First Draft Chapter VI - Overall Report

October 15, 1957

# PART I. AMERICA AT MID-CENTURY

## CHAPTER VI

### THE MEANING AND IMPORTANCE OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE RELATIONS

#### I

The elemental problem of international relations -- indeed of all human relations -- is the reconciliation of the ideal of unity with the human predicament of diversity. On the one hand the aspiration toward unity lies deeply implanted in the human spirit through man's recognition of its practical necessity in his age-old struggle for survival in the world of nature. On the other hand he is frustrated by the multitudinous divisive circumstances that separate him from his fellow men by gulfs of language, geography, race and all his self-created chasms of political, social and religious allegiance and antipathy.

The whole epic of human history has been shaped by this polarization of man's social behavior, now in the direction of unity, now in the direction of division and conflict. And this circumstance was never more evident than today. If the world succumbs to totalitarian tyranny, the tragedy must be ascribed not only to the cleavage of mankind between the poles of democracy and communism, but to the disunity of the free western peoples among themselves. Yet the lessons of history are both recent and vivid. Barely two decades ago the western democracies came close to destruction because they failed to join forces against the obvious and

attraction because they failed to form forces against the opinions and
beliefs of the Western democracies. They came close to de-
plotters among themselves. Yet the lessons of history are both recent and
belong to democracy and communism, but to the humanity of the free world
tragedy must be ascribed not only to the cleavage of mankind between the
evident than today. If the world accounts to totalitarianism, the
direction of division and conflict. And this circumstance was never more
than a social behavior, now in the direction of unity, now in the

The whole epic of human history has been shaped by this polarisa-
tion of religions, and antipathy.

geography, race and all his acid-created schemes of political, social and
circumstances that separate him from his fellow men by quite of language,
nature. On the other hand he is tuturated by the multitudinous divinities
its practical necessity in his age-old attitude for survival in the world of
to-day deeply imbedded in the human spirit through man's recognition of
man'sPredicament of diversity. On the one hand the arbitration toward uni-
human relations -- in the reconciliation of the ideal of unity with the in-
the elemental problem of international relations -- indeed of all

I

THE NEWING AND IMPROVEMENT OF WESTERN HEMISPHERS: REVOLUTIONS

CHAPTER XI

October 12, 1927

First Draft Chapter XI - Overall Report

October 15, 1957

- 2 -

augmenting threat of the Axis dictators in time to prevent the holocaust of
a second world war. Their survival was due in large measure to the fact
that the Axis powers themselves failed to achieve unity either in military
strategy or in the formulation of common political objectives.

Despite their victory -- or fortuitous escape from a self-wrought
calamity -- the western powers failed to rise from the rubble of the war
with any glowing sense of mutual interdependence or recognition of their
underlying unity of history, culture and law. Yet within the long perspec-
tive of man's efforts to achieve a social order on earth, the histories of
the varied nations of western Europe and the Americas have meaning only
when narrated as chapters of the same story; told separately they become
vignettes on a censored page. No single nation would exist today, or pos-
sess individuality and character, were it not for its past interaction with
other nations and the infusion of cultural influences, generation after gen-
eration, from beyond its geographical frontiers. It is a significant if often
disregarded fact that the people of Asia and Africa regard the western world
as an entity, for all the west's own manifestations of disunity in word and
deed.

Twice within our lifetime serious attempts have been made to achieve
union amid diversity by means of a formal international organization: first
in the League of Nations and today in the United Nations. The League of
Nations ultimately failed, partly as a consequence of our refusal to join it,

October 15, 1957

- 3 -

partly in consequence of the growth of the dictator powers. Today the United Nations is disappointing the hopes of its creators and advocates owing to the refusal of its totalitarian members to work for unity based on the principles of freedom and the dignity of man. Within its heterogeneous edifice, however, there has emerged an association of like-minded peoples who believe that unity and respect for the worth of the individual are two sides of the same coin, and who, in this common conviction, increasingly recognize their own mutual interdependence. These are the nations of the Western Hemisphere. In their endeavor to achieve international cooperation, they have blazed a pioneering trail both conceptually and by creating patterns of regional accord.

The relations of the United States with the other nations of the western hemisphere -- i.e. Canada and the 20 independent countries of Central and South America -- are unique in several respects. Our situation vis-a-vis Canada is symbolized by the physical reality of our mutually unarmed, undefended border, stretching 3,000 miles across the North American continent from sea to sea, and by the ease with which Americans and Canadians daily cross and recorss it without passports or any more formality than a glance at an automobile license or a perfunctory request for identification and statement of citizenship. Our relations with the Latin American nations, despite linguistic differences, are no less significant: they too may set a pattern for international intercourse in other areas

October 15, 1957

- 4 -

of the world. Today the Latin American states constitute an informal but
distinct group, whose representatives to the United Nations are banded
together in a kind of fraternity, and whose community of interest has long
been recognized and defended by the United States. Our policy toward
Latin America has long been underlain by the assumption that the two
Americas stand in a special relationship to each other which sets them
apart from all other nations on earth.

It is this assumption which engendered the "Western Hemisphere
idea" in U.S. policy -- i.e. the development of a monolithic Latin-
American policy toward all the variegated states south of the Rio Grande.
It has become apparent now that we can no longer think in terms of a sin-
gle monolithic approach, for in Latin America as well as in the rest of the
world, there is diversity. Yet the conception of unity that was bequeathed
by its original colonial masters has not been entirely lost. And it is no
accident that the inter-American group of states should be the oldest func-
tioning league of nations in the world. For it was as a consequence of
Simon Bolivar's dream of a single community of nations -- a Pan-American
Union -- that the organization of American states today is more closely
welded by history and tradition than any other set of states in the world.
Although they have occasionally waged war, they have in general pres-
served peace over a larger region of the world for longer periods of time
than most areas of the globe have known.

October 15, 1957

- 5 -

The notion that our entire planet might ultimately become a single
political unit has its origins in the doctrines of individual freedom and
natural human rights advocated by leaders of the New World in the late
18th Century. In North America they were Jefferson and Franklin and
Washington; in South America they were Simon Bolivar and San Martin who
led movements for independence among the peoples of the Spanish colonies.
The struggles for independence on both continents were waged in the name
of freedom -- the ideals of individual liberty, human and national dignity
and the right of self-determination. However, Bolivar, realizing that inde-
pendence might prove short-lived if it took the form of narrow nationalism,
originated the idea of a union of the new American republics, joined in a
single body politic through an American pact -- a free association of na-
tions, united by similar aspirations for freedom and human dignity. In his
vision of continental unity Bolivar was strongly supported by Henry Clay
who, first as U.S. Congressman and later as Secretary of State, tirelessly
urged that the United States join with the young Latin republics to form a
"New World System" of American ideals and policy.

The first meeting of the Independent Nations of America was held
in Panama in 1826. From this beginning there evolved, step by step, a
voluntary association of free sovereign nations dedicated to common pur-
poses of peace and mutual betterment. In 1865, it adopted the principle
of the "family of nations." In 1890 the international conference of

October 15, 1957

- 6 -

American states declared that it would not recognize acquisitions made by force. In 1933 it condemned intervention by one state in the internal or external affairs of another. In 1936 it set up a system of mutual consultation and recommended conciliation and arbitration in the solution of all differences or disputes between American nations. In 1938 it reiterated that the sovereignty and independence of each American state constitutes the essence of international order sustained by continental solidarity and affirmed that the faithful observance of treaties constitutes the indispensable rule for the preservation of peaceful relations between states.

In 1940 it declared that any attempt on the part of a non-American state against the territory, sovereignty or independence of an American state should be considered an act of aggression against all American states.

Thus, during the century after Bolivar, a community of nations grew up in the western hemisphere, united in free association by similar ideals and similar aspirations for the dignity and welfare of their people. Throughout this formative era of regional cooperation, certain principles were paramount: respect for diversity, non-intervention, consultation, common action and mutual security. It is noteworthy that these principles were not merely respected but specifically enunciated and emphasized by the leaders of the Latin American republics where intellectuals and philosophers have been more often elevated to positions of political power than in our own more pragmatic homeland. It is equally notable

October 15, 1957

that these principles -- connoting and embodying the equality and dignity of sovereign states, the indivisibility of peace, the interdependence of nations, and the ideal of cooperative action for economic and social progress -- provided the philosophical bases for the charters of the League of Nations and the United Nations. Although not yet realized on a global scale, these ideals have been more closely approximated in the Western Hemisphere than anywhere else on earth.

The extent to which the principle of regional cooperation within the Western Hemisphere ultimately took hold was dramatically illustrated at the San Francisco Conference of 1945 where the United Nations Charter was drawn up. The Latin American countries had just signed the Act of Chapultepec, designating an attack on one state an act of aggression against all the others. Though devoted to the idea of a world community transcending the confines of the hemisphere, they feared that the veto power of the USSR within the Security Council might place any nation or group of nations at the mercy of an aggressor. They fought therefore for the inclusion of an article -- Article 51 in the United Nations Charter -- providing that nothing else in the Charter should preclude the existence of regional arrangements for the maintenance of peace or the right of collective self-defense. The Latin American countries thus provided the legal basis for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which came into being four years later when the threat of Soviet aggression led the United States

October 15, 1957

- 8 -

to join the West European countries in an agreement for regional defense.

Moreover they gave NATO its institutional pattern or prototype. For NATO in essential outline followed the security arrangements of the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro -- the International Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance -- signed in 1947, binding all American countries, (other than Canada, with whom a separate treaty was drawn) to maintain peace within the American hemisphere for collective defense in the event of attack from outside. The following year, in 1948, the end-product of Bolivar's dream of a Pan-American Union took concrete form with the creation of the Organization of American States (OAS).

In the last decade the Latin American republics have presented a distinguished example of a free association of independent nations working together in steadfast support of freedom and peace with justice. The sad fact today, however, is that the United States does not always admit them to its councils or give them a sense of full participation in the common policies of the free world. Although we have pre-empted the place the European nations once held in Latin America, we have let the horizon of our foreign policy be so dominated by the problems and crises of Eurasia that what we liked to call our "Good Neighbor Policy" has lost its erstwhile vigor. We thus give the impression either of taking for granted the community of nations of the Western Hemisphere or of neglecting the aid and support to be derived from them in our relations with our European

October 15, 1957

- 9 -

allies. Above all we have failed to respond with imagination to the re-
peated requests of the other American republics to develop fully the exist-
ing possibilities of social and economic advance through mutual coopera-
tion in our own neighboring family of nations.

The determination to prevent territorial encroachment -- or the imposition of foreign systems -- upon the Americas is as firm today as it was at the time of the enunciation of the Monroe Doctrine. But with the development of our preoccupation with the Soviet threat and our assumption of world leadership in the cold war against communist domination, we have tended to relegate our relationships with Latin America to secondary or tertiary priority in magnitude and urgency. This trend began, in actuality, in 1939 when the United States, renouncing neutrality and rejecting the concept of a "fortress America" decided to be a world power and not merely a continental power. When President Truman declared, in March 1947, that it was the policy of the United States to aid free peoples everywhere, he abandoned, once and for all, the engrossment of the United States in Western Hemisphere affairs. In effect, our objective of continental solidarity was transformed into one of free world solidarity, and efforts to organize and strengthen transoceanic affairs took precedence over those intended to cultivate friendly relations in Latin America. The vitality of the Good Neighbor Policy quickly waned -- ironically, at the very time when its capstone, the Organization of American States, was being fitted into place.

October 15, 1957

- 10 -

The Latin American governments, needless to say, were both surprised and disappointed by their abrupt demotion in U.S. policy status.

There is no question that inter-American relations have deteriorated in the last eight years. In the economic realm the change has been evidenced by the adoption in some states of high tariffs, exchange controls, restrictions on foreign capital and other measures that run counter to our own policies. Politically, many Latin American countries look with anxiety and disapprobation on our involvement in other parts of the world and our endeavors to create positions of strength outside the Western Hemisphere. They had come to think of the Americas as a continental island of safety, a refuge for beleaguered civilization, sheltered by the armed might of the United States. Today -- and even before Sputnik -- there is a manifest divergence of interests, and a gradual cooling of the warmth and friendliness generated during the good neighbor period and the war years. This decline, and the forces that have produced it, suggests the necessity of a reconsideration of U.S. policy with respect to the Latin American states.

## II

The point of departure in any such reappraisal should be a recognition of the diversity of "Latin America." The term itself, which was coined by French propagandists in the 1850s, vastly exaggerates the homogeneity of the area. Although the perception of Latin America as an

October 15, 1957

- 11 -

undifferentiated mass may not necessarily be that of regional specialists in the State Department, it is however a perception shared by many United States citizens, partly from ignorance and partly because official utterances tend to give the erroneous impression that a monolithic "Latin American" policy, as opposed to policies that vary toward different countries, govern our relations with the republics south of the Rio Grande. For the fact of the matter is that Latin America consists of 20 independent and frequently contentious and jarring states, most of them quite small, and many of them isolated one from another by geography. Three are in the West Indies, ten in South America, and the remaining seven in Central America, bounded by Panama in the south and Mexico in the north. The land link between Central and South America, just below the Panama Canal, has never been crossed by a highway. Moreover each area is divided internally. South America is an empty vessel in terms of civilized occupation; its population is strung around the periphery of a vast tropical vacuum, comprising one of the most thinly settled areas in the world. It is further divided vertically by the towering ranges of the Andes. Thus the entity of Latin America, so-called, is divided and sub-divided into many compartments by water, jugne wilderness and mountains, and its separate states can communicate with each other for the most part only by sea or air.

Demographically the population of the Western Hemisphere at the present moment is about 360 million -- roughly comparable to that of India today. Of this total, Latin America accounts for 170 million, the United States

October 15, 1957

- 12 -

for 168 million. The distribution of population in Latin America varies widely among its 20 members; the three largest account for nearly two thirds of the total--Brazil with 60 million; Mexico with 30 million; Argentina with 20 million. Racially, the demographic pattern of Latin America presents a crazy quilt. The three basic elements are the native Indians (of prehistoric Asiatic origin); the whites (mainly from Spain, Portugal and, more recently, Italy); and the Negroes (originally imported as slaves from Africa). All of these strains, however, have intermingled extensively. In several countries, such as Mexico and Chile, the bulk of the population is now composed of persons of mixed white and Indian ancestry called *mestizos*. Haiti is all Negro; Argentina and Uruguay are 90 percent white. Race relations are generally better than in most other parts of the world and, as many Latin Americans have asserted with understandable pride, they may well serve as a model for other nations to emulate.

Although the population of Latin America stood well below that of the United States a half century ago, its rate of increase--2.4 percent per year--has accelerated greatly and is now double that of Europe and higher than that of any large area in the world with the exception of the islands of Oceania.

At the present rate of increase the population of the Latin American republics should reach 400 million by the end of this century, and that of the Western Hemisphere as a whole about 800 million. This increase of population, however, contrary to increases in many other parts of the world, will not press heavily on margins of subsistence. For in aggregate the Latin American nations

October 15, 1957

- 13 -

contain 19 percent of the world's land area with only 7 percent of its popula-
tion. Economically Latin America is an underdeveloped area, endowed with
enormous reserves of unexploited fertile soil and untapped raw materials.
For the foreseeable future the balance between land and population will re-
main favorable, offering a unique opportunity for growth, industrialization
and rising standards of living.

Although superior to the living standards of most of Asia and Africa,
the Latin American level of existence is nevertheless much lower than that of
the United States or of Western Europe. And its resources, though extensive
in aggregate are unequally distributed. Every nation except Brazil lacks
several vital resources, and even Brazil lacks coal. Heavy industry has been
developed only in three countries--Mexico, Brazil and Chile--though Argentina
is about to enter the field. Only a handful of countries produce enough petro-
leum for their own needs. Hydroelectric power resources are extensive but
their development is costly and they are often remote from centers of popula-
tion. In general the national economies of the Latin American countries are
unstable or vulnerable, based largely upon the export of a single commodity,
or at most two or three. A serious crisis in the production of coffee or
bananas, for example, could wreak disaster on the entire populations of half
the Central American countries.

Yet in the economic field Latin America represents an area of enormous
opportunity and challenge--a continent and a half with vast undeveloped areas
of land and vast untouched resources. At the present moment the Latin American

October 15, 1957

- 14 -

countries are not converting either their resources or energies into capital fast enough to fulfill their economic obligations. Nor is the present inflow of capital from outside adequate to satisfy the pounding necessities of their 170 million people. Yet the weight of the combined economies of the Latin American republics is a factor of augmenting importance in the economic and political life of both Europe and the United States. Indeed their rate of economic growth has exceeded that of the United States and Western Europe in the post-war period. Their output has been increasing by about 5 percent a year which, allowing for population growth, has produced a per capita increase of 2-1/2 percent. Their international trade has been increasing even more rapidly--by almost 50 percent since 1951.

The rate of expansion of Latin America's international trade has accentuated the economic interdependence of the Western Hemisphere. The foreign trade of the United States, for example, breaks into four equal parts--with one quarter in Europe, one quarter in Canada, one quarter in Latin America, and the other quarter scattered. Approximately 40-45 percent of Latin America foreign trade is with the United States. Our investments in Latin America today amount to about 7 billion dollars, far exceeding those of any other nation. In view of the fact that the total income of Latin America does not exceed 45 billion dollars annually, it is evident that although the Western Hemisphere may not be automatically viable as an economic unit the interdependence of the nations of North and South America is a reality that cannot be ignored or overshadowed by exigencies in other parts of the world. A discontinuance of

October 15, 1957

- 15 -

inter-American trade would cause the United States great economic hardship; it would shatter the economies of the Latin American states.

Owing to these economic circumstances the political influence of the United States in Latin America is greater than that of any other nation. Yet our influence is not altogether relished by the Latin American people. The old spectre of "Yankee imperialism" has by no means been laid to rest. On the contrary there has never been a time when it was more widely feared than it is today. Nor has there ever been a time when the will to resist Yankee imperialism has so firmly united Latin Americans of all political opinions in the conviction that the further extension of U.S. hegemony in the Western Hemisphere must be resisted now, before it is too late. The resistance is offered in every area--military, economic, cultural and political--and it draws its strength from two dominant schools of Latin American thought. One of these derives its inspiration from Europe with which Latin America still maintains stronger ties than with the United States and which provides a prolific flow of anti-Yankee sentiment. The other is enkindled by a nativist brand of nationalism born of the anti-colonial hatreds of the 19th Century. In both cases criticism of the United States centers on our racial attitudes, exhibited most recently by the crisis in Little Rock. For in the past generation many Latin Americans, conscious of their inheritance of intermingled racial strains, have become convinced that they possess a social democracy which is more genuine and more important in day-to-day life than all our avowals of political democracy.

October 15, 1957

- 16 -

III

In the realm of politics, Latin America exhibits more diversity than unity. Whereas the professed ideal of the great majority of Latin Americans is still constitutional, representative government, the reality has been as liberally sprinkled with revolutions and dictatorships as in the first generation of their independence. Today half a dozen regimes may be regarded as dictatorial--certainly those of Colombia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Venezuela--and perhaps also those of Bolivia and Guatemala. But in addition, dictatorships have only recently ended in Argentina (by revolt), and in Peru (by election). Mexico is governed by a one-party system, and in Brazil the armed forces which were the main support of the Vargas dictatorship from 1937-45, are again playing a decisive role.

Latin American politics have always been characterized by instability, caused perhaps by a popular predilection for the *caudillo* (boss or dictator) type of personal leadership. Today, however, other factors are at work. Among these are Communism, Fascism of the Spanish variety, a general upsurge of the middle and lower classes, and a fervent nationalism which aspires to economic independence by striking off the bonds of servitude to "foreign imperialism." This political ferment is an indirect result of the joint impact of foreign capital investment, business enterprise and modern technology which have combined to swell the growth of Latin American cities. Although most of its population is still rural, Latin America now contains several of the

First Draft Chapter VI- Overall Report

October 15, 1957

- 17 -

largest cities in the world--Buenos Aires with 5 million inhabitants, and Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Mexico City with close to 3 million each. These swiftly expanding cities have produced in turn a growing articulate middle class and a prolific, restless proletariat.

Yet all these new elements of instability and unrest are counterbalanced by the forces of union. For the antiphony of rivalry and cooperation have run through the whole course of Latin American history from the beginning of independence to the present day. Through various interludes of turbulence the spirit of Latin American solidarity has remained dominant. It finds expression today not only in the Organization of American States but in the cooperation of Latin American members in the larger international grouping of the United Nations. Perfect solidarity is seldom achieved and never maintained for long, but the sentiment in favor of Latin American unity is increasing and has an enduring foundation in a common culture, a common history, and a common aspiration toward economic independence. This is not to say that sources and centers of tension do not exist. Four times in the last century the rivalries of Latin American states have led to war--between Argentina and Brazil in 1825-28, between Paraguay and Argentina against Brazil and Uruguay in 1865-7 between Chile and an alliance of Bolivia and Peru in 1879-83; and between Bolivia and Paraguay in 1932-35. Yet only four wars in a century-and-a-half, involving only seven nations, is a record that Latin Americans cite proudly by comparison with the bellicose annals of the opposite hemisphere.

October 15, 1957

- 18 -

The Latin American designation of the Western Hemisphere as the "Hemisphere of Peace" has justification on three grounds. One is the genuine and long-standing preference of most Latin Americans for peace rather than war. A second is their tradition of resorting to arbitration and their reliance recently on the mutual defense system set up on a permanent basis by the Rio Treaty of 1947. The third is the influence of the United States. There can be little doubt that in the present state of the world the maintenance of international peace in Latin America depends in great degree on U.S. policy, applied either directly and unilaterally, or through the Pan-American peace machinery of the OAS.

It cannot be ignored that the Latin American countries regard the United States with an ambivalent gaze, combining attraction and repulsion, friendship and dislike, fear and hope. During the last decade the forces of repulsion have intensified as the preponderance of the United States in power and wealth has increased, as (so they allege) we have abandoned our Good Neighbor policy. Since the end of World War II, two accusations have recurrently been levelled at the United States: 1.) that we have neglected loyal Latin America in favor of former enemies and doubtful friends in Europe and Asia; and 2.) that our Latin American policy has been shaped largely by and for big business interests. It is possible that because of their remoteness from Communist centers of power, they place a much lower estimate than we do on the magnitude of the menace from Soviet Russia and Red China. They have little sense of participation in the current world struggle, regarding it essentially as a duel

October 15, 1957

- 19 -

between the United States and the Soviet Union, and hoping only that the preservation of peace will enable them to press forward toward economic independence and a higher standard of living. Whatever truth and justice inheres in their interpretation of our role in the present world crisis, the very prevalence of their attitude discloses the deep dichotomy which underlies the surface unity of Latin and Anglo-Saxon America.

There can be no gainsaying our self-interest in Latin America. So far as business is concerned our corporate investments far exceed the capital sums dispensed by the various agencies of our government concerned with inter-American affairs. Nearly 30 percent of all U.S. private, long-term investment abroad is in Latin America; and this investment amounting to 7 billion dollars in 1956, exceeds our investment in any other part of the world save Canada. As a market for our commercial exports, Latin America equals all of Europe and exceeds Asia, Africa and Oceania combined. It accounts for an even larger share of total U.S. imports, providing not only essential minerals (copper, tin, zinc, and manganese) but such necessary food items as coffee, sugar and tropical fruits. Militarily, Latin America guards our lines of communication and shipment, including the Panama Canal, and provides us with air and sea bases as well as a rapidly growing potential of manpower. Politically Latin America backs us in combatting Communist conspiracy and in supporting freedom, peace, justice, and cooperation in the United Nations.

October 15, 1957

- 20 -

But unless the United States cultivates a sense of common purpose among the American nations which is affirmative, and not merely defensive, the strong currents of economic nationalism and the warning signs of political alienation that have recently become manifest, may prove devisive elements, harmful and even dangerous to the security of the United States. On the other hand we have in Latin America a golden ground for developing the existing possibilities of economic and social advancement through mutual cooperation in the Western Hemisphere. Here, perhaps more than anywhere else on earth, we can discern the feature which distinguishes the economic system of the free world from that of Communism. And that is the dynamic precept that economic development is not an end in itself, but rather a means to enhance the well-being and dignity of the individual.

In this respect the Latin American republics constitute an area of crucial importance and exhilarating opportunity. Free from the immediate pressures of the Communist menace, they may create a prototype for regional development in other parts of the world. To achieve its goals Latin America requires an ever expanding flow of capital, machinery equipment and technological skills--the very assets the United States has to offer. Its hopes for success are likely of fulfillment because the Latin American countries have a longer tradition of international solidarity than any similar group anywhere else on earth. They have fewer tragedies to forget, less blood to atone for, less history to overcome than the nations of the Old World.

October 15, 1957

- 21 -

Geographical and national boundaries do not delimit an economic community. But taken together, the nations of the Western Hemisphere represent an economic community, and the mechanism for their collaboration exists now in the OAS. Herein lies the opportunity to realize the vision of Bolivar and Clay that regional cooperation can overcome the forces of nationalism. If we view the land of our hemisphere not as it was regarded by the isolations of a generation ago--as a "Fortress America"--but rather as the core or nucleus of something greater to come, as part of a powerful and dynamic community of nations, extending the hand of example and assistance to other parts of the planet we shall have glimpsed a better and brighter future. That is the symbol which the Western Hemisphere offers to the rest of the world. It offers hope by means of freedom. It makes no demands save respect for human dignity. If we may lead the way we shall have played a modest part in liberating a new and powerful force in human affairs.