WI: A lesser amount of American "interventions" took place in Latin America?

[Skrate]

Just wanting to put this out here.

[GTAmario]

Less anti Americanism, less screwed up economies, more stability

[Klisz]

Hmm. It all depends on which ones you remove.

[Hyperbolus]

An interesting question is if fewer US "interventions" would lead to weaker or stronger states/societies in the region.
At any rate, I suspect a USA that intervened less in late 19th/early 20th century Latin America might develop a less assertive foreign policy overall; if the US didn't protect its "interests" in Haiti, it'd be less likely to do so in China, etc.

[Color-Copycat]

Haiti might be in better shape... maybe not the richest nation in the Western Hemisphere, but perhaps not the poorest. I think US intervention there really screwed up the legitimacy of the national government and all that by making the Haitian president a figurehead for US military and big business interests. That sort of outweighs all the infrastructure and public works/institutions that the US occupation created.