This may not be very likely, but what if the US adopted a different approach in its relation to so-called "third world" countries during the Cold War? Suppose that as the Cold War begins, US strategists believe that American intervention against communist or other left-leaning regimes will only increase hostility towards the US. They therefore decide to continue and expand the "good neighbor" policy of the 1930s. The main principles of US policy would be:
- The US would not support coups of any kind, and would generally remain neutral in regards to internal political disputes
- The US would only send troops to a country if they had a direct agreement with a country that was blatantly invaded (such as South Korea), or in certain extreme cases where US citizens were in danger and needed to be evacuated.
- In providing economic aid, the US would generally favor elected governments of any political stripe, even if they were communist or pro-communist, and spurn unelected governments of whatever political affiliation.
- The US would not give any aid, overt or covert, to colonial powers.
The justification for this strategy would be based on two fundamental beliefs:
1. Capitalism is an inherently superior economic system. In time, any country with a centrally planned command economy will become at best stagnant and at worst a total disaster.
2. People in other countries must learn for themselves that communism doesn't work. Staging armed interventions and propping up corrupt regimes only allows communist to wrap themselves in the mantle of resisting oppression. Let communists take power in any country, and sooner or later they will thoroughly discredit themselves, and in the long run this will be a more effective weapon against communism than any US intervention.
What might the cold war have been like if the US had followed such a strategy? Could it have made things better for the US, or would it have simply been a disaster that encouraged communist governments to spring up everywhere and leave the US isolated?
- The US would not support coups of any kind, and would generally remain neutral in regards to internal political disputes
- The US would only send troops to a country if they had a direct agreement with a country that was blatantly invaded (such as South Korea), or in certain extreme cases where US citizens were in danger and needed to be evacuated.
- In providing economic aid, the US would generally favor elected governments of any political stripe, even if they were communist or pro-communist, and spurn unelected governments of whatever political affiliation.
- The US would not give any aid, overt or covert, to colonial powers.
The justification for this strategy would be based on two fundamental beliefs:
1. Capitalism is an inherently superior economic system. In time, any country with a centrally planned command economy will become at best stagnant and at worst a total disaster.
2. People in other countries must learn for themselves that communism doesn't work. Staging armed interventions and propping up corrupt regimes only allows communist to wrap themselves in the mantle of resisting oppression. Let communists take power in any country, and sooner or later they will thoroughly discredit themselves, and in the long run this will be a more effective weapon against communism than any US intervention.
What might the cold war have been like if the US had followed such a strategy? Could it have made things better for the US, or would it have simply been a disaster that encouraged communist governments to spring up everywhere and leave the US isolated?
