The US Role in the Central American Refugee Crisis

So, uhh, kids are being held in US detention camps under pretty horrific conditions.  There's currently a lot of debate centered around what the US should be doing for these refugees, the majority of which are from Central America.  As a historian of both the United States and Latin America, it bothers me to see one thing completely missing from these debates: the fact that the US has played a significant role in destabilizing certain parts of Latin America, particularly Central America.

Frankly, I think it's part of a bigger problem with our media's complete failure to give adequate historical context (or any, really) for the events that they cover.  But that's a subject for another post.

What I'm going to do here is give a brief overview of the US role in Latin America.  If you want a more detailed look into the US role in a specific Latin American country, one of my first posts on this blog explores the US role in Nicaragua during the 20th Century, focusing especially on the Nicaraguan Revolution and the subsequent US support of the Contras.

What I'll do here, however, is give a very broad overview, though I will zoom in a bit on a few key moments.  Enjoy!

(A quick note about sources: usually I source my posts pretty thoroughly, but a lot of the stuff I'm talking through here is stuff I read/learned from graduate school.  If you have any questions about the information I've provided here, or would like any book recommendations, feel free to ask!)

The Roots of US Involvement

 "Man, I wish I got my own countries to colonize, like Europe does. The US always gets the cool stuff!"

For about a hundred years after the founding of the United States, the US could only look to powerful European countries/empires like Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and Russia with envy.  The US gradually grew in size and power during these hundred-ish years, but they weren't an empire the way the big European powers were, and therefore didn't have access to the same amount of resources or cheap (forced) labor.  This desire to expand is part of what led to the Mexican-American War, which is why we have the southwestern US today.

When it came to expanding beyond the continental US, however, there was a problem.  The European countries had colonized much of Africa and Asia.  Furthermore, the US hadn't developed a powerful enough military to carry out long-distance colonization of these far away places.  It could only watch as these European powers continued to profit off of the fruits of African and Asian colonization.

"Luckily" for the US (but not for the people down south), Latin America was right at its doorstep!  Most of Latin America had freed itself from Spanish and Portuguese control by the end of the late 1800s, yet few places were as developed as the US.  The US therefore had its own potential areas to exploit.  Even better, with Europeans being on the other side of the Atlantic, and focused on exploiting Africa and Asia, the US would have barely any competition!

Now, to be fair, there was mixed opinion on whether the US should actually do this or not.  Some said they shouldn't because Latin Americans should be seen as fellow independence-minded people who, just like the US, overthrew European exploitation; some opposed it less out of idealism and more because they felt, on a practical level, the US couldn't sustain such a project; others said the US shouldn't simply because they were so racist against Latin Americans they thought mingling with them would degrade US society and spread disease.  Some favored colonization out of a genuine, if misguided, desire to help; others openly only favored colonization because of a naked desire for profits.  Many simply didn't care one way or the other.

The Spanish-American War

I just wish there were someone around in the late 1800s to write

"that ain't it chief" in the letters to the editor (the comment section of its day).

Unfortunately, the imperialist side won out when the last territories of the Spanish empire, particularly Cuba, started fighting for independence.  There was a big push within the US to intervene in the conflict.  A strong anti-Spanish campaign propagated by politicians and spread by newspapers vilified the Spanish to no end (though, to be fair, much of it was quite justified).  Then, in February 1898, the USS Maine exploded in a Havana harbor, which ultimately sealed the deal (later investigations, however, showed that it was caused by a fire in the ammunition stocks of the ship, rather than Spanish mines).

A couple months later the Spanish-American War officially popped off between the two countries.  It was a brief war that only lasted from April 21st to August 13th, when the US won.  It marked not only the emergence of the US as an unofficial empire in nearby Latin America, but the end of Spain as a serious colonial power.  Part of the reason the US gave for fighting was that it was trying to "free" Cuba and other Spanish holdings.

In a foreshadowing of future affairs, Cuba did not really have say in the post-war talks.  Cuba was freed from being a Spanish colony, but became a "protectorate" (basically, a colony) of the United States.  In 1901 the US forced Cuba to integrate the Platt Amendment into their constitution, which forbade it from entering into treaties which "compromise Cuban independence" (which would be judged, of course, by the US), guaranteed US interests on the island, and gave the US authority to overthrow any Cuban leaders that it saw fit.  This last clause wasn't put there for show- the US intervened in Cuba multiple times from 1901 to the time of the Cuban Revolution in 1959. 

The Banana Wars

One of my most disappointing memories of grad school

was learning these weren't the weapons used during the Banana Wars.

When Teddy Roosevelt became president in 1901, he issued what he called the "Roosevelt Corollary" to the Monroe Doctrine.  For context, in 1823 president James Monroe and secretary of state John Quincy Adams drafted the Monroe Doctrine, which proclaimed that Europe couldn't create any new colonies in the Western Hemisphere and pledged US defense of any Latin American country facing European invasion.  It never led anywhere- the few times anyone from down south asked for help the US did nothing because it didn't have the power to- but it was a nice gesture.

The "Roosevelt Corollary", on the other hand, claimed the US could police Latin America through interventions in cases of "wrongdoing or impotence."

Long story short, this led to multiple US interventions in places like Panama, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Honduras.  Usually it was the marines that were sent.  In some cases these interventions turned into occupations that lasted years, such as in the Dominican Republic (1916-1924), Nicaragua (1912-1933), Haiti (1915-1934), and Honduras (sporadically from 1903-1925).  The US also intervened in Cuba multiple times, as mentioned above, and even intervened briefly in Mexico in 1916, during the Mexican Revolution.  The US began to think of Latin America/the Caribbean as its "backyard."

These interventions were caused for a variety of reasons.  Usually it was some sort of combination of supporting pro-US factions during times of conflict, trying to quash domestic conflicts to create stability for US business interests, and good ol' fashioned bullying to get Latin American governments to bend to US will.  These interventions often squashed movements for democracy, civil rights, and other causes that could've helped create actual stability and prosperity for Latin Americans.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president, he ended the occupations in Latin America and instituted the "Good Neighbor" policy with Latin America.  The US withdrew militarily from the region and treated its neighbors with far more diplomatic respect.  Some historians attribute the Good Neighbor policy to genuine idealism, while others attribute it to more cynical causes, such as the idea that the US had already squashed enough social movements that they didn't need to stay occupying the region, or that it was done to get Latin America to side with the US if it entered WW2.  Whatever the reason(s), the Good Neighbor policy allowed Latin America a break from US intervention.

The Cold War Begins

No jokes here, just two goons you've probably never heard of who were responsible

for shifting US policy toward Latin America in a way that led to unimaginable suffering.

Then the Cold War happened.

As most of us know, World War 2 ended with tensions between the US and Soviet Union on what exactly the post-war world order would look like.  Both saw each other as an existential threat.  President Truman looked to contain communism to keep it from spreading.  In 1947 he created the CIA, National Security Council, and expanded/reorganized the US military.  When, in 1949, the Soviet Union successfully tested an atomic bomb and the Chinese communists overthrew the Chinese national government, tensions only further escalated.  The US was shook.

In 1952, Eisenhower won the presidential election.  He actually had a moderate foreign policy vision by Cold War standards, but he also had two people in his cabinet who were fervent Cold Warriors.  Head of the CIA Allen Dulles and secretary of state John Foster Dulles (pictured above) hated communism (or even just alleged "communists") more than they loved democracy or freedom.  In 1953 they helped overthrow the democratically elected, non-communist prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, for nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951.  They reinstalled the repressive shah (who would later be overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Revolution).

Then they turned their eyes to Guatemala.

Operation PBSUCCESS

"Surely the US, also being a democracy, will welcome me with open arms!"

In 1944 Guatemala had a mostly non-violent revolution that overthrew a US-backed military dictatorship.  In its place, Guatemalans establish an electoral democracy.  The first elected president was Juan Jose Arevalo, who helped further entrench democratic norms/institutions, legalized unions, instituted labor protections, and created literacy campaigns to help low-income and rural Guatemalans learn to read.  The US didn't like him for overthrowing their guy, but recognized he wasn't a communist, much less a Soviet puppet.

Then, in 1950, Jacobo Arbenz (who had served as defense minister under Arevalo) won the presidency.  He was to the left of Arevalo and expanded on what Arevalo had done, but he also had one big cornerstone of his campaign that hadn't been done before in Guatemala: land reform.  In 1952, Arbenz passed Ley 900, which appropriated unused land from large estates and gave it to the poor.  Much of the land was taken from the United Fruit Company, as it was the largest landholder in Guatemala.

(Fun side note: landowners were compensated for their land based on the amount they claimed the land was worth on their taxes.  Because these landed elite purposefully undervalued their land to avoid paying fair tax rates, they received way less than the land was worth and were pissed about it).

This was the final straw for the US.  In 1954, Arbenz was overthrown in a CIA-orchestrated coup.  The consequences were far-reaching for both Guatemala and the US.  For Guatemala, this created a spiraling of conflict in the country, as Guatemalans didn't take too kindly to their democratically elected government being replaced with a dictatorship.  They fought back, assassinating the US-chosen dictator in 1957, but the US insisted on appointing more military dictators.  This created a civil war in Guatemala that started in 1960 and didn't end until 1996.  Yes, that's right, nineteen ninety-friggin-six.  We'll get back to that later.

For the US, this (along with the 1953 coup in Iran) gave the US false confidence in coups.  I say "false confidence" because these coups only succeeded exactly because both places were not Soviet-connected communist countries run by militant ideologues.  Both Mosaddegh and Arbenz tried to de-escalate things, rather than militantly stand their ground; later investigations showed zero ties of either administration to the Soviets.  When the US actually ran into militant ideologues backed by the Soviets during later interventions, including the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba, they often completely ate shit.

Revolution vs Reform

"Three cheers for scruffy beards!"

In 1959 the Cuban Revolution succeeded in overthrowing US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.  Long story short, Fidel Castro and his "barbudos" (bearded ones) came to power.  I'm not gonna talk in detail about Fidel's leadership here, as I already wrote a blog post a couple years back examining his complicated legacy.  For the purpose of this post, the main effect of the Cuban Revolution across Latin America was that it inspired much of the poor, the Indigenous, the working class, and the educated, for it showed that overthrowing US imperialism was possible (much of Latin America during this time was still ruled by US-backed dictatorships).  This optimism was called "fidelismo."

JFK came into office during the beginning of fidelismo.  JFK himself decided that these US-backed tyrants had to get their acts together.  Because of that he passed the Alliance for Progress, a large aid package for Latin American leaders in exchange for creating plans to help improve conditions for their citizens.  He believed reform would prevent revolution.

This noble thought failed, however, because it did nothing to fix the power structures of Latin America.  Military dictators with backing from the landed elite and Catholic church ran most of these countries, and spent most of the money on vanity projects (if not outright pocketing it) rather than on the promised programs.  The only real exceptions were Chile and Venezuela, which were both social democracies with pretty stable democratic institutions at the time.  They were used as models for the policy despite its overall failure, which allowed LBJ to continue it.  Nixon, however, ended the program.

Luckily for the US, Cuba wasn't very good at spreading revolution yet.  It made the mistake of buying into its own hype- Che really thought it was mostly just their group who overthrow Batista, rather than there being a number of factions from which Fidel just happened to come out on top.  From Che's analysis he developed "foco theory", the idea that a small group of revolutionaries can spark a greater flame of revolt.  This approach failed in Latin America, as Cuba naively thought it could just start revolutions abroad rather than assist already well-established revolutionary movements who had popular support (something they'd catch onto later, which greatly helped their success rate).

Basically, 1960s idealism petered out for both the US and Cuba in their own ways.

The Cold War Rises

"Sometimes, a [blatant disregard for human life] rises."

When Nixon came into office in 1968 he threw full support, including propaganda campaigns and military assistance, behind Latin American tyrants.  He did so without apology or any efforts to help average Latin Americans.  He also possibly helped directly overthrow the democratically elected socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende, in 1973- there is debate as to whether the US facilitated the coup or just cheered from the sidelines.  Either way, they threw their full support behind the dictator Agosto Pinochet when he came to power.

When Carter came into office in 1976, he brought human rights into his foreign policy more than basically any Cold War president had, other than perhaps late-stage JFK.  He drastically reduced aid to countries with human rights issues, openly called for democracy in Latin America, and even chose not to intervene against revolutionary movements that had began popping up.  Unfortunately for Carter, 1979 was a rough year for the US.  The Iranian Revolution overthrew the US-backed shah and took Americans hostage, the Sandinistas overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of Anastacio Somoza to establish socialist democracy, and the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

The Iranian and Nicaraguan revolutions were inevitable and just happened to succeed during the Carter administration.  Republicans actively undermined/delayed the Iran hostage crisis in order to make Carter look weak.  The Afghanistan invasion would prove to be an disaster for the Soviets, much like Vietnam was for the US.  At the time, though, this spelled doom for the Carter presidency.  Reagan, who campaigned as the Cold War-iest of Cold Warriors, won the presidency in 1980.  His administration looked at human rights and democracy with the same level of apathy that people online view anti-piracy warnings.

He funded the Contras (counter-revolutionary forces) in Nicaragua by illegally selling arms to Iran.  It's worth noting there was nothing remotely democratic about the Contras- they were made up of people from the Anastacio Somoza dictatorship who had zero popular support among the general Nicaraguan population.  He also funded military dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador, among other places, despite their numerous, horrific atrocities.  Rapes, murdering of children, and cruel acts of torture were the norm for these regimes.  In some cases, entire villages were wiped out, with no exceptions made for children, the disabled, or elderly.

The Aftermath

 Shit, man, let's get some kittens in here to balance out the horror a bit.

By the end of the Cold War in 1991, Latin America was exhausted.  Especially Central America.  While South America suffered greatly under US-backed dictatorships in Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and elsewhere, those countries generally had more wealth, institutional stability, and other such advantages that helped lessen the long-term damage from these dictatorships.  Many people in these countries felt more like these dictatorships were an era of disruption, and the end of the Cold War signaled a return to normalcy (though, that said, hundreds of thousands were killed and/or disappeared, and many more tortured or threatened, so the effects shouldn't be taken lightly, either).

Central America was in shambles, however.  The civil war in El Salvador continued until 1992, while Guatemala's continued until 1996.  The Contras only backed down in Nicaragua because the US had strong-armed Nicaragua into voting for opposition candidate Violeta Chamorro in 1990 instead of Sandinista candidate Daniel Ortega in exchange for ending support for the Contras.  Honduras, while not wrecked by civil war, was used by the US as a base of operations during the Cold War, and the CIA violently suppressed dissent.  Panama was like Honduras up until its government grew so corrupt and unstable that it began to interfere with US interests, which caused Regan to turn on its leader, Noriega.

Only Costa Rica was spared, thanks in part to its strong democratic tradition that had miraculously found a peaceful middle ground between independence from the US while not agitating it.

To use Guatemala as a specific example of what Central America looked like, it's estimated that during the civil war about 200,000 people were killed.  That is a horrible number by itself, but even more horrible when put into the context of how small the country is.  The population of Guatemala in 1996 was about 10 million.  A UN truth commission found that 93% of the human rights violations conducted during the civil war were carried out about the military regime; only 3% were carried out by the leftist liberation movements, with the extra 4% carried out by other groups.

Poverty and Violence

I'm, uhh, gonna stick to this kitten thing if y'all don't mind.

The end of the Cold War in Central America, or even Latin America as a whole, didn't end all conflict.  Mostly, it lessened the US role in the region.  It's hard to say to what exact extent the US has played a role in the post-Cold War Latin America, as it's still too close to the present day for the Freedom of Information Act to disclose what we've done in recent years.  Still, it seems certain that it has played far less of a role without the threat of Soviet-backed communism to scare it into action.

Central Americans were left with a lot of questions.  How do we rebuild basically every institution of our society?  How will we govern, when we've known nothing but subjugation for so long?  What do we do with the people who served in these despotic, murderous regimes?  How do we create functional economies when so much people, resources, and ideas have been lost to violence for so long?  How do we go about healing psychologically from such traumatic experiences?

That's not something you recover from overnight.  These problems meant a power vacuum, which the drug cartels have taken advantage of.   On top of that, even in places where the drug cartels haven't reached, poverty is still extremely common.  These conditions, brought about in large part by the US role during the Cold War, are what sparked today's refugee crisis.

Closing Thoughts

A Guatemalan protest opposing government corruption in 2015.

Welp, there you have it.  US intervention has played a large role in the conditions that created today's refugee crisis.  Now, I don't wanna imply it was only the US who is responsible- the dictators of these countries, usually military men backed by the landed elite and Catholic church of their home countries, were the ones who wielded authority and made these decisions.  They used the US to help keep their grip on power just as the US used them to protect their Cold War interests.  It's impossible to say for sure whether which of these regimes could've survived without US support, but either way, both parties share blame.

On yet another note, I don't wannna imply that it's only been despair for Central America, either.  Most of these countries have become democracies in aftermath of the Cold War.  Many of them have built institutions that, while fragile and under-resourced, still show a level of progress despite the daunting challenges faced in the early 1990s.  Brave organizers have launched campaigns on everything from accountability projects against former despots, to commissions to find disappeared people, to political causes to help people.  There have even been former human rights activists and liberation movement leaders who have run for elected office.

The situation in Central America isn't hopeless.  The people of Central America aren't helpless.  Still, there are serious problems that the US helped create.  We need to recognize that reality, and think about that when we think about the refugees coming here from Central America.  "Tough luck, isn't my problem" doesn't apply here.

Thanks for reading.

Profiles of Badass Women: Gioconda Belli

In celebration of International Women's Day, I wanted to do a profile on a prominent mujer from history who I feel deserves more recognition and respect than they currently get.  Considering women are, and have always been, about 50% of the global population, that is no easy task.  To say there are many candidates for this post is a bit like saying aggravated assault is impolite, or that Zero Dark Thirty was overrated.  The statement is technically true, but does nothing to adequately convey just how true it is.

I look slight uncomfortable during torture scenes, and use non-torture methods

in addition to torture (which I do literally nothing to stop).  Woah, so much nuance!

In the end, I knew I had to go with a woman from Latin America.  Not because women in Latin America are more deserving than women from anywhere else, but because Latin America is my main area of study.  There aren't too many things I could say about Angela Davis or Malala Yousef that people more thoughtful and informed than me haven't already said.

Even still, choosing a single woman to write about from a region as vast and diverse as Latin America was a challenge.  There were many I wanted to choose.  The person whom I chose is only one example of a rich history of badass women in Latin American history.  Consider this post a small pathway to learning about more organizers, revolutionaries, writers, and other notable women from Latin America.

With all of that being said, the woman I chose to write about is Gioconda Belli.  Gioconda is a poet, novelist, revolutionary, and mother.  She fought in the Nicaraguan Revolution with the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional, or Sandinista National Liberation Front), also known as the Sandinistas, against the Somoza dictatorship.

I came here to kick ass and write beautifully worded poems

that explore a wide spectrum of the human condition... and I'm all out of poems

First, a brief bit of background. Since I've already written about the Somoza dictatorship in my post about Immortal Technique lyrics and Latin America, I'll just copy what I have from there:

"Nicaragua gained its independence in 1821, but instability and harsh leadership were there in abundance.  Starting in 1909 the United States occupied Nicaragua, including stationing marines there in 1912 to protect US interests.  There was a lot of resentment and resistance from the majority of the Nicaraguan population during this occupation.  This included an armed resistance led by Augusto Cesar Sandino, who became a national hero of Nicaragua (and is still considered one to this day).

The occupation lasted until 1933.  At that point the United States withdrew, but established the National Guard, led by Anastasio Somoza Sr and trained by the US so that they would be loyal to US interests.  Soon after, Somoza ordered the assassination of Sandino in 1934 and came to power in a rigged election in 1937.  This launched the beginning of the Somoza Dynasty, which included Anastasio Somoza Sr and his two sons Luis and Anastasio Jr.

Their reign was of a right wing military dictatorship that were responsible for numerous human rights violations.  However, that didn't stop the United States from being extremely close to the Somozas.  In fact, when Anastasio Somoza Sr was shot in 1956, Eisenhower had his own medical staff flown out to treat Somoza.  Aww, besties!"

 

Alternatively, instead of that explanation, I could've just

conveyed how awful he was by showing you a picture of him with that mustache 

Basically, the Somoza Dynasty was the type of regime you'd see in a dystopian novel.

Gioconda Belli opposed the Somoza Dynasty, but she didn't have to do anything about it.  She wasn't one of the people living in the slums of the city or working the land out in the countryside.  She grew up in privilege, in an upper middle class suburb in Managua, the nation's capital.  Her parents were from high society.  In fact, long before becoming a revolutionary, Belli spent a lot of her early years resisting the conservative, high-society values she grew up around.

Her family didn't like the Somozas, but her parents didn't actually do anything to resist his regime.  This isn't to condemn them, because resisting a dictator who has a love for violent repression is easier said than done.  Belli grew up relatively shielded from the Somoza's violence, but still opposed the regime.

Above I mentioned that she was also a mother.  This was no random detail; it guided everything she did.  As she explained in her memoirs, after first meeting Sandinistas through her work, she first started working with them precisely because she was a mother.  She felt strongly that she owed it to her kids to fight for a better world, so that "[her daughter] wouldn't have to do the work that [she] was not willing to do"* in fighting the Somozas.  It was love that compelled Belli to become a revolutionary.

Look at these hooligans, trying to create a better world for their children!

Her transition towards becoming a revolutionary happened in tandem with her rise as a poet.  As she put it in her memoir: "Poetry was the result of exuberant, life-giving spirit.  Once I could assert my power and strength as a women I felt able to shake the impotence our dictatorship made me feel, with all the misery it had sown.  I could no longer feel that change was impossible."*

That's what makes her story noteworthy: how all of her identities intersected.  Her identity as a revolutionary grew alongside, and intertwined with, her identity as a woman, poet, and mother.  It's an idea that isn't new by any means, but beautifully stated by Belli throughout her memoir.

As a Sandinista, Belli essentially acted as a spy for the revolutionaries.  She maintained her life as a bourgeois housewife and office worker during the day, but met with different contacts in the Sandinistas and helped them organize at night (or whenever else she could make the time).

Eventually, however, the regime began to suspect her.  She found herself frequently tailed by Somoza's national guard when she drove, and her house often had patrol cars stationed outside.  Still she continued to assist the revolution whenever she could.  Eventually this caught up with her in 1975, but since she was wealthy, she ended up in exile rather than dead.

Then again, even affluent voices of dissent weren't safe, even non-violent/non-revolutionary ones.

Even abroad, Belli still found ways to help out the revolution in her home country.  She acted as an ambassador of sorts, going to different countries to make a case for the Sandinista cause against the Somoza Dynasty and participating in Sandinista solidarity marches in these countries.  This continued until her return to the country 1979, just before the Sandinistas won the Nicaraguan Revolution on July 17th.

Her work wasn't done after the revolution's victory, however.  After the FSLN won and established a socialist democracy in Nicaragua, the FSLN transitioned from a revolutionary force to a political party.  She served as the party's international press liaison beginning in 1982 and the director of State Communications in 1984 after the FSLN as a party won the 1984 elections that international observers deemed to be fair.

Unfortunately for Nicaragua, Reagan became president shortly after the Somoza Dynasty was overthrown.  He funded right wing terrorists, made up largely of National Guard members of the Somoza regime, to wage war against Nicaragua.  Belli helped organize against these counter-revolutionary forces, known as the Contras.

Unfortunately, while the Contras weren't strong enough to defeat the FSLN, the backing of the US allowed them to hold on long enough to devastate a country already recovering from the Nicaraguan Revolution.  The fighting tore Nicaragua apart, and a demoralized population voted against FSLN candidate Daniel Ortega for moderate candidate Violetta Chamorro in 1990 after the Reagan/Bush administrations promised to end support for the Contras and the embargo against Nicaragua if Chamorro was chosen.  Unlike the 1984 elections, which had an electric air of excitement and optimism to them, there was "a sense of mourning" after Chamorro's victory, though Belli makes the point that Chamorro "turned out to be a maternal figure whose simple words cradled and consoled the divided, broken country"* during her presidency.

Belli has since lived in both Nicaragua and the United States, having fell in love with and married an NPR reporter from the United States.  She hasn't been afraid to criticize different aspects and people of the FSLN in the years since, either.  Especially former/current president Daniel Ortega, who many allege is an opportunist who is a Sandinista in name only.

Apparently with terrible mustaches comes terrible leadership.

To this day Belli still organizes, though she spends more time as a writer and speaker.  Even with everything she has experienced, she remains an optimist.  Her memoir ends with one of the most beautiful, insightful passages I've ever seen, and I'd like to share it with you:

"I dare say, after the life I have lived, that there is nothing quixotic or romantic in wanting to change the world.  It is possible.  It is the age-old vocation of all humanity.  I can't think of a better life than one dedicated to passion, to dreams, to the stubbornness that defies chaos and disillusionment.  Our world, filled with possibilities, is and will be the result of the efforts offered up by us, its inhabitants.  Just as life was a consequence of trial and error, the social organization that brings us the full realization of our potential as a species will issue from the ebb and flow of struggles we jointly take across the globe.

The future is a construct that is shaped in the present, and that is why to be responsible in the present is the only way of taking serious responsibility for the future.  What is important is not the fulfillment of all one's dreams, but the stubborn determination to continue dreaming.  We will have grandchildren, and they will have children too.  The world will continue, and whether we know it or not, we are deciding its course every day.

My deaths, my dead, were not in vain.  This is a relay race to the end of time.  In the United States, just as in Nicaragua, I am the same Quixota who learned through life's battles that defeat can be as much of an illusion as victory."

 *All quotes drawn from her excellent memoir "The Country Under My Skin"

Immortal Technique and Latin American History

Some things in life come full circle.

I first heard Immortal Technique when I was in high school.  His message was radical and his style was confrontational, but his lyrics had a lot of interesting insights.  You could tell from his songs he had a clear grasp of what he was talking about.  When I first listened to his music, I started to question a lot about society in a way that normal sources about politics don't give you the chance to.  Before I had only thought about individual political issues in a very Democrat vs Republican sort of way.  After listening to Tech, thoughts about how society is structured, why we have the policies we do, and who benefits from said structures and policies began to influence the way I analyzed the world.  Peppered throughout these songs are references to historical events, about which I wasn’t educated at the time.

Now, in just under two weeks, I’ll be graduating with a bachelor’s degree in International Studies from UC Irvine.  In our major you have to choose a particular region to specialize in and I chose The Americas, which is essentially Latin America and the Caribbean (as well as Canada).  During my time I’ve learned a lot about Latin American history, particularly during the 20^th Century; to a less comprehensive extent, I’ve learned about other places, as well.

Now when I listen to Immortal Technique, I nod along just like before, but also with a decent understanding of many of the references he makes in his music.  Because I strongly believe education should be free and knowledge should be shared, I want to take a moment to explain some of the historical allusions Immortal Technique makes in the opening lines of the song “Death March” from his album The Third World.

The lines:

Invasion and rampant monetary inflation

That brought us all to the footsteps of this nation

Peruvians, Haitians, Ecuadorians

Nicaraguans, Colombians, Salvadorians

They call us “terrorists” after they ruined our countries

Funding right wing paramilitary monkeys

Tortured the populace, then blamed the communists

Your lies are too obvious, propaganda monotonous

How is that for a bold opening to a song?  Obviously, there is quite a lot to break down in just these eight lines alone.  Essentially what these lines reference is the role of the United States in Latin America during the Cold War.  Here I will give an overview of that time period, and then give a specific example in the geopolitical history of Nicaragua during the 20th Century.

Latin America

Before we get into Latin America during the Cold War, it’s important to give it at least some historical context.  Hopefully, y’all know that the Spanish and Portuguese colonized most of what we now call Latin America, hence all that Spanish and Portuguese speaking.  If not, holy shit!  Please go to wherever you went to high school and demand an apology from your history teachers.

Most countries in Latin America gained independence during 1800s, but it’s important to note what kind of independence they received.  The independence movements during this time were led predominantly by wealthy people of European descent born on Latin American soil, who felt they deserved to be running their own countries instead of being bossed around by the Spanish and Portuguese in Europe.  These independence movements tended either to not reach out to poor and indigenous communities or, if they did, tended to offer a lot of false promises.  Many of these communities didn’t see too many gains during these times of new found independence, if any, and there was plenty of brutal, authoritative rule to go around while leaders tried to consolidate power.

Through the late 1800s and early 1900s, the United States moved into a lot of these countries and set up shop.  They used cheap labor (often coerced through labor drafts by the government of the host country, who felt they’d also benefit from this labor exploitation) for farming and natural resources, such as bananas in Guatemala with the United Fruit Company and the copper mines in Chile with Anaconda and Kennecott.  Meanwhile, policies displaced poor and indigenous communities so that, even if they weren’t “technically” forced to work due to labor drafts, they would still have little options left but to work in poor conditions for poor pay.

To put it mildly, this created a lot of unrest.

Here at United Fruit Company, we grow our bananas with only the freshest of human tears!

During this time, the United States fought in the World Wars and emerged a world superpower.  Shortly thereafter the Cold War swung into effect and “communist” was the worst thing you could be labeled.  This was true not only for those in the United States, but for people, groups, movements, and regimes in Latin America, too, as well as other places around the world.  And oooooh boy, the label communist was thrown around like self-pity and misogyny on an MRA forum.

Marxism had substantial appeal to a lot of populations in Latin America, from peasants to urban workers to students.  In addition, there were a lot of people, groups, movements, and regimes that weren't communists, but advocated/passed leftist policies and were therefore assumed to be communist by the United States.  During this time, the United States CIA was responsible for various actions in the name of stopping communism.

The most notorious among these actions was the funding, arming, and training of right wing militias to either (1)initiate military coups to replace popular governments with military juntas or (2)prevent groups perceived as communist from coming to power.  These plans had varying levels of success, but each managed to wreck lives, communities, and economies.  Other measures taken by the CIA included propaganda campaigns, funding candidates viewed as "favorable", assassination plots (some of which read like hilarious Wile E Coyote plots), and even supporting mildly progressive reforms to appease people.

It's important to note that in addition to the anti-communist fervor, these actions were also taken to protect US fiscal interests.  For instance, the 1954 Operation PBSUCCESS coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatelama was initiated after Ley 900, a bill in 1952 that appropriated unused land from large estates (fun fact: they gave compensation based on claimed values the companies put on their taxes, which many had purposefully undervalued to lower their tax rates) and gave it to peasants.

The United Fruit Company was hit hard by this, and the United States went scorched earth on the Arbenz government.  This ended what is now called the Ten Years of Spring in Guatemala.  This period started with a popular, mostly non-violent revolution in 1944, and ended with the 1954 coup.  This initiated a series of unstable military governments that spiraled into a civil war, which lasted from 1960 all the way until 1996, also known as the year Space Jam was released. 

 

Arguably our nation's most significant cultural milestone.

Now that we've established the over-arching time period Immortal Technique was discussing, lets gets specific here.  Lets talk about Nicaragua.

 

Nicaragua

Nicaragua gained its independence in 1821, but instability and harsh leadership were there in abundance.  Starting in 1909, the United States occupied Nicaragua, including stationing marines there in 1912 to protect US interests.  There was a lot of resentment and resistance from the majority of the Nicaraguan population during this occupation.  This included an armed resistance led by Augusto Cesar Sandino, who became a national hero of Nicaragua (and is still considered one to this day).

The occupation lasted until 1933.  At that point the United States withdrew, but established the National Guard, led by Anastasio Somoza Sr and trained by the US so that they would be loyal to US interests.  Soon after, Somoza ordered the assassination of Sandino in 1934 and came to power in a rigged election in 1937.  This launched the beginning of the Somoza Dynasty, which included Anastasio Somoza Sr and his two sons Luis and Anastasio Jr.

Their reign was of a right wing military dictatorship that were responsible for numerous human rights violations.  However, that didn't stop the United States from being extremely close to the Somozas.  In fact, when Anastasio Somoza Sr was shot in 1956, Eisenhower had his own medical staff flown out to treat Somoza.  Aww, besties!

Resistance against the Somoza Dynasty came in many forms, but one particular group was the Frente Sandinista Liberacion Nacional (National Sandinista Liberation Front), also known simply as the Sandinistas.  They were a leftist guerilla group that rebelled against the Somozas, taking inspiration from the name and cause of Augusto Sandino.  Not completely united by ideology (many had different visions for what idea change looked like, as well as how drastic steps toward that vision had to be), they nevertheless agreed the Somozas had to go and a new socialist democracy had to be put in its place.

During the time of the Somoza Dynasty, there were two major events where shit got real, and it drew quite a bit of negative opinion towards Nicaragua's government while gaining sympathy for the Sandinistas.  The first was an earthquake that absolutely devastated the capital, Managua, in 1972.  In the aftermath, Anastacio Jr (who was now in charge) and his peeps siphoned international aide meant for the victims, either keeping it for themselves or selling it to the citizens of Managua at incredibly high prices.

 

Ain't I a scamp? (that was responsible for the entirely preventable pain, health complications, homelessness and even deaths of thousands upon thousands of people whose aide from the international community I stole)

The second event happened in 1978 with the assassination of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro (while newer investigations cast doubt as to whether or not Somoza was actually responsible, at the time Somoza had already been responsible for enough kidnappings and assassinations that most people assumed by default he was responsible). Chamorro was the editor of the Nicaraguan newspaper La Prensa, by far the biggest news source in the country that wasn't afraid to be critical of the Somozas.  Whats important to note about this is that Chamorro wasn't a Sandinista and didn't advocate armed struggle- his resistance was strictly limited to non-violent activism and his newspaper.  When he was killed, it became a tipping point where many Nicaraguans felt that non-violent opposition was no long an option.

The Sandinistas were formed in the 60s, but really began to take off during the 70s, thanks in large part to the above mentioned debacles.  After almost two decades of struggle, the Sandinistas took power in 1979.  Immediately they began healthcare campaigns, literacy campaigns, setting up a democratic electoral system, and other such progressive reforms.  In 1984, elections were had and judged by international observers to be free and fair.  While the Sandinistas weren't perfect, they initiated a democratic system, were bringing much needed reforms, and enjoyed popular support for overthrowing the Somoza Dynasty.  Unfortunately, this wouldn't last.

When the Sandinistas took power, the Carter administrations goal was to at least have a working relationship with Nicaragua.  However, when Reagan came, everything changed.  His hardline anti-communist stance caused him to support the counterrevolutionary forces (Contras) in Nicaragua.  These were right wing terrorists made up mostly of former Somoza folks that were trained and armed by the US CIA, most of which happened in neighboring Honduras.  When Congress banned US support of the Contras in 1983, Reagan obviously decided to heed this ruling and respect the balance of powers- haha, sike!  He sold weapons to Iran and used the profits to continue supporting the Contras (this was known as the Iran-Contra Affair when it was discovered in 1986).

Hi, I'm Ronald Reagan.  Many people inexplicably remember me as being a champion of small government, despite the fact that I blatantly ignored Congressional orders and funded an illegal war.  But hey, I was pretty charming!

As you can imagine, the Contra Wars devastated Nicaragua.  Schools, hospitals, agricultural land, and more were wrecked during the fighting.  Meanwhile, funds that could have gone towards fixing these areas were instead spent on fighting the Contras.  The infrastructure that the Sandinistas had begun to build was crumbling before it even had the chance to prove itself and the government had to enact austerity measures.  Because the United States also tried its best to isolate Nicaragua from the international economy as an addition opposition tactic, mixed with all the aforementioned hardships they were also facing, Nicaragua faced severe economic troubles that included an alarming rate of inflation.

When the elections of 1990 hit, Violetta Chamorro (widow of Pedro Chamorro) won the national election.  Many Nicaraguans believed that the fighting would stop if the Sandinistas were no longer in power, and international observers view this as the primary reason the Sandinistas didn't win reelection.  The United States stepped down support of the Contras, and soon after the Cold War was over.  Of course, the devastating violence and poverty brought on by US intervention didn't disappear along with the Cold War, and many countries are still struggling with these problems today (which have of course been exacerbated by the drug cartels/war on drugs, but that is a topic for another day).

So there you have it.  Regardless of your opinion of Immortal Technique, the man has quite the understanding of history and makes it known through many of his verses.  One could write an entire textbook about all the references he makes in his music.  In the meantime, I hope this starting point gives both an insight into Immortal Technique's historical credentials and insight about Latin America during the Cold War.