Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America

by Walter F. LaFeber

This book explains the history of US/Central American relations, explaining why these countries have remained so overpopulated, illiterate and violent; and why US government notions of economic and military security combine to keep in place a system of Central American dependency. This second edition is updated to include new material covering the Reagan and Bush years, and the Iran/Contra affair.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American History, Politics, Latin American History, International Relations, War

466 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1983

About the author

One of the foremost scholars of American foreign policy, Walter Fredrick LaFeber was the Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor in the Department of History at Cornell University. Previous to that he served as the Marie Underhill Noll Professor of History and a Stephen H. Weiss Presidential Fellow at Cornell.

Reviews

[Eren Buğlalılar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great! Now I have even more concrete historal reasons to hate US imperialism.

LaFeber is a member of "Wisconsin School" of diplomatic studies. This book brings together many influences from William A. Williams to A. Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein and presents a brilliant history of US foreign policy in Central America from 19th century onwards.

LaFeber claims that the United States' efforts to annex Central American economies into the US economy produced dependent and backwards regimes which made revolutions in the region inevitable. He shows that once this fact was understood by the US policy-makers, the entire US diplomacy towards Central America began to evolve around how to prevent those approaching revolutions regardless of the human and environmental costs. Many of his archival findings are to the point and I nearly filled an entire notebook.

Two missing points:
i. He underestimates the international communism in terms of its influence on the popular movements in Central America. True, the official US propaganda overstated this influence (especially of USSR) to justify the military aid to the homicidal regimes in the region. Still, the international communism of the 1960s and 70s was a large network from Latin America to Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia, something that went beyond USSR and made a great impact on the popular movements of the period. Not only in terms of weapons and military training but also in terms of revolutionary passions and beliefs. The impact of the slow collapse of international communism in the 1980s on the popular movements in Central America is the biggest proof of this influence.

ii. LaFeber is blind to the gradual rise of neoliberalism and how it is utilized to change the appearance of oppressive regimes in Central America. He thinks that the Arias peace plan and the ensuing reconciliation processes were opportunities for a real change but he cannot see that those were the signs of a new post-Cold War strategy of imperialist rule over the countries.

Sadly, I have a look at the Central America thirty years later to see what has changed: Nothing, except there are no firmly organized, armed popular movements to defend the workers, peasants and decent people of the region against the bloody gangs and imperialist aggression. This was "the peace" they imposed in the 90s.

[Ryan Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Illuminating and infuriating excavation of US foreign policy in Central America. Long story short, the US has always taken foreign policy positions that benefit and protect its economic interests, always at the expense of the well-being of Central American nations. From writing lopsided treaties to establishing courts and ignoring their rulings to military overthrow of governments by right-wing ideologues hell-bent on weeding out communism to propping up corrupt fascist dictators who engage in appalling human rights abuses, the American presence has been thoroughly corrupt and steered without exception by a prioritization of capital at the expense of human life. When this strategy exploded inevitably in revolution, the US utilized unilateral and often covert and illegal military force. All of this has left Central America destitute, destabilized, and impoverished, with hundreds of thousands of people killed and many more displaced.

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walter LaFeber clearly stands outside the liberal-conservative Cold War consensus. Critiquing the long term assumptions of American policy toward Central America from a New Left perspective, LaFeber spared neither JFK nor LBJ. In Inevitable Revolutions he outlined how the groundwork was laid by the united states in the 1960s for Central American revolutions which the Reagan administration was attempting to subvert in the 1980s.

The influence of William A. Williams on Walter LaFeber is most evident in this book. Inevitable Revolutions bears the clear imprint of The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, to include Williams' call for an open door for revolutions in the Third World. Williams had argued that the tragic element in U.S.-Soviet relations was that the nature of America's liberal and capitalist political economy precluded the ability to come to terms with the Russian Revolution of 1917, as a genuine social revolution. In like manner, LaFeber argues that U. S. policy in Latin America can best be viewed as a tragedy. Especially during the key period of the 1960s, the requirements of America's political economy precluded an American acceptance of needed political and economic transformations which would allow for true progress for the people of Central America.

It seems that Arthur Schlessinger would take great umbrage at LaFeber's dismissal of JFK's master plan for Latin America. LaFeber does not take the Kennedy rhetoric at face value, as Schlessinger tends to do in his A Thousand Days. Yet, the main difference between the two would be more than simple wounded idealism on the part of Schlessinger and hardened cynicism on the part of LaFeber. LaFeber makes the case that particularly under the aegis of the Alliance for Progress, when JFK began to dramatically increase military support to the region, the American pursuit of stability at any cost led to u.s. support of military oligarcies who exploited, tortured, and murdered their ovm people. Obsessed with anti-Communism, both JFK and LBJ were blind to the nationalistic aspirations of revolutionary movements throughout Central America. LaFeber's account is marked by its own brand of American idealism, or perhaps exceptionalism.

After reading Inevitable Revolutions, it sounds curious to read Alfred Stepan in a review of the book referring to Walter LaFeber as a "revisionist." The terminology of revisionism somehow seems ill-suited to a conceptual framework for the interpretation of American policy vlhich gained vlide acceptance both within academe and in the public sphere during the 1970s, and continues to command considerable support. As evidence of the popular support which this interpretation received in the 1980s, witness the widespread opposition to Ronald Reagan's plan for Nicaragua. As evidence for the continued academic acceptance of the LaFeber approach, one need only read selected portions from Kennedy's Ouest for victory.

[Marc Puckett · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very excellent introduction to the last 150 years of Central American history with an emphasis on the 1980's. A very clear perspective on the ability to cause unintended consequences.

Sad to say, U.S.A. policy does not shine in this history, although it is fair to say that no president who thought of the area since Monroe coined the 'Monroe Doctrine' got it quite right. The Reagan years are probably the most unsettling, preferring military regimes over real democratic countries, and in the end creating exactly the opposite results. Finally, the ignored democracy, Costa Rica, finds a road to peace through the destruction of the various civil wars.

Leaving off in the early 1990's I can only hope to conclude that the lack of press indicates the problems are being addressed. And if they are we should pay close attention because they are the very same problems we are creating for ourselves at home, in different ways, but here none the less, unemployment, inequality and the very influence of foreign powers in other governments elections. (Shocking that we've probably been doing it since before Reagan.)

Anyway, knowing the problem is half the solution, so I'm hoping to find a little more light at the end of the tunnel. If you are like me and trying to find out where in God's name we went wrong, this book will give you some clues.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

this is a well researched book about u.s. involvement in central america that starts with the monroe doctrine and goes through to today. the author does an excellent job of documenting and analyzing u.s. foreign policy towards the region.

[Thomas Ray]

F1436.8 U6 L33 1993
Memorial Library; College Library rm. 1191.

[Bert van der Vaart · Rating 2 out of 5]

LaFeber is probably a better historian than an analyst of current events. This is reflected by a relatively good description of what happened in the five Central American countries in the late nineteenth century through WWII--focusing on how the USA as a new world power began to exercise its authority under the Monroe Doctrine after the Spanish forces left the region, and the British (other than Belize) were more constrained to focus on their Caribbean islands.

But in this 1984 "Expanded Edition" of his 1983 initial publication, LaFeber seems more of a biased journalist than a historian, as he increasingly tries to make his narrative fit against the administrations of Nixon, Carter and Reagan I. This read on him tracks LaFeber's entry in Wikipedia--certainly no apologist for Reagan and the Republican party. We read:

"LaFeber's publication did meet with some criticism. One later accounting iby Bradford Perkins of [LaFeber's work, the "New Empire" notes that 'LaFeber's arguments were sometimes questionable or overdrawn, and he acknowledged that he had passed by episodes that did not fit his pattern."

To which I can only too much agree. LaFeber seems to be an apologist for the Catholic Church's "Liberation Theology" and a firm believer in land reform as the solution to every economic problem in the countryside. He seems inconsistent on any review of the economics pertaining to the Region's development, and selective in terms of judging whether Soviet and Cuban help was a reason for especially Reagan's intervention. LaFeber seems to say such "help" was significant to counter US intervention, or relatively insignificant, if it came in before. Even though the local governments--and especially the Sandinist led Nicaragua--were actively undermining US policy in the region (however mistaken that policy might be), LaFeber believes that the US government was evil in denying that help. In this, LaFeber seems inconsistent with his meta point that the USA historically wrongly and selfishly "fostered dependency" of that region on US economic interests.

The chief merit of the book is that it even seeks to describe somehow what went on in these five countries, although his jumping back and forth in time, especially as regards how the 5 countries interacted makes his description jumbled up and--I can only repeat--inconsistent. It seems clear that LaFeber is writing the book as a means to examine how the USA acted as an unwitting or incompetent empire, as part of his larger theme during his career.

It also seems clear that LaFeber's confident ( or [perhaps "questionable and overdrawn"??) assertions that the Central American nations were doomed to revolutions and chaos--whether that might have seemed the case in 1984 as Ortega led the Sandinistas to their "righteous victories for the people" or El Salvador's economic mess and chaos due to its overcrowding and "oligarchy's" unwillingness to effect land reform--is after the events of these past 40 years, completely wrong, just as his criticism of Reagan "tilting" at Soviet influence behind Ortega and the nationalistic peasant inspired "revolutions" in Central America was wrong--not only today, but wrong even 5 years after publication, when the Soviet Union fell, and with it the various insurrections throughout the region--the thuggish dictatorship exerted by Ortega and the Sandinistas being the only exception.

Perhaps a few examples and then my plea that someone else with a better grasp of economics PLEASE write a more objective and more recent political history about Central America than this volume:

After a number of pages discussing the internal dissension not only among the military and "right wing" but also among the revolutionary elements and noting also the significant differences between the 5 nations, LaFeber lumps them all together "A study by the five Central American nations themselves [NB] estimated they needed $23 billion just to regain their 1980 economic levels by 1990. No US official even suggested offering half that amount." First of course, the US was in favor of some of the nations, and most assuredly against others. Second, LaFeber's major thesis is that the US is and was and will always be wrong to foster "dependency" on the USA by these nations yet LaFeber again criticizes the US for only thinking about providing half of the amount needed. Thirdly, La Feber has been beating the drum that economic growth could not happen without the stability that only land reform could cause, not significant more cash from the USA. It would seem that the one or other set of comments should be in a different book.

As noted, LaFeber's talismanic answer for all economic ills was land reform--as pushed also by the Communist parties and the Liberation Theologists (now both themselves the subject of historians). Upon a moment's reflection or perhaps finding an expert to take a view contrary to Mr. LaFeber, we can see how in nations where land reform has occurred, the small scale of each family's [lots have made the capital investment to achieve even moderate productivity impossible--condemning sons and daughters to move away--either to the US to establish a pattern of remittances, or to the larger cities to pursue lives which are typically less lucrative.

While there are constant inconsistencies and ungrounded assertions throughout, perhaps one more example: "During the same year [1984] the Nicaraguan army, which Reagan termed a threat to the entire region [OBVIOUSLY LAFEBER THINKS REAGAN IS WRONG TO TERM THIS AS A THREAT], at least doubled to over 50,000 troops, and the Sandinists distributed arms to 100,000 civilians, whom they obviously trusted to fight on their side in a crisis. Meanwhile, according to State Department figures, the president's policies had not stopped the number of Cuban advisers in Nicaragua from increasing from 2,000 to 3,000 in early 1983 to more than 7,000 late that year, fifty Soviet civilian advisers growing to about two hundred (there were no reported Russian military advisers), and about eighty-five East German-Libyan-PLO advisers multiplying roughly three times. Reagan's buildup threatened to expand the military conflict into the entire region."

So, Reagan was BOTH supposedly wrong about the Cubans and Russian influence in Nicaragua, and then responsible for a substantial Cuban and Russian buildup occurred. A pretty neat trick!

For sure, US regional policy--whether under Carter, Wilson, Eisenhower or Reagan--was US centric, inconsistent and frequently heavy handed. Having lived in Poland for three years in the early 1990's, I can say that the Russians were even more heavy handed there and throughout Eastern Europe. But Reagan's dismantling of the Soviet Union ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall") does seem to be positively correlated with 4 of the 5 Central American countries having stabilized--even without land reform or liberation theology or all the other pronouncements from the Ithacan ivory towers. Nor do we hear about the Liberation Theologists (or the large scale conversion of ordinary Central American people to evangelical churches away from the traditional Catholic religion since the Liberationists presumed to speak for these people.

LaFeber also continually takes as given statements of intentions from the "Sandinists" or the rebel Salvadorean forces, yet doubts any statements made by the US administrations. Do only American politicians lie, or is Mr LaFeber gifted with divining what statements are really REALLY true?

The 70 + million people living in Central America are important to understand, and given their proximity and understanding more about what has occurred there as well as about the large scale emigration of former residents and citizens that have entered the United States is important. Regrettably, LaFeber has written an opinionated, short term journalistic hit piece against the United States which has little value today. It would have been better had he stuck to history.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thorough examination of 200 years of U.S. diplomatic, military and economic influence in Central America. Lafeber labors methodically to contrast the nuances of each succeeding administration's interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, neatly connecting these policies to his stated thesis: U.S. Central American policy fixated on maintaining regional stability, often by throwing support behind bloody authoritarian regimes, which served ultimately to foment rather than prevent the forces of revolution that erupted in the 1980s.

[Ben · Rating 5 out of 5]

An incisive and thorough analysis of United States foreign policy in Central America, Inevitable Revolutions brilliantly exposes how successive administrations wrestled with and were ultimately unable to reconcile the United States' conflicted interests in Central America and the consequences of those failures.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of many books picked up during the military interventions of the USA in Central America but only read much later. When my stepbrother Erik Badger and our friend Kristian went to El Salvador and Honduras several years later, I gave them this to read beforehand.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crushing to learn that the “if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it must be a duck” comes from the US war on communism in Central America and the decades-long support of multiple dictators in the region.

[Charles · Rating 5 out of 5]

The first true attempt by the United States to exert power over Central America was the statement that became known as the Monroe Doctrine. It was first stated in 1823 by President James Monroe and was written by then Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. It was shortly after most of the nations in Central and South America had gained independence from their European rulers and stated that any attempt by any European nation to take control of a nation in the Western Hemisphere would be considered a threat to U. S. security.
For the next several decades, the United States was busy expanding westward and except for the war with Mexico that led to vast territorial acquisitions, the United States generally stayed out of the affairs of the rest of the Western Hemisphere. However, that changed in 1898 when the United States easily defeated Spain and took control of the Philippines, Cuba and Puerto Rico.
This was followed in 1901 when the United States created the new country of Panama from part of Columbia so that a treaty for the building of the Panama Canal between the new country and the United States could be signed. The canal was completed in 1914 and with the Canal Zone under U. S. control, U. S. power was now paramount in that area of the world.
Since that time the United States has often invaded and taken effective control of several nations in Central America. At other times an invasion was not necessary as local strongmen and dictators were placed in charge with U. S. backing. The history of these actions is a sordid one with hundreds of thousands of people in Central America having been killed by American proxy rulers.
The author sets out all the nasty details of the American dominance of this area of the world. In all cases it is the economic interests of the American bankers, fruit companies and mining companies that drove the political control. All sides, including the American political class were willing to accept tyrants in charge of the Central American countries if they didn’t get too greedy, and they did little to upset the availability of extremely cheap labor.
The history of the United States in Central America is a very sordid and brutal one. While the American political class often used very idealistic statements to justify their actions, they were always hollow to the vast majority of Central Americans. Fundamentally, it was always the large and powerful country enacting its economic and political will against the smaller neighbors to the south. This book should be required reading of anyone that thinks they know the history of American involvement in Central America.

[Thomas Radigan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I got the book many years ago as a college freshman. The book was interesting, but as I know now, it does not tell the whole story and the author promotes several myths about the USA and Latin America.

It gives overviews of the various histories and cultures of the various nations on Central America (excluding Panama, which was previously covered in a different book of the author's), and how the relatively weak and immature nineteenth-century USA wanted these nations to provide needed commodities such as foodstuffs and lumber. The author even acknowledges that US foreign policy was not oriented toward the benefit of multinational corporations as many leftists claim, but of genuine fear of British and other foreign powers placing a possible stranglehold on US sovereignty-the British Empire was still very strong then. He also mentions how economic and political developments in Central America and elsewhere have caused changes such as Honduras no longer being the "banana republic" it once was. While the author blames faulty US foreign aid programs such as Kennedy's Alliance For Progress for causing unintended problems in Central America, he does acknowledge that Central American leaders themselves have made their own missteps and problems too.

But the author deemphasizes Soviet intervention in Central America as well. He puts out the myth that Fidel Castro was pushed into the Soviet sphere (Castro himself laughed at that claim), or that the Sandinistas were not really Soviet-sponsored (Reagan in his accounts said otherwise). The USA may be powerful, but it has never been as all-powerful or influential as left-wingers like to claim.

[j · Rating 4 out of 5]

in this fairly comprehensive and in many ways a brilliant synthesis, i nevertheless have to dock lafeber points for the total abandonment of any attempt at narrative, and his lax treatment of the causal relationships events in one central american country tended to have on another. i had to keep a running diary in my mind of what was happening each year in all the other countries while reading a section on any given individual country, which made this a tougher read than it had to be.

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although the thought of something as inevitable makes me skeptical, LeFeber's Inevitable Revolutions is a classic in the field of US Foreign Relations. In terms of style, structure, and argument LeFeber offers a model of writing history by tracing United States interventions in Central America to what was a region in crisis in the 1980s. His argument, that the US dependency system leads to Revolution is one we might consider still today, but in terms of global economic ties.

[Alex P · Rating 4 out of 5]

Got through ~2/3 of the books and thought it was an extremely insightful telling of history. However, I feel it is a bit too informative with little accompanying story or commentary that makes it difficult to stay hooked. As a repository of information for this time and geography though it is an excellent read.

[Will C · Rating 5 out of 5]

A slow read but a very good one that gave me a ton of knowledge I've wanted but not had.

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

"this compact region has been the target of a highly disproportionate amount of North American investment and--especially--military intervention. Every twentieth-century intervention by U.S. troops in the hemisphere has occurred in the Central American-Caribbean region."

"first, for more than a century (if not since 1790), North Americans have been staunchly antirevolutionary; and, second, U.S. power has been the dominant outside (and often inside) force shaping the societies against which Central Americans have rebelled.... These two themes--the U.S. fear of certain kinds of revolution and the way the U.S. system ironically helped cause revolutions in Central America--form the basis of this book."

"Many Central Americans have increasingly associated capitalism with a brutal oligarchy-military complex that has been supported by U.S. policies--and armies."

[Didier "Dirac Ghost" Gaulin · Rating 3 out of 5]

A solid overview of the foreign policies by the US onto the Central American political sphere. The author has a clear left-leaning attitude (the use of the word ''scab'' comes to mind), but, is not succumbing to the ''blame America for the woes of the world'' type of canvas that often plague the ''new left'' or the left-revisionist historians. LaFeber is a good writer and let the details flow in a very natural way which makes the reading easy, which is not always the case, in the world of foreign and geo politics. I was quite ignorant of that part of the world and this book is a must read. My only remark, would have been to expand on the Mexican imperialist tendencies, the idea of a greater Mexico through a federation of central America, and a bit more of Spanish based documentation, if available, of course.

[Wes Bishop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. Difficult in some areas to get through but overall very easy to read considering it is a history book.

LaFaber concludes that overall American foreign policy in Latin America has created an atmosphere where revolution is inevitable.

LaFaber is excellent in looking at specific instances and countries while still capturing the overall feel of diplomatic history between the U.S. and Latin America.

His idea on the "system" is also interesting. Recommended for the historian and general public who is interested in the area.

[Jack Adams · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good stuff. Probably the best book on the United States and Central America I've read to date. It cuts through the optics and posturing to get to the actual motivations of these rival interests, how they executed their strategies, and the results of their actions - in this case, the galvanization of anti-American sentiment in Central America.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fruit growing, U.S. hegemony, and Central American revolutions mix in this story of United Fruit company's activities in the land South of the border.

[Brock · Rating 5 out of 5]

clear. comprehensive. puts Central Americans at the center of their history. the best CA history book I have encountered.

[Frederic Pierce · Rating 4 out of 5]

My introduction to revisionist history, written by one of the most brilliant professors I ever had.

[Zarahi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Masterpiece!

[Shane Lewis · Rating 5 out of 5]

A truly eye-opening account of American foreign policy in Central America. It exposes the almost imperialistic aspect of our involvement in many different countries.

[Gabriel · Rating 4 out of 5]

good read and interesting prose

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

very informative, but dry to read.

[Doris Raines · Rating 1 out of 5]

Iam. Not. Sure. How. To. Rate. This. Book. Ummm

[Mills College Library]

327.73072 L162i 1993