❈ ❈ ❈

Why U.S. Action in the Western Hemisphere Now?

Harry Targ

U.S. imperialism in the beginning

Modern imperialism is intimately connected to the globalization of capitalism, the quest for enhanced military capabilities, geopolitical thinking, and ideologies of national and racial superiority.

The rise of the U.S. empire occurred as the industrial revolution spread to North America after the U.S. Civil War. Farmers began to produce agricultural surpluses requiring overseas customers; factories were built to produce iron, steel, textiles, and food products; railroads were constructed to traverse the North American continent; and financiers created large banks, trusts, and holding companies to parlay agricultural and manufacturing profits into huge concentrations of cash.

Perhaps the benchmark of U.S. emergence as an imperial power was the Spanish/Cuban/American war. The United States established its hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, replacing the Spanish and challenging the British, and became an Asian power, crushing rebellion and planting its military in the Philippines. The empire has grown, despite resistance, to this day.

While U.S. expansion occurs wherever a vacuum of power exists, and an opportunity to formally or informally control a regime and/or territory, particular countries have had enduring salience for the United States. In this regard, the Western Hemisphere remains most vital.

Scale of significance for U.S. imperialism

To help understand the attention U.S. policymakers give some countries, it is possible to reflect on what is called here the Scale of Significance for U.S. Imperialism (SSUSI). The SSUSI has three interconnected dimensions that relate to the relative importance policymakers give to some countries compared to others.

First, as an original motivation for expansion, economic interests are primary. Historically, United States policy has been driven by the need to secure customers for U.S. products, outlets for manufacturing investment opportunities, opportunities for financial speculation, and vital natural resources.

Second, geopolitics and military hegemony matter. Empires require ready access to regions and trouble spots all around the world. When Teddy Roosevelt, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Vice President, and President of the United States, articulated the first warning of the need for global power, he spoke of the development of a “two-ocean” navy.

The United States, he said, must become an Atlantic and a Pacific power, thus prioritizing the projection of military power in the Western Hemisphere and Asia. If the achievement of global power was dependent upon resources drawn from everywhere, military and political hegemony in the Persian Gulf, the Middle East, and parts of Africa also required attention.

Third, as the imperial project grows, certain political regimes and cultures take on particular importance for policymakers and the American people. Foreign policy elites claim that the United States has a special responsibility for them. If these roles are rejected by the targeted country, the experience burns itself into the consciousness of the people.

For example, Cuba was seen by U.S. rulers as far back as Thomas Jefferson as soon to be part of the United States. Cuba’s rejection of this presumption of U.S. tutelage has been a scar on the United States’ sense of itself ever since the spread of revolutionary ferment on the island.

The world is again entering an economic, political, and military crisis in the Western Hemisphere. It remains important to think historically. During the first Trump administration the United States and ten hemisphere countries called for President Nicholas Maduro to step down as President of Venezuela. Also, Trump in his first term reversed the Obama openings to Cuba and increased the blockade of Cuba.

For many who are learning about U.S. imperialism for the first time, it is important to revisit the history of the Western Hemisphere and to contextualize regional crises, including the sordid treatment of those fleeing violence and poverty and the borders of the United States.

A brief history

As Greg Grandin argues in Empire’s Workshop, the rise of the United States as a global empire began in the Western Hemisphere. For example, the United States took one-quarter of Mexico’s land as a result of the Mexican War of the 1840s. Later in the 19th century, the United States interfered in the Cuban Revolution, defeating Spain in the Spanish/Cuban/American War of 1898. And, at the same time, the United States attacked the Spanish outpost in the Philippines (while colonizing Puerto Rico and Hawaii), thus becoming a global power. Latin American interventionism throughout the Western Hemisphere, sending troops into Central American and Caribbean countries thirty times between the 1890s and 1933, “tested” what would become after World War II a pattern of covert interventions and wars in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

The Western Hemisphere was first colonized by Spain, Portugal, Great Britain, and France from the 15th to the 20th centuries. The main source of accumulated wealth funding the rise of capitalism as a world system came from raw material and slave labor in the Western Hemisphere: gold, silver, sugar, coffee, tea, cocoa, indigo, and later oil. What Marx called the stage of “primitive accumulation” was a period in world history governed by land grabs, mass slaughter of Indigenous peoples, expropriation of natural resources, and the capture, transport, and enslavement of millions of African people. Conquest, land occupation, and dispossession was coupled with the institutionalization of a Church that would convince the survivors of this stage of capitalism’s development that all was “God’s plan.”

Imperial expansion generated resistance throughout this history. In the 19th century countries and peoples achieved their formal independence from colonial rule. Simón Bolívar, the nineteenth century leader of resistance, spoke for national sovereignty in Latin America.

But from 1898 until the present, the Western Hemisphere has been shaped by U.S. efforts to replace the traditional colonial powers with neocolonial regimes. Economic institutions, class systems, militaries, and religious institutions were influenced by United States domination of the region.

In the period of the Cold War, 1945–91, the United States played the leading role in overthrowing the reformist governments of Jacob Arbenz in Guatemala (1954) and Salvador Allende in Chile (1973) and gave support to brutal military dictatorships in the 1970s in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. The Reagan administration engaged in a decade-long war on Central America in the 1980s. In 1989 the United States sent 23,000 marines to overthrow the government of Manuel Noriega in Panama. (This was a prelude to the First Gulf War against Iraq).

From 1959 until today, the United States has sought through attempted military intervention, economic blockade, cultural intrusion, and international pressures to undermine, weaken, and destroy the Cuban Revolution.

Often during this dark history, U.S. policymakers have sought to mask interventionism in the warm glow of economic development. President Kennedy called for an economic development program in Latin America, called the Alliance for Progress and Operation Bootstrap for Puerto Rico. Even the harsh “shock therapy” of neoliberalism imposed on Bolivia in the 1980s was based upon the promise of rapid economic development in that country.

The Bolivarian Revolution

The 21st century has witnessed a variety of forms of resistance to the drive for global hegemony and the perpetuation of neoliberal globalization. First, the two largest economies in the world, China and India, have experienced economic growth rates well in excess of the industrial capitalist countries. China has developed a global export and investment program in Latin America and Africa that exceeds that of the United States and Europe.

On the Latin American continent, under the leadership and inspiration of former President Hugo Chavez Venezuela launched the latest round of state resistance to the colossus of the north, with his Bolivarian Revolution. He planted the seeds of socialism at home and encouraged Latin Americans to participate in the construction of financial institutions and economic assistance programs to challenge the traditional hegemony of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization.

The Bolivarian Revolution stimulated political change based on varying degrees of grassroots democratization, the construction of workers’ cooperatives, and a shift from neoliberal economic policies to economic populism. A Bolivarian Revolution was being constructed with a growing web of participants: Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and, of course, Cuba.

It was hoped that even after the premature death of Chavez in 2013, the Bolivarian Revolution would continue in Venezuela and throughout the region. But the economic ties and political solidarity of progressive regimes, hemisphere regional institutions, and grassroots movements have been challenged by declining oil prices and economic errors; increasing covert intervention in Venezuelan affairs by the United States; a U.S.-encouraged shift to the right by “soft coups” in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and Ecuador; and a more aggressive United States foreign policy toward Latin America. Governments supportive of Latin American solidarity with Venezuela have been undermined or defeated in elections in Honduras, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, and now attacks have escalated against what former National Security Advisor John Bolton calls “the troika of tyranny”: Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. As Vijay Prashad puts it: “Far right leaders in the hemisphere (Bolsonaro, Márquez, and Trump) salivate at the prospect of regime change in each of these countries. They want to eviscerate the ‘pink tide’ from the region.”

Special dilemmas Latin Americans face

Historically, all Western Hemisphere countries have been shaped and distorted in their economies, polities, and cultures by colonialism and neocolonialism. They have also been shaped by their long histories of resistance to outside forces seeking to develop imperial hegemony. Latin American history is both a history of oppression, exploitation, and violence; and of confrontation with mass movements of various kinds. Also, it is important to emphasize that the imperial system has created complicit and repressive regimes in Latin and Central America and has generated extremes of wealth and poverty. Military repression and extreme poverty within countries have forced migrations of people seeking some physical and economic security. Armed with this understanding, several historical realities bear on the current crises in the region, including the emigration of people from their countries.

First, every country, with the exception of Cuba, experiences deep class divisions. Workers, peasants, the new precariat, people of color, youth, and women face off against very wealthy financiers, entrepreneurs, and industrialists, often with family ties, as well as corporate ties, to the United States. Whether one is trying to understand the soft coup in Brazil between 2019 and 2022, the instability in Nicaragua, or the deep divisions in Venezuela, class struggle is a central feature of whatever conflicts are occurring.

Second, United States policy in the administrations of both political parties is fundamentally driven by opposition to the full independence of Latin America. U.S. policy throughout the new century has been inalterably opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution. Consequently, a centerpiece of U.S. policy is to support by whatever means the wealthy classes in each country.

Third, as a byproduct of the colonial and neocolonial stages in the region, local ruling classes and their North American allies have supported the creation of sizable militaries. Consequently, in political and economic life, the military remains a key actor in each country in the region. Most often, the military serves the interests of the wealthy class (or is part of it), and works overtly or covertly to resist democracy, majority rule, and the grassroots. Consequently, each progressive government in the region has had to figure out how to relate to the military. In the case of Chile, President Allende assumed the military would stay neutral in growing political disputes among competing class forces. But the Nixon Administration was able to identify and work with generals who ultimately carried out a military coup against the popular elected socialist government of Chile. So far in the Venezuelan case, the military continues to side with the government. Former President Chavez was himself a military officer.

Fourth, given the rise of grassroots movements, the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela began to support “dual power,” particularly at the local level. Along with political institutions that traditionally were controlled by the rich and powerful, new local institutions of popular power were created. The establishment of popular power has been a key feature of many governments ever since the Cuban Revolution. Popular power, to varying degrees, is replicated in economic institutions, in culture, and in community life such that in Venezuela and elsewhere workers and peasants see their own empowerment as tied to the survival of revolutionary governments. In short, defense of the Maduro government depends on the continuing support of the grassroots and the military.

Fifth, the governments of the Bolivarian Revolution face many obstacles. Small but powerful capitalist classes are one. Persistent U.S. covert operations and military bases throughout the region are another. And perhaps most importantly, given the hundreds of years of colonial and neocolonial rule, Latin American economies remain distorted by overreliance on small numbers of raw materials and, because of pressure from international financial institutions, on export of selected products such as agricultural crops. In other words, historically Latin American economies have been distorted by the pressure on them to create one-crop economies to serve the interests of powerful capitalist countries, not diversified economies to serve the people.

Sixth, U.S. policy toward the region from time to time is affected by the exigencies of domestic politics. For example, during the Trump Administration’s first term, verbal threats against Venezuela were articulated as the president’s domestic fortunes were challenged by the threat of impeachment and confrontations with the new Congressional leadership. Today, Trump faces rising grassroots resistance to his policies, recent rejections of his candidates in elections and the reemergence of the Epstein scandals. War often masks domestic troubles.

Finally, the long history of colonialism, neocolonialism, “land grabs” such as in Mexico, and the establishment of repressive regimes in the Western Hemisphere—all coupled with the establishment of draconian neoliberal economic policies—set in motion desperate migrations of people fleeing repression, violence, and abject poverty. The migration crisis today, the creation of virtual concentration camps of people at the US–Mexico border, and the brutal militarist policies of ICE in U.S. cities, is a direct result of over one hundred years of U.S. foreign policy.

Where do progressives stand?

First and foremost, progressives should prioritize an understanding of imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, and the role of Latin American as the “laboratory” for testing United States interventionist foreign policies. This means that critics of U.S. imperialism can be most effective by avoiding “purity tests” when contemplating political activism around U.S. foreign policy. One cannot forget the connections between current patterns of policy toward Venezuela with the rhetoric, threats, claims, and U.S. policies toward Guatemala, Cuba, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, and in the new century, Bolivia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina.

Second, progressives need to show solidarity with grassroots movements in the region, support human rights, oppose military interventions, and demand the closure of the myriads of U.S. military bases in the region and end training military personnel from the region.

Third, progressives should realize that as tensions rise again in the hemisphere, there are growing dangers of violence spreading throughout Latin America. By attacking “the troika of tyranny,” the United States is increasing the likelihood of class war throughout the region. And given growing Chinese and Russian economic and political involvement in the Western Hemisphere, it is not inconceivable for regional war to escalate to global war.

Finally, progressives must stand and fight against brutal and inhumane U.S. border policies and the establishment of concentration camps that violate every element of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. The migrations and the often-brutal responses at the border are inextricably connected to the historic role of the United States in the Western hemisphere.

In short, the time has come to stand up against U.S. imperialism.

[Harry Targ is a retired Professor of Political Science, Purdue University. He has written books and articles on US foreign policy, international political economy, and issues of labor and class struggle. Courtesy: Diary of a Heartland Radical, the blog of Harry Targ.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Understanding the U.S.’s New National Security Strategy

Morning Star Online Staff

How likely is a U.S. war on Venezuela? States across the region are alarmed one is imminent.

The huge military build-up in the Caribbean has been accompanied by murderous strikes on boats alleged–without evidence–to be smuggling drugs. Extrajudicial killings so brazen that members of the U.S. Congress who have never batted an eyelid at drone assassinations in Africa and Asia are questioning who ordered what.

The U.S. armada gathers as President Donald Trump calls for regime change. Administration insiders issue a steady stream of misinformation to confuse the press, alleging all kinds of behind-the-scenes deals designed to discredit Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

Some argue that the forces assembled are designed to intimidate, not invade: 10,000 troops is a fraction of the 160,000 that invaded Iraq.

But the National Security Strategy published on Friday by the White House suggests we should be ready for the worst.

This thoroughly Trumpian document is a window on the administration’s thinking.

It reflects its domestic conservatism (calling for U.S. households to consist of “strong, traditional families that raise healthy children”) and far-right conspiracy theories such as the Great Replacement Theory (immigration into Europe, we are told, means that “within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”).

It is climate-denialist, listing the U.S.’s energy needs as consisting of “oil, coal, gas and nuclear” and denouncing climate change as an “ideology.”

It does suggest that the U.S. attempt to broker a peace in Ukraine is not merely a ruse: it rejects further Nato enlargement, criticises European states’ resistance to a deal and calls for “re-establishing strategic stability with Russia.”

Concern to “prevent unintended escalation or expansion of the [Ukraine] war” is linked to the oft-cited pivot to Asia: it stresses the importance of preventing Chinese reunification with Taiwan because of the island’s significance to U.S. naval domination of the Pacific, calls on Indo-Pacific countries to provide the “U.S. military greater access to their ports and other facilities” and dwells longer on how to maintain an edge over its “near peer” rival China than on any other theme.

But its top priority is to “reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American pre-eminence in the western hemisphere.”

It vows to “deny non-hemispheric competitors the ability… to own or control strategically vital assets in our hemisphere”–coded language for a determination to block co-operation between Latin American countries and China, particularly when it comes to infrastructure projects (“we should make every effort to push out foreign companies that build infrastructure in the region”). It boasts of restoring U.S. “privileged access” to the Panama Canal.

The so-called “Trump corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine was announced on the 202nd anniversary of that doctrine on December 2.

Like the original Monroe doctrine, it is a prescription for U.S. imperialist domination of the Americas in the guise of protecting the hemisphere from outside actors–then Europe, today China.

Governments outside Washington’s orbit are classified as potential threats to its access to natural resources, and its “enlist and expand” policy sets out plans to recruit U.S. allies to help it police the region and convert non-allies into allies through “various means.”

This means hostility to alliances like the Brics, which brings together a Latin American giant (Brazil) with African and Eurasian powers, and it signals escalated regime change operations against countries asserting their independence from the U.S.

Venezuela is clearly first in line, but the sovereignty of every state in the region is under threat.

Mobilising maximum resistance to U.S. aggression will involve building Britain’s active and effective solidarity campaigns–including those with Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua and Justice for Colombia.

Trump sees dominance in Latin America as key to continued U.S. domination of the world. We all have a stake in preserving its freedom and independence.

[Courtesy: Morning Star Online, a socialist British daily newspaper with a focus on social, political and trade union issues. It has been functioning as an independent readers’ cooperative since 1945.]