On April 7, 1939, Italian forces under Benito Mussolini invaded Albania and claimed control of that country.2
Italian forces in Albania, April 7, 1939. Author: Kingdom of Italy. Public domain
On May 10, 1940, German troops under Adolf Hitler invaded Belgium and claimed control of that country.3
German soldiers in Belgium, May 1940. German Federal Archives. Public domain
On October 6, 1950 Chinese troops under Mao Zedong invaded Tibet and claimed control of that country.1
Chinese troops marching into the capital of Tibet in 1951, one year after the invasion. Credit:《解放军报》记者. Public domain
As I prepared to write this blog, Ronald Reagan's phrase, "A shining city on a hill" ran through my mind. I went back to read his farewell speech. Reagan was a proponent of military strength. He said in his speech, "Common sense also told us that to preserve the peace, we'd have to become strong again after years of weakness and confusion. So, we rebuilt our defenses".
That sounds familiar, a little like the bellicose claims of our current president, minus the hyperbole. Reagan was willing to use military force, but he justified that action in terms of supporting our 'exceptionalism'. In his farewell speech he asks, "Are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?"
Ronald Reagan, known as the Great Communicator, sold the country a package based on ideals, not on avarice, or materialism. Did he believe in those ideals? It's impossible to say what anyone truly believes. What is important is the moral foundation he offered people. He believed the U. S. electorate wanted him to be true to that morality and to traditional ideals.
Here are a few of the ideals offered in Reagan's farewell address:
In 1983 Ronald Reagan ordered the invasion of a small Caribbean island, Granada. He justified the action by describing the risk to U.S. security of a growing Cuba-Soviet military presence in Granada. He also cited recent social unrest in the island and the assassination of Granada's president. Finally, Reagan asserted the need to protect 1000 American students who were studying at a medial school in Granada. Here are excerpts from that speech:
In summary: Reagan justified his invasion of Granada by citing a direct threat to 1000 American students living on the island. He cited the growing presence of Cuban military on the island, which was perceived as a potential base for Soviet/Cuban military action. And he cited the urgency of restoring democracy and reestablishing a constitutional government in Granada. He gave at least superficial legitimacy to this goal, and to the invasion, by describing how Caribbean leaders had asked him to intervene and gave their treaty obligations as justification for this intervention.
In the press conference following the official statement, Trump said:
On the following day, on January 4, Trump warned the new leader of Venezuela of dire consequences if she doesn't "do what is right". He said: “If she doesn’t do what’s right, she is going to pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro...” This threat was reinforced by a senate ally, Tom Cotton, who clarified, 'what is right'. Cotton said,"“What we want is a future Venezuelan government that will be pro-American..."
In summary: Trump offers as justification for the invasion:
An assertion of American power. The arrest of a criminally indicted (by the U.S.) leader. The reestablishment of U.S. oil companies in the country to extract and sell oil. The establishment of a pro-American government.
Invasion of Granada and Invasion of Venezuela, similarities and differences.
These two invasions, have at their base, essential similarities.
2.The U.S. uses its overwhelming military force to assort control over the invaded country.
3.Both in Granada and Venezuela, the U. S. is acting in accord with the principles of the Monroe Doctrine.
There are, however, striking differences between the two invasions, and these are reflected in the statements of the two presidents, Trump and Reagan.
Reagan went out of his way to frame the Granada invasion with legitimacy, in terms that supported the ideas of international cooperation, democracy and self-determination. He apparently felt he had to sell this invasion to the U. S. electorate by appealing to its sense of right, and classic democratic principles. He appealed to the traditional values that the U.S. has always claimed for itself, as part of its national ethos--even when the country's actions contradicted those values.
Trump, on the other hand, does not appeal to U.S. ideals. His appeal is to raw power. Never does he mention democracy. The speech and responses to press questions are peppered with statements about U.S. military supremacy. He openly asserts the right to establish a friendly government in Venezuela and never refers to self-determination. He aggressively declares the U.S. intention to exploit the resources of another country...Venezuela. He declares openly that the U.S. will extract wealth from those resources. Finally, he threatens heads of state that they will suffer a worse fate than Maduro (assassination?) if they do not follow U.S. directives.
What happened to U. S. foreign policy between Granada and Venezuela? When did it become acceptable for a United States president to openly pursue a policy of territorial aggrandizement and forced appropriation of foreign resources? When did it become acceptable for the president of the United States to hint at assassinating a foreign leader who is not 'pro-American'?
The turnaround in official U. S. values was rapid. It happened with the election of Donald Trump.
Is the American electorate ready to abandon the shining city on a hill? Is the electorate ready for naked aggression, unabashed exploitation of foreign territory, and wars in support of these actions? Is it consistent with our self image that our president stands, proudly, head to head with tyrants of the past and present?
I don't know. I hope not.
Notes
