Introduction
In the aftermath of World War II, Latin American countries which were relatively absent from the global conflict sought participation in the discussion of the post-war global security order, which was at the time spearheaded by the US. With the approaching Cold War and fear of communism spread, the US appealed to demands from Latin and South American countries to form a collective security pact. The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (also known as the Rio Treaty or TIAR) was signed in 1947 by the majority of Western hemisphere states, remaining a critical albeit flawed security pact throughout the Cold War and to the current day.
Background
The Rio Treaty can trace its roots back to the 19th century when regional collective pacts were signed in the Latin and South Americas. Eventually, the threat of Europe to the region subsided so did the topic of any regional security on an international level. There were several solidarity agreements, mainly to oppose the spread of fascism prior to WWII, but the major negotiations began in 1945. The Inter-American Conference on the Problems of War and Peace held in Mexico in 1945 reaffirmed and developed principles of a regional security system. The principle of solidarity was established, which reflected Article 5 of NATO, where any attack on the integrity of territory and sovereignty of signatory states will be considered an act of aggression by all other countries (Garcia-Amador, 1985). These were included in the final Rio Treaty, along with some of the elements of the UN charter, focused on maintaining international peace and using diplomatic and international tools to deal with problems unless there is an imminent attack.
The process eventually culminated in the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1947. Along with the formation of the United Nations, OAS, and NATO – TIAR was essential in developing and strengthening the regional security system that had begun forming in the 19th century and continues to this day. The breadth of the treaty is meant to highlight its ability to counter subversive or directly threatening activities of the extracontinental origin, which at the time were international activities of communism and other totalitarian doctrines.
Stakes
The stakes for collective security for the US and other member states of the Rio Pact were high. At the time of its formation, the communist threat was real and subversive. The Latin and South American states were especially vulnerable to totalitarian regimes due to a combination of culture and socioeconomic factors that favored the rise of such governments. That is why many democratic leaders at the time sought out this collective security under the protection of the US hegemony to prevent violent coups. In 1962, after the Cuban Revolution and Fidel Castro coming into power, the Rio Treaty was directly applied when the foreign ministers of all member states voted to exclude Cube since “adherence to Marxism-Leninism is incompatible with the principles of the inter-American system” (Congressional Research Service, 2019).
It was feared at the time that the Soviet Union would use Cuba as a point of military aggression, which it did in late 1962 as part of the Cuban Missile Crisis, where TIAR was implemented, and all nations with available navies participated in the blockade that ultimately halted the conflict. Furthermore, it was believed other countries would follow the Cuban model of revolutions. In the late 1970s, a series of civil wars and communist revolutions did erupt in Central America, but with US intervention, most of the states shifted to neoliberal economies and privatization. It remains unclear how legal were the US interventions under TIAR, particularly open incursions and regime changes by the CIA in Nicaragua and Honduras, but it was likely viewed as a necessity at the time by the other countries.
Challenges
There have been challenges with the Rio Treaty over the decades, as it is often criticized for being less than effective or giving preference to US foreign policy. The most prominent example where the pact either failed or was incomplete was the British invasion of the Falkland islands in 1982. Argentina, which had recently experienced a violent coup establishing a junta as its government, called upon the treaty as a means of a diplomatic solution. However, virtually no one came to side with Argentina, and those who did were seeking to protect their own territorial integrity. The US ignored the conflict for the most part, not only because of close ties to Britain but also citing Argentina for violating the Rio Pact themselves. Apparently, by initiating a civil war, Argentina violated the very first principle of the treaty indicating that countries would condemn war and not undertake the threat or use of force.
While the US had little care for the ownership of the islands, they were not willing to support a totalitarian junta that violated all international norms in their coup d’état. While Argentina’s call to use the treaty was answered through diplomatic channels and meetings of foreign ministers, the military alliance never came to the aid of the nation facing aggression in its hemisphere (The New York Times, 1982). This presents an inherent challenge and weakness to the Rio Treaty, suggesting that it is more nuanced than collective security and unconditional support but remains within the realm of politics and foreign influence by the US on how TIAR is ultimately applied. This has led to some undermining of trust between participating states going forward from this conflict.
Broader Implications
The broad implication stemming from the Rio Treaty was to demonstrate to the world at the time that the US was confident in and moving forward with regional security institutions. The Rio Treaty was inherently an institutionalized version of the Monroe Doctrine, a representation of old ideas in modern times. However, despite not including the European nations, TIAR served as a potential hope and model for Europe, which was hopeful for collective security and regional peace after World War II. The Rio Treaty served as an indirect influence on the creation of NATO, which was not put into place until 1949 and adopted many of the same concepts of the collective agreement as TIAR (Kay, 1998). Mutual assistance, systems for resolution of regional conflict, and guarantees were significantly important for European allies, so the Rio Treaty had a profound impact far beyond its borders.
The policy of containment applied by Western allies against communism in the Cold War was inevitably leading to the rise of political-military dimensions. The Rio Pact 1947 was the direct application of containment by the US towards Latin American states which were vulnerable to Communist influence. Collective security principles were at their peak, as WWII ended and a whole different type of war, potentially nuclear, was coming. Treaties implemented such as TIAR and NATO formally ended the US foreign policy strategy since George Washington, which was to never enter an entangling alliance, and instead formed the foundation of modern international security and politics, which are institutionalized multinational organizations (Office of the Historian, n.d.).
Application of Theories
One of the most applicable theories of international security applied for TIAR is collective security. Collective security can be defined as a system or arrangement where states at a regional or inter-regional level agree to mutual protection, such as if one state is attacked, the others join together to defend it and repel the aggressor, as well as resolve disputes among each other peacefully (Smalii, 2020). The most well-known collective security pact is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), led by the US and including Canada and the majority of European nations. However, a range of local and regional collective security agreements are in existence.
The benefit to their formation stems from another key international security premise of the balance of power. The theory suggests that states seek to secure their survival by preventing any one country from gaining enough power to become a hegemon. The theory suggests that if a state grows in power, it will take advantage of its neighbors to take advantage of a weaker neighbor, driving them into a defensive coalition (Davis, 2004). This can be seen in the modern day, as China’s power in the Indo-Pacific region grows, the ASEAN nations, although a politico-economic union, are making more defensive commitments (Chang, 2021). When under threat, even in abstract, states either attempt to balance by allying with others or bandwagoning to join ranks with the threatening power. This theory does face criticism, particularly the polarity of the system in terms of what a state may do, but in reality, the power has no choice but to confront this decision. However, there are other elements to the theory, such as balance of threat, suggesting that states do not necessarily balance against power but against the most direct or largest threat (Davis, 2004). This explains the Rio Treaty, where Latin American nations, particularly the numerous anti-Communist leaders, align with the US despite it also being a powerful regional force, as they viewed the USSR as the greater threat to their security.
Conclusion
The relevance of the Rio Treaty has been placed under question. Several member states, including large ones such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, and most notable Mexico, left the treaty. Two countries, Uruguay and Venezuela, exited the pact but entered back in 2019. Many of the countries, including the highly important regional economic power Mexico, left in the 2000s due to the concern of US aggression in the Middle East. Mexico also argued the treaty is outdated, and a new agreement is needed since there is little threat of out-of-hemisphere threat (Bosworth, 2012). In recent years, the treaty has been used to address the crisis in Venezuela, ironically one of its members. Some countries were concerned and protested that the US was attempting to justify military intervention, violating the core principle of TIAR, but Venezuela was largely punished through economic sanctions (Rapp & Albertoni, 2020).
While TIAR was envisioned as a political and military alliance, in the modern day, due to the lack of hegemon threat in the hemisphere, the treaty has become a platform of regional collaboration as part of the Organization of American States on key issues of regional security such as trade, climate, public health, and immigration. The Rio Treaty is likely to continue its existence passively, more as a guarantee of protection rather than for practical military or defense purposes. However, as the global tensions grow between the US and powers such as China and Russia expanding their hegemonic ambitions, some of the smaller nations in TIAR may feel greater protection under international security.
References
Bosworth, J. (2012). Cold war defense treaty under fire in Latin America.The Christian Science Monitor. Web.
Chang, F.K. (2021). ASEAN’s search for a third way: Southeast Asia’s relations with China and the United States. Web.
Congressional Research Service. (2019). The Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and the crisis in Venezuela. Web.
Davis, C. (2004). Power vs. threat: Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976. Dissertations available from ProQuest. AAI3125804. Web.
Garcia-Amador, F.V. (1985). The Rio de Janeiro Treaty: Genesis, development, and decline of a regional system of collective security. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 17(1), 1-42. Web.
Kay, S. (1998), NATO and the future of European security. Rowman & Littlefield Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Containment and collective defense. Web.
Rapp, K., & Albertoni, N. (2020). Uruguay returns to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Web.
Smalii, O. (2020). Understanding and features of the essence of collective security in relation to modern threats of the 21st century.Fundamental and Applied Researches in Practice of Leading Scientific Schools, 37(1), 57-64. Web.
The New York Times. (1982). The Rio Pact indeed.Web.