Overthrow By Stephen Kinzer - Essay Example

?US Regime Change: Changing Tactics, Causes and Results Stay the Same In his work Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, Stephen Kinzer documents what he calls “the most extreme set of cases [of regime change]: those in which the United States arranged to depose foreign leaders.”1 He organizes the history of these regime changes into three broad eras: the Imperial Era, the era of Covert Actions, and Invasions, and each era has its own specific character of regime change, though many characteristics stretch across the three eras. Although each era had a distinct amount of military presence: high in the Imperial, low in the covert, and ultra high in the Invasion Era, all eras share similarities in that the efforts defended American economic interests, they had fabricated or elaborate justifications to the public (once the public was aware of them), and while usually successful in accomplishing their short term goals (such as stopping someone coming to power or allowing American companies to work their unregulated) but ended up harming America’s national interests in the long term. The first thing one must do to understand the series of regime changes represented in Overthrow is to note the ways and reasons the methods of regime change differed throughout history. The first set of regime changes during the Imperial Era, were marked by a unique combination of willingness to use military force and a frankness about the fact that the United States had in fact orchestrated the changes in power. One can see an example of both principles in the regime change orchestrated in Panama in the early 20th century. At the outset of the 20th century, Panama was a colony of Columbia, and the Columbian government was unwilling to allow Americans to build a canal across part of their country, and rejected a treaty that would have given America the right to build one.2 In response to this America undertook military action in support of a rebellion it started, including sending warships to blockade ports in Panama.3 This rebellion, with American military support, was eventually successful, leading to a pro-American government in Panama. When questioned about this forceful ousting of the Columbian regime, then president Roosevelt simply said that it was Columbia’s own fault for ignoring “the plainest warnings” that America would take power if Columbia did not capitulate. This shows the way that in this Era, America was more than happy to use military force, and was so bold to even freely admit it would depose regimes who opposed American interests. Following the close of the Second World War and the outbreak of the Cold War, America had to start becoming more discreet about the ways it took power. During this period, the Soviet Union “limited [American] freedom of action,”4 because America could not risk undertaking activities which could bring on a Soviet reaction, which could possibly escalate to a war between the Soviet Union and America – a “cataclysmic” nuclear war neither side would truly win.5 These meant American operations were driven underground – covert operations such as financing opposition rebels or political parties (as Nixon did when trying to oust Allende)6 or secret assassinations (such as the “several times the CIA has tried to kill” Fidel Castro).7 Following World War II America could no longer openly attack foreign leaders, and could no longer admit to their actions publicly. With the winding down of military tensions and the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union, the major restriction on American military might was removed. The United States responded by engaging in an ever more forceful foreign policy, Probably the first instance of this new willingness to engage in full blown military conflict was the American Invasion of Grenada, conducted in 1983.8 One of the major distinguishing features of Warfare during the era of Invasion was that, though militarily America could once again act with impunity, the ideology of both the world and American population frowned on flagrant aggression, so any use of military force needed a “leaf of legality,”9 which in Grenada was achieved by securing requests from other Caribbean leaders for American intervention.10 This leaf, however, did not have to be very thick, as military operations continued in Grenada even after the United Nations called US military intervention “a flagrant violation of international law.”11 During this period, America enacted regime changes through use of military force, but needed a strong ideological or practical reason to use such force. Once involved, however, the United States continued to fight until its ambitions were satisfied. While the methods the United States used to topple regimes changed over time, from overt military action to covert action and back again, the factors that caused America to intervene in the first place remained relatively stable. While these factors could include ideology, fears of national defense and so on, one factor stands out above all others: America caused regime change when it such a change would be helpful to its own economic interests. As Kinzer notes, the American government seemed mostly interested in initiating regime changes “to establish, promote, and defend the right of Americans to do business around the world without interference.”12 The earliest and latest examples of regime change undertaken by the US government, in Hawaii and Iraq respectively, demonstrate the ways economic issues have been ever present in examples of regime change. Regime change in Hawaii occurred essentially solely to protect the interests of American sugar farmers there, who had been given essentially sole control of Hawaii through the ‘bayonet constitution’ of the late 1880s.13 When the King who granted this constitution died, his sister and successor Liliuokalani threatened to create a new constitution, granting native Hawaiians equal voting rights to American plantation owners.14 Americans in Hawaii responded by creating a revolutionary force, which was eventually supported by American military might.15 The American military presence was supposedly only supposed to protect citizens, but acted as an implied revolutionary army, forcing the Queen to step down.16 The United States expressed its own military might and deposed a monarchy in Hawaii to protect the economic interests of around seven thousand sugar farmers. In Hawaii the economic advantage sought through regime change was simple and small scale; in Iraq it was immensely complex and grandiose in scale. While there were a diverse set of reasons the US choose to seek regime change in Iraq, including supposed weapons of mass destruction, strategic interests even possibly a genuine hope for democracy in the Arab world, a looming economic giant overshadowed them all: oil. Many people in the administration, from the President Bush and Vice President Cheney on downwards had history with and existing relationships to oil companies.17 They felt the strong pull of controlling “10 percent of the worlds [oil] supply” in Iraq, and were eager to support put money in American corporate pockets through war profits.18 Here, as in every other case, the United States looked for regime change only when there was a clear economic advantage in doing so. Usually in the cases of regime change, the US accomplished its short term objects; in Hawaii the farmers kept their profits, in Iraq American companies now control oil fields. In the long term, however, regime change has almost never been in American interest. One of the best examples of this fact is the regime of Fidel Castro, which has been a thorn in American for a half century. As Kinzer eloquently puts it, “If the United States had not crushed Cuba’s drive to independence in the early twentieth century, if it had not supported a series of repressive dictators there,”19 then Castro and his thoroughly anti-American regime would almost certainly not exist. Regime changes in Iran and Afghanistan have likewise caused serious and long term dangers to American security.20 What the eventual issues will be with the regime changes enacted in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 21st century will be, only time will tell, but history warns that one should not be optimistic. The United States has engaged in a series of regime changes in the past one hundred and ten years, making it one of the most active and forceful governments in the world during that time period. The methods of regime change have differed depending on the international situation and mood of the American public, using military, money, and assassination in turn. Two important factors have remained stable throughout this time period, however: America always seeks regime change only when those changes are in its own economic interest, and though these regime changes often accomplish their short term goals they usually end up putting the United States in a worse position in the future. Works Cited Kinzer, Stephen. Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. New York: Times /Henry Holt, 2006. Resolutions : General Assembly (GA), 38th Session : United Nations (UN)." United Nations. 04 Mar. 1995. Web. 27 June 2011. . Read More