In the year 1970 Salvador Allende, a member of the Chilean socialist party, was elected President. Salvador Allende was considered to be a Marxist President during a time where the Cold War and the fight between capitalism and communism were at a high. After being elected President, Allende made many moves to nationalize Chilean industries such as their copper industry; this was seen as a threat to US geopolitical interest, which would propel the US to stage a coup. Although Allende was part of the socialist party and indeed had Marxist tendencies; he did not seek support from the Soviet Union until after the US cut all ties to his administration. This begs the question, had the US tried a more diplomatic approach to the Allende administration would the coup have been avoided? Nevertheless, Allende’s political views were fundamentally different from that of the U.S. which is why the CIA supported a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet. The coup itself was extremely violent and oppressive which led to the death of Salvador Allende and thousands of Chilean members of the socialist party and any citizens that openly opposed the new military dictatorship. It is also important to note that during this time period there was a growing disdain against the U.S within Latin America. This led to many countries to begin nationalizing its resources (most notably Chile). The U.S mantra of fighting for the freedom and democracy of all people could not have been more threatened and invalid than after the support of the Pinochet dictatorship. In this specific case, the US got involved and helped overthrow a democratically elected President for the sake of maintaining its control and interest in Chile.
Before Salvador Allende’s Presidency, Chile’s...
... middle of paper ...
...ne in a preemptive nature; many of which were poorly justified. The U.S intervention in Chile cannot be denied. Whether the U.S merely influenced the military coup against Allende or whether they had a direct hand in the attack does not excuse the overthrow of a legitimate government. It is also important to note that Salvador Allende’s presidency was at times overly ambitious, which only added fuel to the fire. By nationalizing and expropriating all of the U.S companies’ property, Allende might have been too ambitious in trying to change the regime. That being said, the U.S involvement of a functioning democracy and its eventual overthrow contradicts U.S ideals and values. Furthermore, although one could argue that the initial overthrow of Allende’s regime was necessary for geopolitical influence; the continued support of a violent dictatorship cannot be justified.
As stronger nations exercise their control over weaker ones, the United States try to prove their authority, power and control over weaker nations seeing them as unable to handle their own issues thereby, imposing their ideology on them. And if any of these weaker nations try to resist, then the wrath of the United States will come upon them. In overthrow the author Stephen Kinzer tells how Americans used different means to overthrow foreign government. He explains that the campaign & ideology of anti- communism made Americans believe that it was their right and historical obligation to lead forces of good against those of iniquity. They also overthrew foreign government, when economic interest coincided with their ideological ones (kinzer.215). These factors were the reasons behind America’s intervention in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam and Chile to control and protect multinational companies as well as the campaign against communism with little or no knowledge about these countries.
The Yarur textile factory played an important role in Chilean politics, and was the central role for the uprisings and downfalls in Chilean history. Its first key component was that it represented an economic empire based of paper and cloth that used these resources to gain political power through the aspect of having wealth. The second element of the Yarur factory that gave its importance in Chilean politics was that it represented a monopoly of Chile’s political capital. In Weavers of Revolution, Peter Winn depicts the relationship from a “revolution from above” and “revolution from below” and how the workers of the Yarur textile factory faced an on-going struggle between the working class and the government. Winn focuses his analysis of the Chilean road to socialism around the Yarur textile factory because it is through the modernization and changes of political, economic, and industrial policies that ultimately led to the workers movement to bring about a revolution.
It seems that the United States has been one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant, countries in the world, since the Declaration of Independence. Yet, on Monday, April 17, 1961, our government experienced incredible criticism and extreme embarrassment when Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba, instantly stopped an invasion on the Cuban beach known as the Bay of Pigs. President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, his advisors, and many Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officials, made the largest error of their political careers. Once the decision was made to invade Cuba, to end Castro and his Communist government, Kennedy and his administration were never looked at in the same light nor trusted again. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev was affiliated with Castro, and the two countries made many military decisions together. As Kennedy and the United States tried to stop Cuba and Russia from becoming a threat to the world, an invasion was planned out and executed. The results were a disaster. The Bay of Pigs invasion was the largest military mistake ever made by the United States government and the CIA in the 20th century and brought America to the brink of war with Cuba and Russia. The Bay of Pigs invasion was not a quick decision, many hours of meetings and conferences occurred before President Kennedy gave permission for the attack. President Kennedy was inaugurated on January 20, 1961, and immediately wanted to take the initiative with the Soviet and Cuban governments (Pearson 12). Russia was already under Communist control, and Fidel Castro took over the Cuban government with heavily armed troops and policeman. Castro’s policemen filled the streets, and he ran the newspapers, as well as many assembly buildings (Frankel 60). At the beginning, Castro did not run a Communist government, but once he began to meet with Russian leader, Nikita Khrushchev, Castro started a Communist government (Crassweller 23). Max Frankel, writer for the New York Times, summarizes the situation in Cuba by saying, “Little by little, the vise tightened. Little by little the free people of Cuba came to realize it could happen there. The grim facts of life on an island that became a police state” (Frankel 59). Every day, Castro came closer to controlling every aspect in life in Cuba. Fidel Castro even took control of the schools in Cuba, throwing out any teacher who he thought...
While U.S. government hostility to the Allende regime is not doubted, the U.S. role in the coup itself remains a controversial matter. Documents show that the CIA had wanted the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately after he took office. The CIA was notified by contacts of the impending Chilean coup lead by General Augusto Pinochet two days in advance. Immediately after the Allende government came into office, the U.S. sought to place economic pressure on Chile. U.S. National Security Council documents stated that pressure should be placed on the Allende government to prevent its success and limit its ability to create policies against the U.
America had begun to indulge in the unilateral environment afforded to it during the Cold War. As the Soviet Union began to collapse in the 1980s, the United States was on its way to becoming a solo super power. This acquisition of complete power would inevitably lead the country into new problems, including those foreign and domestic. One of the main issues that came around in the 1980s for the Unites States was the Iran-Contra Affair, which involved the Reagan Administration. With the United States readily inserting influence across the globe, the Iran-Contra Affair proved how foreign intervention can lead to scandal and disgrace in the modern world. Along with detrimental scandals, the Iran-Contra Affair showed how America’s imperialistic behavior in South America was beginning to catch up. In order to remain a dominant influence in South America, the United States had no choice but to topple governments that did not align with American ideology. Using guerillas like the Contras insinuates America’s cornerstone of doing what is necessary in order to satisfy foreign interest.
United States invaded Cuba, Puerto Rico and Philippines not to gain wealth, but for the purpose of getting trades. Americans wanted to project their power to the entire hemisphere and the only way to exercise it is by acquiring republics. Citizens of three countries did not fully acquire the independence they thought they were entitled. Cuba got nominal independence because of Platt Amendment, Puerto Rico became a territory but was not called as citizens of America, and instead they were called Puerto Ricans, while Philippines were denied in statehood. They only had fundamental rights, but United States could govern the country as long as they wanted to. Furthermore, holding the countries from self-government prevent these countries to get the chance to apply what they have learned and adopted from American rule and exercise it for their country’s prosperity.
...icies from past Presidents. Furthermore, it was strongly detrimental to Latin America, for the reason that it eliminated the possibility of increasing Latin American exports to the United States, thereby destroying the hopes of Latin American countries focused upon President Nixon’s policy of “trade rather than aid.” During this time, the government justified itself by proclaiming that the United States needed to focus on avoiding involvement and learning from the mistakes made in Vietnam. All in all, over the course of the presidencies of Monroe, Roosevelt, FDR, and Nixon, the U.S. intervened in Latin America numerous times. Now, was it the right thing to do? At those specific points in time, the government thought so. Various arguments can be forged over the suitability of the actions of the U.S. during these times; however that is a discussion for another time.
The U.S’s intervention with other countries became more popular during the 20th century.United States was believed to be an imperialistic country only wanting a gain a political gateway to devour the world in its ideologies and also government onto other countries and nothing more, but there was an exception to the U.S with the Dominican republic in the early 1960’s where the American government wanted to stop the spread of communism to more latino countries. Lyndon B Johnson address the matter before sending troops towards the south by using the following quote “As evidence he provided American reporters with lists of 6 suspected communist in that nation” - (History.com) This can inform the reader’s audience that America had spies in the D.R that were able to inform them with prior information that would benefit the future independent nation also that the Americans were suspicious of the country ...
The scene is set; America is the great power in the western hemisphere. Post Spanish-American War, America is faced with a dilemma of annexing the Philippines. In the winter of 1899 following the annexation of the Philippines, America had a problem. Filipinos had been fighting for independence from Spain and did not want to be seceded (83). Despite the Filipino objection, the United States displayed their assertion on the land. In conflict, both the Filipinos and American had many meetings with death. There were consequences and repercussions from invoking the American power on this foreign land. The American victory in the Spanish-American War helped propel the nation. Thesis: Although met with conflict from the natives, the
to collect and analyse information on threats to US security as well. to perform other functions, which was by undermining the enemy by covert means of a. During the Truman presidency the CIA powers were rarely used, but once Eisenhower came to office this attitude changed and the The CIA expanded its operations greatly under the influence of Eisenhower. The biggest success of the CIA is said to have been the overthrow of the left-wing government in Guatemala, 1954 and also the overthrow of the left-wing government of Allende in Chile, 1973.
During the institution and emerging years of the United States of America to present, we have witnessed some questionable acts committed by the United States. Now days the United States condemn and prosecute nations that get involved in these kinds of tyrannous practices; practices that lead the United States to become the superpower nation today. Often times American people act like if the United States had the ultimate word when it comes to morals and principles. We will go back in time to talk about the massacre and displacement of millions of Natives Americans along with the semi-extinction of their lifestyle and heritage. It is also important to look at the indentured servitude slavery to which the African people were subject to. Another example was the convenient exploitation of the foreign Chinese, Irish and Mexican labor forces and a double standard emigration policy. Lastly the use of intimidation and force for the appropriation of foreign territories such as Hawaii, Philippines. There is help of rising rebels in other countries in order to achieve United States goals. Humans are supposed to learn from past mistakes so they do not commit them again. There is a great irony in calling other governments tyrannous and then imposing our own agenda on their society. The United States have historically and presently demonstrated what could be considered “tyrannous” behavior towards other nations and societies. The United States history has a stain in every page and therefore we are not a good candidate to intervene in other nations affairs.
Between the years of 1976 to 1983, the period known as the ‘Dirty War’ was in full force in Argentina. During this period, thousands of people mysteriously went missing, and are referred to now as the ‘Disappeared’. It is believed that many of the disappeared were taken by agents of the Argentine government, and perhaps tortured and killed before their bodies were disposed of in unmarked graves or rural areas. Whenever the female captives were pregnant, their children were stolen away right after giving birth, while they themselves remained detained. It is estimated that 500 young children and infants were given to families with close ties to the military to be raised. Within this essay I would like to touch on the brief history of the Dirty war and why the military felt it was necessary to take and kill thousands of Argentina’s, and also the devastating affects the disappeared, and stolen children are having on living relatives of those taken or killed. It is hard to imagine something like this happening in North America relatively recently. To wakeup and have members of your family missing, with no explanation, or to one day be told your parents are not biologically related is something Argentina’s had to deal with, and are continuing to face even today.
In his 1959 study, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, the well-known historian William Appleton Williams wrote, that in spite of its best intentions, American foreign policy was based on a one-dimensional American belief that Americans and the American government had all the answers to their problems. I strongly agree, for the most part, with that statement. The only aspect of American foreign policy that I disagreement is the firmness in which our government stands true to their decisions and re often inflexible enough to change them. The administrators in charge of our government dating back to the 19th century have always been too inflexible to tweak their application on foreign policy in the least bit. It has made way to a century of failure in foreign relations. America began building up its outdated navy ships in the early 1880's in preparation for what would be an American attempt at expansion. They wanted to become the premiere naval world power. They were already being acknowledged as whole of the great world strengths by other powerful countries. It didn't take long, by 1900; the U.S. began flexing its muscles. The Caribbean and Pacific Islands became a national interest. A classic example of which started the poor American foreign policy was in 1891 in Chile. Secretary of State James G. Blaine became involved in a border dispute between Mexico and Guatemala, tried settling a war between Peru, Bolivia and Chile. Chile held a riot against American troops. Blaine threatened Chile with war, and they were forced to apologize to America and pay an indemnity of $75,000. This established America as a world power, but also tarnished their role in foreign policy before it even got off the ground. Many more incidents like this occurred after the event with Chile, the biggest being the pursuit of the Panama Canal. America continued moving into to foreign land, and when problems arose, America began implementing an American model of government in these areas, believing that was the only way to solve the problems.
Klein, throughout various accounts of U.S. involvement overseas, explains that the U.S. commonly engages in a practice of ‘shock therapy.’ The U.S. brings bloodshed and warfare to foreign nations in order to restructure their economies and governments to serve U.S. interests. In the case of Chile, Klein argues that the U.S., in the midst of Cold War paranoia, wanted to maintain its political and economic hegemony in South America. Washington accordingly whipped the Chilean army into an anti-Allende, anti-communist frenzy, bringing about the bloodshed of ‘the Caravan of Death’ as well as the years of tyrannical military dictatorship. Also significant was the fact that the neoliberal economics implemented in Chile were taught to Chilean economists of the junta by Americans at the University of Chicago.
American foreign policy directed and influenced its activities in Chile. United States although contradicted its firm belief of democr...