1954 guatemala coup

[WalterMitty]

should arbenz have been overthrown?

yes, of course.  he was a dangerous land-grabber.

[Rob]

Eisenhower's removal of him was monstrous, as was his removal of Mossadegh.

And "dangerous" to whom, Walter? Do you own shares in United Fruit or something? The knee-jerk "libertarianism" displayed by many on this board is laughable, especially since Arbenz was a democrat (small-d) whose reforms actually made life somewhat better for the vast majority of Guatemalans.

This kind of s**t is why the US is hated throughout much of the world.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No. Overthrowing a democratically elected leader in favor of a brutla military regime is never acceptable.

[minionofmidas]

What the two latter sanes said.

[MasterJedi]

Yes, he should have been removed.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes, he should have been removed.

Why?

[WalterMitty]

Eisenhower's removal of him was monstrous, as was his removal of Mossadegh.

And "dangerous" to whom, Walter? Do you own shares in United Fruit or something? The knee-jerk "libertarianism" displayed by many on this board is laughable, especially since Arbenz was a democrat (small-d) whose reforms actually made life somewhat better for the vast majority of Guatemalans.

This kind of s**t is why the US is hated throughout much of the world.

do you support the land grabbing by mugabe also?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

IIRC only uncultivated land was seized (or was intended to be seized; I can't recall how advanced the scheme was at the time of the coup).

Besides, the problem with what Mugabe did over land in Zimbabwe isn't so much that land was taken from one group and given to another, but the way it was done (including driving the agricultural workers off the farms and smashing up machinery) and who it was given to (ie; Mugabe's cronies in Zanu-PF).
Mugabe has done a lot worse than just the land "reforms" anyway.

[WalterMitty]

Mugabe has done a lot worse than just the land "reforms" anyway.

if left in power,  arbenz likely would have gotten a lot worse.

[minionofmidas]

Some kind of land reform/grab was definitely urgently necessary in Zimbabwe as well - and would have happened earlier if not for the pretty good deal Rhodesian Whites cut for themselves in 1980.

Yes Al, that's correct, the Guatemalan thing was only about unused land. Of course, Dulles was a former United Fruit lobbyist. Much like Cheney and Iraq actually.

[angus]

Eisenhower's removal of him was monstrous, as was his removal of Mossadegh.

LOL.  But tell us how you really feel.  If you can put aside the moralism, or perhaps moralizing, for a moment, try to remember that such historical decisions should be based on how well they bolstered, or diminished, the national interests.  I, too, tend to think that over the long term imperialism spells doom for the republic, and I think this is true for any republic, not just ours.  But there are other conclusions, and there are folks who support the idea that enforcing our value systems on others has long-term benefits.  Obviously you disagree with that.  As do I.

Any of you BU alums read the Summer '96 issue of Bostonia, the alumni quarterly?  There's a wonderful book review entitled "Overthrows R Us" and it describes a new book by former New York Times reporter Stephen Kinzer, "Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq"  (Times books, copyright 2006).  I'm glad somebody finally said it.  I generally respect Chris Matthews, and think he's pretty square, but in the lead up to Iraq he kept saying stuff like, "We just don't do this.  We Americans don't go instigating wars like this.  I'm not sure this is a good idea."  I'm thinking, WTF? you're either a liar or a fool.  Our government is famous for doing this sort of thing.  Who knows what he was thinking.  Anyway, Kinzer outlines a number of overthrows over the past century.  Guatemala 1954 was only one of Many.  Noriega was too.  (Kinzer in fact covered Guatemala and Nicaragua and Panama as a reporter.)  He has the decency to give both points of view, and I admire that.  There are those who strongly feel that these coups were in our best long-term interests, and that's important to remember.  But it's also important for them to remember that there are those of us who don't.  And that we can rationally discuss the advantages and disadvantages of these overthrows without resorting to moralizing.

I haven't read the book, but the review was compelling.  I just may buy it after it eventually makes its way to the Dollar Store.  I'm cheap like that.  Well read, but cheap.

[Rob]

do you support the land grabbing by mugabe also?

Apples and oranges- as Al noted, Arbenz expropriated uncultivated land only.

f you can put aside the moralism, or perhaps moralizing

Why? Actual people in Guatemala were affected by this and had to suffer the consequences, so I see no reason not to take them into account.

for a moment, try to remember that such historical decisions should be based on how well they bolstered, or diminished, the national interests.

"The national interests"? Well, I didn't benefit from the coup and neither did most Americans. United Fruit profited handsomely, though. And that's what it was all about, really. So was it a "success" in that regard? You betcha.

Of course, the Iran coup was an absolute disaster for the US and wreaked havoc with "the national interests" in the long run.   

I, too, tend to think that over the long term imperialism spells doom for the republic, and I think this is true for any republic, not just ours.
 But there are other conclusions, and there are folks who support the idea that enforcing our value systems on others has long-term benefits.

So you agree with me, but others don't. Okay, thanks for letting me know.  

[angus]

okay, but I'm still saying that if you're going to go before policymakers (assuming it has occurred to you that you have the right, and some would say the obligation, to instruct your elected officials) and advise them, then you'll be better off selling your case in terms of how such regime changes adversely affect the national interests, as opposed to screaming about the deaths of unknown, faceless individuals.  This may seem unemotional and cold, but then it should.  Rationality will win over more converts in the debate than emotional diatribes.  For, among other reasons, your opponents can also make a pretty good emotional and moralizing debate in favor of regime change.  Best to take the high road, as Al has done.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, he should have been removed.

Why do you hate democracy?

[angus]

I think that this particular coup d'état is one of the first well-documented covert CIA operations.  In a nutshell, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman wanted to break up large estates and encourage high-productivity small-scale farming.  Of course the US supported the interests of the United Fruit company and orchestrated an invasion from Honduras led by two exiled Guatemalteco army officers.  Arbenz was forced to step down and the land reform never took place.  In short, this coup was one of many examples of the US government intervening in the internal affairs of a government in order to placate the commercial interests of the people who put the US government in power.  That no one argues about.  But what has happened since is the subject of debate.  The way I see it, pretty much from the late fifties to the mid nineties was a period of civil unrest, and at times even civil war, although most travel guides describe it as a period of relative peace interrupted by the occassional strike.  This unrest affected the price of bananas and other tropical fruit crops, it affected the work of academics at some of the major mesoamerican archaeological sites, and it affected the state of the guatemalan economy.  Adversely.

Guatemala is a beautiful country, blessed with a splendid climate, an easy-going population, and breathtaking natural beauty.  But it's poor.  One of the first things I noticed the first time I ever drove from Mexico into Guatemala was the poor state of the roads.  If you think driving from Texas to Nuevo Leon brings on economic shock, think again.  Guatemala is another step down the social ladder.  And it's no secret that Mexico has a huge immigration problem with Guatemala.  Immigrants pour across the Guatemala-Mexico border every day, and the mexicans long ago resorted to using its army to protect and patrol that border.  This flood of unemployed and often unemployable population into Southern Mexico in turn affects employment rates in Mexico, ultimately driving Mexicans across their northern border and into the United States, where the immigrants are often met by snakes, an inhospitable desert, or, even worse, civilian vigilante gringos who have taken it upon themselves to enforce immigration policy.  Ever Mexican with whom I have discussed this in Mexico laughs in stark realization of the fact that the problems they have with Guatemala are completely analogous to ours with Mexico.

I'm not a fan of wealth redistribution, but then I also think that a people ought to be free to choose its own destiny.  Of course, anti-communism was, for all practical purposes, pretty much a state religion in the US during the 1950s, and that must be bourne in mind.  But in hindsight we can say that if the guatemalan people democratically elect a leader based on his promises of land reform, then we must accept that.  We certainly wouldn't have accepted a foreign government coming here in 1964 to tell us that Johnson's Great Society had too much a ring of socialism and that he needed to be overthrown for our own good.   And given that long-term high unemployment rates in our own hemisphere aren't conducive to our own long-term economic stability, there's really no justification not to allow these people to have chosen their own course of policy.  That fifty to sixty thousand people were killed by internal violence in the 70s alone is certainly unfortunate, but that statistic does not in and of itself affect our economic well-being.  What does affect our economic well-being is the effect of massive unemployment, anti-US sentiment, and a rapid succession of unpredictable governments in a country in our own hemisphere.  And it was the direct involvement of the CIA that lead to those conditions.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Mugabe has done a lot worse than just the land "reforms" anyway.

if left in power,  arbenz likely would have gotten a lot worse.

Arbenz had shown no authoritarian tendencies or attempts to to become a dictator,s o there's really no basis for this.

Besides, it's difficult to see things getting much worse than what did happen, aka the country being locked in a perpetual civil war marked by the occaisional genocide until 1996.

[opebo]

WalterMitty, you nincompoop, 'land-grabbing' is no criticism - after all the land was grabbed in the first place by the current 'owners', whether United Fruit or Spanish colonialists.  You need to get over this ridiculous idea that ownership has any validation other than power.

[WalterMitty]

WalterMitty, you nincompoop, 'land-grabbing' is no criticism - after all the land was grabbed in the first place by the current 'owners', whether United Fruit or Spanish colonialists.  You need to get over this ridiculous idea that ownership has any validation other than power.

so the government should take your parent's properties and redistribute it to poors?

[opebo]

WalterMitty, you nincompoop, 'land-grabbing' is no criticism - after all the land was grabbed in the first place by the current 'owners', whether United Fruit or Spanish colonialists.  You need to get over this ridiculous idea that ownership has any validation other than power.

so the government should take your parent's properties and redistribute it to poors?

Well, 'should' has nothing to do with it, WalterMitty.  The point is that said distribution, or 're'distribution, is just a matter of political power, not any sort of permanent 'right'.

[angus]

Well, to play devil's advocate, consider the plight of all those 50s italian-american and jewish-american gangsters who set up their little empires in Cuba.  No doubt they were living the American dream, running casinos, brothels, bars, and hotels legally and peacefully in 1950s Cuba.  They were paying their taxes and contributing to the economic well-being of Cuba.  No doubt they were dismayed to loose their shirts when the Castro regime took over.  No doubt they called upon their elected officials to restore their property rights in Cuba.  I can understand why they'd be on the phone to Washington the day their minions were kicked out of Cuba.  And by extension I can understand United Fruit's position. 

But the problem is, in my opinion, that the US congress and its military isn't charged with forming a more perfect Cuban union, nor are they charged with establishing Cuban justice, or ensuring Cuban tranquility, or providing for the defense of Cuba, or  promoting the Cuban welfare, or even securing the blessings of liberty to the Cubans and their posterity.  In short, those elected officials were charged with looking after the USA, of which Cuba isn't a part.  And all this can be said of Guatemala as well.  Protecting US commercial interests is a compelling reason for imperialist expansion, but it doesn't justify overthrowing the legitimate governments in foreign lands.  Does it?  And isn't that the key to this debate?  Now, if we're going to forego Republic in favor of Empire, then you could probably argue that we have the obligation to protect US commercial interests at all costs, but then any legal precedent you use to support that argument becomes null.  Nixing republican law in favor of imperialist law voids any constitutional argument you can make.  I think.  Better get markdel to chime in here.  He's a lawyer and a neocon at the same time, so he may have some understanding that we don't.

[opebo]

No doubt they were living the American dream, running casinos, brothels, bars, and hotels legally and peacefully in 1950s Cuba. 

Of one thing you can be sure, angus - that American is anti-brothel.