U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central

America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives

in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

BY THOMAS PAPPAS

ADVISOR • Dr. John Dietrich

EDITORIAL REVIEWER •

Professor Emily Copeland

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation

with honors in the Bryant University Honors Program

APRIL 2020

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Bryant University Honors Program

Honors Thesis

Student: Thomas Pappas

Faculty Advisor: Professor John Dietrich

Editorial Reviewer: Professor Emily Copeland

April of 2020

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 1 -

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................2

Introductory Statement ..............................................................................................................3

Defining the Objective ..............................................................................................................3

Preliminary Argument ...............................................................................................................3

Structure ...................................................................................................................................4

Literature review .......................................................................................................................4

The origin of U.S. foreign policy objectives in Latin America ....................................................6

The origin of U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Cold War era ................................................7

Case 1: Nicaragua ................................................................................................................... 10

Case 2: Guatemala .................................................................................................................. 17

Case 3: El Salvador ................................................................................................................. 22

Comparative Analysis ............................................................................................................. 28

Additional Considerations ....................................................................................................... 29

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 30

References .............................................................................................................................. 32

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 2 -

Abstract

The goal of this thesis is to test the hypothesis that foreign policy objectives result from

incentives and pressures created by the international theater at large. These objectives evolve due

to changes in historical context and occasional paradigm shifts in international relations. So,

foreign policy objectives exist largely independent from any individual leader and rather emerge

from adaptations forced upon states by circumstance. The project is a qualitative structured

comparison between Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador during the Carter and Reagan years.

It concludes that there is strong evidence to support the hypothesis and secondary claim.

Keywords: Carter, Reagan, Central America, and U.S. Foreign Policy.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 3 -

Introductory Statement

American foreign policy towards the Central American region under both Presidents Carter and

Reagan was born out of two veins of U.S. history that crossed paths at the same moment in time.

The first had existed since the early days of the state, Latin American foreign policy. The second

was the new defining vein of the 20

century, containment. To understand the foreign policy of

these two administrations one must first examine each vein individually and then observe which

elements of each appear in the policies of Carter and Reagan. By analyzing how the United

States. acted under these two administrations in the cases of Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El

Salvador one can discern a lot about what motivates the United States. Significant is to determine

the role or potentially lack thereof presidential personality plays in defining U.S. foreign policy

objectives.

Defining the Objective

The goal of this thesis is to test the hypothesis that foreign policy objectives result from

incentives and pressures created by the international theater at large. These objectives evolve due

to changes in historical context and occasional paradigm shifts in international relations. So,

foreign policy objectives exist largely independent from any individual leader and rather emerge

from adaptations forced upon states by circumstance.

Preliminary Argument

My preliminary research suggests that there is good evidence that foreign policy objectives result

from incentives and pressures created by the international theater as opposed to the personality of

an individual leader. This research has been done on U.S. foreign policy in Nicaragua,

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 4 -

Guatemala, and El Salvador during the Carter and Reagan presidencies. What is significant in

these cases is that some of the presidential personalities stated goals contrast. Moreover, the

Carter administration expressly set out to change foreign policy objectives. So, consistency that

exists across these two administrations suggest that presidential personality was not the central

motivator of U.S. foreign policy.

Structure

This paper will first briefly review some of the relevant literature. Then, it will explore the

starting point of U.S. foreign policy objectives in Latin America and the Cold War. This

exploration will be used as a reference point in the conclusion to determine the merit of the

secondary claim being made surrounding the evolution of U.S. foreign policy objectives. Next, a

structured comparison will be made between the cases of Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El

Salvador. Then, the reader will be left with some additional considerations. Lastly, conclusions

will be drawn, and the implications of this thesis paper will be reviewed.

Literature review

Much scholarship already exists on the international system and its effects on the motivation of

states. One scholar of note is Kenneth Waltz. He is a neo-realist whose work Theory of

International Politics did much to advance the realist perspective. This particular brand of

realism holds the variable of power to be the most salient determiner of state action. Scarcity in

an anarchical system drives state action and the potential routes of that state are determined by its

relative power (Waltz, 1979).

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 5 -

Relevant especially to Latin American politics is the work of Fernando Cardoso. In his

influential book Dependency and Development he characterizes the relationship between

periphery Latin American states and the hegemonic U.S. state as being dominated by a holy

alliance between the periphery’s elites and the hegemon’s business class (Cardoso, 1979). This

work is not an all-encompassing theory of international relations like that of Waltz. It is however

a salient argument that economics is the principle driving force in relations between the United

States and Latin America.

An interesting scholar often put into the dependist camp is Noam Chomsky. His book Turning

the Tide: U.S. Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace is

both a harsh critique

of U.S. policy and an effort to make a claim on its motivations. Whereas Cardoso describes the

relationship between the United States and Latin American states, Chomsky delves deep into

what U.S. action was taken, why, and writes in graphic detail of its effects on the ground. His

claim on the motivation of U.S. policy is a nuanced one having to do with the domestic political

system, economics, and the inner workings of administrations. Essentially, the central idea is that

the democratic-capitalist system motivates U.S. policy (Chompsky, 2015).

Also relevant is a quantitative study that exists on how human rights affect the distribution of

U.S. aid abroad. United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign Assistance by Clair Apodaca

and Michael Stohl found that the human rights record of a regime receiving aid only affected

economic aid. Military aid was not impacted (Apodaca, 1999).

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 6 -

The origin of U.S. foreign policy objectives in Latin America

American objectives in Latin America in the early days of our nation had more to do with

Europe than to do with Latin America. The United States sought to keep Europe from gaining

strength in the region under the assumption that one day the United States would grow powerful

enough to colonize and/or annex what it wanted. Moreover, Europeans in the Holy Alliance

1818 were explicitly united against democracy in an effort to preserve monarchies. The alliance

was in direct response to the French revolution and subsequent rise of Napoleon. It had

reinstalled monarchies in both Spain and Italy. Significant too is that Latin America had only just

freed itself of colonialism

and was covered with nascent democracies (Bailey, 1974, 177-190).

Out of the situation two variables are of note. Firstly, the United States had a small, yet existent,

security concern in the Holy Alliance. Secondly, U.S. clearly perceived a future opportunity for

expansion of influence southwards.

The famous Monroe Doctrine was tucked into a state of the union address on December 2, 1823

in response to the situation. It states that “…as a principle in which the rights and interests of the

United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition

which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future

colonization by any European powers (Monroe, 1823).” Unknown to Monroe at the time the

British had already moved, and the French were made to publicly declare to leave Spanish

America be. Additionally, its impact was purely rhetorical and without the support of the British

Russia, Austria, Prussia, England, and later France.

Between 1808 and 1826 depending on the country

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 7 -

the U.S. would not have been able to stand against a European power. However, this reality

almost made a dictum the only plausible action (Bailey, 1974, 177-190).

This dictum is the earliest form of U.S.-Latin American policy and although it was directed at

Europe, it began a policy trend towards Latin America that would continue through the 1970s

and 80s. The trend reveals itself in the alternative possibility that the Monroe Doctrine rejected.

It had been suggested by a British diplomat, George Canning, that the United States. and Great

Britain issue a joint manifesto against European intervention in the Americas. The agreement

was declined largely due to the influence of Secretary of State Adams. He was wary of an

agreement that might prevent the U.S. from itself expanding into Latin America (Bailey, 1974,

177-190).

So, the original policy on which the United States would base the rest of its Latin American

policy on reflects an American desire exert its control over Latin America territorially and to a

lesser degree politically.

The origin of U.S. foreign policy objectives in the Cold War era

The Cold War era began at a time and perhaps in response to two radical changes to the

international theater. Firstly, technologically humanity achieved such awesomely destructive

weapons that a new calculation was introduced to the world stage. This was a permanent change

that continues to affect the calculous of states today. Secondly, there was a power shift in the

world. Power spilled out of western Europe and into the opposing forces of Moscow and

Washington D.C. Although the Cold War is thought to have started after WWII, the success of

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 8 -

the Russian Revolution sparked the conflict and created the situation in which new American

foreign policy objectives arose (Gaddis, 2007).

These dramatic changes should be thought of as constituting a new world order because of two

fundamental shifts in the international theater. For the first time in history the utilization of a

weapon could potentially present an existential threat to humanity.

Also, the polarity of the

world drastically shifted from a multi-polar world dominated by western Europe to a bi-polar

world dominated by the United States and the USSR.

Helpful to those studying Cold War objectives is that there exists a document on which U.S.

Cold War policy was based, George Kennan’s long telegram. Kennan lays out the underlying

motivations of the Soviet government as he sees them and how those motivations make the

USSR a natural and outright enemy to the United States. Kennan wrote of the USSR, “In

summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there

can be no permanent modus vivendi that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony

of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of

our state be broken, if Soviet power is to be secure (“George Kennan’s…,1946).” The most

prominent irreconcilable difference between the two states is the ideological difference between

them. Further, there existed a power vacuum that pitted the two states against one another

geopolitically (“George Kennan’s…, 1946).

Notably, at the dawn of the Cold War it was not universally accepted that nuclear weapons would be

categorically different than others. However, after Japan no state used the weapons and by the Eisenhower

administration at the latest the categorical difference had become clear.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 9 -

How the containment policy prescribed by Kennan was enacted by Truman demonstrates how

these new objectives created by the new world order solidified. The communists of North Korea,

China, and the USSR were collaborating at the time and Moscow specifically made a

miscalculation. Those in Moscow did not believe that the United States would move to military

defend Korea (Gaddis, 2007). So, Truman’s swift movement to do so and the ensuing support of

congress reflects the degree to which the newly emerged foreign policy objectives laid out by

Kennan had solidified to become foundational to how the United States would act in the new

world order.

Significant is the language used by Truman while leading the United States into action in Korea.

The declaration was noticeably multilateral (“Statement by…, 1950). The United States had not

been part of a peacetime military alliance since its alliance with France in the 1800s to affirm

American independence (Gaddis, 2007). So, the turn to multilateralism in fact bucked the trend

in U.S. foreign policy up until that point. It emphasizes the character of the new world order

created by the fall of Western Europe. Two systems had emerged and for the United States to

defend its interest internationally its preferred system required active maintenance.

Korea cemented a trend that would continue throughout the Cold War. The United States was

willing to fight a ground war to prevent the spread of communism. Moreover, the global

communist movement was shown, as Kennan had suggested, to be at least in some capacity

managed by Moscow. So, while this case would not have provided evidence that in all cases

Moscow was behind communist movements, it certainly demonstrated Soviet involvement was a

real possibility (Gaddis, 2007).

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 10 -

The new foreign policy objective born out of the new word order was in essence a security

objective. Prevent the USSR from garnering more power by preventing the increase in its

potential satellites. I.e. prevent the spread of communism.

Case 1: Nicaragua

American policy in Nicaragua before 1977 can be summed up in a quote about Anastasio

Somoza that is attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, “He may be a son of a bitch, but

he’s our son of a bitch (Isbester, 2011, 157-181).”

When Carter took office, he was met with a Nicaraguan state dominated by the Somoza-elite

alliance. Somoza had received U.S. support in exchange for defending U.S. economic and

political interests. Notably, the power that enabled the Somozas to rule was projected through the

National Guard. The origin of this National Guard was American policy in the Great Depression

Era (Isbester, 2011, 157-181). The National Guard can be thought of as a tool forged by

Americans and handed to the Somozas to maintain political control of the Nicaraguan state.

Important to understand are some of the internal dynamics and trends that existed below the level

of general political control when Carter took office. The agricultural sector dominated the

Nicaraguan economy. Most of the fertile land was used by large scaled farms owned by the

elites. In the 1960s Nicaragua in conjunction with the Alliance For Progress

executed import

substitution industrialization policies meant to begin industrializing the country. Some economic

gains were made, and the manufacturing sector began to form. However, due to inflation in the

early 1970s, much of these economic gains were lost and the ISI policies appear to have failed.

U.S. program meant to foster economic growth and reduce social unrest.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 11 -

Moreover, structural economic factors contributed to further impoverishment of the poor in the

1970s (Isbester, 2011, 157-181).

Significant is that the Somoza family used its position to edge the elites out of their economic

domination and the family would come to own a significant share of the private sector. Also, the

FSNL or Sandinistas had formed in the early 1960s. It was an armed group of insurgents inspired

by both the historical figure Augusto Sandino

and the Cuban Revolution (Isbester, 2011, 157-

181). Thus, Carter began his administration’s U.S.-Nicaraguan relations with a state ruled by a

weakened Somoza-elite alliance that faced an armed insurrection.

Carter when taking office openly set out to reshape and redefine U.S. foreign policy. In his

inauguration address he said,

“I would hope that the nations of the world might say that we had built a lasting peace, based not

on weapons of war but on international policies which reflect our own most precious values.

These are not just my goals, and they will not be my accomplishments, but the affirmation of our

nation's continuing moral strength and our belief in an undiminished, ever-expanding American

dream (Carter, 1977).”

This rhetoric accompanied by his legislative agenda meant to reduce human rights abuses by

dictators, many of whom the United States itself installed, have made his name synonymous with

human rights in the mind of the American public.

In the case of Nicaragua, the Carter administration’s rhetoric would not become concrete policy

until 1978 when Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, a political opponent of the Somozas, was assassinated

(Katovich, 1993). By 1978 there was no ambiguity surrounding the category of human rights

abuses occurring in Nicaragua. In 1976 Edelberto Torres, a Nicaraguan historian living in exile,

Leader of early revolutionary movement in Nicaragua

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 12 -

had testified before congress that the regime was responsible for rape, castration, and various

forms of torture. Notably, both an arms credit agreement and significant economic aid was

nevertheless approved for Nicaragua for the fiscal year 1978 (Katovich, 1993).

In June of 1978, Somoza made a public pledge to improve human rights in Nicaragua (Katovich,

1993). To encourage the regime to make good on such promises in July of that year President

Carter sent a congratulatory letter to Somoza. Moreover, in 1978 the administration in its budget

proposal for the fiscal year 1979 requested $150,000 for a military training grant to give to the

Nicaraguan national guard. These both occurred while the regime continued to commit abuses

through the national guard (Goshko, 1978).

In October of 1978 the Carter administration in conjunction with the Organization of American

States (OAS) attempted to mediate an agreement between the Sandinistas and the regime.

However, those talks collapsed by January of 1979. Notably, the proposal put forth by the OAS

did not allow for the possibility of a Sandinista interim government. This at a minimum suggests

that the Carter administration was hesitant to endorse a leftist group for a government (Katovich,

1993).

In June of 1979, the Sandinistas launched a major offensive against the Somoza regime. In that

same month, an ABC news reporter was shot and killed by the Nicaraguan national guard. The

footage aired worldwide (Katovich, 1993).

In response to the coming fall of the regime the Carter administration proposed to the OAS a

solution that would allow for an interim non-Sandinista government. The proposal was rejected

Of which the United States is a member

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 13 -

(Katovich, 1993). In July of 1979, the possibility of an interim government would end. Somoza

fled the country and the national guardsmen abandoned their posts (Isbester, 2011, 157-181).

The results of this civil war were devastating to Nicaragua. Somoza left $1.6 billion in debt, the

fighting had caused over $400 million in property damages, and 20% of the people were

homeless (Isbester, 2011, 157-181). The country then came to be governed by a national

directorate whose members each represented a different faction of the FSLN (Frente Sandista de

Liberación Nacional). The Sandinistas did initially receive some support from the Carter

administration (Isbester, 2011, 157-181), however that support was quickly rebuked due to

Sandinista ties to El Salvadorian leftist insurgents.

The Reagan administration came to power in the United State in 1981. Reagan’s take on foreign

policy was markedly different to that of the Carter administration. Reagan advocated a

strengthening of the military and sought to push back what he thought of as Soviet influence

across the globe. To do so, the administration sought the use of proxies on the ground that were

already fighting and/or open to taking on perceived or actual communist regimes (Pach, 2006).

In Nicaragua, this would take the form of the Contras. After coming into office his

administration quickly supplied the CIA with $20 million to train a group that would come to be

known as the Contras in Honduras. The Contras were made up of former Somoza national guard

members and other mercenaries. The group described itself as counterrevolutionary and used

terrorism to deter Nicaraguans from cooperating with the new government. The Contras

commanded about 15,000 soldiers at its height (Isbester, 2011, 157-181).

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 14 -

Putting aside whether the Sandinistas were communists and/or a Soviet satellite, the Contras

while unable to gain a foothold in Nicaragua did significantly harm the new government. By

1982 half of the Nicaraguan budget went to fighting the Contras. Moreover, the new government

lost popular support and began to face mounting international pressure to hold an election

(Isbester, 2011, 157-181).

Reagan’s strategy to oust the Sandinistas was not limited to funding the Contras. The

administration also sought the moral high ground via a war of information against the

Sandinistas. It charged them with genocide, drug trade involvement, terrorism and more.

Granted, many of the claims were without evidence. In fact, the abuses of the Contras far

outweigh the abuses of the Sandinistas.

Nonetheless, the Reagan administration’s rhetoric was a

tool leveraged to disparage the Sandinista reputation worldwide (Chomsky, 2015, 106).

The Sandinistas, due to domestic and international pressure, called for an election in 1984.

Rightwing parties backed by the United States largely did not participate. The FSNL won. The

Reagan administration decried the election as fraudulent. Although, notably governments

elsewhere disagreed. The turnout was over 70% and over 90% of those eligible to vote registered

to do so (Isbester, 2011, 157-181).

Public support for the Contras waned and so the Congress explicitly forbade further monetary

support of the group. Notoriously, the Reagan administration continued to support the Contras. It

used the $40 million that it received from an arms deal with Iran to fund the group (Matthews,

2017). This war cost Nicaragua more and more over time. In addition to the national budget

That’s not to say that the Sandinistas did not commit human rights abuses rather that the amount committed

was comparatively small.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 15 -

mentioned above, some $50 million in damage to economic infrastructure was caused annually

by the conflict. Only a year after Reagan left office the Sandinistas lost at the ballot box largely

due to U.S. influence (Isbester, 2011, 157-181).

U.S. objectives that seem most apparent in this case are undermine the Sandinistas,

defend/establish a US friendly government, and maintain the capitalist economy. Both presidents

demonstrated a desire to exert political control over the state. Carter sought to force the state to

enforce human rights and avoid a Sandinista takeover. Reagan attempted to thwart the control of

the Sandinistas.

Carter, despite opening disliking Somoza, demonstrated an attempt to prevent the loss of U.S.

political control through his administration’s budget proposal for 1979, the proposals to the OAS

that excluded the possibility of Sandinista governance, and perhaps most of all the letter he sent

to Somoza congratulating him on his human rights pledges. The letter is significant because it

demonstrated Carter’s preference to work within the existing framework of a U.S.-regime

alliance over the alternative of forcing a democratic and therefore unpredictable outcome. Carter

made apparent that his administration supported Somoza, begrudgingly or not, over the

Sandinistas despite Carter’s open opposition to Somoza’s human rights record.

Reagan demonstrated an attempt at political control through his administration’s continued and

unwavering support of the Contras, even in the face of a Congressional order not to do so, and a

war of information against the Sandinistas. Of note is the administration’s continued

denouncement of the Sandinistas even after they won an election. This strongly suggests that

what the Reagan administration valued was not democracy but rather a pro-U.S. government.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 16 -

So, the actions of both presidents both propagate the same basic goals. That is not to say that

neither presidential personalities had a strong impact on US foreign policy objectives. Rather,

that the fundamental goal was established by the historical situation and existing goals the

presidents were presented with. The U.S., being the hegemon of the region, had been

consistently motivated to excerpt political controls on the smaller states around it for years.

Important is that there was some shift in U.S. value on political control. The United States. had

the capacity to forcibly install a new regime as it had done in the past. However, neither the

Carter nor Reagan administration decided to do so. This suggests that unlike previous

administrations in the era of Reagan and Carter intervention had either been removed from the

realm of possibilities or deemed too great a cost to ceding political control.

The above finding that presidential personality was unable to affect the underlying goals of the

United States state is strong. Carter specifically set out to change how the United States operated.

Indeed, he was able to mitigate the goals established and sought after by previous

administrations. This is evident in the decision not to intervene on behalf of Somoza.

However,

the circumstance that he inherited did not permit him to abandon the struggle against the

Sandinistas, the defense of a U.S. friendly government, nor the maintenance of a capitalist

Nicaragua. The Reagan administration openly and relentlessly sought increased U.S. political

control of the state. So, in his case his personality intentionally or not was largely in line with

existing objectives. Thus, he did little to affect them.

It is possible that even under a more hawkish administration this may have not been politically possible because

of the murder of an ABC reporter at the hands of the Somoza regime.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 17 -

Case 2: Guatemala

In June of 1954 Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas invaded Guatemala from Honduras. His private

army was funded and supported by the CIA. The Guatemalan National Guard did not defend the

government and so the democratically elected president, President Colonel Jacobo Arbenez

Guzmán, resigned (Isbester, 2011, 131-155).

This invasion is exemplative of a generally unilateral and interventionist track record in

Guatemala before Carter. In fact, it was in Guatemala that the United States trained the troops

that it used in the now infamous Bay of Pigs Invasion. There were several coups between the

time of Armas and the election of Carter. These coups were due to largely internal factors and so,

the United States seemingly was uninterested in the individual coups (Isbester, 2011, 131-155).

Instead, administration after administration simply supported each subsequent leader as the

underlying relationship did not seem to change across different Guatemalan regimes.

Guatemala was of unique economic importance to the US, especially in the time of Carter.

Firstly, over 100 U.S. corporations operated in Guatemala. Notably, 31 of these were Fortune top

100 companies. Secondly, Guatemala has deposits of nickel and oil. Both are required for

modern industry and in the 1970s reliable sources of oil was top of mind for U.S. policy makers.

Thirdly, the private sector had already invested great sums of money into developing raw

material extraction in Guatemala. So, while not existential, there existed potential risk to

important American economic entities (Rojas).

The agenda Carter brought to Guatemala was in essence the same one described in Nicaragua.

He sought to set human rights as a fundamental tenet of U.S.-Guatemalan policy. It was quickly

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 18 -

made clear that an agenda focusing on human rights was not going to be endorsed by his

contemporaries in the Guatemalan government. In April of 1977, the Guatemalan minister of

foreign relations characterized the U.S. report on human rights in Guatemala as an intervention

into Guatemalan affairs and a breach of sovereignty. Moreover, Guatemala rejected US military

support (Castañeda, 2007).

An important actor to bring into the discussion here is Israel. In 1977 Israel became the largest

supplier of arms to Guatemala. Later, the infamous Guatemalan general Héctor Mario López

would describe Israel as Guatemala’s number one friend. Moreover, in 1981 the United States

began to fund the purchase of Israeli arms by periphery states (Castañeda, 2007). Further, during

the Carter years Guatemala continued to receive U.S. military support. While true new arms

deals could not be made with Guatemala, deals already authorized continued the flow of arms

southward through 1980 (White, 1984, 104).

So, the Carter administration seemingly changed the relationship rhetorically while substantively

allowing it to continue mostly unchanged. That is not to say that the administration did not in

good faith attempt to transform U.S. policy rather that the material support of the United States

and its ally Israel continued to bolster the Guatemlan military in spite of the surface level

changes made. In fact, arms support from the U.S. did not dip much below the norm in the Carter

era due to the shipments that had been already authorized (Chomsky, 2015, 47).

Despite this, the government did try to acquire some military equipment at the end of 1978. The attempted

purchase was denied. Further, the support being rejected was the same to be denied to Guatemala due to human

rights concerns. I.e. it was not going to be sent in any event. Moreover, it did not impact already approved

support.

He would come to be found guilty of many crimes against the Mayan people while working under Montt

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 19 -

After the election of Reagan, direct military aid to Guatemala was restarted. Reagan was able to

get around the human rights legislation of the 1970s by claiming that Ríos Montt, the dictator

that took over in a coup in 1982, represented movement towards respecting human rights

(Chomsky, 2015, 47). By subsequently maintaining that the regime of Mejía Víctores, that

followed Montt, was also showing improvements he was in fact able to increase military aid to

Guatemala (Chomsky, 2015, 47-58).

Like in other cases, the Reagan administration unabashedly preferred military dictatorship to

what it perceived as a potential Marxist takeover in Guatemala. Some numbers are helpful to

understanding the threat that the opposition force posed. In 1982 an alliance between

revolutionaries seeking political change and the Mayan peasantry that had been oppressed for

years formed. About half a million Maya were protesting, hundreds of thousands of supporters

joined them, and between 6 to 8 thousand fighters were in armed rebellion. The alliance between

the Maya and the guerillas was called the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity (URNG). It

was in response to this mass movement that in 1982 Montt, upon seizing control of the state,

began conducting what can only be described as a genocidal scorched earth campaign against the

URNG (Isbester, 2011, 131-155).

The URNG would not recover from Montt’s offensive until 1987 when it continued its guerrilla

efforts. During the time that the URNG was initially defeated and 1987 a new constitution had

been ratified and elections had been held.

This is relevant because it correlates with an increase

in military aid from the Reagan administration. Between 1986 and 1987 over 200 million dollars

Notably, the democratically elected government also abused human rights

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 20 -

in military aid was supplied to Guatemala. Then, the administration requested about 140 million

dollars for the fiscal years of 1988 and 1989 (Broder, 1988).

So, the Reagan administration’s policy can be regarded as rhetorically and militarily supporting

the Guatemalan government in every form it took while he was in office. The administration’s

rhetoric claimed human rights improvements seemingly to justify direct and increasing military

aid.

The central U.S. objective that both Carter and Reagan acted out in this case is the defense of a

capitalistic government in Guatemala. This objective aligns with the historical precedent of the

Monroe Doctrine and containment policy. Moreover, both seemingly did so via military support.

In this case, it does not appear that either presidential personality affected U.S. objectives. It

could be that because the civil war would not come to an end until the 1990s that the

administrations did not see an opening to make a shift. Further, it is of note that the genocide of

the Maya did not begin until after Carter. Thus, it is conceivable that the Carter administration

would have stopped support after a certain threshold of abuse. That is impossible to know.

The objective in this case has been coined as the defense of a capitalist government because

Guatemala was politically chaotic and had been for years. Leading up to and indeed throughout

the Carter and Reagan administrations coups were commonplace in Guatemala. Telling is that in

1954 the United States intervened to eliminate a democratically elected leader who sought leftist

reforms (Isbester, 2011, 131-155) and yet throughout these two administrations both military and

It should be emphasized that I’ve no evidence that anyone explicitly lied about the state of human rights in

Guatemala. However, considering the state of affairs on the ground it would be hard to imagine that

administration officials had no idea that the government(s) were not respecting human rights.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 21 -

civilian leaders received military support. Therefore, one can infer the underlying variable

determining U.S. intervention to be the economic system espoused by the government. This

conclusion is consistent with the continued arms flow despite human rights abuses.

Significant is that the insistence of a capitalist government is a form of political control. It has

been deemed a defense of a capitalist government to reflect that it is a lesser form of political

control than could otherwise be observed. The United States in this case was neither motivated to

enact different policies towards democratic or military governments nor even policies to promote

stability.

Important to discuss is the discrepancy between the Carter administration’s rhetorical and

legislative efforts and its substantive policy. It reveals the constraints on presidential

personalities to make comport their own conception of U.S. objectives with the actions of the

U.S. state. Carter openly took on Guatemala on human rights. In addition to rhetoric it did

prohibit further arms deals with the government. At a surface level, one might conclude this to be

an example of a presidential personality forcibly changing U.S. objectives. However, upon closer

consideration it actually proves the difficulty a president faces to do so.

As discussed in this case, because arms had already been authorized they continued to flow only

slightly below normal levels throughout most of the Carter years. That is to say nothing of the

arms supplied by Israel. In summary, the U.S. president despite being publicly opposed to the

shipment of arms to Guatemala oversaw that very act continued both by the government he

oversaw and that of a close ally. Moreover, Carter was not willing to act beyond stopping arms

deals in future.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 22 -

Despite his best efforts, the material military support for governments that served to prevent

leftist governments continued under the Carter administration. Further, the rhetorical change did

little to change the situation on the ground in large part due to actions taken by past

administrations. Thus, the finding in this case that presidential personality did not impact the

motivations underlaying policy objectives is strong.

Notably, in this case the underlying motivator identified comports well with existing U.S. policy

and the incentives of the Cold War system.

Case 3: El Salvador

In the 1930s a left of center Autruo Araujo won the presidency legitimately. Simultaneously, a

wave of communist party members won seats in the legislature. In response to the left’s election,

the military led by General Hernández Martínez overthrew the government and established a

military dictatorship. The dictatorship evolved into oligarchy as the so called 14 families came to

own most of the country’s resources. The military government can be considered the defender to

the wealthy class. Notably, in 1932 it executed La Mantanza (the massacre), a brutal put down of

a popular uprising led by nationalist-socialists (White, 1984).

In the 1960s El Salvador, like other Latin American states, received military and specifically

counterinsurgency training by the United States so that local forces could serve as the bulwark

against communist uprisings. In El Salvador this initiative was run by a group called the

Democratic National Organization (ORDEN). It was notorious for human rights abuses against

the people of the countryside (White, 1984).

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 23 -

So, when Carter took office U.S. policy towards the state up until that point was principally to

keep the state prepared. Anti-government guerrilla forces had begun to organize in the early

1970s. Also relevant, El Salvador’s economy was reliant on coffee which the United States is

and was at the time a large importer of (White, 184).

In the first year of Carter’s presidency, El Salvador had an election. Important to understand is

that the elections were wrought with fraud. The Part of National Coalition Party’s candidate won.

This was the party of the military. Notably, in 1977 a ban on new arms deals to El Salvador was

implemented (Chompsky, 2015, 140). The existence of show elections is important to note

because it would join hands with the influence of the Nicaraguan case to influence the most

substantive years of Carter’s policy decisions in El Salvador, 1979 and 1980.

There was real fear in the late 1970s that the military regime would be overthrown (Chomsky,

2015, 140). This fear seemingly arose from two sources. First, the Sandinista overthrow of

Somoza. Second, the existence of a ballot box to take over. In other words, the difficulty of

establishing a democracy in which leftist candidates could legitimately win was reduced because

a new system would not have to be created rather the existing one cleansed of fraud.

The Carter administration backed a military coup in 1979 meant to circumvent a potential

revolution (Chomsky, 2015, 140-151). The officers that conducted the coup ousted two thirds of

the military’s senior officials. Influenced by the Carter administration, the first so called

revolutionary junta contained three Social Democrats (left leaning civilians) and two members of

the military’s party. Of course, the real power remained in the hands of the military. Because the

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 24 -

government would not cease its previously mentioned counterinsurgency campaign in the

countryside, the Social Democrats quickly resigned from their posts (White, 1984).

After one more junta failed due to resignation by the civilian left, the government settled into a

junta headed by José Napoleón Duarte. The new government nationalized the banking system

and instituted U.S.-backed agrarian reforms (White, 1984). The Carter administration in

collaboration with the new government seemingly sought to alleviate some of the left’s

complaints without allowing El Salvador to fall into leftist control.

The Carter administration then moved to lift a previous ban it had instituted on military aid to El

Salvador in 1977 in order to support the new regime. So, in the last year of the Carter

administration millions of dollars in military support flowed into Duarte’s coffers. Significant is

that right before the end of the Carter administration some American agrarian reform advisors in

El Salvador were killed. Moreover, the guerilla group Democratic Revolutionary Front (FDR)

began a major offensive against the government. In response, Carter granted an additional 10

million dollars in military support for the government just a week before Reagan would take

office (White, 1984).

Upon taking office, Reagan quickly increased the allowed amount of U.S. military advisors in El

Salvador. Under Carter it had been 19. Reagan moved it to 55 (White, 1984). As Reagan

increased support, so did the guerilla’s numbers grow. By 1984 they reached 10 thousand armed

fighters (Chomsky, 2015, 148). That is not to say that Reagan caused this increase, rather that the

scale of the battle was increasing and the administration was ready and willing to buy into the

increased cost of defending the government.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 25 -

The Reagan administration also backed its commitment to El Salvador monetarily. Of note, to do

this he used discretionary funds multiple times just within his first year of office. Assuming the

statute allowing him to do so was enacted in good faith, the use of this fund reflects the belief on

behalf of the administration that there existed an emergency that seriously and immediately

threatened U.S. interests. Between 1981 and 1983 the administration influenced the IMF and

World Bank to grant El Salvador over 300 million dollars in loans. Then, in 1984 it requested

300 million dollars in support for El Salvador from Congress (Bonner, 2016).

In 1983, when Duarte’s government launched its largest military operation against the guerillas

in the war, U.S. military advisors were present in an open way. There was no attempt to make

U.S. military support and advice clandestine in this case (Bonner, 2016). In addition to tactical

advice on the ground, the United States under Reagan also provided reconnaissance on guerilla

positions from the air. This information helped to increase the accuracy of bombing missions

carried out against the opposition forces (Chomsky, 2015, 170).

Reagan’s policy towards El Salvador can be characterized as wartime support for the

government. He inherited a wartime scenario and the war did not end until the George H.W.

Bush administration. So, one cannot observe how the Reagan administration would have handled

either an escalation or de-escalation of tensions. What can be observed is that Reagan sought to

provide the El Salvadoran government with ample material and human resources to defeat the

guerrilla forces. This observation comports well with Reagan’s general policy of preventing the

spread of communism in the third world.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 26 -

The principle objective acted out by both administrations in this case was to exert political

control over El Salvador. Both administrations sought this goal via military support, political

support, and direct consultation. The theme across both presidents was an involved effort to aid

the military dominated government avoid the sort of overthrow that occurred in Nicaragua.

The details of this case in the Carter years are important to understanding what was motivating

U.S. policy. Actions that Carter chose NOT to take in response to developments on the ground

are telling. The coup in 1979 reflected a worry within the military itself that its rule would be

overthrown. This worry is further demonstrated by its surface level concessions to the left. If one

posited that Carter had through his proclamations cemented human rights as a primary U.S.

foreign policy objective, then one would have expected in 1979 the administration to leverage

the precarious position of the new government to permanently disband ORDEN forces and

legitimize elections. It is evident that the United States had the means to do so. Moreover, the

Carter administration had withheld aid from the military officials in power before the coup. So,

there was some existing policy to build upon. However, the administration instead engaged the

new government and helped it form a strategy to maintain power against the pleading of people

on the ground like Archbishop Romero

who alerted the administration to the litany of abuses

occurring. By choosing to support the government that would come to be headed by Durarte, the

Carter administration demonstrated a prioritization of defending a US friendly and capitalistic

government over the enforcement of human rights.

Notable figure in the El Salvadoran civil war. Important to insert here because he was an internationally known

figure in El Salvador at the time of his open letters to the Carter administration.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 27 -

Political control is the correct way to frame the motivations reflected by U.S. action in this case.

The Carter administration was influential in creating the agrarian reforms meant to demonstrate

concessions to the peasantry and quell unrest. Moreover, Reagan advisors and intelligence were

directly involved in the planning of Duarte’s counterinsurgency strategy. A strategy which was

carried out by U.S. trained ORDEN forces. These actions demonstrate that the United States

sought to use El Salvador as a tool in its worldwide campaign against the USSR by keeping it

within its own sphere of influence.

The actions of the Reagan administration further reflect a prioritization of political control above

all else. Telling is the administration’s use of discretionary fund money to support Duarte in its

early days. This action required specifically that the administration consider U.S. interests to be

in immediate danger. The situation on the ground was precarious for the new government.

Although a new cast of characters, important to note here is that the military was still the central

power of the state. So, by supporting the new government with discretionary fund money the

Reagan administration categorized the defense of a military government that the United States

had been supporting since before the dawn of the Cold War as essential to U.S. interests. Thus,

the administration can be thought of as implicitly citing the maintenance of the pro U.S. military

government, i.e. political control, as a core U.S. interest.

Presidential personality did not appear to play any role in establishing US foreign policy

objectives in this case. Both personalities sought the same fundamental goal despite Carter’s

human rights stance. This finding is strong because the developments in this case provided

Carter with a clear chance to push his human rights agenda and yet he chose not to. Additionally,

the Reagan administration pursued this goal at high monetary cost which reflects its importance.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 28 -

Comparative Analysis

These cases confirm the hypothesis that foreign policy objectives result from incentives and

pressures created by the international theater at large. Both administrations seemingly perused,

albeit to different scales at times, the same goals in every case. These goals comport well with

the pressure created by the international power struggle of the Cold War international theater.

Additionally, the perceived failure in case of Nicaragua in fact incentivized the implementation

of more intense means to achieve the goal of political control in El Salvador by the Carter

administration. This suggests that broad U.S. foreign policy objectives may become more

important in an individual state after they are undermined in a close by state.

The secondary claim that foreign policy objectives evolve due to changes in historical situation

and occasional paradigm shifts in international relations has also been supported by the evidence.

The objectives of political influence in Latin America and preventing the spread of communism

identified in the explorations of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America and the Cold War are

markedly similar to the objectives acted out in the cases. Further, the differences, at least

superficially, appear to be due to historical context and a paradigm shift. For example, the United

States became more capable and thus more able to concern itself directly with political influence

in Latin America as opposed to the potential of influence.

The assertion flowing out of the hypotheses that foreign policy objectives exist largely

independent from any individual leader is substantiated by the evidence. As observed in all three

cases, an explicit effort by a presidential personality to change the fundamental objectives of the

United States does little in the face of the state’s organically created objectives.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 29 -

Important is an assessment of the limitations of this comparative analysis. The central limitation

of this thesis is the metric used. Actions and the amount of resources used to execute those

actions are used to discern the underlying motivation or goal. This metric is imperfect largely

because it is trying to measure an abstract and uncertain entity. I.e. state objectives or motivators

do not exist in a physical sense. They cannot be measured in the same way the volume of a pool

can be measured. So, interpretation is intrinsic to any study of state objectives.

Further, several assumptions are made. It is assumed that the presidents and their administrations

made an honest effort to further the objectives of the United States both in the cases examined

and in the historical themes explored before the cases. Lastly, it is assumed that the

administrations had good information to act upon.

Despite the limitations and assumptions that underlie this thesis, the confirmations remain strong.

The qualitative evidence in all three cases revealed a significant difference in what Carter

proclaimed to be an essential objective of U.S. foreign policy and the objective that his

administration acted out. Compounding this evidence is the fact that in all three cases the Reagan

administration ramped up Carter era policy as the situation on the ground became more and more

unfavorable to underlying U.S. objectives. This reflects that both administrations identified the

same underlying U.S. policy goals despite being from opposite political parties.

Additional Considerations

I worry that because this thesis focused so much on whether Carter was able to make human

rights a fundamental tenet of U.S. foreign policy that the reader may be led to believe that the I

am against U.S. support for human rights. This could not be further from the truth. If Carter had

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 30 -

proclaimed growing corn to be a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy, the study would have

focused on whether or not the US began to shift its efforts to the cultivation of corn. What I’m

after in this thesis is answering the question did human rights become a central tenet of U.S.

through the actions of the Carter administration?

Overall, what I hope that the reader took away from this thesis paper is an understanding of how

profound the sources of US foreign policy are. One should never reduce the national interests of

the US, or any other state, to the interests expressed by an individual leader.

Conclusions

This thesis has two potential implications for the international relations literature. Firstly, it adds

to an existing pool of evidence suggesting that the realist theory of international relations is the

most accurate theory available. Secondly, it invites more research into the mechanisms of the

international system. It also has potential implications for U.S. policy makers.

This study repeatedly found the United States to be motivated by its security and power interests.

Of course, the hypothesis looked at whether the international theater underlay and motivated

U.S. policy objectives not which variables within the system were most relevant. Nevertheless,

while testing the hypothesis themes of security and power repeatedly emerged. So, at the very

least this thesis opens the door for realists to examine these cases and argue their theory to be

substantiated. Moreover, the motifs of security and power call into question the claim that

economics drive U.S. foreign policy advocated by dependist scholars.

Important for international relations scholars of all persuasion is the addition to the pool of

literature a work specifically addressing a concern that could undercut the legitimacy of any

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 31 -

theory. For any theory of international relations to be predictive of how states will act it needs to

be assumed that there is some underlying reason or set of rules. That is not to say that the system

needs a set of rules. In fact, realists expressly argue that it does not have rules rather patterns

exist due to the nature of the system. Realist, like all theory makers, base their theory on the

assumption that the motivations of a state are not completely random.

This thesis does add to the defense of theorists by providing evidence that the international

theater is what drives states to adopt the objectives that they do. More exciting still is that it

invites further study into the specific incentives and pressures that exist in the system. One could

use this as a launchpad into a study on the potential impact proximity may have on the degree the

United States is willing to invest in supporting its proxies.

Lastly, this thesis affects the world of policy makers. By taking the hypothesis and secondary

claim together one is left with an obvious question, could someone predict the evolution of

objectives within a consistent paradigm? This thesis removes the need for one to try and predict

elections to predict the movement of U.S. foreign policy. I hope that this excites policy makers to

engage with the international relations literature and try to develop predictive hypothesis on U.S.

foreign policy based on international pressures.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 32 -

References

Apodaca, Clair, and Michael Stohl. "United States Human Rights Policy and Foreign

Assistance." International Studies Quarterly 43, no. 1 (1999): 185-98.

Bailey, Thomas A. 1974. A Dipolomatic History of the American People. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.

Bonner, Raymond. 2016. “Waging War, Rejecting Peace,” In Weakness and Deceit: America

and El Salvador’s Dirty War, 232-247. New York; London: OR Books.

Broder Tanya & Bernard D. Lambek. 1988. Military Aid to Guatemala: The Failure of U.S.

Human Rights Legislation, 13 Yale J. Int'l L. Available at:

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjil/vol13/iss1/6

Cardoso, Fernando Henrique, and Enzo Faletto. 1979. Dependency and Development in Latin

America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Carter, Jimmy. “Inaugural Address of President Jimmy Carter.” Inaugural Address, Washington

DC: January 20 1977, Jimmy Carter Library and Museum

https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/assets/documents/speeches/inaugadd.phtml

Castañeda, Manolo E. Vela. "Guatemala, 1982: El Corazón Del Orden Burgués

Contemporáneo." Foro Internacional 47, no. 2 (188) (2007): 369-407.

Chompsky, Noam. 2015. Turning the Tide: U.S. Intervention in Central America and the

Struggle for Peace. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Gaddis, John Lewis. 2007. The Cold War: a new history. New York: Penguin Books.

“George Kennan's 'Long Telegram',” February 22, 1946, History and Public Policy Program

Digital Archive, National Archives and Records Administration, Department of State

Records (Record Group 59), Central Decimal File, 1945-1949, 861.00/2-2246; reprinted

in US Department of State, ed., Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Volume VI,

Eastern Europe; The Soviet Union (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing

Office, 1969), 696-709. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116178

Goshko, John M. “Carter Letter to Somoza Stirs Human-Rights Row.” Washington Post. August

1, 1978. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/08/01/carter-letter-to-

somoza-stirs-human-rights-row/2e98f14b-ed62-4962-8b3a-189d81494fce/

Isbester, Katherine. 2011. The Paradox of Democracy in Latin America ten country studies of

division and resilience. 131-155. University of Toronto Press.

-Ibid. 157-181.

U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives in Central America 1977-1989: Underlying Objectives in

Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador

Honors Thesis for Thomas Pappas

- 33 -

Katovich '93, Kevin A. "Human Rights and Policy Wrongs: United States Involvement in the

Creation and Overthrow of the Somoza Regime" (1993). Honors Projects. Paper 29.

http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/history_honproj/29

Matthews, Roland. 2017. “Iran-Contra Affair.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia

Britannica, Inc.

Monroe, James. “The 7

Annual Presidential Address to the Congress of President James

Monroe.” State of the Union Address, Washington DC: December 2, 1823, Our

Documents

https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=23&page=transcript

Pach, Chester. "The Reagan Doctrine: Principle, Pragmatism, and Policy." Presidential Studies

Quarterly 36, no. 1 (2006): 75-88.

Rojas, Antonio Cavalla. "U.S. Military Strategy in Central America: From Carter to

Reagan." Contemporary Marxism, no. 3 (1981): 114-30.

“Statement by the President, Truman on Korea,” June 27, 1950, History and Public Policy

Program Digital Archive, Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945-1953.

http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/116192

Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-

Wesley Publishing Co.

White, Richard Alan. 1984. “El Salvador,” The Morass: United States Intervention in Central

America, 130-179. New York: Haper and Row.