No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Latin America and the United Nations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
Extract
When the governments of the Latin American states were taking part in the negotiations leading to the founding of the UN, they could hardly have done so with nostalgic memories of the League of Nations. The League had provided no protection to the Caribbean countries from interventions by the United States, and, largely because of United States protests, it did not consider the Tacna-Arica and Costa Rica-Panama disputes in the early 1920's. Furthermore, Mexico had not been invited to join; Brazil withdrew in 1926; and Argentina and Peru took little part in League affairs. The organization was regarded as being run mainly for the benefit of European states with the aid of what Latin Americans called an “international bureaucracy,” in which citizens from the southern hemisphere played minor roles. The United States was, of course, not a member, and both the reference to the Monroe Doctrine by name in Article 21 of the Covenant and the organization's practice of shunning any attempt to interfere in inter-American affairs against the wishes of the United States made the League in its first decade a remote and inefficacious institution to countries that were seriously concerned about domination by Washington.
- Type
- III. The United Nations and Its Members
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The IO Foundation 1965
References
1 Vandenberg, Arthur H. Jr, (ed.), The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952), pp. 186–193Google Scholar, passim.
2 General Assembly Official Records (15th session), pp. 238–246.
3 UN Documents S/2988 and S/3232.
4 UN Documents A/4543 and A/4701.
5 General Assembly Official Records (9th session), p. 148.
6 General Assembly Official Records (9th session), p. 98.
7 General Assembly Official Records (9th session), p. 174.
8 Annual Report of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization, 1 July 1953–30 June 1954 (General Assembly Official Records [9th session], Supplement No. 1), p. xi.
9 UN Documents A/C.1/L.274, A/C.1/L.275, A/C.1/L.276, and A/C.1/277, respectively.
10 UN Document A/C.1/L.276.
11 General Assembly Official Records… First Committee (15th session), pp. 108–110.
12 Hovet, Thomas Jr, Bloc Politics in the United Nations (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ball, Margaret M., “Bloc Voting in the General Assembly,” International Organization, 02 1951 (Vol. 5, No. 1), pp. 3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar. These statements are also based on conversations with members of missions to the United Nations.
13 Castañeda, Jorge, Mexico and the United Nations (New York: Manhattan Publishing Co., 1958), p. 147Google Scholar.
14 See Vandenberg, pp. 186–193, passim. For a further description of the way Article 51 was adopted, see also Yakemtchouk, Romain, L'ONU: La Securité Régionale et le Problème du Régionalisme (Paris: A. Pedone, 1955)Google Scholar.
15 Security Council Official Records (15th year), 893rd–895th meetings, September 8–9, 1960.
16 UN Document S/5095; and Security Council Official Records (17th year), 998th meeting, March 23, 1962.
17 Castañeda, p. 187.
18 Foreign Affairs Outline No. 8—Democracy vs. Dictators in Latin America—How Can We Help? (Department of State Publication 7729, Inter-American Series 90) (Washington, D.C:U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964)Google Scholar.
19 Similar views have been expressed by another senior official in the Mexican Foreign Affairs Office, Robledo, Antonio Gómez, in La Seguridad Colectiva en el Continente Americano (Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1959Google Scholar) and also in “La crisis actual del sistema interamericano,” Foro International, 07–09 1962 (Vol. 3, No. 1) and October-December 1962 (Vol. 3, No. 2)Google Scholar.
20 Castañeda, p. 172.