The evolving
situation in Guatemala, however, provoked a much differ-
ent American response. U.S. policymakers’ concerns with Guatemala began
in 1944 upon the overthrow of longtime dictator General Jorge Ubico. The
succeeding administrations of Juan José Arévalo (1945–1951), an educator,
and Jacobo Arbenz (1951–1954), a reform-minded army colonel, implemented
a nationalist, reformist program. These reforms soon led to a conflict between
the government and foreign-owned companies, especially the powerful
United Fruit Company (UFCO), an American-owned corporation. These
companies had influential friends and lobbyists in Washington, and the U.S.
government was increasingly concerned about the growing influence of com-
munists in Guatemala, especially in the labor movement and in the agrarian
reform program. Arbenz’s new labor policy led the UFCO to pressure the
U.S. government to impose economic sanctions, but the Truman adminis-
tration refused to be drawn into the growing controversy. In June 1952 the
Arbenz government implemented new agrarian legislation providing for the
expropriation of uncultivated lands, with compensation in government
bonds. In early 1953, the Guatemalan government used this legislation to
expropriate the UFCO’s unused land. The new U.S. administration of Dwight
Eisenhower vigorously protested the action as discriminatory and the method
of compensation as inadequate, although past American administrations had
considered payment in bonds as satisfactory.
The Eisenhower administration responded with a two-track policy: a
diplomatic track pursued by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and a mil-
itary track under his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles. Both of the Dulles
brothers had connections to the UFCO; John Foster Dulles had worked for
a law firm representing UFCO, while brother Allen had served on the com-
pany’s board of directors. At the diplomatic level, John Foster Dulles moved
for action against Guatemala at the Tenth Inter-American Conference at
Caracas in March 1954, where he personally headed the U.S. delegation.
Dulles, however, encountered the usual Latin American desire to discuss
economic problems, not the perceived communist threat to the American
republics. After two weeks of negotiations, the conference unenthusiastically
passed a resolution classifying international communism as a threat to the
independence of American states and calling for a consultative meeting of
foreign ministers to deal with specific cases. Neither Dulles nor the resolu-
tion specifically mentioned Guatemala, although Guatemala cast the only vote
against the resolution.
The resolution of the Guatemalan situation ultimately reflected the
second track being pursued by the United States. The CIA had already
begun arming and training a group of Guatemalan exiles, led by Guatemalan
Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, in late 1953. On 18 June 1954, this force of
approximately 150 men invaded Guatemala from neighboring Honduras.
Supporting the invasion force were three aircraft based in Nicaragua and
flown by civilian pilots, most of whom were U.S. citizens or CIA operatives.
The key to the intervention’s success was neither the rebel force nor the CIA
but rather the attitude assumed by the regular Guatemalan Army, which
refused to mount any significant opposition to the invasion. When Arbenz
874
Guatemalan Intervention
took matters into his own hands
and tried to arm his civil-
ian supporters, the army prevented the move and instead
forced the resignation of Arbenz on 27 June. A military junta
appointed Armas provisional president on 7 July. Armas
indicated the direction that his regime would take when
he returned the UFCO lands expropriated under Arbenz.
The U.S. government responded by recognizing the new
government on 13 July and by providing military, eco-
nomic, and technical aid to the new regime.
The Arbenz government had initially hoped for inter-
national support in the crisis. Guatemala twice appealed to
the United Nations Security Council to end the fighting
but received only a watered-down resolution calling for an
end to any actions that might cause further bloodshed.
The Organization of American States (OAS) responded to
the Guatemalan situation on 28 June, the day after Arbenz
resigned. The OAS Council called for a meeting of foreign
ministers in Rio for 7 July, although the rapid consolidation
of power by Armas ended the crisis, and the Rio meeting
was never held.
The decision by the Eisenhower administration to
intervene in Guatemala was influenced by the earlier
(August–September 1953) CIA-backed coup in Iran, which
had toppled a nationalist regime and restored the pro-
American Shah of Iran to power. The lessons of Iran were
applied to Guatemala. The lessons of Guatemala would in
turn be applied to Cuba with disastrous results during the
Bay of Pigs debacle in April 1961. The United States had successfully kept
the Guatemalan crisis a hemispheric issue to be handled by the OAS, but the
American role in Arbenz’s ouster violated one of the most important provi-
sions of the OAS Charter: the prohibition on intervention. The Eisenhower
administration clearly believed that the Guatemalan operation was a major
victory in the Cold War and that such covert operations offered an effective
and inexpensive way of dealing with similar problems in the future. The
intervention itself did little to promote peace or stability in Guatemala.
Armas was assassinated in July 1957, and bitter political divisions and the
socioeconomic issues behind them continue to haunt Guatemala in the
twenty-first century.
Don M. Coerver
See also
Arbenz, Jacobo Guzmán; Bay of Pigs; Central Intelligence Agency; Dulles, Allen
Welsh; Dulles, John Foster; Guatemala; Mossadegh, Mohammed
References
Blasier, Cole. The Hovering Giant: U.S. Responses to Revolutionary Change in Latin Amer-
ica, 1910–1985. 2nd ed. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1985.
Guatemalan Intervention
875
Peasant volunteers who comprised the liberation forces of
Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas march back to the center
of Guatemala City after helping to put down an uprising
against the regime, 7 August 1954. (Bettmann/Corbis)