After anti-immigrant rhetoric culminated in a mass shooting in El Paso, it’s increasingly important to remember one of the reasons we’ve arrived at this point. History is not well suited for predicting the future, but it is perfect for explaining how we got to where we are. Regarding central American immigration, the United States’s influence in the region serves a root cause of the massive flow of migrants north from Central America. Below is but one of many stories of how that came to be. United States culpability in 21st Century Central American migrant movement lies in its actions in the mid 20th Century.
The United States and Latin America have had a tumultuous relationshipsince each won independence in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Following World War II, the world’s economy entered into a period of significant growth and the Marshall Plan saw massive U.S. investment in war-torn Western Europe, which left Latin America feeling forgotten and resentful of the United States. Exacerbating these feelings was US intervention in Latin American political affairs, specifically in Guatemala, during the 1950s. Through selfish policies and ineffective action, the United States was unable to foster the kind of positive relationship that seemed inevitable before World War II.
World War II was a boon for the Latin American economy. However, once World War II ended, US manufactured goods were available again, usurping those made in Latin America. US economists urged a return to return to “pre-1929 style import-export trade” that involved Latin American raw goods exported to the United States, and in turn, Latin America would import US consumer goods. Between 1946 and 1959, Latin America only received about 2% of US foreign aid while Western Europe was being heavily invested in. The United States, through its policies and investments, actively sought to subordinate Latin America to itself. Naturally, this created a sizeable anti-US sentiment throughout Latin America comprised mainly of people who were tired of witnessing inequality and hypocrisy and armed with the trappings of Marxist ideology.
Throughout the region, the United States attempted to maintain governments responsive to its economic and political interests. Through the Organization of American States (OAS), the United States was able to assert its dominance, explicitly supporting brutal but loyal dictators throughout the region. The Cold War, of course, was a time of strong anti-communist sentiment and by issuing the Declaration of Caracas, the US-dominated OAS declared Marxist ideologies “alien to the Western Hemisphere” and so made any Marxist revolutionary an enemy.
Meanwhile, Guatemala, the only OAS nation to vote against the Declaration of Caracas, experienced a CIA sponsored coup in 1954. Because the United States wanted to control everything within the Western Hemisphere but wanted to do so without being overtly interventionist and imperialist, they did not send conventional military forces. The U.S. government’s desire for secrecy is evident in a declassified CIA message issued at the onset of the coup.
The message, filled with propaganda for broadcast into Guatemala, is intended to appear to come from a fake organization, makes no mention of its origin in the United States. Instead, the CIA created an artificial organization, recruited a proxy force lead by former Guatemalan General Carlos Castillo Armas, and they invaded from Honduras. The small rebel force easily ousted the government of Jacobo Arbenz thanks to the U.S. propaganda war’s influence on Army officers.
The United States declared this a “great victory for democracy,” but Guatemala ultimately descended into an autocratic military rule that murdered thousands of its dissidents. While technically successful in ousting the Marxist Arbenz, the United States was more successful at creating further resentment throughout the region than they were at stemming the tide of Marxist ideologies. This marked the first time that the CIA ousted a democratically elected leader from their position of power within a government, and wouldn’t be the last.
Before the Second World War, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had been instrumental in nurturing positive relationships with Latin American nations. Unfortunately, despite efforts to control its hemisphere, the United States only managed to foster further disenchantment and resentment by its policies and actions throughout Latin America. Lack of economic investment, policies intended to keep Latin America poor and subordinate, and ill-advised U.S. intervention ultimately resulted in an inevitable wave of Marxist revolt throughout the region.
Migrant movement today has its roots in the policies and practices of American post-war influence in the region, specifically Guatemala. One can’t look at American meddling in the region and not see a parallel with unrest today.
