US Abroad in the 1970s & 1980s

[August1991]

Izzat so? Is that why the U.S. used surrogates in the 1980's to torture and terroize the population of Latin America? Or why they launched seCret, illegal bombing campaigns against Camodia and Laos during the Vietnam War? Used chemical weapons in 'Nam, and DU in Iraq that has lasting affects to this day?

Get over your myopia. The U.S. ain't much better than the rest. They just have loftier rhetoric.

To my knowledge, Costa Rica never had an insurgency nor a "right wing" dictatorship. El Salvador and Nicaragua have had both. Why?

Is the US to blame for imposing "right wing" dictaorships? Well, why didn't it impose one in Costa Rica?

The population of Costa Rica is over 90% Spanish origin.

That is not the case in El Salvador and Nicaragua where origins are more evenly divided. There is little or no intermarriage between Native Indians and Spanish. Women with the facial features, stature and skin colour of Native Indians are considered ugly. For example, Bianca Jagger, a Nicaraguan, is of Spanish origin.

Admittedly, the US should never have gotten involved in what amounts to an ongoing civil war of centuries. In the 1970s and 1980s, I suspect the US did get involved for two reasons: First, the Monroe Doctrine (keep European disputes out of the New World) and second, the Cold War fear of another Cuba.

All things considered, South America is the most successful continent on the planet. It has seen the fewest bloody battles, the fewest deaths through war or tyranny of any continent.

The "problems" in South America - from Peron to Galtieri, Allende to Pinochet - were largely of their own making.

As to Vietnam, it can only be seen as part of the Cold War. In isolation, El Alamein was a British invasion of Egypt.

More broadly, IMV, the US was not an Imperial Power before. Rather, it was the lead power in the defense of freedom against oppression.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Kennedy Inaugural

Kennedy would be proud of today's world. He and Reagan were good stewards of individual freedom.

[Guest eureka]

You, August, are a "pot stirrer" without peer. This could cause an avalanche of responses.

[TokyoTakarazuka]

It’s really impossible to try to generalize United States foreign policy before and during the cold war since it involved dozens of different administrations over several decades who generated America’s foreign policy towards hundreds of nations across the world. Therefore, America’s foreign policy record is naturally very mixed, characterized by acts of both altruism and maliciousness, as it is for almost any country with significant clout in world affairs. In 1954, for example, the United States was subverting democracy in Guatemala and encouraging repressive dictatorship in Vietnam. Yet within thirty and thirteen years respectively, the United States would be heavily involved in building democratic institutions in these same areas. Also in 1954, the United States was successfully propping up newly-emerging liberal democracies in the Philippines and Costa Rica through economic, military, and covert aid.

Regarding American military and economic aid to dictatorships across the world, I think the United States is often criticized too much. Until the 1980’s, there were really very few indigenous democracies anywhere in the world. The so-called “Third Wave of Democratization” from 1975 into the 1990’s is what made democracy the dominant form of government in the world. Before that, the United States, as well as its allies and enemies, would have had to pursue rather isolationist foreign policies in order to avoid dealing with dictators. Today, as America seeks military ties with nations across the Middle East, it is again presented with a situation where it requires influence in regions dominated by dictatorships.

For the record, the United States attempted to subvert democratic governments five times during the Cold War, although on only two of those occasions did American efforts directly result in significant changes in the target nation’s internal politics. In Guatemala, from 1953 to 1954, the CIA’s Operation PBSUCCESS toppled the democratically-elected government of Jacobo Arbenz, which was suspected of communist leanings, and replaced it with a military dictatorship that would evolve into Latin America’s most oppressive regime. In Iran, in 1953, Britain’s foreign intelligence service MI6 made plans to remove the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh. It asked for and received substantial CIA assistance in “Operation Ajax.” The United States also gave largely inconsequential support for anti-democratic forces in Chile, Brazil, and Guyana. In Brazil, the United States attempted to assist a military coup in 1964 but no significant aid reached the military before it had already consolidated its control. In Guyana, the CIA assisted British efforts to prevent democracy from developing indigenously, although its role was very minor compared to British efforts. In Chile, the United States provided monetary assistance to military plotters working against the civilian government in 1973. However, almost all analysts agree that the coup had enough support that it would have taken place with or without American assistance. By the way, Canada can’t claim innocence in this last case; in protest to Salvador Allende’s nationalization of Canadian properties without compensation, the Trudeau government cut off all foreign aid. Monetary aid was not restored until shortly after Pinochet’s coup. In general, American subversion of democracies was the exception, not the rule, in part because firstly, on a global scale there were relatively few democracies until the 1980’s, and secondly, the United States often found democracies to be better allies as their system of government more closely resembled its own.

The United States hasn’t exactly imposed many dictatorships on Latin America, except in Guatemala. It has, however, supported friendly but repressive governments that came to power through other means. Some have fallaciously claimed that the United States installed such dictators as Somoza and Batista following their occupations of Nicaragua and Cuba in the early twentieth century. In reality, however, America’s long-term occupations in Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and to a lesser extent Cuba, are recognized as genuine attempts at democracy-building. The only free elections held in Nicaragua in the twentieth century before 1990 took place under the American occupation. US-supervised elections in Haiti brought a nationalist party to power that was strongly opposed to the American military, which promptly left at the new government’s request. Sadly, democracy in these areas did in no instance last very long after the United States army left.

Costa Rica is an example of one of numerous democracies across the world that was strongly sponsored by the United States. Successive American administrations consistently favored Costa Rica for its anti-communist foreign policy stance. In fact, the survival of Costa Rican democracy can partly be attributed to the United States due to the large amount of military and economic supplies that were given to it. During Costa Rica’s border disputes with Nicaragua in the 1950’s, Somoza’s threats to topple the Costa Rican government may have become reality if not for the emergency arrival of American military aid during a 1955 border clash. A number of other Latin American liberal democracies, including Venezuela, Bolivia (under the MNR government), Chile (under Frei), and Brazil (under Kubitsuchek), received considerable military and economic aid from the USA. Kennedy has a mixed record on supporting liberal governments in Latin America. His Alliance For Progress, intended to foster democratic governments across Latin America, was largely a failure. Reagan definitely has one of the better records in supporting democracy throughout the world. Although American subversion of the Allende government is well known, is it not so well known that the United States under Reagan played a small but significant role in ensuring a peaceful transition back to democracy in Chile by providing substantial funds to Pinochet’s opponents during the 1990 referendum, a poll which Pinochet lost narrowly.

You are correct that the United States intervened during the 1980’s in civil wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua largely due to fears that they would lose influence in the region when the FMLN rebels and Sandinistas, both of whom were financially and militarily supported by Cuba, took over. American military aid to the government of El Salvador in the 1980’s was and is extremely controversial because the El Salvador military, in fighting the rebels, committed ghastly and senseless atrocities against civilians who were obviously innocent of abetting violence. One massacre committed by the military at El Mozote is considered one of the largest single massacres in recent Latin American history. The United States recognized that one of the main causes of the violence in El Salvador was the military’s intransigence towards democratic reforms. In response, President Reagan promoted expensive liberalization efforts that involved pressuring the government to hold free elections (which it did in 1984) and providing financial assistance to liberal candidates who were not connected to military death squads. It can be argued that the United States bears some responsibility for starting the war in El Salvador because it did not pressure the government in any way to perform democratic reforms until the FMLN rebellion was already well underway.

The civil war in Nicaragua was considerably less violent. Although it is true that the native Indians largely opposed the Sandinistas (they formed an armed resistance group called Misurasata), the civil war was not an ethnic dispute. The vast majority of the contra rebels fighting the Sandinistas were peasants who feared that their land would be confiscated or collectivized (see “The Real Contra War” by Timothy Brown for more information). Other opponents of the Sandinistas included former members of the Somoza government, as well as former Sandinistas and former opponents of the Somozas who believed the Sandinistas were not committed to democracy. Whether the Sandinista government was a democracy or not is hotly disputed. Although they did hold elections in 1984, I would argue that those elections did not take place under a free climate, due to anti-democratic operations committed by both the contras and the Sandinistas. However, if one does believe that the 1984 elections were free, then America’s attempts to topple the Sandinista government ought to be considered another example of anti-democratic subversion. The United States is sometimes blamed for causing the civil war because it backed the repressive Somoza government, but I consider this accusation to be false. Several American administrations pressured Somoza to submit to democratic reforms, but could not convince him to so as they were unwilling to employ military force. During Somoza’s war against the Sandinista rebels, the Carter government put strong pressure on the government to accept a peaceful solution to the conflict and make concessions. When he refused, all military aid was cut off. Carter initially made peaceful overtures towards the new Sandinista government that had overthrown Somoza, but their acceptance of Cuban military aid and advisors and sponsorship of the rebellion in El Salvador was greatly worrying to both Carter and Reagan and when the resistance against the Sandinistas began Reagan took the opportunity to assist in organizing and supplying these groups, as well as initiating economic and covert pressures.

Latin America, as a formal part of the Third World, suffers from the same hardships that all the Third World does and I don’t think the United States can be blamed for most of the region’s economic difficulties. For books that present contrasting, but unfortunately equally biased, stances on this matter, I refer you to “Open Veins of Latin America,” and “Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot.” The nation in Latin America that is definitely the closest to escaping third world status is Chile: a country with many ties to the United States that has at varying times been its close ally or its target.

I agree with your assessment on the Vietnam War. Michael Lind wrote a good book called “Vietnam – The Necessary War”, which defends the Vietnam War largely by putting it in a Cold War context. The accusations regarding chemical warfare in the opening quote are unfair. The United States army did not know that Agent Orange could have produced dangerous side-effects in humans when it was first used. In fact, it is still of scientific debate just what effects Agent Orange does have on humans; some argue that its detrimental effects have been trumped up, and many of the Vietnam government’s claims are certainly exaggerated. Regarding depleted uranium, both the American Federation of Scientists and the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission agree that the use of depleted uranium weapons does not pose long-term health threats to people or the environment. It’s true that other groups, such as the European Committee on Radiation Risk, have reached different conclusions, but to make a definite statement in the face of equivocal evidence would be a mistake.

So, to answer your question, the United States was in certain instances a rogue, imperialist power, but in other instances it was not. The same thing can be said of Russia, Cuba, France, Great Britain, and even Canada. As to whom has the “loftiest rhetoric,” I can’t help but think that after his marvellous performance before the Gomery inquiry, that is an award which can only belong to Jean Chretien!

[Tawasakm]

All things considered, South America is the most successful continent on the planet. It has seen the fewest bloody battles, the fewest deaths through war or tyranny of any continent.

Including the continent of Australia?

[Shakeyhands]

ahhhh... their just a bunch of Criminals Tawasakm (especially those from Perth...)

[August1991]

All things considered, South America is the most successful continent on the planet. It has seen the fewest bloody battles, the fewest deaths through war or tyranny of any continent.

Including the continent of Australia?

Australia is not a continent. It's a very large beach-front property.

[Tawasakm]

Australia is not a continent. It's a very large beach-front property.

Come now - thats complete nonsense. Australia is defined as the largest island and the smallest continent. The only continent to contain only one nation.

[caesar]

QUOTE 

All things considered, South America is the most successful continent on the planet. It has seen the fewest bloody battles, the fewest deaths through war or tyranny of any continent.

Including the continent of Australia?

Even Antarctica?????? Come on now you are really speaking nonsense.

Other than the America genocide of their first nations people; North America has had less wars. I won't argue the tyranny of our southern neighbour.

[August1991]

Australia is defined as the largest island and the smallest continent.

Maybe in an Aussie dictionary. Or maybe the dictionary owner's Mom lives there.

Everyone else knows that Australia has many long sandy beaches.

[Tawasakm]

Maybe in an Aussie dictionary. Or maybe the dictionary owner's Mom lives there

OK then. To start with here is a definition from dictionary.com:

One of the principal land masses of the earth, usually regarded as including Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America

Emphasis mine.

Let us journey onwards. This quote is taken from nationmaster:

The Commonwealth of Australia is geographically the sixth-largest country in the world, the only one to occupy an entire continent, and the largest in the region of Australasia/Oceania

Empahisis mine.

I'm getting tired of supporting the obivous but I will add on more from Encarta:

Australia, island continent located southeast of Asia

Predictably the emphasis is mine.

Now that we have established that Australia is a continent will you still proclaim the following?

All things considered, South America is the most successful continent on the planet. It has seen the fewest bloody battles, the fewest deaths through war or tyranny of any continent.

Bear in mind also, as caesar correctly pointed out, Antarctica is also regarded as a continent. I would suspect that both Antarctica and Australia, overall, have seen less voilence on their soil (or ice) then South America has.

[Tawasakm]

Perhaps I could draw your attention back to this thread August. It may have gotten lost under recent activity. I would very much appreciate your reply.