Response to Ellner’s article on Imperialism

It was of course essential that the issue of Latin American Perspectives that celebrates 50 years of publication would include an article on U.S. imperialism, particularly since the second issue included one called “Blood on the Peaceful Road” that examined the outcome of egregious acts of U.S. imperialism against Chile, culminating in the overthrow of the Allende government the year before. However, Steve Ellner in “Downplaying U.S. Imperialism Despite its Ongoing Tenacity: The Latin American Dimension,” calls to our attention that in recent decades the issue of imperialism has not been the subject of much attention by progressive Latin Americanist scholarship, even though, as he describes, U. S. imperialism in the era of globalization since the 1980s has most likely increased. He attributes the reason for this lacuna to the changes in the world economy between the 1960s and the 1980s, when globalization appears to have reduced the power of a single nation-state to manage a dominating role and thus concern over U. S. imperialism has lessened. In addition, the activities of major power rivals in the global south, namely Russia and especially China, are seen as engaging in behavior as imperialistic as that of the United States. For Ellner, “The paradox of this contrast between the two periods is that the sources of discontent over U.S. foreign policy that radicalized New Left members and brought them onto the streets have, if anything, intensified since the 1960s: U.S. interventionism abroad, seemingly endless wars, and the threat of nuclear confrontation.”

One of Karl Marx’s most telling insights was his observation that the state functions as the “general staff” of the ruling class, that is, the agencies of the state, political and bureaucratic – including military and covert – conduct national affairs in a manner that protects and benefits the interests of owners and managers of corporate wealth. Internationally, for the United States, that requires retaining leadership of European nations (NATO) and the Western Hemisphere in the face of rising contenders for economic, and to some degree military, dominance – specifically, China, India, and still powerful Russia. One instrument of U.S. economic power is the role of the U.S. dollar as the measure of economic value and the means of international monetary settlement, which although diminished, is still powerful. That advantage, however, could be threatened, as suggested by the diplomatic meetings between leaders of China, India, Brazil, and Russia that have considered the proposal to create a new, transnational currency as an international medium of exchange, as well as by the perceived possibility that the U.S. may not meet its debt obligations. U.S. apologists boast of a rules-based regime, but what value are rules when the referee is the rule maker. In Latin America, one way the U.S. maintains dominance is by trade agreements that enhance the power of U.S. capital. The community of Crawfish Rock, an indigenous community on the Honduran island of Roatán, became a private city taken over by Prospero, a Delaware based company, as an economic development zone, under the Central American Free Trade Area (CAFTA); residents have lost their rights to own land and have even had to conduct their economic transactions in crypto currency. Current Honduran officials are trying to make Prospero leave, but Prospero is suing them for 11 billion dollars (St. Louis and Cardenas, 2023). CAFTA’s enforcement is not adjudicated by a court of law, but by arbitration undertaken by private attorneys. Meanwhile, peoples’ homes are still being taken.

The underlying justification for the conduct of U S. national affairs has become “security,” security that is maintained by military and covert expenditures, when the existential threat to U.S. and world (human life and life itself) security are climate change and nuclear disaster (war). As students of U.S.–Latin American relations, editors and readers of this journal, and especially those of us who are U.S. citizens, we need to remember Dwight D. Eisenhower’s warning, to beware of the “U.S. military-industrial complex.”

The United Nations’ power is weak, but it has the authority to speak and act for most of the nations of the world. Its elected leadership speaks for all of humanity. Progressive scholarship and theorizing must seek ways to understand how powerful nations can be turned away from the destructive path they are on; the citizens of the world must be mobilized to demand confrontation of the existential crisis human beings have caused.

Steve Ellner’s valuable contribution to LAP ’s 50th Anniversary issue regarding the continuing threat of U.S. imperialism to the nations of Latin America should inspire other researchers to take up further research to identify and analyze the threats to our southern neighbors’ integrity and well-being. Hopefully some of these researchers will submit their work for publication in our journal.