Views » January 5, 2010 » Web Only

Presidential ‘Peacemaking’ in Latin America

By Noam Chomsky

Barack Obama, the fourth U.S. president to win the Nobel Peace Prize, joins the others in the long tradition of peacemaking so long as it serves U.S. interests.

All four presidents left their imprint on “our little region over here that has never bothered anybody,” as U.S. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson characterized the hemisphere in 1945.

Given the Obama administration’s stance toward the elections in Honduras in November, it may be worthwhile to examine the record.

Theodore Roosevelt

In his second term as president, Theodore Roosevelt said, “The expansion of the peoples of white, or European, blood during the past four centuries has been fraught with lasting benefit to most of the peoples already dwelling in the lands over which the expansion took place,” despite what Africans, Native Americans, Filipinos and other beneficiaries might mistakenly believe.

It was therefore “inevitable and in the highest degree desirable for the good of humanity at large, that the American people should ultimately crowd out the Mexicans” by conquering half of Mexico and, “It was out of the question to expect (Texans) to submit to the mastery of the weaker race.”

Using gunboat diplomacy to steal Panama from Colombia to build the canal was also a gift to humanity.

Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson is the most honored of the presidential laureates and arguably the worst for Latin America.

Wilson’s invasion of Haiti in 1915 killed thousands, restored virtual slavery and left much of the country in ruins.

Demonstrating his love of democracy, Wilson ordered his Marines to disband the Haitian parliament at gunpoint for failing to pass “progressive” legislation that allowed U.S. corporations to buy up the country. The problem was remedied when Haitians adopted a U.S.-written constitution, under Marine guns. The achievement would be “beneficial to Haiti,” the State Department assured its wards.

Wilson also invaded the Dominican Republic to ensure its welfare. Both countries were left under the rule of vicious national guards. Decades of torture, violence and misery there come down to us as a legacy of “Wilsonian idealism,” a leading principle of U.S. foreign policy.

Jimmy Carter

For President Jimmy Carter, human rights were “the soul of our foreign policy.”

Robert Pastor, Carter’s national security advisor for Latin America, explained some important distinctions between rights and policy: Regretfully, the administration had to support Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza’s regime, and when that proved impossible, to maintain the U.S.-trained National Guard even after it had been massacring the population “with a brutality a nation usually reserves for its enemy,” killing some 40,000 people.

To Pastor, the reason is elementary: “The United States did not want to control Nicaragua or the other nations of the region, but it also did not want developments to get out of control. It wanted Nicaraguans to act independently, except when doing so would affect U.S. interests adversely.”

Barack Obama

President Barack Obama separated the United States from almost all of Latin America and Europe by accepting the military coup that overthrew Honduran democracy last June.

The coup reflected a “yawning political and socioeconomic divide,” The New York Times reported. For the “small upper class,” Honduran President Manuel Zelaya was becoming a threat to what they call “democracy,” namely, the rule of “the most powerful business and political forces in the country.”

Zelaya was initiating such dangerous measures as a rise in the minimum wage in a country where 60 percent live in poverty. He had to go.

Virtually alone, the United States recognized the November elections (with Pepe Lobo the victor) held under military rule — “a great celebration of democracy,” according to Hugo Llorens, Obama’s ambassador.

The endorsement also preserved the use of Honduras’ Palmerola air base, increasingly valuable as the U. S. military is being driven out of most of Latin America.

After the elections, Lewis Anselem, Obama’s representative to the Organization of American States, instructed the backward Latin Americans that they should recognize the military coup and join the United States “in the real world, not in the world of magical realism.”

Obama broke ground in supporting the military coup. The U.S. government funds the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, which are supposed to promote democracy.

The IRI regularly supports military coups to overthrow elected governments, most recently in Venezuela in 2002 and Haiti in 2004.

But the NDI has held back. In Honduras, for the first time, Obama’s NDI agreed to observe the elections under military rule, unlike the OAS and the United Nations, still wandering in the world of magical realism.

Given the close connections between the Pentagon and the Honduran military, and the enormous U.S. economic leverage in the country, it would have been a simple matter for Obama to join the Latin American/European effort to protect Honduran democracy.

But Obama preferred the traditional policy.

In his history of hemispheric relations, British scholar Gordon Connell-Smith writes, “While paying lip-service to the encouragement of representative democracy in Latin America, the United States has a strong interest in just the reverse,” apart from “procedural democracy, especially the holding of elections, which only too often have proved farcical.”

Functioning democracy may respond to popular concerns, while “the United States has been concerned with fostering the most favorable conditions for her private overseas investment.”

It takes a large dose of what has sometimes been called “intentional ignorance” not to see the facts.

Such blindness must be guarded zealously if state violence is to proceed on course—always for the good of humanity, as Obama reminded us again in his Nobel Prize address.

© New York Times Syndicate

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!
• Or win a subscription to In These Times by taking this short survey!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

  What is 6 - 3?  

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  IRI has been attacked for years by those who have an agenda to defend Hugo Chavez and attack groups dedicated to democracy and human rights, like IRI.  With the accelerating disintegration of democratic institutions in Venezuela, as noted by the Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Anti-Defamation League, the International Labor Organization of the United Nations and the Inter-American Press Association, such attacks on us are resonating less and less. 

  IRI has not been shown to have had any role in the coup which transpired in Venezuelan in April 2002, other than issuing an ill-considered statement at the time.  Since 2004, IRI President Lorne Craner, who was not at IRI at the time, has gone on record many times stating that IRI used bad judgment in issuing that statement. 

  IRI did not support the coup in Haiti in 2004; the USAID Inspector General investigated the Institute’s work and found that there was no wrongdoing on IRI’s part.  You can find the facts about IRI’s work in Haiti at http://www.iri.org/newsreleases/2008-07-18-Haiti-faq.asp and facts about the Times story at http://www.iri.org/otherregions/news/pdfs/2006-02-08-side-by-sideofnewspaperarti icle.pdf.

  Posted by IRI Spokesperson on Jan 5, 2010 at 10:12 AM

  The liberal mainstream media largely made Barack Obama president because they wanted someone who was everything Bush/Cheney were not-or at least that’s what they wanted the American people to believe.

  If Barack Obama wants a second term after an almost-guaranteed shellacking his party will take in the mid-term elections this year, then he will find that he needs to move much more to the center on many issues.

  But I suspect the majority of the American electorate will come to its collective senses and put someone else into The White House in January, 2013.

  Posted by patrick hattman on Jan 5, 2010 at 4:11 PM

  I am sorry but what collective senses are you talking about, the same old ones that took Bush to the White House for two terms?
  Us, the rest of the world, have not much time left to try and create a more compassive and intelligent way of living. We have been USA’s puppets for too long, with the results anyone with any common sense left can plainly see.
  If by “moving much more to the center” you mean to imply he is leaning to the left, I’ll take that as a joke.

  Posted by Maria on Jan 6, 2010 at 12:36 PM

  And how would you create a more compassionate and intelligent way of living for as many of the world’s people as possible without the U.S. leading the way, Maria?

  I lived in Japan for more than a decade and quite often heard the Japanese complaining about all things U.S., but when challenged to come up with ideas to do something to improve upon various problems, generally nothing of substance was said, let alone done.

  The Japanese should do more-from their defense to their economy, for example-independently of the U.S., but they do so little because it’s easier, cheaper, and safer to maintain the status quo, all things considered.

  I’ve visited Germany for a few weeks, but never lived there. Is Germany ready to take the lead and create a more compassionate and intelligent way of living for others to emulate?

  You shouldn’t have to feel like the “USA’s puppets”, however, what is being done to change it?

  I have my doubts about the U.S. providing any real leadership for the world this decade and beyond with our overwhelming economic, social, and political problems-most especially our rinky-dink electoral process that all too often saddles us with leaders like George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

  I would like to see a multi-polar world to balance the U.S. hegemon.

  But who?

  Posted by patrick hattman on Jan 6, 2010 at 7:01 PM

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retrieve lost password »

Also by Noam Chomsky

• China and the New World Order
  Amid all the alleged threats to the world's reigning superpower, one rival is quietly, forcefully emerging: China. And the… morePosted on September 2, 2010
• Why WikiLeaks Won’t Stop the War
  The War Logs--a six-year archive of classified military documents about the war in Afghanistan, released on the Internet by… morePosted on August 3, 2010
• The Real Threat Aboard the Freedom Flotilla
  Israel's violent attack on the Freedom Flotilla carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza shocked the world. Hijacking boats in international… morePosted on June 8, 2010
• Rustbelt Rage
  On Feb. 18, Joe Stack, a 53-year-old computer engineer, crashed his small plane into a building in Austin, Texas,… morePosted on May 4, 2010
• A ‘Regrettable’ Event in East Jerusalem
  Yet again the flashpoint is East Jerusalem, seized by Israel in the 1967 war--this time, a proposed 1,600-apartment complex… morePosted on April 1, 2010