Overthrow

As a lay student of American history, I've always been fascinated with how our country has conducted itself overseas in the wake of Manifest Destiny. While I have picked up an article or analysis on particular U.S. interventions here or there, I have never come across a holistic treatment of the issue - until now. The wait has been worth it."Overthrow" was not only painstakingly researched, but also written in the tone of historical fiction - although it is historical fact. Kinzer is a great story teller, inviting his reader to pull up a chair and watch the drama and intrigue unfold at close range - all the better to be revulsed. Some wonderful asides - for example, the replication of the John Foster Dulles study on a Texas campus, pickled for posterity - add great color. The author's segmentation of his narrative, allowing the reader to get a brief (perhaps all too brief) snapshot of the impact of American intervention on a given set of countries and form his or her conclusions, is also quite helpful. And there are some occasional surprises by the author, such as when he chides JFK for failing to lead his brain trust to an obvious conclusion regarding what to do (or not to) about the Diem regime and when he pays George W. Bush the backhanded compliment of stating that he has engaged in nation-building (cleaning up after one's mess) more than many of his interventionist predecessors.Kinzer does a fine job expounding on his premise that corporate interests play a large role in driving U.S. foreign policy and explaining why the axiom "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can often prove fallacious. He does an even better job striking an important cautionary note regarding how Washington's rationale for intervention is deftly wrapped in the cloth of patriotism and The Mission of Democracy and signed, sold and delivered to the public.By and large, Kinzer takes a clear left-of-center view of things. The reader who is not a card-carrying liberal will need to weigh the author's words carefully. Kinzer seems overgenerous at times in ascribing American democratic ideals to virtually all of the leaders who found themselves at the other end of Washington's power games, and in fact some of his background on these leaders (land redistribution, nationalization, Czech weapons imports, etc.) weaken that assertion. Some readers may also quibble with Kinzer's definition of what is equitable in the world of business affairs (his endorsement of a strict 50-50 split of revenues from oil drilling in Iran begs the question of the role of Western technology and expertise in getting the black gold out of the earth). And then there is the issue of the historical quotes: are they as accurate as they read or must the reader assume them to be the best paraphrase of a conversation historically available, even though direct quotation marks are used?Despite these reservations, there's no denying that "Overthrow" is a fast-moving catalogue of many of America's gaffes, sins and self-delusions, foisted upon the world stage with serious and far-reaching consequences.We Americans are still paying a price. It's just that, until this book, most of us didn't know it.

Most Americans are outraged by Russian interference in our 2016 election. That’s because we hold dear our right to self-determination without another country determining the outcome. On the other hand, the USA has a long history of not showing the same kind of respect for the self-determination of other nations that we expect for ourselves. This book describes in shocking detail the fourteen times our country has overthrown legitimate governments – some duly elected – around the world. This is not dry history, however; Kinzer’s retelling reads like a suspense novel.The first instance came in 1893 when the American ambassador in Hawaii conspired with American planters to overthrow the native government of Queen Liliuokalani. It took 100 years for the U.S. government to recognize the error of its ways. A resolution passed Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1993 states that Congress, “apologizes to native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom on Jan. 17, 1893,” and for the subsequent “deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination.”Unfortunately, there has been no similar apology to the peoples of Iran, Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Guatamala, Vietnam and Puerto Rico. Hawaii is the 50th state. If Puerto Rico ever becomes the 51st, perhaps then another apology will be forthcoming.Following Hawaii, the second overthrow came at the end of the Spanish-American War, when the McKinley administration decided to take control of several Spanish colonies, instead of liberating them to govern themselves. The “consent of the governed” did not matter to most Americans when it came to Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Filipinos.Before Congress agreed to declare war on Spain, the Teller Amendment had to be added to gain sufficient support. That Amendment declares that “the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent. The United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island.” Once the war ends. the USA intends “to leave the government and control of the island to its people.”Cuban rebels had been actively fighting Spanish rule three years, and they expected to gain their promised independence fighting alongside the Americans. Nonetheless, the Teller Amendment was quickly discarded at the end of the war as McKinley announced that the USA would rule Cuba.The new policy was embodied in the Platt Amendment of 1901, “a crucial document in the history of American foreign policy,” because versions of “plattismo” were subsequently applied to many nations in Central America and the Caribbean. Under this Amendment, which was adopted with only Republican votes, the USA agreed to end its occupation of Cuba as soon as Cubans accepted a constitution giving the U.S. the rights to maintain military bases, to supervise the treasury, and “the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence or the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of property and individual liberty.”Cubans weren’t the only Latin Americans denied self-determination. Similar domination happened to Nicaragua and Honduras, initially to protect the monopolies of a handful of American banana corporations. This interference led to generations of dictators, conflict and death. To this day, Honduras has the world’s highest murder rate, in part due to American policies.The greatest tragedy happened to the Philippines. The Filipino guerilla leader, Emilio Aguinaldo, understood that his people were promised their independence by Admiral Dewey, who later swore he made no such commitment. The USA paid $20 million to Spain for the islands. Meanwhile, the rebels had elected an assembly, produced a constitution, and proclaimed the independent Republic of the Philippines in 1899, with Aguinaldo as president. The new government was determined to defend its independence. McKinley had other plans.The war to suppress Philippine independence lasted three years and led to tens of thousands of deaths. Recent estimates put the total at 250,000. U.S. troops used torture and massacre of civilians suspected of aiding the guerillas. The New York Post wrote that American troops “have been pursuing a policy of wholesale and deliberate murder.” This war was one of the worst episodes in Filipino history. Filipinos were denied their independence until 1946.The first CIA overthrow of a foreign government was in Iran in 1953. The second came the following year in Guatamala. Both countries had democratically elected governments, and both were forcibly replaced by dictators – the Shah in one, and a former army officer in the other. The long-term effects were tragic.The next target for overthrow was in 1963 when JFK decided to remove the Diem regime that the USA had installed in South Vietnam. A friend of America, Diem was murdered and the war was lost anyway.Chile was the next target. The CIA had interfered in elections there since 1964 to prevent a socialist from winning. After Salvador Allende won, the CIA fomented his overthrow in 1973, installing a brutal dictator, Gen. Pinochet.Other targets were the governments in Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989, and Iraq in 2003. Kinzer compares George W. Bush to William McKinley: both believed they were morally justified, and neither anticipated the deadly insurgencies that followed in the Philippines and in Iraq.“Do as I say, not as I do,” isn’t persuasive for children, much less to the rest of the world. American officials frequently assert the right to intervene militarily or otherwise whenever and where ever it is deemed in the American interest to do so, even to protect the interest of American corporations. “In almost every case,” writes Kinzer, “overthrowing the government of a foreign country, has, in the end, led both that country and the United States to grief.” Consequently, Americans should recognize the sources of anti-American resentment, and be less hypocritical in denouncing other nations who follow our example. If it’s wrong for others, then by what principle of international law is it justified when we do it? ###

I have the benefit of hindsight in reviewing this book as it’s been out for 15+ years before I picked it up, so I’m trying to factor that in to my review.What I liked about the book is the how the aurthor presented the historical facts without trying to make excuses for America, which had to be difficult at the time the book came out.What I disliked was that there was a certain choppiness to the flow that makes me think the publisher came back to him and asked for more words OR an editor asked for a situation to be explained differently and the author either added fluff OR added paragraphs that basically repeated themselves. Hopefully I’m explaining that in a way that’s understandable. Another negative is the author’s attempts to “Monday Morning QB” what might have been for all the countries we staged coups on. There are a ton of variables that go into that game, so just assuming the country would have been closer to a better outcome had we not intervened isn’t very useful. This can clearly be seen now (2025) in his opinion that had we used more troops in Afghanistan, we could have had a better outcome. Looking at that war after 20+ years of useless conflict and then a disastrous withdrawal, that obviously wasn’t true….but again, I have the benefit of time that he didn’t have when writing that section of the book.Overall, a great book that should be required reading. We have a sordid history that we tend to try not to highlight so books like this are definitely needed to uncover the real truths.