Killing 3 birds w/ one rotten banana
ROBERTSON+CHAVEZ SITTING IN A TREE...
When I was in Brazil I remember reading countless articles by the mainstream Brazilian media about how Hugo Chavez is a bastard, and I think his bad rep is well deserved (and not just an example of Americans being distrustful of any leader who dresses in army fatigues). So if the guy gets shot tommorrow, you won't catch me (or most of South America) wearing black.
But this Pat Robertson guy, what a douche bag. Seriously. A 'Christian' Evangelist calling for the assassination of...anybody. Now, I never attended Sunday school, but I'm pretty sure that the 17th Commandment is something like: 'Thou shall not assassinate democratically-elected government officials.'
However, I did not come here today to talk more about Robertson and Chavez. Let me turn your attention to Rumsfeld instead. His response to the ordeal was that the Pentagon isn't in the business of killing foreign leaders. And it is from this point that we shall launch today's journey into U.S. foreign policy history....
I was reading an article at Time magazine about the Chavez / Robertson controversy when I stumbled onto this sentence (and its attached link):
"Latin Americans have too many vivid and bitter memories of U.S. intervention in their countries—operations that sometimes included brazen assassinations."
When you click on it, you find yourself in the National Security Archive looking at official CIA documents from the 1950s (just recently declassified in 1997, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act.)
The documents refer to something called 'Operation PBSUCCESS' which was a plot to assassinate and overthrow democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. It even includes a 19 page, DIY guide to assassination, full of pointers like:
(1) "...assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it..."
(2) "...the simplest local tools are often much the most efficient means of assassination. A hammer, axe, wrench, screw driver, fire poker, kitchen knife, lamp stand, or anything hard, heavy and handy will suffice..."
(3) "...Arson can cause accidental death if the subject is drugged and left in a burning building..."
(4) "...if the blow is very heavy, any portion of the upper skull will do. The lower frontal portion of the head, from the eyes to the throat, can withstand enormous blows without fatal consequences..."
The last part is something titled "The Conference Room Technique"
It is a series of illustrations showing how a four man team can best enter a conference room and kill everyone seated around an oval shaped table!
Back to President Arbenz of Guatemala:
Well there must have been a damn good reason, I thought to myself, for circulating these type of documents with his name on em. What horrible human rights violations was Arbenz committing to deserve a very heavy blow to the upper skull or a screw driver in the neck? In my search for answers, I ended up at worldhistory.com. This is where I found an article about a company by the name of United Fruit Company:
"The United Fruit Company owned vast tracts of land in Central America, and sometimes the Company was said to be the real power in control of those nations, the national governments doing the Company's bidding. The Company several times overthrew governments which they considered insufficiently compliant to Company will. For example, in 1910 a ship of armed hired thugs was sent from New Orleans to Honduras to install a new president by force when the incumbent failed to grant the Fruit Company tax breaks. The newly installed Honduran president granted the Company a waiver from paying any taxes for 25 years."
Great, Bob but what does this have to do with anything? Keep reading...
"...The Guatemalan government of Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzman was toppled by covert action by the United States government in 1954 at the behest of United Fruit because of Arbenz Guzman's plans to redistribute uncultivated land owned by the United Fruit Company among Indian peasants.. As many as 100,000 people may have died in the ensuing civil war."
The article goes on to show that there were as many connections between the Eisenhower administration and United Fruit as the Bush administration and the Saudi royal family. And the more I read the more I realized that this was just one example on a long list of shady/bloody U.S. interventions in Central and South America.
I'm coming to a point, I promise...Three points actually.
[BIRD #1] Terrorism, in large part, is a result of exactly this breed of U.S. foreign policy.
If after 50 years, files are declassified that show that the CIA had no problem overthrowing a democratically-elected government just to lower the price of bananas, are we really to believe that the invasion of oil rich Iraq (in which WMDs and terrorist ties never turned up) was truly in the name of spreading Democracy?!?
[BIRD #2] You may remember a post titled:
'Imagine if you will a place called Sunshine Bay.'
In the comments, Jeff and I argued back and forth about the regulation that should or shouldn't be put on big business. His view, as I saw it, was that U.S. businesses setting up operations in third world countries are always beneficial, at least over the long run, to the people of those impoverished nations.
I now point to Guatemala: Since the coup, it has experienced a variety of military and civilian governments as well as a 36-year guerrilla war (which left more than 100,000 people dead and had created some 1 million refugees).
All so that our grandparents could save a dime in the fruit aisle.
[BIRD #3] Sorry Rummy, historically speaking, we are in that business.
When I was in Brazil I remember reading countless articles by the mainstream Brazilian media about how Hugo Chavez is a bastard, and I think his bad rep is well deserved (and not just an example of Americans being distrustful of any leader who dresses in army fatigues). So if the guy gets shot tommorrow, you won't catch me (or most of South America) wearing black.
But this Pat Robertson guy, what a douche bag. Seriously. A 'Christian' Evangelist calling for the assassination of...anybody. Now, I never attended Sunday school, but I'm pretty sure that the 17th Commandment is something like: 'Thou shall not assassinate democratically-elected government officials.'
However, I did not come here today to talk more about Robertson and Chavez. Let me turn your attention to Rumsfeld instead. His response to the ordeal was that the Pentagon isn't in the business of killing foreign leaders. And it is from this point that we shall launch today's journey into U.S. foreign policy history....I was reading an article at Time magazine about the Chavez / Robertson controversy when I stumbled onto this sentence (and its attached link):
"Latin Americans have too many vivid and bitter memories of U.S. intervention in their countries—operations that sometimes included brazen assassinations."
When you click on it, you find yourself in the National Security Archive looking at official CIA documents from the 1950s (just recently declassified in 1997, thanks to the Freedom of Information Act.)
The documents refer to something called 'Operation PBSUCCESS' which was a plot to assassinate and overthrow democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. It even includes a 19 page, DIY guide to assassination, full of pointers like:
(1) "...assassination can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it..."
(2) "...the simplest local tools are often much the most efficient means of assassination. A hammer, axe, wrench, screw driver, fire poker, kitchen knife, lamp stand, or anything hard, heavy and handy will suffice..."
(3) "...Arson can cause accidental death if the subject is drugged and left in a burning building..."
(4) "...if the blow is very heavy, any portion of the upper skull will do. The lower frontal portion of the head, from the eyes to the throat, can withstand enormous blows without fatal consequences..."
The last part is something titled "The Conference Room Technique"
It is a series of illustrations showing how a four man team can best enter a conference room and kill everyone seated around an oval shaped table!
Back to President Arbenz of Guatemala:
Well there must have been a damn good reason, I thought to myself, for circulating these type of documents with his name on em. What horrible human rights violations was Arbenz committing to deserve a very heavy blow to the upper skull or a screw driver in the neck? In my search for answers, I ended up at worldhistory.com. This is where I found an article about a company by the name of United Fruit Company:
"The United Fruit Company owned vast tracts of land in Central America, and sometimes the Company was said to be the real power in control of those nations, the national governments doing the Company's bidding. The Company several times overthrew governments which they considered insufficiently compliant to Company will. For example, in 1910 a ship of armed hired thugs was sent from New Orleans to Honduras to install a new president by force when the incumbent failed to grant the Fruit Company tax breaks. The newly installed Honduran president granted the Company a waiver from paying any taxes for 25 years."Great, Bob but what does this have to do with anything? Keep reading...
"...The Guatemalan government of Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzman was toppled by covert action by the United States government in 1954 at the behest of United Fruit because of Arbenz Guzman's plans to redistribute uncultivated land owned by the United Fruit Company among Indian peasants.. As many as 100,000 people may have died in the ensuing civil war."
The article goes on to show that there were as many connections between the Eisenhower administration and United Fruit as the Bush administration and the Saudi royal family. And the more I read the more I realized that this was just one example on a long list of shady/bloody U.S. interventions in Central and South America.
I'm coming to a point, I promise...Three points actually.
[BIRD #1] Terrorism, in large part, is a result of exactly this breed of U.S. foreign policy.
If after 50 years, files are declassified that show that the CIA had no problem overthrowing a democratically-elected government just to lower the price of bananas, are we really to believe that the invasion of oil rich Iraq (in which WMDs and terrorist ties never turned up) was truly in the name of spreading Democracy?!?
[BIRD #2] You may remember a post titled:
'Imagine if you will a place called Sunshine Bay.'
In the comments, Jeff and I argued back and forth about the regulation that should or shouldn't be put on big business. His view, as I saw it, was that U.S. businesses setting up operations in third world countries are always beneficial, at least over the long run, to the people of those impoverished nations.
I now point to Guatemala: Since the coup, it has experienced a variety of military and civilian governments as well as a 36-year guerrilla war (which left more than 100,000 people dead and had created some 1 million refugees).
All so that our grandparents could save a dime in the fruit aisle.
[BIRD #3] Sorry Rummy, historically speaking, we are in that business.
By Robert - 8/25/2005
3 Comments:
Bob, before you even made conclusions/points in your post, I was just happy to learn more about one of the many horrible "interventions" our government has conducted.
Oh, and Robertson. Here was one explanation: "His show is 2 parts: Christian stuff and then politics stuff. He was speaking about politics at the time"
So he gets to pick when he is speaking as a Christian?
There was a great breakdown on the Daily show last night.
Here we go again!
Robert has said before that my stance on corporate regulation is very "absolute." He basically says the same thing when he paraphrases me as follows:
"businesses setting up in third world countries is always beneficial."
Now obviously, this isn't the case as documented in the above text. Such a claim is obviously absurd, and its an easy straw many for any liberal to lance.
What I've been trying to argue on the previous threads is that the U.S. should always attempt to trade freely with our neighbors, with as little restriction as possible. Their are so many instances of free trade lifting impovershed nations out of the third world. Too many liberals ignore the benefits of free trade, and instead to to anecdotal evidence like Rob has.
But this isn't even good evidence. This isn't an example of the effects of free trade and capitalism, this is an example of crony capitalism. Pulling off an asassination at the behest of a corporation isn't exactly failing to regulate them, it is an example of governmernment-out-of-control, and a further argument for libertarianism.
Now, one could argue that United Fruit's use of a militia to install a president in guatamala is an example of free-trade gone bad, and in a sense, it is. But if Robert thinks that my anit-regulatory stance would include allowing a corporation to raise armies against other nations, then he took my "absolute" position too far.
Robert also states that the main problem is problem is our foreign policy, and its ties to big business interests, and I couldn't agree more with this position.
Imagining Sunshine bay is a great exercise in thought, but I prefer to imagine a USA that was able to avoid the temtation of big government, and stick to its libertarian beginnings. There would be no anti-U.S. sentiment, there would be no trade deficit, there would be no drug war, and there would be no more asassinations to help out the United Fruit Company.
Please...call me Bob.
This is getting ridiculous (especially considering how much we are in agreement).
So this is the absolute last time that I will say this:
I love capitalism and free trade. I am for LESS government intervention not more. The "Imagine..." post was meant to pose the philosophical question: "When is a market TOO free?"
In response to the question Jeff, you wrote:
"Regulating corporation DOES NOTHING but strip people of their choices."
And now you're saying that I am unfairly painting your stance as absolutist!!!
That sentence sounds pretty absolute to me.
As we all learn in Econ 101, when markets aren't regulated big businesses, that enjoy economies of scale, get bigger and more powerful eventually eliminating or absorbing their competition. Until soon they have complete control on the price of goods, and the power to box-out or crush any start ups that would enter the market.
Even Libertarians should agree that monopolies aren't good for society and that the people of a nation can only reap the benefits of competition if their government is protecting them from such things.
Why is my United Fruit example an example of capitalism gone wrong and not just bad government? Good question.
We've all heard the saying:
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This applies as much to the world of business as politics (if those are really two separate worlds). Government officials and the high-ups in any corporation both have constituents to please. The difference is that the constituents in the first case are concerned with their over-all quality of life (and their children's) and the second group are only concerned with profit (at the expense of the environment or local jobs or bloody coups in Central America).
It is this fundamental difference that leaves me, when choosing between a world run by democratically elected government officials or CEOs, to choose the former.
I know. I know. You're gonna say that corporations are not only being held accountable by their shareholders, but (even more so) by the purchasing power of their consumers. The logic goes: the consumers will catch wind of any immoral practices and boycott the company's products. This is true to a point. But tell me how would you boycott Coca-cola once they own 400 brands in 200 countries including the major fruit juice companies and bottled water companies? And what happens when they are part of a larger conglomerate that also owns the media that is meant to report their questionable practices?
When corporations get this powerful they cease to lobby politicians and become them (look at the Exxon-Bush connections). Thus, the powers that be, suddenly switch from an inefficient, wasteful government (with checks and balances, elected by all) to a heartless, cut-throat one that is chosen by a select few shareholders who are only concerned with the state of their portfolio not the welfare of their neighbor or the future of their nation.
Being rich is not a crime. But people who put their personal wealth over the common good tend to gain more personal wealth than those who don't.
This said, I don't want to live in a society where the haves have complete control of the national reigns. Completely unregulated markets would lead not to greater social welfare but back 300 years to aristocracy.
Jeff, I agree with the bulk of your Libertarian views. I do. I just wanted to point out that your original claim: "Regulating corporation DOES NOTHING but strip people of their choices," is in fact not the case, that SOME government regulation plays an important role in ensuring the common good.
Post a Comment
<< Home