Two Empires

Barack Obama, who is usually so careful in his rhetoric, let a rather unfortunate phrase escape a few days ago. Criticizing the annexation of Crimea by Russia, he declared before the press: “We [the United States] have considerable influence over our neighbors. We generally don’t need to invade them in order to have a strong cooperative relationship with them.”

Generally not? The United States has invaded its neighbors on the American continent at least 29 times in its short history of something more than two centuries, beginning with their defeated tentative annexation of Canada in 1812 (although they had already eyed Mexico and Haiti, following the slave revolts). And that is just a count at first glance, starting after the years dedicated to extermination of the interior enemy, the Native American tribes.

Starting with the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine regarding the divine right of the United States to command the entire hemisphere, the first large-scale invasion was of Mexico in 1846, adding to the United States half of Mexico’s territory (what is today Texas and California). In 1855 came the occupation of Nicaragua, in order to re-establish slavery there and in the neighboring countries of El Salvador and Honduras. The invasion of Cuba occurred in 1898, which included the conquest of Puerto Rico and of the remote Philippines in the Spanish-American War. The taking of Panama occurred in 1903 and that of the Dominican Republic in 1904. In 1906, again it was Cuba; in 1908, Panama for the second time; and in 1910, Nicaragua yet again. At a rate of almost one per year, there were invasions and temporary or permanent occupations of parts of Mexico, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Honduras and Nicaragua between 1911 and 1927. There was a pause until 1954, when Guatemala was invaded. And afterward, there were passing interventions by a foreign hand, such as the invasion of Cuba by the Cuban anti-Castros in 1961, financed by the CIA, or the attacks by the local militaries in Brazil, Uruguay, Guatemala, Bolivia and, most bloodily, in Chile in 1973, which was organized by U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger. There were also the revolts of the Argentine generals, the invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada in 1983 and the bombardment of Panama City in 1989. All of this, without counting the wars and invasions of other countries on other continents in Europe, Asia and Africa, were in order to — as President Obama says — “strengthen cooperation” with the invaded. And this is all also without counting the installation of hundreds of military bases, much like the one that Russia has in Sevastopol in the recently annexed, or perhaps better termed “re-annexed,” Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea.

From what can be seen, President Barack Obama, so well educated in the best universities, is not familiar with history.

Or perhaps it is not that he is unfamiliar with it, but simply that he does not acknowledge it — a behavior that forms an indissoluble part not only of his function as president, which consists of telling lies, but also of his Puritan education in hypocrisy. The United States has never recognized itself as an empire, and because of this, it gives itself the luxury of condemning imperialism of other empires in the name of liberty. Russia on the other hand recognizes, with brutal boasting, having been an empire for centuries and [it] aspires to continue being one. For this reason, Vladimir Putin says the “bravery [of Russian soldiers] brought Crimea into the Russian Empire.”

Russia and the United States are two empires, which in the years of the Cold War became almost hegemonic in their respective halves of the world. But in the downfall of communism they have both removed their masks to leave themselves nakedly imperialist. Russia can no longer present itself as a promoter of the socialist revolution, and the United States can no longer disguise itself as a defender of liberty. Each is reduced to the promotion and defense of its own respective interests.

How? Through what Obama calls “cooperation.” In other words, the same thing for which he criticizes Putin: the use of force.