I really enjoyed our discussion in class Monday about the week’s readings. The readings for me flowed like a high budget Hollywood film depicting every detail of the process of orchestrating the coup, and all different actors involved in its success. In brief, it appeared to be a very character driven coup in the reading (thinking about Eisenhower, Dulles, Diaz, Peurifoy, Arbenz, Castillo Armas, Monzon, etc).
In terms of the actual historical event, I think Jon made a great and extremely important point about Jacobo Arbez: he didn’t operate in the interest of the Guatemalan people any more than Eisenhower operated in the interest of United Statesians. I use the term ‘operate’ to denote the policy of both: as federal executives, they held control over how nations approached things from economic reform to agricultural policy to foreign policy, and they chose to do so based on their own interests. Arbenz, as a bourgeoisie and military man, could have easily pursued a repressive and economic agenda that continued to appease the UFCo in his rise to power, however he chose the route of Social Democracy with land reform orientations. This, assuming we still carry the same sentiments from Monday, is seen as a god thing, yes? But the empowerment of people was nonetheless administered from the top-down and with definite interests in mind for Arbenz and his government. If you defy a foreign power in your nation, you are exerting sovereignty over it, which is a thirst for power, just a reformative kind. Likewise, the consolidation of the peasantry and labour unions is another form of exerting a centralized control over your populace., especially in a nation where both of the aforementioned practices is a foreign concept. The only past organization that labour experienced was on the haciendas run by the UFCo.
But wait! Maybe Arbenz was a man of the people after all? The historical record we read suggests so. Think back to the day when he is confronted in his oval office by Colonel Diaz, one of the military leaders, and is convinced to resign. Arbenz resigned so that more blood would not be shed. He had options. He could have attempted to arm the scattered communist factions around the country and mobilize a small peasant army to challenge Castillo Armas’ rag tag army. In the midst of such a confrontation, the Guatemalan army would have been in a strange situation in which I would guess it would side eventually with Arbenz, since so many high ups in the government and military despised Castillo Armas. His resignation seemed to come gracefully, and at a point where minimal lives has been lost. For this, does this make him a man of the people, or a man of self-interest? Perhaps, its was both. One thing we know is that his decision defined the rest of his life, and another thirty years of military repression and bloodshed in Guatemala.
