Confessions centers around Perkins’ career as an “economic hit man” in the ’70s and ’80s, a position whereby governments in underdeveloped nations were made to accept massive loans from organizations such as the World Bank for infrastructure improvements and other public service projects. Once in debt, those nations would then be willing to accept contracts with American companies, who would exploit the countries’ natural resources for their own gain. Such nations would also become politically indebted to the U.S., thus furthering American political influence around the world during the Cold War.

Robert McNamara is remembered by most for his contributions to the Vietnam War, but according to the book, he played a major role in this expansion of the U.S. “corporatocracy” as well:

McNamara was a frequent visitor to our discussion groups — in absentia, of course. We all knew about his meteoric rise to fame, from manager of planning and financial analysis at Fort Motor Company in 1949 to Ford’s president in 1960, the first company head selected from outside the Ford family. Shortly after that, Kennedy appointed him secretary of defense. …

As we sat around the table discussing world events, we were especially fascinated by McNamara’s role as president of the World Bank, a job he accepted soon after leaving his post as secretary of defense. Most of my friends focused on the fact that he symbolized what was popularly known as the military-industrial complex. He had held the top position in a major corporation, in a government cabinet, and now at the most powerful bank in the world. Such an apparent breach in the separation of powers horrified many of them; I may have been the only one among us who was not in the least surprised.

I see now that Robert McNamara’s greatest and most sinister contribution to history was to jockey the World Bank into becoming an agent of global empire on a scale never before witnessed.

As Perkins points out, this process of economic empire-building began in 1953, when the U.S. organized a coup to oust Iran’s prime minister and replace him with the Western-friendly Shah. In 1979 the Shah’s reign ended with the Iranian Revolution and the appointment of the anti-American Ayatollah Kohmeini. Today the massive “Green Revolution” protests in Tehran and the growing threat of Iranian nuclear weapons are direct descendants of those earlier events.

The current crisis in Honduras is also at least indirectly related to the empire-building described in Confessions. American foreign policy relating to Central and South America during the Cold War was driven by the desire to not only extend our economic influence over the region but also our political influence, a clear extension of the Monroe Doctrine. As such, Marxist revolutions such as the ones in Cuba, Nicaragua, and El Salvador became direct threats to the U.S. and our economic interests. If ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya had gotten his way, he likely would’ve led that nation down the same anti-American path as Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

In my earlier blog post, I quoted Roger Noriega, the former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in his argument for removing Zelaya. Such a position, it could be argued, stems from a vision of Latin America eerily reminiscent of the corporatocracy described by Perkins.

According to Tom Barry at the International Relations Center:

In a February 2006 report entitled “Two Visions of Energy in the Americas,” Noriega warns Latin American and Caribbean countries against going down the path of energy outlaws who violate the laws of the free market—pointing to Venezuela and Bolivia. In his essay, Noriega advocates that corporations and governments “can and should work together to foster genuine growth and development in the hemisphere that serves both the bottom line and the moral imperative of helping raise millions out of poverty through the sound stewardship of natural resources.” …

What is more, Noriega encourages “Western energy companies” to “use their capital and technical expertise as levers to encourage countries in Latin America and the Caribbean to adopt clear and fair policies that make investments safe and sound.” Noriega rightly notes that there is political sentiment in Latin America and the Caribbean that represents a “setback for market principles” and constitutes a “vision of energy in the Americas” that may run counter to the expectations and interests of the United States and U.S. energy corporations.

Another example of Robert McNamara’s legacy as it relates to Iran and Honduras is the Iran-Contra scandal which became public in 1986. Through complex covert operations, the U.S. sold arms to anti-Khomeini forces in Iran and then used the money from those sales to fund anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua, with Honduras serving as a base of operations for the CIA.

My point is, these various events occurring around the world today are not isolated events. History doesn’t exist in a bubble. The consequences of decades-old decisions are still feeling felt today, just as today’s decisions will have consequences for decades more to come. While I don’t think we should necessarily continue the Cold War-era empire-building described in John Perkins’ book, I don’t think it’s wise to fully retreat from those policies either, as the results of kowtowing to despots like Chavez, Kim Jong-Il, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be disastrous.

Instead, I agree with George Santayana: “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

Previously:
Choosing sides in Honduras
Obama and the end of the Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine drove much of America’s foreign policy in Latin America through the 20th Century, but that may be coming to an end, if President Obama’s stance on the recent upheaval in Honduras is any indication.

Obama should have welcomed the removal of Zelaya from Honduras. Zelaya had recently sided with the Iranian ayatollahs in their suppression of a democratic election: no wonder he demanded readmission to Honduras in the name of God. His illegal attempt to defy the constitution through a plebiscite his supporters were tooled-up to rig was condemned by the Honduran Congress, the Supreme Court, the Attorney General and the chief Electoral Tribunal. …

But Obama has a soft spot for socialists, hence his insane cosying-up to the Bolivarian fruitcakes. He has invented a brand new kind of foreign policy: supporting regimes that are violently anti-American. Call it neo-masochism. Obama has reversed the Monroe Doctrine as well as the definition of “democracy”. In supporting the megalomaniac dictators who are trying to drag Latin America into the year 1917, he is mouthing the same claptrap as Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, president of the UN General Assembly and former lieutenant of Ortega in the Sandinista dictatorship, and Miguel Insulza, Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS) and Fidel Castro’s champion.

It remains to be seen how the crisis in Honduras will play out or what the repercussions will be for that nation and throughout Latin America. But whatever the outcome, Obama’s lack of support for the Honduran government is alarming, and coupled with his equally flaccid stance against nations like Iran and North Korea, the position of the U.S. has been significantly weakened, not just in the western hemisphere but worldwide.

Previously:
Choosing sides in Honduras

Zelaya’s removal from office was prompted by his pushing of a referendum which would’ve allowed him to serve a second term in office, something not allowed under Honduras’s constitution. Supporters of the coup argue they were only siding with the rule of law. But the international community, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration, have sided with Zelaya, ordering that he be restored to power.

Who’s right?

Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the George W. Bush administration, argues that the Honduran government acted correctly in removing Zelaya, a “capricious blowhard” whose friends include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro.

Zelaya’s self-serving lawlessness was ignored completely by OAS leadership and, as far as one can tell, by every government in the region that now dares to pass judgment on Honduras’ constitutional order. The feckless regional diplomats who have failed to confront undemocratic caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras are complicit in their abuses. Today, they have neither the credibility nor moral authority to pass judgment on those desperate patriots who act to defend their freedom, in Honduras or anywhere else.

Noriega’s position shouldn’t come as a surprise. He is an ardent supporter of free market oil and energy investments in Latin America by American companies, a vision of a U.S.-backed “corporatocracy” that reads straight out of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Such a vision requires fairly weak but stable Central and South American governments who are friendly to the United States, exactly the opposite of those led by Chavez and Castro. By backing Zelaya’s attempt at extending his power beyond constitutional limits, U.S. corporate interests in Honduras could be greatly damaged.

Corporate interests aside, however, the reality is that the Honduran Congress and military acted within constitutional guidelines by removing Zelaya, an act also backed by that nation’s Supreme Court. Therefore, the call to return Zelaya to power makes absolutely no sense.

Imagine if this had happened in the United States. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried to push through a referendum that would’ve allowed him to serve unlimited presidential terms, something disallowed by the 22nd Amendment. Had he then been impeached and ultimately removed from office, would the international community still expect him to be returned to the Oval Office until his term expired? Of course not! So why is it demanding that of Zelaya?

President Obama called the removal of Zelaya a step backward from the “enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Latin America.” Yet it was actually the democratically-elected Congress that was following the constitution, not Zelaya. If Obama really believed in upholding Latin America’s “democratic traditions”, then he would be siding with the Honduran Congress, not with the likes of Hugo Chavez.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, supporting Zelaya is “one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.” At some point, that appeasement must end. It may be too late for Venezuela and Cuba, but it’s not too late for Honduras.

Update:
This editorial explains that while removing Zelaya wasn’t the government’s only choice, it was by far the best one:

The Honduran institutions had only three options. The first was do nothing and let things follow their course leading to an irreversible situation of an established regime administered in perpetuity by Chavez and Zelaya. The second was to try to get rid of the president for willingly, which would have allowed sufficient time Zelaya to request support for the Venezuelan military, making Honduras the scene of a bloody war. They opted for the third option, an unexpected and bloodless military coup to prevent Zelaya to consummate his plans to remain in power.