Conclusions and Recommendations

excerpted from the book

State Terrorism and the United States

From Counterinsurgency to the War on Terrorism

by Frederick H. Gareau

Clarity Press, 2004, paper

p216
The first sentence of the report of the truth commission for Argentina probably expressed what must have been a common reaction of many of the readers of this study. "Many of the events described in this report will be hard to believe."

p217
The findings of five truth commission reports were the major source used for convicting the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, and South Africa of state terrorism and of having committed many more atrocities than the guerrillas. These reports in turn were based on thousands of interviews, mostly with the victims of terrorism.

p217
... the countries which perpetrated, te terrorism upon their own citizens were supported by Washington. Father [Roy] Bourgeois is correct that it is at the School of the Americas "that the killing starts," that soldiers from Latin America learned counterinsurgency warfare there. Thousands of its graduates and those from other similar schools supported by Washington learned the techniques of state terrorism or techniques which, when slightly modified could be so used. Two of the three dictators who ruled Argentina during the dirty war were educated at the School of the Americas.

True, the typical military government practicing terrorism did not receive the huge subsidy received by El Salvador, which received six billion dollars in aid from Washington in the period 1979 to 1992. But U.S. aid was often military, and often dispensed when by all estimates, Washington knew that the terrorism was taking place. In the case of Chile, the CIA has verified this fact, reporting that: "US military assistance and sales grew significantly during the years of greatest human rights abuses." In the case of Indonesia, Washington was afraid that General Suharto lacked the "courage to go forward" against the communist party and its allies and sympathizers. The bright prospect of witnessing the physical destruction of the Communist Party of Indonesia led Washington to encourage the slaughter that followed. U.S. support of Israel, which practices state terrorism against the Palestinians, has been massive, to the current tune of some three billion per year. Support for the former Shah of Iran took the form of the sale of the latest weapons to this oil rich country. Aid from Washington in the case of South Africa reached the extravagant level of help in producing weapons of mass destruction. These efforts were successful, and South Africa produced some chemical weapons and six atomic bombs.

p218
Washington's support for rightwing dictators was bipartisan, but with the Republicans being more supportive than the Democrats. Schmitz traced the policy of support back to 1922, named it the Root Doctrine, and alleged that observance of it during the Cold War was a continuation of such observance in an earlier period.

p218
The Truman doctrine divided the world into the part that was free and the communist part that was totalitarian. The Truman administration then put rightwing dictatorships, if anti-communist, in the free world camp. President Kennedy befriended Mobutu, a dictator who ruled and plundered the Congo for 32 years. President Johnson invaded the Dominican Republic, overturned a regime that had been democratically elected, and helped install a dictator who ruled there for decades. President Carter supported the Shah of Iran.

A major theme that runs through the study is anti-communism, the ideology that supposedly fueled Washington as well as the rightwing dictatorships it supported. Also significant was Washington's concern to maintain stability in the countries given support so as to promote trade and investment opportunities for American business. The president of the Coca Cola company expressed his enthusiasm for expanding sales to Indonesia in this way. "When I think of Indonesia-a country on the equator with 180 million people, a median age of 18, and a Muslim ban on alcohol-I feel I know what heaven looks like." This remark gains salience in the context of America's new global enemy-resurgent Islam-and the fact that some 52 countries of the world have predominantly Muslim populations.

Most often during the Cold War period, the opposition to the dictatorships was not really communist, but activists struggling for some form of lesser social change. While resurgent Islam has replaced communism as the targeted ideology in the new war on terrorism, the struggle for social change in order to ameliorate well being remains a constant factor. The struggles could better be denominated as the ins versus the outs, or the haves versus the have-nots. Certainly an analysis of the victims of the rightwing dictatorships would lead to that conclusion. The Catholic Church, particularly its progressive wing, those who favored the theology of liberation, stood up to the dictatorships in Latin America, and often suffered the consequences. This church can hardly be accused of being communist. I accept class as the major motive that runs through the study, opposite movements struggling to change or to preserve the basic structure of society. Insofar as the individual societies themselves are not isolated from global society, with its existing socio-economic relations and attendant relative benefits for the dominant countries, and the U.S. in particular, it is hard to escape the implications of classic notions of imperialism and local resistance to it.

Even though class is a common theme that runs through the volume, subsidiary issues arise, and they do have impact. On this point I agree with Father Falla who accepted class as the central motive for state action in Guatemala, but recognized the ancillary role of the mestizos' prejudice against the Mayas. Similarly the domination of one people or peoples by another people or peoples also occurred in South Africa and was manifest in the struggle for self-determination in East Timor. But the racial divisions in South African society follow class divisions as well, and the struggle over East Timor had a class side to it as well as the more obvious nationalist side. "The dirty war" in Argentina had a more obvious subsidiary side, namely anti-Semitism. With the war on terrorism directed primarily at Islamic populations, it is to be expected that defense of Islam will play a further role in marshalling local resistance to negative socio-economic conditions and domination from outside, as will Islamic ideology in guiding it.

... the CIA actually planned the coup in Guatemala that brought down the democratic government bent on reform. In Chile it was in communication with three groups that were planning coups against the Allende government. It aided one such group, but claimed that it did not aid the one that succeeded. In Iran, the CIA was responsible for the toppling of the secular Mossadegh government, ushering in the rule of the Shah, which led in turn to the Iranian Islamic revolution. It set out to assassinate President Lumumba of the Congo, but someone else evidently beat the agency to it. It organized the Contras and carried out a series of attacks on Nicaragua's ports. It aided Saddam Hussein when he came to power in 1963 by providing him with a list of his opponents so that he could assassinate them. It launched a disinformation campaign in Indonesia in 1965 intended to induce the communist party to assassinate General Yani and to encourage the rightwing military to slaughter the communists and their sympathizers.

p219
Washington as the Supplier of Arms to the World and Aid to the Violators of Human Rights

... Amnesty International found Washington to be the premier exporter of armaments that are often imported by nations that violate human rights Between 1989 and 1996, Washington sold over $117 billion worth of arms, 45 percent of world sales.' In the year 2000, Washington again was first in sales, and its share of the world market stood firm at 45.8 percent of the total. In that year, Russia ranked second and France third. Israel ranked first in the year 2000 as the premier importer of weapons of those countries ranked as developing countries. Washington's sales are often lubricated and supported by financial assistance and military training. Since 1990 the hegemon has given away an additional $8 billion in "surplus" equipment from American stocks. These gifts included 4,000 heavy tanks, 500 bombers, and 200,000 light arms.

In September 1997 Washington released figures on exports of rifles, small arms, and riot control weapons-the dual use materials that can be used for police protection or for the violation of human rights including the practice of state terrorism. The figures showed that these exports were increasing rapidly. In the opinion of Amnesty International, they were exported to countries where human rights violations by governments were persistent and severe-Bahrain, Bolivia, Colombia, Egypt, Israel, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. From September 1991 to December 1993 the U.S. Commerce Department issued over 350 licenses for the export of such items as thumb cuffs, thumbscrews, leg irons, and shackles. The exports were to 57 countries, many of which had poor human rights records. Over 2,000 licenses were issued to 105 countries under another program for the sale of electro-shock batons, cattle prods, shotguns, and shotgun shells. In addition, thousands of military personnel are trained by Washington either in the homeland or overseas. Over 100,000 from more than 100 countries have been trained under the International Military and Education Training program since its establishment in 1976. A larger number receive training under the auspices of the Foreign Military Sales program. More than 150 facilities in the United States and overseas are maintained for this purpose such as the infamous School of the Americas,(mentioned above) whose graduates have become notorious for their gross violations of human rights.

p222
WASHINGTON'S POLICY TOWARD THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

By April 11, 2002, sixty-six nations had ratified the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC), thus assuring that the court would become a reality. 12 This is the first permanent tribunal established by the international community with the power to try individuals no matter their nationality or the scene of their crime for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. Following the terms of its constitutive treaty, its jurisdiction went into effect on July 1, 2002. The ICC is a great improvement over the long established World Court that can try cases only among states and cannot try the culprits, the individuals, who actually commit the crimes. The new court also represents a great improvement over the international criminal courts established for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Washington played a leading role in the establishment of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and these tribunals' jurisdictions were restricted solely to their specific situations. The new court is the appropriate court for trying those accused of terrorism, including those accused by Washington of this crime. As indicated below, however, in all likelihood, this is not to be.

The International Criminal Court has been broadly welcomed by democratic nations, human rights organizations, and American lawyers associations. Most democratic nations have ratified the treaty that established it, including all members of the European Union. The Secretary General of the United Nations welcomed its establishment, exclaiming: "The long held dream of the International Criminal Court will now be realized. Impunity has been dealt a decisive blow." He added that its establishment constituted "a giant step forward in the march towards universal human rights and the rule of law." Richard J. Goldstone, the former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, declared that: "It will also be necessary to visit pariah status upon any nations that persistently refuse to become parties to the [ICC Rome] treaty" that established the court. His statement, if taken seriously, would require that "pariah status" be visited upon Washington.

Washington's seat at the birthday celebration of the court was empty. This was symbolic not merely of the Bush administration's refusal to become a member of the court, but also of its hostility to the court. The New York Times remarked in an editorial: "But it (the court) has an implacable foe in the Bush administration, which argues that the court will open American officials and military personnel in operations abroad to unjustified, frivolous, or politically motivated suits." The main initial reason Washington gave for its opposition is that members of the American armed forces might be called before it for prosecution... Later the Bush administration added the specter of high civilian officials being tried before it as well. Administration officials informed Washington's allies in Europe that a major reason for seeking exemption was "to protect the country's top leaders from being indicted, arrested, or hauled before the court on war crimes charges."' To make their point, these officials referred to the pending trials of Henry Kissinger before American and Peruvian courts. The former Secretary of State is accused of aiding the coup that brought Pinochet to power and of supporting the ensuing dictatorship. (Information presented in Chapter Three suggests that he is guilty of the latter charge. The officials said that at the heart of their concern was the fate of President Bush and Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell.

Congress demonstrated that it is a foe of the court by passing a law forbidding Americans at all levels of government from cooperating with it-even as Washington seeks to have Americans exempted from its jurisdiction. The administration informed the Security Council that Washington would not take part in any peacekeeping operations unless its personnel are exempted from the jurisdiction of the court. Some two weeks later on June 30, 2002, Washington's delegate vetoed the extension of the peacekeeping force in Bosnia, giving as its reason the danger faced by American soldiers of frivolous and politically motivated suits from the International Criminal Court. 16 Kofi Annan argued that the action of the American government put the entire peacekeeping system of the United Nations at risk. 17 The problem was temporarily solved, or at least put off, when it was discovered that in the Rome treaty there was provision for immunity from its jurisdiction for one year for peacekeeping personnel from those countries that do not accept the court.

Then Washington opened the war against the court on another front. It concluded pacts with Rumania and Israel whereby these countries agreed not to send American personnel to the court for prosecution."' Later Tajikistan and East Timor signed on as well. The agreement with Israel was a two-way instrument. Washington also agreed that it would not send Israeli personnel to the court for prosecution. The deputy chief of mission at the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed that Israel shared America's concerns. It fears that its troops could be tried for actions taken against the Palestinians. An anti-terrorism law passed in early August 2002 provided Washington with teeth in negotiating such bilateral agreements. By its terms the administration can terminate all military aid to those countries that upon becoming members of the court do not pledge not to deliver Americans for trial by the court. Members of NATO and other very close allies of the United States are exempt from this provision, but many more countries are included.(As a Pentagon spokeswoman declared, practically every other country except those referred to above and those on the list of countries accused of aiding terrorists receive some type of military aid from the United States) Pursuant to this act, aid to thirty-five countries has been suspended .20 Another provision of the anti-terrorism law allows the president to free any American who is in the custody of the court by "any necessary and appropriate means," including the use of the military. The European Union reacted to this policy by warning those nations wishing to join the organization to resist signing such agreements. This in turn resulted in a strong response from Washington. At the time of this writing, it appears that those nations that wish to join NATO might be caught between the conflicting policies of Washington and Europe.

The Bush administration also "unsigned" the Rome treaty, a most unusual procedures.

p224
Washington's preference for situation-specific international criminal courts should be viewed in the broader context of its policy of exposing and calling for the punishment of those states regarded as its enemies that violate human rights and practice terrorism, while covering over and excusing from punishment its allies and friends for committing the same offenses or worse. Washington's policy with respect to these courts is generically ... exposing and calling for punishment for the communists and their allies that violate human rights and practice terrorism while covering over, supporting, and excusing from punishment friendly rightwing dictatorships. This policy violates the principle of universality, a norm that Goldstone argues is the "essence of justice." He put it this way: "A decent and rational person is offended that criminal laws should apply only to some people and not to others in similar situation S."25 He went on to say that he felt distinctly uncomfortable when in October 1994 in Belgrade, he was asked by the Serbian minister of justice why the United Nations had established a tribunal for the former Yugoslavia while it had not done so for Cambodia and Iraq. Why were the Serbs being treated differently? Was this an act of discrimination? The only answer Goldstone could think of was that the international community had to begin somewhere. However, "if there were no follow-through and if other equivalent situations in the future were not treated comparably, then the people of the former Yugoslavia could justifiably claim discrimination .

Obviously, the Bush administration has no intention of using the International Criminal Court to prosecute suspected terrorists. It intends to establish special military tribunals for this purpose, an announcement that has sparked considerable controversy. Human rights advocates argued that the special courts would not only violate the civil liberties guaranteed under American law, but that they would breach international law guaranteeing fair treatment for prisoners of war, such as the Geneva Conventions.

p228
Preemption and counter-proliferation are violations of international law and of the principles of morality as well. History offers numerous cases of invasions of Latin American countries by Washington. But the Bush administration has now made preemption a declared policy of the United States, a standard way of fighting the war on terrorism. Obviously, this is no way to carry on a project of defense-the policy raises questions as to whether the war on terrorism is intended in actuality to serve as an umbrella for the expansion of U.S. imperial presence abroad and to deepen the funding trough for the military industrial complex.

The adoption by the world's sole remaining superpower of the doctrines of preemption and counter-proliferation represents a severe setback for the development of international law. Reacting to the enormous amount of bloodshed and destruction caused by two world wars, the international community has been attempting to outlaw aggression and punish those responsible for it. The reaction has seen the establishment of the World Court, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, and the International Criminal Court. International lawyers have even incorporated some of the principles of just war theory into their legal lexicon .

If its motive is truly self-defense, Washington should not seek self-defense by means that would provide seeds which, when planted and cultivated, would produce a new crop of terrorists. This was the way the Cold War was fought. In pursuing its goal of defending against terrorism, Washington should not support a host of dictators who wage terrorist campaigns against or trample on the rights of their own citizens. And in particular, in relation to the populations most concerned in the present war on terrorism, Washington should not duplicate its activities in the Arab-Israeli conflict by supporting a democratic government that wages terror against the Palestinian Arabs. The war on terrorism is intimately connected with the Arab-Israeli struggle. Arab and Muslim terrorists have forged this connection by blaming the United States for its support of Israel, a country that practices state terrorism against an Arab people.

p230
Washington seems to be oblivious to addressing the injustices generated by past U.S. policy, absorbed as it is with its own "war on terrorism" directed at the Middle East. President Bush's resolve to capture the terrorists and bring them to justice is compartmentalized and exclusive. It does not include the members of the death squads in Guatemala, nor Generals Pinochet and Suharto and the other military officers, former state terrorists, who are enjoying their retirement with their families in their own countries or in the sunshine of Southern Florida. They will not be hunted down to be caught dead or alive, or even brought to justice. In fact, their terrorist activities will not be exposed by Washington unless its policy changes. This exemption from justice could reasonably be presumed to increase the resentment and bitterness of the surviving victims of state terrorism against their former rulers and also against the United States in the many cases in which Washington served as an accomplice to the state terrorists. This exemption by definition is ironic, but more importantly, it is unjust, and it could be the source of future terrorism against the United States.

p230
A TRUTH COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON

The American public is generally unaware that Washington aids state terrorists, an ignorance somewhat similar to that of the publics in countries where rightwing dictators practiced state terrorism. Usually, state terrorism took place in secret, and often what the state did was blamed on the guerrillas. This ignorance of what happened was nowhere more evident than in South Africa. As Archbishop Tutu pointed out, the townships that housed the blacks were usually out of sight of the whites who lived in their affluent suburbs. It was inconvenient for whites to visit a black township. Some did, but the great majority preferred to remain in their privileged, segregated suburbs. The geographic distance that separated these whites from the black victims of state terrorism is nothing like that which separates the American public from the victims of the state terrorism supported by Washington. Nonetheless, the levels of ignorance of these whites and the American public were similar until the publication of the truth commission report for South Africa. The existence of "the free press" in the United States has not made up for the lack of a truth commission nor obviated the need for the establishment of such a commission. The ignorance of the American public is fed by Washington's narrow, self-serving definition of terrorism that excludes state terrorism from coverage. This definition is picked up by the media, applied to the news, and distributed to the American public.

Another factor is the widespread belief in the myth of American "exceptionalism," a central feature of the socialization process in the United States: that the U.S. acts in the world not out of selfish interests, but as a force for good. During the Cold War this myth was used to find a congruence between Washington's interests and human rights observance, or as usually put, with "democracy. "311 Those regimes that promoted the interests of Washington's elites, the anti-communists, were by definition, "democratic," or at least, purported not to be tyrannical. Firm believers in the myth find it hard to believe, as an instance, that the elites in Washington tried to initiate the massacre of the Indonesian Communist Party and its sympathizers-that these elites did everything in their power to encourage Suharto to commit this barbaric act. Not a single one of the officials in Washington or Djakarta questioned the policy on either ethical or political grounds.

p231
The public should be educated as to what its governments have done. What is needed is full disclosure with adequate ventilation of the bleaker side of Washington's policies and actions since 1945, exposed and repeated so that the American people will realize what has been done in their name.

State Terrorism and the United States

Index of Website

Home Page