Is The U.S. Imperialism Still Fueling South American Conflicts?

The Shadow of the Empire: Is U.S. Imperialism Still Fueling South American Conflicts? Agee’s framework remains a provocative lens through which to view U.S. policy in South America. For nations striving to chart independent paths, the shadow of empire still looms large.

In 1995, former CIA officer and whistleblower Philip Agee delivered a stark critique of U.S. foreign policy. His claim was simple yet explosive: Washington’s aggression in South America was never truly about fighting communism. Instead, it was about crushing any successful model that dared to escape the grip of U.S. corporate and political control.

Three decades later, Agee’s framework—that any movement aiming to “provid[e] for all the people, and escap[e] the control of the United States” is inherently a threat to the U.S. power structure—remains strikingly relevant. This article examines how his argument continues to echo in contemporary U.S. approaches to nations across the Global South.

The Cuban Precedent: A “Dangerous Example”
Agee argued that Cuba’s revolution was not merely an ideological enemy, but a precedent too dangerous for Washington to ignore. Despite its poverty, Cuba demonstrated that a nation could deliver universal, state-funded health care and education without bowing to U.S. corporate or political control.

This example, Agee contended, threatened to inspire others. The U.S. response was swift and uncompromising:
– The 1983 invasion of Grenada to topple its socialist government.
– The funding of the Contras against Nicaragua’s Sandinistas throughout the 1980s.

Each intervention, Agee suggested, was designed to send a message—no alternative model of governance would be allowed to succeed.

Modern Echoes: The Pattern Continues
Critics argue that the same hegemonic logic persists today, with Washington targeting governments that attempt to step outside its capitalist orbit.

Venezuela: Dismantling the Bolivarian Model
– U.S. Actions: Severe sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and support for opposition figures.
– Public Justification: Framed as responses to drug trafficking and human rights concerns.
– Agee’s Lens: A campaign to dismantle the Chavista and Bolivarian revolutions, replacing them with leadership more aligned to U.S. economic interests—figures such as María Corina Machado.

Bolivia: Blocking Leftist Leadership
– U.S. Actions: Accusations of interference during Evo Morales’ 2019 resignation and subsequent pressure against his return.
– Agee’s Lens: Preventing an Indigenous socialist leader from consolidating power and pursuing policies that prioritize sovereignty over foreign corporate interests.

Panama and Brazil: Economic Punishment
– Panama: Threats over canal profits.
– Brazil: Punitive tariffs linked to its alignment with the BRICS bloc.
– Agee’s Lens: Evidence that U.S. policy punishes economic decisions favoring non-Western strategic partners.

The Price of Truth: A Whistleblower’s Warning
Agee’s own life illustrates the risks of challenging U.S. power. After leaving the CIA, he was accused of collaborating with foreign intelligence, stripped of his passport, and subjected to years of harassment. Ultimately, he found refuge in Cuba, where he lived until his death in 2008.

His story underscores the personal cost of exposing the inner workings of state power. Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, Agee’s analysis forces a crucial question:

Are U.S. foreign interventions truly about freedom and democracy—or are they, as Agee argued, about preserving an economic empire by crushing competing models of success?