Clinton's talk of coup won't matter to voters

I must take issue with your article "Clinton's seeming shift on coup may backfire" (May 1).

Even before the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904 — used to justify the U.S. exercise of "international police power" in the Western Hemisphere — and continuing through the overthrow of multiple foreign governments, U.S. policy has emphasized three themes in our relationship with foreign countries.


First, national security. What are the potential or perceived threats to our national security? Second, political security. What must a candidate or incumbent do in order to achieve or continue in public office? Third, and most important, is economic stability. How can U.S. interests and profits best be served?

As partial evidence I point to just three of many instances of overthrow perpetrated by the U.S., either overtly or covertly.

(In no way am I claiming or implying that the U.S. was in any way involved in the Honduran coup of 2009. I am responding only to the article's headline and its implication.)

Even prior to the Roosevelt Corollary there was the ouster of Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii in 1892. The reason for the ouster? Sugar.

Then there was the coup, orchestrated by the CIA, that removed Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh from power and installed the Shah in his stead. That was in 1953. Why? Very simple: oil.

The third, and likely the most egregious instance in the eyes of Latin Americans, was the overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala in 1954. The CIA even bombed the Guatemalan capital of Guatemala City.

What interest could that country possibly have on the U.S. economy that would precipitate such a response? Simple. Land reform and the impact on a major U.S. enterprise, the United Fruit Company. In other words, bananas!

That is why former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks will have little or no effect on her prospects in the election. We in the U.S. have scant knowledge of our history; we are certainly not taught very much about it in our public schools. Moreover, we don't seem to care.

Donald Andrew Wiley, Parkville