The Search for Defensible Frontiers

excerpted from the book

Beyond Hypocrisy

by Edward S. Herman

published by South End Press, 1992

Our Natural Right to Subvert

*****

The United States occasionally invades countries directly, usually to shore up a discredited puppet regime about to fall to indigenous but radical or reformist rule (Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon). The invasion of Grenada in 1983 appears to have had a double motive: to "stand tall" in the wake of the loss of 241 marines in Beirut, which occurred only days before the incursion; and to take advantage of the disarray following the murder of head-of-state Maurice Bishop to oust a radical regime. Panama was invaded in 1989 in order to remove Manuel Noriega and reassert U.S. control, and to allow George Bush to stand tall. Indirect control of these two former clients was quickly arranged, aided by a modest pacification effort.

But the United States has enlarged and protected its domains mainly through subversion; i.e., the undermining of disfavored governments by open and covert hostile actions that weaken their authority and strengthen the power of their enemies. This covers a wide range of activities: boycotts and other forms of economic warfare; bribery and subsidization of politicians, journalists, and intellectuals; hostile propaganda; sabotage and terror direct and through proxies; and the encouragement and support of coupe. A very important form of subversion has been the wooing, bribing, and brainwashing of foreign police and military personnel, who are brought to U.S. facilities in Washington, D.C., Ft. Benning, GA, etc., where they are treated lavishly, taught to distrust their own people, and made into defacto agents of U.S. power, frequently proving their worth in the subsequent coupe.

The United States has used these methods regularly against governments of which its elite and leadership disapprove ... Only by reading relatively obscure books would it be possible to find out that in the period leading up to the Brazilian coup of 1964, hundreds of Brazilian politicians had been secretly funded by the U.S. government, or that in the early 1960s, the Vice President, Minister of Labor, son and physician of the President and numerous police and intelligence officials and political leaders in Ecuador were on the CIA payroll, among a vast array of equally subversive operations.

All these activities would be clearly identified as subversion and furiously denounced if engaged in by an alien power, but since they were done by us, different responses follow. First, the word subversion is inapplicable, by semantic agreement that no such invidious word could apply to ourselves. Second, the media do a fine job of suppressing or muting evidence of our subversive actions, especially those that are less easily rationalized, such as organizing assassinations, bribing foreign politicians, and sponsoring of coups against freely elected governments.

*****

The Search for Honest Quislings

Because the U.S. role in the Third World has been primarily to shore up the old order, preserving the huge traditional inequalities of wealth and foreign privilege in the f ace of challenges from below, it has regularly aligned itself with local oligarchs and military leaders of an unsavory character, who organize what the National liberation Front of Vietnam called "country-selling governments." In South Vietnam, in order to find leaders willing to front for a foreign invader end preside over the U.S. destruction of their land and people, the United States eventually had to resort to mercenaries who had fought for the French, were somewhat dim in intelligence, and were thieves and drug dealers."

In country after country over the past half-century, the United States has organized governments run by scoundrels who would do the necessary dirty work. The list is impressive: the old Chiang-Kai-Shek clique, the rapacious and former collaborationist military leaders of Thailand, Argentine and Chilean generals, the Shah of Iran, the Indonesian generals, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Stroessner in Paraguay, the Guatemalan generals, Mobutu in Zaire. Our favorite collaborationists tend to be crooks as well as murderers, and because of the corruption endemic in these U.S.-sponsored governments they have been called "shakedown states.

This has led numerous establishment intellectuals and pundits to remark on the moral deficiencies of backward peoples and to trace the roots of the problem to Asian, African, and Latin American "human nature". The idea that there could be a pernicious selectivity at work, that the West sought out the dregs by preference, and that western influence was itself corrupting was, of course, an unacceptable line of thought. In regard to South Vietnam, Malcolm Browne regretfully observed in 1964: "Unfortunately, most of the really intelligent, dedicated and patriotic men and women who form the stuff of sound leadership stayed with the Viet Minh." Most of them, however were eventually killed by U.S. military forces, or by local mercenaries in Operation Phoenix or similar death squad operations. No generalizations based on such information about the aborting or crippling of alternative paths of development can be found in the western media.

*****

Moderates and Extremists

The "leaders" put in place to serve U.S. power are invariably labeled "moderates" by the U.S. mass media. This follows by definition from the fact that they are supported by the U.S. government and serve U.S. interests. U.S. officials treat them as reasonable people we can "work with," and suggest that any little unpleasantnesses in which they may have recently indulged are under review and will be corrected soon, under our tutelage. That is, they will do our bidding, kill only the right people, and allow foreign investment and sales, even if at a heavy price in a "corruption drain."

Indonesian head of state, General Subandrio Suharto, for example, came into power on the wave of an outburst of terrorism that involved the slaughter of between 500,000 and a million people, mostly landless peasants. He and his coterie are also contenders for honors as the greatest thieves in history. But Suharto terminated any populist or radical threat to control of Indonesia and he has maintained an open door to U.S. investment and served as a staunch U.S. ally. Despite the mass slaughter he has therefore been treated by the U.S. political and corporate leadership as a fine fellow, as has the media and intellectual community. Thus, the Christian Science Monitor of February 6, 1987 referred to Suharto as a "moderate leader," and Michael Leifer, writing in the liberal World Policy Journal, featured the "stability" that Suharto brought to Indonesia, acknowledging extreme corruption and serious human rights violations only in passing.' Generals Videla and Viola, Argentinean leaders during the holocaust of 1976-83, were regularly referred to by the New York Times as "moderates" with "democratic leanings."" In 1933, the U.S. charge d' affaires in Berlin communicated to Washington that hope for U.S. interests lay in "the more moderate section of the [Nazi] party, headed by Hitler himself...which appeals to all civilized and reasonable people" and appeared to have the upper hand over violent extremists."

The tone employed in treating these client state killers is always low-keyed, and their motives are seen as benevolent-the London Economist described Suharto as "at heart benign"'; the New York Times wrote, "What is in doubt is not General Videla's good intentions but..." These publications never impute benign hearts nor good intentions to leaders of enemy states such as Daniel Ortega or Fidel Castro such individuals are invariably treated with sarcasm and sneers, their motives suspect. The difference is based completely on political bias, sustained by selective reporting.

*****

A 1980 Amnesty International report exposing the 60 Argentinean detention centers in which torture was carried out, and which linked the death squads to the military establishment, was never found newsworthy by the New York Times. News selection and suppression complement and service the acceptance of propaganda for friendly terror.

The government and media employed this same apologetic frame state terror in El Salvador in the 1980s. Here, Jose Napoleon Duarte was the "moderate" head of a moderate junta, unable to contain the extremes of right and left. The death squads were rightists "out of control," like the Argentinean army. This was once again implausible and fraudulent, as most of the killing was done by the Salvadoran army, and the death squads were a controlled and protected affiliate of the army. Duarte was a powerless fig leaf who gave the impression of moderateness by an earlier history that was irrelevant to his performance and role in the 1980s, but which was reported without question by the mainstream media. Subsequently, Alfredo Cristiani played the same role as front man for the extreme right-wing ARENA party, founded by Roberto D'Aubuisson. As he served U.S. power, the nominal power and fig leaf role were once again ignored - Christiani was a moderate by the fact of his service and acceptability to U.S. officials.

The long record of media apologetics that has made any servant of U.S. power a moderate has left only one question remaining: is there any limit to scoundrelism that would cause an individual supported by the U.S. government to fail to be identified as a moderate in the U.S. press? No limit is observable as yet. When Roberto D'Aubuisson came near to becoming president of El Salvador in 1982, U.S. officials began to stress the "variety" within the ARENA party, the doctrine of "changing course," and the importance of giving people a chance. Ambassador Hinton said that "Anyone who believes in the Democratic system should give him [D'Aubuisson] the benefit of the doubt." The press began to accommodate as well. A 1982 interview in the Mexican paper El Dia in which D'Aubuisson lauded the Germans for their efficiency in handling the Jewish problem was suppressed. An article by Warren Hoge in the Times of April 1, 1982 captures the new look of a fascist in process of becoming a moderate. "Rightist Flag Bearer" is accompanied by a flatteringly thoughtful picture of D'Aubuisson, and the article criticizes him gently for his "impulsiveness and desire for confrontation" and the fact that his "behavior was uneven."

*****

Terrorism and Retaliation

One of the most potent weapons of the western establishment designed to justify beating up smaller countries is the need for defense against "terrorism." The terrorist is a fearsome symbol, conjuring up visions of a bewhiskered, foreign-featured bomb thrower threatening western (white) innocents. Like National Security, terrorism is a funny notion that can be employed with great indignation against selected enemies while ignoring, supporting, and carrying out similar actions by ourselves and allies. This can be accomplished only if a cooperative media will not look closely, ask questions, and challenge double standards and propagandistic usage. And the U.S. mass media have been more than cooperative.

The use of this propaganda weapon has been greatly added by the rise of an industry devoted to producing and disseminating the West's selective version of terrorism. The industry consists of government officials, terrorism experts housed in and funded by government related and corporate funded think-tanks, and private security firms. These experts and security firm personnel work for governments and corporations who have their own narrow views of terrorists. Salvadoran peasants, Chilean workers, and South African blacks would have a different view, but they don't have the resources to fund think-tanks, experts, and data bases listing "terrorist incidents." The funded experts respond to their funders' demands - and not surprisingly, it turns out that the West is defending against terrorism, not terrorizing; that Libya and North Korea are terrorist states, not El Salvador, South Africa, or Israel.

On February 2, 1988, FBI chief William Sessions told the press that the surveillance of CISPES had been legitimate because it had possibly given support to a "terrorist" organization, namely, the FMLN rebels of El Salvador. In any rebellion, force is used; by Sessions' logic, George Washington's army was a terrorist organization. If we consider, as we obviously should, who initiated the violence, whether the rebels had explored political options before resorting to arms, and the forms and levels of violence and intimidation, the evidence is clear that in El Salvador state terror came first and on a large scale, and that political options were entirely foreclosed before the armed rebellion developed. As Archbishop Romero told President Carter in 1980, the people's organizations are "fighting to defend their most fundamental human rights"; and in his diary he noted that the opposition forces were being subjected to "a general program of annihilation" to which they were responding. Given these considerations, the FMLN should not be regarded as a terrorist organization at all; it is more reasonably described as engaged in "self-defense" and "counterterrorism" against the Salvadoran state and its external (U.S.) managers, who are the real terrorists.

How does the propaganda system obscure the evidence that the Salvadoran state terrorizes and that the United States, as the organizer, protector, and supplier of this regime, is an international terrorist state? Partly by arbitrary and highly political word manipulation, and partly by brazen government-media doctoring of evidence.

An important element of word manipulation is the confinement of "terrorism" to acts of violence and intimidation carried out by individuals and small groups. Dictionary definitions have always extended the reach of the word to governments, and in years gone by, terrorism was associated primarily with governments. This was based on the quantity and quality of violence carried out by state and non-state actors, as only states use systematic torture as a method of intimidation, and the scale of their acts of violence makes the terrorism of individuals and small groups look relatively insignificant. The concepts of "retail" and "wholesale" terrorism capture the fact that individual and rebel group violence is on a small (retail) scale, whereas state violence is on a large (wholesale) scale.

The shift to using "terrorism" only for small-scale violence was a highly political choice of word use, corresponding to an identifiable political agenda. In 1981 President Reagan and Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that they were shifting U.S. priorities from "human rights" to "terrorism." "Human rights" policies were concerned with the abusive activities of states like Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, and South Africa. These countries were already receiving muted attention, given their client status, but Reagan was actually entering into alliances with these agents of wholesale terrorism (all of whom greeted his accession to the presidency with enthusiasm). The point of the newly invigorated concern over retail terrorism was partly to divert attention from the now "constructively engaged" state terrorists, who were unleashed to invade and kill on a larger scale in Lebanon, South Africa, and Central America, and partly to justify other Reagan era policies (rearmament, the upward redistribution of income, etc.), which required a patriotic, confused and thereby more manageable public. The media went along with these new priorities and the related system of doublespeak and propaganda about terrorism without notable dissent.

Confining "terrorism" to the acts of retail terrorists is sometimes rationalized on the ground that they attack innocent civilians, whereas state terrorists are presumably more discriminating. While this stance is made plausible by airline hijackings and airport bombings, it is a false generalization. Retail terrorists are often highly selective, and state terrorists frequency engage in deliberate intimidation by murder of large civilian populations. The National Liberation Front (NLF) of South Vietnam, for example, punished cadres who victimized untargeted civilians. On the other hand, B-52 bombing raids in Vietnam, and Israeli bombing attacks on heavily populated areas, were (and are) well understood as efforts to victimize noncombatants. After Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin had criticized, earlier labor governments for indiscriminate attacks on Arab civilians (in response to attacks on his own policies), Labor Party spokesperson Abba Eban defended the earlier bombings on the grounds that "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that afflicted populations [i.e., innocent civilians deliberately bombed] would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities." In other words, the intent of Israeli bombing had been to intimidate the civilian population into pressing their leaders to alter their policy. This is a confession of planned indiscriminate murder of civilians.

*****

lsrael and the Palestinians

The Middle East, and especially the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, has yielded a cornucopia of doublespeak usage. This is a result of the huge gap between western pretensions and nominal values, on the one hand, and western interests and policies, on the other, Israeli governments have absolutely refused to do any political business with the Palestinians for decades, and have carried out policies toward Palestinians in Israel that have been regularly compared in the Israeli and world (but not U.S.) press with those of South Africa.

Doublespeak on the Middle East is also greatly affected by the power of the pro-Israeli lobby in the United States. In addition to its virtually unconditional support for Israeli actions, the Jewish establishment has abused and threatened retaliation against intellectuals, journalists, and politicians who voice criticism of Israeli policy or who support any kind of challenge, penalty, or restriction on aid to the Israeli state. Although the Jewish lobby is not a large one, its resources and connections, the commitment of its supporters, and its ties to the military-industrial complex make it potent, and political candidates vie with one another in vows of fealty to Israel. For the Jewish establishment itself, there appears to be no limits to Israeli violence against unarmed civilians that will not be rationalized by alleged "provocations." And if beatings and the cracking of the bones of women and children are acceptable, what next for the "two-legged animals" and "grasshoppers'

With the effective cowing of many of the politicians, intellectuals, journalists, and editors who are not already true believers, the stage is set for the institutionalization of myths, big lies, and doublespeak. Many of the myths center in the origins of the Israeli state and the basis for the exodus of Palestinians that followed, which are beyond the scope of this discussion." The concept of "terrorism," ... has been central to the Israeli effort to dehumanize the Palestinians and provide the basis for a refusal to negotiate a political settlement ...

Beyond Hypocrisy