Convenient Friends

During the Cold War, the fears of the United States regarding the spread of communism caused the U.S. to turn a suspicious eye all around them, including their neighbors to the south.  Although based on the very real alliance of Soviet Russia with Cuba, fear of Latin American communists paved the way for violent knee-jerk responses to nearly any revolutionary movement with anti-capitalist overtones.  Subsequently, the U.S. came to manipulate the governments and policies of many Latin American countries, often without sufficient cause.  This contributed to the very familiar reputation of the U.S. as an opportunistic bully.

The US implemented strategies under the mentality that “either you are for us or you are against us” during the Cold War.  Considering military or dictator control preferable to communist control, the United States threw their support behind, arguably, some of the most heinous governments to date including the military coups in Brazil in 1964 and in Chile in 1973.   In order to orchestrate these military coups, the U.S. often trained “proxy armies” in the arts of counterinsurgency.  Frequent tactics used by Latin American military forces at this time, often with the support of the U.S., include abduction, torture, and the “disappearing” of people.

Similarly, during the Cold War, the U.S. sought to disrupt the “domino effect” of the spread of communism from Red China by lending covert support to Tibet.  The invasion of Tibet in 1951 by Chairman Mao Tse-tung’s People’s Liberation Army sparked the formation of Tibetan resistance groups.  The Dalai Lama’s brother, Gyalo Thondup, was approached by the CIA as part of the U.S.’s anti-communist campaign, and a very small number of Tibetans were trained like the U.S.-trained Latin American proxy armies.  (http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm)  In addition, the U.S. dropped weaponry and other supplies until 1965.  In return, the U.S. benefited from intelligence provided by the Tibetans regarding Chinese military capabilities. 

The Tibetan resistance movement enjoyed limited success until American foreign policy shifted.  In 1972, seizing the opportunity to widen the fracture between the Soviets and the Chinese, President Nixon initiated rapprochement with China, and as happened to the Latin American allies of the U.S. after they are no longer useful, the Tibetans were essentially left in the dirt. (http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/studentopps/josh_roselman_paper.pdf

The Chinese occupation of Tibet is an issue passionately debated around the world.  Demonstrations including self-immolation and rock concerts certainly call attention to the issue still.  “Free Tibet” is even a popular t-shirt.  However, since abandonment by the U.S., Tibet is not any closer to freedom.  And, since the U.S. did not renew interest in freeing Tibet after oil was found there, U.S. support is unlikely to return anytime soon.

It’s obvious how the United States gained its bully opportunist repute when one discusses U.S. involvement in Latin America and Tibet during the Cold War.  Perhaps the perspective of the decision-makers could only be understood within the context of the times when communism was a word that made people run hysterically to bomb shelters and was not just a silly ideal for the hippies.  Unfortunately, today’s geography, politics, foreign relations, imports/exports, immigration

, etc. are still exhibiting the ramifications of past U.S. actions.  Assuming the perfect vision colloquially allotted to the past, there is always the hope that one can learn from it.  Let’s hope this applies to governments too. 

Source of image: https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS2WKWpuldfsM0pRJGWb57X9U32lvZA6vLysD6xZordzVewcuDTow