Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:27:10.192Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Soviet Policy in Latin America: Implications for the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Jaime Suchlicki*
Affiliation:
University of Miami Graduate School of International Studies

Extract

In Describing Latin America as the “strategic rear” of the United States, the Soviet Union attributes great significance to this region for US interests and, consequently, to any changes which might alter the long-standing US dominance there. That the United States enjoys a unique position in Latin America has consistently been acknowledged by Soviet leaders. The US has been seen as able to enforce a “hands off” policy to extra-hemispheric powers; hence, the Kremlin has referred to “geographic fatalism” as its way of rationalizing the difficulties inherent in successfully effecting communist revolution, or even to advance Soviet influence, in an area so close to the United States.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © University of Miami 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aspaturian, V. (1987) “Nicaragua between East and West: The Soviet Perspective,” pp. 201235 in J. Valenta and E. Duran (eds.) Conflict in Nicaragua: A Multidimensional Perspective. Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Brutents, K. (1983) The Newly Freed Countries in the 1970s. Moscow, USSR: Progress Publications.Google Scholar
Evanson, R. (1985) “Soviet Political Uses of Trade with Latin America.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 27, 2 (Summer): 99127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foreign Broadcast Information Service-Soviet Union (FBIS-SOV) (1986) “US-backed Subversion of Contadora Criticized,” Izvestiya, 10 July. FBISSOV- 86-135(15July):A-3.Google Scholar
Foreign Broadcast Information Service-Soviet Union (FBIS-SOV) (1983) “Zagladin: No Intermediate Solution Valid,” Paris AFP, 9 March. FBIS SOV-83-048 (10 March): AA-2.Google Scholar
Hayes, M. D. (1982) “US Security Interests in Central America in Global Perspective,” pp. 85-102 in Richard Feinberg (ed.) Central America:Google Scholar
International Dimensions of the Crisis. New York, NY: Holmes and Meier. Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) (1986) Economic and Social Progress in Latin America, 1986 Report. Washington, DC: IDB.Google Scholar
Lazitch, B. (1981) Est et Quest. Paris, France.- booklet, n.p., 25 August. Miami Herald (1987) “Debtor Nations Come Up Empty” 23 March: A-27.Google Scholar
Packenham, R. (1986) “Capitalist vs. Socialist Dependency: The Case of Cuba.” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 28, 1 (Spring): 5992.Google Scholar
Papp, D. (1986) Soviet Policies Toward the Developing World During the 1980s: The Dilemmas of Power and Presence. Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air University Press (available US Government Printing Office).Google Scholar
Schoultz, L. (1987) National Security and United States Policy Toward Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Suchlicki, J. (1986) Cuba: From Columbus to Castro (2nd edition). Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey International Defense Publishers.Google Scholar
UN Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL) (1986) Balance Preliminar de la Economia Latinoamericana, 1986. Santiago, Chile: Naciones Unidas, December.Google Scholar
US Department of Commerce (US-DC) (1986) Survey of Current Business 66,8 (August).Google Scholar
US Department of Defense (US-DOD) (1987) Soviet Military Power 1987. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
US Department of State and Department of Defense (US-DS/DOD) (1986) The Challenge to Democracy in Central America. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Zagladin, V (1985) “World Balance of Forces and the Development of International Relations.” International Affairs (Moscow) (March): 65-75.Google Scholar