Sunday, January 9, 2011: 8:50 AM
Boylston Room (Marriott Boston Copley Place)
Willie Hiatt
,
Long Island University, C.W. Post Campus
My paper explores the United States’ preoccupation with Peru as a political and ideological battleground during World War II. It poses two central questions: Did excessive attention to this unsuspecting front foreshadow a more heightened sense of apocalyptic doom that drove U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War? And did Peruvian resistance and negotiation limit U.S. hegemony, as seen in Peru’s decision to go to war with Ecuador in 1941 despite strong U.S. opposition? Fearing Axis infiltration, Washington obsessed over diplomatic, economic, and military issues in the Andean country. Diplomatic correspondence demonstrates that the U.S. State Department worried that Fascist collaborators were indoctrinating Peru’s “Indian element,” Nazi spies were frequenting the Amazon region, and the Japanese had poisoned Lima’s water supply. North American repatriation ships arrived in Callao to transport hundreds of Axis nationals in Peru back to their homelands.
Even as the war raged in mid-1942, President Roosevelt personally greeted his Peruvian counterpart in a well-appointed welcoming ceremony at the Washington, D.C., airport. The courting of the Peruvian president was as transparent as it was ostentatious, yet Peruvian-U.S. relations remained mutually advantageous as the war unfolded. Washington wanted access to rubber, petroleum, and other raw materials and was willing to build landing fields in exchange for an aerial foothold in the Pacific region. Peru desired aviation infrastructure, airplanes, armament, financial aid, and the international prestige and affirmation of good relations with the United States. My paper suggests that even at the height of U.S. political pressure during the war, Washington’s bullying did not always achieve the desired results.