The Cold War's Proxy Conflicts: Ideology, Oil, and the Limits of Superpower Control

# Latin America: How the Cold War Made Coup Culture Respectable

The history of American intervention in Latin America did not begin with the Cold War. The United States had been intervening in Latin American politics — sending Marines to Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Haiti — since the early twentieth century, justified by the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine and the logic of protecting American commercial interests. What the Cold War added was an ideological framework that made this intervention seem defensive rather than imperial.

Before 1947, American intervention in Latin America was openly about economic interests. After 1947, it was about stopping communism. The interests didn't change; the vocabulary did. And the new vocabulary was considerably more powerful politically, because it converted obvious imperialism into principled anti-totalitarianism.

## Guatemala 1954: The Template

The 1954 CIA-orchestrated coup against Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz is the clearest example of the Cold War framing being used to justify intervention that was primarily about commercial interests. Árbenz had won a free and fair election in 1950 and implemented a land reform program that expropriated unused land — including land owned by the United Fruit Company. United Fruit lobbied intensively in Washington. Several senior figures in the Eisenhower administration had personal connections to United Fruit.

The CIA's internal assessment was that Árbenz was not a communist and was unlikely to invite Soviet influence into Guatemala. He was a social democrat implementing mild agrarian reform. The decision to overthrow him was driven substantially by United Fruit's influence and the general principle that governments that challenged American corporate interests were intolerable regardless of their actual politics.

The operation installed a military government that immediately reversed the land reforms and spent the next several decades engaged in increasingly violent repression of the Guatemalan peasant population, culminating in a counter-insurgency campaign in the 1980s that the UN later determined included acts of genocide.

## The Operational Pattern

Guatemala established a pattern that would be replicated with variations across the hemisphere. The CIA would identify a target government, usually one that had nationalized American assets or implemented land reform. It would characterize the target as communist or communist-influenced. It would organize and fund an opposition, often military in character. It would manage the propaganda environment to make the coup seem like an internal response to communist subversion.

The 1973 coup against Salvador Allende in Chile followed this logic. Allende was a democratically elected socialist — not a communist, not a Soviet proxy — who had nationalized the Chilean copper industry. The Nixon administration, with Kissinger as National Security Advisor, explicitly committed to making the Chilean economy "scream" through economic pressure, organized opposition funding, and military contacts. The coup's immediate execution was Chilean, but the preparation was substantially American.

Brazil (1964), Bolivia (1971), Argentina (1976) — the pattern repeated. In Argentina, the military junta that took power in 1976 disappeared approximately 30,000 people. American support for the coup government was forthcoming and substantial.

## The Doctrine and Its Legacy

The ideological framework that sustained American support for Latin American military governments was elaborated in the School of the Americas, a US Army training program that instructed Latin American military officers in counterinsurgency techniques. The curriculum included, at various points, what the institution's own declassified manuals describe as coercive interrogation.

The Cold War framework that made this acceptable required a specific definition of "communism": anything that challenged the existing distribution of property, particularly if it threatened American corporate interests, qualified. This definition included land reform, labor unions, liberation theology, and literacy campaigns. All of these were framed as vectors of communist subversion.

The legacy of Cold War intervention in Latin America is visible in its politics today: countries where democratic institutions were repeatedly disrupted by American-supported coups are more vulnerable to democratic backsliding, have weaker civil societies, and have political cultures more accustomed to resolving political disputes through force. The Cold War didn't create political instability in Latin America, but it systematically prevented the development of the institutions that could have managed it.

Latin America: How the Cold War Made Coup Culture Respectable

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE