The Forgotten Choice: an Analysis of American Imperialism

This week’s readings focus on the effect that international actors, specifically the United States, had on Latin American Development. For the purpose of this post, I will focus on the arguments made by Gill in her piece, The Military, Political Violence, and Impunity. These arguments reflect a common sentiment that many people hold on American imperialism and how the United States has exerted its power on other regions of the world.

According to Gill, the United States has exerted its influence on Latin America by using military training to help prop up and support regimes that help the geopolitical and economic dominance of the US. Gill argues that the US has supported these regimes with little to no regard for the moral fiber of these regimes. Because of this, the United States has supported a plethora of Latin American regimes responsible for repression, atrocities, and terrorism against their own people. This goes against the common patriotic sentiment that America is a global force for liberty and justice.

I mostly agree with Gill’s main argument: history has shown the United States is not the global enemy of evil that many of its citizens believe it to be. Instead, America has, at least to some extent, attempted to grow its power on the geopolitical scale through its own form of imperialism. There are numerous examples of this in Latin America, such as supporting the junta that overthrew Chile’s Salvador Allende, a democratically elected socialist, and training multiple military leaders in the School of the Americas who went on to commit atrocities in their own countries.

That being said, I see one glaring flaw in Gill’s argument. Gill fails to address the fact that when the United States chooses to back a regime or leader, it is facing a choice. In the frame of Gill’s argument, it often seems as though the United States, on many occasions, chose the oppressive authoritarian regime that furthered its geopolitical goals over the benevolent one that did not. She does not address the fact that, at times, the United States has to choose between two evils. A perfect example of Gill using this line of reasoning is when she talks about the United States backing Osama bin Laden and the mujahideen guerillas in their fight against the pro Soviet Regime that was in power in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Gill brings up that the United States did this despite many academics warning that these guerillas opposed democracy, women’s rights and religious pluralism. However, Gill fails to mention that many international affairs experts also agree that the USSR’s defeat in Afghanistan was extremely crippling and contributed to the regime’s downfall. Thus, it can be argued that while supporting a group that in the future would commit numerous atrocities, the United States also helped strike a great blow to the Soviet Union, an oppressive authoritarian regime in its own right. Rather than simply choosing the politically beneficial evil over the politically detrimental good, the United States was actually choosing the politically beneficial evil over the politically detrimental evil. If it is believed that two opposing forces are equally evil, it is a reflection of logical sense, not immorality, to choose the one whose victory is politically beneficial.

The logic behind the Afghan example transcends into Latin America. Gill asserts that the drug war was simply a means for the United States to exert its political influence on the region after they could no longer use the Cold War and the fight against communism to do-so. He goes on to describe how this drug war has led to the oppression of Latin American peasants in areas where much of the drug trade takes place. Again, however, Gill fails to address the alternative, brushing over the atrocities drug cartels have committed on Latin American civilians. Though it is undeniable that the drug war has brought instability and violence to the region, it is unfair to assert that it has simply been an attempt by the United States to exert its influence on the region. It is unfair to assume that the reasoning behind the drug war has no humanitarian backing, even if it has failed to accomplish its goals and if many of its efforts have backfired.

While the US is clearly not the world’s benevolent power that some believe it to be, it is unfair to say that the United States acts solely out of self-interest regardless of what a regime does to its people. Sometimes, the United States and its leaders face a choice between two evils.