Essay: Overthrow – Stephen Kinzer

Overthrow, a book written by Stephen Kinzer explains in detail the American involvement in regime changes of different countries. The book itself is divided into three parts. It accounts for events through examining case studies that involve regime changes. These case studies analyze why the United States decided to overthrow the regime to begin with, how they overthrew the regime, and the lasting impacts for both the United States and the country experiencing the change. This type of behavior has continued throughout modern times and is now a seemingly permanent fixture in United States Foreign Policy The overreaching theme or the hypothesis is …” why the United States over throws foreign governments and what consequences it brings on itself by doing so” (Kinzer 2006, 6).
The Imperial Era is explained in part one of the book. During the Imperial Era, Kinzer explains regime changes in Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines (Kinzer 2006, 9-78). There were multiple items at play when it came to Hawaii. Many may think that the main reason for action was because of the Queen’s desire to adopt a new constitution and while that played a large role in the act of overthrowing Hawaii’s monarch there were additional reasons. In the introduction of the book Kinzer explains, that strong nations take action in weaker states for one of three reasons; ideology, power, or control of economic resources. In Hawaii, all three came into play, power is tied to the possible adoption of a new constitution that would only allow Hawaiians citizens the right to vote, but with that the Americans and Europeans that had control over the economy and politics would no long have a say in affairs because they would not have a right to vote (Kinzer 2006, 9). Ideology comes into play both politically as mentioned above and religiously with the missionaries landing in Hawaii some decades before the secession (Kinzer 2006, 11-12).
Similar situations also apply to the turmoil in Cuba. Americans tried to “help” the Cubans obtain freedom from Spain. America had an array of motivators both economically, and politically. The United States had maintained this idea of “Manifest Destiny” it was their desire to expand their territory (Kinzer 2006, 32). Another reason, was because the United States needed to expand economically, American factories were producing more than they could consume, thus decreasing the need for workers to occupy jobs, therefore they needed someone close to trade with, Cuba being ninety miles off the coast of Cuba was a convenient and economical option (Kinzer 2006, 34). Lastly, after the United States had defeated Spain with help from people like Jose Marti and Maximo Gomez; the Americans decided to violate the Teller amendment which left Cubans in control of the government and its people. (Kinzer 2006, 35-39). They used the excuse that the Cubans did not know how to maintain militaries to explain for prolonged United States military occupation, which eventually led to the Platt Amendment being signed and accepted by both governments leaving Cuba with very little freedom (Kinzer 2006 41-44). This was a seemingly good plan until the United States was practically picking corrupt leadership to be used like puppets and did very little to help Cubans rebuild their own government. Eventually, this led to the Cuban revolution and the United States having to fight again for Cuba, which eventually turned into a Communist Regime under Fidel Castro, which could be perceived as the Cubans finally being free from a colonial type rule. The Platt Amendment is what still allows for the unnecessary military occupation of Cuba by the United States at Guantanamo Bay.
These types of behaviors were followed in Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Honduras, and the Philippines. At the fore front of regime control was economic interest, especially in Latin American countries as they were close to the United States. With the Philippines, it was more of a power move to show countries of the orient that the United States could expand closer to their borders and conduct trade. Which led to Ferdinand Marcos coming to power and having one of the most brutal regimes seen in the Orient. He single-handedly imposed martial law, suspended the constitution and caused the country despair by misappropriating funds (Kinzer 2006, 95-96). However, the United States still maintained a relationship with him by providing military aid which further perpetuated a cycle of violence.
There is also the principle of American Exceptionalism that is brought into play in these situations. For example, in Cuba our first reason for staying is because the Cubans could not possibly establish and control a military of their own, however, the United States could because they were exceptional being a country so young with such a strong fighting force.
Overthrow explains how the United States has used American Exceptionalism as a legitimate excuse for over one hundred years of regime changes. Cuba, Hawaii, and the Philippines are just a few examples of this behavior. The United States Government almost demands intervention in a nation that threatens their economic and political interests in the global community. Hawaii was not a bloody war due to secession from the Queen, however, Cuba was and it was drawn out overtime. As a matter of fact, the United States and Cuba both are still suffering from the events that took place. Kinzer even identifies that Cuba would have been able to be independent if there were actual negotiations that took place that did not allow for military occupation (Kinzer 2006, 37). He further backs up this argument by stating, “Nations that the United States confronts only with threats and pressures, and isolates from the international system, like Iran, Cuba, and North Korea never emerge from their cocoons of repression and anti-Americanism” (Kinzer 2006, 320). Therefore, asserting that the use of diplomatic techniques is more effective than that of military action. The United States action taken in places like Iran and Iraq of overthrowing and reestablishing governments that are either dictatorial or illiberal democracies has also proved ineffective. This leads to money poorly spent and most importantly loss of life that causes people from these nations to bread resentment and hatred toward the United States. In fact, this type of behavior has led to the opposite of what was intended which was peace to the creation of a multitude of enemies in the international sector.
Overall, the book clearly supported the writer’s hypothesis with a multitude of case studies that one cannot begin to summarize. The evidence is beyond adequate that United States involvement in Regime changes and Nation Building is disastrous and rarely successful. One thing that the author could have elaborated on more is a proposed solution to fix the problems that have already been created. He did an excellent job at providing a solution for the future of not getting involved, but how can one fix what has already been damaged. The book itself is a quick read and very interesting to someone wanting to know more about American History, Politics, or Economics. One idea that this changed for myself personally is that military action is not always a good action. To take this stance on the issue is a shift that has been coming for the past year, however, I believe this book can place me in the hard stance that diplomacy is the way to go on most issues. I would most certainly recommend this book to other people even those outside of the Political Science or International Studies discipline because it is a good way for an individual to maintain and open mind and not see things from a short-sided point of view. It was a well-organized book with a clear hypothesis that was backed up with beyond adequate evidence.