The Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and consequently their relations with the United States, have changed considerably during the past 25 years. Latin American and Caribbean nations are more populous, urban, industrialized, organized, and assertive than they were a generation ago. Even in a period of extensive economic difficulty, Latin America's nations are today more prosperous than in 1960. Most are better integrated into the world economy and are much more involved in international politics.

In Describing Latin America as the “strategic rear” of the United States, the Soviet Union attributes great significance to this region for US interests and, consequently, to any changes which might alter the long-standing US dominance there. That the United States enjoys a unique position in Latin America has consistently been acknowledged by Soviet leaders. The US has been seen as able to enforce a “hands off” policy to extra-hemispheric powers; hence, the Kremlin has referred to “geographic fatalism” as its way of rationalizing the difficulties inherent in successfully effecting communist revolution, or even to advance Soviet influence, in an area so close to the United States.

The Third World Debt Crisis continues to burden the US economy, our foreign policy, the international financial system, and the future of many developing countries. The cancerous debt has not terminated the afflicted parties, but it is damaging many US interests. The debt disease eats at the foundations of our banking system, shrinks our export markets, and irritates our foreign relations. For the developing nations, this persistent illness deepens poverty, consumes scarce national savings, undermines adjustment efforts, and threatens eventually to destabilize emerging democracies.

The Amount of Freedom enjoyed by individuals varies widely in countries around the world. In the Americas it is a matter of particular concern because of a common history of colonialism. This concern is complicated by ideological and scholarly disagreements about just what constitutes freedom. Such impediments notwithstanding, the subject holds broad public interest and frequently is the basis for comparing governments although not always in an informed manner.

The Problem of how to cope with revolutions in Latin America has been, and in all likelihood will remain, a pressing concern for US policymakers. In recent times, the United States has not been very effective in its relations with post-revolutionary regimes. This paper will look at the Nicaraguan case and the ways in which US policy towards that country since the overthrow of Somoza, in July 1979, suggests a misreading of the process of revolution in general. Such misreading might impede our ability to deal effectively with future revolutions in the region.

Whether One Agrees or disagrees with the objectives of a revolution, the experience stimulates emotions from those who participate and those who observe. There have been many experiences which most would regard as revolutionary: the French revolution, the revolution for independence of the United States, the Mexican revolution, the Russian revolution, the Chinese revolution, as well as perhaps those of Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Visions of people rising up against an outworn, impotent, or despotic government accompany our concept of revolution, as do visions of militia soldiers with rifles on their backs and ammunition strapped across their chests.