Niall Ferguson wrote the book and television series 'The War of the World' last year. In episode five of the series broadcast on Channel 4, Ferguson touched on Guatemala. The clip above is an edited excerpt from that episode.
Ferguson it seems recognises the displaced war and how relative peace has been in the second half of the 20th century.
"I try to argue in the epilogue that in many ways the Cold War wasn't cold at all; it was a third world war if you were in Guatemala or Cambodia or Angola. In fact, I call it the "Third World's war," because all that had happened was that violence was relocated to places that people in the dominant powers during the Cold War seldom saw. So violence didn't stop during the Cold War, and there is no reason to assume that it has stopped since the Cold War."
However, for Ferguson the source of war and conflict is not empire building per se- it is more a combination of factors; in particular ethnic conflict, economic volatility and empires in decline. It's a position that seems to ultimately absolve the US for the fall out of its actions in Guatemala.
"Empires are not just about the acquisition of natural resources. They are as much about the export of values, the export of their own civilization. That's a powerful motivation for the transformation of international orders through history.
I, rather boringly, take the view that empires are what historians should study because most of what we call history consists of the doings of empires. The nation-state is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it has achieved much less historically than empires. And yet, we don't understand empires terribly well, least of all in this country, which has a very strange attitude towards empire—a desire to regard them in moral terms, as either all good or all bad; whereas, empires are both, they are capable of being both good and bad.
I think the aspirations of American power have, by and large, been relatively good—aspirations, not always results—but there are other imperial powers that are much less interested in exporting the idea of individual liberty, and China stands out as one of those."
Ferguson's presentation of US involvement seems to put the emphasis on violence by proxy and as a consequence seems to downplay the CIA's responsibility for the genocide. However, that said just recognising the fact that for the majority of the world's citizens there has been no such peace during this time is still highly significant.I, rather boringly, take the view that empires are what historians should study because most of what we call history consists of the doings of empires. The nation-state is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it has achieved much less historically than empires. And yet, we don't understand empires terribly well, least of all in this country, which has a very strange attitude towards empire—a desire to regard them in moral terms, as either all good or all bad; whereas, empires are both, they are capable of being both good and bad.
I think the aspirations of American power have, by and large, been relatively good—aspirations, not always results—but there are other imperial powers that are much less interested in exporting the idea of individual liberty, and China stands out as one of those."
