The El Salvador inheritance
Richard West
The marching song of the US Marine Corps halls of , Montezuma . .', but in fact they have never gone into Mexico City, only the outskirts of the country. However, Marines have on occasions invaded and occupied for a number of years some of the smaller Caribbean countries such as Nicaragua, the Republic of Panama, Haiti, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. The Left, then and now, accused the Marines of acting as bully boys of commercial interests; and the same thing was said by Major-General Smedley D. Butler of the Marines themselves: helped make Mexico and especially Tamp'Co safe for American oil interests in 1914, I helped make Haiti and Cuba decent places for the National City Bank boys to collect revenue . . I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903.'
American politicians have always been more discreet about their policy in the Caribbean, emphasising strategic interest rather than commerce. It was President James Monroe in 1823 who uttered the famous doctrine that 'the American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European powers'. This Monroe Doctrine was aimed at England which then was the Principal enemy of the young United States. As late as 1896 our two countries almost went to war over a border dispute between Venezuela and British Guiana, nnw Guyana, the country which last week begins: `From the kicked out our cricket team.
The debate on the Monroe Doctrine produced some of the first hints of a more aggressive United States policy to the Latin American countries. For example John Quincy Adams wrote of the Doctrine: 'Nobody was its author. It incorporated the successive experiences of American 'diplomacy from the epoch of Washington . . . It resulted inevitably from the continental expansion of the United States: it was the voice of manifest destiny.' That ominous phrase was to echo throughout the century. Even the liberal ex-President Jefferson wrote to Monroe; `We must ask ourselves first if we desire for our Confederation any or some of the Spanish provinces. . I have always considered Cuba as the most interesting addition we could make to our system of states. The domination of this island, together with the Florida cape . . . would fill the measure of our welfare'.
The United States acquired Florida as well as the south-western states by purchase from France and Spain; after Cuba and Puerto Rico were taken by war, only the latter was held as a commonwealth, though Cuba was occupied for a number of years and remained a kind of client state until Castro rose to power. Although it has kept Puerto Rico, the United States has never been eager to add one of the Latin American states to the Union, especially a state of non-white Catholics. The two big oil-producing countries of theregion – Venezuela and Mexico – are too powerful to be bullied and have to be dealt with diplomatically. The Canal Zone in Panama has so far protected America's interest there. Most of the other smaller states of the Caribbean have been dependent economically on the United States. The five little countries of central America north of Panama are what have been called the Banana Republics, although Nicaragua does not produce many bananas, and El Salvador produces none at all. The epithet, which implies corruption and turbulence, does not apply to Costa Rica which is a placid democracy and used not to apply to El Salvador, which once was a pleasant country. But the term was fitting to Honduras, where once I was told by a man from the United Fruit Company: `In Honduras, if you're United Fruit, you're an exploiter, a bad guy. One day I said to them "Let's drop the diplomatic language. Listen, United Fruit could get along very well without Honduras hut Honduras couldn't get along without United Fruit".'
When the US Marines went into one of these countries during the first three decades of the century, they were normally acting as bailiffs to get security for the country's debt; and always they brought better government than the country en1 joyed under its own incompetent and corrupt politicians. It was not till the 1950s that the United States intervened in a Latin American country to try to get rid of a government because it was left-wing, and even in this case, Guatemala, commerce was mixed with politics. The United Fruit Company, whose lands had been expropriated by the government of Arbenz, worked openly for his overthrow. The CIA was the instrument of its revenge. It was unfortunate for the United States that its Secretary of Mate, John Foster Dulles, had been a member of the law firm that drew up the UFC's pre-war agreement with Guatemala; and Allen Dulles, then head of the CIA, had once been president of United Fruit. It was one of those coincidences that attracts notice.
The CIA coup in Guatemala can now be seen as counter-productive, even disastrous; the peasantry have been in a state of uproar since. However this should not be taken to mean that interference is always mistaken: it worked in tKe Dominican Republic. In April 1965 a group of left-wing military, backed by the working-class of Santo Domingo, the capital, rose in revolt against a right-wing government backed by the army command. When the Left thought they were losing they asked for help from the United States, which did not however send in troops until the Rightists seemed to be losing. When I went there early in 1966 there were frequent riots with stonethrowing and some shooting; but by and large the troops of the 82nd Airborne Division had things under control and did a good job of policing the country. When elections were held in June 1966, the mildly left-wing candidate lost to the mildly rightwing candidate, who brought the country back to a measure of prosperity. Both sides wanted the US Army to stay. Their little success story was soon forgotten amidst the anguish of Vietnam.