HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Washington - 16 February 1980 - Number 1822

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Eden

Letter dated 16 February 1980 from Washington, Number 1822, arguing that the Soviet Union is deeply troubled and that U.S. foreign-policy changes in the 1980s will inevitably affect Latin America. It describes Washington’s concern about military escalation, nuclear war implications, and the shift from earlier efforts to influence governments in Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile. The text highlights sanctions, human-rights labeling, investment restrictions, mineral supply risks, and the need to connect national defense with the realities of power balances.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages5

Reading Time13 min

AccessFree to download

Hanson’s Latin American Letter

Background: Soviet troubles and U.S. escalation

Policy changes affecting Latin America

Argentina: sanctions, intervention costs

Uruguay: human-rights labels vs stated ideals

Chile: investment curbs and mineral supply security

Comptroller-General’s report and investment impact

HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER WASHINGTON 16 February 1980 Dear Sir: Number 1822 "There is mounting evidence that theSoviet Union is a seriously troubled,even sick,society.The indices ofeconomic stagnation and even declineare extraordinary.The defining eventof the 1980s might we1l be the breakupof the Soviet Empire." ..Senator Moynihan, Cuba is being stalked by the specter of"economic disaster and bankruptcy,withthe sequel of starving people and hun-dreds of thousands unemployed." ..Raul Castro,Fidel's brother. In mid-JANUARY,with a Russian attack on Iran or Pakistan identified asCASUSa casus belli,reporters in Washington were alerted to understand thatBELLIthe threatened use of military force by the United States means nuclearwar,in the absence of any other meaningful military capacity in thatarea -and a group of the best journalists in Washington appeared on aCBS TV program to reveal that point,at a time when the bulk of the population stil1thought that casus belli meant a decision on sending pole vaulters to Moscow. This,despite the fact that Lord Zuckerman,the British Government'schief scientific adviser from 1964-1971,had found general agreement among the scien-tific community that a nuclear war is "neither an option open to a democraticallyelected political leader nor one that can be exacted by any dictator." In any event,what has emerged in Washington is the final realizationCHANGES INthat great changes in U.S.foreign policy are necessary -and howeverU.S.uninvolved Latin America might like to feel,the changes must inevit-POLICYably affect Latin America seriously.And business plans must reflectthese changes as well: (a)The same State Department which had sent an Assistant Secretary ofARGENTINAState to Buenos Aires to discuss with the opposition what could be doneIN U.S.to hasten the overthrow of the Argentine Government now hastily sent aPOLICYgeneral to Buenos Aires to ask that the Argentine Government acceptmajor economic sacrifices lest the sanctions against the Soviet Unionadopted by the United States be made ineffective by continued Argentinesales to the communists. Belatedly the United States has measured Argentina's capacity to exportand belatedly it has come to appreciate that there are costs when the U.S.intervenesin the internal affairs of a Latin American nation to dictate who shall govern. There was a time in a emergency where nuclear war was being 1abelleda suitable option when the United States could have gone to the OAS as a nation sharingcommon objectives.Now it discovered,as General Sumner,former head of the Inter-American Defense Board,has pointed out,that there are nations(Argentine,Brazil,Chile,Mexico,Colombia)"that can and do make a difference in the power equationagainst the Soviet Bloc,particular1y since the "Soviet military advantage will be A weekly lerter for buriessmen paMisbod prinddy n Wasbingtow,D.C. with us for at least six more years,even if the United States sets itself a newcourse in 1981. But the Argentine Government which the State Department had sought tooverthrow would no more accept economic direction than it had the political directionof the Assistant Secretary of State,regardless of General Goodpaster's plea that"1a crisis en Asia as gravisima y se encuentra en un punto de no retorno que esta porencima de cualquier condicionamiento de la politica interna de los Estados Unidos." (b)After blasting the Uruguayan Government in its successive annual re-URUGUAYreviews for its lack of respect for human rights and exacting economicIN U.S.penalties for this "unsatisfactory"behavior,an Assistant Secretary ofState arrived in Montevideo(January 24)simultaneously with the year-endreviews of human rights behavior that had agreed that the label "Not Free"should currently be applied to Iruguay just as it does to Russia's Cubancolony,as against the label "Partly Free"assigned to Poland. Now,however,the Asst.Secretary of State exulted in the identificationof U.

FAQs

What central argument does the letter make about the 1980s and the Soviet Union?

It claims mounting evidence shows the Soviet Union is seriously troubled and that the defining event of the 1980s may be the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

How does the letter say U.S. foreign-policy changes will affect Latin America?

It argues that major changes in U.S. foreign policy are necessary and that, regardless of Latin America’s preferences, these changes must inevitably affect the region seriously.

What examples does the letter give to illustrate U.S. influence in Latin America?

It discusses U.S. actions regarding Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, including attempts to shape political outcomes, applying human-rights labels, and restraining direct investment tied to minerals like copper.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Eden