History of U.S. Foreign Affairs and What's Needed Today
Keystone
history and current affairs is in order to foster public paranoia for
imperialist gain. 'Imperialist' in terms of unfairly advancing US domestic
corporate wealth and military and political control of other states. The
remaining half of popularly presented history loses plenty with some truth
filtered in favour of a faux bolstering of US pride to boil the patriotism
among those who prove incapable of searching beyond the propagandist and
"official" information.
The blame for this popularly presented spin is not only upon the US
government but the lack of what should be an independent media. As courtiers
of the White House and the Pentagon, CNN and others actual use the
propagandist labels for US military action!! It is a war! Display some
journalistic integrity and stop calling it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in
large flowing font!
I'm going to look at the trends in the modern propagation of US foreign
policy, with a strong critical eye upon where the mistakes began and
continue. Mistakes were made in the past, so why perpetuate them? Like many,
most I'd hope, I believe that a sign of intelligence is not only recognition
of mistakes but to avoid their repetition! Of course some are criminally
inclined and without society's proclaimed ethical stances and wilfully plan
a course for such errors.
So where to begin? I'm going to start with a bright light of US foreign
policy. A period of US history where state policy is due much admiration,
equalling that of many of the founding ideals and legislation of that
country.
A rarity among US presidents has been of one that not only pays lip
service to the ideals that had founded their nation but also to enact upon
them and unaggressively demonstrate leadership among nations as to what
proper conduct is to be expected. Who could fit that mould? The horrors of
the US-Spanish war presented the horrors of imperialism to future US
bureaucrats and presidents. Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick" policy in Latin
American certainly brought little love towards the USA. The brutality of US
occupation in the Philippines
(http://www.historyguy.com/PhilipineAmericanwar.html) does mirror today's
actions in Iraq. With those, even tough Theodore Roosevelt saw the ills of
imperialist conquest towards the end of his life. Yes, President Wilson
presented lofty notions to the League of Nations but his and later Hoover's
administrations demonstrated little foreign policy progression. A true
change, if not the FIRST and possibly ONLY appearance of US foreign policy
attempting to reflect the ideals of that nation are within President
Franklin Roosevelt's tenure. Latin America and Caribbean states had long
been abused and certainly economically raped by a few wealthy immigrants and
distant powers. Hope was expressed with Roosevelt's 1933 inaugural address:
(http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/froos1.htm)
"In the field of world policy I would dedicate this Nation to the policy of
the good neighbour--the neighbour who resolutely respects himself and,
because he does so, respects the rights of others-- the neighbour who
respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and
with a world of neighbours."
This was the foundation for his administration's good neighbour policy.
I've recently returned from Central America and that bright point is still
remembered fondly among a few. That line wasn't just an empty statement for
public political consumption but was enacted into US foreign policy.
Examples being:
(http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1978/3/78.03.05.x.html)
(a) the American withdrawal of marines from Haiti,
(b) a new treaty signed with Cuba whereby the Platt Amendment was
nullified,
(c) the U.S. giving up the right to police the Panama government in 1939,
(d) the U.S. giving up control of finances of the Dominican Republic,
(e) and only making mild protests to the Mexican government when it took
over oil and farmlands owned by American citizens, thereby repudiating
dollar diplomacy.
and then:
(a) Reciprocity treaties were made with 15 different Latin American
countries.
(b) U.S. government capital gradually replaced private investments through
the Export-Import Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department.
(c) F.D. Roosevelt increased, nearly by double, the annual payments to
Panama for canal rights.
After WWII began in 1939, the earlier Declaration of Lima was
strengthened at a conference in Panama to secure "the sovereignty, political
independence of the American states" and thereby created the means for Latin
American countries to be coequal partners. This changed the Monroe Doctrine
from a unilateral U.S. doctrine to a multilateral Pan-American doctrine.
The Good Neighbour Policy wasn't the only progressive foreign policy
initiative of Roosevelt's administration. Today the world holds onto the
foundation of his realised ideals. Into the outbreak of WWII Roosevelt
applied pressure upon Churchill with the Atlantic Charter. The points
agreed upon led to the foundation of the United Charter at the end of WWII:
(http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/53.htm)
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr.
Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom,
being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in
the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their
hopes for a better future for the world.
First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;
Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with
the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of
government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights
and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of
them;
...
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see
established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling
in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that
all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear
and want;
...
Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as
well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force.
Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments
continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten,
aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the
establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the
disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and
encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving
peoples the crushing burden of armaments.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Winston S. Churchill
This spelt a legal death nail to the holdings of the British Empire and
should have done the same for other imperialist powers. Unfortunately,
immediately with the end of WWII these ideals would not be continued in US
foreign policy. Strategically myopic and intellectually weaker men held and
continue to hold power after. Short term gains again became and continue to
be the focus of foreign policy and damn the rights of sovereignty for
smaller and geographically desirable states. The actions of US foreign
policy since are proof of this reversion to imperialism.
Despite the opinions of many, the USA is legally limited in its actions. It's
not just bound to federal and possibly state laws but these are superseded
by treaties that the USA is a part of. As is often corrected by only a few
in this forum, the US Constitution is not always the end all legal document
for the actions of the USA.
Following World War II, the Charter of the United Nations came into
being. (http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/) At the end of WWII, immediately
the doublespeak out of Washington began. State a belief and it's
contradicted in action.
WWII United States OSS agents were working within Japanese occupied
Indochina, recruiting many indigenous agents, including Ho Chi Minh. With
the Japanese defeat an US-American OSS agent, Achimedes Patti, was invited
alongside Ho Chi Minh as he celebrated Viet Namese independence in a parade
through Saigon. 'Uncle Ho' was under the realistic belief that his US allies
would support this Viet Nam, but was prepared to go where it was necessary
to achieve help for his nation's fair place among states. Among many other
subjects, President Linden Johnson was briefed by his advisors upon the
state of Indochina. The nationalist movement in Viet Nam was labelled
communist -- black or white. US support for Ho Chi Minh abruptly ended and
LBJ's anti-communist policy reverted US foreign policy back decades with the
support for continued French imperialism in south-east Asia. That was the
initiation of Viet Nam's war of independence. At Achimedes Patti's last
meeting with Ho Chi Minh in September 1945, Ho said that "he owed only his
training to Moscow and for that he had repaid Moscow with fifteen years of
party work. He had no other commitment. He considered himself a free agent."
The Soviet Union was not active there. It was the USA who was a key player
and alone could have provided an altruistic contribution. But no, alone,
and upon its own volition, the USA screwed it up for the decades that
followed.
History could have - SHOULD HAVE - been so very different. Yet this is
the USA that we are talking about. One of my favourite quotes is from
Churchill: "America always does the right thing -- after it has exhausted
all the alternatives." The very same mistakes continued and continue through
to today.
Onto a nation that has grown dear to my heart, Guatemala. President
Jacobo Arbenz Guzman was a few years into his first term when his government
drew Imperialist flak from the USA. Even with the knowledge of the US
support for genocidal regimes, CIA operative, Howard Hunt, who help
organised the successful coup of the Arbenz government remains unapologetic
for actions he set forth. The likes of him are among the lowest of the low
that the USA has contributed to world affairs. Hell, this is the man who
directed the Watergate theft. In interviews Hunt continues to be without
"regret" and declare that the Guatemala action was the "right thing to do,"
since that nation had become communist. No. Arbenz was a socialist heading
a socialist and democratically elected government. Self determination was
his national government's right, whilst not posing ANY military threat to
the USA. What his government did rashly implement were the purchase (based
upon declared property taxes... of many corporations selfishly undervalued
their land) of unused land holdings of large companies within Guatemala. The
intention was to provide land to campesinos for their own use, rather than
them continuing an existence without a chance of holding any property and
remaining subservient to companies who had unfairly collected massive land
holdings decades earlier. Well, weaker governments should not piss off men
in higher places. President Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster
Dulles and his law firm had represented the United Fruit Company, while his
brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, had served on the UFCO's board of
trustees. The end result of this conflict of interest was likely the CIA's
most successful operation. In 1952, President Truman authorised $2.7 million
for PBSUCCESS (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/). The CIA had
White House consent to "psychological warfare and political action,"
"subversion," on through to assassination. Arbenz pleaded to the United
Nations for help. Unfortunately this was after a US propaganda mission to
portray his government as ardently communists and a military threat to this
hemisphere. Unlike over a year ago in 2002, the United State's UN propaganda
was a success. Only the USSR stated support for the Guatemalan's state
integrity. Due to US coercion, the assembly and Charter of the United
Nations had failed. In 1954, with a minimalist invasion force of a hired
band of 500 guerrillas crossed from Honduras and set-up a pirate radio
station. The CIA let loose its propaganda across the airwaves and sent a
small mercenary air force to bomb the capital and rattle Arbenz. Having
secured the loyalty from a portion of the Guatemalan military the CIA's
chosen strongman, Castillo Armas, took the capital from Arbenz. At the
hands of the USA, Guatemala's 10 year stint with democracy was at an end for
nearly 50 more years.
Advance into the 1960's with the Bay of Pigs landing. It's interesting
when finding names in history popping up at different instances - another
operation that involved CIA agent Howard Hunt. Discontent portions of the
Guatemalan military viewed the Bay of Pigs as a threat of US military
involvement into any American nation. Portions of the Guatemalan military
witnessed the lack of opposition freedom and saw little hope for democratic
progression in their totalitarian Guatemala. A conclusion was reached that
revolutionary change could now only be achieved through the extremism of an
armed challenge. Extremism begets extremism. A civil war in Guatemala began
not by communists, but by a rightist portion of Guatemalan society. Even the
long shunned Catholic Church (past supporters for colonialist rule in the
Americas) had been welcomed back into Guatemala by its anti-communist
dictatorship. Catholicism despised communism and could be a tool for the
governments favour. Nope, the recently welcomed priests soon fought for the
rights of their parishes against government abuses.
There were similar situations throughout the Americas and certainly
elsewhere in the world. A repeated error is of the USA not comprehending
who their stated enemies are. Some in the administrations and bureaucracy
certainly were/are fitting of such a description. More seriously are those
who hold power or swallow the orders under the belief of not giving a damn
of who the stated enemies are. The motivations of such people are to
advance personal, corporate, and/or US interests, whilst damning those who
haven't been granted the privilege and protection of US citizenship.
A seminal paper that reflects such beliefs was written in 1979 by Jeane
Kirkpatrick. The thesis to 'Dictatorships and Double Standards' was of the
necessity to support right ring, totalitarian states that support the USA.
To quote her conclusion:
"A realistic policy which aims at protecting our own interest and assisting
the capacities for self-determination of less developed nations will need to
face the unpleasant fact that, if victorious, violent insurgencies headed by
Marxist revolutionaries is unlikely to lead to anything but totalitarian
tyranny."
This was certainly bullshit then as it is now. For a few administrations by
that point, Operation Condor of their South American pawns was well known
throughout the State Department. For decades the cases were well documented
of the USA overthrowing democratic states to impose and retain violent and
totalitarian tyranny. Of course she went on to demonise such democracies:
"If, moreover, revolutionary leaders describe the United States as the
scourge of the 20th century, the enemy of freedom-loving people, the
perpetrator of imperialism, racism, colonialism, genocide, war, then they
are not authentic democrats or, to put it mildly, friends. Groups which
define themselves as enemies should be treated as enemies."
Considering the US history of destroying socialist democracies in this
hemisphere, her confusion remains alarming:
"Although there is no instance of a revolutionary "socialist" or Communist
society being democratised, right-wing autocracies do sometimes evolve into
democracies.."
This was a continuation of fear-mongering at its worst. Black or white.
"With us or against us." Common rhetoric was of the USSR being the
"aggressive, expansionist power" while the USA was not. The case can be
justly made of them both being so since the end of World War II to that
present. Much of her tirade was directed at the incumbent Carter
administration and its foreign affairs with South Africa, Nicaragua, and
Iran. State governments who supported US foreign affairs deserved US
support. Those who questioned the US government could quickly be denigrated
to enemies. Charters, laws down to basic moral treatment have little bearing
for the conduct of US foreign policy. How dare the "intellectual elites"
(sounds familiar, eh?) bring criticism against apartheid South Africa when
they are among the USA's international allies and actively fighting against
communist African insurgency? The "elitists" continue to be those who can
visualise issues beyond that of a black and white paradigm. Cognitive
skills of thinking geometrically are scary to those with selfishly offensive
goals.
Jean Kirkpatrick found ideologue bedfellows within the Reagan
administration, who put placed her as the US Ambassador to the United
Nations. On the Security Council she began a USA tradition of vetoing
Security Council sanctions against apartheid South Africa.
Let's move on to President Reagan, a leader of a tyrannical
administration who I regret having died 23 years too late. Many in the world
regret the courts never getting a hold of that man or of the actions of one
having not found the mark. A past Secretary of War/State (let's be accurate
here), Henry Kissinger, could also be brought up on similar charges - hope
remains. Now for Reagan and back to Guatemala. I keep returning there
because it was not only the first of the Cold War aggressive acts by the USA
in this hemisphere but proved to be the most brutal. The number of civilian
murdered by the government totalled over 200,000 - a number higher than all
of the suspected government murders among all other Latin American nations
during the last century. In Guatemala it could hardly be called a civil
war, as it was one of government propaganda and active terror to protect its
corporate and political interests. The targeted enemies were any suspected
opposition. It is now known that at its peak in the early 1970s, the armed
portions of the rebel groups totalled a little over 5,000 against a state
military of over 100,000. This US administration not only coddled the
genocidal strongmen of Guatemala but defended one school of America's
graduate, Rios Mont, as a "man of freedom." During a state visit to the USA
in 1981, a member of the US press asked him about Guatemala's Scorched Earth
Policy. Rios Monts' reply? "We don't have a policy of scorched earth - we
have a policy of scorched communists." The same US policies gave the free
reign for government slaughters in El Salvador. In the game of picking the
enemies of thy enemy, a point was reached of supporting Pol Pot's Khmer
Rouge against invasion from Soviet supported Viet Nam. Morals and ethics are
thrown out of US foreign policy. It's a chess board of black or white.
Screwing over those who aren't "us" for "our" gains.
Wars were and are propagated and lengthened. Greater numbers suffer and
die for what is often an end result that Washington feared - undesirable
foreign governments in power. For most instances the avoidance of extremist
policies could have saved so much.
Let's advance towards more recent events and US efforts at the United
Nations. Secretary Colin Powell's presentation in January 2003 certainly did
not appear to sway the Security Council towards support of an Iraqi
Invasion. The pretence was from the passing of article 1441 and its step
towards authorising "extreme measures" against Iraq for non-compliance.
There's a myth that remains of that resolution authorising action by member
states. No. A quote from the chief US negotiator on Article 1441 and US
Ambassador to the UN, John D. Negroponte, was unequivocal upon the
multilateral terms for the use of force:
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-uniraq8nov08.story)
"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that
regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the
resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be
dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to
consider the matter before any other action is taken."
Unfortunately the direct public spin from the administration left the
opening for unilateral action. Such words and later action was proof of the
USA having zero respect for international charters that it is a signatory
to. No good governmental faith when a US-American is sitting down at the
table with you. Lacking the necessary support for a Security Council
invasion support, the USA avoided a follow-up resolution to 1441. The USA
and its allies of Great Britain and Australia illegally by-passed the United
Nations to launch an aggressive war against the sovereign state of Iraq.
Not much is new. Wars of aggression that counter the UN Charter have been
rather consistent over the past 50 years. The structure of the UN Security
Council and the UN Assembly don't readily avail a mechanism for legally
initiating multi-lateral warfare or the sanctioning of it. Notable
exceptions could be the Korean War and the Suez Crisis. The previous Bush
administration had an unjust invasion of Panama. A change this time around
was of the faux appearance of good faith whilst building up a military force
that was designed to be used rather than held back as a threat. A US policy
goal was long apparent before the fear of terrorism and Weapons of Mass
Destruction became this decade's US-American bogeyman.
Years ago not enough expressed very rational opinions towards the fear of
a Bush administration. The warnings were quite apparent for future goals in
Iraq plus the excessive favouring of US pawns. A sign of problems to come
were the polarising words uttered from then Governor Bush's hypocritical
mouth during the second 2000 Presidential debate:
"I think credibility is going to be very important in the future in the
Middle East. I want everybody to know should I be the president Israel's
going to be our friend."
That certainly set-up the course of failed brokerages with the
Palestinian authority. Governor Bush probably believed in who he was to
support and was not just pandering to his religious political base.
Onto the Iraqi warnings:
"The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unravelling, let's
put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether
he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's
going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to
have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends
and resoluting your determination."
So much for having "credibility." Certainly the USA has made an effort to
distance itself from those who should be considered good friends. Regional
partners are of a prime importance. Traditional allies are of the past,
being distant from the new opposition. A move to the east brings nations
holding their hands out for US favour. The prize of former Soviet bloc
states is too great to pass up for former Cold Warrior bureaucrats. That and
the Iraqi opportunism presented themselves when Paul Wolfowitz and company
received their long dreamt "Pearl Harbour" with the 9/11 attacks
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/realitycheck030317.html).
President Bush and the neocons stated goals of democratising the Middle East
counter with their apparent fellow ideologue, Jean Kirkpatrick, who warned
of the "modernising paradigm" with democracy only being achievable when it
came from the will of the people and would be a slow process to achieve.
Well, the current Bush administration propaganda is a spin for the efforts
of imposing and for those states who acquiesce to US control and coercion.
New found allies of Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Pervez Musharraf of
Parkistan are hardly being disciplined for their nullification of opposition
parties. Long and consistent actions prove that democratisation elsewhere is
certainly not a US foreign policy goal.
President Bush can be demonstrated to be inept and likely having being
picked as a malleable and appropriate figurehead. The current administration's
policy has been set by long serving bureaucrats, one of which is now the
Vice-President. Discounting Cheney and Rumsfield, many held government posts
remaining from Clinton's administration and before. The changing of US
administrations rarely changes much.
Now here's comes a surprise for this essay. For the best possibility of
fair and progressive change to occur in US foreign policy, President Bush's
administration must be re-elected. Extremism begets extremism. Unfortunately
for the world, it takes a hell of a lot to wake up the apathetic US
electorate. For most of us the anger from Bush's tenure is boiling near the
surface, but this is hardly the case for a phobia inclined US-American
public who'll rally to whoever their leader is. The irrationality that 9/11
sparked has hardly settled. Much of the blame can be placed upon the
home-cheering US media. Lack of critical thought is a US pass-time. Only
months ago did this trend finally begin to turn. Photos of tortured Iraqis
under US military guard finally broke the compliant will of the general US
public. The emergence of popular critical thought final began to shimmer.
The beginnings to question the US powers that be were far too damned late
during an election campaign - hell too late after the initiation of a
questionable war! Costs of this were moderate representatives from the
Democratic Party chosen to challenge the Bush administration. If elected, I
doubt that they'll change much towards US foreign policy plans nor
especially the unseen background workings of Washington.
For an adequate purge of bureaucrats and their culture to take place a
vastly more extreme challenger to the status-quo must be realised. Four more
years of this current idiocy and a continuation of the past 60 years of
doublespeak and foreign affairs hypocrisy can only increase the odds of a
visionary leader to coming forth and the necessary proportion of the US
electorate who would choose him/her. Four more years of the Bush
administration can also be extreme enough to bring about the re-alignment of
the Republican Party.
Four more years or more of the current trends could bring about my dream
of an international coalition of nations that will cooperate to challenge
the USA, possibly even indict past and present figures into the
International Court of Justice. Supra-national checks and balances may again
be domestically acceptable in the USA if there is no doubt of the rogue
state that is the USA is beyond the control of its federal and judicial
structure. Control of this US juggernaut could be realised if the USA shame
themselves into adherence to international law and order. There's a slight
possibility of accepting just submission to the Charter of the United
Nations and other UN documents such as the Geneva Conventions. A climate of
returning to leadership by example and signing into the International
Criminal Court is not an impossible dream. No, this wouldn't be progression,
but regression back to the laudable state of the FDR administration. It's
possible, but likely only a chance if the current extremism is permitted to
pressurise the US electorate a little longer.
-Keystone
Catcher
George Bush -as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy."
George Bush-Redwood, Calif., Sept. 27, 2000
Keystone
Yup, nice ones. I'm scared, but I feel the quickest means to change the course of history is for another four years of his administration. Two years after 9/11 the mass media have tardilly begun critical examination of this incumbancy. Too late. The DNC chose Kerry and Edwards rather than more progressive candidates -- these two will change little. Four more years of a Bush administration will further rile up the US electorate and hopefully make it politically plausible for a candidate such as Dean or one who's more in the mould of FDR.
I hate the double speak. Either have the inegrity to display the acceptance of long ratified charters and treaties or have the gaul to come out and dismiss them. For over fifty years US foreign affairs has been of bullshitting.
From my essay that was only half of my conclusion. The other half is for the continued extremisms of a Bush Whitehouse rallying other nations together to censure or idict past and present US leadership via legal mechanisms that have long been ratified. It's time to bring this rogue nation into check and back into its legally accepted par of other states.
Keystone
I'm tired of the errors in popular US revisionist history. Half of that presented history and current affairs is in order to foster public paranoia for imperialist gain. ‘Imperialist’ in terms of unfairly advancing US domestic corporate wealth and military and political control of other states. The remaining half of popularly presented history loses plenty with some truth filtered in favour of a faux bolstering of US pride to boil the patriotism among those who prove incapable of searching beyond the propagandist and "official" information.
WWII United States OSS agents were working within Japanese occupied Indochina, recruiting many indigenous agents, including Ho Chi Minh. With the Japanese defeat an US-American OSS agent, Achimedes Patti, was invited alongside Ho Chi Minh as he celebrated Viet Namese independence in a parade through Saigon. 'Uncle Ho' was under the realistic belief that his US allies would support this Viet Nam, but was prepared to go where it was necessary to achieve help for his nation's fair place among states. Among many other subjects, President Harry Truman was briefed by his advisors upon the state of Indochina. The nationalist movement in Viet Nam was labelled communist -- black or white. US support for Ho Chi Minh abruptly ended and Truman’s anti-communist policy reverted US foreign policy back decades with the support for continued French imperialism in south-east Asia. That was the initiation of Viet Nam's war of independence. At Achimedes Patti's last meeting with Ho Chi Minh in September 1945, Ho said that "he owed only his training to Moscow and for that he had repaid Moscow with fifteen years of party work. He had no other commitment. He considered himself a free agent." The Soviet Union was not active there. It was the USA who was a key player and alone could have provided an altruistic contribution. But no, alone, and upon its own volition, the USA screwed it up for the decades that followed.
History could have - SHOULD HAVE - been so very different. Yet this is the USA that we are talking about. One of my favourite quotes is from Churchill: "America always does the right thing -- after it has exhausted all the alternatives." The very same mistakes continued and continue through to today.
Onto a nation that has grown dear to my heart, Guatemala. President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman was a few years into his first term when his government drew Imperialist flak from the USA. Even with the knowledge of the US support for genocidal regimes, CIA operative, Howard Hunt, who help organised the successful coup of the Arbenz government remains unapologetic for actions he set forth. The likes of him are among the lowest of the low that the USA has contributed to world affairs. Hell, this is the man who directed the Watergate theft. In interviews Hunt continues to be without “regret” and declare that the Guatemala action was the "right thing to do," since that nation had become communist. No. Arbenz was a socialist heading a socialist and democratically elected government. Self determination was his national government’s right, whilst not posing ANY military threat to the USA. What his government did rashly implement were the purchase (based upon declared property taxes... of many corporations selfishly undervalued their land) of unused land holdings of large companies within Guatemala. The intention was to provide land to campesinos for their own use, rather than them continuing an existence without a chance of holding any property and remaining subservient to companies who had unfairly collected massive land holdings decades earlier. Well, weaker governments should not piss off men in higher places. President Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles and his law firm had represented the United Fruit Company, while his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, had served on the UFCO's board of trustees. The end result of this conflict of interest was likely the CIA's most successful operation. In 1952, President Truman authorised $2.7 million for PBSUCCESS (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/). The CIA had White House consent to "psychological warfare and political action," "subversion," on through to assassination. Arbenz pleaded to the United Nations for help. Unfortunately this was after a US propaganda mission to portray his government as ardently communists and a military threat to this hemisphere. Unlike over a year ago in 2002, the United State’s UN propaganda was a success. Only the USSR stated support for the Guatemalan’s state integrity. Due to US coercion, the assembly and Charter of the United Nations had failed. In 1954, with a minimalist invasion force of a hired band of 500 guerrillas crossed from Honduras and set-up a pirate radio station. The CIA let loose its propaganda across the airwaves and sent a small mercenary air force to bomb the capital and rattle Arbenz. Having secured the loyalty from a portion of the Guatemalan military the CIA’s chosen strongman, Castillo Armas, took the capital from Arbenz. At the hands of the USA, Guatemala’s 10 year stint with democracy was at an end for nearly 50 more years.
Advance into the 1960’s with the Bay of Pigs landing. It’s interesting when finding names in history popping up at different instances – another operation that involved CIA agent Howard Hunt. Discontent portions of the Guatemalan military viewed the Bay of Pigs as a threat of US military involvement into any American nation. Portions of the Guatemalan military witnessed the lack of opposition freedom and saw little hope for democratic progression in their totalitarian Guatemala. A conclusion was reached that revolutionary change could now only be achieved through the extremism of an armed challenge. Extremism begets extremism. A civil war in Guatemala began not by communists, but by a rightist portion of Guatemalan society. Even the long shunned Catholic Church (past supporters for colonialist rule in the Americas) had been welcomed back into Guatemala by its anti-communist dictatorship. Catholicism despised communism and could be a tool for the governments favour. Nope, the recently welcomed priests soon fought for the rights of their parishes against government abuses.
There were similar situations throughout the Americas and certainly elsewhere in the world. A repeated error is of the USA not comprehending who their stated enemies are. Some in the administrations and bureaucracy certainly were/are fitting of such a description. More seriously are those who hold power or swallow the orders under the belief of not giving a damn of who the stated enemies are. The motivations of such people are to advance personal, corporate, and/or US interests, whilst damning those who haven’t been granted the privilege and protection of US citizenship.
A seminal paper that reflects such beliefs was written in 1979 by Jeane Kirkpatrick. The thesis to ‘Dictatorships and Double Standards’ was of the necessity to support right ring, totalitarian states that support the USA. To quote her conclusion:
”A realistic policy which aims at protecting our own interest and assisting the capacities for self-determination of less developed nations will need to face the unpleasant fact that, if victorious, violent insurgencies headed by Marxist revolutionaries is unlikely to lead to anything but totalitarian tyranny.”
This was certainly in error then as it is now. For a few administrations by that point, Operation Condor of their South American pawns was well known throughout the State Department. For decades the cases were well documented of the USA overthrowing democratic states to impose and retain violent and totalitarian tyranny. Of course she went on to demonise such democracies:
“If, moreover, revolutionary leaders describe the United States as the scourge of the 20th century, the enemy of freedom-loving people, the perpetrator of imperialism, racism, colonialism, genocide, war, then they are not authentic democrats or, to put it mildly, friends. Groups which define themselves as enemies should be treated as enemies.”
Considering the US history of destroying socialist democracies in this hemisphere, her confusion remains alarming:
”Although there is no instance of a revolutionary “socialist” or Communist society being democratised, right-wing autocracies do sometimes evolve into democracies..”
This was a continuation of fear-mongering at its worst. Black or white. “With us or against us.” Common rhetoric was of the USSR being the “aggressive, expansionist power” while the USA was not. The case can be justly made of them both being so since the end of World War II to that present. Much of her tirade was directed at the incumbent Carter administration and its foreign affairs with South Africa, Nicaragua, and Iran. State governments who supported US foreign affairs deserved US support. Those who questioned the US government could quickly be denigrated to enemies. Charters, laws down to basic moral treatment have little bearing for the conduct of US foreign policy. How dare the “intellectual elites” (sounds familiar, eh?) bring criticism against apartheid South Africa when they are among the USA’s international allies and actively fighting against communist African insurgency? The “elitists” continue to be those who can visualise issues beyond that of a black and white paradigm. Cognitive skills of thinking geometrically are scary to those with selfishly offensive goals.
Jean Kirkpatrick found ideologue bedfellows within the Reagan administration, who put placed her as the US Ambassador to the United Nations. On the Security Council she began a USA tradition of vetoing Security Council sanctions against apartheid South Africa.
Let’s move on to President Reagan, a leader of a tyrannical administration who I regret having died 23 years too late. Many in the world regret the courts never getting a hold of that man or of the actions of one having not found the mark. A past Secretary of War/State (let’s be accurate here), Henry Kissinger, could also be brought up on similar charges – hope remains. Now for Reagan and back to Guatemala. I keep returning there because it was not only the first of the Cold War aggressive acts by the USA in this hemisphere but proved to be the most brutal. The number of civilian murdered by the government totalled over 200,000 – a number higher than all of the suspected government murders among all other Latin American nations during the last century. In Guatemala it could hardly be called a civil war, as it was one of government propaganda and active terror to protect its corporate and political interests. The targeted enemies were any suspected opposition. It is now known that at its peak in the early 1970s, the armed portions of the rebel groups totalled a little over 5,000 against a state military of over 100,000. This US administration not only coddled the genocidal strongmen of Guatemala but defended one school of America’s graduate, Rios Mont, as a “man of freedom.” During a state visit to the USA in 1981, a member of the US press asked him about Guatemala’s Scorched Earth Policy. Rios Monts’ reply? “We don't have a policy of scorched earth — we have a policy of scorched communists.” The same US policies gave the free reign for government slaughters in El Salvador. In the game of picking the enemies of thy enemy, a point was reached of supporting Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge against invasion from Soviet supported Viet Nam. Morals and ethics are thrown out of US foreign policy. It’s a chess board of black or white. Screwing over those who aren’t “us” for “our” gains.
Wars were and are propagated and lengthened. Greater numbers suffer and die for what is often an end result that Washington feared – undesirable foreign governments in power. For most instances the avoidance of extremist policies could have saved so much.
Let’s advance towards more recent events and US efforts at the United Nations. Secretary Colin Powell’s presentation in January 2003 certainly did not appear to sway the Security Council towards support of an Iraqi Invasion. The pretence was from the passing of article 1441 and its step towards authorising “extreme measures” against Iraq for non-compliance. There’s a myth that remains of that resolution authorising action by member states. No. A quote from the chief US negotiator on Article 1441 and US Ambassador to the UN, John D. Negroponte, was unequivocal upon the multilateral terms for the use of force:
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-fg-uniraq8nov08.story)
"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution. Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken."
Unfortunately the direct public spin from the administration left the opening for unilateral action. Such words and later action was proof of the USA having zero respect for international charters that it is a signatory to. No good governmental faith when a US-American is sitting down at the table with you. Lacking the necessary support for a Security Council invasion support, the USA avoided a follow-up resolution to 1441. The USA and its allies of Great Britain and Australia illegally by-passed the United Nations to launch an aggressive war against the sovereign state of Iraq.
Not much is new. Wars of aggression that counter the UN Charter have been rather consistent over the past 50 years. The structure of the UN Security Council and the UN Assembly don’t readily avail a mechanism for legally initiating multi-lateral warfare or the sanctioning of it. Notable exceptions could be the Korean War and the Suez Crisis. The previous Bush administration had an unjust invasion of Panama. A change this time around was of the faux appearance of good faith whilst building up a military force that was designed to be used rather than held back as a threat. A US policy goal was long apparent before the fear of terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction became this decade’s US-American bogeyman.
Years ago not enough expressed very rational opinions towards the fear of a Bush administration. The warnings were quite apparent for future goals in Iraq plus the excessive favouring of US pawns. A sign of problems to come were the polarising words uttered from then Governor Bush’s hypocritical mouth during the second 2000 Presidential debate:
”I think credibility is going to be very important in the future in the Middle East. I want everybody to know should I be the president Israel's going to be our friend.”
That certainly set-up the course of failed brokerages with the Palestinian authority. Governor Bush probably believed in who he was to support and was not just pandering to his religious political base.
Onto the Iraqi warnings:
“The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unravelling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting your determination.”
So much for having "credibility." Certainly the USA has made an effort to distance itself from those who should be considered good friends. Regional partners are of a prime importance. Traditional allies are of the past, being distant from the new opposition. A move to the east brings nations holding their hands out for US favour. The prize of former Soviet bloc states is too great to pass up for former Cold Warrior bureaucrats. That and the Iraqi opportunism presented themselves when Paul Wolfowitz and company received their long dreamt “Pearl Harbour” with the 9/11 attacks (http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/realitycheck030317.html).
President Bush and the neocons stated goals of democratising the Middle East counter with their apparent fellow ideologue, Jean Kirkpatrick, who warned of the “modernising paradigm” with democracy only being achievable when it came from the will of the people and would be a slow process to achieve. Well, the current Bush administration propaganda is a spin for the efforts of imposing and for those states who acquiesce to US control and coercion. New found allies of Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Pervez Musharraf of Parkistan are hardly being disciplined for their nullification of opposition parties. Long and consistent actions prove that democratisation elsewhere is certainly not a US foreign policy goal.
President Bush can be demonstrated to be inept and likely having being picked as a malleable and appropriate figurehead. The current administration’s policy has been set by long serving bureaucrats, one of which is now the Vice-President. Discounting Cheney and Rumsfield, many held government posts remaining from Clinton’s administration and before. The changing of US administrations rarely changes much.
Now here’s comes a surprise for this essay. For the best possibility of fair and progressive change to occur in US foreign policy, President Bush’s administration must be re-elected. Extremism begets extremism. Unfortunately for the world, it takes a hell of a lot to wake up the apathetic US electorate. For most of us the anger from Bush’s tenure is boiling near the surface, but this is hardly the case for a phobia inclined US-American public who’ll rally to whoever their leader is. The irrationality that 9/11 sparked has hardly settled. Much of the blame can be placed upon the home-cheering US media. Lack of critical thought is a US pass-time. Only months ago did this trend finally begin to turn. Photos of tortured Iraqis under US military guard finally broke the compliant will of the general US public. The emergence of popular critical thought final began to shimmer. The beginnings to question the US powers that be were far too damned late during an election campaign – hell too late after the initiation of a questionable war! Costs of this were moderate representatives from the Democratic Party chosen to challenge the Bush administration. If elected, I doubt that they’ll change much towards US foreign policy plans nor especially the unseen background workings of Washington.