Latin American Politics: US-Sponsored Dictatorships - Essay Example

Latin American Politics: US Sponsored Dictatorships Ever since Haiti declared its independence from France in 1806, Latin America has been a region of revolution, revolt, coups, and military dictatorships. The modern Latin American countries of today have evolved from a plantation system economy that was built on the back of slave labor. The concentrated wealth that this system had created continues to linger on long after the abolishment of slavery, and continues to polarize the nations of this region. The ruling elite and a cultural tradition of mano dura (strong hand) elitist rule have resulted in a cycle of revolution and coups in many of the Latin American nations, as dictators rise to power to serve the interests of the ruling class. In addition, the proximity to the US has made these nations a hemispheric concern as US business interests and political ideologies attempt to maintain a friendly environment to conduct business in. While the US promotes democracy and free elections around the world, our Latin American neighbors have been subjected to decades of US sponsored dictatorships to protect US economic interests and as a response to the fear of communism in the Western Hemisphere. Much of the attitude towards Latin American dictatorships and the US willingness to accept them dates back to the era of the Big Stick policy of Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt believed that the close proximity of Latin America made it a vital strategic concern for the US. In an effort to rid the hemisphere of the postcolonial European influence, the US was ready to intervene in dramatic ways in the countries of Latin America. The US would intervene economically on behalf of the US corporations and even go so far as to take over the economies of these small nations. In 1895, Secretary of State Olney was prompted to state that "Today the United States is practically sovereign on this continent, and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition" (qtd. in Bailey 318). During the 20th century, it became more impractical to intervene militarily in an attempt to quell worker uprisings or popular revolts. It was often more expedient and practical to install a puppet dictator that would address the political concerns of the US and protect their economic interests. During eight years of military occupation of the Dominican Republic 1916-1924 all constitutional rights and powers were suspended. There was a short period of democracy before the country fell victim to the Great Depression and the threat of a surging communist movement. To maintain control of the Dominican Republic, the US supported and backed General Trujillo was installed as the new dictator through a military coup (Atkins and Wilson 39). Though the next thirty years would characterize Trujillo as one of the most brutal dictators of the century, the US continued to support his regime due to his staunch anti-socialist stance. A further evaluation of the events that have transpired in Guatemala in the last century can provide a lens with which to view many of the other nations in Latin America. During the last two centuries, dictatorships that were supported by the US would rise up throughout Latin America to protect US economic interests and the business of US corporations. Central America has several illustrations of the plantation economy nation that evolved into a US dominated 'banana republic'. The 1920s and 1930s presented several new challenges to the American fruteras. The major fruit companies such as United Fruit, Standard Fruit, and the Cuyamel Fruit Company had successfully fought off years of populace uprisings that called for workers' rights. Slavery had been abolished, but the workers in these countries were subjected to horrible working conditions. The company generally put down workers' protests using their own resources, but the US would intervene in some cases. The Great Depression saw commodity prices fall as the corporations' resources were stretched. These populists' worker movements would become aligned with socialist or communist ideology that the US would view with some trepidation. Drawing on anti-communistic fears, the US was able to intervene to install dictators and governments throughout the 20th century in Latin America. In 1954, after the leftist government of Guatemala had nationalized the US Fruit Company, the CIA overthrew the legally elected government of Colonel Jacobo Guzman and installed the US backed dictatorship of Carlos Castillo Armas (Winkler 78). The right wing dictatorship of Castillo restored the property of US Fruit and initiated an era of instability and uncertainty. This would also usher in the Cold War policies in Latin America and a renewed determination to keep the Soviets out of this hemisphere. There has clearly been a pattern of CIA involvement in the overthrow of elected officials, military coups, and the support of anti-communist dictators in Latin America, but their activities went even further. When Castillo launched his 1954 invasion of Guatemala from his base in Honduras, "The US Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department organized sporadic and chronic bombings to exaggerate the military strength of the invasion army and thereby decrease morale in the country" (Yashar 206). During the 1980s, the CIA backed a plan to overthrow the Sandanista government of Daniel Ortega by using mercenaries, illegal weapons sales, and a scheme that traded drugs for guns. Known as the Contras, they were based in El Salvador and crossed into Nicaragua in an effort to destabilize and overthrow the government. This is an indication of how far the US was willing to go to rid Latin America of Marxist leaders. "The increasingly embarrassing illegality of US support for the Contras, along with the Contras' inability to achieve significant political or military victories, encouraged Washington to find another solution" but only subsided when the end of the Cold War "compelled the United States to shift its foreign-policy away from anticommunist crusades in Central America" (Miller and Wirick 40). This CIA involvement in the ideological wars would take place time and again in nations all around Latin America throughout the 20th century. The infiltration by the CIA was never more apparent than it was with the Panamanian dictatorship of Manuel Noriega. The Panama Canal that was built on the vision of Teddy Roosevelt would become a vital piece of the US strategy for dominance in the hemisphere. When the Panama Canal was turned over to the Panamanians under the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, which also removed US bases, right wing conservatives staunchly opposed it. To protect this strategic interest, it was important that the Panamanian government be closely aligned with Washington. The Panama Canal Treaty, in part, states, "The United States of America and the Republic of Panama commit themselves to protect and defend the Panama Canal" and "shall act, in accordance with its constitutional processes, to meet the danger resulting from an armed attack or other actions which threaten the security of the Panama Canal" (United States State Department). Protecting the canal from "other actions which threaten" was interpreted by conservatives to mean that the US could install a puppet dictator to control Panama and the Canal. The dictatorship fell to Noriega, who had been trained at the Defense Department's School of the Americas and "had been on the CIA payroll for years" (Milburn and Conrad 172). As evidence that Washington, and the CIA, were calling the shots in Panama is the fact that as soon as Noriega began to display some independence from Washington, the Bush administration contended that he was a "criminal, drug trafficker, and thug - an evil man engaged in evil deeds" (Milburn and Conrad 172). The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) would subsequently charge Noriega, and Panama would be invaded by the US military in an effort to extradite Noriega to the US for trial. In conclusion, the political instability in Latin America has been the result of US intervention as they sought to control the leadership of these countries and protect the economic interests of US corporations. In addition the US worked to fight an ideological war in these countries by overthrowing leaders who may have been sympathetic to socialism or communism. These leaders were often the candidates who were working to protect workers' rights or defend the population from oppression and abuse. As these leaders would come into power, they would be viewed as a communist threat. The US government would step in to protect the economic interests of financial giants such as US Fruit. The CIA and the US State Department would work in conjunction with puppet dictators to get then installed in office. Fake bombings, propaganda, drugs for guns, and illegal forays into neighboring countries would be the methods used by these official agencies to further their anticommunist agenda. The result was continued political instability and increasing poverty for the working class. While the volatility of Latin America has been blamed on cultural traditions and a lack of political sophistication, the driving force has been the unwarranted intrusion of the US government into the affairs of our sovereign neighbors. Works Cited Atkins, G P., and L G. Wilson. The United States and the Trujillo Regime. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1972. Bailey, Norman A. "The United States as Caudillo." Journal of Inter-American Studies 5.3 (1963): 313-24. Milburn, Michael A., and Sheree D. Conrad. The Politics of Denial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. Miller, Robert, and Gregory Wirick. Canada and Missions for Peace: Lessons from Nicaragua, Cambodia and Somalia. Ottawa CA: International Development Research Centre, 1998. United States State Department. Panama Canal Treaty of 1977. Washington DC: Bureau of Public Affairs. 11 Dec. 2008 < http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rlnks/11936.htm> Winkler, Allan M. The Cold War: A History in Documents. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Yashar, Deborah J. Demanding Democracy: Reform and Reaction in Costa Rica and Guatemala, 1870s-1950s. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997. Read More