The Joy of Empire

What is so great about empires?

Here’s the thing about empires. They always believe their own propaganda.

Every empire believes it is different. Every empire believes its power is justified because its motives are purer, its values are nobler, or its civilization is superior. Rome believed it. Britain believed it. And America believes it too.

“But America isn’t an empire. It’s a democracy. It doesn’t have a king.”

Yup, that’s the propaganda that the American Empire sells to itself.

Empires don’t need kings. All they need is a central power that believes in its divine right to impose its will on others. All an empire needs to be an empire, is a belief that it has a monopoly on all that is true and good. All an empire needs to be an empire, is a strong belief in its superiority and a willingness to impose itself and its interests, “carrying a big stick” if necessary, on others.

All an empire needs to be an empire is its own brand of exceptionalism.

So, when did America become an empire?

It all started innocently enough with the Munroe Doctrine. No more empires and no more European colonies in the Americas. That’s not a particularly imperial position. That’s rather more egalitarian.

However, somewhere along the line, this policy evolved from Munroe’s condemnation of empire to Teddy Roosevelt’s corollary, a belief that American has a monopoly on truth and the right to impose its will upon other countries in the Americas, whenever and wherever it felt its own interests within that country weren’t being given the level of respect they were due.

And with this, we arrive at the American Empire, an empire built on the belief that it has a monopoly on all that is good and true…an empire with a belief that it has a right to impose itself upon others, willingness to impose itself through force and coersion.

So, what does that look like?

The Panama Canal

The story behind the canal and the canal zone is a bit murky to say the least.

At the time it was proposed, Panama was a territory of Colombia. The United States entered into negotiations with Colombia over the proposed canal. Colombia didn’t oppose the construction, but the United States wanted full control of the canal and a zone around it. Yes, the U.S. was prepared to offer financial compensation to Colombia, but Colombia wanted more control over the canal.

There had long been an independence movement in Panama. This may sound like a movement of a people desperate for freedom, but you might want to look a little closer. You see, most of the leadership of the movement were wealthy landowners. The reality was that ordinary Panamanians weren’t heavily involved in the movement and didn’t really have much of a say. This was a rebellion of the elites.

So, where does the United States enter into this?

Well, the United States wanted a canal across the isthmus, to join the Atlantic to the Pacific … and the United States wanted control of that canal and the territory around it.

In exchange, the United States offered to support the rebellion. Of course, the United States sold it as standing up for the autonomy of the Panamanian people, but it was really about the canal … and America simply didn’t care what ordinary Panamanians wanted. The rebellious elites were prepared to trade control of the canal zone for independence from Columbia, and America decided that these elites were the true Panamanians, desperate for freedom.

Empire like to believe their own propaganda.

That this was a revolt of the elites cannot be better illustrated than by the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903-the treaty that created the canal zone and laid the groundwork for building the canal. This treaty wasn’t signed by a duly elected government in Panama. There wasn’t one. In fact, it wasn’t even signed by a Panamanian. It was signed, on behalf of Panama, by a French businessman by the name of Philippe Bunau-Varilla.

Though it’s sometimes painted as America defending the rights of the Panamanian people, America’s position in this revolt had nothing to do with “liberating Panama” and everything to do with finding a partner that would bend to America’s will.

The new Panamanian regime wasn’t particularly democratic, but that wasn’t an issue in America’s eyes. It was never about freedom and democracy. It was about a canal and though the new Panamanian regime wasn’t entirely comfortable with the treaty, it knew that its survival depended on American support and it was prepared to go along with the treaty. And it knew that support for the treaty was the primary issue for America.

It supported the treaty, and America supported the new regime.

And this is a pattern that has repeated itself over and over again.

Guatemala

In 1954, the United States instigated a coup d’état, removing the democratically elected government headed by Jacobo Árbenz and installed a military dictatorship under the leadership of Carlos Castillo Armas. And yes, this coup was precipitated by a CIA covert operation code-named PBSuccess.

Ostensibly, it was all about the fight against communism, but though Armas may have not seen the Communist Party as an enemy, he was not a member and his policies weren’t truly communist.

So, was it all about communism, or were there other influences?

And what was the role of the United Fruit Company?

Guatemala’s elected President Jacobo Árbenz enacted an agrarian reform law in 1952 that expropriated hundreds of thousands of acres of uncultivated UFCO land to distribute to poor farmers, offering compensation based on the company’s own low tax-declaration values.

This may sound rather progressive, but it doesn’t sound particularly communist.

Communists don’t compensate landowners when they seize land, nor do they redistribute it to smaller independent farmers. Communists seize property and keep it under the control of the central government. No, the communist claim sounds a bit thin to me.

This sounds much more like a giant American multi-national using its influence to encourage the U.S. government to use the C.I.A. to topple a democratically elected government that’s not to its liking, and installing a more amenable military dictatorship.

And that is exactly what happened.

The mess that is Guatemala today is very much the product of these actions.

And the pattern continues …

Haiti

Haiti achieved its independence through a slave revolt in 1804.

However, the United States, and many European powers refused to recognize its independence. The reasoning behind this, particularly for the United States, was the slave revolt itself. America was still a slave state and it didn’t particularly like the precedent that a successful slave revolt set. It saw the mere existence of a nation-state formed by rebel slaves to be a threat to its internal stability.

America’s refusal to recognize the right of Haitians to self-determination was squarely rooted in self-interest and that self-interest was firmly rooted in the desire to preserve slavery as an institution in the United States.

This resistance put Haiti in quite a box and essentially gave France the power it needed to demand reparations for its plantation owners for the loss of “property” including people (slaves).

Now yes, America wasn’t alone in its position, and its position was formed before the Munroe Doctrine was laid out. However, the Munroe Doctrine did not result in an immediate change of policy with regard to Haiti’s status as an independent nation. In fact, recognition didn’t come until 1862, in the heat of the Civil War, when doing so would bolster Union arguments with regard to the war.

That’s right, America recognized Haitian independence when it became politically convenient to do so for internal reasons.

To this point, America’s involvement in Haiti, though absolutely driven by self-interest and self-interest alone, was pretty passive. Even when the United States recognized Haiti, it still did not take a stand on the reparations that Haiti was being forced to pay to French slavers. And this will become a very important element in Haiti’s history.

Those reparation payments were crippling to Haiti’s finances and Haiti was forced to borrow far more than it could realistically afford to. And this is where American involvement gets deeper. American banks began loaning money to Haiti to pay those reparations, and Haiti became indebted to those banks.

To try to finance those debts, Haiti began searching for foreign commercial investors and this setup a competition often between German and American companies for control of those economic assets. This, along with Haiti’s geo-political position along fast developing shipping routes, led to deeper American involvement.

As before, this deeper internal involvement in internal Haitian affairs was essentially driven by American self-interest and had little, if anything to do with the legitimate self-interest of the citizens of Haiti.

In 1915, Haitian President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam was assassinated. The ensuing instability was seen as a direct threat to American commercial interests as well as to America’s hegemony within what it saw as its sphere of influence. The United States invaded Haiti and occupied it until 1934.

It dissolved the existing government and replaced it with military rule by the U.S. Marine Corps.

During this period of occupation, America unilaterally rewrote the Haitian constitution and redirected Haitian commercial interests to focus on the United States. And it violently put down any opposition to its occupation.

One of the key changes in the constitution, was the provision to allow foreign ownership of land and yes, those foreign owners were, for the most part American companies, and yes, one of those companies was the United Fruit Company.

Funny how that name just keeps popping up.

Many countries have central banks. These banks are usually arms length entities, owned by the central government. But not in Haiti.

Haiti’s central bank was foreign owned, from 1910 through the period of American occupation. And America’s banks, particularly what is today Citibank, were major investors. So yes, decisions made by the Haitian Central Bank put the interests of its owners, many of whom where wealthy American institutions ahead of the interests of the Haitian people.

That’s how empires work.

With the death of the Haitian president in 1915, Citibank was worried about the instability in Haiti and feared that its loans might not be repaid. So, it and others, encouraged the U.S. government to get involved militarily. And in came the Marines. Afterall, American money was on the line and that money had to be protected at all costs.

During the U.S. Marine Corps occupation and governance of Haiti, payment of those reparation debts remained a priority, regardless of their impact on the Haitian economy and the people of Haiti. Foreign ownership of Haitian banks and the Haitian economy, along with crippling foreign debt forced upon them devastated the Haitian economy, but it benefited U.S. commercial interests, and that of course is what truly mattered to the occupiers.

1957 ushered in the Duvalier era. Papa Doc, and later Baby Doc, ruled with an iron fist. Again America supported this dictatorial regime as long as it was beneficial to American interests. The Duvaliers pocketed a lot of Haiti’s wealth, but they continued to pay the reparation debts to American banks and continued to give American companies a pretty free hand.

By 1986, the Duvalier regime was on very shaky ground. Haiti was becoming very unstable, and the Duvalier regime was struggling to meet its debt obligation and to protect foreign commercial interests. It was time for them to go.

Ultimately, through the instability, a democratically elected government, led by Jean-Bertrand Aristide came to power, with the blessing and support of the U.S. government in 1990. Democracy was short-lived and a military coup overthrew him in 1991. In 1994, the U.S. intervened militarily and returned him to power. Aristide was removed again in 2004 under disputed circumstances. Some scholars describe his departure as coerced, while U.S. officials argued he resigned voluntarily amid armed rebellion and political crisis.

Regardless, America’s fingerprints and America’s self interest were still an ever-present element of Haitian internal affairs.

Throw in a few hurricanes and the devastating 2010 earthquake and you’ve got the ingredients that have led to the chaotic “shithole country”-to use the words of a famous American political leader-that Haiti is today.

So yes, like in Guatemala, Haiti today is very much the product of American involvement. And Haiti today is as least as much America’s mess as it Haiti’s. And this is why so many Haitians have tried to escape from Haiti, ironically enough, to America.

And this isn’t a particularly unusual phenomenon. It’s quite common for colonials to try to escape the miseries of their colonial existence by escaping to the colonizing country.

And the pattern continues …

Venezuela

Hugo Chavez was a brutal dictator. Many people will not deny that. But, regardless of where you stand, his wasn’t the first brutal dictator that Venezuela has had, not by a long-shot. What made him different from all those who preceded him was his open hostility toward the United States, not his authoritarian bent.

Venezuela has had a long line of brutal dictatorships. Though America’s touch here was lighter than it was elsewhere, America still had a hand in some of those previous regimes, and of course, America’s self-interest always came first in its involvement.

So, let’s take a look at that history.

The battle of Carabobo in 1821 was the decisive battle that ended Spanish colonialism in Venezuela. The forces of Simon Bolivar defeated the Spanish colonial forces and Venezuela effectively obtained independence. To this point, and for the rest of the century, American involvement was minimal.

Then came the discovery of oil in 1914. American companies, particularly Standard Oil and Gulf, heavily invested in the development of the oilfields and major players in the Venezuelan economy.

The pattern here was a little different. By the time oil was discovered, Venezuela already had a strong dictator in place, Juan Vicente Gómez, a man who had arrived on the scene with little, if any, American involvement or support.

However, with the discovery of oil, he threw the doors open to foreign investment, particularly American investment. His brutal dictatorship hadn’t been installed by the United States, but he aligned himself with American interests, so America was happy to let him retain power.

After the death of Gómez, Venezuela experimented with democratic reforms. This was all brought to an end by the military coup in 1948. Though the coup leaders don’t seem to have sought, nor obtained American blessing for their actions, they knew the rules of the game.

The Pérez Jiménez dictatorship very much aligned itself with American interests in the area and began to receive substantial support from the U.S. government.

Yes, it was a brutal regime, but it was friendly to the United States, and that’s all that really mattered, or ever really does.

By 1958, Venezuelans had reached the end of their rope. They rose up and overthrew the Jiménez regime. This revolution led to democratic reforms-the Punto Fijo Pact. So far so good, and yes America was onboard with this.

Those reforms held sway quite well into the 1970's.

However, once we got into the 70’s, the political system became more and more corrupt. Patronage and political favoritism became rampant. Kickbacks and corruption in the signing of government contracts became commonplace and corruption became deeply embedded in the political system.

By the 1980’s, as the economy declined under the weight of government corruption and complacency, Venezuela became a poorer and more violent place. But, it’s governments, for the most part, remained friendly to the United States and its multinational companies, so from the American perspective, there was no reason to intervene.

Keep America happy and they’ll turn a blind eye to what you do at home.

Then came the Caracazo in 1989.

President Carlos Andrés Pérez introduced IMF-backed economic reforms. Under these reforms, the cost of living rose dramatically. This led to unrest. Riots erupted and the military violently suppressed them. The death toll was unclear, but it safe to say that hundreds of civilians died.

This was the turning point.

The people had lost faith in the system. They believed that their democracy had become a closed club, that corruption was endemic, that the elites were strictly in the business of enriching themselves and that the system had abandoned ordinary people.

And this is where Hugo Chavez entered the picture. He tapped into that anger and disillusionment and turned it into a movement that toppled the Punto Fijo system. And this is how he rose to power, in an election no less.

At first, the United States didn’t oppose him. It wasn’t until he started bringing in reforms that weren’t particularly friendly toward American interests that America became hostile toward him.

He hadn’t played the game: Keep America happy and they’ll turn a blind eye to what you do at home.

So, did the United States oppose Chaves because he was a brutal dictator, or because he didn’t put American interests first?

Regardless of where you stand on this, Venezuela today is still very much a product of American involvement. Like Haiti and Guatemala, Venezuela is every bit as much America’s mess as it is Venezuela’s. And this is why so many Venezuelans have tried to escape from Venezuela, ironically enough, to America.

There is some deviation here, but essentially, the pattern continues …

Cuba

Was Castro a brutal dictator? He was, for certain, a dictator and all dictators have an element of brutality in them. So yes, he most certainly was. That said, he wasn’t nearly as prone as dictators usually are to lining his own pockets.

Whatever you may think of his ideology, he had one and it very much was about more than simply pocketing wealth for himself. That, along with support from the former Soviet Union, is why Cuba, under Fidel, was more prosperous and, provided you didn’t threaten the authority of the state, more open than many of the dictatorships that have plagued the Americas.

Of course, Castro was far from the first brutal dictator to rule over Cuba. And of course, America had a hand in many of those previous regimes, and of course, as always, America’s self-interest came first in its involvement.

So, let’s take a look at that history.

Prior to the Spanish American War, Cuba was a colony of Spain.

The war itself was triggered by the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbour. One must remember that its presence in Havana Harbour was a deliberately provocative measure, intended to show the flag in defence of Americans living in Cuba in the face of civil unrest. It had nothing to do with any concept of “Liberating Cuba”.

Upon completion of the war, Spain surrendered Cuba, granting it whatever status the United States conveyed upon it. The Cuban government that replaced Spanish colonial rule was nominally independent but effectively a protectorate of the United States. While Cuba officially became a republic on May 20, 1902, the U.S. government retained significant legal, military, and economic control over the island’s domestic and foreign affairs.

This is best illustrated by Platt Amendment, passed by the U.S. Congress and forced into the Cuban Constitution. This amendment to its new constitution, granted Washington the right to intervene in Cuban domestic affairs whenever it saw fit and secured a perpetual lease for the naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

For roughly fifty years, Cuba vacillated between weak, often very corrupt democracies, and military dictatorships, all of which had one overriding characteristic. They were essentially vassals of the United States and beholden to it for their survival.

Public office was widely used for personal enrichment through Botellas-government payroll jobs given to political cronies. During democratic periods, fraud and gangsterism ran rampant. Force was often used to suppress dissent and governments could easily be characterized as autocratic at best.

Some were outright dictatorships. In fact, the government deposed by the Cuban Revolution of 1959, was just that, a military dictatorship, led by Fulgencio Batista. This was the government that was toppled by Castro’s M-26–7 movement.

And all of this happened under the watchful eye of the United States. In fact, it was quite common for Cuban leaders to rely on the threat of U.S. military intervention to control the population. Whenever workers on American-owned sugar plantations or railroads went on strike for better wages, the government deployed rural police forces-Guardia Rural-to violently break up protests and arrest union leaders.

And yes, the United Fruit Company had big holdings in Cuba too. It’s amazing how often that name pops up.

So, did the United States oppose Castro because he was a brutal dictator, or because he didn’t put American interests first? The Americans never seemed to put much stock in arguments opposing brutal dictators whose interests aligned with the United States.

Regardless of where you stand on the question of America’s opposition to Castro, Cuba today is still very much a product of American involvement. Like Venezuela, and Haiti, and Guatemala, and … Cuba’s mess is every bit as much America’s mess as it is Cuba’s.

And the pattern continues …

The American Empire

The American Empire hasn’t really been built through colonization, but rather through the establishment of puppet states, or banana republics. But an empire it is.

And empires do what empires do.

The put their interests first and they often use large commercial interests as one of their tools.

The United Fruit Company, Dutch East India Company, the English or French East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company-they all had privileged access to those in power at home and they used that access to advance their cause in the farthest reaches of the empire.

Empires also use their military might impose their will, sometimes through invasion, but also through covert activity. Because they have a monopoly on “truth”, they believe that they have the right to act whenever and wherever they see fit.

As you can see, this is far from simply an American phenomenon. And America is no more evil in this regard than any other empire. The crime is exceptionalism, not American exceptionalism.

Of course, sometimes all of this comes home to roost, and with that, we arrive at the U.S. border with Mexico.

Yes, there are a lot of countries in the Americas that are, to put it politely, a bit of a mess. And yes, there are a lot of people trying to escape that mess. The typical American response to this is “It’s your mess, stay home and clean it up”.

There is some truth to that, but America’s claim that it’s not America’s mess too, simply cannot stand up to the historical evidence.

America had a very big hand, whether it’s Cuba, or Haiti, or Venezuela, or Guatemala, or wherever, in making that mess. Often, American involvement made the mess, at least partially, unavoidable.

Haiti is a mess. Gang violence is rampant and it’s absolutely denying Haiti any chance to recover. And those gangs are Haitians. Corruption in Haiti is also rampant and again, the folks behind the corruption are Haitians.

All of that is true, but it’s also true that the United States had a very big hand in creating the circumstances that allowed this situation to develop. Cut and paste for just about anywhere else where America has meddled.

Yes, the Haitians who are part of those gangs, who are involved in the violence and corruption are guilty for this mess, but so too are the Americans who empowered them.

Yes, only Haitians can clean up this mess. Time after time, in place after place, America has demonstrated that it is utterly incapable of putting enough of its self-interest aside to make a meaningful contribution to cleaning up such messes. And in place after place people remember America’s hand in making it … and simply don’t trust America’s intentions.

Yes, it’s Haiti’s mess, but it’s also America’s mess.

And what about Venezuela, or Honduras, or Nicaragua, or El Salvador or … and the list goes on?

Well, local circumstances may vary, but the over-arching dynamic is still the same. An external power imposes its will, with only its own self-interest in mind, and leaves behind an ungodly mess.

This is what empires do… and that is why empires are always wrong!

Originally published at https://acschristian.ca on October 2, 2026.