U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower approved the implementation of a secret, multifaceted plan by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) on March 17, 1960, to covertly remove Cuban leader Fidel Castro from power. Castro had assumed power in early 1959 after the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, and he was determined to do whatever it took to end Cuba’s neocolonial relationship with the U.S. His subsequent agrarian reforms, nationalizations of American-owned businesses in Cuba, and economic agreements with the Soviet Union had convinced Eisenhower that he was a communist.
The Eisenhower administration’s decision to treat Castro as a Cold War adversary resulted in a steady deterioration in the relationship between Cuba and the U.S. during the remainder of 1960. Things came to a head on October 19 when the U.S. imposed a trade embargo against Cuba, and the next day the U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, Philip Bonsal, was recalled.
About a week later Monsignor Bryan O. Walsh, the director of Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Miami, got a call from the State Department asking him to go to Washington, D.C. There he was asked to participate in a clandestine operation to smuggle Cuban children into the U.S. He agreed and was eventually given unprecedented authority to issue “visa waivers” which were smuggled into Cuba and allowed any unaccompanied Cuban child between the ages of 6 to 16 to ostensibly study in the U.S. The U.S. government did not, however, create a special visa program for the children’s parents.
I visited Cuba earlier this year with an American tour group and learned many things. One of them was that the U.S. government’s involvement in Cuban affairs before the Cuban Revolution was more extensive than what we’ve been taught – and not in a good way.
American involvement in Cuban affairs began as early as 1854, when the Ostend Manifesto was drafted by Southern expansionists who wanted to acquire Cuba from Spain in order to facilitate the expansion of their slave economy. Its publication outraged anti-slavery Northerners and the idea was shelved, although the Confederates would have pursued the acquisition of Cuba if they’d won the Civil War.
Many ex-Confederates moved to Cuba after the South lost the war because slavery was still legal there. They had little effect, however, because American businessmen were already heavily invested in Cuba and controlled its lucrative sugar industry.
The Spanish-American War
The Cuban War of Independence, inspired by Cuban patriot José Martí, began in 1895 and by 1897 the liberation army had the Spanish on the defensive. Then in 1898 the U.S. militarily intervened in the war after the American battleship U.S.S. Maine mysteriously exploded in Havana Harbor on February 15, killing 266 U.S. sailors. President William McKinley asked Congress to declare war in April and in the subsequent Spanish-American War an American army defeated Spanish troops at the Battle of San Juan Hill and a U.S. naval force subsequently destroyed a Spanish naval squadron at the Battle of Santiago de Cuba. These losses, coupled with other Spanish military defeats in the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico, caused Spain to sue for peace and a ceasefire was established on August 12. In the formal peace treaty that was signed in December, the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico were annexed by the U.S. and Cuba became a protectorate – a virtual U.S. colony. Cubans were not included in the negotiations with Spain.
During my visit to Cuba I learned that most Cubans resent America’s intervention in their independence war. They believe they were close to defeating the Spanish on their own, and the Maine was blown up as part of a secret scheme by U.S. imperialists to create an excuse for America to gain control of Cuba. (No definitive cause for the ship’s explosion has ever been identified.)
American newspaper columnist William Sydney Porter, known by his pen name O. Henry, coined the term “banana republic” at the beginning of the 20th century. It describes a nation with an undeveloped economy that’s reliant upon the exploitation of natural resources, with an elite ruling class that siphons off the profits for themselves at the expense of an oppressed and impoverished working class. Mr. Porter created the term after living in Honduras, which is one of the Central American countries, along with neighboring Guatemala and El Salvador, which have produced the recent surge of undocumented immigrant children into the U.S.
Mr. Porter chose the adjective banana because American fruit companies operating banana plantations dominated Honduras at that time. American foreign policy in Central America during the first half of the 20th century was focused on protecting the commercial interests of the large American fruit companies operating there. The U.S. Marines were sent to the region so often their activities are now called the Banana Wars. American troops, for example, occupied Cuba four times between 1899 and 1922.
U.S. Meddling Has Contributed to Problems in Central America
After WWII, and the advent of the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy in the region began to focus on the threat of Communism. Like it had during the earlier part of the century, the U.S. government continued to bankroll dictators and right-wing militias in the region in order to protect its perceived interests. This intensified the growing leftist sentiment among the poor.
A CIA sponsored military coup authorized by President Dwight Eisenhower, for example, overthrew a popularly elected leftist government in Guatemala in 1954. This led to the outbreak of the Guatemalan Civil War in 1960. The U.S. trained Guatemalan army along with right-wing death squads conducted genocide against rebellious peasants, particularly Mayan Indians. In addition to the estimated 150,000 people killed during the war, about 45,000 people were “disappeared” before it ended in 1996.
There was another civil war in neighboring El Salvador. It began after there was a popular coup in 1979 against the nation’s murderous and corrupt military dictatorship. The reforms proposed by the coup leaders provoked violent resistance from the military and the wealthy elite. A right-wing assassin killed El Salvador’s Catholic Archbishop Oscar Romero while he was giving mass on March 24, 1980, one day after he called upon Salvadoran soldiers to disobey orders to kill civilians. Then on December 2, 1980, the Salvadoran National Guard raped and murdered four American nuns and a laywoman. In 1981 a coalition of leftist guerilla groups called the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) began attacks against the U.S. backed Salvadoran army. It’s estimated about 75,000 people were killed, and about 8,000 were “disappeared” by right-wing death squads by the time the war ended in 1992.
In comparison to Guatemala and El Salvador, Honduras was relatively stable during this time. This allowed the Ronald Reagan administration to use it as a base of operations for the Contra rebels it sponsored to fight against the leftist Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua. The terrorist tactics the Contras used against Nicaraguan civilians prompted the U.S. Congress to cut off funds to them in 1985. But the Reagan administration decided to continue funding the Contras by other means, which led to the Iran-Contra Affair scandal of 1986–1987. The scandal revealed the Reagan administration had funded the Contras using the proceeds from arms sales to Iran, and had employed known drug traffickers.
The U.S. also provided support to Operation Charly during the Reagan presidency. This was a program by Argentina’s military dictatorship to implement covert operations in Central America against leftists. Their tactics included the use of death squads, and Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador were among the countries in which they operated.
Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador have democratic governments now but their political institutions are fragile, as shown by the right-wing coup which removed Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009. Furthermore, many of the social issues that led to the wars are still unresolved. Their economies are still undeveloped, they still lack a significant middle class, and the vast majority of their people still live in poverty. This economic void, unfortunately, has been filled by violent drug cartels that have become the de facto governments in many neighborhoods. They make their money by smuggling illegal drugs into the U.S.
The flood of more than 57,000 minors that have fled to the U.S. from these countries since last fall has prompted many American right-wing protestors to take to the streets and angrily scream, “Send them back, they’re not our problem!” Tolerance for this type of hatred and ignorance is a good example of what’s wrong with the modern Republican Party. It’s difficult to believe it’s the party of Lincoln, the party that was founded to fight slavery.
On November 6, 2017, President Donald Trump announced he was ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of refugees from Nicaragua who have been living in the U.S. since 1999.
In the November 26, 2017, national election it initially appeared that the voters in Honduras had elected newcomer Salvador Nasralla to replace President Juan Orlando Hernandez, whose National Party had supported the 2009 coup that removed President Manual Zelaya. Protests erupted after it became obvious that the Honduran government was manipulating the vote count in favor or Hernandez. On December 17 a special Honduran court declared Hernandez the winner by a slim margin. The Organization of American States (OAS) responded to the announcement by calling for the election to be held again, citing irregularities, supporting a similar call from Nasralla’s Anti-Corruption Party.
On January 8, 2018, Donald Trump announced he was ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of refugees from El Salvador who have been living in the U.S. since 2001.
On May 4, 2018, Donald Trump announced that he was ending the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of refugees from Honduras who have been living in the U.S. since 1999.
On May 15, 2018, during a Senate hearing, Donald Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen defended her agency’s new policy that will result in Central American immigrant families being separated at the border by saying that similar separations happen in the US “every day.”
On June 1, 2018, a religious coalition called the Evangelical Immigration Table sent a letter to President Trump expressing concern that his new “zero tolerance” policy was separating vulnerable children from their parents.
On June 20, 2018, President Donald Trump responded to intense nationwide criticism and signed an executive order too end the separation of families at the border by detaining parents and children together.
On June 26, 2018, a federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to reunite immigrant families that had been separated at the border, and complete it within 30 days.
On July 12, 2018, the Trump administration implemented new, more restrictive, asylum rules for immigrants entering the U.S.
On September 6, 2018, the Trump administration announced a proposal to indefinitely detain undocumented families that are seeking asylum instead of releasing them while their immigration cases are pending.
On September 19, 2018, the Arizona State Health Department announced it was initiating the revocation of the licenses to operate the 13 Arizona shelters for migrant children run by Southwest Key, citing its failure to provide proof of required background checks for its workers.
On October 5, 2018, Southwest Key announced it had suspended operations at its Hacienda Del Sol facility in Youngtown, AZ, after an unspecified incident that was reported to law enforcement officials.
On October 9, 2018, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials in Arizona said a sudden increase in the number of families from Central American seeking asylum had overwhelmed their detention facilities in Phoenix and forced them to release hundreds to local church shelters and charities. ICE spokesperson Yasmeen Pitts O’Keefe said they can no longer conduct initial reviews of migrants’ asylum claims without running the risk of exceeding court-imposed limits on how long children can be held in ICE jails. In a blatantly political statement, O’Keefe said “the government remains severely constrained in its ability to detain and promptly remove families that have no legal basis to remain in the United States,” and that asylum seeking families “face no consequence for their actions.”