the tindog coffeehouse

In a blog post a couple of days ago about Honduras, I mentioned a book by John Perkins called Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.  Coincidentally, that same day it was announced that Robert McNamara, the former defense secretary in the Kennedy administration and a key figure in the book, had died.  It’s funny to think how McNamara is related to the events unfolding in Honduras, as well as the ongoing protests in Iran.

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

President Barack Hussein Obama (because he likes being called by his middle name now) delivered a lengthy speech in Cairo earlier today, in which he essentially apologized to the Muslim world for that whole “war on terror” thing and asked if we could be their BFF. (Emphasis mine.)

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. …

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity. …

Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. …

9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. …

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other. …

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Never mind for a minute the irony of Obama’s official surrendering to terrorism coming on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which thousands of brave Chinese citizens died standing up against terror.  The thing that strikes me most about Obama’s apologetic speech is how perfectly opposite it is compared to John F. Kennedy’s defiant “Ich bin ein Berliner” speech in 1963:

What is true of this city is true of Germany–real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.

Of course, Obama’s apology to the Muslim world didn’t just start with today’s speech.  In April, he said in a Turkish press conference that he doesn’t consider the United States “a Christian nation, a Jewish nation, or a Muslim nation.  We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

He then went on to make the preposterous claim in an interview with the French media that “if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”  (Actually, with an estimated 2.35 million Muslims in America, we rank 52nd in the world — not exactly what I would call “one of the largest.”)

Now, you may be asking, so what?  Why shouldn’t the United States try to mend the strained relationship with the Muslim world?  After all, George W. Bush made essentially the same argument when he addressed Congress on September 20, 2001:

I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world: We respect your faith.  It is practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends.  Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.  The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.  The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

The difference, though, between Bush’s statement and Obama’s is that President Bush wasn’t apologizing for the actions of the United States, and he never did throughout the remainder of his administration.  He wasn’t naïve enough to believe we could all just hold hands and get along, that if we asked nice enough that the bad guys would just put away their IEDs and dismantle their nuclear weapons.  He understood the necessity of standing firm against our enemies, even when those principles weren’t popular.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with reassuring the Muslim community that America desires peace with Islamic nations around the world.  But to sell out the integrity of the American people in hopes that we’ll be liked better is not only foolish, it is outright reckless and dangerous.

The Islamic terrorists of this world still want us dead.  They still want to destroy Israel.  While Obama was telling the world that we should all just follow the Golden Rule, Osama bin Laden was reiterating his commitment to “new long wars” with the U.S. in a new tape that aired on al Jazeera.

The point is that now is not the time for apologies.  Now is not the time to give in to Iran or North Korea or al Qaeda.  Now is not the time to “change course.”  If that means we’re not the most liked nation in the world, then so be it.  It’s a small price to pay for freedom and safety.