Brandon Todd HIST 6393, Fall 2006 Dr. Buzzanco Building the American Empire Ever since the overthrow of its colonial masters in 1776, the United States has promoted itself as an anti-imperialist nation. This would seem only natural coming from a country that had been under the boot of the British crown for a hundred years. However, the roots of America’s anti-imperialism do not stem from sympathy for nations with similarities to the past history of the U.S. Antiimperialism in U.S. foreign policy exists solely as a product of the effect of imperialism on the American economy. Colonies of European imperial powers were closed off to America as a market for American goods, and all resources and trade went to and from the colony’s European master. Beginning in the early 20th century, the U.S. began advocating freedom for colonial nations and open markets in places like China. Looking back at over two hundred years of American foreign policy, the question can be raised as to whether the U.S. itself could be considered an imperialist power. On the surface, the answer would appear to be that the U.S. is not, and has never been, an imperialist nation. After all, the U.S. has never had expansive colonial territories and has always been in favor of open markets everywhere. Digging below the surface, the answer is not so clear. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines imperialism as “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion of a nation especially by direct
territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly: the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence.” The first part of this definition would not seem apply to the U.S. The U.S. possessed few colonies and has always supported the liberation of European colonies and the opening of markets. It could possibly be argued that in its first one hundred years, the U.S. would be considered an imperialist nation by virtue of their westward expansion, extending its “power and dominion” by “direct territorial acquisitions.” However, since the acquisition of those territories involved the acquisition of largely unpopulated land either purchased or won through fighting with a European imperial nation, the United States was extending its power, but not gaining power over another nation. 1 The second aspect of the definition of imperialism conforms more closely with U.S. foreign policy in the past century. While the U.S. had no physical colonies, American economic and military power held influence over many third world countries, especially in Latin America. In Europe, the U.S. emerged as a dominant force following the first and second World Wars, as the rest of Europe struggled to rebuild after being ravaged by fighting that left the U.S. largely untouched. Rebuilding efforts were made possible by American dollars, leaving nations indebted to the U.S. for their financial support. Perhaps more importantly, the economic culture of Europe began to change, falling more in line with American economic practices. Previously, individual craftsman making hand-made goods of high quality, which were subsequently too costly for any but
1
Obviously, Native Americans might view this statement somewhat skeptically, but the U.S. seemed less interested in exploiting them economically than, say, eradicating them from the face of the Earth.
the elite to afford them, dominated the European market. After World War II, cheap American goods flooded the market and made previously unattainable products available to the masses, eroding the power base of the traditional elite. Local cultures also began homogenizing under this Americanization. In Irresistible Empire, Victoria de Grazia characterizes the American domination of European culture via the open market as “soft power”. The efforts of the U.S. to extend their economic power over the European market can certainly be seen as imperial to an extent. Any discussion of American influence over the political situations in other nations must begin with Latin America. Since the early 19 th century, the U.S. has carefully maintained its sphere of influence in the western hemisphere and reacted swiftly to perceived threats to its hegemonic influence. The Napoleonic Wars of 1805-1815 left the Spanish Monarchy crippled and their American colonies began slipping away as rebellions sprang up across South America. As various European nations, including France and Russia, discussed the possibility of assisting Spain in reacquiring its lost colonies, the U.S. saw an opportunity to become the dominate force in the region. In his State of the Union Address to Congress in 1823, President James Monroe delivered a speech that would later be known as the Monroe Doctrine. Under the Monroe Doctrine, the western hemisphere was effectively closed to colonization. The U.S. would not interfere with current European colonies, but if a colonial rebellion put in place a government that was subsequently acknowledged by the U.S. government, any attempt to reestablish dominion over that new nation would be prohibited. Any
attempt at further colonization in the Americas would be construed as a threat to U.S. security. 2 With the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. was poised to become the dominant force in the western hemisphere. European powers could no longer expand their presence in the Americas, and, given the storm of rebellion sweeping across many South American colonies, were more likely to see their presence reduced. Following the Spanish-American war in 1898, the U.S. began their efforts to replace the European nations that were being pushed out. In 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt added the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. The Roosevelt Corollary added to the doctrine the goal of expanding American commercial interests into Latin America. The Corollary also claimed the right of the U.S. to intervene as an international police power in Latin American conflicts that threatened U.S. interests. The U.S. would use this right to intervene in areas such as Cuba, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic. The U.S. had received Cuba along with Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines following its victory in the Spanish-American War. In 1902 the U.S. granted Cuba its independence, but only after the Cuban government agreed to accept the terms of the Platt Amendment. The amendment stipulated that the U.S. military would have use of the Guantánamo Bay naval base and essentially gave the U.S. authority over all Cuban foreign policy decisions. In return, a tariff was passed in America giving Cuban sugar preference in the American economy. As a result, sugar production dominated the Cuban economy and Cuban sugar farmers, including many American investors, became increasingly
2
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/monrodoc.shtml
richer while the majority of the population became poorer. The amendment also guaranteed protection in the Cuban market for certain American goods. The widening gap between the elite and the poor and the ineffectiveness of the Cuban government in dealing with social instability led to armed revolt in 1906. The U.S. exercised its rights under the Roosevelt Corollary and intervened to suppress the rebellion. Cuba remained under U.S. military occupation for the next three years, and though Cuban self-government was restored in 1908, the country remained under close supervision by the Americans. The gap between the rich and poor continued to grow and caused such increasing social instability that by 1934, President Roosevelt terminated the Platt Amendment. The poor, however, would always blame the U.S. government for the many hardships they had endured since achieving independence. 3 In Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, the U.S. likewise intervened to prevent U.S. interests from being harmed by a politically unstable state. Both nations were placed under U.S. military rule under the provisions of the Roosevelt Corollary for close to a decade. The U.S. would again intervene in both nations during the Cold War, but neither would be followed as closely as Cuba. American intervention became increasingly unpopular in both Latin America and in the U.S. itself. In 1934 President Franklin Roosevelt repealed the Roosevelt Corollary in favor of his “Good Neighbor Policy”, which advocated nonmilitary intervention. Roosevelt also ended the terms of the Platt Amendment, with the exception of the U.S. right to Guantánamo Bay.
3
LaFeber, Walter. “The Tension between Democracy and Capitalism in the American Century,” Diplomatic History, vol. 23, no. 2 (Spring 1999).
This first round of U.S. intervention in Latin American politics would showcase American foreign policy trends in the hemisphere that would persist throughout the century. First and foremost, the U.S. sought to maintain social stability to protect its investments in Latin American nations. If a Latin regime proved to be incapable of maintaining that stability, the U.S. acted swiftly with military force to reestablish order. Second, the U.S. maintained careful supervision over the actions of Latin governments. The Platt Amendment gave Washington free reign to intervene in any Cuban political or economic action. Lastly, Cuba clearly became America’s leading concern in Latin America. During the Cold War, U.S.-Cuban relations would shape the political history of the entire region. Following the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Cuba during the 1930s, the United States had supported the seizure of the Cuban government by General Fulgencio Batista. Though the Batista government ushered in an era of increased corruption, U.S. corporations dominated the Cuban economy. Despite his shortcomings as a head of state, Batista was strongly supported by the U.S. government for most of his tenure. The American Ambassador to Cuba, Arthur Gardner, claimed that the U.S. had “never had a better friend” than Batista. 4 However, as Batista’s regime became increasingly corrupt, U.S. support began to waver, and in 1958 the United States placed an arms embargo on Cuba, sealing the fate of the Batista government. In January of 1959, Batista fled the country and the Cuban revolutionaries, led by Fidel Castro, seized power.
4
“Communist Threat to the United States through the Caribbean,” Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the International Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 86th Congress, 2nd Session, pt. 9. August 27, 30, 1960
Failing to support Batista would later be considered a grave mistake in light of the situation the U.S. now faced with Castro in power. Castro seized many American properties in Cuba and began nationalizing Cuban industries, precisely the actions feared by the U.S. whenever a Latin American nation faced a political upheaval. The mishandling of the Batista situation would influence the way America dealt with Latin American regimes throughout the Cold War era. The U.S. was willing to support authoritarian dictatorships in suppressing nationalist and populist revolutionaries that they feared would lead to communism and economic reform dangerous to U.S. investments. In 1954, reform-minded Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz demanded that the United Fruit Company cede its unused land to peasants. Washington viewed the declaration as a threat to American security and the CIA led an uprising that overthrew Arbenz and replaced him with a brutal military dictatorship. 5 To aid in the resistance to the spread of Communism and pro-Castro sentiments, the U.S. enlisted the help of the Dominican Republic and Venezuela. The leaders of the two nations, Rafael Trujillo and Rómulo Betancourt, were similar only in their anti-communism. Trujillo frustrated the State Department with his brutality, but the United States needed Dominican support because of its strategic location. Betancourt likewise did not exemplify the type of leader the U.S. government wanted in charge of Latin American governments. Unlike Trujillo, Betancourt had been fairly elected to his position. Betancourt was
5
LaFeber, “The Tension between Democracy and Capitalism”
reform-minded, as Arbenz had been, but the U.S. needed a strongly anticommunist leader in place as Venezuela had a large Communist party. 6 The courting of Trujillo and Betancourt by Washington indicated another trend in American policy in Latin America, the willingness of the U.S. to use its power to remove government leaders in an effort to gain more control of the region’s politics. Tiring of Trujillo’s antics and enamored with Betancourt’s staunch anti-Castroism, the U.S. stuck a bargain with Betancourt. In return for his support against Castro, the U.S. would support the removal of Betancourt’s old enemy, Trujillo, from power. In 1961, Dominican dissidents assassinated Trujillo, and Washington helped establish an anti-Communist democratic government. United States actions in Latin America in the late 50s and 60s demonstrated a willingness on the part of the government to use extreme measures such as assassination, embargoes, and military intervention to protect American interests in the region. Likewise, U.S. support for the various political regimes in Latin America showed that the most vital quality of a government from the U.S. perspective was a strong anti-Communist stance. Following the Trujillo assassination, John F. Kennedy was famously quoted as saying, “There are three possibilities in descending order of preference: a decent democratic regime, a continuation of the Trujillo regime, or a Castro regime. We ought to
6
Rabe, Stephen G. “The Caribbean Triangle: Betancourt, Castro, and Trujillo and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Diplomatic History, vol. 20, no. 1 (Winter 1996)
aim at the first, but we really can’t renounce the second until we are sure we can avoid the third.” 7 By the end of the 1960s, the United States had clearly established an imperial presence in Latin America. Though it claimed no direct dominion over the nations of Latin America, U.S. policies and interests clearly controlled the direction of Latin American politics. American political dominance was not confined solely to the western hemisphere. The threat of Communism in Cuba represented just a small piece of the overall picture of the Cold War. The U.S. responded aggressively to Communist expansion across the globe from Latin America to Africa and Asia. Following World War II, the United States quickly helped to rebuild Japan as a strong Capitalist power to balance the Communist alliance between China and Russia. American support also made possible the establishment of national governments in South Korea and South Vietnam to halt Communist expansion from their northern counterparts. American political influence has also reached into the Middle East with the U.S. involvement in the Iran-Iraq war and the continuing support for Israel. Further study can illuminate the particulars of American involvement in each of these situations, but it should not be necessary to establish the idea of America as an imperial power. The Monroe Doctrine laid the American claim to the nations of Latin America early in the 19th century. Since then, the United States has taken seriously its role as hegemonic power in the Western Hemisphere, intervening in Latin American affairs whenever necessary to protect American investments, frequently to the detriment of the people of Latin America. Latin America has
7
Rabe, “The Caribbean Triangle”
been a part of America’s empire in all but name. When answering the question of the United States’ imperial leanings, a quick lesson in Latin American history should provide all the answers necessary to confirm America’s position as an Empire.