Throughout the world, on
any given day, a man, woman or child is likely to be displaced, tortured,
killed, or ‘disappeared’, at the hands of governments or armed political
groups. More often than not, the United States shares the blame.
Amnesty International. Human Rights & US Security Assistance. 1996
Het
Land fungeerde… decennialang als
ordebewaker en politieagent
Geert Mak. Reizen zonder John. 2012
Little
is left to chance in The Selling of America. The Clinton administration
announced in 1999 that it was forming a new International Public Information
group to ‘influence foreign audiences’ in support of US foreign policy and to
counteract propaganda by enemies of the United States. IPI’s charter says that
control over ‘international military information’ is intended to ‘influence the
emotions, motives, objective reasoning and ultimately the behavior of foreign
governments, organizations, groups and individuals.'
William Blum. Rogue State. A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower. 2001
Mak’s bewering dat de VS overal ter wereld ‘decennialang
als ordebewaker en politieagent’ optrad, wordt wat betreft de periode 1945 -1970 weersproken door de feiten. Laten we nu de jaren ’70 en ‘80 nader
bestuderen.
Chile, 1964-73:
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington
imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an
elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly
popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist
tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that ‘communists’
can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that
power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do
so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American
foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize
the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention
to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military
overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks
rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of
execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river;
the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into
bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that ‘In Chile
women wear dresses!’; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of
the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up
their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands
more tortured or disappeared.
Greece, 1964-74:
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the
campaign for the national elections was to begin, elections which appeared
certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime
minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright
majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations
to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the
Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967
coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship,
arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in
the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration
that this was all being done to save the nation from a ‘Communist takeover.’
Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among
these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for
the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year
Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty
International, wrote in December 1969 that ‘a conservative estimate would place
at not less than two thousand’ the number of people tortured, usually in the
most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to
the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk
which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He
tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: ‘You make
yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in
two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The
Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me
there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S.
You can't fight us, we are Americans.’
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal
anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a
little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out
of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a
satellite of the United States.
East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the
eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its
independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was
launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American
arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was
Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with
the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a
population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently
supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and
downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying
Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out
the job.
Nicaragua, 1978-89:
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was
clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-‘another
Cuba. Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took
diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice.
For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by
Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National
Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to
destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning
down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing
and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's ‘freedom fighters.’ There would be no
revolution in Nicaragua.
Grenada, 1979-84:
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a
country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979
coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's,
Washington was again driven by its fear of ‘another Cuba,’ particularly when
public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region
met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon
after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of
disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met
minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there
were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction
workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a
man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights
organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new
U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a
reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were
eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which
were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister
suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting
from what his critics called ‘an increasingly authoritarian style.’
Libya, 1981-89:
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its
leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S.
planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The
U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including
Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man,
operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic
sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without
any good evidence.
Panama, 1989:
Washington's bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement
barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several
days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the
official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian
government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that
thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324
wounded.
Question from reporter: ‘Was it really worth it to send people to their
death for this? To get Noriega?’
George Bush: ‘Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer,
yes, it has been worth it.’
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until
he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the
attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had
an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they
reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to
illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very
recent dissolution of the ‘Soviet threat.’ The official explanation for the
American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known
about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
Links Pinochet. Rechts Kissinger nadat zij de democratie in Chili omver hadden geworpen.
In 2004 schreef ik over Henry
Kissinger het volgende:
Onder leiding van de toenmalige
Nationale Veiligheidsadviseur Henry Kissinger werd in het geheim ‘een strategie
van destabilisatie, ontvoering en moord,’ ontwikkeld ‘met het doel een
militaire staatsgreep uit te lokken,’ zo blijkt uit vrijgekomen documenten. Op
11 september 1973, de dag dat de Senaat Kissinger’s benoeming als minister van
Buitenlandse Zaken sanctioneerde, werd Allende tijdens een gewelddadige
staatsgreep vermoord. Omdat hier sprake was van een grove schending van de
internationale rechtsorde verklaarde minister Kissinger tegenover de
Senaatscommissie voor buitenlandse betrekkingen dat de Amerikaanse regering
geen enkele rol had gespeeld in die militaire coup. Op zijn beurt beschreef de
Amerikaanse marineattaché in Chili, Patrick Ryan in een intern rapport de elfde
september tevreden als ‘onze D-day’ om vervolgens te concluderen dat ‘Chili’s
coup de etat (sic) bijna perfect’ was. Onmiddellijk nadat de wettige en
democratisch gekozen regering van Chili was uitgeschakeld, kreeg het militaire
regime die de macht had gegrepen aanzienlijke economische en militaire steun
van de VS. Dat in Chili intussen op grote schaal de mensenrechten ernstig
werden geschonden, speelde daarbij geen enkele rol. Integendeel, zo valt te
lezen in een in 1999 vrijgegeven Amerikaans memorandum, waarin een gesprek
tussen Kissinger en juntaleider Pinochet te lezen is. Het onderhoud vond plaats
op 8 juni 1976, op de dag dat Henry Kissinger een toespraak zou houden voor de
Organisatie van Amerikaanse Staten over het onderwerp mensenrechten. Gedwongen
door de publieke opinie en het Congres moest hij als Amerikaanse minister van
Buitenlandse Zaken in het openbaar enkele kritische opmerkingen maken over de
martelingen en verdwijningen van politieke tegenstanders in Chili. Voorafgaand
aan dit optreden zei Kissinger in een gesprek onder vier ogen geruststellend
tegen de despoot Pinochet: ‘De toespraak is niet tegen Chili gericht. Dat wilde
ik u zeggen. Naar mijn oordeel bent u een slachtoffer van alle linkse
groeperingen ter wereld en bestaat uw grootste zonde erin dat u een regering
omver hebt geworpen die bezig was communistisch te worden… We hebben de
omverwerping van de pro-communistische regering hier met instemming begroet. We
zijn er niet op uit uw positie te verzwakken… Ik wil graag onze betrekkingen en
vriendschap bevorderen.’
Zaterdag
11 mei 2013 werd het volgende bekend:
Mexico
City - A three-judge panel Friday convicted former Guatemalan dictator Efrain
Rios Montt of genocide, saying his military regime used “extreme terror” in an
effort to wipe out a Mayan minority ethnic group in the early 1980s.
In a packed courtroom in Guatemala
City, Judge Yassmin Barrios said investigators had proven that the regime led
by Rios Montt, who is 86, used starvation, mass homicide, dislocation, rape and
aerial bombardment as tactics to exterminate the Ixil minority, which it
believed to harbor leftist guerrillas.
Barrios gave Rios Montt a 50-year
jail term for genocide and an additional 30 years for crimes against
humanity...
At the time of Rios Montt’s
rule, the United States was engaged in proxy war across Central America in an
effort to turn back Cuban-backed leftists in the region. In December 1982,
President Ronald Reagan said after meeting with Rios Montt in Honduras that the
Guatemalan dictator got a “bum rap” as a human rights violator.
Begin april 2013 berichtte de
New York Times:
In the tortured logic of
military planning documents conceived under Mr. Ríos Montt’s 17-month rule
during 1982 and 1983, the entire Mayan Ixil population was a military target,
children included. Officers wrote that the leftist guerrillas fighting the
government had succeeded in indoctrinating the impoverished Ixils and reached
‘100 percent support.’
So, everyone was targeted in these
scorched-earth campaigns that eradicated more than 600 Indian villages in the
Guatemalan highlands. But this genocide was not simply the result of a twisted
anticommunist ideology that dominated the Guatemalan military and political
elites. This genocide also was endorsed by the Reagan administration.
A document that I discovered recently
in the archives of the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California, revealed that
Reagan and his national security team in 1981 agreed to supply military aid to
the brutal right-wing regime in Guatemala to pursue the goal of exterminating
not only ‘Marxist guerrillas’ but people associated with their ‘civilian
support mechanisms.’
This supportive attitude toward
the Guatemalan regime’s brutality took shape in spring 1981 as President Reagan
sought to ease human-rights restrictions on military aid to Guatemala that had
been imposed by President Jimmy Carter and the Democratic-controlled Congress
in the late 1970s.
As part of that relaxation effort,
Reagan’s State Department ‘advised our Central American embassies that it has
been studying ways to restore a closer, cooperative relationship with
Guatemala,’ according to a White House ‘Situation Room Checklist’ dated April 8, 1981. The document
added:
‘State believes a number of
changes have occurred which could make Guatemalan leaders more receptive to a
new U.S. initiative: the Guatemalans view the new administration as more
sympathetic to their problems [and] they are less suspect of the U.S. role in
El Salvador,’ where the Reagan administration was expanding support for another
right-wing regime infamous for slaughtering its political opponents, including
Catholic clergy.
President Ronald Reagan meeting with Guatemalan dictator Efrain Rios Montt.
Kort samengevat kan geen enkele serieuze journalist
volhouden dat in de jaren zeventig en tachtig van de vorige eeuw de VS als ‘als
ordebewaker en politieagent [fungeerde],’ zoals Geert Mak met grote
stelligheid in Reizen zonder John stelt.
Vanaf ’45 tot 1990 is de waarheid eerder het
tegenovergestelde. 13 april 2013 schreef de vooraanstaande Amerikaanse bestseller
auteur, Pulitzer prijs winnaar en onderzoeksjournalist Chris Hedges, 15 jaar
lang correspondent van de New York Times:
Murder is our national sport.
We murder tens of thousands with our industrial killing machines in Afghanistan
and Iraq. We murder thousands more from the skies over Pakistan, Somalia and
Yemen with our pilotless drones. We murder each other with reckless abandon.
And, as if we were not drenched in enough human blood, we murder prisoners—most
of them poor people of color who have been locked up for more than a decade.
The United States believes in regeneration through violence. We have carried
out blood baths on foreign soil and on our own land for generations in the vain
quest of a better world. And the worse it gets, the deeper our empire sinks
under the weight of its own decay and depravity, the more we kill.
Volgende keer analyseren we
de jaren 90 tot nu om te zien of Geert Mak propaganda bedrijft of de
werkelijkheid beschrijft.
Een substantieel deel van de Amerikaanse blanke christelijke middenklasse juichte de genocide in Latijns Amerika toe.
John Lennon en Yoko Ono, die in tegenstelling tot Geert Mak allang wisten dat de VS geenszins 'decennialang als ordebewaker en politieagent [fungeerde],' maar wel als massamoordenaar.
1 opmerking:
"Het Land fungeerde… decennialang als ordebewaker en politieagent".
Zie het citaat van Thomas Friedman onderaan dit artikel: The Sick Madness of Tom Friedman's Culture.
Een reactie posten