With each revelation, or court decision, on U.S. torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo -- or the airing this month of The Tillman Story and Lawrence Wright's My Trip to Al-Qaeda -- I am reminded of the chilling story of Alyssa Peterson, who died seven years ago today. Appalled when ordered to take part in interrogations that, no doubt, involved what most would call torture, she refused, then killed herself a few days later, on September 15, 2003.
Of course, we now know from the torture memos and the US Senate committee probe and various press reports, that the "Gitmo-izing" of Iraq was happening just at the time Alyssa got swept up in it.
Spc. Alyssa Peterson was one of the first female soldiers who died in Iraq. Her death under these circumstances should have drawn wide attention. It's not exactly the Tillman case, but a cover-up, naturally, followed.
Peterson, 27, a Flagstaff, Ariz., native, served with C Company, 311th Military Intelligence BN, 101st Airborne. She was a valuable Arabic-speaking interrogator assigned to the prison at our air base in troubled Tal Afar in northwestern Iraq. According to official records, she died on September 15, 2003, from a "non-hostile weapons discharge."
A "non-hostile weapons discharge" leading to death is not unusual in Iraq, often quite accidental, so this one apparently raised few eyebrows. The Arizona Republic, three days after her death, reported that Army officials "said that a number of possible scenarios are being considered, including Peterson's own weapon discharging, the weapon of another soldier discharging, or the accidental shooting of Peterson by an Iraqi civilian." And that might have ended it right there.
But in this case, a longtime radio and newspaper reporter named Kevin Elston, not satisfied with the public story, decided to probe deeper in 2005, "just on a hunch," he told me in late 2006. He made "hundreds of phone calls" to the military and couldn't get anywhere, so he filed a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request. When the documents of the official investigation of her death arrived, they contained bombshell revelations.
Here's what the Flagstaff public radio station, KNAU, where Elston worked, reported:
"Peterson objected to the interrogation techniques used on prisoners. She refused to participate after only two nights working in the unit known as the cage. Army spokespersons for her unit have refused to describe the interrogation techniques Alyssa objected to. They say all records of those techniques have now been destroyed."
The official probe of her death would later note that earlier she had been "reprimanded" for showing "empathy" for the prisoners. One of the most moving parts of the report, in fact, is this: "She said that she did not know how to be two people; she... could not be one person in the cage and another outside the wire."
She was then assigned to the base gate, where she monitored Iraqi guards, and sent to suicide prevention training. "But on the night of September 15th, 2003, Army investigators concluded she shot and killed herself with her service rifle," the documents disclose.
The official report revealed that a notebook she had written in was found next to her body, but blacked out its contents.
The Army talked to some of Peterson's colleagues. Asked to summarize their comments, Elston told me: "The reactions to the suicide were that she was having a difficult time separating her personal feelings from her professional duties. That was the consistent point in the testimonies, that she objected to the interrogation techniques, without describing what those techniques were." In one document, Peterson's first sergeant recalls: "It was hard for her to be aggressive to prisoners/detainees, as she felt that we were cruel to them."
Elston said that the documents also refer to a suicide note found on her body, which suggested that she found it ironic that suicide prevention training had taught her how to commit suicide. He filed another FOIA request for a copy of the actual note. It did not emerge.
Peterson, a devout Mormon--her mother, Bobbi, claims she always stuck up for "the underdog"--had graduated from Flagstaff High School and earned a psychology degree from Northern Arizona University on a military scholarship. She was trained in interrogation techniques at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, and was sent to the Middle East in 2003, reportedly going in place of another soldier who did not wish to go.
A report in The Arizona Daily Sun of Flagstaff--three years after Alyssa's death--revealed that Spc. Peterson's mother, reached at her home in northern Arizona, said that neither she nor her husband Richard had received any official documents that contained information outlined in Elston's report.
In other words: Like the press and the public, even the parents had been kept in the dark.
Kayla Williams, an Army sergeant who served with Alyssa, told me me that she talked to her about her problems shortly before she killed herself. Williams also was forced to take part in torture interrogations, where she saw detainees punched. Another favorite technique: strip the prisoners and then remove their blindfolds so that the first thing they saw was Kayla Williams.
She also opted out, but survived, and is haunted years later. She wrote a book about her experience in the military, Love My Rifle More Than You.
Here's what Williams told Soledad O'Brien of CNN: "I was asked to assist. And what I saw was that individuals who were doing interrogations had slipped over a line and were really doing things that were inappropriate. There were prisoners that were burned with lit cigarettes."
When I wrote a piece about Peterson last year, her brother, Spencer Peterson, left a comment:
Alyssa is my little sister. I usually don't comment on boards like this, and I don't speak for the rest of my family (especially my folks), but I think she probably did kill herself over this. She was extremely sensitive and empathetic to others, and cared a lot more about the welfare and well-being of the people around her than she cared about herself.... Thank you to everyone for your continued support of our troops and our family. Alyssa's death was a tremendous loss to everyone who knew her, and we miss her sweet and sensitive spirit. No one is happier than I am that (many of) our troops are coming home from Iraq, and I pray that the rest of our brave soldiers return home safely as soon as possible. Support our troops--bring them home!
Kayla Williams told me me she spoke with Alyssa Peterson about the young woman's troubles a week before she died--and afterward, attended her memorial service.
So what caused Alyssa Peterson to put a bullet in her head in September 2003 after just a few weeks in Iraq? And why were the press and the public not told about it? Because Alyssa's suicide note and contents from her journal have not been released, we can't say for certain how to weigh the factors that led to her death.
Chelsea Russell, who studied Arabic with Peterson at a military facility in Monterrey, California, told me that she found Alyssa to be an especially "sincere and kind person" but she had come to question her Mormon faith a few months before getting shipped to Iraq. "I believe that Alyssa was at a crossroads at the time of her death," Russell added. " I don't know if she had strong emotional support in Iraq. Questioning her own religious beliefs, her military colleagues, and her part in the war may have been too much for her."
While Kayla Williams managed to escape the torture machine, she told me that she is still haunted by the experience and wonders if she objected strongly enough. (Here is background on U.S. soldier convicted of homicide for an incident in Iraq in November 2003. A video that opens with the Peterson case here. )
Williams and Peterson were both interpreters--but only the latter was in "human intelligence," that is, trained to take part in interrogations. They met by chance when Williams, who had been on a mission, came back to the base in Tal Afar in September 2003 before heading off again. A civilian interpreter asked her to speak to Peterson, who seemed troubled. Like others, Williams found her to be a "sweet girl." Williams asked if she wanted to go to dinner, but Peterson was not free--maybe next time, she said, but then time ran out.
Their one conversation, Williams told me, centered on personal, not military, problems, and it's hard to tell where it fit in the suicide timeline. According to records of the Army probe, Peterson had protested, and asked out of, interrogations after just two days in what was known as "the cage"--and killed herself shortly after that. This might have all transpired just after her encounter with Williams, or it might have happened before and she did not mention it at that time--they did not really know each other.
Peterson's suicide on September 15, 2003--reported to the press and public as death by "non-hostile gunshot," usually meaning an accident--was the only fatality suffered by the battalion during their entire time in Iraq, Williams reports. At the memorial service, everyone knew the cause of her death.
Shortly after that, Williams (a three-year Army vet at the time) was sent to the 2nd Brigade's Support Area in Mosul, and she described what happened next in her book. Brought into the "cage" one day on a special mission, she saw fellow soldiers hitting a naked prisoner in the face. "It's one thing to make fun of someone and attempt to humiliate him. With words. That's one thing. But flicking lit cigarettes at somebody--like burning him--that's illegal," Williams writes. Soldiers later told her that "the old rules no longer applied because this was a different world. This was a new kind of war."
Here's what she told Soledad O'Brien of CNN:
"They stripped prisoners naked and then removed their blindfolds so that I was the first thing they saw. And then we were supposed to mock them and degrade their manhood. And it really didn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. I didn't know if this was standard. But it did not seem to work. And it really made me feel like we were losing that crucial moral higher ground, and we weren't behaving in the way that Americans are supposed to behave."
As soon as that day ended, she told a superior she would never do it again.
In another CNN interview, on Oct. 8, 2005, she explained: "I sat through it at the time. But after it was over I did approach the non-commissioned officer in charge and told him I think you may be violating the Geneva Conventions.... He said he knew and I said I wouldn't participate again and he respected that, but I was really, really stunned..."
So, given all this, what does Williams think pushed Alyssa Peterson to shoot herself one week after their only meeting? The great unknown, of course, is what Peterson was asked to witness or do in interrogations. We do know that she refused to have anything more to do with that after two days--or one day longer than it took for Williams to reach her breaking point.
Properly, Williams (left) points out that it's rarely one factor that leads to suicide, and Peterson had some personal problems. "It's always a bunch of things coming together to the point you feel so overwhelmed that there's no way out," Williams says. "I witnessed abuse, I felt uncomfortable with it, but I didn't kill myself, because I could see the bigger context. I felt a lot of angst about whether I had an obligation to report it, and had any way to report it. Was it classified? Who should I turn to?" Perhaps Alyssa Peterson felt in the same box.
"It also made me think," Williams says, "what are we as humans, that we do this to each other? It made me question my humanity and the humanity of all Americans. It was difficult, and to this day I can no longer think I am a really good person and will do the right thing in the right situation." Such an experience might have been truly shattering to Peterson, a once-devout Mormon.
Referring to that day in Mosul, Williams says, "I did protest but only to the person in charge and I did not file a report up the chain of command." Yet, after recounting her experience there, she asks: "Can that lead to suicide? That's such an act of desperation, helplessness, it has to be more than that." She concludes, "In general, interrogation is not fun, even if you follow the rules. And I didn't see any good intelligence being gained. The other problem is that, in situations like that, you have people that are not terrorists being picked up, and being questioned. And, if you treat an innocent person like that, they walk out a terrorist."
Or, maybe in this case, if an innocent person witnesses such a thing, some may walk out as a likely suicide.
Greg Mitchell writes the popular Media Fix blog for The Nation. He is the author of nine books, including "So Wrong for So Long," on Iraq and the media, which includes several chapters on soldier suicides. E-mail: epic1934@aol.com Twitter: @GregMitch
viernes, 17 de septiembre de 2010
miércoles, 14 de abril de 2010
Venezuela deserves a fair hearing
Venezuela deserves a fair hearing
A media focus on Hugo Chávez means the voices of the Venezuelan government's grassroots supporters are rarely heard
o Pablo Navarrete
o guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 April 2010 10.00 BST
It is a little over 11 years since Hugo Chávez first assumed the presidency in Venezuela, following a landslide election victory that swept the country's discredited traditional parties out of power. Since then, Chávez has presided over a radical and controversial process of reforms that has been increasingly vilified by the mainstream media – and the English-language media has been no exception.
Rightwing outlets, such as Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel, regularly refer to Chávez as a dictator, even though there have been 12 national elections during his time as president – most of which received unprecedented levels of scrutiny by international observers and were systematically deemed as free and fair.
More surprising for many has been the position taken towards the Chávez government by media outlets generally viewed as "liberal". For example,
the BBC has had its coverage of Venezuela questioned recently. In December 2009, researchers at the University of the West of England published the preliminary findings of a 10-year study.
Of 304 BBC reports concerning Venezuela published between 1998 and 2008, the researchers found that only three mentioned any of the Chavez government's positive reforms – such as poverty reduction programmes that have more than halved the poverty rate from 46.5% in 1998 to 23% in 2009. Instead the BBC's reporting has been characterised by insinuations that Chávez lacks electoral support, and even compared Chávez to Hitler in one instance. The research also suggested the BBC has fallen short of its commitment to impartiality, truth and accuracy.
It is within this context of distorted media coverage of Venezuela that I decided to make a documentary on the contemporary political situation in the country. Filmed in the capital, Caracas, in November 2008, just ahead of the 10th anniversary of Chávez's first presidential election victory, I wanted the documentary to provide audiences outside Venezuela with an alternative narrative to the one offered by the mainstream media. I thought that in order to better understand the process underway in Venezuela, two things were essential.
The first was to move away from simplistic interpretations that focus virtually all developments in Venezuela around the figure of Chávez, and instead provide a platform for the voices of the government's grassroots supporters. The mainstream media routinely ignores these people, but they are instrumental in driving the process forward and should be at the centre of the story.
The second was to provide some basic contextual information about the type of democracy that existed in Venezuela prior to the Chávez presidency. Only then can one better understand the attraction of someone such as Chávez to large sectors of Venezuelan society.
I wanted to offer an interpretation of events in Venezuela that moved beyond the ahistorical accounts served up by the mainstream media that promote the idea of Chávez as a buffoon-type figure, devoid of articulate, rational support.
I was motivated by the experience I had living and working in Venezuela between 2005 and 2007. During that time, I initially worked as the Venezuela researcher for John Pilger's documentary The War on Democracy, which explores the brutal interventions against democracy in Latin America by successive US governments.
For the research, I spoke to Venezuelans from all sectors of society but especially to the government's grassroots supporters and community activists in the barrios (low-income neighbourhoods) that encircle Caracas. These activists repeatedly told me that they were aware of the international media's obsession with Chávez the individual – and were frustrated that their voices were ignored in the foreign media, unlike the government's domestic and international opponents. They admired Chávez's leadership qualities and recognised his charisma, but most insisted they were the true force behind Venezuela's process of radical change.
This view was typified by Joel Linares, a Christian grassroots community organiser in the eastern Caracas barrio of Winche: "Here there is only one leader, and it is called the people." The opinions of Linares and others like him emphasise the role of ordinary people in spearheading the struggle to redefine Venezuelan democracy, which the mainstream media is unable or unwilling to reflect.
It is wrong that journalists who serve as vehicles for interpreting reality are allowed to either contemptuously gloss over or ignore the views of more than three-fifths of Venezuelan society. Chávez won the 2006 presidential election with 62.8% of the vote. The levels of distorted media reporting on Venezuela are expected to increase in the run up to key parliamentary elections in September.
And other threats to Venezuelan democracy are very much clear and present with the threatening anti-Chávez rhetoric coming from important sections of the Obama administration, the increased US militarisation of Colombia, and the return of US support for dictatorships in the region (following the overthrow of the democratically elected Honduran government of Manuel Zelaya last year).
Despite its flaws (and there are many), Venezuelan democracy has deepened under Chávez and it is now at the service of the many and not the few. Those of us who believe in the sovereign right of Venezuelans to choose their own form of democracy have a duty to defend that country's process from foreign intervention and attack, whether military or propagandistic. We should also ensure that the "other" Venezuela, which the mainstream media refuse to cover, is heard.
A media focus on Hugo Chávez means the voices of the Venezuelan government's grassroots supporters are rarely heard
o Pablo Navarrete
o guardian.co.uk, Sunday 11 April 2010 10.00 BST
It is a little over 11 years since Hugo Chávez first assumed the presidency in Venezuela, following a landslide election victory that swept the country's discredited traditional parties out of power. Since then, Chávez has presided over a radical and controversial process of reforms that has been increasingly vilified by the mainstream media – and the English-language media has been no exception.
Rightwing outlets, such as Rupert Murdoch's Fox News channel, regularly refer to Chávez as a dictator, even though there have been 12 national elections during his time as president – most of which received unprecedented levels of scrutiny by international observers and were systematically deemed as free and fair.
More surprising for many has been the position taken towards the Chávez government by media outlets generally viewed as "liberal". For example,
the BBC has had its coverage of Venezuela questioned recently. In December 2009, researchers at the University of the West of England published the preliminary findings of a 10-year study.
Of 304 BBC reports concerning Venezuela published between 1998 and 2008, the researchers found that only three mentioned any of the Chavez government's positive reforms – such as poverty reduction programmes that have more than halved the poverty rate from 46.5% in 1998 to 23% in 2009. Instead the BBC's reporting has been characterised by insinuations that Chávez lacks electoral support, and even compared Chávez to Hitler in one instance. The research also suggested the BBC has fallen short of its commitment to impartiality, truth and accuracy.
It is within this context of distorted media coverage of Venezuela that I decided to make a documentary on the contemporary political situation in the country. Filmed in the capital, Caracas, in November 2008, just ahead of the 10th anniversary of Chávez's first presidential election victory, I wanted the documentary to provide audiences outside Venezuela with an alternative narrative to the one offered by the mainstream media. I thought that in order to better understand the process underway in Venezuela, two things were essential.
The first was to move away from simplistic interpretations that focus virtually all developments in Venezuela around the figure of Chávez, and instead provide a platform for the voices of the government's grassroots supporters. The mainstream media routinely ignores these people, but they are instrumental in driving the process forward and should be at the centre of the story.
The second was to provide some basic contextual information about the type of democracy that existed in Venezuela prior to the Chávez presidency. Only then can one better understand the attraction of someone such as Chávez to large sectors of Venezuelan society.
I wanted to offer an interpretation of events in Venezuela that moved beyond the ahistorical accounts served up by the mainstream media that promote the idea of Chávez as a buffoon-type figure, devoid of articulate, rational support.
I was motivated by the experience I had living and working in Venezuela between 2005 and 2007. During that time, I initially worked as the Venezuela researcher for John Pilger's documentary The War on Democracy, which explores the brutal interventions against democracy in Latin America by successive US governments.
For the research, I spoke to Venezuelans from all sectors of society but especially to the government's grassroots supporters and community activists in the barrios (low-income neighbourhoods) that encircle Caracas. These activists repeatedly told me that they were aware of the international media's obsession with Chávez the individual – and were frustrated that their voices were ignored in the foreign media, unlike the government's domestic and international opponents. They admired Chávez's leadership qualities and recognised his charisma, but most insisted they were the true force behind Venezuela's process of radical change.
This view was typified by Joel Linares, a Christian grassroots community organiser in the eastern Caracas barrio of Winche: "Here there is only one leader, and it is called the people." The opinions of Linares and others like him emphasise the role of ordinary people in spearheading the struggle to redefine Venezuelan democracy, which the mainstream media is unable or unwilling to reflect.
It is wrong that journalists who serve as vehicles for interpreting reality are allowed to either contemptuously gloss over or ignore the views of more than three-fifths of Venezuelan society. Chávez won the 2006 presidential election with 62.8% of the vote. The levels of distorted media reporting on Venezuela are expected to increase in the run up to key parliamentary elections in September.
And other threats to Venezuelan democracy are very much clear and present with the threatening anti-Chávez rhetoric coming from important sections of the Obama administration, the increased US militarisation of Colombia, and the return of US support for dictatorships in the region (following the overthrow of the democratically elected Honduran government of Manuel Zelaya last year).
Despite its flaws (and there are many), Venezuelan democracy has deepened under Chávez and it is now at the service of the many and not the few. Those of us who believe in the sovereign right of Venezuelans to choose their own form of democracy have a duty to defend that country's process from foreign intervention and attack, whether military or propagandistic. We should also ensure that the "other" Venezuela, which the mainstream media refuse to cover, is heard.
sábado, 27 de marzo de 2010
Honor Romero's Legacy
Home ›
Honor Romero's Legacy
By Elizabeth DiNovella, March 27, 2010
This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador. Romero was a fearless defender of the poor during El Salvador’s brutal civil war. More than 75,000 Salvadorans died during the war, most of them killed by Salvadoran military forces, which the United States financed and trained.
In February 1980, Romero had written a letter to President Carter asking him to halt military aid to the Salvadoran government.
“In the last few days, news has appeared in the national press that worries me greatly. According to the reports, your government is studying the possibility of economic and military support and assistance to the present government junta.
“Because you are a Christian and because you have shown that you want to defend human rights, I venture to set forth for you my pastoral point of view in regard to this news and to make a specific request of you.
“I am very concerned by the news that the government of the United States is planning to further El Salvador’s arms race by sending military equipment and advisors to ‘train three Salvadoran battallions in logistics, communications, and intelligence.’ If this information from the papers is correct, instead of favoring greater justice and peace in El Salvador, your government’s contribution will undoubtedly sharpen the injustice and the repression inflicted on the organized people, whose struggle has often been for respect for their most basic human rights. . . .
“[A]s a Salvadoran and archbishop of the archdiocese of San Salvador, I have an obligation to see that faith and justice reign in my country, I ask you, if you truly want to defend human rights:
* to forbid that military aid be given to the Salvadoran government;
* to guarantee that your government will not intervene directly or indirectly, with military, economic, diplomatic, or other pressures, in determining the destiny of the Salvadoran people;
In these moments, we are living through a grave economic and political crisis in our country, but it is certain that increasingly the people are awakening and organizing and have begun to prepare themselves to manage and be responsible for the future of El Salvador, as the only ones capable of overcoming the crisis.
It would be unjust and deplorable for foreign powers to intervene and frustrate the Salvadoran people, to repress them and keep them from deciding autonomously the economic and political course that our nation should follow.”
President Carter did not heed Romero’s warning, and U.S. tax dollars continued to flow to the repressive regime. Romero was assassinated five weeks later while celebrating mass. A 1993 UN report named rightwing death squad leader and Major Roberto D’Aubuisson as the person who ordered Romero’s death.
This week, the digital newspaper El Faro published an exclusive interview with former Captain Rafael Saravia, who participated in the assassination of Archbishop Romero. Saravia says the D’Aubisson was behind the murder and says that Mario Molina was also involved. He is the son of Colonel Arturo Armando Molina—one of the most powerful Salvadoran military men of the twentieth century and president of the country from 1972 to 1977.
The day before his assassination, Archbishop Romero used his Sunday sermon to ask Salvadoran soldiers to stop the killings.
“I would like to make an appeal in a special way to the men of the army, to the police, to those in the barracks. Brothers, you are part of our own people. You kill your own campesino brothers and sisters. And before an order to kill that a man may give, the law of God must prevail that says: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order against the law of God. No one has to fulfill an immoral law. It is time to recover your consciences and to obey your consciences rather than the orders of sin. The church, defender of the rights of God, of the law of God, of human dignity, the dignity of the person, cannot remain silent before such abomination. We want the government to take seriously that reforms are worth nothing when they come about stained with so much blood. In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people whose laments rise to heaven each day more tumultuously, I beg you, I ask you, I order you in the name of God: Stop the repression!”
The next day, Romero was shot in the heart while saying mass.
The civil war in El Salvador ended in 1992 with signing of peace accords. Until last year, rightwing parties controlled the presidency. In 2009, journalist Mauricio Funes was elected president on the FMLN platform. When he took office, this is what he said:
“We’re going to change the way we make policy. And one of the most significant changes is that we will no longer have a government at the service of a privileged few. And we will no longer have a government that creates an economy of privileges for the privileged. Now, we need a government like the one envisioned by [Archbishop of El Salvador] Óscar Arnulfo Romero, who, in his prophetic message, said that the church should have a preferential option for the poor.”
This week, President Mauricio Funes issued an apology. “I ask forgiveness from the thousands of families who were affected by this type of illegal and unacceptable violence, and especially to members of the religious communities represented by the spirit of Monsignor Romero and who maintain alive his legacy of peace and respect for human rights,” said Funes. “Again, as president of the republic, I ask for forgiveness in the name of the Salvadoran state for this assassination that occurred thirty years ago and which took our best patriot from us.”
The part that always gets me about this story is the letter that Romero wrote to President Carter. Romero explained clearly why the U.S. should not be propping up a repressive military and government. President Carter had a chance to stop military aid and instead chose to train El Salvador’s brutal military.
The Progressive published this in 1981: “By the close of 1980, the United States had indeed done what it could to improve the proficiency of Salvadoran forces: The U.S. Army School of the Americas in Panama, in its largest single training effort ever, had graduated some 250 Salvadoran officers and noncoms.
“The streets of El Salvador’s towns are choked with burnt out vehicles, the debris of incendiary bombs, spent ammunition, and corpses. Whole villages have been destroyed. Every labor union meeting place has been blown up, as have opposition newspaper offices, the church radio station YSAX, and the Metropolitan Cathedral, where the bodies of six murdered Democratic Revolutionary Front leaders were dynamited as they lay in state.
“How did the United States come to back such a murderous regime? Despite his official human rights advocacy, Jimmy Carter always sent mixed signals to the Salvadoran right wing. If Carter’s signals were mixed, Reagan’s are clear.”
So what kind of signals is President Obama sending now to Latin America?
One of Obama’s first tests happened in El Salvador’s neighbor, Honduras. The Obama Administration did not take forceful measures against last summer’s military coup, though Obama did say he was “deeply concerned.” Since the United States gives Honduras $100 million in annual assistance, and accounts for about 85% of the country’s total trade and 70% of foreign direct investment, the U.S. could’ve been tougher.
(And let’s not forget that the general who led the military coup in Honduras has a connection to the U.S. military. General Romeo Vasquez attended military training in Fort Benning, Georgia, at least twice.)
Hillary Clinton is now urging other nations to recognize the new president, who was elected under a government installed by a coup. Many countries in Latin America do not see the new administration in Honduras as legitimate.
“In Latin America, after decades of U.S. interference in the region, we had great expectations and hopes,” said Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in a February 25 interview on CNN’s Spanish-language channel. “Honduras was a strong blow to these expectations.”
Earlier this month, Clinton said the Obama Administration would resume aid to Honduras that was suspended after the coup, despite reports from Human Rights Watch that attacks on opponents of last year’s coup have continued since a newly elected government took office. The human rights organization says opponents have been killed, detained and attacked during the past month.
Obama probably would have lost very little political capital if he sided with democratic forces in Honduras. (It’s not the 1980s, anymore.) And he would’ve reaped a lot of good will in Latin America. Instead, he unwittingly showed us that not enough has changed in U.S. foreign policy in thirty years.
Honor Romero's Legacy
By Elizabeth DiNovella, March 27, 2010
This week marks the thirtieth anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador. Romero was a fearless defender of the poor during El Salvador’s brutal civil war. More than 75,000 Salvadorans died during the war, most of them killed by Salvadoran military forces, which the United States financed and trained.
In February 1980, Romero had written a letter to President Carter asking him to halt military aid to the Salvadoran government.
“In the last few days, news has appeared in the national press that worries me greatly. According to the reports, your government is studying the possibility of economic and military support and assistance to the present government junta.
“Because you are a Christian and because you have shown that you want to defend human rights, I venture to set forth for you my pastoral point of view in regard to this news and to make a specific request of you.
“I am very concerned by the news that the government of the United States is planning to further El Salvador’s arms race by sending military equipment and advisors to ‘train three Salvadoran battallions in logistics, communications, and intelligence.’ If this information from the papers is correct, instead of favoring greater justice and peace in El Salvador, your government’s contribution will undoubtedly sharpen the injustice and the repression inflicted on the organized people, whose struggle has often been for respect for their most basic human rights. . . .
“[A]s a Salvadoran and archbishop of the archdiocese of San Salvador, I have an obligation to see that faith and justice reign in my country, I ask you, if you truly want to defend human rights:
* to forbid that military aid be given to the Salvadoran government;
* to guarantee that your government will not intervene directly or indirectly, with military, economic, diplomatic, or other pressures, in determining the destiny of the Salvadoran people;
In these moments, we are living through a grave economic and political crisis in our country, but it is certain that increasingly the people are awakening and organizing and have begun to prepare themselves to manage and be responsible for the future of El Salvador, as the only ones capable of overcoming the crisis.
It would be unjust and deplorable for foreign powers to intervene and frustrate the Salvadoran people, to repress them and keep them from deciding autonomously the economic and political course that our nation should follow.”
President Carter did not heed Romero’s warning, and U.S. tax dollars continued to flow to the repressive regime. Romero was assassinated five weeks later while celebrating mass. A 1993 UN report named rightwing death squad leader and Major Roberto D’Aubuisson as the person who ordered Romero’s death.
This week, the digital newspaper El Faro published an exclusive interview with former Captain Rafael Saravia, who participated in the assassination of Archbishop Romero. Saravia says the D’Aubisson was behind the murder and says that Mario Molina was also involved. He is the son of Colonel Arturo Armando Molina—one of the most powerful Salvadoran military men of the twentieth century and president of the country from 1972 to 1977.
The day before his assassination, Archbishop Romero used his Sunday sermon to ask Salvadoran soldiers to stop the killings.
“I would like to make an appeal in a special way to the men of the army, to the police, to those in the barracks. Brothers, you are part of our own people. You kill your own campesino brothers and sisters. And before an order to kill that a man may give, the law of God must prevail that says: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order against the law of God. No one has to fulfill an immoral law. It is time to recover your consciences and to obey your consciences rather than the orders of sin. The church, defender of the rights of God, of the law of God, of human dignity, the dignity of the person, cannot remain silent before such abomination. We want the government to take seriously that reforms are worth nothing when they come about stained with so much blood. In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people whose laments rise to heaven each day more tumultuously, I beg you, I ask you, I order you in the name of God: Stop the repression!”
The next day, Romero was shot in the heart while saying mass.
The civil war in El Salvador ended in 1992 with signing of peace accords. Until last year, rightwing parties controlled the presidency. In 2009, journalist Mauricio Funes was elected president on the FMLN platform. When he took office, this is what he said:
“We’re going to change the way we make policy. And one of the most significant changes is that we will no longer have a government at the service of a privileged few. And we will no longer have a government that creates an economy of privileges for the privileged. Now, we need a government like the one envisioned by [Archbishop of El Salvador] Óscar Arnulfo Romero, who, in his prophetic message, said that the church should have a preferential option for the poor.”
This week, President Mauricio Funes issued an apology. “I ask forgiveness from the thousands of families who were affected by this type of illegal and unacceptable violence, and especially to members of the religious communities represented by the spirit of Monsignor Romero and who maintain alive his legacy of peace and respect for human rights,” said Funes. “Again, as president of the republic, I ask for forgiveness in the name of the Salvadoran state for this assassination that occurred thirty years ago and which took our best patriot from us.”
The part that always gets me about this story is the letter that Romero wrote to President Carter. Romero explained clearly why the U.S. should not be propping up a repressive military and government. President Carter had a chance to stop military aid and instead chose to train El Salvador’s brutal military.
The Progressive published this in 1981: “By the close of 1980, the United States had indeed done what it could to improve the proficiency of Salvadoran forces: The U.S. Army School of the Americas in Panama, in its largest single training effort ever, had graduated some 250 Salvadoran officers and noncoms.
“The streets of El Salvador’s towns are choked with burnt out vehicles, the debris of incendiary bombs, spent ammunition, and corpses. Whole villages have been destroyed. Every labor union meeting place has been blown up, as have opposition newspaper offices, the church radio station YSAX, and the Metropolitan Cathedral, where the bodies of six murdered Democratic Revolutionary Front leaders were dynamited as they lay in state.
“How did the United States come to back such a murderous regime? Despite his official human rights advocacy, Jimmy Carter always sent mixed signals to the Salvadoran right wing. If Carter’s signals were mixed, Reagan’s are clear.”
So what kind of signals is President Obama sending now to Latin America?
One of Obama’s first tests happened in El Salvador’s neighbor, Honduras. The Obama Administration did not take forceful measures against last summer’s military coup, though Obama did say he was “deeply concerned.” Since the United States gives Honduras $100 million in annual assistance, and accounts for about 85% of the country’s total trade and 70% of foreign direct investment, the U.S. could’ve been tougher.
(And let’s not forget that the general who led the military coup in Honduras has a connection to the U.S. military. General Romeo Vasquez attended military training in Fort Benning, Georgia, at least twice.)
Hillary Clinton is now urging other nations to recognize the new president, who was elected under a government installed by a coup. Many countries in Latin America do not see the new administration in Honduras as legitimate.
“In Latin America, after decades of U.S. interference in the region, we had great expectations and hopes,” said Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner in a February 25 interview on CNN’s Spanish-language channel. “Honduras was a strong blow to these expectations.”
Earlier this month, Clinton said the Obama Administration would resume aid to Honduras that was suspended after the coup, despite reports from Human Rights Watch that attacks on opponents of last year’s coup have continued since a newly elected government took office. The human rights organization says opponents have been killed, detained and attacked during the past month.
Obama probably would have lost very little political capital if he sided with democratic forces in Honduras. (It’s not the 1980s, anymore.) And he would’ve reaped a lot of good will in Latin America. Instead, he unwittingly showed us that not enough has changed in U.S. foreign policy in thirty years.
martes, 23 de marzo de 2010
The Anti-Venezuela Election Campaign
by Mark Weisbrot
Global Research, March 21, 2010
Guardian - 2010-03-18
Venezuela's election is not until September, but the international campaign to delegitimise the government has already begun
Venezuela has an election for its national assembly in September, and the campaign has begun in earnest. I am referring to the international campaign. This is carried out largely through the international media, although some will spill over into the Venezuelan media. It involves many public officials, especially in the US. The goal will be to generate as much bad press as possible about Venezuela, to discredit the government, and to delegitimise the September elections – in case the opposition should choose to boycott, as they did in the last legislative elections, or refuse to recognise the results if they lose.
There's no need for conspiracy, since the principal actors all know what to do. Occasionally some will be off-message due to lack of co-ordination. A fascinating example of this occurred last week when Senator John McCain tried to get General Doug Fraser of the US Southern Command to back his accusations that Venezuela supports terrorist activities. Testifying before the Senate armed services committee on March 11, General Fraser contradicted McCain:
"We have continued to watch very closely … We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection."
Oops! Apparently Fraser didn't get the memo that the Obama team, not just McCain, is in full campaign mode against
Venezuela. The next day, he issued a statement recanting his testimony:
"Assistant Secretary Valenzuela [the state department's top Latin America official] and I spoke this morning on the topic of linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc. There is zero daylight between our two positions and we are in complete agreement.
"There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc … we are in direct alignment with our partners at the state department and the intelligence community."
Well it's good to know that the United States still has civilian control over the military, at least in the western hemisphere. On the other hand, it would be even better if the truth counted for anything in these Congressional hearings or in Washington foreign policy circles generally. The general's awkward and seemingly forced reversal went unnoticed by the media.
The "documented and historical and ongoing evidence" mentioned by General Fraser refers to material alleged to come from laptops and hard drives allegedly found by the Colombian military in a cross-border raid into Ecuador in 2008. Never mind that this is the same military that has been found to have killed hundreds of innocent teenagers and dressed them up in guerrilla clothing. These laptops and hard drives will continue to be tapped for previously undisclosed "evidence", which will then be deployed in the campaign against the Venezuelan government. We will be asked to assume that the "captured documents" are authentic, and most of the media will do so.
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's attacks on Venezuela during hertrip to South America were one of the opening salvos of this campaign. Most of what will follow is predictable. There will be hate-filled editorials in the major newspapers, led by the neocon editorial board of the Washington Post (aka Fox on 15th Street). Chávez will be accused of repressing the media, even though most of the Venezuelan media – as measured by audience – is still controlled by the opposition. In fact, the media in Venezuela is still far more in opposition to the government than is our own media in the United States, or for that matter in most of the world. But the international press will be trying to convey the image that Venezuela is Burma or North Korea.
In Washington DC, if I try to broadcast on an FM radio frequency without a legal broadcast licence, I will be shut down. When this happens in Venezuela, it is reported as censorship. No one here will bother to look at the legalities or the details, least of all the pundits and editorial writers, or even many of the reporters.
The Venezuelan economy was in recession in 2009, but will likely begin to grow again this year. The business press will ignore the economic growth and hype the inflation, as they have done for the past six years, when the country's record economic growth cut the poverty rate by half and extreme poverty by 70% (which was also ignored). Resolutions will be introduced into the US Congress condemning Venezuela for whatever.
The US government will continue to pour millions of dollars into Venezuela through USAid, and will refuse to disclose the recipients. This is the non-covert part of their funding for the campaign inside Venezuela.
The only part of this story that is not predictable is what the ultimate result of the international campaign will be. In Venezuela's last legislative elections of 2005, the opposition boycotted the national elections, with at least tacit support from the Bush administration. In an attempt to delegitimise the government, they gave up winning probably at least 30% of the legislature.
At the time, most of the media – and also the Organisation of American States – rejected the idea that the election was illegitimate simply because the opposition boycotted. But that was under the Bush administration, which had lost some credibility on Venezuela due to its support for the 2002 coup, and for other reasons. It could be different under an Obama administration.
That is why it is so ominous to see this administration mounting an unprovoked, transparently obvious campaign to delegitimise the Venezuelan government prior to a national election. This looks like a signal to the opposition: "We will support you if you decide to return to an insurrectionary strategy," either before or after the election.
The US state department is playing an ugly and dangerous game.
Global Research Articles by Mark Weisbrot
Global Research, March 21, 2010
Guardian - 2010-03-18
Venezuela's election is not until September, but the international campaign to delegitimise the government has already begun
Venezuela has an election for its national assembly in September, and the campaign has begun in earnest. I am referring to the international campaign. This is carried out largely through the international media, although some will spill over into the Venezuelan media. It involves many public officials, especially in the US. The goal will be to generate as much bad press as possible about Venezuela, to discredit the government, and to delegitimise the September elections – in case the opposition should choose to boycott, as they did in the last legislative elections, or refuse to recognise the results if they lose.
There's no need for conspiracy, since the principal actors all know what to do. Occasionally some will be off-message due to lack of co-ordination. A fascinating example of this occurred last week when Senator John McCain tried to get General Doug Fraser of the US Southern Command to back his accusations that Venezuela supports terrorist activities. Testifying before the Senate armed services committee on March 11, General Fraser contradicted McCain:
"We have continued to watch very closely … We have not seen any connections specifically that I can verify that there has been a direct government-to-terrorist connection."
Oops! Apparently Fraser didn't get the memo that the Obama team, not just McCain, is in full campaign mode against
Venezuela. The next day, he issued a statement recanting his testimony:
"Assistant Secretary Valenzuela [the state department's top Latin America official] and I spoke this morning on the topic of linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc. There is zero daylight between our two positions and we are in complete agreement.
"There is indeed clear and documented historical and ongoing evidence of the linkages between the government of Venezuela and the Farc … we are in direct alignment with our partners at the state department and the intelligence community."
Well it's good to know that the United States still has civilian control over the military, at least in the western hemisphere. On the other hand, it would be even better if the truth counted for anything in these Congressional hearings or in Washington foreign policy circles generally. The general's awkward and seemingly forced reversal went unnoticed by the media.
The "documented and historical and ongoing evidence" mentioned by General Fraser refers to material alleged to come from laptops and hard drives allegedly found by the Colombian military in a cross-border raid into Ecuador in 2008. Never mind that this is the same military that has been found to have killed hundreds of innocent teenagers and dressed them up in guerrilla clothing. These laptops and hard drives will continue to be tapped for previously undisclosed "evidence", which will then be deployed in the campaign against the Venezuelan government. We will be asked to assume that the "captured documents" are authentic, and most of the media will do so.
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton's attacks on Venezuela during hertrip to South America were one of the opening salvos of this campaign. Most of what will follow is predictable. There will be hate-filled editorials in the major newspapers, led by the neocon editorial board of the Washington Post (aka Fox on 15th Street). Chávez will be accused of repressing the media, even though most of the Venezuelan media – as measured by audience – is still controlled by the opposition. In fact, the media in Venezuela is still far more in opposition to the government than is our own media in the United States, or for that matter in most of the world. But the international press will be trying to convey the image that Venezuela is Burma or North Korea.
In Washington DC, if I try to broadcast on an FM radio frequency without a legal broadcast licence, I will be shut down. When this happens in Venezuela, it is reported as censorship. No one here will bother to look at the legalities or the details, least of all the pundits and editorial writers, or even many of the reporters.
The Venezuelan economy was in recession in 2009, but will likely begin to grow again this year. The business press will ignore the economic growth and hype the inflation, as they have done for the past six years, when the country's record economic growth cut the poverty rate by half and extreme poverty by 70% (which was also ignored). Resolutions will be introduced into the US Congress condemning Venezuela for whatever.
The US government will continue to pour millions of dollars into Venezuela through USAid, and will refuse to disclose the recipients. This is the non-covert part of their funding for the campaign inside Venezuela.
The only part of this story that is not predictable is what the ultimate result of the international campaign will be. In Venezuela's last legislative elections of 2005, the opposition boycotted the national elections, with at least tacit support from the Bush administration. In an attempt to delegitimise the government, they gave up winning probably at least 30% of the legislature.
At the time, most of the media – and also the Organisation of American States – rejected the idea that the election was illegitimate simply because the opposition boycotted. But that was under the Bush administration, which had lost some credibility on Venezuela due to its support for the 2002 coup, and for other reasons. It could be different under an Obama administration.
That is why it is so ominous to see this administration mounting an unprovoked, transparently obvious campaign to delegitimise the Venezuelan government prior to a national election. This looks like a signal to the opposition: "We will support you if you decide to return to an insurrectionary strategy," either before or after the election.
The US state department is playing an ugly and dangerous game.
Global Research Articles by Mark Weisbrot
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)
Entradas
