Americans love their backyard. From hundreds of dollars of water being used to sprinkle lawns to the top percentiles hiring full-on gardening crews to upkeep how their surroundings look to their neighbors, every year Americans spend a large amount of effort on something as trivial as wildflowers and grass. The American government also loves their backyard, specifically Latin America. American hegemony in the region has stayed ever since the times of Theodore Roosevelt, with America once holding various colonies in places like Cuba. From allying with nations like Brazil during World War II to trading with various Latin American countries to this day, America shares significant historic, military, and political ties to various nations in the Americas. There are only a few times this hegemony has been challenged, however. Two main instances of this were the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, both of which attempted to sway Latin American nations away from the US into their own political spheres. While both nations had different methods and different reasons for doing this, the actual doctrine seen in both Soviet and Chinese influence in the region is extremely similar. As international alliances shift and global tensions rise, it is important to look out for who sides with whom. In this case, it is important to analyze Chinese doctrine in the region to get a better understanding of what China is doing by drawing parallels with Soviet doctrine for influence during the Cold War, specifically when looking at the fields of economics and military influence.
One of the most direct ways that the Soviets were able to increase their influence in Latin America was through military sales, military investments, advisor trades, and technical support. Overall, the USSR used weapons, insurgent training, advisors, and military relationships to establish long-term regional influence with nations like Cuba and Nicaragua. Military support from the Soviet Union existed in two specific ways. The first was direct support. One of the key ways the Soviets were able to influence various Latin American nations was by giving them large amounts of military equipment. Often, these military equipment shipments included experts from the Warsaw Pact and Cuba (CIA 1986). The Soviets wanted allies in the region like Nicaragua who were “militarily strong, economically stable, institutionally unified, and responsive to Soviet political and strategic interests” (CIA 1985). The increase in Soviet military support had such an effect in the regional waters near Latin America that the United States Navy was directly concerned about its own control of sea lanes and strategic naval positioning (Edwards 1980). In the various reports put out by the US government highlighted in this section, it is clear that direct military support from the USSR posed significant security threats to the US. This makes sense — from various military vehicles to weapon systems, a quick online search shows how Soviet military procurement during the Cold War was focused on countering Western weapon systems in a conventional war with NATO. Soviet direct investment became such a threat that, especially during the times of President Ronald Reagan, direct military action was sometimes taken. For example, the United States conducted a wide variety of political movements, economic investments, and military support to try to aid Nicaraguan resistance forces called the Contras (Culvahouse 1987). While this ended in failure, this direct US response and intervention seen during the Iran-Contra affair shows how threatening Soviet investment into the region was.
Soviet military intervention does not only end there, though. Indirect Soviet military support came in the form of training thousands of guerrilla fighters (CIA 1985). While this tactic was not only centered toward Latin America, with the Soviets and Americans holding proxy wars across the globe during the Cold War, the idea that the Soviets were willing to directly support opponents of American foreign policy during the Cold War was a clear sign of increased Soviet aggression. When comparing this with modern Chinese military investments, while there is evidence that China is not directly supporting terrorist organizations, it is supporting Latin American countries still, expanding its military influence in the region by doing what the Soviets did — supporting the creation of tactical and economic infrastructure that, in times of war, could theoretically be used by Chinese and Chinese-allied forces.
The comparisons also extend into the economic support that China is giving. Similar to how China is a major trading ally for various Latin American nations, the Soviets were able to become a major Latin American trading partner as well. By creating and recognizing the struggles of various nations to source materials, the Soviets were able to capitalize on opportunities when they arrived. For example, Brazil is a nation that “is almost completely dependent on external supplies of fuel and lubricants” (CIA 1958). Coincidentally, the Soviet Union was one of the largest fuel- and lubricant-producing nations in the entire world. Similarly, Argentina was subject to similar economic “penetration” (CIA 1958). By focusing on naval projection of power, specifically the control of sea lanes, the Soviets were able to dictate shipping, oil routes, and trade access for Latin American nations, overall not only threatening Latin American economic security but American economic security as well (Edwards 1980). Similar to how China is a major economic ally of Latin American nations today, and provides various direct infrastructure investments as well as indirect economic aid in the form of loans and grants, the Soviet Union was willing to invest large sums of money during its prime to support Latin American development and create strong, long-term economic and military allies.
There can be many parallels drawn between how China is expanding its influence through economic investments, infrastructure projects, and trade relationships and how the Soviets were able to expand their influence in the region using similar doctrines. While the exact details of how both nations were able to sway countries away from the US are different, the overarching themes are the same. By advertising themselves as alternative allies that are able to provide long-term bases of support, many nations are choosing to move away from the US and side with China or previously with the USSR. Because of the political ramifications of Chinese hegemony in Latin America, it is crucial and historically significant to look at Soviet investments in Latin America to understand how China is expanding its influence today.
Sources
CIA. 1958. Soviet Economic Penetration of Latin America. Central Intelligence Agency.
CIA. 1975. The Latin American Arms Market. Intelligence Memorandum. Central Intelligence Agency. December 1975.
CIA. 1985. Soviet and Soviet Surrogate Training of Insurgents. Central Intelligence Agency. August 1985.
CIA. 1986. Soviet Policy Toward Nicaragua. Directorate of Intelligence. Central Intelligence Agency. November 25, 1986.
Culvahouse, Arthur B., Jr. 1987. Iran/Arms Transaction: Legal Memoranda – Nicaraguan Contra Aid (Boland Amendment). Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
Edwards, Mickey. 1980. “Soviet Expansion and Control of Sea Lanes.” Proceedings 106, no. 9. U.S. Naval Institute.https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1980/september/soviet-expansion-and-control-sea-lanes.