A lot people react very negatively when you point out the negative consequences of US actions in the world. One is likely to be accused of (if not vilified for) blaming the US. But what's the alternative to recognizing that US actions have had negative effects on other nations and people? It seems ridiculous to argue that there have been none or that all the negative consequences that occurred fell only nations and people who had it coming.
In short, you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs and the US has been cooking in the world kitchen for centuries. The Global Policy Forum has a list of US Interventions in other nations since 1798 that I think most folks would find surprising. Of course, some of these listings are debatable, such as the supposed role of the US in the 2004 coup in Haiti, but there are enough other ones on the list to convince you that the US has broken more eggs than most Americans are aware of.
I became aware of my own lack of awareness when attending a small group discussion with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Latin America in the 1980s. A student in the audience got up and challenged him over the US intervention in the Dominican Republic. He claimed that his family's home had been bombed and asked what they possibly could have done to deserve it. The ASD hemmed and hawed, but I just sat there thinking, "When the hell did we invade the Dominican Republic?" Turns out that we sent over 20 thousand troops there in 1965 to prevent what Lyndon Johnson called a "communist dictatorship" though it is hardly clear that any such thing was likely to occur.
Then there is Iran. I was in High School during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, the memory of which has been refreshed by the movie "Argo", and so my peronal awareness of US-Iran relations starts there. Like many people I had a sense of outrage at the taking of the hostages, and tended to sneer at Iranian allegations of CIA misdeeds in Iran. Then I find out that , no, the CIA actually did support a coup and overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953. Apparently, Mossadegh moved to nationalize the oil industry in Iran, which threatened British oil interests and raised the specter of communism. In his place, the US supported the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Whatever you think about Iran's current regime, the Shah definitely did not have a good human rights record.
What really bothered me when I pieced all this together was how much the story resembled the typical claims of conspiracy theorists, which I tend to reject out of hand. A CIA coup over oil that installs a dictator is almost a cliche. Of course, nothing is cliche the first time it happens and the preceding description oversimplifies the situation. Still, I can't pretend it didn't happen.
What do we do with all this? In my view, it is a question of choosing between having a naive, cynical or sophisticated view of the world. The naive view takes events as they are portrayed by the leaders involved or as popularly believed in the society. The cynical view disregards all public statements about actions and intentions as pretext or propaganda and assumes that actions are motivated by ulterior motives. The sophisticated view takes both views into account and assumes that multiple motivations are in play and that all public statement contain part of the truth but that there is probably more involved.
When it comes to "blaming the US" or not, I think you have to acknowledge the bad with the good. Admittedly, this not very profound but it can be difficult to do in practice. It is easy to slip either in the direction of vilifying or lionizing the US.
It is worth pointing out that, whatever the US has or hasn't done, most people around the world have a favorable view of the US. In 2013, PEW Research found that a majority of respondents had a favorable view of the US in 28 out of 38 nations they polled. Six of the ten countries with less than a majority with a favorable view were in the Middle East (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Tunisia and Turkey, or every one they polled in the region except Israel). The remaining four countries were Argentina, Greece, Pakistan, and China. Interestingly, the US was most popular in Africa and more popular in Asia and Latin America than in Europe. Small majorities also had a favorable view of the US in Russia and Venezuela.
Of course, PEW didn't conduct polls in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or North Korea (because they can't). But, we should keep in mind that "the world" doesn't hate the US.
No comments:
Post a Comment