Monday, October 21, 2013

Evaluating the Alliance for Progress

After reading the actual proposal for the Alliance of Progress followed by an article weighing its pros and cons, how do we evaluate such a plan?  What were the goals of the Kennedy administration in Latin America, as stated in the Alliance proposal, as opposed to how external and historical sources have evaluated them?  How might the Alliance for Progress help us evaluate President Kennedy's foreign policy as a whole?

12 comments:

  1. The Alliance for Progress aimed to establish economic cooperation between the US and Latin America. The goals included to narrow the living standards between Latin America and other industrialized nations, increase the life expectancy, improve education and literacy rates, etc. The second article explains how this plan was basically just a "mere expansion of Point Four" and even says that it was to ensure the US stayed "ahead of rather than behind" neighboring nations. So, although the first article makes the Alliance for Progress seem ideal, to me it seems that Kennedy, as other presidents have demonstrated, was again concerned with sustaining American exceptionalism and implemented plans to keep all foreign relations in control.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The plan sounds pretty great in the proposal, which is pretty much how it's supposed to sound. higher living standards, better education, all of that fun stuff. but after the second article, it sort of seams like they're is an alternative motive to providing financial aid. So if America gives money to Latin America they're basically buying their loyalty. not only will they have more controle on the workings of their government but by having them as allies they latin american people also have the potential to be called in to fight America wars, (when the draft is still a thing)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The main objective of the Alliance for Progress was to make life better in these countries. They would add more schools and freshwater for the people. It seems like a good plan, but we then learn that this was just JFK's way of staying ahead and growing the alliance between the US and the world. Also this was our way of being able to use these people in war if need be.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The purpose of the Alliance for Progress was to "accelerate the economic and social development of the participating countries of Latin America". The goals were to gain a sustained growth per capita, make benefits of economic progress available to all citizens, have balance diversification, raise agricultural productivity and output, encourage reform programs, eliminate adult illiteracy, raise the life expectancy at birth, increase construction of low-cost houses, strengthen economic integration agreements, and develop cooperative programs for preventing excessive fluctuations in foreign exchange. External sources evaluated the goals as being "unrealistically high". Also, it states "Its premise is that the potential victims of Communism are also potential supporters of the cause of freedom" which shows that maybe the Alliance for Progress was just to show anti-Communism. This helps us evaluate Kennedy's foreign policy as a whole by questioning the underlying message of his policy and whether or not it was realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ultimately the Alliance of Progress consists of many goals, all similar in the fact that they try to "accelerate the economic and social development of the participating countries of Latin America so that they may achieve maximum levels of well-being..." First off, as the pro/con article says, these goals were "unrealistically high." There is no way that Latin America will reach a harmonious state of social equality, economic success, and political democracy. I guess this Alliance for Progress can serve as a microcosm for Kennedy's foreign policy as a whole. His ideas may sound picture perfect, but in reality there is no way that many of these things can be successful in the context of the other countries.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The First article clearly paints Kennedy's plan for latin america as being a plan for the greater good. The first article depicts parts of the plan that intend to "accelerate the economic and social development of the participating countries of Latin America." With the article going on and on about how Kennedy's plan was to elevate Latin America and place it at an equally competitive level as other areas in the world. While the second article told an entirely different story. This article showed just how much of a double edged sword Kennedy's plans for Latin America were. With the article saying that the actual goal was to keep North America above all others not to primarily elevate Latin American living.

    ReplyDelete
  7. latin america has always been a place where coupes and dictatorships are the normal government. the alliance for progress was just a dream in the governments heads, that looked good for the american people. the american people needed a reason to believe their money was going to the right place so poor,unindustrialized, uncivilized latin america was the perfect place. it gave the government a good outlet to say we are helping these people, while fighting communism and having their own way into the governments of latin america. i think that these ways for progress were as Mr. Plank put it, "unrealistically high".

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Alliance for a Progress seemed to be a genuinely good policy. It would provide a boost for developing countries so that they could compete globally on an economic scale. However, it later emerged that the policy may have been used to keep these other nations in check. Kennedy would have wanted the US to have a greater influence over these countries, so that they could be put to use if need be.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When you read both articles, you quickly realize just how different they are from one another. The first article talks about how great Kennedy's plan for Latin America was. How there will be a better economy, stronger education, improve medical care, etc. whereas the second article talks about all the weaknesses and wrongs that the plan possesses. It says that the main objective was to keep North America above other countries rather than better the lives of the citizens in Latin America.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The first article we read last night about development of economy and social somehow sounds too good to be true, it seems to me that Kennedy was getting ahead of himself a little bit. Terms like eliminate adult illiteracy and to achieve balanced diversification in national economy structure is no easy task to achieve in years, although all these terms put america into a selfishness and altruistic position, it is rather not accessible consider the status quo of lain american countries.
    One of the short-come of the plan as the second article mentions:"Washington's pursuit of goals in Latin America that are both narrow and short-sighted, it has earned small claim, in the eyes of many Latin Americans, to its self-arrogated role of leader of Latin America 's contemporary revolution"

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Alliance Progress should improve the economy of Latin American countries. The goal was to raise the living standard of the people there. In reality, it was difficult to realize this plan. Every south American country had a history of countless coups and dictatorships. The US goal was also to fix the continent politically - after North American standards, that is to say the containment of communism. This was the priority, while calling it helping the people in backward countries just sounded better.

    ReplyDelete
  12. If we had read the Alliance Progress alone, we would have a much different opinion on the Alliance Progress. The Alliance for Progress seemed as though America wanted to give immense aid to Latin America in money, education, and higher living standards. As Sydney said, this was a trick to buy loyalty and alliance, which I think has something to do with a preemptive stop to the spread of Communism in Latin America.

    ReplyDelete