US anticolonialism selectively served its own market access goals

Evidence

Scholar-activist Sidney Lens summarized US aims as follows: to establish an “open door” policy that allowed it to enter into otherwise blocked-off markets and establish multinational trade as the pillar of economic policy; to weaken and isolate forces that opposed the open door (which included both the former colonial powers as well as radical nationalists and communists); and to gain, as President Kennedy put it, “influence and control” over pliant governments, typically right-wing, through “grants and loans with conditions attached to them, military aid, equipment and training of puppet armies, military pacts, CIA-sponsored revolts, and on occasion, when these other methods were inadequate … direct intervention by U.S. armed forces themselves.” — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 246 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

The United States publicly supported national liberation struggles but nevertheless intervened when it saw an opportunity to weaken the hold of Britain and France; its interests did not (and do not) lie in supporting democratic movements on their own terms. In fact, secular nationalists who failed to comply with American interests were reviled. — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 207 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim
• XREF: connects to: US postwar imperialism was framed as benevolent supremacy via free-market capitalism — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 245; US anti-colonialism aimed to supplant old empires for its own economic access — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 246; US anti-colonial rhetoric was selective, serving economic access over genuine liberation (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• US anti-colonialism aimed to supplant old empires for its own economic access #corroborates (0.95) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 246
• US anti-colonial rhetoric was selective, serving economic access over genuine liberation #corroborates (0.93)
• US support for decolonization served its own imperial aims #corroborates (0.82) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 207
• US anticolonial identity required a distinct language masking its imperial ambitions. #expands (0.75) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 142