Latin America–United Kingdom relations
A boundary squabble with Venezuela in the 1890s turned dangerous when the United States intervened; there were no profound issues involved and the dispute was soon permanently resolved.
In 1671, Welsh privateer Henry Morgan sacked and burned Panama City, looting its treasures of gold, silver and jewels, but overlooking the golden altar, which had been painted over to disguise its value.
From his base in Port Royal, Jamaica, Morgan raided settlements and shipping on the Spanish Main, becoming wealthy as he use the prize money gained to purchase three large sugar plantations.
By 1824 as Spain left the region about 90 British commercial houses were operating in the former Spanish colonies, with a concentration in Buenos Aires.
The South Sea Company simultaneously engaged in illegal commercial trade as well, and once Spain tried to stop it the result was the Anglo-Spanish War of Jenkins' Ear that dragged on for a decade after 1739.
British Admiral Home Riggs Popham launched an invasion of the Spanish colony of La Plata (modern-day Argentina).
Suddenly starting in 1819, with the return of Simón Bolívar from exile Spain's power collapsed and one after another succeeded in breaking away, except for Cuba and Puerto Rico.
Admiral Thomas Cochrane was the most prominent of some 10,000 British mercenaries hired to organize the ad hoc armies and navies fighting for independence from Spain.
However, the region had a well-developed export sector focused on the foods that were in demand in Europe, especially sugar, coffee, cocoa, wheat and (after the arrival of refrigeration in the 1860s), beef.
Britain rushed in to fill the void by the middle 1820s, as the London government use its diplomatic power to encourage large-scale investment.
[9] London financiers purchased £17 million in Latin American government bonds, especially those of Argentina, Chile, Peru and Mexico.
They supported the independence movement, and persuaded the British government to station commercial consuls in all the major trading centers in Latin America.
The most serious came in 1845–1850 when British and French navies blockaded Buenos Aires in order to protect the independence of Uruguay from Juan Manuel de Rosas, the dictator of Argentina.
[18] In a highly influential interpretation, John Andrew Gallagher and Ronald Robinson argue that the perceived pause in British expansion in the mid-19th century is misleading, for Britain was in fact successful in achieving its main goal of building an informal empire, with strong economic relationships to small independent countries, especially in Latin America.
London provided finance, insurance, and shipping, handled imports and exports, purchased and refinanced of bonds and government debts, and sent money and engineers to build the railway network.
The American Civil War cut off most of the supply, although limited amounts were available through blockade runners, and through purchases in New York of cotton owned by the Union.
[22] Britain operated a programme of covert action in Latin America in the 1960s, including attempts to influence elections and to disrupt trade unions in a number of countries.
[23][24] The British impact on sports was overwhelming, as Latin America took up football (called fútbol in Spanish and futebol in Portuguese).
There was still a labor shortage, which was solved when Italian and Spanish immigrants started to migrate to Argentina, often on British passenger liners.
President Franklin Roosevelt asked Prime Minister Winston Churchill to stop buying Argentine beef and grain.
Brazilian trade had been limited to the mother country, but now the Prince Regent expanded it to encourage commerce with all friendly nations, especially Great Britain.
[32] The two nations established diplomatic relations in 1826, after the British imposed a treaty pledging the total abolition of the Atlantic slave trade.
However, according to Hilarie J. Heath, the results were bleak: trade was stagnant, imports did not pay, contraband drove prices down, debts private and public went unpaid, merchants suffered all manner of injustices and operated at the mercy of weak and corruptible governments, with commercial houses skirting bankruptcy.
[39] In 1861, Mexican President Benito Juarez suspended Mexico's interest payments to its creditors in France, Spain and the UK.
This act angered the three nations and in October 1861 by the Convention of London the three sent a joint naval force to Mexico to demand repayment.
After a few months, both the Spanish and British government became aware that Emperor Napoleon III of France was planning to colonize Mexico in order to expand its empire and take advantage of the fact that the United States was tied down in its civil war and was not able to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.
[40] After 1880, the British turned their attention in Mexico primarily to investments in railways and mines, sending both money and engineers and skilled mechanics.
The dispute had become a diplomatic crisis when Venezuelan representatives argued that British behaviour over the issue violated the 1823 Monroe Doctrine and used its influence in the American government to pursue the matter.
US President Grover Cleveland adopted a broad interpretation of the doctrine that did forbade new European colonies but also declared an American interest in any matter in the hemisphere.
[45][46] The status of the territory later became subject to the Geneva Agreement of 1966, which was signed by the United Kingdom, Venezuela and British Guiana on 17 February 1966.
