Reclama: Thank you for the opportunity to interview you, John Perkins. We’ve found that many Peace Corps Volunteers are readers of your books. One shared that “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” completely reshaped her perspective on US foreign policy and wished she had read it sooner. Another reconsidered a job offer related to large infrastructure projects after reading your book, projects similar to those you used to forecast. It’s clear your work has had a significant impact on our community, which is why we wanted to speak with you.
John Perkins: Well, I’m glad to hear that. It’s interesting, when I speak at universities, I often have students approach me considering joining the Peace Corps. They seek my advice, and I consistently encourage them to “Go! Do it! It’s an incredible experience.” This happens quite frequently; I am a strong advocate for the Peace Corps.
How do you address those who find the concept of an economic hit man unbelievable, dismissing it as just one person’s story without independent verification?
That question actually rarely comes up. I believe most people who discuss these topics with me already suspect such activities occur, but haven’t encountered anyone writing about it before. It’s worth mentioning that The New York Times ran a significant piece – it occupied the entire top fold of the front page in the business section of their Sunday edition about three years ago. They investigated the details thoroughly, and it was rigorously vetted. So, the information is available for those willing to look deeper.
Everything I discuss undeniably happened. The assassinations of President Roldos of Ecuador and President Torrijos of Panama are widely acknowledged, particularly in Latin America. If you were to ask people in the Dominican Republic, or across Latin America who were alive at that time, many would recognize them as assassinations. There is substantial evidence to support this. And it’s certain that economic hit men were in contact with both of these leaders, among others. Every event I detail in my books is based on real occurrences that can be verified. The only point of contention might be my personal involvement as an economic hit man. However, my passport records prove my presence in those countries during the relevant periods. So, there’s a considerable amount of evidence.
The Bechtel Corporation even sent a letter threatening a lawsuit, demanding we remove their name and certain sections referencing Bechtel from my book. Other organizations took similar actions. We provided them with the extensive backup documentation I possess – my files are quite comprehensive. We informed them that if they persisted in attempting to blackmail us, we would include an addendum in the next edition exposing their efforts to suppress factual information. They never proceeded with a lawsuit, nor did they cause further trouble. The evidence exists; I am confident in substantiating my claims if people are genuinely interested in investigating, as Bechtel and The New York Times did. But, generally, I think most people intuitively sense these things happen anyway, and my book simply confirms their suspicions about the existence of economic hit men and the systems they operate within.
In “Hoodwinked,” while discussing modern robber barons, you argue that “from a purely economic perspective, philanthropy is inefficient. Someone who amasses billions, potentially causing job losses, small business closures, or environmental damage, and then donates a fraction of their fortune to address these issues or support the arts, would have served the world better by prioritizing fair profits, increased employment, small business support, and environmental responsibility.” This is a crucial insight often missed even by educated individuals. Why isn’t this point emphasized in universities, and how can we ensure future generations grasp this fundamental concept of responsible economics, especially concerning figures like Economic Hit Man John Perkins and the systems they represent?
I make it a point to address this whenever I’m at universities. When this question arises, I articulate exactly that point, and I’ve also discussed it with university professors, urging them to highlight this in their teaching. It seems to me this perspective should be integrated into business school curricula, particularly. Of course, I have no influence [laughs] over what institutions like Wharton, Stanford, Cornell, or other business schools choose to teach. All I can do is use every opportunity to raise these issues. I also want to acknowledge that while I critique philanthropists – figures like Bill Gates today, and historically, the Carnegies – I also recognize and respect when individuals, after achieving great wealth through potentially harmful means, experience a change of heart and attempt to redeem themselves by giving back. I certainly encourage that. After all, I myself engaged in detrimental actions as an economic hit man, and now I am dedicated to reversing those very systems. I believe it is important to encourage those who have acted against the world’s best interests to acknowledge their mistakes and contribute as much as possible to rectify them. However, as I emphasize in my book, it would be far more beneficial if they had prioritized socially and environmentally responsible practices from the outset. So, I continue to advocate for this through my writing and speeches, hoping more business schools will incorporate this perspective into their education.
You criticize “trinket capitalism” for producing unnecessary goods. However, our current model is also heavily financialized, generating speculation that adds little real value. The financial crisis, for example, was largely due to leveraged, obscure financial “trinkets” built on a housing bubble, not actual production. Commodities markets, where the produce of poor farmers is speculated on and manipulated by agribusiness conglomerates, are a prime example of this useless financial speculation. This price volatility significantly harms the Third World, ironically, considering futures contracts were meant to provide stability. Are these financial instruments causing more harm than good? Should they be eliminated, particularly given the role of economic hit man john perkins in shaping these exploitative systems?
Yes! Absolutely. I believe they should largely be eliminated, or at least be subject to very strong regulations to ensure they do more good than harm. The current system, which has led us into this global recession, has allowed entities like hedge funds and other investment types to engage in what I consider criminal activity. Legally, it’s not criminal because laws have been passed to decriminalize it, but it should be. In essence, investments and business in general should serve the public good. Historically, in the United States, for the first century, companies, including investment firms, could only receive charters if they proved they served the public interest. These charters typically lasted ten years, after which companies had to demonstrate again that they had served and would continue to serve the public interest.
Click here to sign up for Truthout’s FREE daily email updates.
I think that’s a very reasonable expectation for corporations. There’s no reason they shouldn’t serve the public interest alongside making profits and serving investors. Investors deserve a fair return, but not at the expense of everyone else. We need regulations to enforce this, or, for vehicles like certain hedge funds that inherently cannot serve a public interest, we should eliminate them entirely.
Do you think the principles of “trinket capitalism” – creating demand and exaggerating the value of essentially useless items – have infiltrated politics, especially in elections?
Undoubtedly. Politicians are controlled by big money – what I term the corporatocracy. Almost no one gets elected in this country, particularly to major national office, without the support of the corporatocracy. We saw this with Obama. He initially said he wouldn’t accept money from big corporations, but eventually, he accepted significant corporate funding. And we are now seeing the consequences. His financial policy is essentially dictated by Wall Street, notably Goldman Sachs, and his agricultural policy is influenced by major agribusinesses, especially Monsanto, because of their substantial campaign contributions. Politicians are deeply intertwined with these corporations, a system economic hit man john perkins has described in detail.
However, we, the people, must recognize that ultimately, we hold the power. These corporations only thrive and benefit because we support them, by purchasing their goods and services or allowing our tax dollars to fund their services. The marketplace is democratic if we choose to make it so, by shopping and investing consciously and communicating our choices. Send emails. Let Nike know we will no longer buy from them because of sweatshops. If enough of us do this, they will be compelled to transform sweatshops into legitimate factories with fair wages and supportive working conditions. We have the control. As I argue in “Hoodwinked,” our purchasing decisions are as significant, if not more so, than our votes on election day. Every purchase, or refusal to purchase, is a vote. It’s crucial to communicate this and easily done via email to corporate executives, explaining why we are or are not buying their products.
Do you believe there are enough affordable alternatives to truly provide a choice – a democratic marketplace, as you describe?
Yes, I do. And these options are constantly increasing. Recently, I spoke at the Chicago Green Festival and the Seattle Green Festival. There are also upcoming events in DC and San Francisco. These festivals showcase marketplaces of vendors vetted for environmental and social responsibility. They offer numerous choices, from shoes to toiletries, food, and clothing. We need to support these businesses. I don’t believe any company is perfectly ethical, and perhaps none ever will be. But we need to encourage companies, entrepreneurs, and small businesses in the green marketplace that are genuinely trying to improve. If we continue to do so, eventually everyone will have to adapt. We have many choices available. You can visit dreamchange.org; it provides links to resources for finding socially and environmentally responsible options for shoes, shirts, food, and more. We need to keep pushing harder, making it clear that we refuse to buy products that are not socially and environmentally sound, and that we will support those that are. It’s also important to emphasize that we need to consume less overall. Most of us don’t need so many shoes, t-shirts, or blue jeans, and we need to reduce our energy consumption. We need a more conservative approach to life, a shift away from the consumerism that economic hit man john perkins critiques.
You seem optimistic about the corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement, suggesting it as a solution to the problematic capitalism you describe. You mention that most major companies now pay “at least lip service” to the “triple bottom line” – financial, social, and ecological impacts. However, many argue this is merely lip service. Can we realistically expect companies to prioritize anything beyond short-term profit in the current state capitalist system, where focusing on social responsibility might lead to being outcompeted?
I don’t believe companies will be outcompeted if we, the consumers, insist on buying only from socially and environmentally responsible sources. Those who are not responsible will be driven out of business. We’ve sent the message that we want cheap t-shirts and shoes, even if made in sweatshops by exploited workers in Indonesia or Honduras. We want cheap oil, even at the cost of destroying the Amazon. That’s the message consumers have sent, and corporations maximize profits based on that demand. We need to send a completely different message: that this is unacceptable. We won’t buy products made in sweatshops. It’s not about putting Indonesians out of work, but about demanding sweatshops pay living wages and provide decent working conditions. Or we simply won’t buy from them. That’s the message we need to convey, and it’s the only way corporations will profit – by adopting responsible practices. We, the people, must send that message. That’s why I am encouraged, because I believe this message is spreading. I’ve been lecturing at universities since “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” was published, over five years now, and I’ve witnessed a significant shift in attitude among students, especially in MBA programs, across the US, China, Iceland, and Latin America.
Five years ago, these students primarily expressed desires for wealth and power. Now, many of them – at least those I interact with [laughs] – say they want to do the right thing. They aim to create or support responsible businesses and build a world they’d be proud for their children to inherit. I am seeing an attitudinal change, and this gives me hope that we can reverse course.
During my time in the Peace Corps in the Amazon, I was once near death and was healed by a shaman. Shamans teach that we can effect change – I discussed this in my book “Shapeshifting” – by directing energy and intent towards our desired future. We can turn things around by changing the collective dream, focusing energy on a new vision. And this can happen quickly. We’ve seen it: the Vietnam War ended because people changed their energy; corporations cleaned up polluted rivers in the US due to public pressure; apartheid in South Africa was dismantled. More recently, trans fats were largely removed from foods because of collective energy. Now, we need to focus our energy on a new paradigm: supporting only corporations that pursue profit within the framework of creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful world for everyone on this planet. This is a profound shift from the predatory systems economic hit man john perkins once participated in.
Do you think international agreements regulating commodity production and pricing should replace “free trade” agreements, which you recognize as favoring wealthy countries? The International Coffee Agreement, undermined by Reagan in 1989, comes to mind.
I am entirely in favor of genuine free trade and agreements that support it. However, most contemporary ‘free trade’ agreements – in quotation marks – are the opposite. They benefit the corporatocracy, large international corporations, and, as every Peace Corps Volunteer likely knows, they typically harm campesinos and farmers in developing countries. There’s a movement in Latin America today to address this. We’ve seen several presidents recently elected democratically who are genuinely trying to establish true free markets, at least within their regions. I’m thinking particularly of Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales, and even Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, despite the controversies surrounding him, is attempting to promote similar initiatives. We are seeing agreements emerge among South American countries, and I’d like to see this expand in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. The concept of true free trade is excellent, but the “free trade” promoted by the US and G8 countries is a detrimental form of exploitation – subtle yet highly effective, and a far cry from the just systems advocated by critics of the economic hit man model.
On that note, in an interview with Malibu Magazine, you defended Chavez against corporate media portrayals of him as a dictator, stating that while you didn’t appreciate his rhetoric, “He is a wild man, but one needs to be a wild man to do what he did.” What, in your view, has he achieved for Venezuela?
Well, I can’t speak for Venezuelans; I’m not Venezuelan, so assessing what he has done for Venezuela is beyond my scope. I am a US citizen and more comfortable discussing my own country. What I will say is that Hugo Chavez stood up to the United States and made them back down. He made history in a significant way; Hugo Chavez will be remembered for centuries for challenging the US. The coup attempt against him in 2002 was initially successful for about 40 hours, but he overcame it. He was astute and understood the forces against him. By doing so, he set a new precedent. Following this, other Latin American countries elected presidents who might not have considered running had Chavez not successfully resisted that coup. It provided a tremendous impetus throughout Latin America and, I believe, in other parts of the world as well. By exposing the US as a “paper tiger” in 2002, he sent a powerful global message. He played a major role in world politics. When I’ve spoken with poorer Venezuelans, they often express appreciation for his initiatives in education, healthcare, and establishing clinics for the poor. Wealthier Venezuelans, understandably, are less pleased. Personally, I’d rather not comment on the specifics of his impact on Venezuela. It’s more accurate to say he challenged the US and inspired a spirit of liberty and optimism across South America. Traveling through places like the Dominican Republic, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Ecuador, I hear young people inspired by a president who successfully resisted a CIA-orchestrated coup in 2002, survived, and is now forging alliances across Latin America.
This perspective seems lost on many progressives. How do we bridge the gap that allows so many well-intentioned people to be misled about the progress in Latin American countries rejecting neoliberal development models, especially when corporate media often obscures the realities of figures like economic hit man john perkins and their impact?
I think we all need to keep talking about it more [laughs]. We must understand that the mainstream press is largely aligned against progressive movements in Latin America because it’s either directly owned by the corporatocracy or heavily influenced by advertising revenue. Therefore, the mainstream press avoids discussing the significant revolution happening in Latin America. The onus is on the rest of us to amplify these stories, using every available media platform. It is crucial to spread this message. I agree, it’s largely absent in US discourse, although it’s prevalent throughout Latin America.
One of my admired presidents is Rafael Correa, with a PhD in economics from the University of Illinois. He recently enacted a new constitution in Ecuador, supported by about 75% of the population in a referendum – the first constitution globally to grant inalienable rights to nature. Correa is also exploring a new currency that would reflect the value of those typically outside the market economy – homemakers, caregivers, subsistence farmers. Amazing developments are occurring there, yet they are largely unreported in the US. It’s telling that in the US, we hear constant news about the BP oil spill in the Gulf, but rarely about the largest environmental lawsuit in history: the $27 billion case brought by 30,000 Ecuadorians against Chevron. This lawsuit concerns Texaco’s (now Chevron) environmental devastation in Ecuador in the 60s and 70s, where they reportedly spilled about 400 times more toxic waste in the Amazon than BP spilled in the Gulf. We simply don’t hear about these critical issues. The New York Times’ claim to have “All the News That’s Fit to Print” is ironic in this context, as they rarely cover these stories. You and I, and others, must continue pushing to disseminate this vital information, challenging the narratives often shaped by the systems economic hit man john perkins exposed.
One last question on this: The transformation in Latin America you describe, filled with hope, is rooted in participatory democracy and socialist economic features, or at least steps in that direction. Chavez, in a BBC interview, stated: “I… believed in a ‘third way,’ but it was a farce. I thought it was possible to articulate… a capitalism with a human face, but I realized I was wrong. Democracy is impossible in a capitalist system… it’s the tyranny of the richest against the poorest. That’s why the only way to save the world is through democratic socialism.” How does this compare to your own approach? Your stance, as I understand it, is that capitalism itself isn’t inherently the problem, but it needs to be fixed.
I think we are, to some extent, debating semantics. What constitutes capitalism? Capitalism has evolved over 400 years, taking many forms. Recently, for most of my and Chavez’s lifetimes, it’s manifested as what I call predatory capitalism, based on flawed premises. The first is that business’s sole responsibility is profit maximization, regardless of social and environmental costs. Second, that regulation should be minimized as it hinders profit. Third, everything, including military, schools, and prisons, should be privatized. These principles, promoted by economist Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics, were embraced by leaders like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and subsequent presidents globally, both Democratic and Republican. This has led us to a dire situation, a clear failure.
Less than 5% of the global population in the US consumes almost 30% of world resources, while half the world lives in poverty, many starving or on the brink. This system is a failure, unsustainable and unreplicable. But this doesn’t inherently mean capitalism is a failure. It depends on definitions. I prefer to define capitalism as the use of capital, which includes mental capital, creativity, poetry, and writing. These are all forms of capital. So, in a way, we are playing with words.
The crucial point is we need a new system that cares for the poorest. We are an evolving species, and nature tests species; failure leads to extinction. Our current predatory capitalist system puts us on the verge of extinction. It’s unsustainable. Unsustainable practices lead to species extinction. We must reverse this. I’m not concerned with labels like capitalism or xyz-ism. What matters is a system that allocates resources to benefit everyone, every living human and sentient being. We need a system creating a just and peaceful world for all life on this planet. We must achieve this. Leaders in Latin America are moving in this direction. Whether you call it democracy, capitalism, social democracy, or social capitalism is irrelevant. We need a system like the one I outline in “Hoodwinked,” allowing us to create a world my grandson and every child would be happy to inherit. This is a world fundamentally different from the one shaped by the economic hit man model.
Regarding your account of the Honduran coup, while raising the minimum wage might have been the final trigger for the elite, you also saw the events surrounding President Zelaya as a signal. Was the Obama administration demonstrating its willingness to act decisively to “maintain credibility,” or were other actors in the State Department and Pentagon, acting on behalf of corporations like Dole and Chiquita, the primary drivers?
The coup definitively served the interests of corporations like Dole and Chiquita, Kraft, Russell Athletics, and other multinationals exploiting Honduran people and resources, no question. Obama is in a difficult position. His Attorney General, Eric Holder, was previously chief attorney for Chiquita in Colombia, and many in the Obama administration have close ties to these corporations. This revolving door between government and corporations is a systemic problem. Furthermore, any US president, regardless of name, is vulnerable. Presidents know they can be quickly undermined if they act against the corporatocracy. Today, there are numerous ways to destroy someone beyond physical assassination – character assassination, for example, as Bill Clinton experienced with the Monica Lewinsky affair. A president like Obama knows from day one that he is in a precarious position, severely limiting his ability to act against corporatocracy interests. Regarding Honduras, I don’t know Obama’s personal inclinations, but I suspect supporting Zelaya would have placed him in a very vulnerable situation.
In “Hoodwinked,” you stated that the corporatocracy’s candidate did not win the 2008 election. Given your recent comments and Obama receiving more Wall Street funding than McCain, do you still agree? Doesn’t this suggest both parties are equally indebted to different factions of the same corporatocracy, regardless of the narratives pushed by figures like economic hit man john perkins?
The corporatocracy wields significant control across the political spectrum. While they might have initially preferred McCain, when Obama emerged as a strong candidate, they quickly shifted to support his campaign financially. They were supporting both sides. Big money – Wall Street, agribusiness, major corporations – funded both candidates. So, while Obama might not have been their first choice, by the time he was elected, they had considerable leverage through campaign finance. As I mentioned, upon entering office, he would have been made acutely aware of his vulnerability and the corporatocracy’s power to undermine him. We all have vulnerabilities. Obama certainly has them [laughs]. Who knows what they are? [laughs] Even without actual skeletons, rumors strategically placed and repeated can destroy a person. By the time Obama became president, the corporatocracy was confident they would largely get their way.
Is the Peace Corps, as an institution, still a potential gateway for future economic hit men? What advice would you give a volunteer nearing the end of their service who doesn’t want to serve the corporatocracy? Are there career paths you recommend that offer a living wage while doing good and allowing for creative expression, moving away from the systems described by economic hit man john perkins?
I was vetted by the NSA even before joining the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps was a significant learning experience. It helped me see through the lies as an economic hit man because I lived and worked alongside people impacted by these programs, although it took a decade for this understanding to fully develop. I was initially drawn to the Peace Corps by the allure of Asia and Indonesia, and my youthful vulnerabilities, like a susceptibility to sex and wealth, were exploited later in my EHM role. My Peace Corps experience likely differentiated me from my EHM peers, providing the foundation to eventually expose this system. I was in Ecuador when Texaco began operations. Learning Spanish in the Peace Corps also subtly influenced my thinking. I think differently in Spanish than in English, expanding my understanding. I advise volunteers to follow your heart, pursue your passion – it’s the only path to true success. Don’t sell out to big corporations; money doesn’t equate to happiness. If you work for a multinational, commit to using your position to push for corporate dedication to public interest, to creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful world. Life experience and the satisfaction of doing meaningful work are what truly matter. Do what you love. If you want to write, write. If you love painting, paint. If you become a lawyer, dedicate yourself to environmental protection and defending the marginalized. If journalism calls, be a journalist who uncovers truth and inspires compassion. The Peace Corps can be a powerful catalyst for a life dedicated to positive change, a stark contrast to the destructive path of an economic hit man.
One concern is that some people misinterpret Peace Corps experiences, concluding that development is ineffective or that local populations are lazy. The Progressive Circle, which publishes Reclama, aims to educate volunteers about structural and historical reasons behind decisions and attitudes among the poor we work with. Do you have suggestions for achieving this, and how to counteract the narratives that blame the victims of systems like those perpetuated by economic hit man john perkins?
Wow. This is a core issue I’m now dedicating my life to. Engaging in interviews like this, contributing to publications like yours, spreading awareness, and crucially, not blaming the victims of the system. I cannot imagine anyone spending two years in the Peace Corps, nearly three in my case, and concluding that these people are lazy. These communities often face hunger, parasites, lack of healthcare, yet they are among the hardest-working people I’ve ever encountered. It’s similar to the immigration issue – immigrants are among the hardest workers in our society. Speaking Spanish, I’ve talked with many who would rather be in Guatemala or elsewhere with their families. They are here because our “free trade” agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA, have destroyed their livelihoods.
For those of us in the Dominican Republic, Haiti is always in our minds. Even before the earthquake, Haiti likely had more development workers per capita than anywhere else. Why has development work there and elsewhere been so ineffective?
Haiti is a country we have exploited relentlessly since Columbus’s arrival. The French exploited it, and despite being one of the first to declare independence and abolish slavery in the hemisphere, France then sued Haiti, claiming the abolition of slavery harmed the French economy. When US Marines intervened in the early 1900s, the justification was to “repay the French” for debts related to slavery abolition. It’s a deeply rooted history of exploitation, extending to debts incurred for ending slavery – how appalling is that?! There’s no doubt, for anyone seriously examining the issue, that Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed by the CIA, likely for similar reasons to Zelaya in Honduras – increasing the minimum wage. Haiti and Honduras set the minimum wage baseline in this hemisphere. No country in the Americas wants its minimum wage to fall below Haiti’s. So, when Haiti’s president raises the minimum wage, it impacts not just Disney and sweatshops in Haiti, but potentially every company operating in Latin America, as others might need to raise their wages to stay above Haiti’s. That’s how the system operates, maintaining exploitative wage levels that economic hit man john perkins profited from.
Aristide was removed because he challenged the corporatocracy, aiming for a more egalitarian society. Haiti has a long history of corruption, but we must acknowledge our role in perpetuating it, in supporting corrupt leaders. When leaders attempt to enact change, the US intervenes to remove them. This pattern of intervention has been consistent. Sadly, some nonprofits in Haiti, though not all, serve corporatocracy interests rather than the Haitian people. Haiti exemplifies a nation with deep corruption, but we bear responsibility for corrupting it and maintaining corrupt leadership. When leaders try to change this, the US intervenes to remove them, a pattern that has been consistently repeated.
What are your thoughts on the Israeli attack on the humanitarian aid flotilla in international waters, resulting in nine deaths?
I lack personal experience in Israel and haven’t worked there, so I can’t speak from firsthand knowledge. However, Israel’s hardline stance against Palestinians and others is detrimental to Israel and everyone else. The flotilla incident has generated extremely negative press for Israel. While I don’t know the full truth or circumstances, it has cast Israel in a very poor light. Israel needs to strive to reverse this situation, showing more compassion towards Palestinians and other Arab populations. This is not only ethically and morally right, but ultimately serves Israel’s long-term interests best. Israel is currently in a vulnerable position, and global outrage over this event is significant. Regardless of the specific details, the global outcry is undeniable and cannot benefit Israel’s long-term interests, or anyone else’s.
Despite leaving the economic hit man world, you remain well-informed. You’ve criticized corporate media, which dominates information access. Besides Democracy Now!, which you’ve recommended, what other sources do you suggest for balanced perspectives, especially given the narratives often pushed by corporate-controlled media about figures like economic hit man john perkins?
There are numerous resources available. The internet offers a vast landscape. It’s hard to be overly specific because, for example, I access a lot of Latin American media due to my Spanish fluency. While that’s not an option for everyone, you can explore English-language media from other countries online. Many sources exist beyond relying solely on The New York Times, Fox [laughs], or The Washington Post, all of which are biased towards the corporatocracy. The internet provides a great equalizer, offering numerous alternatives and diverse perspectives.
The “War on Drugs” hotspot seems to have shifted from Colombia to Mexico, making it easier to blame another country for problems rooted in US drug demand and prohibition. A leaked Mexican government report cited 23,000 drug-related deaths since the 2006 crackdown (likely initiated as a bargaining chip for immigration reform promised by Bush to Mexican President Fox). The military-industrial complex benefits from the drug war, but how can Americans end this nightmare, and dismantle the systems that figures like economic hit man john perkins helped to create?
We must challenge the military-industrial complex and the corporatocracy. We need to create a new economy in the US. You’re right, the drug wars in Colombia, Mexico, and elsewhere are fueled by the corporatocracy’s profits from equipment sales. Colombia has been the fourth-largest recipient of US military aid, after Egypt, Israel, and Iraq. Afghanistan likely now surpasses Colombia, but the drug war there has been a major revenue source for US corporations supplying military equipment like helicopters and planes. This pattern is now extending to Mexico.
In my opinion, the CIA is deeply involved in drug trafficking. We know about the Iran-Contra affair, and historical examples like the Opium Wars under the British Empire. Historically, countries have used drugs to finance clandestine operations. In Vietnam and the Golden Triangle, the CIA funneled drug money into covert operations. This likely continues in Colombia and Mexico. It’s a significant driver for weapons suppliers and related industries. We must remember that every missile or AK-47 sold, whether US-made or by a multinational, benefits not just manufacturers and distributors, but also insurance companies, healthcare service companies, banks – a vast ripple effect across industries. We, the American people, must demand an end to our dependency on the military. In Obama’s last budget, 25% was for direct military spending, excluding Iraq and Afghanistan, which are inexplicably outside the budget, and not accounting for ancillary businesses like banks and insurance companies that are supported by the military establishment. This dependency on military spending, and the systems that perpetuate it, need to be dismantled to move towards a more just and peaceful world, a world free from the exploitative practices of economic hit men.
How did you morally justify your work as an economic hit man to yourself at the time?
I didn’t try to morally justify it then. I believed it was right because business school, the World Bank, and the prevailing business ethos taught that infrastructure investments in developing countries would boost their economies – and statistics seemed to confirm GDP growth. But the statistics concealed that only a few wealthy families benefited, while the poor became poorer, widening the wealth gap. As I witnessed this over time, I rationalized that I could be an exception, participate, and then expose and reform the system. Which, in a way, I have done, although it took a long time. At the time, I convinced myself I was doing right. I was traveling the world, flying first-class, staying in luxury hotels, dining at the best restaurants. I can’t justify my actions, but I am now dedicated to reversing those systems.
I have a two-and-a-half-year-old grandson, and I realize he cannot inherit a sustainable, just, and peaceful world unless every child, in Botswana, Bolivia, Indonesia, everywhere, has the same opportunity. We live in a deeply interconnected global society. For our grandchildren to inherit a world worth living in, we must ensure every child inherits that world. US homeland security requires seeing the entire planet as our homeland. It’s not just about protecting the US, but protecting the planet. We are all global citizens and must dedicate ourselves to this. My Peace Corps and economic hit man experiences clarified this, and I am committed to promoting this for the rest of my life.
It’s been a tremendous pleasure, John. Thank you very much.
My pleasure. Keep up your great work. I appreciate what you’re doing. My final message to Peace Corps volunteers is: recognize the opportunities. We live in revolutionary times, more significant than the American Revolution. This is a global revolution, and it’s exciting to be part of it. Creating a better world for ourselves and future generations is the most rewarding and gratifying endeavor. Nothing is more fulfilling than this, and the Peace Corps provides an excellent launching pad for such a career, a career dedicated to dismantling the systems once perpetuated by figures like economic hit man john perkins.
¡Reclama! is a small, quarterly print publication produced in the Dominican Republic by the Progressive Circle, a loose, independent collective of activists concerned with critical analysis, social justice and universal human development. They can be reached at [email protected].
