The United States: Master of the House

In my English class, we have been reading the book Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver. Set in the Congo in the 1960’s, the novel discusses the intense political climate in that country from an American point of view. The book covers a fairly large span of time, but a key plot point is the assassination of Patrice Lumumba. Orleanna is the character, in my opinion, that has the most interesting take on the situation, specifically the CIA’s role in the assassination plot. Obviously no one can be certain of exactly what the CIA did or did not do, but it’s fairly clear that, at the very least, they knew, and approved, of the plans to kill Lumumba. Orleanna, on page 320, says, “President Eisenhower was right then sending his orders to take over the Congo. Imagine that. His household was the world, and he’d finished making up his mind about things”.

Since the end of World War II, it seems that the United States has seen the world as its “household”. This means that we, as a nation, have a right, and a responsibility, to intervene in world affairs as we see fit. This is a very important narrative to understand, as it has shaped U.S. foreign policy for upwards of 50 years. The scenario in the Congo is a prime example of the consequences of this worldview. From America’s tacit support of the Lumumba assassination, to our varied meddling in Latin America, to the Korean War, to the Vietnam War, to the Iran-Contra scandal, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has a long history of interfering in foreign affairs. This track record is well documented elsewhere, so I won’t go into too much depth here. Suffice to say that most of the time the U.S. has acted to advance its own interests, with little respect or regard for other nations.

Recently, I was reading an interesting blogging debate, so to speak, regarding the legality and ethicality of CIA assassinations of suspected terrorists. Basically, we as a country claim the right to assassinate anyone, anywhere, at any time, if we have reason to believe that they are a terrorist, or are somehow helping terrorists. This is just another example of America applying the “household” principle to our foreign policy. If any other country sent predator drones or soldiers into the United States to assassinate someone it had deemed a threat to its national security, we would consider that country to be drastically overstepping its boundaries. Somehow, when it comes to the rest of the world, this situation is analogous to pursuing a rodent into your neighbor’s living room, uninvited. When America is the aggressor, however, it is all of a sudden similar to chasing the rodent from one area of your own house to another. In my opinion, Orleanna’s perspective is valuable (she is an American caught in the middle of a situation where American intervention had some tragic consequences) and the “household” narrative that she points out sheds a lot of light on U.S. foreign policy both then and now.