Resumo de Bitter Fruit: The Story Of The American Coup In Guatemala

Bitter Fruit: The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, by Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinser, is the most elaborate and well researched account of the factors that led to the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954.The book recounts the modern history of a country struggling with extreme inequality, and how the interests of the United States, particularly the United Fruit Company, played into that struggle. The story begins with the fall of Dictator Jorge Ubico and the rise of the first popularly elected President of Guatemala, a teacher, Juan José Arévalo, in 1945. Arévalo enacted a wide array of reforms, among them the consolidation of democracy, the protection of labor, mild agrarian reform, and a host of other liberties associated with a modern democracy. In what was a relatively tumultuous transfer of power, Jacobo Arbenz became Guatemala?s second popularly elected president in 1951. In 1952, Arbenz engineered the passage of land reform legislation which drastically affected the holdings of the United Fruit Company. A vicious U.S. public relations campaign ensued eventually leading to the covert toppling of Arbenz?s regime under accusations of communism. Guatemala was then ruled by successive right-wing dictators, all supported by the U.S. politically and financially, enduring political violence the likes of which very few countries have seen, until the 1996 signing of the peace accords. The most interesting questions raised by the book, have to do with Arbenz?s ability to hold on to power even without U.S. intervention. The well-reasoned conclusions of Schlesinger and Kinzer imply that it probably wouldn?t have been possible to topple his regime. Yet it is still important to remember the precarious situations under which Arévalo and Arbenz ruled, spoiling dozens of plots to topple their governments. These plots were most likely the product of a very angry Guatemalan aristocracy, and were countered solely by the loyalty of military. The military was kept in check by the peasant masses which favored the policies of Arévalo and Arbenz, the most frightening threats by the presidents being the arming of peasant militias. The most interesting question, and one that will never be known, involves the succession of Arbenz and whether or not the reforms would have continued independent of U.S. intervention. Even these questions, however, fail to even remotely excuse the actions of the U.S. government in Guatemala. Not only was a democratically elected leader overthrown, but successive Guatemalan dictators were supported, resulting in 92% of the 200,000 violent deaths that occurred through the period. The CIA continued to play a role until the late 80s and early 90s involved in the killing of a U.S. citizen and the husband of another U.S. citizen. In 1999, Bill Clinton finally put for an important statement ?For the United States it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake?, but it still has done little to right the wrongs that the U.S. has committed in Guatemala. Even this comprehensive compilation has its weak points. The book fails to comprehensively address the Guatemalan aristocracy. It is a book about political and military leaders, the massive Guatemalan underclass, and the role of the U.S. within those realms. The most important connection between the three, and the most important for the future of Guatemala, is a strong analysis of the interactions, viewpoints, and trends of the Guatemalan aristocracy. They are arguably the sector of society that control the reigns at the moment, and historical analysis of this class would be especially helpful in understanding a great deal about Guatemala. Furthermore, it is hard not to sense a tint of political biasin Schlesinger and Kinzer?s writing: there is adefinite siding with the peasant class of Guatemala (which I think is necessary), but there is also a pretty strong condemnation of Republican Administrations, when the fault undoubtedly lies with both political parties. Personally, the strongest revelations that this book has inspired for me, is that these actions can not be solely attributed to the interests of U.S. business. In this case, and I think this can be applied to others as well, it is the ability of U.S. business?s to essentially create an atmosphere where their policies are accepted. It was a massive public relations campaign that convinced almost the entirety of the United States that Guatemala was a communist haven, when it was nothing of the sort. The correlation is the interests of business, but the cause is the blind following of the media, and subsequently the people of the United States. I find it very hard to imagine the U.S. citizens would have sat idly by if the sole justification for intervention in Guatemala was the seizure of United Fruit lands. Such is the danger of abstractions such as communism which can transform to serve the interests of those with the most influence. ?Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable? John Kennedy. Bitter Fruit p. 255

Resumos Relacionados