Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq

In a great introduction the author formulates the argument that the US foreign policy, developed and well established over a hundred years, the pattern of "regime change". Two factors launching pattern; a) threat to the interests of US corporations and b) fit into the current ideology / mission of the United States (hegemony, the fight against communism, the struggle for freedom and human rights).

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.

Most Americans are outraged by Russian interference in our 2016 election. That’s because we hold dear our right to self-determination without another country determining the outcome. On the other hand, the USA has a long history of not showing the same kind of respect for the self-determination of other nations that we expect for ourselves. This book describes in shocking detail the fourteen times our country has overthrown legitimate governments – some duly elected – around the world. This is not dry history, however; Kinzer’s retelling reads like a suspense novel.

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? ###

More than you want to know about American history. Since the 1890's (and earlier) we've invaded every little country that we thought looked at us funny in the Caribbean, Central and South America, Oceania, Asia, the Middle East, (and probably Africa, but I haven't got that far). Usually on the pretext that the poor benighted heathens that live there need to become Christians (even if they already were) or weren't white enough to govern themselves (and grant special privileges to American businesses). A little tedious because of the detail, but also because of the "banality of evil". President Eisenhower's reputation must be teflon-coated, as he OKed CIA revolutions and assasinations in Iran, Honduras, Cuba, Vietnam and more, most of which caused blowback that haunts us to this day.