Ignored Legacy
In The School of the Americas, author Lesley Gill discusses the ways in which the United States has ironically and hypocritically supported authoritarian regimes in the name of protecting democracy and national security. Gill elaborates that this was done not only by directly funding opposition forces, but also by training officers in the United States School of the Americas, as seen with the Chilean officers who staged the Allende coup. While the prestigious military school boasts of solidifying hemispheric relations, Gill argues that it is an institution that relays and spreads US foreign security agenda through the armed forces of Latin American. Additionally, Smith and Sells further bolster this issue in Chapter 4 of Democracy in Latin America by pointing out that since the early 1900s, the US has hand-picked winners in ‘democratic elections’ through military interventions or has publicly supported dictators like Somoza in Nicaragua and Pinochet in Chile. Though President Kennedy in the 1960s vowed to promote freedom, higher standards of living, and democracy in Latin America, this decade was characterized by brutal coups and systematic killings of citizens, all in the name of protecting the Americas from Communism, or truly, anyone seeking to better their lives through land reform, health access, and free education. In essence, promoting democracy did not only come second behind national security, but it was routinely ignored.
Though the enemy has shifted over time – from communists to narcotraffickers to terrorists – the United States has continuously mobilized Latin American military forces to protect US hegemony while using the excuse of protecting ‘freedom.’ This is despite the fact that many of these US-backed regimes have carried out horrendous human rights violations. Despite this legacy, Gill argues that the historical memory of these dealings, in the US, has been overshadowed by ‘American exceptionalism’ in which American imperialist aggression in Latin America is categorically denied or misidentified as exploration, defending democracy, and restoring peace. While US memory may be selective, the Latin American populace is unlikely to so easily forget, particularly when few victims have received justice in human rights tribunals and national courts. Furthermore, not only has US action repeatedly violated sovereignty, but it has also negatively contributed to economic development and public trust in institutions in Latin America. This calls into question if US actions, rather than protecting its borders, has created greater threats in the region. From the drug war in Colombia, economic crisis in Venezuela, and the recent antagonistic actions of the Trump administration against Mexico, it will be interesting to see if Latin America will reject further US intervention and influence given regardless of whether its carried out militarily or diplomatically given its rather extensive failed track-record. Given President Nieto’s blatant rejection of the Trump administration’s border security and import taxes, it is possible that our Latin American neighbors will gradually become less willing allies in years to come.
Your point about how the US’s enemy has shifted over time was something I had not thought of before. The US involvement in international affairs has definitely stayed somewhat consistent even though the focus shifted towards the war on the international drug trade. Very interesting. The comment about selective memory was entertaining but the US’s memory is becoming less and less selective it seems considering our interest in our historical misgivings over the past 50 years. I agree that in our attempt to create docile allies in the latin american region, the repercussions of our attempts have come back to burn us. We created more enemies than we created friends/allies. In the long run, our actions backfired and the US more or less was and is rejected in the countries we gave aid to.
Very interesting point of view. Do you draw any distinction between the US use of the School of the Americas and its Latin American intervention and that in the Middle East or can it be considered the same? The invasion of Iraq and recent interventions in Syria came to mind while reading this.
I found your words on how the US memory may be selective, I have never thought about that. But you do take a more pessimistic tone towards the US, though we do have a poor record with nations that commit atrocious crimes we do at the same time provide necessary foreign aid that allow people to have supplies that they otherwise might not have.