Explanation:
U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America in the 19th century initially focused on excluding or limiting the military and economic influence of European powers, territorial expansion, and encouraging American commerce. These objectives were expressed in the No Transfer Principle (1811) and the Monroe Doctrine (1823). American policy was unilateralist (not isolationist); it gradually became more aggressive and interventionist as the idea of Manifest Destiny contributed to wars and military conflicts against indigenous peoples, France, Britain, Spain, and Mexico in the Western Hemisphere. Expansionist sentiments and U.S. domestic politics inspired annexationist impulses and filibuster expeditions to Mexico, Cuba, and parts of Central America. Civil war in the United States put a temporary halt to interventionism and imperial dreams in Latin America. From the 1870s until the end of the century, U.S. policy intensified efforts to establish political and military hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, including periodic naval interventions in the Caribbean and Central America, reaching even to Brazil in the 1890s. By the end of the century Secretary of State Richard Olney added the Olney Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine (“Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition . . .”), and President Theodore Roosevelt contributed his own corollary in 1904 (“in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of wrongdoing or impotence, to exercise an international police power”). American policy toward Latin America, at the turn of the century, explicitly justified unilateral intervention, military occupation, and transformation of sovereign states into political and economic protectorates in order to defend U.S. economic interests and an expanding concept of national security.
The explorations that led to the discovery of <u>Tintaya mine</u> go<em><u> back to 1917</u></em>. <em><u>In 1971</u></em>, the Peruvian government promoted the exploitation of the mine. <em><u>In 1980</u></em>, the expropriation of approximately 4,000 hectares of land, owned by the communities, was carried out. It is for this reason that started a dispute between the commoners and the Company. <em><u>In 1985 </u></em>the exploitation of <u>Tintaya</u> began and it became the third producer of the country. <em><u>In 1994</u></em>, the mine was bought by Broken Hill Proprietary (BHP), who subsequently merged with the company Billiton, forming the second biggest group in the world production of minerals. <em><u>In 2001</u></em>, the first proposal for the framework agreement was made public. An agreement was reached and the framework agreement was consolidated <em><u>in 2003</u></em>. The signature of the framework agreement was an innovative milestone. Never before, a mining company had agreed to transfer a percentage of profits to communities and to engage to dialogue with them at all times. <em><u>In 2005</u></em>, a violent takeover occurred of the <u>Tintaya</u> facilities. A reformulation of the framework agreement was demanded. The implementation of the framework agreement was taking place very slowly. The president of BHP Billiton had to suspend the mining activity until a new agreement was reached. Then the negotiations began again. Xstrata Cooper (now Glencore) bought <u>Tintaya</u> from BHP Billiton <em><u>in 2006</u></em>. The owner changed, but the same conflicts and mobilizations continued until <em><u>2012</u></em>. The last stoppage lasted eight days. During this paralysis, violent acts occurred and even the mine was asked to close, which was completely rejected by the government. Finally, at present, no resolution or reformulation of the framework agreement has been reached.
The term used to refer to a black person
The Virginia plan had a strong legislative executive and judicial branch so I think it’s A
