Other Sellers on Amazon
& FREE Shipping
95% positive over last 12 months
+ $4.82 shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
+ $3.99 shipping
84% positive over last 12 months
Follow the Authors
OK
Overthrow Paperback – February 6, 2007
|
Stephen Kinzer
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author, and more.
See search results for this author
|
|
Price
|
New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$0.00
|
Free with your Audible trial | |
|
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry"
|
$25.59 | $11.98 |
Enhance your purchase
-
Print length414 pages
-
LanguageEnglish
-
Publication dateFebruary 6, 2007
-
Dimensions5.54 x 0.75 x 8.32 inches
-
ISBN-109780805082401
-
ISBN-13978-0805082401
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
|
Download to your computer
|
Kindle Cloud Reader
|
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Editorial Reviews
Review
“Citizens concerned about foreign affairs must read this book. Stephen Kinzer's crisp and thoughtful Overthrow undermines the myth of national innocence. Quite the contrary: history shows the United States as an interventionist busybody directed at regime change. We deposed fourteen foreign governments in hardly more than a century, some for good reasons, more for bad reasons, with most dubious long-term consequences.” ―Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
“Stephen Kinzer has a grim message for those critics of the Iraqi war who believe George W. Bush to be America’s most misguided, uninformed, and reckless president. Bush has had plenty of company in the past century―presidents who believe that America, as Kinzer tells us, has the right to wage war wherever it deems war necessary.” ―Seymour M. Hersh
“Stephen Kinzer’s book is a jewel. After reading Overthrow, no American -- not even President Bush -- should any longer wonder ‘why they hate us.’ Overthrow is a narrative of all the times we’ve overthrown a foreign government in order to put in power puppets that are obedient to us. It is a tale of imperialism American-style, usually in the service of corporate interests, and as Kinzer points out, ‘No nation in modern history has done this so often, in so many places so far from its own shores.’ ” ―Chalmers Johnson
About the Author
Stephen Kinzer is an award-winning foreign correspondent who has reported from more than fifty countries on four continents. He served as the New York Times bureau chief in Turkey, Germany, and Nicaragua, and as the Boston Globe Latin America correspondent. His previous books include All the Shah's Men, Crescent and Star, and Blood of Brothers. He is also the co-author of Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala. He lives in Chicago.
Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Why does a strong nation strike against a weaker one? Usually because it seeks to impose its ideology, increase its power, or gain control of valuable resources. Shifting combinations of these three factors motivated the United States as it extended its global reach over the past century and more. This book examines the most direct form of American intervention, the overthrow of foreign governments.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not an isolated episode. It was the culmination of a 110-year period during which Americans overthrew fourteen governments that displeased them for various ideological, political, and economic reasons. Like each of these operations, the “regimechange” in Iraq seemed for a time—a very short time—to have worked. It is now clear, however, that this operation has had terrible unintended consequences. So have most of the other coups, revolutions, and invasions that the United States has mounted to depose governments it feared or mistrusted.
The United States uses a variety of means to persuade other countries to do its bidding. In many cases it relies on time-honored tactics of diplomacy, offering rewards to governments that support American interests and threatening retaliation against those that refuse. Sometimes it defends friendly regimes against popular anger or uprisings. In more than a few places, it has quietly supported coups or revolutions organized by others. Twice, in the context of world wars, it helped to wipe away old ruling orders and impose new ones.
This book is not about any of those ways Americans have shaped the modern world. It focuses only on the most extreme set of cases: those in which the United States arranged to depose foreign leaders. No nation in modern history has done this so often, in so many places so far from its own shores.
The stories of these “regime change” operations are dazzlingly exciting. They tell of patriots and scoundrels, high motives and low cynicism, extreme courage and cruel betrayal. This book brings them together for the first time, but it seeks to do more than simply tell what happened. By considering these operations as a continuum rather than as a series of unrelated incidents, it seeks to find what they have in common. It poses and tries to answer two fundamental questions. First, why did the United States carry out these operations? Second, what have been their long-term consequences?
Drawing up a list of countries whose governments the United States has overthrown is not as simple as it sounds. This book treats only cases in which Americans played the decisive role in deposing a regime. Chile, for example, makes the list because, although many factors led to the 1973 coup there, the American role was decisive. Indonesia, Brazil, and the Congo do not, because American agents played only subsidiary roles in the overthrow of their governments during the 1960s. Nor do Mexico, Haiti, or the Dominican Republic, countries the United States invaded but whose leaders it did not depose.
America’s long “regime change” century dawned in 1893 with the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. This was a tentative, awkward piece of work, a cultural tragedy staged as comic opera. It was not a military operation, but without the landing of American troops, it probably would not have succeeded. The president of the United States approved of it, but soon after it happened, a new president took office and denounced it. Americans were already divided over whether it is a good idea to depose foreign regimes.
The overthrow of Hawaii’s queen reignited a political debate that had first flared during the Mexican War half a century before. That debate, which in essence is about what role the United States should play in the world, rages to this day. It burst back onto the front pages after the invasion of Iraq.
No grand vision of American power lay behind the Hawaiian revolution of 1893. Just the opposite was true of the Spanish-American War, which broke out five years later. This was actually two wars, one in which the United States came to the aid of patriots fighting against Spanish colonialism, and then a second in which it repressed those patriots to assure that their newly liberated nations would be American protectorates rather than truly independent. A radically new idea of America, much more globally ambitious than any earlier one, emerged from these conflicts. They marked the beginning of an era in which the United States has assumed the right to intervene anywhere in the world, not simply by influencing or coercing foreign governments but also by overthrowing them.
In Hawaii and the countries that rose against Spain in 1898, American presidents tested and developed their new interventionist policy. There, however, they were reacting to circumstances created by others. The first time a president acted on his own to depose a foreign leader was in 1909, when William Howard Taft ordered the overthrow of Nicaraguan president José Santos Zelaya. Taft claimed he was acting to protect American security and promote democratic principles. His true aim was to defend the right of American companies to operate as they wished in Nicaragua. In a larger sense, he was asserting the right of the United States to impose its preferred form of stability on foreign countries.
This set a pattern. Throughout the twentieth century and into the beginning of the twenty-first, the United States repeatedly used its military power, and that of its clandestine services, to overthrow governments that refused to protect American interests. Each time, it cloaked its intervention in the rhetoric of national security and liberation. In most cases, however, it acted mainly for economic reasons—specifically, to establish, promote, and defend the right of Americans to do business around the world without interference.
Huge forces reshaped the world during the twentieth century. One of the most profound was the emergence of multinational corporations, businesses based in one country that made much of their profit overseas. These corporations and the people who ran them accumulated great wealth and political influence. Civic movements, trade unions, and political parties arose to counterbalance them, but in the United States, these were never able even to approach the power that corporations wielded. Corporations identified themselves in the public mind with the ideals of free enterprise, hard work, and individual achievement. They also maneuvered their friends and supporters into important positions in Washington.
By a quirk of history, the United States rose to great power at the same time multinational corporations were emerging as a decisive force in world affairs. These corporations came to expect government to act on their behalf abroad, even to the extreme of overthrowing uncooperative foreign leaders. Successive presidents have agreed that this is a good way to promote American interests.
Defending corporate power is hardly the only reason the United States overthrows foreign governments. Strong tribes and nations have been attacking weak ones since the beginning of history. They do so for the most elemental reason, which is to get more of whatever is good to have. In the modern world, corporations are the institutions that countries use to capture wealth. They have become the vanguard of American power, and defying them has become tantamount to defying the United States. When Americans depose a foreign leader who dares such defiance, they not only assert their rights in one country but also send a clear message to others.
The influence that economic power exercises over American foreign policy has grown tremendously since the days when ambitious planters in Hawaii realized that by bringing their islands into the United States, they would be able to send their sugar to markets on the mainland without paying import duties. As the twentieth century progressed, titans of industry and their advocates went a step beyond influencing policy makers; they becamethe policy makers. The figure who most perfectly embodied this merging of political and economic interests was John Foster Dulles, who spent decades working for some of the world’s most powerful corporations and then became secretary of state. It was Dulles who ordered the 1953 coup in Iran, which was intended in part to make the Middle East safe for American oil companies. A year later he ordered another coup, in Guatemala, where a nationalist government had challenged the power of United Fruit, a company his old law firm represented.
Having marshaled so much public and political support, American corporations found it relatively easy to call upon the military or the Central Intelligence Agency to defend their privileges in countries where they ran into trouble. They might not have been able to do so if they and the presidents who cooperated with them had candidly presented their cases to the American people. Americans have always been idealists. They want their country to act for pure motives, and might have refused to support foreign interventions that were forthrightly described as defenses of corporate power. Presidents have used two strategies to assure that these interventions would be carried out with a minimum of protest. Sometimes they obscured the real reasons they overthrew foreign governments, insisting that they were acting only to protect American security and liberate suffering natives. At other times they simply denied that the United States was involved in these operations at all.
The history of American overthrows of foreign governments can be divided into three parts. First came the imperial phase, when Americans deposed regimes more or less openly. None of the men who overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy tried to hide their involvement. The Spanish- American War was fought in full view of the world, and President Taft announced exactly what he was doing when he moved to overthrow...
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- ASIN : 0805082409
- Publisher : Times Books; First edition (February 6, 2007)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 414 pages
- ISBN-10 : 9780805082401
- ISBN-13 : 978-0805082401
- Item Weight : 11.5 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.54 x 0.75 x 8.32 inches
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#38,125 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #72 in Iraq War History (Books)
- #295 in International & World Politics (Books)
- #364 in American Military History
- Customer Reviews:
Customer reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The first instance came in 1893 when the American ambassador in Hawaii conspired with American planters to overthrow the native government of Queen Liliuokalani. It took 100 years for the U.S. government to recognize the error of its ways. A resolution passed Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993 states that Congress, “apologizes to native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom on Jan. 17, 1893,” and for the subsequent “deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”
Unfortunately, there has been no similar apology to the peoples of Iran, Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Vietnam and Puerto Rico. Hawaii is the 50th state. If Puerto Rico ever becomes the 51st, perhaps then another apology will be forthcoming.
Following Hawaii, the second overthrow came at the end of the Spanish-American War, when the McKinley administration decided to take control of several Spanish colonies, instead of liberating them to govern themselves. The “consent of the governed” did not matter to most Americans when it came to Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Filipinos.
Before Congress agreed to declare war on Spain, the Teller Amendment had to be added to gain sufficient support. That Amendment declares that “the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent. The United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island.” Once the war ends. the USA intends “to leave the government and control of the island to its people.”
Cuban rebels had been actively fighting Spanish rule three years, and they expected to gain their promised independence fighting alongside the Americans. Nonetheless, the Teller Amendment was quickly discarded at the end of the war as McKinley announced that the USA would rule Cuba.
The new policy was embodied in the Platt Amendment of 1901, “a crucial document in the history of American foreign policy,” because versions of “plattismo” were subsequently applied to many nations in Central America and the Caribbean. Under this Amendment, which was adopted with only Republican votes, the USA agreed to end its occupation of Cuba as soon as Cubans accepted a constitution giving the U.S. the rights to maintain military bases, to supervise the treasury, and “the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence or the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of property and individual liberty.”
Cubans weren’t the only Latin Americans denied self-determination. Similar domination happened to Nicaragua and Honduras, initially to protect the monopolies of a handful of American banana corporations. This interference led to generations of dictators, conflict and death. To this day, Honduras has the world’s highest murder rate, in part due to American policies.
The greatest tragedy happened to the Philippines. The Filipino guerilla leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, understood that his people were promised their independence by Admiral Dewey, who later swore he made no such commitment. The USA paid $20 million to Spain for the islands. Meanwhile, the rebels had elected an assembly, produced a constitution, and proclaimed the independent Republic of the Philippines in 1899, with Aguinaldo as president. The new government was determined to defend its independence. McKinley had other plans.
The war to suppress Philippine independence lasted three years and led to tens of thousands of deaths. Recent estimates put the total at 250,000. U.S. troops used torture and massacre of civilians suspected of aiding the guerillas. The New York Post wrote that American troops “have been pursuing a policy of wholesale and deliberate murder.” This war was one of the worst episodes in Filipino history. Filipinos were denied their independence until 1946.
The first CIA overthrow of a foreign government was in Iran in 1953. The second came the following year in Guatamala. Both countries had democratically elected governments, and both were forcibly replaced by dictators – the Shah in one, and a former army officer in the other. The long-term effects were tragic.
The next target for overthrow was in 1963 when JFK decided to remove the Diem regime that the USA had installed in South Vietnam. A friend of America, Diem was murdered and the war was lost anyway.
Chile was the next target. The CIA had interfered in elections there since 1964 to prevent a socialist from winning. After Salvador Allende won, the CIA fomented his overthrow in 1973, installing a brutal dictator, Gen. Pinochet.
Other targets were the governments in Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, and Iraq in 2003. Kinzer compares George W. Bush to William McKinley: both believed they were morally justified, and neither anticipated the deadly insurgencies that followed in the Philippines and in Iraq.
“Do as I say, not as I do,” isn’t persuasive for children, much less to the rest of the world. American officials frequently assert the right to intervene militarily or otherwise whenever and where ever it is deemed in the American interest to do so, even to protect the interest of American corporations. “In almost every case,” writes Kinzer, “overthrowing the government of a foreign country, has, in the end, led both that country and the United States to grief.” Consequently, Americans should recognize the sources of anti-American resentment, and be less hypocritical in denouncing other nations who follow our example. If it’s wrong for others, then by what principle of international law is it justified when we do it? ###
The structure of the book, in other words the US policy of "regime change" in three acts:
1) THE IMPERIAL ERA
When Americans deposed regimes more or less openly. Hawaje, The Spanish-American War, Philippines, Nicaragua and Honduras.
2) COVERT ACTION
“During the Cold War, any direct American intervention risked provoking a reaction from the Soviets, possibly a cataclysmic one. To adjust to this new reality, the United States began using a more subtle technique, the clandestine coup d’etat, to depose foreign governments. In Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, diplomats and intelligence agents replaced generals as the instruments of American intervention.”
3) INVASIONS
“By the end of the twentieth century, it had become more difficult for Americans to stage coups because foreign leaders had learned how to resist them. Coups had also become unnecessary.
That left it free to return to its habit of landing troops on foreign shores. Both of the small countries Americans invaded in the 1980s, Grenada and Panama, are in what the United States has traditionally considered its sphere of influence, and both were already in turmoil when American troops landed. The two invasions that came later, in Afghanistan and Iraq, were far larger in scale and historical importance.”
The current mission (ideology) + corporate interests (which identifies the US policy) legitimized the US authorities (in their opinion) to interference (open or hidden) in the politics of other countries.
The author quite meticulously describes the different cases of "regime change". Each chapter ends with a summary with a description of the fate of countries; victims of the policy of "regime change".
The book is very informational.
Kinzer includes cases of regime change where the scholarly discourse is more robust and where hard and fast facts can be sourced, but there are a few successful regime change operations that I think Kinzer could have included, such as; Cambodia, Laos, The Dominican Republic, Indonesia (1965), The Congo, Haiti, and unsuccessful regime change operations like; Angola, Zaire (DRC), and Somalia (1993).
Overall though, this is a fantastic and worthwhile read!
Top reviews from other countries
Problem is that greedy and corrupt politicians around the world - not singling out the UK but...? can't resist taking bribes from these people either in monetary form or more typically in fat paid jobs after politics?
By the way, I love this book. Well done Stephen Kinzer.
Often backed by large, very powerful corporations, the overthrow of the foreign governments by the US government has only one thing in mind: USA's own interests (not necessarily the common people of USA, however).
This is the kind of book that you don't have to read from page one to the end, if you don't want to as each chapter is modular: Each chapter/section in the book details one overthrow (more or less). If you want to know about the Panama (Noriega) episode, for example, chapter 11 is what you want to read.
After reading the details of a few of the overthrows, I couldn't help myself making up a profile for the sort of foreign government that would qualify for overthrowing by the US government (most governments in the world would qualify, unfortunately):
1. The foreign country has resources the US government wants.
2. The foreign government does not necessarily have US interests high on their priority list (but doesn't have to pose direct/indirect threat to the US).
3. The foreign country is smaller & weaker (The US wouldn't pick on China for a direct confrontation, for sure - not alone, anyway).
As another reviewer has pointed out, the book could be depressing & sad to read at times as it is often the innocent bystanders and the defenseless that would bear the brunt of the events.
Over & over again, foreign government whose agendas and policies are not inline with those of the US would find itself replaced by one who would, with no care whatsoever for the interests of the people in the affected country.
The irony in all of this is that the replacement regime would often incite another kind of revolution that would then bring about yet another regime that would cause bigger problems for the rest of the world.













