Follow us on social

How the US-backed coup ended Guatemala's 'Ten Years of Spring'

How the US-backed coup ended Guatemala's 'Ten Years of Spring'

The 1954 overthrow of the reformist president ended up shaping one nation’s future and another’s foreign policy

Analysis | Latin America

The intertwined anniversaries this year of Guatemala’s 1944 Revolution and the 1954 coup that ended it provide an essential lens for understanding both Guatemala's history and U.S. geopolitical strategies in Latin America and the Global South more broadly.

The "Ten Years of Spring" (1944-1954) was a brief period of reforms aimed at addressing deep inequalities in land distribution and labor rights, particularly for the majority indigenous populations. However, this momentum was abruptly halted by a U.S.-backed coup in 1954, leaving lasting scars on Guatemala and shaping U.S. interventionist policies in the region and beyond.

The revolution and its reforms

Guatemala, prior to 1944, was ruled by authoritarian leaders who prioritized economic growth through coffee exports, often at the expense of the indigenous majority. Leaders like Manuel Estrada Cabrera and Jorge Ubico deepened inequalities by granting land concessions to U.S. companies like United Fruit Company (UFCO) and enforcing labor exploitation. This led to a revolution in 1944 that ousted Ubico and ushered in democratic reforms under President Juan José Arévalo. His successor, Jacobo Árbenz, introduced Decree 900 in 1952, an ambitious land reform policy aimed at redistributing large unused estates to landless peasants, mainly benefiting indigenous workers.

The reforms were met with fierce opposition from Guatemala's elite and the U.S. government, which had economic interests tied to UFCO. By 1953, Árbenz’s government had expropriated large amounts of UFCO’s unused land, angering U.S. officials who were closely linked to the company. The Eisenhower administration, influenced by Cold War fears of communism, decided to act.

The U.S.-backed coup of 1954

In 1954, the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup against Árbenz, known as Operation PBSUCCESS. Using psychological warfare, propaganda, and economic pressure, the CIA helped create a rebel army that toppled the Guatemalan government. The coup set a precedent for U.S. interventions throughout Latin America, exemplified in future actions in Cuba, Brazil, and Chile, and beyond.

The coup was justified by claims of countering communism, but it largely served U.S. economic interests and demonstrated the growing influence of business on American foreign policy. U.S. companies, especially UFCO, lobbied for the coup to protect their holdings, reflecting the deep entanglement of business and government. The success of Operation PBSUCCESS emboldened the U.S. to use similar tactics in future interventions, ranging from covert actions to full-scale invasions.

Long-term consequences

The overthrow of Árbenz deepened Guatemala’s structural inequalities, sparking a civil war that lasted from 1960 to 1996 and resulted in over 200,000 deaths, mostly indigenous civilians. The war, largely fought between government forces and leftist guerrillas, saw brutal counterinsurgency tactics supported by the U.S. The violence culminated in the genocide of the Mayan Ixil population in the early 1980s, with U.S. backing for the Guatemalan military despite knowledge of human rights abuses.

After decades of conflict, Guatemala transitioned to civilian rule in 1985, but the legacies of U.S. intervention remain. Despite official U.S. aid being suspended from 1977 to 1983 due to human rights abuses, covert CIA and Israeli support continued. U.S.-trained military forces, entrenched social inequality, corruption, and persistent economic dependency have left Guatemala vulnerable to the pressures of transnational capital and global warming. Poverty and malnutrition are widespread, worsened by climate change, which has ravaged the agricultural sector.

U.S. foreign policy and Guatemala’s place in the global order

Guatemala's history serves as a case study in how U.S. geopolitical strategies have shaped the modern world, particularly in terms of economic domination and militarized governance. As journalist Vincent Bevins argues in "The Jakarta Method," U.S. interventions often create dependent, corrupt regimes that perpetuate cycles of violence and inequality. This pattern can be seen in many countries that fell under U.S. influence during the Cold War, from Guatemala to Indonesia and Brazil.

Implications for today

Reflecting on Guatemala's revolution and its violent suppression offers valuable lessons for today's geopolitical landscape. The resurgence of political figures like President Bernardo Arévalo, the son of former President Juan José Arévalo, signifies a return to the democratic ideals championed during Guatemala’s brief democratic spring. Arévalo’s anti-corruption platform resonates with indigenous communities still suffering from the legacies of U.S. intervention, suggesting a desire to revisit the unfinished business of Guatemala’s democratic revolution.

Guatemala's struggle also underscores the broader global challenge of confronting U.S. militarism, which remains a significant driver of global inequality. The U.S. national security state, which has expanded dramatically since World War II, continues to prioritize military dominance over social welfare, exacerbating poverty, climate change, and social unrest worldwide.


Top image credit: Pedestrians pass an anti-American mural condemning 50 years of U.S intervention June 16, 2004 in Guatemala City REUTERS
Analysis | Latin America
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.