America’s Second Chance in Guatemala

I do agree U.S. interests are to have a Guatemalan government that is "pro-U.S". But that means a government that will bend and break according to U.S. demands. The corrupted governments that the U.S. related to and controlled in the past and in different historical contexts, probably never had the per capita (among government officials) dirty money that Guatemala has to divide between politicians. Mexico might be an exception, but I venture to say there are more "checks and balances" there than in Guatemala. The type and levels of corruption that can happen in Guatemala are different altogether in that being fueled by narco-traffic and other unabated crimes, it can make politicians richer than they ever dreamed without U.S. foreign aid, without strings attached. I'm not saying it will make Guatemalan governments independent of the U.S., but I speculate if they're being pumped billions of fraudulent dollars without bending to U.S. demands, U.S control may suffer. If it isn't a concern of the U.S. it should be.

While the U.S. government and dominant sectors do want to avoid a “political vacuum”, they do not care if there is a corrupted state in Guatemala, or elsewhere in Latin America. (In certain ways, the U.S. is not concerned if they deal with a ‘narco-state’ – witness the on-going full military, economic and political relations with Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.) Going back generations, the U.S. has maintained military, economic and political relations with many “corrupted states” in the Americas, including notably today Guatemala and Honduras. Again, the concern of the U.S. is not of having relations with corrupted states, or ones that are repressive, exploitative, etc., but rather of what different type of government might fill a “political vacuum”. There are very clear political reasons why the U.S. overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala in 1954, supported the Haitian coup in 2004, the Honduran coup in 2009, and so many more since 1954. The real challenge remains whether enough support can be provided to enough Guatemalans to bring about the reforms and transformations they need and deserve, despite what the U.S. government is already doing – working to ensure that a pro-U.S. interests government remains in power. ([email protected])

The United States needs to focus on its corruption within the government. Some examples would be IRS officials, former Secretaries of State, former Speakers of the House, etc

" And yet the United States has fallen short of applying pressure on President Otto Pérez Molina directly, supporting his determination to stay in office in exchange for his apparent willingness to enact anti-corruption legislation."

The Guatemalan writer brings into focus a recurrent theme of US - Latin politics. Every time something goes wrong in the region ( and it always do!) people with influence/power call for American intervention.

Is time for the ruling elite in Latin America to grow up and solve domestic problems without asking help from Uncle Sam. Regardless the nature of the problem, American intervention always make matters even worse.

History has taught a valuable lesson to the powers that be in DC. One hundred and fifty years of expeditionary forces to police the region have proved State-building a failed idea that never worked.

File this one under the (two x wrong) != (right). None of our business. When will we learn?

I believe both Ms. Isaacs and Mr. Russell are correct. The U.S. government wants to avoid a corrupt state in Guatemala, a possible consequence of a “political vacuum”. Drug control is hard enough without an easy flow from Guatemala.

However the rise of organized crime will certainly NOT serve U.S. political, economic, and military interests. Thus by avoiding a corrupt state, the U.S. is actually protecting its interests. Why?

First, it would be difficult to control Guatemalan governments that “skim off” much more with their corrupted practices, than they could hope for with U.S. aid. Just during the past four years, President Molina’s government defrauded over $4 billion from the public. How can the U.S control if it loses its importance to politicians’ bank accounts?

Second, organized crime would endanger U.S. business interests. Bribes, extortion, kidnappings, and violence against corporations are NOT in U.S. interests.

Third, the U.S. might have to impose military force over Guatemala to “protect” its interests. This wouldn’t be in our interests nor is it politically viable.

The U.S. wants to avoid a narco-state, a “vacuum”, but only to further its own interests. However, with profound reforms BEFORE ELECTIONS, a vacuum and organized crime could be avoided to benefit everybody.

Yes, the U.S. has a “second chance” to support strong reforms, stop supporting President Molina, and to allow Guatemalans to bear the fruits of democracy.

Anita Isaacs’ article is based on misrepresentations of American history and interests in Guatemala.

She writes: “American policy toward Guatemala is driven by the concern that a political vacuum would empower organized criminals.” American policy towards Guatemala has never been driven by these concerns. Policy has always been driven by U.S. economic, military and political interests, as defined by the elite sectors of American society.

She writes: “[Guatemalans’] vision of the United States continues to be shaped by the C.I.A.-sponsored coup in 1954 that interrupted an initial democratic spring and triggered decades of armed conflict.” Correct. But there is more. They remember decades of American military, financial, political and intelligence support for repressive regimes throughout the “cold war”. In the eyes of many, the U.S. should is co-responsible for genocides carried out by the Guatemalan military in the late 70s, early 1980s.

Since the 1996 “Peace Accords”, the memories of Guatemalans are of continued U.S. support for and economic dealings with corrupted, repressive and exploitative “democratic” governments and the military and police.

The U.S. government and economic elites will never support serious reform and transformation in Guatemala. The real challenge is whether enough support can be provided to enough Guatemalans to bring about the reforms and transformations they need and deserve, despite the United States. ([email protected])

Noticed how ridiculous the tittle of this piece sounds ?
" America´s Second Chance in Guatemala "
America¨s ??? You mean the US. America is not a country ; not a nation,
It does not seat at the UN; has never won a cup in international sports, etc
it is a continent and, if you didn´t know ( which I wouldn't be surprised )
Guatemala is IN America. So please be more precise in your aggressive
reporting. ( ie, America DID NOT invade Iraq, it was a the US !!! )

Four years ago when the civil war began in Syria the US under Obama had a chance to support a genuine democratic movement and for once to do the right thing. Instead our government did nothing and the result was the present chaos. I fear that the same thing will happen in Guatemala and that Obama's inability to make any type of decision will cause us to be spectators again, and to loose a chance to do some good for people struggling for democracy.

Anita, I think America is too busy destroying it's own democracy to worry about fixing Guatemala's.

Until any country (ours included) incorporates term limits into its executive and legislative representative criteria it cannot call itself a true democracy. Corruption, whether it be Lamar Alexander accepting over $300,000 two weeks before the Senate's vote on health care insurance or the Guatemala vice president's secretary accepting custom's bribes, results in facsimile of democracy which is opaque to the principle of one man one vote. How this country could have the audacity to lecture Guatemala about the principles of democracy in light of the "citizens united" judgement is chutzpah of the first corpulent degree.

Prof. Issacs raises the very pertinent question about whether those who rule Guatemala today, yet are deeply and personally implicated in the abuses of the past, can bring about reform of this haplessly corrupt government. The answer is the obvious, "No."

There is another government just as deeply tied to past abuses, the US. Monroe Doctrine aside, as it should be, there is little evidence of strong, consistent support for reform and human rights by the US. American officials are as adept as Pres. General Molina at mouthing what people want to hear -- then doing something else.

While the OAS has its own historical baggage, at this point it or the UN would be far more credible interlocutors. They're also less likely to accept the status quo as part of the devil's bargain the US and Guatemala dance to with periodic promises to clean up their acts dating back to, guess what?, 1954.

Unless we sharply question the role and involvement of our own government in these affairs, nothing will change.

Helping any country to solve its crisis problem has never been seen as in the interests of the US. Why should that change now?

Seems like the supposed fear of organized crime, in Central America, by the U.S. is rather like the pot calling the kettle black. I'm clamoring for a return to democracy in THIS country, and the expulsion of all the criminals in our own congress. Most of the international troubles we have are of our own making.

Our concern that "a political vacuum would empower organized criminals." is not a concern so much as a plan. Our "holier than thou" advice is always tainted when the collection plate is passed and divided among the political acolytes.

If the voting public here, really understood what is going on throughout the world as a result of our meddling we would get off the couch and vote for change.

We are like mushrooms kept in the dark and covered with fertilizer.

No public funding for political candidates? It would be great if we in the USA had that. Why not Guatemala. And quotas ( women , native Americans) a candidates is a horrible idea. It means that no man will ever vote for a woman, not non- native American will ever vote for a native American, no matter how qualified. What are you trying to do, create civil war in place of corruption. In addition, what are members of the US government doing there. It's sound like a US coup has already taken place, with government corruption as the excuse.

Great articulation of the problem and part of the reason. Whether the US pays or not for CICIG is only part of the story, so do a bunch of European Countries. The Guatemalan Constitution (as every other Constitution) exists to protect and guarantee certain individual and collective principles. Formality is the must absurd defense to continue breaching those principles, hence fear is not a great explanation of those who defend formality, and the status quo.

Humans may, we know, but do the proverbial leopards ever change their spots?
One can't help thinking that all this reported wiretapping is connected to the spare time activity of the N.S.A. and is softening up the Nicaraguan political landscape for more incursions and pillaging by their light fingered neighbours.
The Nicaraguans will nor fall for it.

The United States government has a job to do which is specified in the constitution. It doesn't include running everything in this country. It doesn't include running anything in any other country.

So interfering in Guatamela's affairs 60 years ago was wrong, but doing it again is justified because this time it will help the author's favorites? How about resolving that interfering should not be done, period?

The United States should tell Guatemala to leave Belize alone. Stop disrepecting our borders and our sovereignty.

Excellent piece. Is the U.S. backing/funding CICIG? Seems it is a critical actor in current situation.

Ms. Isaacs avoid mention the rule of law in Guatemala: Our Constitution mention the elections must be in september. As guatemalan who Iwas at the manifestations against Perez and Ms.Isaacs NO, I think I have more credibility than her to tell to USA what is happening in MY COUNTRY. NOT everybody are calling against the elections in september because We support OUR Constitution. EVERYBODY are sick with the corruption and We want see the corrupt people in the jail, BUT must be under the rule of law of our country and the respect to our constitution. Maybe Ms. Isaacs needs a copy of the Guatemalan Constitution.
What will happen in USA if somebody call to "no elections" because do not like the Bush - Clinton team? The USA ambassador was clear here last week. He is supporting the institutions, NO people. The group against the elections is a small group, pushing to try to block the election and impose their candidates for President to take the power they can not won by elections.
Will the NYTimes support a technical "coup dState"?
The rule of law and respect to them is the base for the democracy. We need make changes in our Constitution and our elections laws, but must be in order and with the agree of everybody, not running with changes almost nobody knows (as they are trying now). Maybe is better if the writer write about how USA can help the guatemalans to build institutions like your institutions and rule of law.

After blowing up the Middle East by destroying Iraq, thus creating ISIS/ISIL; (another group originally financed by the CIA just like the Taliban and el qaeda ...), then destabilizing North Africa by attacking a peaceful Libya, thus turning that country and its arms into a haven for international terrorists; then allowing Egypt to return to brutal military dictatorship without a peep - in short, after bungling everything - why not do one thing right?

Guatemala is one of the most unequal country and the country with the highest poverty rate in Latin America. The public policies do nothing to reduce inequality and poverty. Poverty headcount of rural and indigenous populations reaches more than 70%. The US ambassador, unfortunately, as suggested by this article, in Guatemla is supporting the status quo instead of backing the anti-corruption and democratic reforms needed and claimed by the well-organized and peaceful demostrations.

The CIA didn't just depose the democratically elected Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in the 50's. In the 80's Reagan funded the genocide of the Guatemalan Mayans under the guise of counter insurgency, Cold War style.

Reagan, the Eureka College guy cheerleader, WW II hero of the Battle of Beautiful Downtown Burbank, spent billions retarding democracy movements in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and in the case of Nicaragua, illegally funded the Contra terrorists.
Not surprisingly the only one of the four where Reagan's butchery failed, Nicaragua, is the only one of those four countries whose citizens are not desperately trying to flee the horror by seeking asylum, en masse, in the always exceptional US of A.

We destroyed the indigenous people's way of life long ago, removing husbands from small farms and sending the widows to work in city factories. Reagan's war on drugs gave American investors their opportunity to enslave the beautiful natives of the country and corrupt their government. I'm glad the people are demonstrating and wonder what would happen if we stayed out of it?

From 1983 to 1996, the Guatemala Army killed an estimated 200,000 Mayans in its campaign against "communism" begun by genocidal dictator Rios Montt. It is the worst genocide to occur in the Western Hemisphere during the entire 20th century. The Guatemalan Army was armed, trained and financed by the U.S. mostly under Ronald Reagan, the Great Exterminator. In 1990 a U.S. citizen and Vietnam veteran Mike Devine was murdered by a Guatemalan colonel working in the service of the U.S. CIA. When the Guatemalan Supreme Court ordered the colonel to be extradited to the U.S., the Chief Justice of the Guatemalan Supreme Court was murdered and the extradition halted. The accused colonel then moved to the Washington D.C. suburbs where he lived under U.S. government protection.

You'll never heard about this by reading the NY Times.

Having been to Guatemala on medical missions, it is near-incredible to me that President Molina's friends would steal from the already desperately underfunded health system. There essentially is no health care for poor people except for vaccinations in Guatemala. And this lack compounds horrific health problems caused by destitution, causing large majorities of children in rural areas to be chronically malnourished - and that means stunted and cognitively crippled for the rest of their lives.

Thousands of children have come from Guatemala unaccompanied to Massachusetts in the last few years, fleeing hunger and violence caused by the oligarchs of Guatemala led by President Molina.

Our governments have supported brutal, exploitative regimes in Guatemala since 1954. Then it was for the benefit of "United Fruit" (now named "Chiquita"). Now it is for the benefit of palm oil-producing corporations of mining companies who grab indigenous Guatemalans' land.

We - voters and taxpayers - must pay attention to what our government is doing in Central America. We must demand better.

Not so sure I agree with Ms. Issacs who argues that because the US intervened in Guatemalan internal politics in the past it should do so again but this time under her proposed terms which include banning public funding for political parties and quotas for women and indigenous candidates. I fear her proposed interventions are chauvinistic and will not bring about the changes she so desires. Guatemalans need to take control of their destiny and they cannot transfer the responsibility to outsiders and outside solutions.

I fear we have not changed our stripes
We still back the "free market" types,
Corrupt ones we back
Of which there's no lack,
'gainst such Leaders we have no gripes.