1.21.23 | The US Government's Dark History of Intervention in Latin America

This week on Twitter I provided two "history lessons" that covered the FBI's COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) and the subsequent Church Committee, which was responsible for investigating and exposing the FBI's nefarious actions and surveillance of high-profile US Citizens.

COINTELPRO was just one example of the FBI turning its power back on American citizens, as they carried out covert operations to manipulate and control public thought. At the time, the federal agency would compile stacks of newspapers and magazines from across the country to better understand the political climate, and how best to combat the opinions they disagreed with.

Using false labels and misleading pretenses, often declaring individuals or groups “communist,” the FBI repeatedly exhibited clear overreach of their power and their actions constituted violations of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and more.

It was not until the Church Committee of 1975 that these practices were exposed to the public. Based on the available technology of that time, one can only surmise that modern day back-room intelligence operations are far more sophisticated today, and have become even further all-encompassing.

COINTELPRO History Lesson (thread):

Church Committee History Lesson (thread):

The examples above only expose what our government has done within our borders.

Therefore, in today’s installment I am going to dive further into malfeasance by the US government abroad, with a focus specifically on involvement in Latin America. I feel this deep dive into American history and foreign policy is critical to understand just how deeply our figureheads are willing to go to protect profits and special interests. As you will learn, the propensity to deceive, overthrow entire democratic governments, and lead to utter destruction of civilizations is alarming, yet well documented.

The Orbit has grown to almost 200 subscribers! Please consider sending this to a person that may enjoy it, to help us continue growing.

With the recent “insurrection” in Brazil, it has been floated that the US may have had a hand in this country’s dissemination of information, or lack thereof. Could it be that US interventionism, public or not, played a part in the uprising of Brazil’s citizenry? Does the US government have an interest in who runs that country and if so, why? For now, these questions remain unanswered, but looking at a few examples in history, it will become clear that our own government is not the bastion of “democracy” we often claim to be. It is extremely likely that domestic corporations and our own economic development were major considerations in stoking this unrest.

The “storming of the Capitol” in Brasilia was strikingly similar, and many talking heads on cable news agreed, to the events of January 6th; yet another day in history that remains clouded in half-truths, suppressed information (14,000 hours of Capitol security footage remains to be released), and what was likely an intervention by the US intelligence agencies in an effort to further enflame and aggravate our population and protect “Big Government.”

1823: The Monroe Doctrine

In 1823, U.S. President James Monroe issued the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that Latin America was within the United States' "sphere of influence," and that European powers were no longer allowed to colonize or interfere with the affairs of the region. Any attempt to do so would be seen as a sign of aggression toward the nation and the United States. This allowed the United States to intervene and impose its will on "America's backyard," and made foreign intervention acceptable, so long as it was the United States doing the intervening.

U.S. President John Tyler (1841-1845) cited the doctrine to justify seizing Texas in 1842, which prompted a Venezuelan newspaper to respond, saying: "Beware, brothers, the wolf approaches the lambs." Furthermore, the doctrine helped to underpin the first century of U.S. involvement overseas, making the United States a dominant player in the newly independent Americas.

1904: Roosevelt Corollary

Theodore Roosevelt is often credited with popularizing the phrase "speak softly and carry a big stick." This phrase is associated with his imperialistic foreign policy, the Roosevelt Corollary which amended the Monroe Doctrine, and became publicly known as the “Big Stick Ideology.” This policy essentially stated that the United States could intervene in any nation in the Western Hemisphere found guilty of "brutal wrongdoing." It essentially gave the U.S. a license to intervene in the region's internal affairs as it saw fit.

As a result of this policy, the US was able to intervene in Central America and the Caribbean and create several states that were essentially under US control. Roosevelt's famous quote is a reminder of the power that a strong foreign policy can have, especially when you have the military might of an up-and-coming world superpower. For decades, the Big Stick Policy was used as a cudgel to influence Latin American countries, regardless of if actual "brutal wrongdoing" was present or not.

1910-1920: The Mexican Revolution

The United States' intervention in the Mexican Revolution was ultimately a grave mistake. Believing that the revolution was harming commercial interests, our government quickly involved itself and helped elevate authoritarian General Victoriano Huerta to power. Huerta is considered one of the worst villains in Mexican history and the US was directly responsible for his rise.

When President Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913 and realized what was going on, yet again he set out to intervene, this time aiding Huerta's opponents. Alarmingly, but not surprising, the situation only got worse. A miscommunication during an arms transport resulted in 90 US casualties, for which the Mexicans promptly apologized for, yet the US proceeded to bomb the city of Veracruz, killing hundreds of innocent Mexican civilians.

It is evident that the US' involvement in Mexico's Revolution only caused more death and destruction than was necessary. Had the US not intervened, Huerta would never have been able to gain power and Wilson would not have felt the need to resort to such extreme measures. The US should have learned from this experience yet continues to make the same mistakes in foreign affairs still to this day.

1973: Coup in Chile

The US Government's blatant disregard for the will of the people of Chile was made clear in the 1973 Chilean Coup, as it was supported by the Nixon administration. This horrific military coup involved the bombing of La Moneda, the presidential palace of Chile, by the Chilean Air Force. As a result, the democratically elected President Salvador Allende was overthrown. This led to a 17-year dictatorship under U.S-backed Augusto Pinochet, who was head of the Chilean army at the time. The US not only supported Pinochet but welcomed him as they felt he would allow them back to do business as usual.

An estimated 35,000 people were abused, tortured, and killed during Pinochet's regime, and thousands of Chileans were driven into exile. However, his installment was done to clear the path for US corporations and banks to get back “their” property, which had been nationalized under the former President Allende. US based copper companies had been squeezing enormous profits out of Chilean mines before Allende’s democratic election, and the US saw his murder as an opportunity to get back to business in this country.

This story is not unique, as US intervention has often taken precedence over the spread of democracy. Profits have been prioritized over prosperity, and the use of force to install dictators has been commonplace. Unfortunately, this has been the trend throughout US history, and the Chilean Coup of 1973 serves as just another example of this.

1954: The Guatemalan United Fruit Company

The 1954 US-backed coup in Guatemala was orchestrated by the CIA with the support of the US government and the United Fruit Company (now known as Chiquita). The coup was a response to President Jacobo Guzmán's land redistribution program which would have resulted in large losses for the corporation. The CIA was given intelligence about President Guzmán's plans directly by the United Fruit Company and provided extensive funding, weapons, and paramilitary forces to support the coup.

The US, throught the involvement of the CIA, felt emboldened to intervene as they saw the United Fruit Company as a major economic partner. The US government felt the need to protect these special interests at the expense of the Guatamalen people's democratically elected leadership. Yet again, the US used the false label of "communism" as a justification to get involved.

The coup had a lasting, devastating impact on Guatemala, leading to a long period of political unrest, violence, and displacement of thousands of people. The new leadership, installed with the backing of the US government, was a repressive and murderous military dictatorship. This period of history is seen as a dark chapter for the nation and yet another example of US interventionism prioritizing special interests and profit over democracy.

The US government has a long and sordid history of meddling in Latin American affairs, and the evidence of this is clear. 

From the Monroe Doctrine to the Roosevelt Corollary, to the coups in Chile and Guatemala, the US has consistently sought to manipulate and control the region for its own interests, often at the expense of the citizens living there. This has created a culture of distrust between the US and Latin America, and it is highly likely that the same tactics are being employed today; both overseas and within our own borders. The US's foreign policy of "uplifting democracy" is often a facade, designed to mask its true intentions of control and domination, and the citizens of Latin America have historically been the ones to suffer some of the worst consequences.

It is critical to be aware of our past actions, and to remain vigilant in recognizing the propensity the US has for interference. It is all too easy to be fooled by the rhetoric of liberation. Could the US be involved in the recent "insurrection" of Brazil? And could our own government be behind the "insurrection" of January 6th?

I suppose we will need a new-age Church Committee to expose what has been going on. Thankfully, the Weaponization of Government Committee has been established by Republicans in the House of Representatives, and the initial indication is that much much more will soon come to light.

Stay tuned, and don’t forget to subscribe.