Tag Archives: Foreign Policy

Short Writing and Research Assignment: Part 2

Second Source: Guatemala and the United Fruit Company: Office of the Historian – United States Department of State. “Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952-1954, Guatemala.” September 11, 1953.

This public document, redacted by the United States Department of State in 1953, outlines in great detail the sentiment towards Guatemala and the Arbenz government taken by the United States government right before it covertly invaded Guatemala in 1954. This is notably voiced right at the start of the memorandum, as it pins to Arbenz and his government the labels of “anti-US” and “Communist” (twice in the case of the latter). Similar to the Nicaraguan case 26 years earlier, the U.S. government tries to justify the invasion of Guatemala through moral and political motives, invoking “hemispheric solidarity”, “security” and Cold War-esque tropes throughout the text. In total, the word “communist” or “Communism” is invoked 20 times. Guatemala is, additionally, referred to as a “primitive country”. Besides the political rhetoric, of particular interest is the detailed plan of action and budget proposed within the memorandum, which outlines the different tactics which would be used by the CIA to deal with the Guatemalan case. This includes, among others, isolation and intimidation through sending military aid to neighbouring countries, psychological warfare, para-military operations, and applying economic pressure. This memorandum is thus trying to justify a coup orchestrated and backed by the CIA in Guatemala to topple the current Arbenz government.

This text will be of particular use to the video project in that it will allow us to contend that Guatemala indicates American intervention in Latin American long before the Aguida vs. Chevron/Texaco legal case. It will also allow us to detail the political rhetoric used to justify these interventions, which, as we will see in greater detail later on with the coup in Brazil, revolves heavily around the American fight against Communism and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We will also observe how such anti-Communist rhetoric was incited and encouraged by the American corporations who had interests in the interventions. This will be demonstrated with the case of the United Fruit Company (UFC), which took on tremendous lobbying efforts to label Arbenz’s government as a Communist. As we will see, this is primarily because Arbenz had undertaken land reforms that massively threatened the UFC’s investments and interests in the region. Finally, this specific text will be helpful to our project in that it will outline the methods and tactics used by the United States government to topple governments in Latin America. Other CIA declassified documents subsequent to the memorandum will also be referenced to put such methods in tactics in further detail.

Joseph

Short Writing and Research Assignment: Part 1

Leave a reply

First Source: Banana Wars in Central America: U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Frank Billings Kellogg). “Memorandum submitted January 12, 1927, to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee.” 12 January, 1927.

This primary source, written in 1927 at the height of the Banana Wars, outlines a memorandum delivered by then-United States Secretary of State Frank Billings Kellogg. In it, Kellogg outlines how the United States government should look into perpetuating its occupation of Nicaragua, which it had stopped two years prior. Though there were multiple previous military interventions on the United States’ part in the 1890s and early 1900s in Nicaragua specifically to protect business and economic interests in the region, Secretary of State Kellogg insists that this is a political endeavour of moral importance. In fact, Kellogg argues that the resurgence of Communism, Bolshevism and anti-American sentiment in the neighbouring Mexico country through the influence of the Soviet Union is a threat to the United States. Kellogg, by the same token, argues that this is a struggle that has proven effective for the enemy, as this has allowed the Communist and Bolshevist leaders in the United States to rise to prominence. Due to this, Kellogg argues that the United States must continue to preserve its interests and supremacy in Nicaragua. Therefore, Kellogg’s reasoning for occupation and intervention seems to be purely moral and political.

Not mentioned by Kellogg is the fact that at the time, and since the first U.S. intervention in Nicaragua in the 1890s, American imperialism had allowed U.S. companies to thrive in the Central American region. Most of the region’s vital industries, including that of agriculture (especially bananas), infrastructure and railroad construction and maintenance, the mining sector, and banking, were dominated by American companies. American investments in the region were also heavily threatened by civilian and political unrest in the region. Thus, using this primary source will leave us to argue that not only was American interventionism in Latin American (in this case, in Nicaragua) based on preserving its own economic and financial interests, but that such interventionism was also hidden by a veneer of underlying political rhetoric. This primary source will be instrumental in building this argument, which will then be referenced in other American interventions later on, such as in the case of the U.S.-backed coup in Brazil in the 1960s. Kellogg’s address will help us argue that there are many cases involving the United States engaging in foreign meddling in Latin American countries’ affair before the Aguida vs. Chevron/Texaco case, as the Banana Wars show. To construct this point, this source will also be contrasted with other historical facts about the Banana Wars, including the broader context to the wars, the specific companies benefiting from the occupation, and the repercussions of the war on the region’s political and economic landscape.

Joseph

Reflections Week 9: U.S. Foreign Policy in Latin America

3 Replies

Hi all. For this week’s post, I will be discussing and analyzing a video in relation to this week’s material, entitled “Commerce, Coercion, and America’s Empire III”. More particularly, I will be commenting on the remarks it made regarding U.S. Foreign Policy.

To begin, the video states that the United States asserted its dominance and influence in the Latin American region to acquire its wealth and natural resources. This is only partially true. As for every piece of legislation enacted by a global hegemonic power, there are a lot of reasons behind United States involvement in Latin America. Firstly, the United States, after its official founding, ironically enough as that might sound, was trying to establish itself as a global power and as a defender of liberty, equality and human rights. This is embodied by the Monroe Doctrine as well as following policy legislation from the U.S. government. Thus, it was mostly trying to extend its influence and to acquire power and control beyond its own borders. Following this reasoning, this was also part of the reason why the U.S. Government, and most prominently the American Intelligence Community, meddled in the affairs of many Latin American governments and tried to influence their elections. Simply put, the United States government was trying to expand its circle of influence and to partially or completely dictate the global political order, which it has consistently viewed as one where the United States must stand against any kind of regime that goes against its principles and interests. Other reasons for involvement non-exhaustively include pre-emptively or actively trying to minimize possible threats to U.S. national security and economic interests, and protecting or asserting the economic monopolies of U.S. companies in the region (such as the United Fruit Company, for instance).

Nonetheless, we may criticize this policy and the genuineness of its underlying motives. For example, many of the foreign policies implicating the United States in Latin America, although citing human rights, liberty and democracy as a motive, have actively caused the death and imprisonment of civilians, toppled democratically-elected politicians and governments for U.S.-backed authoritarian counterparts, cracked down on the rights and liberties of innocent people, and have caused the region to be wrought by mass poverty, inequality, authoritarian politics, and civil war. This is best exemplified by Operation Condor, as well as the continuing War on Drugs.

Joseph