[NYTr] The Bush Doctrine: US Foreign Policy over the Last 100 Years (Pt 2)

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

CubaNow - Aug 13, 2007
http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?&secc=12&item=3121&cont=show.php

The Bush Doctrine: 

American Foreign Policy Over the Past 100 Years (Part Two)

By Keith Bolender

Cubanow.- The fear card will continue to be played effectively until
the majority start realizing it’s being used mostly for cheap political
gain. Only then will the Bush Doctrine be seen for what it really is –
the consolidation of the American Empire.

The most current influence on today’s Bush Doctrine began after World
War II, when the US saw every conflict as a fight against Communism
regardless of whether it was anti-colonial or pro-national. If there
was a movement that was perceived to be against American interests, it
had to be pro-Communist. And if the United States decided a third or
fourth world country was pro-Communist, the solution would be
criticize, overthrow, or destroy.

Some examples include the CIA engineered coup that resulted in the
overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, a
coup that placed the murderous Shah in power for 25 years. Just a short
year later, in 1954, another democratically elected government was
overthrown by the US – this time in Guatemala. President Arbens was
tossed out because he had the nerve to nationalize some unused lands
belonging to the National Fruit Company. The nationalization of the
land was, in America’s eyes, proof Arbens was a Communist, and Arbens
paid a big price for his rashness. A bigger price was paid by the
thousands of Guatemalan peasants killed by the right wing government
installed by the US soon after. An estimated 200,000 have died
violently since then, all in the name of maintaining American
interests. Guatemala is still one of the poorest countries in Central
America despite the wonders of democracy and American style economic
policies. Or maybe because of it.

Next in line was Cuba, five years later. Fidel Castro’s national
revolution was anti-American -- by its very nature had to be, as at the
time the US owned more than 75 per cent of all arable lands in Cuba,
almost all the sugar production and 60 per cent of all industries. The
US also controlled the political systems there, ran the casinos and
brothels.

Cuba is one of the few countries to have resisted American military
force, propaganda and economic warfare, but their resistance has come
at a terrible price. Since the day of the Triumph of the Revolution the
foreign policy of the United States has been to punish the Cuban people
and devastate Cuba’s economy. The United States wanted to make a bad
example out of Cuba, and this policy has worked to perfection. All it
has done, in reality, has brought misery and economic deprivation to
them. Moral authority is clearly lacking here.

So while the US decided not to directly invade Cuba again, they instead
turned to a neighbor, the Dominican Republic, and invaded them in 1965,
“to protect American lives” and to counter what US said was a communist
insurgency. They didn’t mind the dictator Trujillo much, but seemed to
have problems with the democratically elected progressive Juan Bosch.
In the 1960s there was Vietnam, where America set up a puppet
government in the South, overthrew the government there, and did their
best to destroy the nationalist movement in South Vietnam, despite the
overwhelming support it had among the population. An estimated four
million died during that undeclared war.

One of the best examples of American foreign policy in its purest form
happened during the 1970s and 1980s. The place was Central and South
America, and during that period the United States put their mark on
Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama among
others. It is a perfect example of the American empire at work, and it
is not a pretty picture. In fact, author Greg Grandon called American
actions in Central America as the training ground for what is happening
worldwide today.

Chile is an excellent illustration of US foreign policy. Following the
democratic election of Salvador Allende, the United States soon put the
CIA to work to oust him when it was clear Allende was moving towards a
socialist form of government. That’s why Allende scared US policy
makers even more than the Cuban Revolution, as they felt if Allende
succeeded it would show that socialist, meaning economic, change
through various political measures was possible. And that it could also
spread to other third world countries, something the US could not
afford (literally) to happen. There was no regard whatsoever for the
democratic political institutions of the country, America’s only
concern was the economic system. And it was second or third world
countries where these pressures could be most effective.

So American foreign policy moved to end things in Chile. The result was
the death of Allende, on another September 11, and the installation of
military dictator Augusto Pinochet, the disappearance of thousands, but
an economic system much more in tune with what the US declared would
better serve the country. What it better served was the economic elite
and American interests.

President Nixon summed up succinctly American foreign policy at the
time, “The main concern in Chile is that (Allende) can consolidate
himself, and the picture projected to the world will be his success… If
we let the potential leaders in South American think they can move like
Chile and have it both ways, we will be in trouble. On the economic
side we want to give him cold turkey.”

In the 1980s Central America experienced a series of national movements
designed to establish systems to redistribute wealth in a more equal
fashion, to develop social support systems and to rid itself of some of
the world’s worst right-wing dictatorships. All ground level democratic
movements. The change, however, was rooted on economic factors, changes
that in the majority ran contrary to American economic preferences. The
US would not accept countries in their own backyard that had economic
systems that did not bow foremost to American interests, regardless of
the fact that the new economies were helping a majority of the people,
not just the elite. And American foreign policy planners couldn’t deal
with these movements on any nuanced level – it was far simpler to
portray them as dupes of the Soviets. It was easier for the American
public to understand it at that level as well.

To clarify what I mean by American economic preferences for third and
fourth world countries – it means opening up investment, decreasing
social services and government costs, nationalizing public industries,
eliminating labor organizations and the reduction if not total
restriction of tariffs. This means instituting economic policies in
favor of American interests, corporations and elites, regardless of how
the countries want to run their own economies. American foreign policy
was implemented indirectly when third world countries were coerced into
accepting the economic measures of US backed international financial
organizations such as World Trade Organization and the World Bank,
whose prescribed medicine for financial assistance resulted in ruinous
debt and social disruption.

In Guatemala an estimated 100,000 peasants were killed between 1981 and
1983 by the US supported army, all in the name of fighting leftist
insurgents. In El Salvador the army, trained and equipped by the US,
executed an estimated 50,000 in six years during the 1980s. Murder and
mass slaughter became an instrument of US foreign policy all in the
name of economic control. Sound familiar? Sound like Iraq?

Another example of how the United States conducts foreign policy
occurred in Nicaragua. The rebels, known as the Sandinistas, kicked out
the brutal right-wing Somoza dictatorship, who was supported by the US.
The Sandinistas committed themselves to land reform, redistribution of
wealth and an attempt at a fairer society. Apparently all ideals
incompatible to those who frame United States foreign policy.

As punishment for Nicaragua’s unreasonable efforts, the US organized
and supported the drug-running Contras, sold arms illegally to Iran,
(remember the Iran-Contra scandal), devastated the countryside, killed
thousands and finally drove the Sandinistas from power. President Regan
at the time called the Contras ‘freedom fighters’.

The most distressing aspect of American’s foreign policy in Central
America at that time was their aggression against the Church. The
religious movement, known as liberation theology, saw the Latin
American church side with the poor and their efforts for a fairer
social system. The US perceived the Latin American church as part of
the forces of socialism, read communism, and they reacted violently
against this effort, resulting in the death of thousands, including El
Salvador archbishop Romero. The US supported right wing death squads,
right wing dictatorships.

United States force was able to defeat the nationalist movements and
liberation theology, at the cost thousands of lives. With their victory
the policy makers were able to administer the economic controls
necessary, under the banner “Political Freedom through Economic
Freedom.” This meant free market policies for Third World countries
that included the reduction of tariffs, the restriction of labour
organizations, corporate capitalism that privatized state industries
and services and no limits on the repatriation of profits back to the
United States, putting nothing into the host country. Oh yeah, and the
dismantling of most social services. The result was high unemployment,
inflation, the widening of the gap between rich and poor and the
institutionalization of poverty for millions. Cheap labor in the 19th
century mode will do that. Central America has been living in misery,
high crime, and a sense of hopelessness ever since.

In the 1990s, following the destruction of the economic nationalist and
political socialist movements, the US could allow Latin America to hold
elections and move towards democracy, under American stewardship. The
US knew they could end the right wing dictatorships as they realized
there’d be no serious opposition to their economic policies. And these
new Latin American leaders, all right wingers, knew not to oppose the
US, or they would also suffer the same consequences of their brethren
from the 1980s.

A recent UN survey showed that there are now 10 million more people
living in poverty in Central America than there were 20 years ago.

But American style capitalism could not be sustained or attempted by
third world countries, as has been shown in the economic disasters of
Brazil, Argentina and others of the past decade. The American system is
based on trade advantages for the rich and powerful and cheap exploited
labor. When Bush calls for free trade in the context of liberating
people, it means that powerful multinational corporations gain more
control over the markets, to the detriment of the average person. And
if that person lives in the third world he has little, or no chance to
improve his lot in life. In fact the danger is he will fall back, as
seen by the numbers mentioned previously.

When the United States was finally able to kick out those socialist
regimes in South America, and were able to install such (Sarcasm
Warning) benign governments as the Dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile
and the military leaders in Argentina, those governments systematically
set up right wing death squads, killed thousands of innocents,
repressed any and all human rights, and made a lot of people disappear.
They also made a lot of money for American corporations, more than
willingly instituted economic measures prescribed by the American
controlled IMF and WTO, and turned a deaf ear over complaints about
their client’s treatment of their citizens. That’s because the United
States didn’t much care about human right abuses in those countries.
This is American foreign policy at work, and we can certainly see
dramatic similarities in today’s Bush Doctrine in regards to how they
react to civil right abuses in friendly countries as opposed to the
nations not so friendly.

President Reagan in particular was deaf to any efforts to censor
reprehensible racist Apartheid regime in South Africa 20 years ago, and
in fact help South Africa in their nuclear weapons program. The support
for this Nazi-like government was based solely on economic interests –
South Africa had tremendous mineral wealth. The outrageous civil rights
abuses suffered by the black population made absolutely no impact on
American foreign policy – the perfect example of the axiom. And
remember, Mandela’s National African Congress was labeled a terrorist
organization by the US State Department for trying to end the
enslavement of blacks there.

The US did nothing when Turkey went on an ethnic cleansing rampage
against their Kurds, but used Saddam’s reprehensible treatment against
his Kurds as justification for invasion. Turkey good, Iraq bad, and the
Kurds just as dead in either case. It’s the axiom at work.

Support for Saudi Arabia continues, even though that country had 15 of
the 19 September 11 hijackers, continues to teach anti-Americanism
through its Wahhabi sect, and is considered still to be a major
breeding ground for terrorists. So why didn’t the US invade Saudi?
Don’t be silly. Because the Saudi oil is friendly to the United States,
and US economic interests are more than well served in that mediaeval
monarchy.

But even before the Cold War period the US was flexing its muscles on
the international scene. Most people are aware of the Munroe Doctrine,
which in 1832 stated that the United States considered all of Latin
America to be under their sphere of influence, and would not tolerate
any outside power interfering. What this also meant was that it gave
the United States the absolute right to interfere where ever and
whenever they wanted. That resulted in the US sending warships into
Latin America ports 5,980 times between 1869 and 1897 to protect
American economic interests. The next 40 years saw the US invade Latin
and Caribbean countries 34 times, occupied Honduras, Mexico, Guatemala,
and Costa Rica for short periods, and remained in Haiti, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Panama and the Dominican Republic for longer stays.

The most egregious incident during those years occurred following the
Spanish-American war in 1899, in Cuba. The Cubans were fighting the
Spanish to end their colonial overlordship, and without asking, the US
entered the war in the last year on the Cuba side, based on the
controversial sinking of the Maine battleship incident in Havana Harbor.

Naturally the Cubans thought these gracious Americans would help them
get rid of the Spanish and support their efforts to establish a true,
sovereign Cuba. Well, the US did help kick out the Spanish, but when
the war ended they showed their real intentions by prohibited any
representation from the Cuban side at the Treaty of Paris peace talks.
Then the US promptly occupied the country, on the insulting premise
that the Cubans weren’t smart enough or ready enough for independence.
Foreign policy under a patriarchal mode, something that Bush does today
when he says that spying on Americans without their knowledge is OK
because he knows what’s best for them.

The real reason for US action in Cuba at the time was explained in the
Platt Amendment, written in 1902. Under this Amendment the United
States agreed to end its occupation as soon as the Cubans accepted a
constitution with provisions giving the United States the right to
maintain military bases (the origin of Guantanamo Bay), the right to
veto any treaty between Cuba and any other country, the right to
supervise the Cuban treasury and the right to intervene for whatever
reason deemed necessary, by US standards. It was a document that
allowed Cuba to rule themselves as long as everything was approved by
the US.

To be continued