Economic Self-Interest Alone Has Propelled

¶ … economic self-Interest alone has propelled American intervention abroad based on Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer.

American economic self-interest abroad:

Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer

Stephen Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq recounts the extent to which the United States has orchestrated regime changes all over the world to further its economic self-interest.[footnoteRef:1] the idea that states act rationally to pursue their power interests is not a new one, of course. However, the U.S. has long positioned itself as a democratic nation with higher ideals. "There is no stronger or more persistent strain in the American character than the belief that the United States is a nation uniquely endowed with virtue. Americans consider themselves to be, in Herman Melville's words, 'a peculiar, chosen people, the Israel of our times.'"[footnoteRef:2] Yet even when espousing freedom, the U.S. has often acted to circumvent the freedom of other nations. This is particularly true of its actions in the developing world. Kinzer argues that U.S. colonialism is not a thing of the past but traces a linear trajectory of U.S. policy during the 19th century to the present-day interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. [1: Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq (New York: Times Books, 2007)] [2: Kinzer, 315]

Kinzer begins his book with the story of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy, an action which eventually resulted in the incorporation of the island nation into the U.S. In 1893, "Hawaii was in an epic confrontation between tradition and modernity. Its tribal, land-based culture was collapsing under pressure from the relentlessly expanding sugar industry. A few dozen American and European families effectively controlled both the economy and the government" and native leaders were little better than figureheads. [footnoteRef:3] as soon as Europeans set foot upon Hawaii, they seemed bent upon destroying native culture. Diseases decimated the population and missionaries judged the communal nature of the Hawaiians harshly, which made the conquest of Hawaii ideologically justifiable as a conquest of an inferior people. Viewing Hawaii as worthless, except for its natural resources, was the dominant European mindset. [3: Kinzer, 9]

Gradually, the sugar industry took hold over the nation, effectively turning Hawaii into a plantation where the interests of the sugar-growers dominated and the native leaders were forced to divide land up, rather than allow it to be managed 'in kind' as previously. The Hawaiian king created an exclusive relationship with the United States and Hawaii, essentially making Hawaii into a U.S. protectorate.[footnoteRef:4] in 1887, the reigning King Kal-kaua signed a constitution that passed most of his authority to the U.S. When Queen Lili-uokalani assumed control of the island and demanded a new, fairer constitution, European and American business interests demanded the territory be annexed. The monarchy could not defend itself against the American troops summed to protect its sugar interests. In this instance, 'might made right,' despite the highfalutin rhetoric about the purity of U.S. democracy at the time. [4: Kinzer, 12]

This focus upon profits rather than people was sustained throughout U.S. foreign policy well into the 20th century. Kinzer underlines how even the seemingly most ideological conflict of that era in the form of the Cold War was riddled with economic concerns as reflected in the worldview of Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. "His thoughts always demonstrated the angular vision that came with a watch from a Wall Street tower."[footnoteRef:5] Although he served in public service from his early life onward, corporate interests informed his policy decisions. He ostensibly sought to bring "Christian insight" and "Christian inspiration" to fight against the "evil methods and designs of Soviet communism."[footnoteRef:6] in his eyes, Dulles was engaged in a religious war as well as a policy war during his tenure as U.S. Secretary of State under Dwight D. Eisenhower that also happened to coincide many of his business interests. [5: Kinzer, 113] [6: Kinzer 115]

Dulles is most famous for his uncompromising anti-communism and his role in escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Yet despite Dulles' anger at what he saw as oppressive communism, he was also instrumental in the overthrow of the legitimately-elected leader of Guatemala. Ostensibly, Dulles' actions were in support of anti-communism. However, Dulles was also one of the "principal legal counselors" for United Fruit, which had substantial interests in Guatemala.[footnoteRef:7] Until the ascent of Guatemala's first popularly-elected leader, United Fruit was allowed to effectively operate as it pleased in the nation. It claimed the best farmland, and operated "free of such annoyances as taxes and labor regulation."[footnoteRef:8] the dictator Jorge Ubico, mindful of the jobs provided by United Fruit turned a blind eye. [7: Kinzer 129] [8: Kinzer 130]

Despite Ubico's support of the company, Guatemalans chafed under his repressive regime. Ubico's successor, Juan Jose Arevalo, in contrast to the dictator, taxed United Fruit, supported the creation of trade unions and limited the number of hours of workers could labor to 48 per week. After Arevalo vacated the presidency, Jacobo Arbenz was even more active in challenging the power of United Fruit and other foreign companies, including Electric Bond and Share and the International Railways of Central America. Arbenz wanted to create a public electric company and a port open to the public. Finally, he gave the right to the government to seize and redistribute uncultivated land. Even though United Fruit owned 1/5 of the land in Guatemala, it cultivated less than 15% of it, despite the hunger and deprivation of many ordinary citizens.[footnoteRef:9] [9: Kinzer 133]

Given the state of the impoverished nation at the time, these were moderate measures, but would later be characterized as indicating communist leanings. Both Democratic and Republican statesman decried the influence of the Kremlin in Arbenz's actions, despite the fact that he had agreed to compensate United Fruit for its losses. Many of these prominent politicians, including Henry Cabot Lodge as well as Dulles, had made their fortunes through United Fruit or came from regions which were dependent upon the continued success of United Fruit. For Kinzer, the obvious conflict of interest indicates quite obviously why this popular leader was defamed and seen as dangerous.

Like any good leader, Arbenz was protecting the needs of his constituents and responding to the dire situation within his nation, the legacy of generations of colonialism and disempowerment. It was Arbenz who was the freedom fighter, yet because he was acting against the economic interests of the United States he was said to be a 'communist.' The American public, which gave little attention to regions outside of its immediate sphere, automatically accepted this characterization. While Arbenz was undeniably a leftist he was clearly acting to preserve the rights of his own nation, not as a puppet of Moscow, even though the Soviet Union did not even have diplomatic relations with Guatemala at the time.[footnoteRef:10] [10: Kinzer, 138]

When reflecting upon the economic inequalities which exist in so many Latin American countries today as well as the politically repressive legacies of its leaders, it is heartbreaking how such a hopeful regime was destroyed through CIA intervention. After Arbenz was disposed of in a coup orchestrated by the CIA, no evidence was ever found that the Guatemalan communist party or Arbenz himself was anything less than independent. The supposedly pro-democracy U.S. replaced the leader with a dictator and Guatemala was never able to enjoy the 'spring' of freedom it had under Arbenz for many years.

Kinzer structures his book into three sections: colonialism (embodied by the Hawaiian action), covert action (as occurred during the Cold War), and finally invasion, the most popular, open method of enforcing U.S. interests practiced today, which first began during the saber-rattling era of Ronald Reagan. However, Reagan, for all of his much-heralded anti-communism, actually invaded two small nearby nations, Panama and Grenada, which the U.S. had long regarded with a kind of 'protectionist' eye as a hold-over from the colonial era. Small, relatively defenseless, and assured a victory, the U.S. was able to demonstrate its military prowess at relatively minimal cost. Of course, the U.S. also continued to pursue anti-communist policies during this era in a covert manner, including its continued support of all who opposed the Soviet Union -- including the fundamentalist Taliban in Afghanistan, a policy which the U.S. would later come to regret, too little, too late.