly set
forth in Articles 27 and 28
of the Charter.

Article 7

The General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Permanent Council
of the Organization, shall
determine whether it is appropriate that the Secretary General be authorized
to permit the applicant
State to sign the Charter and to accept the deposit of the corresponding
instrument of ratification.
Both the recommendation of the Permanent Council and the decision of the
General Assembly shall
require the affirmative vote of two thirds of the Member States.

Article 8

Membership in the Organization shall be confined to independent States of
the Hemisphere that
were members of the United Nations as of December l0, l985, and the
nonautonomous territories
mentioned in document OEA/Ser. P, AG/doc.l939/85, of November 5, l985,
when they become

Chapter IV


Article 9

States are juridically equal, enjoy equal rights and equal capacity to exercise
these rights, and have
equal duties. The rights of each State depend not upon its power to ensure
the exercise thereof, but
upon the mere fact of its existence as a person under international law.

Article l0

Every American State has the duty to respect the rights enjoyed by every
other State in accordance
with international law.

Article ll

The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner

Article l2

The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other
States. Even before being
recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence,
to provide for its
preservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit,
to legislate concerning
its interests, to administer its services, and to determine the jurisdiction and
competence of its
courts. The exercise of these rights is limited only by the exercise of the
rights of other States in
accordance with international law.

Article l3

Recognition implies that the State granting it accepts the personality of the
new State, with all the
rights and duties that international law prescribes for the two States.

Article l4

The right of each State to protect itself and to live its own life does not
authorize it to commit unjust
acts against another State.

Article l5

The jurisdiction of States within the limits of their national territory is
exercised equally over all the
inhabitants, whether nationals or aliens.

Article l6

Each State has the right to develop its cultural, political, and economic life
freely and naturally. In this
free development, the State shall respect the rights of the individual and the
principles of universal

Article l7

Respect for and the faithful observance of treaties constitute standards for
the development of
peaceful relations among States. International treaties and agreements
should be public.

Article l8

No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for
any reason whatever,
in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle
prohibits not only armed
force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the
personality of the State
or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.

Article l9

No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic
or political character in
order to force the sovereign will of another State and obtain from it
advantages of any kind.

Article 20

The territory of a State is inviolable; it may not be the object, even
temporarily, of military occupation
or of other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on
any grounds whatever.
No territorial acquisitions or special advantages obtained either by force or by
other means of
coercion shall be recognized.

Article 2l

The American States bind themselves in their international relations not to
have recourse to the use
of force, except in the case of self-defense in accordance with existing
treaties or in fulfillment

Article 22

Measures adopted for the maintenance of peace and security in accordance
with existing treaties do
not constitute a violation of the principles set forth in Articles l8 and 20.

Chapter V


Article 23

International disputes between Member States shall be submitted to the
peaceful procedures set
forth in this Charter.

This provision shall not be interpreted as an impairment of the rights and
obligations of the Member
States under Articles 34 and 35 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 24

The following are peaceful procedures: direct negotiation, good offices,
mediation, investigation and
conciliation, judicial settlement, arbitration, and those which the parties to the
dispute may especially
agree upon at any time.

Article 25

In the event that a dispute arises between two or more American States
which, in the opinion of one
of them, cannot be settled through the usual diplomatic channels, the parties
shall agree on some
other peaceful procedure that will enable them to reach a solution.

Article 26

A special treaty will establish adequate means for the settlement of disputes
and will determine
pertinent procedures for each peaceful means such that no dispute between
American States may
remain without definitive settlement within a reasonable period of time.

Chapter VI


Article 27

Every act of aggression by a State against the territorial integrity or the
inviolability of the territory or
against the sovereignty or political independence of an American State shall
be considered an act of
aggression against the other American States.

Article 28

If the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political
independence of any
American State should be affected by an armed attack or by an act of
aggression that is not an armed
attack, or by an extracontinental conflict, or by a conflict between two or more
American States, or by
any other fact or situation that might endanger the peace of America, the
American States, in
furtherance of the principles of continental solidarity or collective self-
defense, shall apply the
measures and procedures established in the special treaties on the subject.

technology through educational, research, and technological development
activities and information
and dissemination programs. They will stimulate activities in the field of
technology for the purpose
of adapting it to the needs of their integral development. They will organize
their cooperation in
these fields efficiently and will substantially increase exchange of
knowledge, in accordance with
national objectives and laws and with treaties in force.

Chapter VII


Article 29

The Member States, inspired by the principles of inter-American solidarity
and cooperation, pledge
themselves to a united effort to ensure international social justice in their
relations and integral
development for their peoples, as conditions essential to peace and security.
Integral development
encompasses the economic, social, educational, cultural, scientific, and
technological fields through
which the goals that each country sets for accomplishing it should be

Article 30

Inter-American cooperation for integral development is the common and joint
responsibility of the
Member States, within the framework of the democratic principles and the
institutions of the inter-
American system. It should include the economic, social, educational,
cultural, scientific, and
technological fields, support the achievement of national objectives of the
Member States, and
respect the priorities established by each country in its development plans,
without political ties or

Article 31

Inter-American cooperation for integral development should be continuous
and preferably channeled
through multilateral organizations, without prejudice to bilateral cooperation
between Member States.

The Member States shall contribute to inter-American cooperation for integral
development in
accordance with their resources and capabilities and in conformity with their

Article 32

Development is a primary responsibility of each country and should
constitute an integral and
continuous process for the establishment of a more just economic and social
order that will make
possible and contribute to the fulfillment of the individual.

Article 33

The Member States agree that equality of opportunity, equitable distribution
of wealth and income,
and the full participation of their peoples in decisions relating to their own
development are, among
others, basic objectives of integral development. To achieve them, they
likewise agree to devote
their utmost efforts to accomplishing the following basic goals:

Substantial and self-sustained increase of per capita national product;

Equitable distribution of national income;

Adequate and equitable systems of taxation;

Modernization of rural life and reforms leading to equitable and efficient land-
tenure systems,
increased agricultural productivity, expanded use of land, diversification of
production and improved
processing and marketing systems for agricultural products; and the
strengthening and expansion of
the means to attain these ends;

Accelerated and diversified industrialization, especially of capital and
intermediate goods;

Stability of domestic price levels, compatible with sustained economic
development and the
attainment of social justice;

Fair wages, employment opportunities, and acceptable working conditions for

Rapid eradication of illiteracy and expansion of educational opportunities for

Protection of man's potential through the extension and application of modern
medical science;

Proper nutrition, especially through the acceleration of national efforts to
increase the production
and availability of food;

Adequate housing for all sectors of the population;

Urban conditions that offer the opportunity for a healthful, productive, and full

Promotion of private initiative and investment in harmony with action in the
public sector; and

Expansion and diversification of exports.

Article 34

The Member States should refrain from practicing policies and adopting
actions or measures that
have serious adverse effects on the development of other Member States.

Article 35

Transnational enterprises and foreign private investment shall be subject to
the legislation of the
host countries and to the jurisdiction of their competent courts and to the
international treaties and
agreements to which said countries are parties, and should conform to the
development policies of
the recipient countries.

Article 36

The Member States agree to join together in seeking a solution to urgent or
critical problems that
may arise whenever the economic development or stability of any Member
State is seriously affected
by conditions that cannot be remedied through the efforts of that State.

Article 37

The Member States shall extend among themselves the benefits of science
and technology by
encouraging the exchange and utilization of scientific and technical
knowledge in accordance with
existing treaties and national laws.

Article 38

The Member States, recognizing the close interdependence between foreign
trade and economic
and social development, should make individual and united efforts to bring
about the following:

Favorable conditions of access to world markets for the products of the
developing countries of the
region, particularly through the reduction or elimination, by importing
countries, of tariff and nontariff
barriers that affect the exports of the Member States of the Organization,
except when such barriers
are applied in order to diversify the economic structure, to speed up the
development of the less-
developed Member States, and intensify their process of economic
integration, or when they are
related to national security or to the needs of economic balance;

Continuity in their economic and social development by means of:

Improved conditions for trade in basic commodities through international
agreements, where
appropriate; orderly marketing procedures that avoid the disruption of
markets, and other measures
designed to promote the expansion of markets and to obtain dependable
incomes for producers,
adequate and dependable supplies for consumers, and stable prices that are
both remunerative to
producers and fair to consumers;

Improved international financial cooperation and the adoption of other means
for lessening the
adverse impact of sharp fluctuations in export earnings experienced by the
countries exporting
basic commodities;

Diversification of exports and expansion of export opportunities for
manufactured and
semimanufactured products from the developing countries; and

Conditions conducive to increasing the real export earnings of the Member
States, particularly the
developing countries of the region, and to increasing their participation in
international trade.

Article 39

The Member States reaffirm the principle that when the more developed
countries grant
concessions in international trade agreements that lower or eliminate tariffs
or other barriers to
foreign trade so that they benefit the less-developed countries, they should
not expect reciprocal
concessions from those countries that are incompatible with their economic
development, financial,
and trade needs.

Article 40

The Member States, in order to accelerate their economic development,
regional integration, and the
expansion and improvement of the conditions of their commerce, shall
promote improvement and
coordination of transportation and communication in the developing countries
and among the
Member States.

Article 41

The Member States recognize that integration of the developing countries of
the Hemisphere is one
of the objectives of the inter-American system and, therefore, shall orient
their efforts and take the
necessary measures to accelerate the integration process, with a view to
establishing a Latin
American common market in the shortest possible time.

Article 42

In order to strengthen and accelerate integration in all its aspects, the
Member States agree to give
adequate priority to the preparation and carrying out of multinational projects
and to their financing,
as well as to encourage economic and financial institutions of the inter-
American system to continue
giving their broadest support to regional integration institutions and programs.

Article 43

The Member States agree that technical and financial cooperation that seeks
to promote regional
economic integration should be based on the principle of harmonious,
balanced, and efficient
development, with particular attention to the relatively less-developed
countries, so that it may be a
decisive factor that will enable them to promote, with their own efforts, the
improved development of
their infrastructure programs, new lines of production, and export

Article 44

The Member States, convinced that man can only achieve the full realization
of his aspirations within
a just social order, along with economic development and true peace, agree
to dedicate every effort
to the application of the following principles and mechanisms:

All human beings, without distinction as to race, sex, nationality, creed, or
social condition, have a
right to material well-being and to their spiritual development, under
circumstances of liberty, dignity,
equality of opportunity, and economic security;

Work is a right and a social duty, it gives dignity to the one who performs it,
and it should be
performed under conditions, including a system of fair wages, that ensure
life, health, and a decent
standard of living for the worker and his family, both during his working years
and in his old age, or
when any circumstance deprives him of the possibility of working;

Employers and workers, both rural and urban, have the right to associate
themselves freely for the
defense and promotion of their interests, including the right to collective
bargaining and the
workers' right to strike, and recognition of the juridical personality of
associations and the protection
of their freedom and independence, all in accordance with applicable laws;

Fair and efficient systems and procedures for consultation and collaboration
among the sectors of
production, with due regard for safeguarding the interests of the entire

The operation of systems of public administration, banking and credit,
enterprise, and distribution
and sales, in such a way, in harmony with the private sector, as to meet the
requirements and
interests of the community;

The incorporation and increasing participation of the marginal sectors of the
population, in both rural
and urban areas, in the economic, social, civic, cultural, and political life of the
nation, in order to
achieve the full integration of the national community, acceleration of the
process of social mobility,
and the consolidation of the democratic system. The encouragement of all
efforts of popular
promotion and cooperation that have as their purpose the development and
progress of the

Recognition of the importance of the contribution of organizations such as
labor unions,
cooperatives, and cultural, professional, business, neighborhood, and
community associations to the
life of the society and to the development process;

Development of an efficient social security policy; and

Adequate provision for all persons to have due legal aid in order to secure
their rights.

Article 45

The Member States recognize that, in order to facilitate the process of Latin
American regional
integration, it is necessary to harmonize the social legislation of the
developing countries, especially
in the labor and social security fields, so that the rights of the workers shall
be equally protected, and
they agree to make the greatest efforts possible to achieve this goal.

Article 46

The Member States will give primary importance within their development
plans to the
encouragement of education, science, technology, and culture, oriented
toward the overall
improvement of the individual, and as a foundation for democracy, social
justice, and progress.

Article 47

The Member States will cooperate with one another to meet their educational
needs, to promote
scientific research, and to encourage technological progress for their integral
development. They
will consider themselves individually and jointly bound to preserve and
enrich the cultural heritage
of the American peoples.

Article 48

The Member States will exert the greatest efforts, in accordance with their
constitutional processes,
to ensure the effective exercise of the right to education, on the following

Elementary education, compulsory for children of school age, shall also be
offered to all others who
can benefit from it. When provided by the State it shall be without charge;

Middle-level education shall be extended progressively to as much of the
population as possible,
with a view to social improvement. It shall be diversified in such a way that it
meets the development
needs of each country without prejudice to providing a general education; and

Higher education shall be available to all, provided that, in order to maintain
its high level, the
corresponding regulatory or academic standards are met.

Article 49

The Member States will give special attention to the eradication of illiteracy,
will strengthen adult and
vocational education systems, and will ensure that the benefits of culture will
be available to the
entire population. They will promote the use of all information media to fulfill
these aims.

Article 50

The Member States will develop science and technology through educational,
research, and
technological development activities and information and dissemination
programs. They will
stimulate activities in the field of technology for the purpose of adapting it to
the needs of their
integral development. They will organize their cooperation in these fields
efficiently and will
substantially increase exchange of knowledge, in accordance with national
objectives and laws and
with treaties in force.

Article 51

The Member States, with due respect for the individuality of each of them,
agree to promote cultural
exchange as an effective means of consolidating inter-American
understanding; and they recognize
that regional integration programs should be strengthened by close ties in the
fields of education,
science, and culture.


Chapter VIII


Article 52

The Organization of American States accomplishes its purposes by means of:

The General Assembly;

The Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs;

The Councils;

The Inter-American Juridical Committee;

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights;

The General Secretariat;

The Specialized Conferences; and

The Specialized Organizations.
There may be established, in addition to those provided for in the Charter and
in accordance with the
provisions thereof, such subsidiary organs, agencies, and other entities as
are considered

Chapter IX



Article 53

The General Assembly is the supreme organ of the Organization of American
States. It has as its
principal powers, in addition to such others as are assigned to it by the
Charter, the following:

To decide the general action and policy of the Organization, determine the
structure and functions of
its organs, and consider any matter relating to friendly relations among the
American States;

To establish measures for coordinating the activities of the organs, agencies,
and entities of the
Organization among themselves, and such activities with those of the other
institutions of the inter-
American system;

To strengthen and coordinate cooperation with the United Nations and its
specialized agencies;

To promote collaboration, especially in the economic, social, and cultural
fields, with other
international organizations whose purposes are similar to those of the
Organization of American

To approve the program-budget of the Organization and determine the quotas
of the Member States;

To consider the reports of the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign
Affairs and the
observations and recommendations presented by the Permanent Council
with regard to the reports
that should be presented by the other organs and entities, in accordance with
the provisions of
paragraph f) of Article 90, as well as the reports of any organ which may be
required by the General
Assembly itself;

To adopt general standards to govern the operations of the General
Secretariat; and

To adopt its own rules of procedure and, by a two-thirds vote, its agenda.
The General Assembly shall exercise its powers in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter and
of other inter-American treaties.

Article 54

The General Assembly shall establish the bases for fixing the quota that each
Government is to
contribute to the maintenance of the Organization, taking into account the
ability to pay of the
respective countries and their determination to contribute in an equitable
manner. Decisions on
budgetary matters require the approval of two thirds of the Member States.

Article 55

All member States have the right to be represented in the General Assembly.
Each State has the right
to one vote.

Article 56

The General Assembly shall convene annually during the period determined
by the rules of
procedure and at a place selected in accordance with the principle of rotation.
At each regular
session the date and place of the next regular session shall be determined, in
accordance with the
rules of procedure.

If for any reason the General Assembly cannot be held at the place chosen, it
shall meet at the
General Secretariat, unless one of the Member States should make a timely
offer of a site in its
territory, in which case the Permanent Council of the Organization may agree
that the General
Assembly will meet in that place.

Article 57

In special circumstances and with the approval of two thirds of the Member
States, the Permanent
Council shall convoke a special session of the General Assembly.

Article 58

Decisions of the General Assembly shall be adopted by the affirmative vote
of an absolute majority of
the Member States, except in those cases that require a two-thirds vote as
provided in the Charter
or as may be provided by the General Assembly in its rules of procedure.

Article 59

There shall be a Preparatory Committee of the General Assembly, composed
of representatives of all
the Member States, which shall:

Prepare the draft agenda of each session of the General Assembly;

Review the proposed program-budget and the draft resolution on quotas, and
present to the General
Assembly a report thereon containing the recommendations it considers
appropriate; and

Carry out such other functions as the General Assembly may assign to it.
The draft agenda and the report shall, in due course, be transmitted to the
Governments of the
Member States.

Chapter X



Article 60

The Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall be held in
order to consider
problems of an urgent nature and of common interest to the American States,
and to serve as the
Organ of Consultation.

Article 61

Any Member State may request that a Meeting of Consultation be called. The
request shall be
addressed to the Permanent Council of the Organization, which shall decide
by an absolute majority
whether a meeting should be held.

Article 62

The agenda and regulations of the Meeting of Consultation shall be prepared
by the Permanent
Council of the Organization and submitted to the Member States for

Article 63

If, for exceptional reasons, a Minister of Foreign Affairs is unable to attend the
meeting, he shall be
represented by a special delegate.

Article 64

In case of an armed attack on the territory of an American State or within the
region of security
delimited by the treaty in force, the Chairman of the Permanent Council shall
without delay call a
meeting of the Council to decide on the convocation of the Meeting of
Consultation, without
prejudice to the provisions of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal
Assistance with regard to the
States Parties to that instrument.

Article 65

An Advisory Defense Committee shall be established to advise the Organ of
Consultation on
problems of military cooperation that may arise in connection with the
application of existing special
treaties on collective security.

Article 66

The Advisory Defense Committee shall be composed of the highest military
authorities of the
American States participating in the Meeting of Consultation. Under
exceptional circumstances the
Governments may appoint substitutes. Each State shall be entitled to one

Article 67

The Advisory Defense Committee shall be convoked under the same
conditions as the Organ of
Consultation, when the latter deals with matters relating to defense against

Article 68

The Committee shall also meet when the General Assembly or the Meeting of
Consultation or the
Governments, by a two-thirds majority of the Member States, assign to it
technical studies or reports
on specific subjects.

Chapter XI



Common Provisions

Article 69

The Permanent Council of the Organization, the Inter-American Economic and
Social Council, and the
Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture are directly
responsible to the General
Assembly and each has the authority granted to it in the Charter and other
instruments, as well as the functions assigned to it by the General Assembly
and the Meeting of
Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

Article 70

All Member States have the right to be represented on each of the Councils.
Each State has the right
to one vote.

Article 71

The Councils may, within the limits of the Charter and other inter-American
instruments, make
recommendations on matters within their authority.

Article 72

The Councils, on matters within their respective competence, may present to
the General Assembly
studies and proposals, drafts of international instruments, and proposals on
the holding of
specialized conferences, on the creation, modification, or elimination of
specialized organizations
and other inter-American agencies, as well as on the coordination of their
activities. The Councils
may also present studies, proposals, and drafts of international instruments
to the Specialized

Article 73

Each Council may, in urgent cases, convoke Specialized Conferences on
matters within its
competence, after consulting with the Member States and without having to
resort to the procedure
provided for in Article l27.

Article 74

The Councils, to the extent of their ability, and with the cooperation of the
General Secretariat, shall
render to the Governments such specialized services as the latter may

Article 75

Each Council has the authority to require the other Councils, as well as the
subsidiary organs and
agencies responsible to them, to provide it with information and advisory
services on matters within
their respective spheres of competence. The Councils may also request the
same services from the
other agencies of the inter-American system.

Article 76

With the prior approval of the General Assembly, the Councils may establish
the subsidiary organs
and the agencies that they consider advisable for the better performance of
their duties. When the
General Assembly is not in session, the aforesaid organs or agencies may be
provisionally by the corresponding Council. In constituting the membership
of these bodies, the
Councils, insofar as possible, shall follow the criteria of rotation and equitable

Article 77

The Councils may hold meetings in any Member State, when they find it
advisable and with the prior
consent of the Government concerned.

Article 78

Each Council shall prepare its own statutes and submit them to the General
Assembly for approval. It
shall approve its own rules of procedure and those of its subsidiary organs,
agencies, and

Chapter XII



Article 79

The Permanent Council of the Organization is composed of one
representative of each Member
State, especially appointed by the respective Government, with the rank of
ambassador. Each
Government may accredit an acting representative, as well as such alternates
and advisers as it
considers necessary.

Article 80

The office of Chairman of the Permanent Council shall be held by each of the
representatives, in turn,
following the alphabetic order in Spanish of the names of their respective
countries. The office of
Vice Chairman shall be filled in the same way, following reverse alphabetic

The Chairman and the Vice Chairman shall hold office for a term of not more
than six months, which
shall be determined by the statutes.

Article 81

Within the limits of the Charter and of inter-American treaties and
agreements, the Permanent
Council takes cognizance of any matter referred to it by the General
Assembly or the Meeting of
Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs.

Article 82

The Permanent Council shall serve provisionally as the Organ of Consultation
in conformity with the
provisions of the special treaty on the subject.

Article 83

The Permanent Council shall keep vigilance over the maintenance of friendly
relations among the
Member States, and for that purpose shall effectively assist them in the
peaceful settlement of their
disputes, in accordance with the following provisions.

Article 84

In accordance with the provisions of this Charter, any party to a dispute in
which none of the
peaceful procedures provided for in the Charter is under way may resort to
the Permanent Council to
obtain its good offices. The Council, following the provisions of the preceding
article, shall assist the
parties and recommend the procedures it considers suitable for peaceful
settlement of the dispute.

Article 85

In the exercise of its functions and with the consent of the parties to the
dispute, the Permanent
Council may establish ad hoc committees.

The ad hoc committees shall have the membership and the mandate that the
Permanent Council
agrees upon in each individual case, with the consent of the parties to the

Article 86

The Permanent Council may also, by such means as it deems advisable,
investigate the facts in the
dispute, and may do so in the territory of any of the parties, with the consent
of the Government

Article 87

If the procedure for peaceful settlement of disputes recommended by the
Permanent Council or
suggested by the pertinent ad hoc committee under the terms of its mandate
is not accepted by one
of the parties, or one of the parties declares that the procedure has not
settled the dispute, the
Permanent Council shall so inform the General Assembly, without prejudice
to its taking steps to
secure agreement between the parties or to restore relations between them.

Article 88

The Permanent Council, in the exercise of these functions, shall take its
decisions by an affirmative
vote of two thirds of its members, excluding the parties to the dispute, except
for such decisions as
the rules of procedure provide shall be adopted by a simple majority.

Article 89

In performing their functions with respect to the peaceful settlement of
disputes, the Permanent
Council and the respective ad hoc committee shall observe the provisions of
the Charter and the
principles and standards of international law, as well as take into account the
existence of treaties in
force between the parties.

Article 90

The Permanent Council shall also:

Carry out those decisions of the General Assembly or of the Meeting of
Consultation of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs the implementation of which has not been assigned to any
other body;

Watch over the observance of the standards governing the operation of the
General Secretariat and,
when the General Assembly is not in session, adopt provisions of a
regulatory nature that enable the
General Secretariat to carry out its administrative functions;

Act as the Preparatory Committee of the General Assembly, in accordance
with the terms of Article 59
of the Charter, unless the General Assembly should decide otherwise;

Prepare, at the request of the Member States and with the cooperation of the
appropriate organs of
the Organization, draft agreements to promote and facilitate cooperation
between the Organization of
American States and the United Nations or between the Organization and
other American agencies of
recognized international standing. These draft agreements shall be submitted
to the General
Assembly for approval;

Submit recommendations to the General Assembly with regard to the
functioning of the Organization
and the coordination of its subsidiary organs, agencies, and committees;

Consider the reports of the other Councils, of the Inter-American Juridical
Committee, of the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights, of the General Secretariat, of
specialized agencies and
conferences, and of other bodies and agencies, and present to the General
Assembly any
observations and recommendations it deems necessary; and

Perform the other functions assigned to it in the Charter.
Article 91

The Permanent Council and the General Secretariat shall have the same seat.

Chapter XIII



Article 92

The Inter-American Economic and Social Council is composed of one
principal representative, of the
highest rank, of each Member State, especially appointed by the respective

Article 93

The purpose of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council is to promote
cooperation among the
American countries in order to attain accelerated economic and social
development, in accordance
with the standards set forth in Chapter VII.

Article 94

To achieve its purpose the Inter-American Economic and Social Council shall:

Recommend programs and courses of action and periodically study and
evaluate the efforts
undertaken by the Member States;

Promote and coordinate all economic and social activities of the Organization;

Coordinate its activities with those of the other Councils of the Organization;

Establish cooperative relations with the corresponding organs of the United
Nations and with other
national and international agencies, especially with regard to coordination of
technical assistance programs; and

Promote the solution of the cases contemplated in Article 36 of the Charter,
establishing the
appropriate procedure.

Article 95

The Inter-American Economic and Social Council shall hold at least one
meeting each year at the
ministerial level. It shall also meet when convoked by the General Assembly,
the Meeting of
Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, at its own initiative, or for the
cases contemplated in
Article 36 of the Charter.

Article 96

The Inter-American Economic and Social Council shall have a Permanent
Executive Committee,
composed of a Chairman and no less than seven other members, elected by
the Council for terms to
be established in the statutes of the Council. Each member shall have the
right to one vote. The
principles of equitable geographic representation and of rotation shall be
taken into account, insofar
as possible, in the election of members. The Permanent Executive
Committee represents all of the
Member States of the Organization.

Article 97

The Permanent Executive Committee shall perform the tasks assigned to it
by the Inter-American
Economic and Social Council, in accordance with the general standards
established by the Council.

Chapter XIV



Article 98

The Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture is composed
of one principal
representative, of the highest rank, of each Member State, especially
appointed by the respective

Article 99

The purpose of the Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and
Culture is to promote friendly
relations and mutual understanding between the peoples of the Americas
through educational,
scientific, and cultural cooperation and exchange between Member States, in
order to raise the
cultural level of the peoples, reaffirm their dignity as individuals, prepare
them fully for the tasks of
progress, and strengthen the devotion to peace, democracy, and social
justice that has
characterized their evolution.

Article 100

To accomplish its purpose the Inter-American Council for Education, Science,
and Culture shall:

Promote and coordinate the educational, scientific, and cultural activities of
the Organization;

Adopt or recommend pertinent measures to give effect to the standards
contained in Chapter VII of
the Charter;

Support individual or collective efforts of the Member States to improve and
extend education at all
levels, giving special attention to efforts directed toward community

Recommend and encourage the adoption of special educational programs
directed toward
integrating all sectors of the population into their respective national cultures;

Stimulate and support scientific and technological education and research,
especially when these
relate to national development plans;

Foster the exchange of professors, research workers, technicians, and
students, as well as of study
materials; and encourage the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral
agreements on the progressive
coordination of curricula at all educational levels and on the validity and
equivalence of certificates
and degrees;

Promote the education of the American peoples with a view to harmonious
international relations and
a better understanding of the historical and cultural origins of the Americas, in
order to stress and
preserve their common values and destiny;

Systematically encourage intellectual and artistic creativity, the exchange of
cultural works and
folklore, as well as the interrelationships of the different cultural regions of
the Americas;

Foster cooperation and technical assistance for protecting, preserving, and
increasing the cultural
heritage of the Hemisphere;

Coordinate its activities with those of the other Councils. In harmony with the
Economic and Social Council, encourage the interrelationship of programs for
promoting education,
science, and culture with national development and regional integration

Establish cooperative relations with the corresponding organs of the United
Nations and with other
national and international bodies;

Strengthen the civic conscience of the American peoples, as one of the bases
for the effective
exercise of democracy and for the observance of the rights and duties of

Recommend appropriate procedures for intensifying integration of the
developing countries of the
Hemisphere by means of efforts and programs in the fields of education,
science, and culture; and
Study and evaluate periodically the efforts made by the Member States in the
fields of education,
science, and culture.

Article 101

The Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture shall hold at
least one meeting each
year at the ministerial level. It shall also meet when convoked by the General
Assembly, by the
Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, or at its own initiative.

Article 102

The Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture shall have a
Permanent Executive
Committee, composed of a Chairman and no less than seven other members,
elected by the Council
for terms to be established in the statutes of the Council. Each member shall
have the right to one
vote. The principles of equitable geographic representation and of rotation
shall be taken into
account, insofar as possible, in the election of members. The Permanent
Executive Committee
represents all of the Member States of the Organization.

Article 103

The Permanent Executive Committee shall perform the tasks assigned to it
by the Inter-American
Council for Education, Science, and Culture, in accordance with the general
standards established by
the Council.

Chapter XV



Article 104

The purpose of the Inter-American Juridical Committee is to serve the
Organization as an advisory
body on juridical matters; to promote the progressive development and the
codification of
international law; and to study juridical problems related to the integration of
the developing
countries of the Hemisphere and, insofar as may appear desirable, the
possibility of attaining
uniformity in their legislation.

Article 105

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall undertake the studies and
preparatory work assigned to
it by the General Assembly, the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of
Foreign Affairs, or the
Councils of the Organization. It may also, on its own initiative, undertake such
studies and
preparatory work as it considers advisable, and suggest the holding of
specialized juridical

Article 106

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall be composed of eleven jurists,
nationals of Member
States, elected by the General Assembly for a period of four years from
panels of three candidates
presented by Member States. In the election, a system shall be used that
takes into account partial
replacement of membership and, insofar as possible, equitable geographic
representation. No two
members of the Committee may be nationals of the same State.

Vacancies that occur for reasons other than normal expiration of the terms of
office of the members
of the Committee shall be filled by the Permanent Council of the Organization
in accordance with the
criteria set forth in the preceding paragraph.

Article 107

The Inter-American Juridical Committee represents all of the Member States
of the Organization, and
has the broadest possible technical autonomy.

Article 108

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall establish cooperative relations
with universities,
institutes, and other teaching centers, as well as with national and
international committees and
entities devoted to study, research, teaching, or dissemination of information
on juridical matters of
international interest.

Article 109

The Inter-American Juridical Committee shall draft its statutes, which shall be
submitted to the
General Assembly for approval.

The Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.

Article 110

The seat of the Inter-American Juridical Committee shall be the city of Rio de
Janeiro, but in special
cases the Committee may meet at any other place that may be designated,
after consultation with the
Member State concerned.

Chapter XVI



Article 11l

There shall be an Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, whose
principal function shall be to
promote the observance and protection of human rights and to serve as a
consultative organ of the
Organization in these matters.

An inter-American convention on human rights shall determine the structure,
competence, and
procedure of this Commission, as well as those of other organs responsible
for these matters

Chapter XVII



Article 112

The General Secretariat is the central and permanent organ of the
Organization of American States. It
shall perform the functions assigned to it in the Charter, in other inter-
American treaties and
agreements, and by the General Assembly, and shall carry out the duties
entrusted to it by the
General Assembly, the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
or the Councils.

Article 113

The Secretary General of the Organization shall be elected by the General
Assembly for a five-year
term and may not be reelected more than once or succeeded by a person of
the same nationality. In
the event that the office of Secretary General becomes vacant, the Assistant
Secretary General shall
assume his duties until the General Assembly shall elect a new Secretary
General for a full term.

Article 114

The Secretary General shall direct the General Secretariat, be the legal
representative thereof, and,
notwithstanding the provisions of Article 90.b, be responsible to the General
Assembly for the proper
fulfillment of the obligations and functions of the General Secretariat.

Article 115

The Secretary General, or his representative, may participate with voice but
without vote in all
meetings of the Organization.

The Secretary General may bring to the attention of the General Assembly or
the Permanent Council
any matter which in his opinion might threaten the peace and security of the
Hemisphere or the
development of the Member States.

The authority to which the preceding paragraph refers shall be exercised in
accordance with the
present Charter.

Article 116

The General Secretariat shall promote economic, social, juridical, educational,
scientific, and cultural
relations among all the Member States of the Organization, in keeping with
the actions and policies
decided upon by the General Assembly and with the pertinent decisions of
the Councils.

Article 117

The General Secretariat shall also perform the following functions:

Transmit ex officio to the Member States notice of the convocation of the
General Assembly, the
Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Inter-American
Economic and Social
Council, the Inter-American Council for Education, Science, and Culture, and
the Specialized

Advise the other organs, when appropriate, in the preparation of agenda and
rules of procedure;

Prepare the proposed program-budget of the Organization on the basis of
programs adopted by the
Councils, agencies, and entities whose expenses should be included in the
program-budget and,
after consultation with the Councils or their permanent committees, submit it
to the Preparatory
Committee of the General Assembly and then to the Assembly itself;

Provide, on a permanent basis, adequate secretariat services for the General
Assembly and the
other organs, and carry out their directives and assignments. To the extent of
its ability, provide
services for the other meetings of the Organization;

Serve as custodian of the documents and archives of the Inter-American
Conferences, the General
Assembly, the Meetings of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the
Councils, and the
Specialized Conferences;

Serve as depository of inter-American treaties and agreements, as well as of
the instruments of
ratification thereof;

Submit to the General Assembly at each regular session an annual report on
the activities of the
Organization and its financial condition; and

Establish relations of cooperation, in accordance with decisions reached by
the General Assembly or
the Councils, with the Specialized Organizations as well as other national and

Article 118

The Secretary General shall:

Establish such offices of the General Secretariat as are necessary to
accomplish its purposes; and

Determine the number of officers and employees of the General Secretariat,
appoint them, regulate
their powers and duties, and fix their remuneration.
The Secretary General shall exercise this authority in accordance with such
general standards and
budgetary provisions as may be established by the General Assembly.

Article 119

The Assistant Secretary General shall be elected by the General Assembly
for a five-year term and
may not be reelected more than once or succeeded by a person of the same
nationality. In the event
that the office of Assistant Secretary General becomes vacant, the Permanent
Council shall elect a
substitute to hold that office until the General Assembly shall elect a new
Assistant Secretary General
for a full term.

Article 120

The Assistant Secretary General shall be the Secretary of the Permanent
Council. He shall serve as
advisory officer to the Secretary General and shall act as his delegate in all
matters that the Secretary
General may entrust to him. During the temporary absence or disability of the
Secretary General, the
Assistant Secretary General shall perform his functions.

The Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary General shall be of
different nationalities.

Article 121

The General Assembly, by a two-thirds vote of the Member States, may
remove the Secretary General
or the Assistant Secretary General, or both, whenever the proper functioning
of the Organization so

Article 122

The Secretary General shall appoint, with the approval of the respective
Council, the Executive
Secretary for Economic and Social Affairs and the Executive Secretary for
Education, Science, and
Culture, who shall also be the secretaries of the respective Councils.

Article 123

In the performance of their duties, the Secretary General and the personnel of
the Secretariat shall
not seek or receive instructions from any Government or from any authority
outside the Organization,
and shall refrain from any action that may be incompatible with their position
as international officers
responsible only to the Organization.

Article 124

The Member States pledge themselves to respect the exclusively
international character of the
responsibilities of the Secretary General and the personnel of the General
Secretariat, and not to
seek to influence them in the discharge of their duties.

Article 125

In selecting the personnel of the General Secretariat, first consideration shall
be given to efficiency,
competence, and integrity; but at the same time, in the recruitment of
personnel of all ranks,
importance shall be given to the necessity of obtaining as wide a geographic
representation as

Article 126

The seat of the General Secretariat is the city of Washington, D.C.

Chapter XVIII



Article 127

The Specialized Conferences are intergovernmental meetings to deal with
special technical matters
or to develop specific aspects of inter-American cooperation. They shall be
held when either the
General Assembly or the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign
Affairs so decides, on its
own initiative or at the request of one of the Councils or Specialized

Article 128

The agenda and rules of procedure of the Specialized Conferences shall be
prepared by the Councils
or Specialized Organizations concerned and shall be submitted to the
Governments of the Member
States for consideration.

Chapter XIX



Article 129

For the purposes of the present Charter, Inter-American Specialized
Organizations are the
intergovernmental organizations established by multilateral agreements and
having specific
functions with respect to technical matters of common interest to the
American States.

Article 130

The General Secretariat shall maintain a register of the organizations that
fulfill the conditions set
forth in the foregoing Article, as determined by the General Assembly after a
report from the Council

Article 131

The Specialized Organizations shall enjoy the fullest technical autonomy, but
they shall take into
account the recommendations of the General Assembly and of the Councils,
in accordance with the
provisions of the Charter.

Article 132

The Specialized Organizations shall transmit to the General Assembly annual
reports on the progress
of their work and on their annual budgets and expenses.

Article 133

Relations that should exist between the Specialized Organizations and the
Organization shall be
defined by means of agreements concluded between each organization and
the Secretary General,
with the authorization of the General Assembly.

Article 134

The Specialized Organizations shall establish cooperative relations with world
agencies of the same
character in order to coordinate their activities. In concluding agreements
with international
agencies of a worldwide character, the Inter-American Specialized
Organizations shall preserve their
identity and their status as integral parts of the Organization of American
States, even when they
perform regional functions of international agencies.

Article 135

In determining the location of the Specialized Organizations consideration
shall be given to the
interest of all of the Member States and to the desirability of selecting the
seats of these
organizations on the basis of a geographic representation as equitable as


Chapter XX


Article 136

None of the provisions of this Charter shall be construed as impairing the
rights and obligations of
the Member States under the Charter of the United Nations.

Chapter XXI



Article 137

Attendance at meetings of the permanent organs of the Organization of
American States or at the
conferences and meetings provided for in the Charter, or held under the
auspices of the
Organization, shall be in accordance with the multilateral character of the
aforesaid organs,
conferences, and meetings and shall not depend on the bilateral relations
between the Government
of any Member State and the Government of the host country.

Article 138

The Organization of American States shall enjoy in the territory of each
Member such legal capacity,
privileges, and immunities as are necessary for the exercise of its functions
and the accomplishment
of its purposes.

Article 139

The representatives of the Member States on the organs of the Organization,
the personnel of their
delegations, as well as the Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary
General shall enjoy the
privileges and immunities corresponding to their positions and necessary for
the independent
performance of their duties.

Article 140

The juridical status of the Specialized Organizations and the privileges and
immunities that should be
granted to them and to their personnel, as well as to the officials of the
General Secretariat, shall be
determined in a multilateral agreement. The foregoing shall not preclude,
when it is considered
necessary, the concluding of bilateral agreements.

Article 141

Correspondence of the Organization of American States, including printed
matter and parcels,
bearing the frank thereof, shall be carried free of charge in the mails of the
Member States.

Article 142

The Organization of American States does not allow any restriction based on
race, creed, or sex, with
respect to eligibility to participate in the activities of the Organization and to
hold positions therein.

Article 143

Within the provisions of this Charter, the competent organs shall endeavor to
obtain greater
collaboration from countries not members of the Organization in the area of
cooperation for

Chapter XXII



Article 144

The present Charter shall remain open for signature by the American States
and shall be ratified in
accordance with their respective constitutional procedures. The original
instrument, the Spanish,
English, Portuguese, and French texts of which are equally authentic, shall be
deposited with the
General Secretariat, which shall transmit certified copies thereof to the
Governments for purposes of
ratification. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the General
Secretariat, which
shall notify the signatory States of such deposit.

Article 145

The present Charter shall enter into force among the ratifying States when
two thirds of the signatory
States have deposited their ratifications. It shall enter into force with respect
to the remaining States
in the order in which they deposit their ratifications.

Article 146

The present Charter shall be registered with the Secretariat of the United
Nations through the
General Secretariat.

Article 147

Amendments to the present Charter may be adopted only at a General
Assembly convened for that
purpose. Amendments shall enter into force in accordance with the terms and
the procedure set
forth in Article 145.

Article 148

The present Charter shall remain in force indefinitely, but may be denounced
by any Member State
upon written notification to the General Secretariat, which shall communicate
to all the others each
notice of denunciation received. After two years from the date on which the
General Secretariat
receives a notice of denunciation, the present Charter shall cease to be in
force with respect to the
denouncing State, which shall cease to belong to the Organization after it has
fulfilled the obligations
arising from the present Charter.

Chapter XXIII



Article l49

The Inter-American Committee on the Alliance for Progress shall act as the
permanent executive
committee of the Inter-American Economic and Social Council as long as the
Alliance is in operation.

Article l50

Until the inter-American convention on human rights, referred to in Chapter
XVI, enters into force,
the present Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall keep
vigilance over the observance
of human rights.

Article l51

The Permanent Council shall not make any recommendation nor shall the
General Assembly take any
decision with respect to a request for admission on the part of a political
entity whose territory
became subject, in whole or in part, prior to December 18, 1964, the date set
by the First Special Inter-
American Conference, to litigation or claim between an extracontinental
country and one or more
Member States of the Organization, until the dispute has been ended by some
peaceful procedure.
This article shall remain in effect until December l0, l990.


Antigua and Barbuda
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
St. Kitts and Nevis
Trinidad and Tobago
United States of America

Discussion 18



Though ordinary people are not aware of it, there are certainly two different
leadership styles of
governments. One is a presidential system and the other is a cabinet
government. Japan and U.K. are
typical examples of cabinet government, and the United States is the most
typical of the presidential
system. Under the cabinet style, the Prime Minister is elected among the Diet
members and bears
responsibility for the Diet government. The Prime Minister's independence
and leadership are
extremely low. In that sense, it is difficult to reflect the will of the people. On
the other hand, under
the presidential style government, it is the nation that elects the president,
and the president doesn't
have to shoulder responsibility for the Congress. Owing to this, the president
is independent of the
Congress can exercise much leadership. The will of the people is easily and
more directly reflected.
For example, the American president exercises a great power against a
nation. Also, the president is
a very big part of the American's heart. Don't many Americans feel keenly
about it when we go  to
Dallas, Texas. First,  we visit "the sixth floor" from where J. F. Kennedy was
shot. There,  we know,
how deep the American's were sunk in grief when he was shot.  Many
Americans are impressed by
the display there. Then  we became familiar with the movie "Air Force One".
In that movie, the
president's part played by Harrison Ford was portrayed as eminently heroic.
One of your friends
could say, "The president, say the present president Bill Clinton, is a very big
part of me, whether we
are for or against his policy." Who portrays the Japanese Prime Minister as a
cool leader? Who is
captivated by the Japanese Prime Minister? In this sense, the president
(especially of the U.S.) is a
hero of great influence, regardless of his policy. Since we are very interested
in this presidential
system, we will to focus mainly on this.

As I've already stated above, the American president is very influential in
America. What about
abroad? When we watch news of international disputes on TV, the American
President appears on
the screen so often. If we give a familiar example, we saw that the American
President was the first to
settle such disputes as the Cambodian domestic war, the Gulf War, the
Vietnam War, the Korean War
and so forth. Then, the question must be posed as to whether the American
President exercises his
power on both Americans and other people in the world. In this research
paper, I want to argue how
the American President used to and is exercising his power not only on his
nation but also on people
of other countries.


As was mentioned in the introduction, it is to be presumed that recent
American Presidents show
good leadership if we look at such incidents as the Gulf War, the Vietnam War
and so forth. But,
America is a newly-founded country. It is hard to imagine that she had a
strong national power and
showed good leadership from the very start. Then, when did she start
showing her leadership? Let
us think back to the old days when she did not have worldwide leadership by
focusing mainly on its
foreign policy.

The center of modern international politics was Europe. Once America
became independent of
European countries, she tried to keep out of international relations. The
Father of his Country,
Washington George declared in 1796, he would not form an alliance with any
other countries lest
America should be dragged into a war or revolution. This foreign policy
combined with Nationalism
and was firmly established as an isolationist policy in U.S.A.

The isolationist policy was made possible by the following 3 conditions. First,
America is partitioned
off widely by the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. a geographic condition. Second, among
neighboring countries,
that is Latin American countries, there were no countries strong enough to
threaten America. So,
America did not have to increase armaments to look to her own safety. Third,
by the end of the 19th
century, America had become the biggest industrial nation as well as the
biggest agricultural nation.
The U.S. was rich in natural resources and furthermore there was a huge
demand in the domestic
market. So, the U.S. did not have to establish diplomatic relations in search of
natural resources nor
overseas markets.1 (Ariga,S. 1998)

Later in 1823, the fifth President Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine. This
doctrine set up 3
fundamental rules of American foreign policy. First, the U.S. would not
intervene in strife of Europe.
Second, the U.S. would oppose if European countries expanded their political
formation to Western
Hemisphere. These are called isolationist policy. Third, America would
approve the independence of
Latin American countries and try to spread democracy in this area. This was
the early intervention
policy. But, fundamentally the U.S.A. took an isolationist policy.2 (http:


However, after having experienced W.W.1. and W.W.2. America came to
intervene in any disputes on
earth. The 32nd President Roosevelt's idea of the postwar world implies this
change. He suggested
that America, Britain, the Soviet Union and China should corporate in
constructing the world order.
He also tried to spread American ideas and ideals all over the world.3
(Professor Naya, 1998) In
economic field, Roosevelt created American-centered free trade system in
1944. This American-
centered political and economic sense is called Pan-Americanism.4 ( Asada,
Masao. 1998)

In reality, cooperation of America and the Soviet Union that Roosevelt had
dreamed of was not
realized, and the Cold War that divided the World into the East and West
camps began instead.

The most decisive factor of the Cold War is said to have been the Truman
Doctrine, 1947. This was
the first statement written by an American President that stressed the
menace of Communism.5
(Truman,H.S. 1947)

At this stage, American containment policy was not realized by military
means but by economic
means.6 (Naya. 1998) The most famous application of this policy was the
Marshall Plan. In the
immediate postwar period, Europe remained ravaged and thus susceptible to
exploitation by internal
and external communist threats. In a June 5, 1947 speech to the graduating
class at Harvard
University, Secretary of State George C, Marshall issued a call for a
comprehensive program to
rebuild Europe. In March 1948 Congress passed the Economic Cooperation
Act and approved
funding that would eventually rise to over 12 billion dollars for the rebuilding
of Western Europe. The
Marshall Plan generated a resurgence of European industrialization and
brought extensive
investment into the region. Soviet and East European participation was
invited at first. However,
because the Soviet Union refused this plan and American politicians opposed
to funding recovery in
Communist nations, the Marshall Plan was applied solely to Western Europe.
Thus, the breakup of
European countries became clinched.7 (U.S. Information Agency. 1998)

After that, by confronting several events such as the establishment of a
communist government in
the Czech Republic, the Berlin blockade, the success of an A-bomb test in the
Soviet Union, the
establishment of the Republic of China and so forth, America realized the
limitations of the
containment policy by economic means, and started to use military power. In
response, 12 Western
countries formed "NATO".8 ( Ariga, 1998)

Then, the Cold War got more and more serious. But, surprisingly enough,
direct battle between the
U.S. and the Soviet Union never occurred, and secondary battles such as the
Korean War, the
Vietnam War and so forth occurred instead. The reason why America got
involved in the affairs of
other countries was the matter of "credibility". If the U.S. disregarded any
disputes because these
were not big concerns for America, the U.S. would lose credibility from its
allied countries.9 (Naya.

The Korean War is a one good example. Korea was not an important country
for America. On June
25, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea with 90,000 troops equipped with
Soviet weapons. Soon,
Truman asked and received support from the UN and the 2nd UN meeting
approved use of ground
troops because Russia had boycotted that Security Council. First, Truman's
aim was to force NK
troops to withdraw to the 38th parallel. However, the local Commander
MacArthur proposed his plan
to "compose and unite" all Korea in a great counterattack. When MacArthur
crossed the 38th line into
NK, that provoked China and they sent Communist Chinese Forces. This war
which ended with an
armistice in 1953 had a great meaning. It clinched the Cold War structure in
Asia.10 ( the University of
San Diego, 1998)

In the mid-1950s the U.S. and the Soviet Union which had been strongly
turned against each other,
started to change their attitudes especially after the top level meeting held in
Geneva in 1955.
Though they were still looking at their opponent with distrust, they tried to
have a conference at the
same table.

When the Soviet and the U.S. were seeking for coexistence, President
Kennedy started to intervene
in Indonesia to prevent the Communism from being spread in this region.
First of all, the U.S. was not
going far enough to send the U.S. ground forces, because of the Korean War's
nightmare. However,
the President Johnson started to prepare for military intervention in real
earnest. He declared that
the U.S. would easily win this war confidently on January 1968. However,
when the North Vietnamese
troop started to attack all together, the U.S. began to ask the North
Vietnamese troop for a negotiated
solution.11 (Ariga, 1998)


The failure of the intervention in the Vietnam War showed the frustration of
Facing this situation, President Nixon expressed the Nixon Doctrine. He
decided to reduce US's
excessive intervention in the world (especially in Asian counties) in order to
reduce American
responsibility and have the countries concerned to shoulder the
responsibility.12 (Nixon, 1969) In
other words, the U.S. recognized it limitation as an international power in
terms of both economic and
military affairs.

The frustration in the economic field brought the following change. The world
had been on the gold
and dollar standard. However, because the U.S. had spent too much money
on the Vietnam War, the
gold possessed by America kept flowing into other countries. So, America
had no choice but to
change the fixed exchange rate system into the floating one.13 (Ariga, 1998)

Another outstanding event that occurred while Nixon was in office was the
"Watergate" scandal,
stemming from a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National
Committee during the 1972
campaign. Nixon denied any personal involvement, but the courts forced him
to yield tape recordings
that indicated that he had, in fact, tried to avert the investigation. Faced with
what seemed almost
certain impeachment, Nixon announced on August 8, 1974, that he would
resign the next day to begin
"that process of healing which is so desperately needed in America."14
(Malcolm Farnsworth, 1998)

The "Watergate" scandal occurred when the abuse of the presidential power
had reached its peak.
After W.W.2 as American power became bigger and bigger, the presidential
power became so fat that
Congress couldn't constrain his power anymore. The President even
dispatched troops during the
Korean War, the Vietnam War and so forth, without obtaining Congress
approval. Against this
situation, a new law under which the President could commit troops 1) when
Congress declared War,
2) when legally approved 3) when attacked by other countries, was made.15
(Ariga, 1998)

Under the Reagan administration, people demanded for the revival of the
strong U.S. In reality,
however, during the 8 years of his administration, the U.S. fell into the worst
debtor nation.16 ( Ariga,


Then, George Bush who had been Vice President under the Reagan
administration, became the 41st
President in 1988. While he was in office, summit meetings between the U.S.
and the Soviet Union
were held one after another. Finally, the Cold War came to an end when
START (Strategic Arms
Reduction Talks) was signed. Thereafter, the U.S. gained the single
hegemony.17 ( Ariga, 1998)


I would like to end by mentioning how the U.S. gained the hegemony of the

First of all, I would like to say something about the American concept of the
leader country.
Americans conceptualize the leader country as a country that has the ability
to put the world in order,
in terms of both military affairs and economy.

At the end of W.W.2, American industrial output constituted half the world
industrial output, and the
U.S. possessed 70 percent of the gold in the world. In that dominant situation,
the U.S. created such
regimes as the free trade system, the gold standard, the fixed exchange rate
system and so forth.
The U.S. herself took initiative in those regimes. Because the U.S. took the
initiative in the world
economy, she donated her own money to the world. (E.g., the Marshall Plan
mentioned in the
previous part.) In this way, the U.S. was aware of herself being a leader
country in terms of economy.
And indeed, she had held the economic hegemony until the 1970s.

In terms of military affairs, the U.S. had always been the leader of the Western
Countries and
intervened in many disputes during the Cold War. Then, when the rival Soviet
Union disappeared, the
U.S. became the dominant force in the military hegemony.

The period when the U.S. held supremacy in both economic and military
affairs came to an end
during the 1970s. As was mentioned in the previous section, when the fixed
exchange rate system
changed to the floating one, the U.S. economic power collapsed as the value
of the dollar fell.
Furthermore, while the U.S. was spending her own money on creating
regimes as written above,
military buildup and so on, other countries (including Japan) achieved
remarkable economic growth.
So, it began to be doubted if the U.S. was still the dominant leader.

Now, in terms of military affairs, the U.S. is still the dominant leader. Though
in the economic field, as
was mentioned above, the power of the U.S. is declining, there are no
alternative leader countries.
So, it is certain that the Hegemony of the U.S. is still lasting, and will last for
the near future.18
(Kishikawa, 1998)

I would like to conclude with a look at the relationship between this
"dominant leader" and "the
presidential style" is.

One of the most effective factors of the American foreign policy is the vast
authority of the American
Presidents. The prerogatives of the President's authority toward the other
countries are quite simple.

1, The president can conclude any treaties with consent of the Upper House.
2, The president has the power to appoint and dismiss an ambassador, a
minister, and a consul.
3, The president is the commander of the U.S. force.

In spite of these succinct prerogatives, the presidents were endowed with
absolute authority since
the founding of the country. The following three reasons might help to
understand this full authority.

First, the right to conclude treaties means that the President can interpret and
enforce or abrogate
treaties. Only the President can ratify treaties. So, it is up to President
whether the U.S. adopts
treaties or not.

Second, the American President has a lot of information and expert
knowledge of external issues.
This is because, the American President posses the White House Secretariat,
National Security
Council, National Economic Conference, the State Department, the
Department of Defense and so
forth. This systematic organization at whose summit the President is situated
is profitable for the

Third, as was mentioned before, the President take is the supreme
commander of the army. Since
the 20th century, their power has greatly increased. U.S. Presidents have
intervened in the Korean
War and the Vietnam War without the consent of the Congress and have
made declarations of wars.
This kind of act became regarded as an abuse of the presidential power after
the Watergate Scandal
and was constrained to some extent. However, the Presidents still have huge
influence on U.S. army.
19 ( Ariga, 1998)

Of course there are some with about the American Presidential system. (E.g.
the abuse of the
power). However this system has contributed a lot for the U.S. to become a
leader country. It is true
that the U.S. is still the leader country in the world. And American Presidents
will continue to have a
big influence not only on Americans but the people in the world until other
alternative leader
countries would appear.

Dialogue 14 by Dennis L. Pearson    



VOLUME 5 # 3

Some people say that events in Central America will not impact on American
long-range vital interests.

Let's analyze -- Is it not a vital interest for the United States to secure the
Panama Canal from possible
military or terrorist attack  so as to guarantee the safe transit of international
shipping through the
canal so as not to hinder the movement of world commerce? Canals, after all,
tend to restrict the
maneuverability of ships that enter, and thus leave them highly vulnerable to
attack if not protected
by some other defensive system.

The truth being, the U.S. Navy Nuclear Aircraft Carrier Enterprise put itself at
great risk when it
dashed through the Suez Canal from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea
with purpose to quickly
relieve the U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Coral Sea operating with the Sixth Fleet
somewhere off the
coast of Libya.  Historically, the Suez Canal having been closed to all
international shipping for many
years as a result of Israeli attacks on Egyptian shipping during the famous
Arab-Israeli struggle
known as the Six Day War. And historically, this being the first time the
Enterprise or any U.S. warship
was granted open approval of the Mubarak government to travel through the
Canal. Previous
transits , indeed, having the approval of the Mubarak government, but granted
only under the cover
of darkness.

Thus we maintain, as long as our merchant and military shipping find it
economically and logically
advantageous to transit from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean via the
Panama Canal or vice
versa , this vital interest will still exist when sovereignty over the canal is
completely turned over to
Panama in 1999. And, because of this vital interest, it is the best interest of
the United States and
world commerce that military bases of nations potentially hostile to the
security of the canal be

(Editor's Note-It being recognized that some U.S. Naval Vessels and some
Super Tanker Vessels are
too big to make transit of the Panama Canal, the alternate being a longer trip
through the treacherous
Straits of Magellan at the tip of South America  Or the transit of goods through
the establishment of
intermodal railroad lines in the United States, Canada or Central America a
manifestation of the 1980's
and 90's

In theory, the American government need not care about who governs
Nicaragua. After all, each
nation should have the right to select and determine its own leadership
without the interference of
outside parties especially if that nation is not interfering with  the internal
affairs of another nation.

But realistically, a nation gives up some "sovereignty" and allows a certain
measure of international
concern and pressure if it becomes party to and abides by the provisions of
international treaties or
compacts. Examples being the United Nations Charter, Helsinki Accords on
Human Rights and the
long-standing Genocide Treaty so recently approved by the United States

Then too, our concern must be that no alien military bases be established in
Nicaragua or any Latin
American nation that would pose a military or terrorist threat to the Panama
Canal and the security of
our southern borders.

Important, the United States should make it clear to the de facto authorities in
Nicaragua and Cuba
that we mean their people no harm. Ideally, the Sandinistas and Fidel Castro
would abandon their
present course of action and ask all non-hemispheric forces to leave their
territorial jurisdictions and
refrain from acts of filibustering in other hemispheric countries.

But unfortunately we live in a world of other realities. The fixed reality being
that the above scenario
is a mind image not likely to be acted upon by those obdurate in heart.

Editor's Note - Since the writing of this essay the Sandinistas have lost power
in Nicaragua although
Dan Ortega has gained office again under the title of a different party and
Castro is still impacted by
the U.S. and Hemispheric Policy of Containment.

Discussion 19

Is Latin American Doomed to Failure?
            by Peter Hakim

This abstract is adapted from an article appearing in the Winter 1999-2000

In Peru, an autocratic president has curbed the power of the congress and the
courts and muffled
the press. Voters in Venezuela last year elected the leader of a failed military
coup d'état as president
and now overwhelmingly support his campaign to radically transform the
nation's political
institutions. Guerrillas in Colombia have free run of about half the country.
Brazil was forced to
devalue its currency in January 1999, provoking an open rift with Argentina
and threatening the
survival of MERCOSUR, Latin America's most successful trade pact. In the
region's worst
performance in more than a decade, nearly every major Latin American
economy has fallen into a
deep slump this year.

Throughout the early 1990s, expectations were high that Latin America had
transcended its legacy of
repressive military regimes, Cuban style revolutionaries, and boom-and-bust
economies that had so
badly hobbled the region for most of its history. Sustained economic growth,
social progress, decent
government, and genuine hemispheric partnerships all seemed within reach.
Yet now, as the decade
comes to a close, these expectations are far from fulfilled. Many people are
asking whether they ever
will be.

The global economic turmoil of the past two years has revealed the
vulnerability of Latin America's
economies and cast into doubt whether the region can soon achieve rapid,
long-term growth. True,
Latin America's dramatic economic restructuring and policy reforms have
delivered sharply lower
inflation, increased exports, and expanded access to international capital. But
bottom-line results are
still elusive. For the entire decade, 1990 to 1999, the region's economies will
have grown, on
average, at a rate of less than 3 percent a year. That is better than the 1.9
percent growth of the
1980s, but is less than one half of Latin America's 6 percent average in the
1960s and 1970s, and
substantially below the 3.4 percent the World Bank estimates is necessary to
reduce poverty. It is far
short of what the region's economic reforms were supposed to deliver.

At the same time, inequalities of income and wealth are worsening almost
everywhere. Latin America
suffers the worst income disparities of any region in the world (with sub-
Saharan Africa running a
close second).

But it is not only economic hardship that is undermining democracy's
credibility. Few of Latin
America's democratic governments are managing to do a very good job of
actually governing. A large
share of Latin America's population has little or no access to minimal
government services. Only 1 of
3 Latin American children attends secondary school, compared with over 4 of
5 in Southeast Asia, and
most drop out before graduating. On average, Latin American workers have
two years less schooling
than workers in identical jobs in other countries with similar income levels.

Compounding these problems, Latin America's basic democratic institutions-
judicial systems,
legislatures, political parties, even the presidency are weak and discredited in
most countries.
Sometimes, they barely work at all. By comparison, freedom of the press has
been a bright spot, but
the media still face sharp restrictions in a number of countries, including
Argentina, Chile, Mexico,
and Peru.

Nevertheless, debates over whether Latin America's glass is half empty or
half full miss the point.
Latin America is neither going to leapfrog to full-fledged democracy and
prosperity overnight, nor
spiral into anarchy. The region is in trouble. But some countries will start to
make slow and steady
gains in the next decade.

Chile has set the standard. In the last 10 years, it has achieved steady growth
averaging above 6
percent a year, a sharp and visible reduction in poverty (although not
inequality), and continuing
improvements in government services.

Argentina has made impressive economic and political advances since
democratic rule was restored
in 1983 and is now well situated probably better than any other Latin
American country to accelerate
its progress on both fronts.

Uruguay and Costa Rica, which along with Chile have the strongest
democratic heritage in Latin
America, will almost surely sustain the vitality of their democratic institutions
and maintain the quality
of their public services. The future of their economies is harder to predict.
Historically, the economic
performance of both countries has been uneven, and both are heavily
dependent on their larger

Mexico shows good prospects of significant economic success, particularly if
the U.S. economy
remains strong. The quality of its politics, however, will be hampered by its
short experience with
democracy, continuing deep political divisions, and extensive drug problems,
criminal violence, and

Among the region's smaller countries, El Salvador, Panama, and the
Dominican Republic have
demonstrated recent economic vitality. Brazil, which accounts for nearly one
third of Latin America's
population and economic activity, will heavily influence the region's overall
economic performance in
the coming years. It is the wild card.

Brazil's growth throughout the 1990s has been sluggish and will average less
than 2.5 percent a year
for the decade. Nevertheless, the country succeeded far beyond anyone's
expectations in squeezing
inflation out of its economy and quickly recuperating from its recent currency

Nowhere in Latin America today is democratic rule threatened by military
takeover, as it has been
through most of the region's history. Moreover, governments across the
region have resisted the
populist temptations that have typically plunged Latin America's economies
into crisis. They are trying
to maintain fiscal discipline by controlling spending and collecting more
taxes. Nowhere is there any
serious discussion of renationalizing privatized enterprises, reimposing high
tariff barriers, or
shutting the door on foreign investment. Even Venezuela's President Chavez,
who has denounced
"savage market capitalism" and promised to redistribute his country's wealth,
has not strayed from
market orthodoxy.

Is Latin America doomed to failure? Surely not. Even though Latin America
has fallen short of
expectations, most of the region will avoid outright disaster. Neither true
military dictatorships nor
populist economic strategies are likely to re-emerge, at least not any time
soon. Most of the region's
political leaders and financial managers are betting on democratic politics and
market economics,
and struggling to make them work.


M. Delal Baer's "Misreading Mexico" (FOREIGN POLICY, Fall 1997)

Shahid Javed Burki and Guillermo Perry, eds., Beyond the Washington
Consensus: Institutions Matter
(Washington: World Bank, 1998.

Burki and Perry's The Long March: A Reform Agenda for Latin America and
the Caribbean in the Next
Decade (Washington: World Bank, 1997)

John Cavanagh and Robin Broad's "The Death of the Washington Consensus"
(World Policy Journal,
Fall 1999)

Amaury da Souza's "Cardoso and the Struggle for Reform in Brazil" (Journal
of Democracy, July 1999)

Jorge Domínguez "Latin America's Crisis of Representation" (Foreign Affairs,
January/February 1997)

Sebastian Edwards' Crisis and Reform in Latin America: From Despair to
Hope (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995)

Edwards and Moisés Naím, eds., Mexico 1994: Anatomy of an Emerging-
Market Crash (Washington:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1997)

Mark Falcoff's "Argentina: An Electoral Turning Point" (Latin American
Outlook, October 1999)

Inter-American Development Bank's annual report on economic and social
progress in Latin America
for 1999-2000, entitled Facing Up to Inequality in Latin America

Inter-American Development Bank's recent book, Too Close to Home:
Domestic Violence in the
Americas (Washington: IDB, 1999)

Inter-American Dialogue's The Future at Stake (Washington: IAD, April 1998)

Inter-American Dialogue report's Convergence and Community (Washington:
IAD, 1993)

Steven Levitsky's "Fujimori and Post-Party Politics in Peru" (Journal of
Democracy, July 1999)

Abraham Lowenthal's "Latin America: Ready for Partnership?" (Foreign
Affairs, 1993)

Nora Lustig's Mexico: The Remaking of an Economy, second edition
(Washington: Brookings
Institution Press, 1998)

Scott Mainwaring's "The Surprising Resilience of Elected Governments"
(Journal of Democracy, July

Ken Maxwell's "The Two Brazils" (Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1999)

Michael Shifter's "Tensions and Trade-Offs in Latin America" (Journal of
Democracy, April 1997)

Shifter's "Colombia on the Brink" (Foreign Affairs, July/August 1999)

John Williamson, ed., Latin American Adjustment: How much has happened?
(Washington: Institute
for International Economics, 1990)

The best cross-country surveys of public opinion in Latin America are
presented in the annual
publication, Latinobarómetro, published by PROMPERU.

Peter Hakim is president of the Inter-American Dialogue. This abstract is
adapted from an article
appearing in the Winter 1999-2000 issue of FOREIGN POLICY magazine.

Copyright Carnegie Endowment for International Peace FOREIGN POLICY
WINTER 1999-2000

Discussion 20

Two Hours with Hugo Chávez
by Tomás Eloy Martínez

In the teeming river of dictators that runs through Latin American history,
never has one so
inscrutable surfaced as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez. Defining him through a
series of negations is
perhaps more appropriate than describing his elusive personality.

Is he a dictator? Perhaps the term depicts what Chávez says better than what
he does. Yet even his
deeds suggest that he interprets democracy differently than most people.
Unlike Juan Perón or
Augusto Pinochet, he has not choked off freedom of expression or of the
press, but neither has he
eliminated the fear that these liberties may end with the first bout of
government insecurity. There
are no political prisoners as in Cuba, but dozens of judges have been
arbitrarily removed for
presumed corruption. Emphasizing the "patriotic and voluntary" nature of its
exertions, the army
builds hospitals, repairs bridges, and purchases food in the countryside to
sell at cost in public
markets. Who could oppose that? "With Venezuela's terrible social drama,"
Chávez says, "we cannot
afford the luxury of having 100,000 men in the barracks, eating and standing
guard while people
starve on street corners." He may be right. But he used to be just a cashiered
lieutenant colonel, and
resentment may lurk among Venezuela's generals. They are, however, very
aware of his popularity
with the troops, and they know that a general without full control of his troops
is somewhat irrelevant.

Neither is Chávez a radical leftist seeking to overturn property laws. Yet in
campaign speeches he
defended the right of the needy to occupy the weekend homes of modest
middle-class families, while
his letter to Carlos the Jackal (a Venezuelan terrorist jailed in Paris) and
admiring words about Fidel
Castro smack of the rhetoric of the old left. And while he preaches friendship
with the United States,
his foreign affairs minister wastes no opportunity to exhibit his long-held anti-

When I sat down for a two-hour conversation with Chávez in the Palacio de
Miraflores in Caracas, I
expected to confront a terrible despot. But he radiates the opposite image:
that of a simple country
boy, open to criticism and willing to admit mistakes. His gestures are
seductive. He refers to visitors
by their first names, occasionally calling them "brother," inviting them to join
his travels, his
crusades against poverty in Venezuela's interior, his Sunday morning call-in
radio show.

When I listened to the tapes of our conversation, however, I learned how
deceiving first impressions
can be. Behind his affable demeanor, Chávez is wed to a few rigid and
recurring ideas. Initially, he
seems to agree with the arguments offered to him, but later, when the subject
re-emerges, he
reverts to prior formulations, as though he had memorized a single speech
from which he was
unwilling or unable to depart. Is this insecurity or fanaticism? It's difficult to
know. For Chávez there
is always a single truth, with no shades of gray. Although his personality has
much in common with
those of earlier Latin American dictators, Chávez understands that
authoritarianism faces stiffer
resistance now. Will he be more astute than predecessors such as Perón,
Rafael Trujillo, or
Venezuela's Marcos Pérez Jiménez, who he personally invited to his
presidential inauguration?

Since his adolescence, the president has felt predestined to fulfill the legacy
that Simón Bolívar left
unfinished 170 years ago. He can recite the Liberator's writings and surrounds
himself with portraits
and symbols commemorating his hero. But unlike Bolívar, whose political
plans were always
painstakingly designed, Chávez is not always predictable. His unwillingness
to clarify how much he
shares of his radical allies' anachronistic economic thinking has scared
foreign investors and
whatever is left of a once strong business community.

Because of his inexperience and provincial worldview, Chávez appears not to
understand that
complex interests swirling outside Venezuela could cause his projects to fail.
He seems naive and
irresponsible. When I asked if he feared dashing the hopes he had planted in
so many people and
speculated that such disenchantment could lead to chaos, he looked at me as
though the idea had
never crossed his mind. "God is with us," he said.

During the 1970s and even later, Latin America's authoritarian leaders
believed they were forever
altering their countries' political traditions. Pinochet, Jorge Rafael Videla, and
Jean-Claude Duvalier
did so, at least partially. After their tenures, Chile, Argentina, and Haiti were
never the same. Chávez
is attempting to shake the foundations of Venezuelan democracy and replace
them with new
institutions displaying doubtful democratic affinities, though anchored in
popular support. Is he
creating a new model for authoritarianism that could spread throughout the
Americas? Or is he a
social avenger who will come to understand that without playing by the new
rules of a globalized
world-markets and democracy-he is doomed to fail? Although Chávez
remains an enigma, it seems
likely that, rather than remaking history, he will be remade by it.

Tomás Eloy Martínez, director of the Latin American Studies Program at
Rutgers University, is the
author of many works on Peronism. His latest novel is Santa Evita (New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1996).