US IMPERIALISM IN LATIN AMERICA CONTINUES: IT IS TIME FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT TO
SAY “NO”
A revised statement
A revised statement
Harry Targ
"The Maduro government in Venezuela has
been waging a violent crackdown on Venezuelan civil society, violated the
constitution by dissolving the National Assembly and was re-elected last year
in an election that many observers said was fraudulent. Further, the economy is
a disaster and millions are migrating.
"The United States should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination for the Venezuelan people. We must condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and the suppression of dissent. However, we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups – as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again." (Statement issued by Senator Bernie Sanders, January 24, 2019).
Progressives
Need to Move Beyond Stances Based on Critiques of Both Sides to Address US
Imperialism"The United States should support the rule of law, fair elections and self-determination for the Venezuelan people. We must condemn the use of violence against unarmed protesters and the suppression of dissent. However, we must learn the lessons of the past and not be in the business of regime change or supporting coups – as we have in Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Dominican Republic. The United States has a long history of inappropriately intervening in Latin American countries; we must not go down that road again." (Statement issued by Senator Bernie Sanders, January 24, 2019).
The world again enters an economic, political, and military
crisis in the Western Hemisphere. It remains important to historicize and
contextualize this week’s call by the United States and 10 hemisphere countries
for President Nicholas Maduro to step down as President of Venezuela. The sub-text
of statements from the United States, the Organization of American States, and
numerous right-leaning governments in Latin America is “or else” or “all
options are on the table;” meaning that there might be a military intervention
to overthrow the government of Venezuela. For many who are learning about US
imperialism for the first time, it is important to revisit the history of the
Western Hemisphere and to contextualize a regional crisis which is
misrepresented throughout the mainstream media. And after revisiting this history
it becomes clear that a progressive position, such as that of Senator Bernie
Sanders, is inadequate. The peace movement needs to infuse political discourse
with a twenty-first century anti-imperialist agenda.
A Brief History
As Greg Grandin argues in “Empire’s Workshop,” the rise of the
United States as a global empire begins in the Western Hemisphere. For example,
the Spanish/Cuban/American war provided the occasion for the United States to
develop a two-ocean navy, fulfilling Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore
Roosevelt’s dreams. After interfering in the Cuban Revolution in 1898 defeating
Spain, the United States attacked the Spanish outpost in the Philippines, thus
becoming a global power. Latin American interventionism throughout the Western
Hemisphere, sending troops into Central American and Caribbean countries thirty
times between the 1890s and 1933, (including a Marine occupation of Haiti from
1915 until 1934), “tested” what would become after World War II a pattern of
covert interventions and wars in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Imperial expansion generated resistance throughout this history.
In the nineteenth century countries and peoples achieved their formal
independence from colonial rule. Simon Bolivar, the nineteenth century leader
of resistance, spoke for national sovereignty in Latin America.
But from 1898 until the
present, the Western Hemisphere has been shaped by US efforts to replace the
traditional colonial powers with neo-colonial regimes. Economic institutions,
class systems, militaries, and religious institutions were influenced by United
States domination of the region.
In the period of the Cold War, 1945-1991, the United States
played the leading role in overthrowing the reformist government of Jacob
Arbenz in Guatemala (1954), Salvador Allende in Chile (1973), and gave support
to brutal military dictatorships in the 1970s in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and
Uruguay. Also, the United States supported dictatorship in Haiti from 1957
until 1986. The Reagan administration engaged in a decade-long war on Central
America in the 1980s. In 1965 the United States sent thousands of marines
to the Dominican Republic to forestall nationalist Juan Bosch from returning to
power and in 1989 to overthrow the government of Manuel Noriega in Panama.
(This was a prelude to Gulf War I against Iraq).
Often during this dark history US policymakers have sought to
mask interventionism in the warm glow of economic development. President
Kennedy called for an economic development program in Latin America, called the
Alliance for Progress and Operation Bootstrap for Puerto Rico. Even the harsh
“shock therapy” of neoliberalism imposed on Bolivia in the 1980s was based upon
the promise of rapid economic development in that country.
The Bolivarian Revolution
The 21st century has witnessed a variety of forms of resistance
to the drive for global hegemony and the perpetuation of neoliberal
globalization. First, the two
largest economies in the world, China and India, have experienced economic
growth rates well in excess of the industrial capitalist countries. China has
developed a global export and investment program in Latin America and Africa
that exceeds that of the United States and Europe.On the Latin American continent, under the leadership and inspiration of former President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela launched the latest round of state resistance to the colossus of the north, with his Bolivarian Revolution. He planted the seeds of socialism at home and encouraged Latin Americans to participate in the construction of financial institutions and economic assistance programs to challenge the traditional hegemony of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization.
The Bolivarian Revolution stimulated political change based on varying degrees of grassroots democratization, the construction of workers’ cooperatives, and a shift from neoliberal economic policies to economic populism. A Bolivarian Revolution was being constructed with a growing web of participants: Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and, of course, Cuba.
It was
hoped that after the premature death of Chavez in 2013, the Bolivarian
Revolution would continue in Venezuela and throughout the region. But the
economic ties and political solidarity of progressive regimes, hemisphere
regional institutions, and grassroots movements have been challenged by
declining oil prices and economic errors by Maduro; increasing covert
intervention in Venezuelan affairs by the United States; a US-encouraged shift
to the right by “soft coups” in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador; and a
more aggressive United States foreign policy toward Latin America. Governments
supportive of Latin American solidarity with Venezuela have been undermined
and/or defeated in elections in Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, and now
attacks have escalated against what National Security Advisor John Bolton calls
“the troika of tyranny;” Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. As Vijay Prashad
puts it: “Far right leaders in the hemisphere (Bolsonaro, Márquez, and
Trump) salivate at the prospect of regime change in each of these countries.
They want to eviscerate the “pink tide” from the region” (Vijay Prashad,
thetricontinental.org, January 20, 2019).
Special Dilemmas Latin
Americans Face
Historically all Western Hemisphere countries have been shaped
and distorted in their economies, polities, and cultures by colonialism and
neo-colonialism. They have also been shaped by their long histories of
resistance to outside forces seeking to develop imperial hegemony. Latin
American history is both a history of oppression, exploitation, and violence, and
confrontation with mass movements of various kinds. The Bolivarian Revolution
of the twenty-first century is the most recent exemplar of grassroots
resistance against neo-colonial domination. Armed with this historical
understanding several historical realities bear on the current threats to the
Venezuelan government.
Second, United States policy in the administrations of both political
parties is fundamentally driven by opposition to the full independence of Latin
America. US policy throughout the new century has been inalterably opposed to
the Bolivarian Revolution. Consequently, a centerpiece of United States policy
is to support by whatever means the wealthy classes in each country.
Third, as a byproduct of the colonial and neo-colonial stages in the region, local ruling classes and their North American allies have supported the creation of sizable militaries. Consequently, in political and economic life, the military remains a key actor in each country in the region. Most often, the military serves the interests of the wealthy class (or is part of it), and works overtly or covertly to resist democracy, majority rule, and the grassroots. Consequently, each progressive government in the region has had to figure out how to relate to the military. In the case of Chile, President Allende assumed the military would stay neutral in growing political disputes among competing class forces. But the Nixon Administration was able to identify and work with generals who ultimately carried out a military coup against the popular elected socialist government of Chile. So far in the Venezuelan case, the military seems to be siding with the government. Chavez himself was a military officer.
Third, as a byproduct of the colonial and neo-colonial stages in the region, local ruling classes and their North American allies have supported the creation of sizable militaries. Consequently, in political and economic life, the military remains a key actor in each country in the region. Most often, the military serves the interests of the wealthy class (or is part of it), and works overtly or covertly to resist democracy, majority rule, and the grassroots. Consequently, each progressive government in the region has had to figure out how to relate to the military. In the case of Chile, President Allende assumed the military would stay neutral in growing political disputes among competing class forces. But the Nixon Administration was able to identify and work with generals who ultimately carried out a military coup against the popular elected socialist government of Chile. So far in the Venezuelan case, the military seems to be siding with the government. Chavez himself was a military officer.
Fourth, given the rise of grassroots movements, the Bolivarian
Revolution in Venezuela began to support “dual power,” particularly at the
local level. Along with political institutions that traditionally were
controlled by the rich and powerful, new local institutions of popular power
were created. The establishment of popular power has been a key feature of many
governments ever since the Cuban Revolution. Popular power, to varying degrees,
is replicated in economic institutions, in culture, and in community life such
that in Venezuela and elsewhere workers and peasants see their own empowerment
as tied to the survival of revolutionary governments. In short, defense of the
Maduro government, depends on the continuing support of the grassroots and the
military.
Fifth, the
governments of the Bolivarian Revolution face many obstacles. Small but
powerful capitalist classes is one. Persistent United States covert operations
and military bases throughout the region is another. And, perhaps most
importantly, given the hundreds of years of colonial and neo-colonial rule,
Latin American economies remain distorted by over-reliance on small numbers of
raw materials and, as a result of pressure from international financial
institutions, on export of selected products such as agricultural crops. In
other words, historically Latin American economies have been distorted by the
pressure on them to create one-crop economies to serve the interests of
powerful capitalist countries, not diversified economies to serve the people.
Finally, and more speculatively, United States policy toward the
region from time to time is affected by the exigencies of domestic politics.
For example, the Trump Administration verbal threats against Venezuela are
being articulated as the president’s domestic fortunes are being challenged by
the threat of impeachment and confrontations with the new Congressional
leadership. War often masks domestic troubles.Where do Progressives Stand
First, and foremost,
progressives should prioritize an understanding of imperialism, colonialism,
neocolonialism, and the role of Latin American as the “laboratory” for testing
United States interventionist foreign policies. This
means that critics of US imperialism can be most effective by avoiding “purity
tests” when contemplating political activism around US foreign policy. One
cannot forget the connections between current patterns of policy toward
Venezuela, with the rhetoric, the threats, the claims, and US policies toward
Guatemala, Haiti, the Domincan Republic, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Chile,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, and in the new century, Bolivia, Venezuela,
Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina.
Second,
progressives need to show solidarity with grassroots movements in the region,
support human rights, oppose military interventions, and demand the closure of
the myriad of United States military bases in the region and end training
military personnel from the region. (When citizens raise
concerns about other countries interfering in the US political system, it is
hypocritical for the United States to interfere in the political and economic
lives of other countries in Latin America.).
Finally,
progressives must oppose all United States foreign policies that are designed
to maintain twenty-first century forms of imperialism in the Western Hemisphere. Support
for progressive candidates for public office should require that they oppose
economic blockades, punishing austerity programs imposed by international
financial institutions, the maintenance of US ties with ruling classes in the
region; essentially all forms of interference in the economic and political
life of the region. And, as progressives correctly proclaim about domestic
life, their candidates should be in solidarity with the poor, oppressed, and
marginalized people of the Western Hemisphere. Progressives cannot with integrity support the “99 percent” in the
United States against the “1 percent” without giving similar support for the
vast majority of workers, farmers, women, people of color, and indigenous
people throughout the hemisphere.
And if it is true that US
policy toward Latin America is a laboratory for its policy globally, the same
standard should be applied to United States policy globally.
The
time has come for the articulation of a comprehensive stand against United
States imperialism in the Western Hemisphere, and around the world.
(A useful history of
United States interventionism can be found in Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow:
America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq,