“ROLE OF COMMUNISM IN POST – COLD WAR PERIOD: STUDY OF LATIN

AMERICAN COUNTRIES”

SUBMITTED BY:

3rd YEAR, BA.LLB (Hons.)

ROLL NO: BA0130041

5th SEMESTER

SUBMITTED TO: PROF. CHETAN SINGAI

POLITICAL SCIENCE – III
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THE TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

DINDIGUL HIGHWAY, NAVALUR KUTTAPATTU, SRIRANGAM TALUK,

TIRUCHIRAPALLI – 620009

2015
 CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. COLD WAR REACHES LATIN AMERICA

2.1 UNCLE SAM AND LATIN AMERICA

2.2 LATIN AMERICA IN THE WORLD SYSTEM

3. POSITION OF LATIN AMERICA POST COLD WAR

3.1 RE-EMERGENCE OF LEFT IN LATIN AMERICA

4. CONCLUSION

5. REFERENCES
 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

“ROLE OF COMMUNISM IN POST – COLD WAR PERIOD: STUDY OF LATIN

AMERICAN COUNTRIES”

1. INTRODUCTION

In the past 3 decades, comparative political analysts have used a pluralist framework1 to analyze
three phases in Latin America’s political evolution: Breakdown, Transition to Democracy, and
consolidation of democracy.2 The ‘breakdown’ refers to economic crisis, political polarization,
violence that engulfed Latin America beginning in the 1960s. By mid-1980s, Latin America
endured 20 years of military rule. The decade saw the beginning of end of Communism.

Attempts to understand the political and economic history of Latin America in the post-cold
period, through Marxist perspective and related theories will be made in this project as
‘economics’ is a dominant factor that has high potential to bring about a change unlike other
major theories in international relations, (Realism and Liberalism) which lay emphasis on the
dominance of political over economic. Marxist theory holds that class struggle is the impetus for
a social change; where the oppressor class is eventually overthrown by the oppressed and new
social structure emerges based on Socialism (social welfare). This is the philosophical basis of
the communist movements during the 20th century, from Soviet Union to Latin America to North
Korea to China. Though Marx originally focused on individual societies, the later interpretations
(‘New Marxism’)3 promoted that class exploitation is not only occurs domestically but also
between States and is used to explain the gap in relative wealth and development of North-South
States.

Economic growth in industrialized countries created the third world poverty and the development
of industrial system in North America and Western Europe impoverished regions in Africa, Asia
and Latin America, through imperialism. Hence, Marxism and ‘Dependency’ theory along with
the ‘World Systems’ theory remain important schools of thought in Latin American studies.
Also, the attempts will be made through this research to reconstruct and analyze Latin America’s
1
In a pluralist international society, the institutional framework is geared towards the liberty of states and the
maintenance of order among them. Tim Dunne, Steve Smith, International Relations Theories. Major theorists
include Seymour Martin Lipset and Charles E. Lindblom.
2
Daniel C. Hellinger, Comparative Politics of Latin America: Democracy at Last?, (Routledge, 2011), p 25.
3
World Systems Theory and Dependency Theory
Cold War that deals with both diplomatic and transnational struggles and in understanding how
the global and national interacted in shaping its history of Cold War.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Was US responsible through its interventions in various spheres for the volatile
conditions in Latin America during the Cold war?
2. What is the role of communism in post cold war period in Latin America with the growth
in Democracy and globalization?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology adopted is primarily doctrinal, based on secondary data and does not
provide any new data. The approach adopted is Inductive reasoning, as it tries to draw general
conclusions from specific premises.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Conceptual Framework:

The concepts explored in this paper relate to the role of communism during the cold war period
(1945 – 1991) and also post cold war period. It also related to various concepts of International
Relation like ‘Bipolarity’, ‘Multipolarity’, ‘Military coups’, ‘Hegemon’, ‘intervention by State
actors’, ‘globalization’, ‘new phase of democratization’ among others. It further deals with the
dissolution of communist states in Latin American region and the reemergence of the new-left.

Theoretical Framework

Various theories have been used to understand the role of communism rather than a particular
approach. Theories which support free market trade (capitalist theories) like, the ‘Modernization
theory’ – major proponent includes W.W. Rostow and also, the ‘Dependency Theory’ which
criticizes the Development or Modernization theory have been analyzed to understand their
stand. Major proponents of this theory include Raul Prebisch and Hans Singer. Lastly, the World
Systems Theory has been applied to understand the position of underdeveloped/developing
countries including Latin American countries which form the Periphery/ Semi-periphery. Major
proponents of this theory include Immanuel Wallterstein and Andre Gunder Frank.
2. COLD WAR REACHES LATIN AMERICA
Cold War is a time period of political instability and animosity that existed between US and the
soviet bloc (emergence of a bipolar international system) because of irreconcilable ideological,
social, and political differences from the years covering 1945 – 1990. In Europe, the
establishment of NATO commenced the process of bloc formation. Meanwhile, three major
historical events in the World history led to spillover of Cold War in Asia; beginning with the
Communist takeover of China (in 1949), the detonation of the first Soviet atomic bomb (1949)
and the Korean War (1950 – 1953).4

The then Latin American socio-economic conditions were characterized by repression, illiteracy,
and poverty. Revolutionary movements formed to fight the land-owning aristocrats and the
military rulers, the junta5 with which was U.S. financial interests cooperated with.

It took a considerable period of time for the Soviet Union to establish itself as an important actor
in Latin America. The ‘Monroe Doctrine’, a US foreign policy in 1823, preventing European
nations to colonize further with North, Central and South American States was sought to be
invoked after a communist government was established in Cuba to prevent further spreading of
Soviet-backed communism in Latin America. Though in practice, this doctrine has given
unparalleled right of unilateral intervention over the Americas and also functioned as a
declaration of hegemony.6 Also, the strategy of containment7 emerged when George F. Kennan
emphasized the fundamental difference between capitalism and communism and reasoned that
the long-term soviet policy was geared towards world domination.8

Around the early 1950s, Soviet Union had diplomatic relations with only 3 Latin American
nations: Mexico, Argentina and Uruguay. The then Soviet Union considered Guatemala as the
most interesting country after Colonel Arbenz, who was politically inclined towards the left, had
taken over as President. When the U.S. based United Fruit Company was nationalized and were
not adequately recompensed by the Gautemalan government and the series of social reforms

4
Andreas Wenger and Doron Zimmermann, International Relations: From the Cold war to the Globalized World,
Viva Book Private Limited, 2015, p27
5
Latin American military regime and/or dictatorship that came to power by violently overthrowing its predecessor
in a coup.
6
Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky (2004), pp 63-64; The New Military Humanism: Lessons from Kosovo,
“Assessing Humanitarian Intent”, (1999), p 41.
7
Policy of impeding the expansion of Soviet power around the globe; conceived by George F. Kennan in 1947.
8
Andreas Wenger and Doron Zimmermann, International Relations: From the Cold war to the Globalized World,
Viva Book Private Limited, 2015, p34
under Arbenz arose apprehensions among the US policy makers of losing another State to
Communism. However, strong diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union could not be
established due to increasing criticism of US and a weak communist party. Domestically, though
Arbenz’s moderate socialist reforms were beginning to take effect, there was a discontented
upper class and a weaker following of the Communist Party. At the international level, U.S. no
stone unturned to contain the communist expansion and therefore, engineered the ouster of
Arbenz through another military coup and the reforms introduced through him were annulled. 9
Meanwhile, US could no longer ignore the escalating anti-American sentiment in other Latin
America countries and increased its economic assistance.10

When Fidel Castro overthrew Batista’s government in Cuba and assumed power, Soviet Union
made no strong commitments towards Cuba. However, after introduction of policies like
nationalization (of American companies) and comprehensive land reforms, the communist
influence increased in Cuba and so did military and economic pacts with Moscow. Domestically,
Castro’s Marxist reforms led to exodus of Cubans to State of Florida in US. Also, US led an
attempt at Bay of Pigs to bring down Castro’s communist government which failed as there was
no popular uprising against Castro. By late 1961, diplomatic relations between Cuba and US
broke off and the Kennedy administration placed a trade embargo on the island.11

Castro’s revolution aggravated anti-Americanism within Latin America and magnified the
militancy of both Left and Right. This impact was apparent in the 1960s. Rebellions from local
grievances waged campaigns Central and South America. Cuba and the Soviet Union aided the
area’s guerilla groups, while the United States engaged in covert action and sometimes direct
military intervention to counter the radical Left.

One of the major challenges to this wave of communism in Latin America was Brazil. Costa e
Silva (during whose term, the AI-5 (Institutional Act 5) was passed which gave the president
powers to order repressive methods against left inclined parties or individuals) 12 and Medici were
9
Andreas Wenger and Doron Zimmermann, International Relations: From the Cold war to the Globalized World,
Viva Book Private Limited, 2015, p80
10
“East, West, North, South: International Relations since 1945”, Geir Lundestad, Sage Publications, 7 th Edition
(2014).
11
“Latin America and the Cold War”; Allen Wells
12
Maria Helena Moreira Alves, “Interclass Alliance in the Opposition to the Military in Brazil: Consequences for
the Transition Period”, in Susan Eckstein (ed) Power and Popular Protest: Latin American Social Movements,
(University of California Press, 2001) pp278-284
on amicable terms with the United States, yet they were firm when refused to sign the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation treaty, stating that it was discriminatory in favor of nuclear powers as against
non-nuclear powers.

Further, the theory of modernization 13 was which was purely American (the theory that evolution
from a ‘Traditional’ to a ‘modern’ society, would make States more powerful and economically
stable and that citizens can enjoy a higher standard of living) emerged which was supportive of
US objectives. It conflated modernization with westernization. The ones who advocated this
modernization argued that any other society apart from the west are simply primitive or un-
evolved. And they considered such societies to be inferior even if they had same standard of
living as western ones. According to Rostow, the West or the ‘North’ belongs to the fifth and the
last category in his five-stage model of development, ‘Age of high mass consumption’ 14 and that
the economic growth models of the developed economies were universally applicable.

One of the interpretations of Modernization theory is that the cause of poverty and major
obstacle to development are the social values. According to this theory, tradition is something
which is meant to be overcome but not utilized. This was countered by radical school of Latin
American intellectuals15 wherein they conceived the theory that underdevelopment as what
happened to Latin America and other Third World States as a result of the development in
Europe and North America. Underdevelopment is not a condition in which all societies found
themselves before progress; rather, some societies underdeveloped other.16 Also, according to the
Singer-Prebisch thesis, the nations belonging to this part of the hemisphere should employ a
degree of protectionism in trade if they want to self-sustain in the age of development. 17

Modernization allowed partial development or “dependent development” – a type of pretentious

development, which is under the control of foreign decision makers. Attempts of
industrialization around the 1960s in Latin America were partly successful as it proved beneficial
to US investors. Such a radical change for traditional societies did more harm than good as
13
W.W. Rostow, “The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto” (Cambridge University Press,
1960) pp4-16
14
Ibid.
15
Hans Singer and Raul Prebisch
16
Daniel C. Hellinger, Comparative Politics of Latin America: Democracy at Last? 2nd Edn. (Routledge, 2011), p
160.
17
Raul Prebisch, “The Eco-nomic Development of Latin America and Its Principal Problems”, United Nations
Department of Economic Affairs , Lake Success, New York, 1950
traditional poverty was replaced by a more modern form of despair. They conveniently used
terms ‘democratization, liberalization, development’ interchangeably. And given that some of
the Latin American countries were very poor economies, they cannot rely on foreign investments
and trade as fostering development which the developed nations of the North sought to achieve.

Inspired by Cuba, many Latin American nations followed suit and engaged in guerilla
insurgencies with one notable success around 1980s in Nicaragua which again could not survive
domestic and foreign opposition. Elsewhere, civil wars turned violent with gross human and
material loss in places like, Guatemala, Chile, Brazil, El Salvador, Argentina and Uruguay.

2.1 “Uncle Sam and Latin America”

“America is therefore the land of the future, where, in the ages that lie before us, the burden of
the World’s History shall reveal itself – perhaps in a contest between North and South
America.”18

This one government tried its best to protect its source (i.e. Latin America) of raw materials.
Because these nations, which were beginning to be inclined towards communism in practice
failed to complement the industrial economies of the West. 19 Post world wars, it was going to be
vital for survival of US corporations that the other western industrial societies reconstruct from
wartime damage so they could import US manufactured goods and provide investment
opportunities. But it was crucial that these societies reconstruct in a very specific way which is
constructive to the US.20

The traditional, right-wing order had to be restored, with business dominant, labor split and
weakened, and the burden of reconstruction placed on the labor class. In fact, US deployed
considerable resources in combating the notion which was rapidly spreading through Latin
America, that the government is directly responsible for welfare of the people. For instance, the
coup d’état against the democratically elected Socialist government of Salvador Allende in
Chile, was coordinated partly by Henry Kissinger and the Nixon administration. 21 That was the

18
Hegel, The Philosophy Of Life, 1822
19
“What Uncle Sam Really Wants”, Noam Chomsky, Interviewed by David Barsamian, 1992
20
Ibid p 15.
21
John Beverley, “Latin America after 9/11: Geopolitics and the Pink Tide”, (2012).
beginning of a new dawn of conservative restoration in the Latin American region. The wealthy
nations need a peripheral group of comparatively poorer states in order to remain wealthy. 22

Major threat that US perceived was not the local appeal to Soviet – backed Communism but
rather the antifascist resistance. US did everything in its power to prevent the spread of
communism and even obliterate the traces of socialist inclinations by engaging in proxy wars;
aiding the governments which were favorable to them by disregarding the stakes involved.
Surprisingly, all these acts go unquestioned as they are done legitimately under the garb of
“democracy”; “modernization”; “globalization” etc, which are tailor made for propaganda and
private investments. And of course, this did not lead to ‘modernization’ or ‘liberalization’ but to
a new form of camouflaged colonialism and not ‘development’ but to underdevelopment as a
result of continued dependency and unequal exchange.

According to Noam Chomsky, US achievements in Central America (including nations like

Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras) in the past fifteen years are a major tragedy,
not just because of appalling human cost, but because a decade ago there were prospects for real
progress towards meaningful democracy and meeting human needs, with early successes in El
Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.23

2.2“Latin America in World System”

“World Systems” theory24 was first elaborated by Immanuel Wallerstein. According to the
theory, a world system came into existence when European countries went on an imperial
rampage and colonized the American states. Result being the emergence of a global capitalist
system along with nation – states. Wealthy industrialized states form the core of the system, and
one state within the core tends to emerge as the strongest – the hegemon (currently, the United
States). Some states form the ‘semi-periphery’ – states that have undergone some
industrialization and are better off than the poorest countries in the system. In Latin America,
countries like Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Venezuela are included in this intermediate
condition. States that were integrated through imperialism into the world system as producers of

22
“Dependency Theory”, Frank Grunder.
23
Arthur Naiman, “What Uncle Sam Really Wants”, in Noam Chomsky (ed) How The World Works, (Soft Skull
Press 1992) pp8 – 73 at p 36.
24
Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative
Analysis”, Comparative studies in Society and History, Volume 16, Issue 4 (Sept., 1974), pp387-415
raw materials form the ‘periphery’ which includes Latin America’s poorest states like Bolivia,
Haiti, and Nicaragua.25 This perception that the international economic system is one that which
has an industrial center and an agrarian periphery, in which the center dominates the latter, had
major influence in analyzing the underdeveloped countries.

Though Modernization theorists believe that foreign aid and investment is the path of
development for the under-developed countries, in practice, these countries are at loss again,
since the foreign investors benefit from cheap labor and exploitation of natural resources from
these regions. As long as the US indulges in imperialist practices against Latin American
countries, it would prevent countries in this region from developing.

3. POSITION OF LATIN AMERICA POST COLD WAR

During the 1990s, global security and global governance was sought to be achieved through
international organizations like the UN. There was growth of international economic
interdependence and economic globalization which according to Joseph Stiglitz had a darker side
and which “brought enormous benefits to a few and with few benefits to many” 26 and lead to
crisis among small countries. Capital-market liberalization might increase growth but it also
increases poverty. Because investing in small and underdeveloped countries increases the risk of
the investors. Also, it highlighted the social tensions between haves and the have-nots.

Though the Soviet Union and the United States were engaged in ideological and geopolitical
struggle for over 5 decades, they never engaged in an actual armed conflict. During the early
1980s, Latin America started inclining towards democracy. Elections were held, Juntas and
military regimes were overthrown and the continent went democratic.

First among the emerging trends of a post cold war period was the shift from a bipolar
international system to a unipolar system. With the end of the cold war, the existing bipolar
system became non-existent due to the disintegration of USSR and a unipolar world with the
United States as the hegemon emerged. Secondly, democratization of States had significant
impact on international system, with dissolution of communist states and spread and growth of
democracy. There was a change in the definition and application of Power as from the cold war
25
Daniel C. Hellinger, Comparative Politics of Latin America: Democracy at Last? 2nd Edn. (Routledge, 2011), pp
169-170.
26
Joseph Stiglitz, “Globalism’s Discontents”, American Prospect, January 14, 2002
period wherein during the cold war there was arms race and nuclear power (hard power)
whereas, in the post cold war period, there was the soft power agenda as a result in information
technology. In an environment of soft power structures, new institutions, new networks,
multinational corporations emerged.

Post 1980s – 1990s, when the cold war was winding down in Latin America, militarism made it
the sought after destination for foreign investment and the neoliberal policies of post cold war
era emphasize on reducing privatization, social services etc. But, the underlying principles that
gave rise to the movements of the Left still remain.

Though Cuba failed to diversify its economy partly due to US trade embargo on it, it managed to
survive on strong soviet backing during cold war. After disintegration of the Soviet Union, the
Cuban government was forced to introduce tight rationing of energy, food and consumer goods.
The economy sustained with investments especially in tourism.27

The end of the Soviet – Cuban relationship facilitated a resolution of the Central American Crisis
in the early 1990s, specifically in Nicaragua and El Salvador. There was intermittent US
intervention in Nicaragua starting with backing Anastasio Somoza as leader as against a leftist
rebel Sandino. Alhough the leftist Sandanistas (left rebels in Nicaragua) managed to overthrow
Somoza’s rule, their control lasted only until the end of 1990 which was again overtaken by U.S.
backed rebels. Such intervention by U.S. in various spheres was inexplicable and still it.
Although considerable internal challenges continued in both countries, the electoral defeat in
Nicaragua of the Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega in Feb 1990 satisfied the international
community, ended the U.S. financial support for the Contras, and provided a transition to
peace.28

Elsewhere in the region, terrorism and guerilla warfare cropped up occasionally during the
1990s. President Fujimori in Peru, eliminated the Shining Path (a Maoist guerilla insurgent
organization and also the Communist Party of Peru) as a threat to national security. In Chiapas,
Mexico in 1994, indigenous people led by Commandante Marcos, revolted against Mexican
government authorities, demanding land redistribution and improved living conditions for the

27
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-19583447, Last visited on (02.09.2015) at (12:20 a.m)
28
Stephen J. Randall, “United States – Latin American Relations in the Post – Cold War”, Vol. 6, Issue 4, Journal of
Military and Strategic Studies (2004) pp 1 – 23 at 4.
indigenous peoples of the region.29 Though the revolt attracted international attention, it didn’t
resolve the economic or social problems in the region and slowly disappeared.

By the turn of the 21st century only Columbia had a serious guerilla insurgency. Colombian
leftist guerilla groups, dominated by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and
the National Liberation Army have been a challenge within the country since the 1960s. 30 Also,
the instability in relations with the Middle East and threats with oil supplies over the years, made
U.S more concerned with Latin America, since Venezuela is one of the major oil supplier to the
Unites States and which also once threatened to nationalize U.S. owned oil companies before the
agreed schedule.31

By the late 1980’s and the early 1990’s one trouble which took the center stage was economic
crisis and “external debt” which became a household word as a result of all the Civil wars and
economic and political changes.

2.1 “Resurgence of the ‘Left’ in Latin America”

Post 9/11, US foreign policy turned away from Latin America and was directed towards war on
terrorism and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. With US having less vigilance over Latin America,
it led to the emergence of concept of “Pink Tide” or “Turn to the Left”, the marea rosada or
marea rosa in Latin America. These phrases are used in contemporary political analysis to
describe that left wing politics in particular are increasingly influential in Latin America. 32

During the past decade, most Latin American nations were governed by movements that carried
the ideals of “Socialism” or ‘the left’ in some sense. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Lula da Silva
and Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, Nestor and Cristina Kirchner in
Argentina, Tabare Vazquez and Jose Mujica in Uruguay, the Lagos and Bachelet governments in
Chile, Evo Morales in Bolivia, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, Manuel Zelaya in Honduras
(although deposed by the 28 June 2009 coup), and Rafael Correa of Ecuador are all left inclined
politicians who’ve often declared themselves as Socialists, Latin Americanists or anti –
29
Ibid p 6.
30
Charles Bergquist, Ricardo Penaranda and Gonzalo Sanchez G., eds., Violence in Colombia 1990 – 2000: Waging
War and Negotiating Peace (Wilmington Delaware: Scholarly Resources, 2001).
31
On the background to the nationalization, see Stephen G. Rabe, “The Road to OPEC: United States Relations with
Venezuela, 1919-1976”, 169-190.
32
Boston Globe: The Many Stripes of Anti – Americanism.
imperialists. The term ‘Post – neoliberalism’ is used to refer the Pink Tide. The catalyst behind
the Pink Tide were the depraving economic crisis in Latin America in the 1990s, the Brazilian
devaluation in 1999, the economic collapses of Ecuador in 1999 – 2000 and Argentina in 2001 –
2002.

Post cold war, discussion on the Latin American left is reemerging which attempts to analyze the
course of action in order to advance toward the socialist goal. It includes major themes like:
Social subjects, relationships of force, material conditions, popular consciousness, institutional
frameworks, and organizing the oppressed.33

The economic policy of ‘Import Substitution Industrialization’ was adopted in Latin America
during the 1940s till late 1980s where foreign imports were replaced by domestic production.
The tariffs were fixed to allow the domestic industries to grow. Though Prebisch argued that
‘Import Substitution Industrialization’ was the best strategy for underdeveloped countries than
mutual trade and export with other developed or developing countries, such protectionism led to
inefficiency of domestic producers who had no foreign competition to improve the quality of
products. It also denied the benefits of specialization from foreign imports. Despite being
successful in some countries, these policies lead to large deficits and economic crisis in late
1980s.

After such crisis, are the forces of production in Latin America established enough to undertake
another anti-capitalist reformation? Are the existing sources and technologies sufficient to
initiate a socialist process? The peripheral situation of Latin America portray that it is indeed ill-
equipped to solve economic and social problems relating to agricultural backwardness, financial
dependence, educational backwardness etc. One of the responses to address this predicament is
to initiate a socialist transition.

4. CONCLUSION

Massive nuclear weapons were stockpiled by both the Capitalist bloc and the Soviet bloc during
the Cold war which went unused. It can be established through historical facts and
documentations that US intervened in that part of the hemisphere without any justification to

33
Claudio katz, “Socialist Strategies in Latin America”, in Jeffer R. Webber, Barry Carr (ed) The New Latin
American Left: Cracks in the Empire, (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers 2012) pp 31-48 at p 31.
protect its interests. There was rampant poverty, peasant suppression, illiteracy among the
masses in the Latin American region which was the root cause of guerilla insurgency and rise of
communism at the beginning of the cold war. Eventually, the cold war, which was initially only
an ideological difference between the United States and the Soviet Union spilled over to Europe
and finally to Latin America. United States has explicitly engaged in activities and formulated
policies to contain communism in this part of the hemisphere, because their primary fear was that
the Soviet Union sought to achieve global domination (assumption based on Kennan’s report).

When Latin American nations had communist revolts and revolutions, US backed all counter-
revolutionaries to thwart such movements and in certain cases, it has even cooperated and
backed brutal military regimes. After engaging in all civil wars and lending loans at higher rates
from international institutions (IMF), Latin American nations underwent severe economic crisis
due to external ‘debt’. IMF agreed to lend more loans if these States if they liberalized their
economy and allowed imports.

Post 1990s, most of the communist states in Latin America dissolved and was democratized.
Though, communist governments were overthrown by right wing rebels etc., there was a wave of
new left governments in Latin America where the leaders have sometimes explicitly mentioned
that they’re anti-imperialist and pro-socialist. The period after the disintegration of USSR cannot,
particularly, be termed as the ‘end’ of cold war, even though a multipolar world emerged after
dissolving the bipolar world. Also, cold war still continues in U.S. policy towards Cuba which
has very recently, relaxed the trade embargo to an almost negligible extent.

5. REFERENCES

BOOKS

 Joshua S. Goldstein, International Relations, (Eighth Edition), Pearson.

 A Heywood, Global Politics, 321 (2011)
 Andreas Wenger and Doron Zimmermann, International Relations: From the Cold war to the
Globalized World, Viva Book Private Limited, 2015
 John Baylis, The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford University Press (2014)
ARTICLES

 Immanuel Wallerstein, The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for
Comparative Analysis.
 Joseph Stiglitz, “Globalism’s Discontents”, American Prospect, January 14, 2002