Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower (William Blum)

Some parts of this article were copied from external sources and may contain errors or lack of appropriate formatting. You can help improve this article by editing it and cleaning it up.

Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
Author	William Blum
Publisher	Zed Books
First published	2002
Source	https://annas-archive.org/md5/31f04f83e39d1633bed75b40eeb35c57

Author's Foreword: Concerning September 11, 2001 and the Bombing of Afghanistan

Shortly after the publication of this book, the momentous events of September 11, 2001

occurred. Four planes were hijacked in the United States and terrorists proceeded to carry out the most devastating attack on American soil in the history of the country. The physical destruction and personal suffering caused by the attacks was immense. In addition to punishing the perpetrators who were still alive, the most pressing mission facing the United States was—or should have been—to not allow what happened to pass without deriving important lessons from it to prevent its recurrence. Clearly, the most meaningful of these lessons was the answer to the question "Why?"

It happens that the first chapter in this book is entitled "Why Do Terrorists Keep Picking on the United States?". It argues that terrorists—whatever else they might be—might also be rational human beings, which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions. Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political, or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States.

The chapter contains a lengthy list of such US actions in the Middle East, which have taken many lives, from the bombing of Lebanon and Libya to the sinking of an Iranian ship; from the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane and the unending bombing of the Iraqi people to the support of despotic Middle Eastern regimes and the massive military aid to Israel despite the devastation and routine torture that the country inflicts upon the Palestinian people.

As retribution for decades of military, economic and political oppression imposed upon the Middle East and the mainly Muslim population who live there by the American Empire, the buildings targeted by the terrorists were not chosen at random. The Pentagon and World Trade Center represented the military and economic might of the United States, while the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania may well have been on its way to the political wing, the White House.

Perspective can be everything. If what the hijackers did is inexcusable, it is by no means inexplicable.

It's not just people in the Middle East who have good reason for hating what the US

government does. The United States has created huge numbers of potential terrorists all over Latin America during a half-century of American actions far worse than those perpetrated in the Middle East. If Latin Americans shared the belief of many Muslims that they will go directly to paradise for martyring themselves by killing the Great Satan, by now we might have had decades of repeated terrorist horror coming from south of the US-Mexican border. As it is, over the years the region has produced numerous attacks on American embassies, diplomats, US Information Agency offices, and the like.

There are also the people of Asia and Africa. Much the same thing applies.

The magnitude of the September 11 attack was such that the American media—the serious or passably serious segments—were obliged to delve into areas they normally do not visit. A number of mainstream newspapers, magazines and radio stations, in their quest to understand "Why?", suddenly—or so it seemed—discovered that the United States had been engaged in actions like the ones listed above and countless other interventions in foreign lands over the decades that could indeed produce a great degree of anti-American feeling.

This was one positive outcome of the tragedy. This "revelation", however, appeared to escape the mass of the American people, the great majority of whom get their snatches of foreign news from tabloid newspapers, lowest-common-denominator radio programs, and laughably superficial TV newscasts.

Thus it was that instead of an outpouring of reflection upon what the United States does to the world to make it so hated, there was an outpouring of patriotism of the narrowest kind: Congress members stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang "God Bless America", stores quickly sold out their stocks of American flags, which fluttered high and low in whatever direction one looked, callers to radio shows spat out venom and bloodlust, at entertainment and sporting events it became de rigueur to begin with a military and/or patriotic ceremony, one could scarcely pick up a newspaper or turn on the radio or TV without some tribute to American courage, and everyone and his cousin were made into "heroes". This phenomenon continued, hardly abated, into the year 2002.

And the serious American media soon returned to normal mode; i.e., one could regularly find more significant and revealing information concerning US foreign policy in the London papers, the Guardian and the Independent, than in the New York Times and Washington Post.

Most Americans find it difficult in the extreme to accept the proposition that terrorist acts against the United States can be viewed as revenge for Washington's policies abroad.

They believe that the US is targeted because of its freedom, its democracy, its wealth.

The Bush administration, like its predecessors following other terrorist acts, has pushed this as the official line ever since the attacks. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a conservative watchdog group founded by Lynne Cheney, wife of the vice-president, and Senator Joseph Lieberman, announced in November the formation of the Defense of Civilization Fund, declaring that "It was not only America that was attacked on September 11, but civilization. We were attacked not for our vices, but for our virtues." 1

But government officials know better. A Department of Defense study in 1997 concluded that: "Historical data show a strong correla-tion between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States," 2

Former president Jimmy Carter, some years after he left the White House, was unambiguous in his agreement with this:

We sent Marines into Lebanon and you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers—women and children and farmers and housewives—in those villages around Beirut...As a result of that...we became kind of a Satan in tbe minds of those who are deeply resentful. That is what precipitated the taking of our hostages [in Iran] and that is wbat has precipitated some of the terrorist attacks—which were totally unjustified and criminal. 3

The terrorists responsible for the original bombing of the World Trade Center back in 1993 sent a letter to the New York Times which stated, in part: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region." 4

Further evidence of government and media awareness of the connection between anti-US

terrorism and American policies is offered in chapter one of this book.

The perpetrators

For two and a half months following September 11 the most powerful nation in history rained down a daily storm of missiles upon Afghanistan, one of the poorest and most backward countries in the world. Eventually, this question pressed itself onto the world's stage: Who killed more innocent, defenseless people? The terrorists in the United States on September 11 with their flying bombs? Or the Americans in Afghanistan with their AGM-86D cruise missiles, their AGM-130 missiles, their 15,000-pound "daisy cutter"

bombs, their depleted uranium and their cluster bombs?

By year's end, the count of the terrorists' victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania stood at about 3,000. The total count of civilian dead in Afghanistan as a result of American bombing was essentially ignored by US officials and just about everyone else, but a painstaking compilation of numerous individual reports from the American and international media and human rights organizations by an American professor arrived at considerably more than 3,500 Afghan dead through early December, and still counting. 5

This figure does not include those who died later of bomb injuries, or those who died from cold and hunger due to their homes being destroyed by bombs, or the deaths from exposure or hunger among the hundreds of thousands of internal refugees fleeing the bombing. Neither does it include the thousands of "military" deaths or the hundreds of prisoners who were executed or otherwise slaughtered by Washington's new "freedom fighter" allies in conjunction with American military and intelligence operatives. In the final analysis, the body count will also be missing the inevitable victims of cluster bombs-turned-landmines and those who perish more slowly from depleted-uranium-caused sicknesses.

There will be no minutes of silence for the Afghan dead, no memorial services attended by high American officials and entertainment celebrities, no messages of condolence sent by heads of state, no millions of dollars raised for the victims' families. Yet, all in all, it was a bloodbath that more than rivals that of September 11.

And of the thousands dead in Afghanistan, how many, can it be said with any certainty, had played a conscious role in the American catastrophe?

According to the video of Osama bin Laden presented to the world by the US

government, he himself didn't find out the exact date of the terrorist act until five days before it took place, and most of the hijackers did not know they were part of a suicide mission until they prepared to board the planes. (The FBI reportedly came to the latter conclusion long before the video was made public. 6) Given that, it appears eminently safe to say that exceedingly few other people in the world were knowingly in on the plot, perhaps a number that can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Consequently, if the American bombing campaign in Afghanistan was designed to kill the actual perpetrators, it was a fool's mission; a violent fool.

If Timothy McVeigh, perpetrator of the terrible bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, had not been quickly caught, would the United States have bombed the state of Michigan or any of the other places he called home? No, they would have instituted a mammoth manhunt until they found him and punished him. But in Afghanistan, the United States proceeded virtually on the assumption that everyone who supported the Taliban government, native or foreigner, was 1) a "terrorist" and 2) morally, if not legally, stained with the blood of September 11—or perhaps one or another anti-US terrorist action of the past—and was thus fair game.

However, when the shoe is on the other foot, even American officials can perceive which is the honorable path to walk. Speaking of Russia's problem with Chechnya in 1999, the US State Department's second in command, Strobe Talbott, urged Moscow to show

"restraint and wisdom". Restraint, he said, "means taking action against real terrorists, but not using indiscriminate force that endangers innocents." 7

Suggesting a moral equivalency between the United States and terrorists (or, during the cold war, with communists) never fails to inflame American anger. The terrorists purposely aimed to kill civilians, we are told, while any non-combatant victims of the American bombings were completely accidental.

Whenever the United States goes into one of its periodic bombing frenzies and its missiles take the lives of numerous civilians, this is called "collateral damage"—inflicted by the Fates of War—for the real targets, we are invariably told, were military.

But if day after day, in one country after another, the same scenario takes place—

dropping prodigious quantities of powerfully lethal ordnance from very high altitudes with the full knowledge that large numbers of civilians will perish or be maimed, even without missiles going "astray"—what can one say about the intentions of the American

military? The best, the most charitable, thing that can be said is that they simply don't care. They want to bomb and destroy for certain political ends and they don't particularly care if the civilian population suffers grievously.

In Afghanistan, when, on successive days in October, US gunships machine-gunned and cannoned the remote farming village of Chowkar-Karez, killing as many as 93 civilians, a Pentagon official was moved to respond at one point: "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead", while US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commented: "I cannot deal with that particular village." 8

Often, the United States actually does want to cause the suffering, hoping that it will lead people to turn against the government. This was a recurrent feature of the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999. As will be seen in the "War Criminals" chapter in the present volume, US/NATO officials—in their consummate arrogance—freely admitted this again and again.

And in Afghanistan we have the example of the chief of the British Defense Staff, Adm.

Sir Michael Boyce, declaring that the bombing will continue "until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed." 9

Such a policy fits very well into the FBI definition of international terrorism, which speaks of the use of force or violence against persons or property "to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Speak no evil, so Americans will see no evil

In reaction to a number of gruesome images of Afghan bombing victims, and expressed European and Middle Eastern concern about civilian casualties, the American media strove to downplay the significance of such deaths. The chairman of Cable News Network (CNN) advised the news staff that it "seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan." 10 A Fox Network report on the war wondered why journalists should bother covering civilian deaths at all. "The question I have," said the host, "is civilian casualties are historically, by definition, a part of war, really. Should they be as big news as they've been?" His guest from National Public Radio replied: "No.

Look, war is about killing people. Civilian casualties are unavoidable." Another guest, a columnist from the national magazine U.S. News & World Report, concurred: "Civilian casualties are not...news. The fact is that they accompany wars." 11

But if in fact the September 11 attacks were an act of war, as the world has been told repeatedly by George W. Bush and his minions, then the casualties of the World Trade Center were clearly civilian war casualties. Why then have the media devoted so much time to their deaths?

These were of course the only kind of deaths Americans wanted to hear about, and they could actually become furious when told of Afghan deaths. A memo circulated at the Panama City, Florida News Herald warned editors: "DO NOT USE photos on Page 1A showing civilian casualties from the U.S. war on Afghanistan. Our sister paper in Fort Walton Beach has done so and received hundreds and hundreds of threatening e-mails and the like." 12

The American powers-that-be can indeed count on support for their wars from the American people and the corporate media. It would take an exemplary research effort to uncover a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the US bombing of Afghanistan.

Or a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the US-NATO

bombing of Yugoslavia two years earlier.

Or a single American daily newspaper that unequivocally opposed the US bombing of Iraq in 1991.

Is this not remarkable? In a supposedly free society, with a supposedly free press, and almost 1,500 daily newspapers, the odds should be decidedly against this being the case.

But that's the way it is.

The Mecca of hypocrisy

After the terrorist attacks in the United States, Secretary of State Colin Powell condemned "people who believe with the destruction of buildings, with the murder of people, they can somehow achieve a political purpose." 13

Does that not precisely describe what the United States did in 1999 when it bombed Yugoslavia for 78 days and nights? And is this not the same Colin Powell who directed the horrific bombings of Panama and Iraq? Do American leaders think that no one has any memory? Or do they simply not care what people think?

More hypocrisy of a breathtaking kind: President Bush and other officials have routinely and angrily declared that it's not only terrorists that the US is going to be waging war against, it's any nation which harbors terrorists. However, in the chapter "Haven for Terrorists", the reader will see that there are few, if any, nations that harbor more terrorists than the United States.

Winning Afghan hearts and minds

Bombs were not all that fell from the sky from American airplanes. There were also food packages. Was it not something inordinately strange for the United States to be dropping both bombs and food on the people of Afghanistan at the same time?

If the Japanese had dropped some nice packages of teriyaki along with the bombs at Pearl Harbor, would Americans and the world have looked more kindly on the Japanese?

Perhaps if the September 11 terrorists had dropped some hot pastrami sandwiches on downtown Manhattan before their hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center...

But these things work, of course. Millions of Americans felt a rush of pride about their country's magnanimity. The United States, the inventor and perfecter of modern advertising and public relations, had done it again.

And in the same vein, there were the many flyers dropped on the people of Afghanistan.

Here's one dropped around October 20:

Do you enjoy being ruled by the Taliban? Are you proud to live a life of fear? Are you happy to see the place your family has owned for generations a terrorist training site? Do you want a regime that is turning Afghanistan into the Stone Age and giving Islam a bad name? Are you proud to live under a government that harbors terrorists? Are you proud to live in a nation ruled by extreme fundamentalists? The Taliban have robbed your country of your culture and heritage. They have destroyed your national monuments, and cultural artifacts. They rule by force, violence, and fear based on the advice of foreigners.

They insist that their form of Islam is the one and only form, the true form, the divine form. They see themselves as religious experts, even though they are ignorant. They kill, commit injustice, keep you in poverty and claim it is in the name of God.

In the same spirit, the following flyer might be dropped over the United States: Do you enjoy being ruled by the Republican-Democratic Party? Are you proud to live a life of fear, insecurity and panic? Are you happy to see the place your family has owned for generations taken away by a bank? Do you want a regime that is turning the United States into a police state and giving Christianity a bad name? Are you proud to live under a government that harbors hundreds of terrorists in Miami.?

Are you proud to live in a nation ruled by extreme capitalists and religious conservatives?

The capitalists have robbed your country of your equality and justice. They have destroyed your national parks and rivers and corrupted your media, your elections and your personal relations. They rule by threat of unemployment, hunger, and homelessness based on the advice of a god called the market. They insist that their form of organizing a society and remaking the world is the one and only form, the true form, the divine form.

They see themselves as morality experts, even though they are ignorant. They bomb, invade, assassinate, torture, overthrow, commit injustice, keep you and the world in poverty and claim it is in the name of God.

Rebuilding Afghanistan?

"U.S. Meeting Envisions Rebuilding Afghanistan" read the headline in the Washington Post of November 21. After a one-day meeting in Washington of leaders from two dozen nations and international organizations, US and Japanese officials said they had developed an "action program" for the long-term rebuilding of the war-ravaged country.

This well may have thrown another log on the feel-good-about-America fire that has been warming the frazzled citizenry since September 11. But like much of that fuel, there was likely a lot more propaganda here than substance.

It's a remarkable pattern. The United States has a long record of bombing nations, reducing entire neighborhoods, and much of cities, to rubble, wrecking the infrastructure, ruining the lives of those the bombs didn't kill. And afterward doing nothing to repair the damage.

Though it was promised in writing that the US would pursue its "traditional policy" of

"postwar reconstruction", no compensation was given to Vietnam after a decade of devastation. During the same war, Laos and Cambodia were equally wasted by US

bombing. They, too, qualified to become beneficiaries of Washington's "traditional policy" of zero reconstruction.

Then came the American bombings of Grenada and Panama in the 1980s. Hundreds of Panamanians petitioned the Washington-controlled Organization of American States as well as American courts, all the way up to the US Supreme Court, for "just compensation" for the damage caused by Operation Just Cause (this being the not-tongue-in-cheek name given to the American invasion and bombing). They got nothing, as did the people of Grenada.

It was Iraq's turn next, in 1991: 40 days and nights of relentless bombing; destruction of power, water and sanitation systems and everything else that goes into the making of a modern society. Everyone knows how much the United States has done to help rebuild Iraq.

In 1999 we had the case of Yugoslavia: 78 days of round-the-clock bombing, transforming an advanced industrial state into virtually a third world country; the reconstruction needs were awesome. Two years later, June 2001, after the Serbs had obediently followed Washington's wishes to oust Slobodan Milosevic and turn him over to the international court in the Hague, a "donors' conference" was convened by the European Commission and the World Bank, supposedly concerned with Yugoslavia's reconstruction. It turned out to be a conference concerned with Yugoslavia's debts more than anything else.

Serbian premier Zoran Djindjic, regarded as highly pro-Western, said, in a July interview with the German news magazine Der Spiegel, that he felt betrayed by the West, declaring:

It would have been better if the donors' conference had not taken place and instead we had been given 50 million DM in cash...In August we should be getting the first instalment, 300 million Euro. Suddenly we are being told that 225 million Euro will be withheld for the repayment of old debts which in part were accumulated during Tito's time. Two-thirds of that sum are fines and interest, accrued because Milosevic refused for ten years to pay back these credits. We shall get the remaining 75 million Euro in November at the earliest. Such are the principles in the West, we are being told. This means a seriously ill person is to be given medicine after he is dead. Our critical months will be July, August and September. 14

By the end of 2001 it was 2½ years since Yugoslavian bridges had fallen into the Danube, the country's factories and homes destroyed, its transportation torn apart. Yet Yugoslavia has still not received any funds for reconstruction from the architect and leading perpetrator of the bombing campaign, the United States.

Whoever winds up ruling Afghanistan will find it conspicuously difficult to block the US

military from building what it wants to build there for its own purposes. As for the United States doing some building for the Afghan people, they may have a long wait. In marked contrast to the Washington Post headline of November 21 noted above was the report in the same newspaper five weeks later: "The Bush administration has made clear that because it has paid for most of the military campaign that made the new government possible, it expects other countries, especially Japan and European nations, to lead the way in rebuilding the country." 15

As if the American bombing campaign had been carried out at the request of, or for the benefit of, Japan and Europe, and not for Washington's own interests!

Following their bombing of Iraq, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf region.

Following their bombing of Yugoslavia, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.

Following their bombing of Afghanistan, the United States appears on course to wind up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and perhaps elsewhere in the area.

The bombing, invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were conducted—apart from the primitive lashing out in blind revenge against...somebody—primarily for the purpose of ensuring the installation of a new government that would be sufficiently amenable to Washington's international objectives, including the siting of bases and electronic communications intercept stations and the running of oil and gas pipelines through the country from the Caspian Sea region.

The welfare of the people of Afghanistan, by contrast, can have counted for little, considering that the elements put in power by US military might are largely those whose

earlier rule before the Taliban was so depraved that many Afghans welcomed the accession of the Taliban to power; their newest atrocities, carried out under cover of American firepower, show they haven't lost their touch. The prime minister of the interim government, Hamid Karzai, though himself not seeming too villainous, may have a credibility problem, given his long close contact with the US State Department, National Security

Council, Congress, and other pillars of the American foreign policy establishment. 16 Yet the connection may work only one way, for when leaders of the interim government asked the United States to halt its bombing in December because of the frequent deaths of innocent people, Washington refused, saying it had its own timeline. This does not bode well for the future Afghan government and society; neither does Karzai's appointment of General Rashid Dostum as deputy defense minister, a man amongst whose charms is the habit of punishing his soldiers by tying them to tank tracks and then driving the tanks around his barracks' square to turn them into mincemeat. 17

Terrorist scares

In the Introduction which follows, written in 1999, the point is made that the specter of dangerous and threatening enemies of one kind or another has been highly exaggerated for decades in order to intimidate the American public into accepting the national security state, that was all the while being molded, and to persuade the citizenry to surrender their power to the authorities who can save them from what they have been manipulated into fearing. The national security state, with its accompanying immense budgets, multiple benefits for its managers, and justification for increased police powers to keep the doubters in line is a state of affairs much desired by the elites.

In light of what happened on September 11, 2001 it may appear to some that the threat was not in fact exaggerated, but rather very real. But the Introduction to this book does not imply that there will never be a major attack on the United States for which a certain level of military and other preparedness is necessary. Given the constant belligerence and destructiveness of US foreign policy, retaliation has to be expected, at one time or another, somewhere.

For close on fifty years the imminent threat of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe or nuclear attack upon the United States was drummed into the American consciousness.

Nothing of the sort ever happened, of course. Nothing of the sort was ever seriously contemplated by the Soviets, for obvious reasons of self-preservation. Then, with the demise of the Soviet Union, multiple new "enemy" countries were found, along with the drug threat and the terrorist threat. The very occasional terrorist attacks on the United States, almost always abroad and in response to Washington's policies, were used to fan fears and expand budgets. The attack of September does not justify more than fifty years of lies. Indeed, what has taken place in the United States since the attack lends great credence to the proposition that the purpose of all the fear-mongering was what its critics always charged—in fact, understated.

After the attack it was Christmas every day for the national security establishment and its corporate cohorts. All their wish lists were fulfilled, and then some. In short order, they massively increased defense spending; shamelessly stifled social spending; promoted obscenely extensive tax breaks for the largest corporations; greatly increased surveillance and prosecutory powers over the citizenry, including license to enter their homes virtually at will, to an extent a dictatorship might envy; tore up the Bill of Rights for non-citizens, including legal residents; created a new Office of Homeland Security; launched efforts to cut back on environmental legislation; unilaterally abrogated a leading arms control treaty; announced plans to expand the American Empire, under the rubric of an

"anti-terrorism crusade", to Iraq, Somalia, North Korea, and Sudan, amongst others; and a great deal more.

Many critics of the bombing campaign, who were in vulnerable positions, suffered consequences: a number of university teachers who had spoken out against the war lost their positions or were publicly rebuked by school officials, high-school students were suspended for the same reason, the only member of Congress who voted against the

"Authorization for Use of Military Force" received innumerable threats and hate mail; and so it went.

The fruit of the foregoing is a police state, not the worst police state in the world to be sure, but a police state nonetheless; the War on Drugs had made it such even before September 11.

One of the prime motivations behind this assault on civil liberties is very likely the elite's deep-seated desire to rid themselves of the scourge of the anti-globalization movement.

In the new anti-terrorism law (the "USA PATRIOT Act")—rushed through the legislative process before almost any member of Congress could even read the lengthy text—acts that appear to be intended "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" can be categorized as "terrorism"; with great danger not only to the individual arrested, but also to his or her group and to those who have contributed to the group. All will be under serious threat of having their worldly assets confiscated, at a minimum.

How many young people are going to put their future at such great risk? How many organizations are going to risk losing everything?

Who knew what when?

Unsurprisingly, numerous reports have surfaced since September 11 which raise questions about the official version of events; reports concerning the CIA meeting with Osama bin Laden in July 2001 in a Dubai hospital; Israel's Mossad being behind it all or at least having had intelligence about the attacks in advance and not sharing it, so that Americans could see what Israel goes through with terrorists; the failure of air safety and air defense systems to carry out long-standing, well-practiced, routine procedures and shoot down the second and third planes, perhaps deliberately choosing not to do so; substantial insider trading shortly before the attacks based on the expectation that the

stocks of American and United Airlines would plunge along with their planes; US covert meetings with and support of the Taliban for years; the ties between the Bush family and the bin Ladens; and much more. 18 There's enough there to feed researchers and publishers for years to come. But it is beyond the capacity of this essay to explore the questions raised in anything approaching the depth some of them deserve.

I can only add my own speculative analysis to the already weighty pile. It strains credulity to believe that the FBI, CIA, NSA, et al. were unaware, at least in some detail, that a significant terrorist operation in the United States was in the offing; and as wild as that operation turned out to be, its nature could not have been unthinkable by these agencies, for in February 2000, in Israel, at the First International Conference on Defense Against Suicide Attacks, the CIA had received specific warnings that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols in the United States. 19 Moreover, a terrorist arrested in the Philippines in 1995 revealed his group's plan to hijack small planes, fill them with explosives, and crash them into the CIA and other US government targets. 20

Two or three of the hijackers were on an FBI watch list. According to FBI sources, in virtually every case in which the FBI has prevented a terrorist attack, success depended on long-term investigations, whose hallmarks were patience and letting terrorist plots go forward. "You obviously want to play things out so you can fully identify the breadth and scope of the conspiracy. Obviously, the most efficient and effective way to do that is to bring it down to the last stage." 21

They may have waited one stage too long

Although there's very little that one should rule out as being morally beyond the American powers-that-be, I don't think they would have allowed what happened to happen if they had known exactly what and when it was going to be. Certainly, the Pentagon would not have permitted its own home and personnel to be so savagely violated. It remains inevitable, however, that the fact of so much of the elites' wish lists being fulfilled in the wake of September 11 is guaranteed to fuel further conspiracy theories.

Is this any way to end terrorism?

The American bombing of Afghanistan may well turn out to be a political train wreck.

Can it be doubted that thousands throughout the Muslim world were emotionally and spiritually recruited to the cause of the next Osama bin Laden by the awful ruination?

That is to say, the next generation of terrorists. Indeed, in December, while the American bombs were still falling on Afghanistan, a man—British citizen Richard Reid, who was a convert to Islam—tried to blow up an American Airlines plane en route to the United States with explosives hidden in his shoes. At the London mosque that Reid had attended, the cleric in charge warned that extremists were enlisting other young men like Reid and that agents aligned with radical Muslim figures had stepped up recruiting efforts since September 11. The cleric said that he knew of "hundreds of Richard Reids" recruited in

Britain. Reid, described in the press as a "drifter", reportedly traveled to Israel, Egypt, the Netherlands, and Belgium before arriving in Paris and boarding the American Airlines plane. 22 This raises the question of who was financing him. It seems that the recent freezing of numerous bank accounts of alleged terrorist groups throughout the world by the United States may have rather limited effect.

Americans do not feel any more secure in their places of work, in their places of leisure, or in their travels than they did the day before their government's bombings began.

Has the power elite learned anything? Here's James Woolsey, former director of the CIA, speaking in December in Washington, advocating an invasion of Iraq and unconcerned about the response of the Arab world: the silence of the Arab public in the wake of America's victories in Afghanistan, he said, proves that "only fear will reestablish respect for the U.S." 23

What, then, can the United States do to end terrorism directed against it? The answer lies in removing the anti-American motivations of the terrorists. To achieve this, American foreign policy will have to undergo a profound metamorphosis, as the contents of this book testify.

If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize to all the widows and orphans, the tortured and impoverished, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism.

Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America's global interventions have come to an end, and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but henceforth—oddly enough—a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90% and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims.

There would be more than enough money. One year's military budget of $330 billion is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

That's what I'd do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I'd be assassinated.

Washington, DC, January 2002

Introduction

This book could be entitled Serial Chain-Saw Baby Killers and the Women Who Love Them.

The women don't really believe that their beloved would do such a thing, even if they're shown a severed limb or a headless torso. Or if they believe it, they know down to their bone marrow that lover-boy really had the best of intentions; it must have been some kind of very unfortunate accident, a well-meaning blunder; in fact, even more likely, it was a humanitarian act.

For 70 years, the United States convinced much of the world that there was an international conspiracy out there. An International Communist Conspiracy, seeking no less than control over the entire planet, for purposes which had no socially redeeming values. And the world was made to believe that it somehow needed the United States to save it from communist darkness. "Just buy our weapons," said Washington, "let our military and our corporations roam freely across your land, and give us veto power over who your leaders will be, and we'll protect you."

It was the cleverest protection racket since men convinced women that they needed men to protect them—if all the men vanished overnight, how many women would be afraid to walk the streets?

And if the people of any foreign land were benighted enough to not realize that they needed to be saved, if they failed to appreciate the underlying nobility of American motives, they were warned that they would burn in Communist Hell. Or a CIA facsimile thereof. And they would be saved nonetheless.

A decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, America is still saving countries and peoples from one danger or another. The scorecard reads as follows: From 1945 to the end of the century, the United States attempted to overthrow more than 40 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US caused the end of life for several million people, and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair.

As I write this in Washington, DC, in April 1999, the United States is busy saving Yugoslavia. Bombing a modern, sophisticated society back to a pre-industrial age. And The Great American Public, in its infinite wisdom, is convinced that its government is motivated by "humanitarian" impulses.

Washington is awash with foreign dignitaries here to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, three days of unprecedented pomp and circumstance.

The prime ministers, presidents and foreign ministers, despite their rank, are delighted to be included amongst the schoolyard bully's close friends. Private corporations are funding the opulent weekend; a dozen of them paying $250,000 apiece to have one of their executives serve as a director on the NATO Summit's host committee. Many of the same firms lobbied hard to expand NATO by adding the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, each of which will be purchasing plentiful quantities of military hardware from these companies.

This marriage of NATO and the transnationals is the foundation of the New World Order, the name George Bush gave to the American Empire. The credibility of the New World Order depends upon the world believing that the new world will be a better one for the multitude of humanity, not just for those for whom too much is not enough, and believing that the leader of the New World Order, the United States, means well.

Let's have a short look at some modern American history, which may be instructive. A congressional report of 1994 informed us that:

Approximately 60,000 military personnel were used as human subjects in the 1940s to test two chemical agents, mustard gas and lewisite [blister gas]. Most of these subjects were not informed of the nature of the experiments and never received medical followup after their participation in the research. Additionally, some of these human subjects were threatened with imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth if they discussed these experiments with anyone, including their wives, parents and family doctors. For decades, the Pentagon denied that the research had taken place, resulting in decades of suffering for many veterans who became ill after the secret testing. 1

Now let's skip ahead to the 1990s. Many thousands of American soldiers came home from the Gulf War with unusual, debilitating ailments. Exposure to harmful chemical or biological agents was suspected, but the Pentagon denied that this had occurred. Years went by while the GIs suffered terribly: neurological problems, chronic fatigue, skin problems, scarred lungs, memory loss, muscle and joint pain, severe headaches, personality changes, passing out and much more. Eventually, the Pentagon, inch by inch, was forced to move away from its denials and admit that, yes, chemical weapon depots had been bombed; then, yes, there probably were releases of the deadly poisons; then, yes, American servicemen were indeed in the vicinity of these poisonous releases, 400

soldiers; then, it might have been 5,000; then, "a very large number", probably more than 15,000; then, finally, a precise number—20,867; then, "The Pentagon announced that a long-awaited computer model estimates that nearly 100,000 U.S. soldiers could have been exposed to trace amounts of sarin gas..." 2

Soldiers were also forced to take vaccines against anthrax and nerve gas not approved by the FDA as safe and effective, and punished, sometimes treated like criminals, if they refused. (During World War II, US soldiers were forced to take a yellow fever vaccine, with the result that some 330,000 of them were infected with the hepatitis B virus. 3) Finally, in late 1999, almost nine years after the Gulf War's end, the Defense Department

announced that a drug given to soldiers to protect them against a particular nerve gas

"cannot be ruled out" as a cause of lingering illnesses in some veterans. 4

The Pentagon brass, moreover, did not warn American soldiers of the grave danger of being in close proximity to expended depleted uranium weapons on the battlefield.

If the Pentagon had been much more forthcoming from the outset about what it knew all along about these various substances and weapons, the soldiers might have had a proper diagnosis early on and received appropriate care sooner. The cost in terms of human suffering was incalculable. One gauge of that cost may lie in the estimate that one-third of the homeless in America are military veterans.

And in the decades between the 1940s and 1990s, what do we find? A remarkable variety of government programs, either formally, or in effect, using soldiers as guinea pigs—marched to nuclear explosion sites, with pilots then sent through the mushroom clouds; subjected to chemical and biological weapons experiments; radiation experiments; behavior modification experiments that washed their brains with LSD; exposure to the dioxin of Agent Orange in Korea and Vietnam...the list goes on...literally millions of experimental subjects, seldom given a choice or adequate information, often with disastrous effects to their physical and/or mental health, rarely with proper medical care or even monitoring, 5

The moral of this little slice of history is simple: If the United States government does not care about the health and welfare of its own soldiers, if our leaders are not moved by the prolonged pain and suffering of the wretched warriors enlisted to fight the empire's wars, how can it be argued, how can it be believed, that they care about foreign peoples? At all.

When the Dalai Lama was asked by a CIA officer in 1995: "Did we do a good or bad thing in providing this support [to the Tibetans]?", the Tibetan spiritual leader replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the, resistance" and that "the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese." 6

"Let me tell you about the very rich," wrote E Scott Fitzgerald. "They are different from you and me."

So are our leaders.

Consider Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. In a 1998

interview he admitted that the official story that the US gave military aid to the Afghanistan opposition only after the Soviet invasion in 1979 was a lie. The truth was, he said, that the US began aiding the Islamic fundamentalist Moujahedeen six months before the Russians made their move, even though he believed—and told this to Carter—that

"this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention".

Brzezinski was asked whether he regretted this decision.

Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire. 7

Besides the fact that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet empire, we are faced with the consequences of that war: the defeat of a government committed to bringing the extraordinarily backward nation into the 20th century; the breathtaking carnage; Moujahedeen torture that even US

government officials called "indescribable horror" 8; half the population either dead, disabled or refugees; the spawning of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who have unleashed atrocities in numerous countries; and the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, instituted by America's wartime allies.

And for playing a key role in causing all this, Zbigniew Brzezinski has no regrets.

Regrets? The man is downright proud of it! The kind-est thing one can say about such a person—as about a sociopath—is that he's amoral At least in his public incarnation, which is all we're concerned with here. In medieval times he would have been called Zbigniew the Terrible.

And what does this tell us about Jimmy Carter, whom many people think of as perhaps the only halfway decent person to occupy the White House since Roosevelt? Or is it Lincoln?

In 1977, when pressed by journalists about whether the US had a moral obligation to help rebuild Vietnam, President Carter responded: "Well, the destruction was mutual." 9

(Perhaps when he observed the devastation of the South Bronx later that year, he was under the impression that it had been caused by Vietnamese bombing.) In the now-famous exchange on TV between Madeleine Albright and reporter Lesley Stahl, the latter was speaking of US sanctions against Iraq, and asked the then-US

ambassador to the UN: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And—and you know, is the price worth it?"

Replied Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price—we think the price is worth it." 10

One can give Albright the absolute full benefit of any doubt and say that she had no choice but to defend administration policy. But what kind of person is it who takes a job appointment knowing full well that she will be an integral part of such ongoing policies and will be expected to defend them without apology? Not long afterwards, Albright was appointed Secretary of State.

Lawrence Summers is another case in point. In December 1991, while chief economist for the World Bank, he wrote an internal memo saying that the Bank should encourage migration of "the dirty industries" to the less-developed countries because, amongst other reasons, health-impairing and death-causing pollution costs would be lower. Inasmuch as these costs are based on the lost earnings of the affected workers, in a country of very low wages the computed costs would be much lower. "I think," he wrote, "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest-wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that." 11 Despite this memo receiving wide distribution and condemnation, Summers, in 1999, was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by President Clinton. This was a promotion from being Undersecretary of the Treasury—for international affairs.

We also have Clinton himself, who on day 33 of the aerial devastation of Yugoslavia—

33 days and nights of destroying villages, schools, hospitals, apartment buildings, the ecology, separating people from their limbs, from their eyesight, spilling their intestines, traumatizing children for the rest of their days... destroying a life the Serbians will never know again—on day 33 William Jefferson Clinton, cautioning against judging the bombing policy prematurely, saw fit to declare: "This may seem like a long time. [But] I don't think that this air campaign has been going on a particularly long time." 12 And then the man continued it another 45 days.

Clinton's vice president, Albert Gore, appeared eminently suitable to succeed him to the throne. In 1998, he put great pressure on South Africa, threatening trade sanctions if the government didn't cancel plans to use much cheaper generic AIDS drugs, which would cut into US companies' sales. 13 South Africa, it should be noted, has about three million HIV-positive persons among its largely impoverished population. When Gore, who at the time had significant ties to the drug industry, 14 was heckled for what he had done during a speech in New York, he declined to respond in substance, but instead called out: "I love this country. I love the First Amendment." 15

It's interesting to note that when Madeleine Albright was heckled in Columbus, Ohio in February 1998, while defending the administration's Iraq policy, she yelled: "We are the greatest country in the world!"

Patriotism is indeed the last refuge of a scoundrel, though Gore's and Albright's words don't quite have the ring of "Deutschland über alles" or "Rule Britannia".

In 1985, Ronald Reagan, demonstrating the preeminent intellect for which he was esteemed, tried to show how totalitarian the Soviet Union was by declaring: "I'm no linguist, but I've been told that in the Russian language there isn't even a word for

'freedom'." 16 In light of the above cast of characters and their declarations, can we ask if there's a word in American English for "embarrassment"?

No, it is not simply that power corrupts and dehumanizes.

Neither is it that US foreign policy is cruel because American leaders are cruel.

It's that our leaders are cruel because only those willing and able to be inordinately cruel and remorseless can hold positions of leadership in the foreign policy establishment; it might as well be written into the job description. People capable of expressing a full human measure of compassion and empathy toward faraway powerless strangers—let alone American soldiers—do not become president of the United States, or vice president, or secretary of state, or national security adviser or secretary of the treasury.

Nor do they want to.

There's a sort of Peter Principle at work here. Laurence Peter wrote that in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. Perhaps we can postulate that in a foreign policy establishment committed to imperialist domination by any means necessary, employees tend to rise to the level of cruelty they can live with.

A few days after the bombing of Yugoslavia had ended, the New York Times published as its lead article in the Sunday Week in Review, a piece by Michael Wines, which declared that "Human rights had been elevated to a military priority and a preeminent Western value...The war only underscored the deep ideological divide between an idealistic New World bent on ending inhumanity and an Old World equally fatalistic about unending conflict...there is also a yawning gap between the West and much of the world on the value of a single life."

And so on. A paean to the innate goodness of the West, an ethos unfortunately not shared by much of the rest of the world, who, Wines lamented, "just don't buy into Western notions of rights and responsibilities." 17 The Times fed us this morality tale after "the West" had just completed the most ferocious sustained bombing of a nation in the history of the planet, a small portion of whose dreadful consequences are referred to above.

During the American bombing of Iraq in 1991, the previous record for sustained ferociousness, a civilian air raid shelter was destroyed by a depleted-uranium projectile, incinerating to charred blackness many hundreds of people, a great number of them women and children. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, reiterating US military statements that the shelter had been a command-and-control center, said: "We don't know why civilians were at that location, but we do know that Saddam Hussein does not share our value for the sanctity of human life." 18

Similarly, during the Vietnam War, President Johnson and other government officials assured us that Asians don't have the same high regard for human life as Americans do.

We were told this, of course, as American bombs, napalm, Agent Orange and helicopter gunships were disintegrating the Vietnamese and their highly regarded lives.

And at the same time, on a day in February 1966, David Lawrence, the editor of US

News & World Report, was moved to put the following words to paper: "What the United States is doing in Vietnam is the most significant example of philanthropy extended by one people to another that we have witnessed in our times."

I sent Mr. Lawrence a copy of a well-done pamphlet entitled American Atrocities in Vietnam, which gave graphic detail of its subject. To this I attached a note which first repeated Lawrence's quotation with his name below it, then added: "One of us is crazy,"

followed by my name.

Lawrence responded with a full page letter, at the heart of which was: "I think a careful reading of it [the pamphlet] will prove the point I was trying to make—namely that primitive peoples with savagery in their hearts have to be helped to understand the true basis of a civilized existence."

The American mind—as exemplified by that of Michael Wines and David Lawrence—is, politically, so deeply formed that to liberate it would involve uncommon, and as yet perhaps undiscovered, philosophical and surgical skill. The great majority of Americans, even the most cynical—who need no convincing that the words that come out of a politician's mouth are a blend of mis-, dis-and non-information, and should always carry a veracity health warning—appear to lose their critical faculties when confronted by "our boys who are risking their lives". If love is blind, patriotism has lost all five senses.

To the extent that the cynicism of these Americans is directed toward their government's habitual foreign adventures, it's to question whether the administration's stated interpretation of a situation is valid, whether the stated goals are worthwhile, and whether the stated goals can be achieved—but not to question the government's motivation. It is assumed a priori that our leaders mean well by the foreign people involved—no matter how much death, destruction and suffering their policies objectively result in.

Congressman Otis Pike (R.-NY) headed a committee in 1975 which uncovered a number of dark covert actions of US foreign policy, many of which were leaked to the public, while others remained secret. In an interview he stated that any member of Congress could see the entire report if he agreed not to reveal anything that was in it. "But not many want to read it," he added.

"Why?" asked his interviewer.

"Oh, they think it is better not to know," Pike replied. "There are too many things that embarrass Americans in that report. You see, this country went through an awful trauma with Watergate. But even then, all they were asked to believe was that their president had been a bad person. In this new situation they are asked much more; they are asked to believe that their country has been evil. And nobody wants to believe that." 19

This has been compared to going to a counselor because your child is behaving strangely, and being told, "You have a problem of incest in your family." People can't hear that.

They go to a different counselor. They grab at any other explanation. It's too painful. 20

In The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides, speaking of the practice of plundering villages, the main source of a warrior's livelihood, tells us that "no disgrace was yet attached to such an achievement, but rather credit".

Almost all of us grew up in an environment in which we learned that thou shalt not murder, rape, rob, probably not pay off a public official or cheat on your taxes—but not that there was anything wrong with toppling foreign governments, quashing revolutions or dropping powerful bombs on foreign people, if it served America's "national security".

Let us look at our teachers. During the bombing of Yugoslavia, CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather declared: "I'm an American, and I'm an American reporter. And yes, when there's combat involving Americans, you can criticize me if you must, damn me if you must, but I'm always pulling for us to win." 21 (In the past, US journalists were quick to criticize their Soviet counterparts for speaking on behalf of the State.) What does this mean? That he's going to support any war effort by the United States no matter the legal or moral justification? No matter the effect on democracy, freedom or self-determination? No matter the degree of horror produced? No matter anything7.

Many other American journalists have similarly paraded themselves as cheerleaders in modern times in the midst of one of the Pentagon's frequent marches down the warpath, serving a function "more akin to stenography than journalism". 22 During the Gulf War, much of the media, led by CNN, appeared to have a serious missile fetish, enough to suggest a need for counseling.

The CEO of National Public Radio, Kevin Klose, is the former head of all the major, worldwide US government broadcast propaganda outlets, including Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty and the anti-Castro Radio Marti, which broadcasts into Cuba from Florida. NPR, which can be thought of as the home service of the Voice of America, has never met an American war it didn't like. It was inspired to describe the war against Yugoslavia as Clinton's "most significant foreign policy success." 23

And the head of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Robert Coonrod, has a resume remarkably similar to that of Klose, from Voice of America to Radio Marti.

Is it any wonder that countless Americans—bearing psyches no less malleable than those of other members of the species—are only dimly conscious of the fact that they even have the right to be unequivocally opposed to a war effort and to question the government's real reasons for carrying it out, without thinking of themselves as (horror of horrors) "unpatriotic"? Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship.

During the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration conducted three briefings a day with such telegenic figures as generals Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf. Marlin Fitzwater later recalled that when ABC-TV interviewed a group of Kansans around a kitchen table, "every answer at that table reflected one of the reasons we had given for going in." 24

In Spain, in the sixteenth century, the best minds were busy at work devising rationalizations for the cruelty its conquistadors were inflicting on the Indians of the New

World. It was decided, and commonly accepted, that the Indians were "natural slaves", created by God to serve the conquistadors.

Twentieth-century America took this a step further. The best and the brightest have assured us that United States interventions—albeit rather violent at times—are not only in the natural order of things, but they're actually for the good of the natives.

The media and the public do in fact relish catching politicians' lies, but these are the small lies—lies about money, sex, drug use and other peccadillos, and the ritual doubletalk of campaignspeak. A certain Mr. A. Hitler, originally of Austria, though often castigated, actually arrived at a number of very perceptive insights into how the world worked. One of them was this:

The great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil...therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. 25

How many Americans, after all, doubt the official rationale for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—to obviate the need for a land invasion of Japan, thus saving thousands of American lives? However, it's been known for years that the Japanese had been trying for many months to surrender and that the US had consistently ignored these overtures. The bombs were dropped, not to intimidate the Japanese, but to put the fear of the American god into the Russians, The dropping of the A-bomb, it has been said, was not the last shot of World War II, but the first shot of the Cold War. 26

In 1964, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, when asked about US involvement in the overthrow of the government of Brazil, declared: "Well, there is just not one iota of truth in this. It's just not so in any way, shape or form." Yet, the United States had been intimately involved in the coup, its role being literally indispensable. 27

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration declared that the Russians were spraying toxic chemicals over Asia—the so-called "yellow rain"—and had caused thousands of deaths.

So precise was Washington's information they could state at one point that in Afghanistan 3,042 had died in 47 separate incidents. President Reagan denounced the Soviet Union for these atrocities more than 15 times in documents and speeches. The "yellow rain", it turned out, was pollen-laden feces dropped by huge swarms of honeybees flying far overhead. 28

These are three examples, chosen virtually at random. Numerous others could be given.

But at the beginning of the 21st century do the American people really need to be reminded that governments lie, that great powers lie greater, that the world's only superpower has the most to lie about, i.e., cover up? Do I have to descend to the banality of telling this to my readers?

Apparently so, if we are to judge by all those who swallowed the "humanitarian" excuse for the bombing of Yugoslavia without gagging, including many on the left.

The idea of "altruism" has been a recurrent feature of America's love affair with itself.

From 1918 to 1920, the United States was a major part of a Western invasion of the infant Soviet Union, an invasion that endeavored to "strangle at its birth", as Winston Churchill put it, the Russian Revolution, which had effectively removed one-sixth of the world's land surface from private capitalist investment. A nation still recovering from a horrendous world war, in extreme chaos from a fundamental social revolution, and in the throes of a famine that was to leave many millions dead, was mercilessly devastated yet further by the invaders, without any provocation.

When the smoke had cleared, the US Army Chief of Staff put out a report on the undertaking, which said: "This expedition affords one of the finest examples in history of honorable, unselfish dealings...to be helpful to a people struggling to achieve a new liberty." 29

Seventy years later, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, was moved to tell an audience in California that the United States has "so many friends" in the Pacific because of "our values, our economic system and our altruism". 30 (This was shortly after Powell had directed the slaughter of the people of Panama.) Author Garry Wills has commented on this American benevolence toward foreigners:

"We believe we can literally 'kill them with kindness', moving our guns forward in a seizure of demented charity. It is when America is in her most altruistic mood that other nations better get behind their bunkers."

What is it, then, that I mean to say here—that the US government does not care a whit about human life or human rights?

No, I mean to say that doing the right thing is not a principle of American foreign policy, not an ideal or a goal of policy in and of itself. If it happens that doing the right thing coincides with, or is irrelevant to, Washington's overriding international ambitions, American officials have no problem walking the high moral ground. But this is rarely the case. A study of the many US interventions— summarized numerically above, and detailed in the "Interventions" chapter—shows clearly that the engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, nor even simple decency, but rather by the necessity to serve other masters, which can be broken down to four imperatives:

1) making the world open and hospitable for—in current terminology—globalization, particularly American-based transnational corporations

2) enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of Congress and residents of the White House

3) preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model

4) extending political, economic and military hegemony over as much of the globe as possible, to prevent the rise of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy, and to create a world order in America's image, as befits the world's only superpower.

To American policymakers, these ends have justified the means, and all means have been available. 31

In the wake of the 1973 military coup in Chile, which overthrew the socialist government of Salvador Allende, the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Jack Kubisch, was hard pressed to counter charges that the United States had been involved.

"It was not in our interest to have the military take over in Chile," he insisted. "It would have been better had Allende served his entire term, taking the nation and the Chilean people into complete and total ruin. Only then would the full discrediting of socialism have taken place. The military takeover and bloodshed has confused the issue." 32

Though based on a falsehood made up for the occasion—that Allende's polices were leading Chile to ruin—Kubisch's remark inadvertently expressed his government's strong fealty to the third imperative stated above.

During the Cold War, US foreign policy was carried out under the waving banner of fighting a moral crusade against what cold warriors persuaded the American people, most of the world, and usually themselves, was the existence of a malevolent International Communist Conspiracy. But it was always a fraud; there was never any such animal as the International Communist Conspiracy. There were, as there still are, people living in misery, rising up in protest against their condition, against an oppressive government, a government likely supported by the United States. To Washington, this was proof that the Soviet Union (or Cuba or Nicaragua, etc., functioning as Moscow's surrogate) was again acting as the proverbial "outside agitator".

In the final analysis, this must be wondered: What kind of omnipresent, omnipotent, monolithic, evil international conspiracy bent on world domination would allow its empire to completely fall apart, like the proverbial house of cards, without bringing any military force to bear upon its satellites to prevent their escaping? And without an invasion from abroad holding a knife to the empire's throat?

Enemies without number, threats without end

Now, of course, Washington spinmeisters can't cry "The Russians are coming, and they're ten feet tall!" as a pretext for intervention, so they have to regularly come up with new enemies. America cherishes her enemies. Without enemies, she is a nation without purpose and direction. The various components of the National Security State need enemies to justify their swollen budgets, to aggrandize their work, to protect their jobs, to

give themselves a mission in the aftermath of the Soviet Union; ultimately, to reinvent themselves. And they understand this only too well, even painfully. Presented here is Col.

Dennis Long, speaking in 1992, two years after the end of the Cold War, when he was director of "total armor force readiness" at Fort Knox: For 50 years, we equipped our football team, practiced five days a week and never played a game. We had a clear enemy with demonstrable qualities, and we had scouted them out.

[Now] we will have to practice day in and day out without knowing anything about the other team. We won't have his playbook, we won't know where the stadium is, or how many guys he will have on the field. That is very distressing to the military establishment, especially when you are trying to justify the existence of your organization and your systems. 33

The United States had postponed such a distressing situation for as long as it could. A series of Soviet requests during the Cold War to establish a direct dialogue with senior NATO officials were rejected as "inappropriate and potentially divisive." Longstanding and repeated Soviet offers to dissolve the Warsaw Pact if NATO would do the same were ignored. After one such offer was spurned, the Los Angeles Times commented that the offer "increases the difficulty faced by U.S. policymakers in persuading Western public opinion to continue expensive and often unpopular military programs." 34

In 1991, Colin Powell touched upon the irony of the profound world changes in cautioning his fellow military professionals: "We must not...hope that it [the changes]

will disappear and let us return to comforting thoughts about a resolute and evil enemy." 35

But the thoughts are indeed comforting to the military professionals and their civilian counterparts. So one month the new resolute and evil enemy is North Korea, the next month the big threat is Libya, then China, or Iraq, or Iran, or Sudan, or Afghanistan, or Serbia, or that old reliable demon, Cuba—countries each led by a Hitler-of-the-month, or at least a madman or mad dog, a degree of demonizing fit more for a theocratic society than a democratic one.

And in place of the International Communist Conspiracy, Washington now tells us, on one day or another, it's fighting a War Against Drugs, or military or industrial spying, or the proliferation of "weapons of mass destruction", or organized crime, or on behalf of human rights, or, most particularly, against terrorism. And they dearly want the American public to believe this. Here, for your terrorist-threat collection, are some of the headlines appearing in the Washington Post and New York Times in one 7-week period in early 1999:

Jan. 22: "Clinton Describes Terrorism Threat for 21st Century"

Jan. 23: "President Steps Up War on New Terrorism"

Jan. 23: "Thwarting Tomorrow's Terrors"

Jan. 29: "Anti-Terrorism Powers Grow"

Feb. 1: "Pentagon Plans Domestic Terrorism Team"

Feb. 1: "The Man Who Protects America From Terrorism"

Feb. 2: "U.S. Targeting Terrorism With More Funds"

Feb. 16: "Anti-Terrorism Military Drills Take Parts of Texas by Surprise"

Feb. 17: "Has the U.S. Blunted Bin Laden?"

Feb. 19: "Spending to Avert Embassy Attacks Assailed as Timid: Terrorist Threat Looms"

Feb. 19: "Bangladesh: Bin Laden's Next Target?"

Feb. 23: "Preparing for Invisible Killers"

Mar. 7: "Muslim Militants Threaten American Lives"

Mar. 8: "Reagan Building Vulnerable to Attack"

Mar. 14: "2 Groups Appeal U.S. Designation as Terror Organizations"

Mar. 16: "Clinton Plans Training for Firefighters on Terrorism"

And on January 20, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen—a man who has written an ode to the F-15 fighter jet, literally36— announced that $6.6 billion was to be spent on a national missile defense system, a revival of President Reagan's Star Wars system. In explaining this expenditure, Mr. Cohen cited only one threat—from North Korea. North Korea! A country that can't feed its own people is going to wage a missile attack upon the United States? What possible reason—other than an overpowering, irresistible yearning for mass national suicide—could North Korea have for launching such an attack? Yet the average American, reading Cohen's announcement, must have found it very difficult to believe that one of their "leaders" could just step forward and publicly proclaim a crazy tale. They assume there must be something to what the man is saying.

That's how the man gets away with it.

Does the man believe it himself? No more likely than that President Clinton believes it.

In 1993, while in South Korea, Clinton declared: "It is pointless for them [North Korea]

to develop nuclear weapons. Because if they ever use them it would be the end of their country." This burst of honesty and common sense, which visits politicians occasionally, was prompted in this instance by a journalist's question about how likely it was that North Korea would comply with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 37 Oddly enough, less than a year later, a survey showed that six times as many young South Koreans feared the United States as feared North Korea. 38

Returning to 1999 and its new "threats"—in August a new National Security Council global strategy paper for the next century declared that "the nation is facing its biggest espionage threat in history." 39

A remarkable statement. Whatever happened to the KGB? Any Americans now past 30

had it drilled into their heads from the cradle on that there was a perpetual Soviet dagger aimed at our collective heart in the hand of the spy next door. Thousands lost their jobs and careers because of their alleged association with this threat, hundreds were imprisoned or deported, two were executed. Surely Senator Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover are turning over in their graves.

Meanwhile the drumbeat warnings of a possible chemical or biological attack upon the United States grow louder with each passing week. Police, fire and health agencies go through regular exercises with all manner of sophisticated equipment. Active-duty Army and Marine Corps personnel are engaged in the same. The FBI has an extensive hazardous materials unit ready to rush to the scene of an attack. And now the National Guard has joined the frenzy, outfitted in full-body protective suits with air tanks. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has argued that the National Guard units are redundant and their mission poorly defined. The Washington Post reported that "In fact, some critics regard the [Guard] teams largely as an effort to find a new mission for the Guard and help it avoid deeper budget cuts in the post-Cold War era." 40 As noted, the same can be said about other elements of the National Security State.

In October 1999, ABC's "Nightline" program ran a five-part series in which it simulated a biological weapons attack on a large American city, featuring a squad of terrorists releasing anthrax spores into the subway system, complete with panic, death and rampant chaos. Ted Koppel made the explicit pronouncement that such an attack was bound to take place in the US at some future time. As one would expect, the programs were long on sensationalism and short on science. This was spelled out later by the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Studies. 41 Ironically, the fact that such a center exists is another sign of the ("threatening") times.

Shortly after this the FBI announced that the Washington area had become "the number one target in the world" for possible terrorist attacks. How did they know? Well,

"downtown Washington receives three to six suspicious packages a day". Anything actually terroristic in any of these packages? Apparently not. 42

All this in response to actual chemical, biological or radiological weapon attacks of—at last count—zero. But there have been many false anthrax reports, no doubt largely inspired by all the scare talk; talk which never gives the public a clue to how extremely difficult and unpredictable it actually would be to create and deliver a serious anthrax attack, particularly over a wide area; scare talk that also makes more credible and acceptable the US 1998 bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant on the (false) grounds that it was making chemical and biological weapons.

Air travel is another area where the "threat" mentality looms larger than life, and common sense. A flight from Atlanta to Turkey, August 4, 1999, that was about to take off was halted by the FBI; all 241 passengers were forced to leave the plane, some of them were questioned, one man was detained; all the luggage was unloaded and each piece painstakingly matched to a passenger; bomb-sniffing dogs and explosive experts were rushed in, and the flight was held up for more than four hours. The reason? The FBI had received word that one of the passengers might be "a potential threat to national security".

And the reason for that? The man had paid for his ticket in cash. 43

Three weeks later, at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, a man was seen running the wrong way into a passageway normally used by those exiting the terminal. He disappeared into the

crowded concourse. Neither he nor anything suspicious was found. For all anyone knew, the man had simply forgotten something somewhere or had a very urgent need to get to what he thought was the closest bathroom. Whatever, as a result of this "threatening"

situation, 6,000 passengers were evacuated, at least 120 flights were canceled, and air traffic was disrupted across the country for several hours. 44

With all the scare talk, with all the "threats", what exactly has taken place in the real world? According to the State Department, in the period of 1993-1998 the number of actual terrorist attacks by region was as follows:

Western Europe 766, Latin America 569, Middle East 374, Asia 158, Eurasia 101, Africa 84, North America 14 45

It is now well known how during the Cold War the actual level of Soviet military and economic strength was magnified by the CIA and Defense Department, how data and events were falsified to exaggerate the Russian threat, how worst-case scenarios were put forth as if they were probable and imminent, even when they failed to meet the demands of plausibility. 46 One of the most enduring Soviet-threat stories—the alleged justification for the birth of NATO—was the coming Red invasion of Western Europe. If, by 1999, anyone still swore by this fairy tale, they could have read a report in The Guardian of London on newly declassified British government documents from 1968. Among the documents was one based on an analysis by the Foreign Office joint intelligence committee, which the newspaper summarized as follows:

"The Soviet Union had no intention of launching a military attack on the West at the height of the Cold War, British military and intelligence chiefs privately believed, in stark contrast to what Western politicians and military leaders were saying in public about the "Soviet threat".

"The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe,"

a briefing for the British chiefs of staff—marked Top Secret, UK Eyes Only, and headed The Threat: Soviet Aims and Intentions—declared in June 1968.

"Soviet foreign policy had been cautious and realistic", the department argued, and despite the Vietnam War, the Russians and their allies had "continued to make contacts in all fields with the West and to maintain a limited but increasing political dialogue with NATO powers". 47

Subtlety is not the order of the day. In 1998, the Pentagon created a new bureaucracy: the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, a budget already in the billions, personnel numbered in the thousands, and "made up primarily of agencies founded to reduce the threat posed by the Soviet Union". 48 It's called recycling.

The Soviet threat, the terrorist threat, the new enemies, the same old same old, feverishly fostered at home and abroad, the mentality that the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, et al.

have had critical, life-saving, catastrophe-preventing missions thrust upon them, here,

there, and everywhere, and we rein these saviors in on pain of national and world disaster.. .working the old protection racket again.

"I think we are already at war," CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate in 1997. "We have been on a war footing for a number of years now." 49

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.

H.L. Mencken, 1920

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear—kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor—with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil...to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real.

General Douglas MacArthur, speaking of large Pentagon budgets, 1957 50

The political spectrum and conspiracies

It's ironic, but the far right in the United States is more open to believing the worst about American foreign policy than are most liberals. This may be because those on the far right, being extremists themselves, do not instinctively shy away from believing that the government is capable of extreme behavior, at home or abroad. The radical left and right share a profound cynicism about their government's very intentions. But those in between the two poles do not naturally come by such views.

To many of the latter, the statements here about the United States not meaning well may sound like an example of that frequent object of ridicule, the "conspiracy theory". They hear me saying (snicker) that our leaders have gotten together, covertly, in some secluded safe^house, to maliciously plan their next assault on everything holy, while throwing out signals intended to confuse and to obscure their real intentions.

But if our leaders strive for unambiguous righteousness, is it not a conspiracy? Don't they meet to plan how they're going to do nice things? Or perhaps they don't have to do this so formally because since they all mean nice to begin with, it thus happens quite automatically, naturally, built into the system—the government system, the corporate system, the military system, the intelligence system, the government-corporate-military-intelligence nexus.

But why, then, wouldn't it be the same with meaning bad?

It's not that Americans can't believe in any conspiracy theory. Witness the remarkably long shelf life of the International Communist Conspiracy. It's still a highly saleable commodity.

"Conspiracy" researcher and author Jonathan Vankin has observed: Journalists like to think of themselves as a skeptical lot. This is a flawed self-image. The thickest pack of American journalists are all too credulous when dealing with government officials, technical experts, and other official sources. They save their vaunted

"skepticism" for ideas that feel unfamiliar to them. Conspiracy theories are treated with the most rigorous skepticism.

Conspiracy theories should be approached skeptically. But there's no fairness. Skepticism should apply equally to official and unofficial information. To explain American conspiracy theories...I've had to rectify this imbalance. I've opened myself to conspiracy theories, and applied total skepticism to official stories. 51

Like the cover up in Waco. In August 1999 we finally received official confirmation that the FBI had fired incendiary devices into the Branch Davidian sect compound in 1993, where 76 people died in a fire the same day. This, after six years of categorical official denials, while "conspiracy theorists" and "conspiracy nuts", who insisted otherwise, were ridiculed, or—the more usual case—met by the media's most effective weapon: silence.

Can the truth about the "October Surprise", TWA800, Jonestown, and Mena, Arkansas under Governor Clinton be far behind? Yes, far behind. We'll likely never hear an official admission about those events until well into the new century.

The First Watergate Law of American Politics states: "No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine."

The Second Watergate Law of American Politics states: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."

Both laws are still on the books.

Cold War continuum

Though the putative "communist threat" has disappeared, the taxpayers still fill tractor-trailers to the bursting with cash and send them off to what had once been known as the War Department, then humorously renamed the Defense Department...That department's research into yet more futuristic weapons and better ways to kill people en masse proceeds unabated, with nary a glance back at the body fragments littering the triumphant fields...Belief in an afterlife has been rekindled by the Clinton administration's new missile defense system, after universal certainty that Star Wars was dead and buried...NATO has also risen from the should-be-dead, more almighty than ever...Many

hundreds of US military installations, serving a vast panoply of specialized warfaring needs, still dot the global map, including Guantanamo base in Cuba, and for the first time bases in Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia...American armed forces and special operations forces, such as the Green Berets, are being deployed in well over 100 countries in every part of the world...Washington is supplying many of these nations with sizeable amounts of highly lethal military equipment, and training their armed forces and police in the brutal arts, regardless of how brutal they already are...American nuclear bombs are still stored in seven European countries, if not else where... And American officials retain their unshakable belief that they have a god-given right to do whatever they want, for as long as they want, to whomever they want, wherever they want.

In other words, whatever the diplomats and policymakers at the time thought they were doing, the Cold War skeptics have been vindicated—it was not about containing an evil, expansionist communism after all; it was about American imperialism, with "communist"

merely the name given to those who stood in its way.

In sum total, all these post-Cold War non-changes engender a scenario out of the 1950s and 1960s. And the 1970s and 1980s. John Foster Dulles lives! Has Ronald Reagan been faking illness as he lurks behind the curtain of Oz? Why has all this continued into the 21st century?

American foreign-policy makers are exquisitely attuned to the rise of a government, or a movement that might take power, that will not lie down and happily become an American client state, that will not look upon the free market or the privatization of the world known as "globalization" as the summum bonum, that will not change its laws to favor foreign investment, that will not be unconcerned about the effects of foreign investment upon the welfare of its own people, that will not produce primarily for export, that will not allow asbestos, banned pesticides and other products restricted in the developed world to be dumped onto their people, that will not easily tolerate the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization inflicting a scorched-earth policy upon the country's social services or standard of living, that will not allow an American or NATO military installation upon its soil...To the highly-sensitive nostrils of Washington foreign-policy veterans, Yugoslavia smelled a bit too much like one of these governments.

Given the proper pretext, such bad examples have to be reduced to basket cases, or, where feasible, simply overthrown, like Albania and Bulgaria in the early 1990s; failing that, life has to be made impossible for these renegades, as with Cuba, still. As Michael Parenti has observed: "It has been noted that the cost of apprehending a bank robber may occasionally exceed the sum that is stolen. But if robbers were allowed to go their way, this would encourage others to follow suit and would put the entire banking system in jeopardy." 52

And this was the foundation—the sine qua non—of American foreign policy for the entire twentieth century, both before and after the existence of the Soviet Union, from the

Philippines, Panama and the Dominican Republic in the first decade of the century, to Peru, El Salvador and Colombia in the last decade.

Can we in fact say that the Cold War has actually ended? If the Cold War is defined as a worldwide contention between the United States and the Soviet Union for the hearts and minds of the Third World (for whatever motives), then certainly it is over. But if the Cold War is seen not as an East-West struggle, but rather a "North-South" struggle, as an American effort—as mentioned above—to prevent the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model, and to prevent the rise of any regional power that might challenge American supremacy, then that particular map with the pins stuck in it still hangs on the wall in the Pentagon's War Room. (Said a Defense Department planning paper in 1992: "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival...we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." 53 [emphasis added]) The current manifestation of this continuum, by whatever name, can be viewed as yet another chapter in the never-ending saga of the war of the rich upon the poor. And with the Soviet presence and influence gone, American interventions are more trouble-free than ever. (Consider that US friendliness toward Iraq and Yugoslavia lasted exactly as long as the Soviet Union and its bloc existed.)

There's a word for such a continuum of policy. Empire. The American Empire. An appellation that does not roll easily off an American tongue. No American has any difficulty believing in the existence and driving passion for expansion, power, glory and wealth of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire or the British Empire. It's right there in their schoolbooks. But to the American mind, to American schoolbooks and to the American media, the history of empires has come to a grinding halt.

The American Empire? An oxymoron.

A compelling lust for political, economic and military hegemony over the rest of the world, divorced from moral considerations? Suggesting that to Americans is akin to telling them of one's UFO abduction, except that they're more likely to believe the abduction story.

Earth is not enough

Previous empires could not even imagine it. The American Empire is making detailed plans for it. Control of outer space. Not only control, but planning for wars there. Let us mark the words of the gentlemen of the Pentagon:

US Space Command—dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict...During the early portion of the 21st century, space power will also evolve into a separate and equal medium of warfare...The emerging synergy of

space superiority with land, sea and air superiority will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance...Development of ballistic missile defenses using space systems and planning for precision strikes from space offers a counter to the worldwide proliferation of WMD

[weapons of mass destruction]... Space is a region with increasing commercial, civil, international and military interests and investments. The threat to these vital systems is also increasing...Control of Space is the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium and an ability to deny others the use of space, if required...Control of Space is a complex mission that casts USCINCSPACE [US Commander-in-Chief of space] in a classic warfighter role and mandates an established AOR [area of responsibility]. 54. ..With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going to keep it. 55...We will engage terrestrial targets someday—ships, airplanes, land targets—from space...We're going to fight in space. We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space. 56 (emphasis in original) In 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted by unanimous acclamation a resolution calling upon all states "To refrain from placing in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, installing such weapons on celestial bodies or stationing such weapons in outer space in any other manner." 57

This expressed hope is still very much alive today. On January 26, 1999, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva: "One concept which is now widely shared is that of maintaining outer space as a weapons-free environment."

The Madman philosophy

In March 1998, an internal 1995 study, "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence", by the US Strategic Command, the headquarters responsible for the US strategic nuclear arsenal, was brought to light. The study stated:

Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as too fully rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be potentially

'out of control' can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts within the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries. 58

The author of these words would have the world believe that the United States has only been pretending to be "out of control" or "irrational and vindictive". However, it can be argued—based on the objective facts of what Washington has inflicted upon the world, as described in this book—that for more than half a century American foreign policy has, in actuality, been clinically mad.

On the other hand, the desire for world hegemony, per se, is not necessarily irrational, whatever else one may think of it. Michael Parenti has pointed out that US foreign policy

"may seem stupid because the rationales offered in its support often sound unconvincing, leaving us with the impression that policymakers are confused or out of touch. But just because the public does not understand what they are doing does not mean that national security leaders are themselves befuddled. That they are fabricators does not mean they are fools." 59

A Truth Commission

In recent years, the people of South Africa, Guatemala and El Salvador have held official Truth Commissions to look squarely in the eyes of the crimes committed by their governments. There will never be any such official body to investigate and document the wide body of Washington's crimes, although several unofficial citizens' commissions have done so over the years for specific interventions, such as in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq; their findings were of course ignored by the establishment media (whose ideology is a belief that it doesn't have any ideology).

In the absence of an official Truth Commission in the United States, this book is offered up as testimony.

Washington, DC, January 2000

Ours and Theirs: Washington's Love/Hate Relationship with Terrorists and Human-Rights Violators

Why Do Terrorists Keep Picking on the United States?

Washington's war on terrorism is as doomed to failure as its war on drugs has been.

"I think the American people need to know that we live in a world where by virtue of America's leadership to some degree, by virtue of a degree of fanaticism by some people, we will be targeted," declared National Security Adviser Sandy Berger after the bombings of two US African embassies on August 7, 1998. 1

When asked "What is it that these terrorists want from the United States?", Richard Haass, head of the foreign policy department at the Brookings Institution, replied: "Well, the answer is it's not anything we're simply doing. It is who we are. It's the fact that we're the most powerful country in the world. It's the fact that we're a secular country...It is simply who we are and it is our existence that really bothers them." 2

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times would say amen. Terrorists, he wrote, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the U.S., Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." 3

Finally, we have President Clinton: "Americans are targets of terrorism, in part, because we act to advance peace and democracy and because we stand united against terrorism." 4

These are some of the platitudes our leaders and pundits feed us after each terrorist attack against an American installation. It is...the image of America the beauteous on its hill, so envied by all that it is subject to attacks by terrorists who cannot bear so much sheer goodness to triumph in a world that belongs to their master, the son of morning himself, Satan. Gore Vidal 5

What our leaders and pundits never let slip is that the terrorists—whatever else they might be—might also be rational human beings; which is to say that in their own minds they have a rational justification for their actions. Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States...

The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981; the bombardment of Beirut in 1983

and 1984; the bombing of Libya in 1986; the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987; the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988; the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989; the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991; the continuing sanctions and bombings against Iraq; the bombing of Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998; the habitual support of Israel despite its belligerence and routine torture, and condemnation of Arab resistance to it; the double standard applied to Israeli terrorism, such as the wilful massacre of 106 Lebanese at the UN base at Qana in 1996; the continued persecution of Libya, now nearing the end of its second decade; the abduction of wanted men from Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Albania; the large military and hi'tech presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region...these are some of the American actions that can turn an Arab or a Muslim into a fanatic, into a terrorist, into a decrier of "America, the Great Satan".

But those who feed us the platitudes know this. They're merely performing the time-honored public dumbshow. Mir Aimal Kansi, the Pakistani who shot five people outside CIA headquarters in 1993, told the FBI that he had done so to protest US policies toward Muslims in the Middle East, including the bombing of Iraq. 6 Two days after Kansi's conviction in 1997, four Americans were gunned down in Karachi, Pakistan while driving in a car. "I think the linkage is quite evident," said a former CIA counter-terrorism expert about the Karachi slayings. 7

The bombing of PanAm 103 in 1988 was clearly initiated by Iran as an act of retaliation for the shooting down of its own passenger plane by the United States a few months earlier, and American officials well know this. The bombing of the two US embassies in Africa in 1998 took place on the eighth anniversary, to the very day, of the arrival of the first US troops in Saudi Arabia, following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. And during the US bombing of Iraq in 1991, there were dozens of terrorist attacks against American institutions all over the Middle East and elsewhere. Did US officials and the media not pick up any hint of cause-and-effect? They did, but subsequently, when it's been platitude time, they suddenly become pre-Alzheimer. As the media critic Norman Solomon observed:

When terrorists attack, they're terrorizing. When we attack, we're retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks, they're terrorizing again. When we respond with further attacks, we're retaliating again.

Good and bad terrorists

On March 13, 1996, the United States assembled 27 world leaders in Egypt at an "anti-terror" conference after a wave of suicide bombers had killed dozens of people in Israel.

President Clinton asserted: "We must be clear in our condemnation of those who resort to terror. Violence has no place in the future we all seek in the Middle East." 8 At the very same time, in Iraq, the US was supporting with millions of dollars the Iraqi National

Accord, which was using car bombs and other bombings in Baghdad and other cities, trying to destabilize Saddam Hussein. It was estimated that the bombings had taken the lives of more than 100 civilians in Baghdad alone during the preceding few years. Two weeks after the Egyptian conference, the attending countries met in Washington for a followup on counter-terrorism. Among the topics discussed were the flow of funds to terrorist groups. 9

The following month, President Clinton, with much fanfare, signed the Antiterrorism Act, which bars financial transactions between American corporations and countries accused of supporting terrorism. Four months later, the administration quietly exempted Sudan, to allow a US oil company to negotiate an oil deal. At the same time, Syria was granted an exemption, to encourage participation by Damascus in the Middle East peace process. 10

In February 2000, there arose a new proposal for a major international conference to combat terrorism. On this occasion the United States was quick to throw cold water on the very idea, saying it would have no "practical benefits". The proposed conference was backed by the 119-member Non-Aligned Movement of Third World Nations. One of the issues the conference hoped to address was how to distinguish between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter." citing the examples of the Hizbollah and Hamas groups fighting Israel.

The question of "state terrorism" also loomed as a possible conference issue—for example, should military attacks by armed forces of any state be deemed acts of terrorism when civilians are killed? The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia had been discussed as a case in point. 11

FBI definition of terrorism

The FBI defines international terrorism as "the unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual, who has some connection to a foreign power or whose activities transcend national boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." 12

The FBI definition, although meant to describe acts directed against the United States, would seem to cover rather well countless acts of the US government itself. Many of these acts will be found in the pages of this book, under the headings of bombings, interventions, torture, chemical and biological warfare, etc.

America's Gift to the World—the Afghan Terrorist Alumni

Osama bin Laden—alleged to have been the mastermind behind the bombing of two US

embassies in Africa in 1998—was not always on Washington's hate list. He and many

other Islamic fundamentalists were supremely useful during the 1980s in Washington's war which quashed the last chance the Afghan people had for desperately needed social and economic reform and a secular society. Because of their uninhibited, sadistic cruelty directed against government and Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, the fundamentalists—the moujahedeen (Muslim holy warriors)—were good terrorists. They were our terrorists.

After the success of their jihad, these forces roamed afar, carrying out grisly actions in numerous corners of the world, metamorphosing into really bad terrorists.

Forcing the Soviet Union to withdraw its military forces from Afghanistan truly went to the heads of the moujahedeen. They thought they were invincible and had a god-given mission. Allah Akbar! They seemed to place little weight upon the fact that it had been the United States, bringing its military, political and financial weight to bear, that had been the sine qua non of the victory.

In 1992, after 12 years of battle, the various factions of the moujahedeen could claim Afghanistan as all their own, albeit now fighting each other. The war had been a rallying point for Muslim zealots from throughout the world—an Islamic Abraham Lincoln Brigade—and laid the groundwork for their future collaboration and support. Tens of thousands of veterans of the war—young men from every Muslim nation, battle-hardened and armed—dispersed to many lands to carry out other jihads against the infidels and to inflame and train a new generation of militant Islamists and terrorists, ready to drink the cup of martyrdom: a virtual Islamic Foreign Legion.

In the midst of a wave of assault weapons and violence (dubbed a "Kalashnikov culture"), Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto complained in 1996 that her country got stuck with this air of frenzy as a direct result of cooperation with the United States in forcing Soviet troops from Afghanistan. "We are left on our own to cope with the remnants of the Afghan war, which include arms smuggling...drugs and...[religious] zealots who were leaders at the time of the Afghan war." 1

"Your government participated in creating a monster," complained an Algerian sociologist to a Los Angeles Times correspondent in Algiers. "Now it has turned against you and the world—16,000 Arabs were trained in Afghanistan, made into a veritable killing machine." 2 His figure may be rather low inasmuch as there are an estimated 15,000 veterans of the Afghanistan war—or "Afghans" as they've come to be known all over, whether from Afghanistan or not—in Saudi Arabia alone. 3

Professor of Middle East Studies Eqbal Ahmad has observed: The propaganda in the West suggests that violence and holy war are inherent in Islam.

The reality is that as a worldwide movement, Jihad International, Inc. is a recent phenomenon...Without significant exception during the 20th century, jihad was used in a national, secular and political context until, that is, the advent of the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan. 4

Following are some of the highlights of the remarkable bloodied ting of the "Afghans":

In the United States

Mir Aimal Kansi—the Pakistani who slew two CIA employees, and wounded two other employees of the Agency and one employee of a CIA contractor outside CIA headquarters in Virginia in 1993—came of age in the Pakistani province that borders Afghanistan, which was used as a key staging area for the moujahedeen. His father and other relatives had ties to the CIA-Pakistani intelligence operations of the war. Kansi, those who knew him said, was "one of the children of the C.I.A.'s jihad." 5

Most of those involved in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York—

which killed six people, wounded more than 1,000 and caused half a billion dollars worth of damage—were veterans of the Afghan war. 6

In October 1995, 10 men were convicted for a plot to bomb New York targets, including the UN building, an FBI office and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. The spiritual leader of the group, and one of the defendants, was Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, who had worked with the moujahedeen in the war in Afghanistan. He had obtained a US visa in 1990 from a CIA undercover agent 7, leading to speculation that at that time he (still) had CIA links. At least one of the other defendants—who came mainly from Egypt and Sudan—had fought in Afghanistan.

Three men were convicted in New York in 1996 of plotting to bomb 12 US jumbo jets and 4,000 passengers out of the sky over the Pacific Ocean. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the alleged mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, who had been a fugitive, was one of the three defendants. He had been trained in explosives by the moujahedeen.

Investigators found in his computer a manifesto pledging terror to punish Americans for their government's support of Israel. 8

Elsewhere

Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was convicted in absentia in the Philippines in 1994 of bombing a Philippine Airlines jet, killing one passenger. He reportedly was involved in training activities with the extremist Muslim Abu Sayyaf Organization of the Philippines.9

March 1995, Karachi, Pakistan: two US diplomats were killed and a third was wounded in an assault upon the car they were driving in. The FBI, which arrived in Pakistan to investigate the crime, announced that it was treating the attack as a possible retaliation for the arrest of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef the previous month in Pakistan by US and Pakistani agents and his extradition to the United States. 10

In November 1995, five Americans and two Indians died when a pickup truck stuffed with explosives detonated outside a US Army building in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Three of the four Saudis who confessed to the attack admitted to having received firearms and explosives training in Afghanistan and to having fought in combat there. 11

The following June, 19 US airmen died in the bombing of their housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. The same groups claimed credit for both attacks.

In summer 1995, France underwent a series of eight bomb attacks beginning with a blast in a train station which killed eight and wounded 160. "Almost all of the leaders of the people we have arrested for terrorism have passed by Afghanistan or Pakistan," said a French law enforcement official. 12

The Chechnyan guerrillas, who have bedeviled the Russians for years with their insurrection to create a Muslim society, have had their ranks swelled by Middle East and African "Afghans", as well as their own people who received military instruction in Afghanistan. 13

Russian officials estimate that 4,000 to 5,000 Muslim militants from Tajikistan alone passed through camps in northern Afghanistan, then returned to the former Soviet Central Asian republic in 1993 to do battle against the secular government. 14 Another former Soviet republic, Azerbaijan, has experienced a similar fate. 15

In western provinces of China, Afghan veterans have armed and trained Chinese Muslims and fought alongside them against the Chinese authorities. 16

Since 1992, Egypt has been swept by a wave of anti^government terrorism in which graduates of the military training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan have played a major role. They are believed to have also been behind the attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak while he was visiting Ethiopia. 17

In August 1994, three "Afghans" robbed a tourist hotel in Morocco, killing tourists in an effort to destabilize Morocco's vital tourism industry. 18

Throughout much of the 1990s, Kashmiris and other nationals trained in Afghanistan have been fighting against India in the mountains of Kashmir, waging "holy war" for secession from New Delhi. 19

Since Algeria's cancellation of the 1992 election, Algerian veterans of the Afghanistan conflict have played a key role in the rise of the Armed Islamic Group, responsible for many thousands of gory murders in their crusade for an Islamic state. 20

In Bosnia, beginning in 1992, Afghans fought ferociously alongside the predominantly Muslim Bosnian army for two years, attacking Serbian positions to liberate Muslim villages. 21 One of those who confessed to the November 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, referred to above, said that he had fought with the Bosnian Muslims. 22

In a 1999 interview, Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi told a London-based Arabic newspaper that his government had crushed an Islamic militant movement of "Afghans".

"They returned desperate and destructive," he said, "and adopted killing and explosives as

their profession, according to the training they received from the American intelligence." 23

And there has been more of the same in other places, from the men Ronald Reagan fancied as "freedom fighters".

"This is an insane instance of the chickens coming home to roost," said a US diplomat in Pakistan in 1996. "You can't plug billions of dollars into an anti-Communist jihad, accept participation from all over the world and ignore the consequences. But we did. Our objectives weren't peace and grooviness in Afghanistan. Our objective was killing Commies and getting the Russians out." 24

Assassinations

I don't want to wipe out everyone...Just my enemies.

Michael Corleone, The Godfather, Part II

On June 26, 1993, President Clinton went before the American people and announced that the United States had fired several missiles against Iraq that day. It turned out that the missiles killed eight people and injured many more. The attack, said the president, was in retaliation for an Iraqi plot to assassinate former president George Bush who was due to visit Kuwait. (This alleged plot remains no more than that...alleged. 1) Clinton announced that the US attack "was essential to send a message to those who engage in state-sponsored terrorism and to affirm the expectation of civilized behavior among nations" 2

Following is a list of prominent foreign individuals whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of the Second World War.

(CIA humorists have at times referred to this type of operation as "suicide involuntarily administered", to be carried out by the Agency's Health Alteration Committee.) 1949 Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader

1950s CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany to be

"put out of the way" in the event of a Soviet invasion 1950s Zhou Enlai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts on his life

1950s, 1962 Sukarno, President of Indonesia

1951 Kim II Sung, Premier of North Korea

1953 Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran

1950s (mid) Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader 1955 Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India

1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt 1959, 1960s Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia

1960 Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq

1950s-70s Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life 1961 Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti 1961 Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo

1961 Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts and plots on his life 1960s Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba

1965 Francisco Caamano, Dominican Republic opposition leader 1965-6 Charles de Gaulle, President of France

1967 Che Guevara, Cuban leader

1970 Salvador Allende, President of Chile

1970 Gen. Rene Schneider, C-in-C of Army, Chile

1970s, 1981 General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence 1975 Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1980-1986 Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life 1982 Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran

1983 Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander

1983 Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate 1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (see note below) 1991 Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq

1998 Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant

1999 Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia

In case they run short of assassins

In 1975, a US Navy psychologist, Lt. Com. Thomas Narut, revealed that his naval work included establishing how to induce servicemen who may not be naturally inclined to kill, to do so under certain conditions. He referred to these men using the words "hitmen" and

"assassin". Narut added that convicted murderers as well had been released from military prisons to become assassins. The training of the carefully-selected recruits ranged from dehumanization of the enemy, to acclimating them emotionally through special films showing people being killed and injured in violent ways. 3 The disclosure by Narut was pure happenstance. We can only speculate about what programs are taking place or being planned today in that five-sided building in Virginia.

Blasphemy American style

The Western world was shocked when Iran condemned author Salmon Rushdie to death because of his book they called "blasphemous". But the United States has also

condemned blasphemers to death—Castro, Allende, Sukarno and a host of others mentioned above who didn't believe in the holy objectives of American foreign policy.

Aberrations?

The senate committee known as the Church Committee, in its Assassination Report in 1975, said: "The committee does not believe that the acts [of assassination] which it has examined represent the real American character. They do not reflect the ideals which have given the people of this country and the world hope for a better, fuller, fairer life.

We regard the assassination plots as aberrations." 4

At the time the committee wrote this? it knew of about a dozen CIA assassination plots and still could call them all aberrations. Would congressmen today, knowing of the more than 40 incidents listed above, call them all aberrations?

Could they explain how these "aberrations" have continued through each of the ten presidencies, from Truman through Clinton?

For some years following the Church Committee's report, American presidents made it a point to issue public statements on assassination, perhaps trying to convince the world that "we really don't mean it".

1976: Ford signed a presidential order which stated: "No employee of the United States shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

1978: Carter also issued an executive order prohibiting assassina^ tions.

1981, December 4: Reagan issued an executive order with language almost identical to that of Ford's.

But on November 13, 1984, Reagan, obsessed with fighting the "International Communist Conspiracy" on several fronts, canceled his executive order, creating what was actually called by the press a "license to kill"—a license to kill anyone deemed a

"terrorist".

On April 10, 1985, Reagan canceled the "license to kill" because the previous month, the CIA had paid some people in Beirut to kill a certain sheikh Fadlallah, who was not to Washington's liking; a car bomb had been used and 80 people were killed, the sheikh not being among their number.

August 11, 1985: The "license to kill" was reinstated because of the hijacking of a TWA plane in June.

May 12, 1986: A new executive order was signed without the controversial language, apparently in deference to congressional objections. 5

Clearly, Reagan was not acting out of any principle for or against assassination—it was all public relations, and the actual American policy in the field over the years, in all likelihood, has never varied to speak of, whatever the "official" PR message of the day coming out of the White House was.

October 13, 1989: Bush added a new PR twist. He issued a "memorandum of law" that would allow "accidental" killing if it was a byproduct of legal action: "A decision by the President to employ overt military force ...would not constitute assassination if U.S.

forces were employed against the combatant forces of another nation, a guerrilla force, or a terrorist or other organization whose actions pose a threat to the security of the United States." 6 In other words, assassination was okay as long as we said "oops!"

Clinton, it appears, has not issued any official statement concerning US government policy on assassination.

The Doolittle Report

A 1954 White House commission to study the CIA's covert activities included in its report the following now-famous passage, which is relevant to this discussion of assassination. It may be what psychologists call "projection".

It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination by whatever means and at whatever cost. There are no rules in such a game.

Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply. If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of "fair play" must be reconsidered. We must develop effective espionage and counterespionage services and must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, more sophisticated, and more effective methods than those used against us. It may become necessary that the American people be made acquainted with, understand and support this fundamentally repugnant philosophy. 7

Does it work both ways?

If the United States can bomb Iraqi intelligence headquarters—which was their target in the bombing referred to above—because of an alleged assassination plot against an American leader, and cite self-defense under the UN charter as Washington did (a claim at least as questionable as the alleged plot), think of the opportunities opened to countries like Panama, Libya and Cuba to name but a few. Cuba could claim the right to bomb CIA headquarters, many times, not to mention Miami. It's safe to say, though, that neither the White House nor American courts would accept this legal argument; nor would they be able to see behind the Irony Curtain.

Excerpts from US Army and CIA Training Manuals

On...some charming thoughts from the minds of the Good Guys CIA, "A Study of Assassination", written early 1950s1

"For secret assassinations...the contrived accident is the most effective technique. When successfully executed, it causes little excitement and is only casually investigated. The most efficient accident...is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface. Elevator shafts, stair wells, unscreened windows and bridges will serve...The act may be executed by sudden, vigorous grabbing of the ankles, tipping the subject over the edge. If the assassin immediately sets up an outcry, playing the 'horrified witness', no alibi or surreptitious withdrawal is necessary."

"Drugs can be very effective. If the assassin is trained as a doctor or nurse and the subject is under medical care, this is an easy and sure method. An overdose of morphine administered as a sedative will cause death without disturbance and is difficult to detect.

The size of the dose will depend upon whether the subject has been using narcotics regularly. If not, two grains will suffice. If the subject drinks heavily, morphine or a similar narcotic can be injected at the passing out stage, and the cause of death will often be held to be acute alcoholism."

"Edge weapons: Any legally obtained edge device may be successfully employed. A certain minimum of anatomical knowledge is needed for reliability. Puncture wounds of the body cavity may not be reliable unless the heart is reached. The heart is protected by the rib cage and is not always easy to locate...Absolute reliability is obtained by severing the spinal cord in the cervical region. This can be done with the point of a knife or a light blow of an axe or hatchet. Another reliable method is the severing of both jugular and carotid vessels on both sides of the windpipe."

"Conference room technique: [Assassin] #1 Enters room quickly but quietly. #2 Stands in doorway. #2 Opens fire on first subject to react. Swings across group toward center of mass. Times burst to empty magazine at end of swing. #1 Covers group to prevent individual dangerous reactions; if necessary, fires individual bursts of 3 rounds. #1

Finishes burst. Commands 'Shift'. Drops back through door. Replaces empty magazine.

Covers corridor. #1 On command 'Shift', opens fire on opposite side of target. Swings one burst across group. Leaves propaganda [to implicate the opposition]."

US Army, "Terrorism and the Urban Guerilla", 1960s 2

"Measures of Controlling the Population and Resources: 1. ID Cards. An effective system of identification is fundamental to the program...

2. Registration. A program of registering families is used to supplement the system of ID

cards. This is the system of inventorying all families by house, making a list of all members of the family who live in the house along with the family's resources. One can also note the presence of insurgent tendencies and affiliations among the population.

3. Control by block. The purpose of block'by'block control is to detect the individuals who are supporting or sympathizing with the insurgents and the type of support they are providing.

4. Police patrols. Their purpose is to detect sources of insurgent support, sympathizers, and routes used by the insurgent forces for intelligence, logistics, and routine activities...

Curfew. The purpose is to permit the authorities to identify violators and take actions based on the premise that anyone who violates the curfew is an insurgent or sympathizes with the insurgents until he can prove the contrary.

Checkpoints. It is of little use to establish a program of passes and ID cards unless there is a system of verifying these official papers. Therefore, establishing checkpoints in all travel routes is necessary once the use of passes has started."

US Army, "Handling of Sources", 1960s 3

"The CI [counterintelligence] agent should cause the arrest of the employee's [paid government informant's] parents, imprison the employee or give him a beating as part of the placement plan of said employee in the guerrilla organization." [It's not clear whether these things were to be done to force the person to be an informer or to give him credibility as such.]

"The employee's value could be increased by means of arrests, executions or pacification, taking care not to expose the employee as the information source."

"To assure the promotion of an employee...eliminate a potential rival among the guerrillas."

"[Employees are required because] the government is not able to depend only on the information provided voluntarily by faithful citizens or information obtained involuntarily from insurgents who have been captured."

The official Defense Department view of these manuals was that the objectionable material in them had simply fallen through the cracks. The DOD stated: "There was no evidence that there was a deliberate attempt to violate Army or Defense Department policies in the preparation or use of these manuals." However, the office of Rep. Joseph Kennedy (D.-MA), which had followed the issue closely, said that at the School of the Americas, where the manuals had been used, at least two officers had raised questions about the objectionable material with their superiors in the early 1980s, but had been rebuffed. 4

CIA, "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation-July 1963" 5

"The effectiveness of most of the non-coercive techniques depends on their unsettling effect. The interrogation situation is in itself disturbing to most people encountering it for the first time. The aim is to enhance this effect...[and to create] a traumatic or sub-traumatic experience which explodes, as it were, the world that is familiar to the subject as well as his image of himself in that world."

"Usually his own clothes are taken away because familiar clothing reinforces identity and thus the capacity for resistance."

"The following are the principal coercive techniques of interrogation: arrest, detention, deprivation of sensory stimuli through solitary confinement or similar methods, threats and fear, debility, pain, heightened suggestibility and hypnosis, narcosis, and induced regression."

CIA, "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual-1983" 6

"Control—The capacity to cause or change certain types of human behavior by implying or using physical or psychological means to induce compliance. Compliance may be voluntary or involuntary."

"Subject is brought into the facility blindfolded and handcuffed and should remain so during the entire processing...Subject is completely stripped and told to take a shower.

Blindfold remains in place while showering and guard watches throughout. Subject is given a thorough medical examination, including all body cavities."

"Allowing a subject to receive carefully selected letters from home can help create an effect desired by the 'questioner'; for example, the subject may get the idea that his relatives are under duress or suffering. A suggestion at the proper time that his cooperation or confession can help protect the innocent may be effective."

"Bedding should be minimal—cot and blanket—no mattress. (The idea is to prevent the subject from relaxing and recovering from shock.) There should be no built-in toilet facilities. The subject should have to ask to relieve himself. Then he should either be given a bucket or escorted by a guard to the latrine. The guard stays at his side the entire time he is in the latrine."

"Deprivation of sensory stimuli induces stress and anxiety. The more complete the deprivation, the more rapidly and deeply the subject is affected."

CIA, "Freedom Fighters' Manual", 1984 7

A 16-page "comic book" for Nicaraguans; its more than 40 illustrations showed the reader how s/he could "liberate Nicaragua from oppression and misery" of "the Marxist tyranny" by "a series of useful sabotage techniques". Amongst these were: Stop up toilets with sponges...pull down power cables...put dirt into gas tanks...put nails on roads and highways...cut and perforate the upholstery of vehicles.. .cut down trees over highways...telephone to make false hotel reservations and false alarms of fires and crimes...hoard and steal food from the government...leave lights and water taps on...steal mail from mailboxes...go to work late...call in sick...short-circuit electricity...break light bulbs...rip up books... spread rumors...threaten supervisors and officials over the phone...

CIA, "Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare", 1984 8

A manual designed for the US-backed Contra forces (the guerrillas) fighting in Nicaragua against the leftist Sandinista government. It advised:

"Kidnap all officials or agents of the Sandinista government and place them in 'public places'."

"Shame, ridicule and humiliate the 'personal symbols' of the government of repression in the presence of the people and foster popular participation through guerrillas within the multitude, shouting slogans and jeers."

"If a guerrilla fires at an individual, make the town see that he was an enemy of the people" and "that if that citizen had managed to escape, he would have alerted the enemy that is near the town or city, and they could carry out acts of reprisal such as rapes, pillage, destruction, captures, etc...Make the population see that it was the repressive system of the regime that...really killed the informer, and that the weapon fired was one recovered in combat against the Sandinista regime."

"It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, mesta judges [justices of the peace], police and State Security officials, CDS [Sandinista Defense Committees] chiefs, etc." (As writer Holly Sklar has noted: "A hit list that starts with court judges and ends with etcetera is a mighty broad license for murder.")

"The notification of the police, denouncing a target who does not want to join the guerrillas, can be carried out easily...through a letter with false statements of citizens who are not implicated in the movement."

"If possible, professional criminals will be hired to carry out specific selected 'jobs'."

"Specific tasks will be assigned to others, in order to create a 'martyr' for the cause, taking the demonstrators to a confrontation with the authorities, in order to bring about uprisings or shootings, which will cause the death of one or more persons, who would become the

martyrs, a situation that should be made use of immediately against the regime, in order to create greater conflicts."

"Shock Troops. These men should be equipped with weapons (knives, razors, chains, clubs, bludgeons) and should march slightly behind the innocent and gullible participants."

Throughout, the manual reads like what the Western world was always taught was the way communists scheme and indoctrinate.

The World Court found that in producing and disseminating this manual, the United States "encouraged the commission...of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law," including the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 9

Torture

"The first jolt was so bad 1 just wanted to die."

Gloria Esperanza Reyes, speaking of her torture in Honduras, where electric wires were attached to her breasts and vagina

"They always asked to be killed. Torture is worse than death."

Jose Barrera, Honduran torturer 1

Turkey, July 14, 1999, the police break into the home of a Kurdish family and announce they want to take the two daughters—Medine, 14, and her younger sister Devran—in for questioning. "I headed for the bedroom to get dressed," said Devran later, "but Medine...went straight to the window and jumped."

Medine's mother explained: "My daughter, you see, preferred death to being tortured once again." 2

"Torture might last a short time, but the person will never be the same."

Amnesty International report3

"No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 2, S24

"Physical abuse or other degrading treatment was rejected, not only because it is wrong, but because it has historically proven to be ineffective," said Richard Stolz, Deputy Director of Operations of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1988. 5

The CIA likes to say things like this because they think it sounds like good plausible denial But who can believe that torture does not loosen up tongues, that for such purpose it is not exceedingly effective? Richard Stolz and the CIA would have us believe that Medine, in the above example, if denied the opportunity to kill herself, would not talk under torture. Torture's effectiveness extends yet further, for its purpose is frequently not so much to elicit information as it is to punish, to coerce the victims from any further dissident activity by gouging out the idealism from their very being, and as a warning to their comrades.

For these ends, the CIA has co-existed with torture for decades. (Turkey, it must be remembered, is one of Washington's very closest strategic allies; for Honduras, see below.) Sleeping with friendly torturers has been a closely guarded secret at the Agency, and for that reason the actual painful details have been difficult to come by over the years. But here is some of the record that has made its way to the light of day.

Greece

During the late 1940s, the CIA was instrumental in the creation of a new internal security agency, KYR Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture. It was most active during the regime of the military junta, 1967-74, a period of routine horrific torture. Amnesty International later reported that "American policy on the torture question as expressed in official statements and official testimony has been to deny it where possible and minimize it where denial was not possible. This policy flowed naturally from general support for the military regime." 6

James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty, wrote in 1969 that some torturers told prisoners that some of their equipment had come as US military aid. One item was a special "thick white double cable" whip that was "scientific, making their work easier"; another was the head screw, known as an "iron wreath", which was progressively tightened around the head or ears. 7 American support, reported Becket, was vital to the torturers:

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." 8

Iran

The notorious Iranian security service, SAVAK, which employed torture routinely, was created under the guidance of the CIA and Israel in the 1950s. 9 According to a former CIA analyst on Iran, Jesse J. Leaf, SAVAK was instructed in torture techniques by the Agency. 10 After the 1979 revolution, the Iranians found CIA film made for SAVAK on how to torture women. 11

Germany

In the 1950s, in Munich, the CIA tortured suspected infiltrators of Soviet emigre organizations in Western Europe, which the Agency was using in anti-Soviet operations.

Amongst the techniques employed by the CIA were such esoteric torture methods as applying turpentine to a man's testicles or sealing someone in a room and playing Indonesian music at deafening levels until he cracked. 12 This information probably surfaced because it's weird-sounding to the point of being amusing; there was likely more of regular torture methods not fit for conversation.

Vietnam

The Green Berets taught its members who were slated for duty in Vietnam in the 1960s how to use torture as part of an interrogation. 13

The notorious Operation Phoenix, set up by the CIA to wipe out the Vietcong infrastructure, subjected suspects to torture such as electric shock to the genitals of both men and women, and the insertion into the ear of a six-inch dowel, which was tapped through the brain until the victim died; suspects were also thrown out of airborne helicopters to persuade the more important suspects to talk, although this should probably be categorized as murder of the ones thrown out, and a form of torture for those not. 14 In violation of the Geneva Convention, the US turned prisoners over to their South Vietnamese allies in full knowledge that they would be tortured, American military personnel often being present during the torture. 15

Bolivia

In 1967, anti-Castro Cubans, working with the CIA to find Che Guevara, set up houses of interrogation where Bolivians suspected of aiding Che's guerrilla army were brought for questioning and sometimes tortured. When the Bolivian interior minister learned of the torture, he was furious and demanded that the CIA put a stop to it. 16

Uruguay

In the late 1960s, Dan Mitrione, an employee of the US Office of Public Safety (part of the Agency for International Development), which trained and armed foreign police forces, was stationed in Montevideo, Uruguay. Torturing political prisoners in Uruguay

had existed before Mitrione's arrival. However, in a surprising interview given to a leading Brazilian newspaper, Jornal do Brasil, in 1970, the former Uruguayan Chief of Police Intelligence, Alejandro Otero, declared that US advisers, and Mitrione in particular, had instituted torture as a more routine measure; to the means of inflicting pain, they had added scientific refinement; and to that a psychology to create despair, such as playing a tape in the next room of women and children screaming and telling the prisoner that it was his family being tortured. 17

The newspaper interview greatly upset American officials in South America and Washington. The director of OPS in Washington tried to explain it all away by asserting:

"The three Brazilian reporters in Montevideo all denied filing that story. We found out later that it was slipped into the paper by someone in the composing room at the Jornal do Brosil." 18

Mitrione built a soundproofed room in the cellar of his house in Montevideo, in which he assembled Uruguayan police officers to observe a demonstration of torture techniques.

Four beggars were rounded up to be the subjects upon whom Mitrione demonstrated the effects of different voltages on different parts of the body. The four of them died.

"The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," was Mitrione's motto.

"When you get what you want, and I always get it," he said, "it may be good to prolong the session a little to apply another softening' up. Not to extract information now, but only as a political measure, to create a healthy fear of meddling in subversive activities." 19

Brazil

Before the Office of Public Safety assigned Dan Mitrione to Uruguay, he had been stationed in Brazil. There, he and other Americans worked with OPS, AID and CIA in supplying Brazilian security forces with the equipment and training to facilitate the torture of prisoners. The Americans also advised on how much electric shock could be administered without killing the person, if his or her death might prove awkward. 20

Guatemala

From the 1960s through the 1980s, Guatemalan security forces, notably the Army unit called G'2, routinely tortured "subversives". One method was electric shock to the genital area, using military field telephones hooked up to small generators, equipment and instructions for use supplied by Uncle Sam. The US and its clients in various countries were becoming rather adept at this technique. The CIA advised, armed and equipped the G-2, which maintained a web of torture centers, whose methods reportedly included chopping off limbs and singeing flesh, in addition to electric shocks. The Army unit even had its own crematorium, presumably to dispose of any incriminating evidence. The CIA

thoroughly infiltrated the G-2, with at least three G-2 chiefs of the 1980s and early 1990s, as well as many lower-level officers, being on the Agency's payroll. 21

Also benefiting from the Agency's generosity was General Hector Gramajo Morales (see

"Haven" chapter), who was Defense Minister during the armed forces' 1989 abduction of Sister Dianna Ortiz, an American nun. She was burned with cigarettes, raped repeatedly, and lowered into a pit full of corpses. Typically, torturers exult in demonstrating the power they hold over their victims—one of them put a large knife or machete into Ortiz's hand, put his own hands on top of hers, and forced her to stab another female prisoner.

Ortiz thinks she may have killed the woman. A fair-skinned man, whom the others referred to as "Alejandro", and as their "boss", seemed to be in charge, she said. He spoke Spanish with an American accent and cursed in English. Later, Ortiz adds, when this man realized she was American, he ordered the torture stopped. Clearly, if his motivation had been humanitarian, and not simply trying to avoid a possible political flap, he would have stopped it regardless of her nationality. 22

In 1996, in the United States, Ortiz received a number of documents from the State Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. Only one, dated 1990, contained a significant reference to Alejandro. It read as follows: VERY IMPORTANT: We need to close the loop on the issue of the "North American"

named by Ortiz as being involved in the case...The EMBASSY IS VERY SENSITIVE

ON THIS ISSUE, but it is an issue we will have to respond to publicly... 23

The next two pages were completely redacted.

El Salvador

During the counterinsurgency period of the 1980s, there was widespread torture practiced by the various Salvadoran security forces, all of whom had close working relations with the CIA and/or the US military. In January 1982, the New York Times published an interview with a deserter from the Salvadoran Army who described a class where severe methods of torture were demonstrated on teenage prisoners. He stated that eight US military advisers, apparently Green Berets, were present. Watching "will make you feel more like a man," a Salvadoran officer apprised the army recruits, adding that they should "not feel pity of anyone" but only "hate for those who are enemies of our country." 24

Another Salvadoran, a former member of the National Guard, later testified in a 1986

British television documentary: "I belonged to a squad of twelve. We devoted ourselves to torture, and to finding people whom we were told were guerrillas. I was trained in Panama for nine months by the [unintelligible] of the United States for anti-guerrilla warfare. Part of the time we were instructed about torture." 25

Honduras

During the 1980s, the CIA gave indispensable support to the infamous Battalion 316, which kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of citizens, using shock and suffocation devices for interrogation, amongst other techniques. The CIA supplied torture equipment, torture manuals, and in both Honduras and the US taught battalion members methods of psychological and physical torture. On at least one occasion, a CIA officer took part in interrogating a torture victim. The Agency also funded Argentine counterinsurgency experts to provide further training for the Hondurans. At the time, Argentina was famous for its "Dirty War," an appalling record of torture, baby kidnappings and disappearances.

Argentine and CIA instructors worked side by side training Battalion 316. US support for the battalion continued even after its director, Gen. Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, told the US ambassador that he intended to use the Argentine methods of eliminating subversives.

In 1983, the Reagan administration awarded Alvarez the Legion of Merit "for encouraging the success of democratic processes in Honduras." At the same time, the administration was misleading Congress and the American public by denying or minimizing the battalion's atrocities. 26

Panama

During the US occupation of Panama following its invasion of December 1989, some American soldiers engaged in torture of soldiers of the Panama Defense Forces. In one case, a metal cable was inserted into an open wound, producing intense pain. In another reported case, a PDF soldier was hung up by one arm on which he already had an injury to the elbow, which had been stitched up, 27

At home

For those readers who have difficulty believing that American government civilian and military personnel could be closely involved in the torture of foreigners, it is suggested that they consider what these Americans have done to other Americans.

At the US Navy's schools in San Diego and Maine during the 1960s and 1970s, students were supposedly learning about methods of "survival, evasion, resistance and escape"

which they could use if they were ever a prisoner of war. There was in the course something of survival in a desert, where students were forced to eat lizards, but the naval officers and cadets were also subjected to beatings, jarring judo flips, "tiger cages"—

hooded and placed in a 16-cubic-foot box for 22 hours with a coffee can for their excrement—and a torture device called the "water board": the subject strapped to an inclined board, head downward, a towel placed over his face, and cold water poured over the towel; he would choke, gag, retch and gurgle as he experienced the sensation of drowning.

A former student, Navy pilot Lt. Wendell Richard Young, claimed that his back was broken during the course and that students were tortured into spitting, urinating and defecating on the American flag, masturbating before guards, and, on one occasion, engaging in sex with an instructor. 28

In 1992, a civilian oversight board revealed that over a 13-year period (1973-1986), Chicago police officers and commanders engaged in "systematic" torture and abuse of suspects, including electric shock to penises, testicles and other areas; beatings, suffocation (plastic bags secured over the heads, stopping the flow of oxygen; some subjects passed out, and when they recovered, the bag was placed over their head again); guns stuck in prisoners' mouths and triggers pulled; prisoners hung from hooks by handcuffs attached to their wrists and beaten on the bottoms of their feet and on their testicles; as well as much psychological torture. Some were released after being tortured and were never charged. More than 40 cases were collected. According to one of their attorneys, "All of the victims were black or Latino, so far as we've seen, and the people who were doing the torturing were white officers." 29

A Human Rights Watch investigation of more than 20 US prisons and jails in New York, California, Florida and Tennessee, and a close look at prison litigation for a ten-year period, showed "extensive abuses of the U.N.'s minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners...amounting to torture"...a handcuffed prisoner forced into a tub of 145-degree water...prisoners dying after receiving repeated jolts of electricity from stun guns or stun belts (50,000 volt shock for 8 seconds)...prisoners held in outdoor cages, rain or shine...prisoners held in total isolation from other human beings for long periods of time with sensory deprivation... 30

Amnesty International has released reports such as "Torture, I11 Treatment and Excessive Force by Police in Los Angeles, California" (1992), and "Police Brutality and Excessive Force in the New York City Police Department" (1996), as well as later reports dealing with Chicago and other cities. Amnesty states that US police forces have been guilty of "violating international human rights standards through a pattern of unchecked excessive force amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment". 31

Lest any of the above give the impression that the United States government is not disturbed by the practice of torture, it should be pointed out that Congress passed a bill in 1996 allowing, for the first time, an American citizen to sue a foreign government in a US court for having been tortured in the foreign country. There was one small limitation imposed, however. The only countries that can be sued under this law are Washington's officially-designated enemies (ODE), those categorized as "terrorist states". 32

For other states, the situation may be like the case in the early 1990s of Scott Nelson, an American who sued Saudi Arabia in a US court for torture. A Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he had a right to sue, but the State Department helped the Saudis to get the case reversed in the Supreme Court. 33

The Unsavories

During the 1980s, there were a number of disclosures of past and present CIA involvement with torturers, death-squaders, drug traffickers and other types not fit for American schoolbooks. At some unrecorded moment, a government spinhead came up with the term "unsavory persons", implying that the government was as much repulsed by these types as any decent American citizen ought to be.

The media obediently picked up on it. With each new revelation of the CIAs connection to human rights violations in the company of some despicable people abroad, who were on the Agency payroll, we were told—and told officially—that the CIA had no choice but to associate with "unsavory" persons if it wished to obtain certain important information in foreign countries; information, of course, vital to our "national security".

A new whitewash cliche had been born, which is still very much alive.

Even when the media is critical of the CIA for working with unsavories, there's no indication that the relationship was ever anything more than paying for information while holding one's nose.

But it should be clearly understood that these unsavories have not been simply informants.

To the CIA and the US military these men are America's allies on the same side of a civil conflict.

US propaganda insists that the side these men are fighting on is the side of freedom and democracy.

We champion their cause, for it is our cause as well.

We select certain of them to attend American military schools and we bestow graduation certificates upon them.

We wine and dine them in the US, we give them gifts, we set them up with prostitutes.

We train them and give them their weapons and uniforms.

We teach them methods of bomb-making, methods of assassination and methods of interrogation (read torture).

We provide them with information about individuals from the CIA's mammoth international databases. Some of these individuals then wind up tortured and/or murdered.

We cover up their atrocities.

We facilitate and cover up their drug trafficking.

We socialize with them. They are our friends. They have often betrayed their own country for us.

The money paid to unsavories is of course available to them to finance their vile purposes. When someone like Qaddafi of Libya does this, it's called "supporting terrorism".

CIA payments and other support to these unsavories necessarily bring more than information—they bring influence and control. When one looks at the anti-democratic and cruelty levels of the recipients, one has to wonder what the CIA's influence was. And at the same time one has to ask the following question: If the United States must take sides in a foreign civil war, why must it repeatedly be on the same side as the unsavories?

Other unsavory skeletons in Washington's closet

In the post-World War II period, US foreign policy embraced many other unsavories—

"former" Nazis (including war criminals like Klaus Barbie), Italian fascists, Japanese enemy armed forces, Japanese scientists who had carried out terrible experiments on prisoners, including Americans, and many thousands of others who had collaborated with these individuals during the war. In many parts of Europe and Asia, collaborators with the enemy were publicly disgraced, imprisoned, and/or executed by the postwar governments or citizens' groups. But in China, Italy, Greece, the Philippines, Korea, Albania, West Germany, Iran, the Soviet Union, Vietnam and elsewhere, many of the fascists and collaborators who eluded punishment became American allies in setting up new governments, trying to overthrow governments, fighting civil wars, suppressing the left, gathering intelligence and manipulating electoral politics; indeed, many of them eluded punishment because they became American allies. 1

As late as 1988, there were a number of genuine pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic types from Eastern and Central Europe in the Republican Party's National Republican Heritage Groups Council. Several of these worthies were leaders of the George Bush presidential campaign's ethnic outreach arm, the Coalition of American Nationalities, despite the fact that their checkered past was not a big secret. One of them, Laszlo Pasztor (or Pastor) had served in the pro-Nazi Hungarian government's embassy in Berlin during the war. This had been revealed in a 1971 page-one story in the Washington Post. 2 When this past was again brought up in September 1988, the Republicans were obliged to dump Pasztor and four others of his ilk from Bush's campaign. 3

When lying down with unsavories has such a long heritage, for Washington to pretend that it's no more than a temporary marriage of convenience to an (unfortunately) unattractive bride, is an exercise that fails to rise above simplistic propaganda. What has attracted the two sides to each other over the years has been a shared class consciousness, manifesting itself in an abhorrence of progressive movements, or something called

"communism" or most anything or anyone seen as a threat to a mutually-desired status quo. The lowly, crude Guatemalan lieutenant relishes hanging around the American stage

door more than gazing upon his country's Indian peasants. His Yankee drinking buddy is convinced it's an act of duty to help him kill them.

Training New Unsavories

I have seen no evidence in my 24 years in Congress of one instance where because of American military involvement with another military that the Americans have stopped that foreign army from carrying out atrocities against their own people. No evidence, none.

—Senator Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa), 1999 1

School of the Americas

The School of the Americas (SOA), an Army school at Fort Benning, Georgia, has been beleaguered for years by protestors because so many of its graduates have been involved in very serious human-rights abuses in Latin America, often involving torture and murder. SOA insists that it teaches its students to respect human rights and democracy.

To examine this claim we must note that wars between nations in Latin America are extremely rare. The question which thus arises is: Who are these military men being trained to fight if not the army of another country? Who but their own citizens?

Over the years, SOA has trained tens of thousands of Latin American military and police in subjects like counterinsurgency, infantry tactics, military intelligence, anti-narcotics operations and commando operations. The students have also been taught to hate and fear something called "communism", later something called "terrorism", with little, if any, distinction made between the two, thus establishing the ideological justification to suppress their own people, to stifle dissent, to cut off at the knees anything bearing a likeness to a movement for social change which—although the military men might not think in such terms—might interfere with Washington's global agenda.

Those on the receiving end of anti-communist punishment would have a difficult time recognizing themselves from this piece of philosophy from an SOA class: "Democracy and communism clash with the firm determination of the Western countries to conserve their own traditional way of life." 2 This reads as if dissidents came from some faraway land, with alien values and no grievances that could be comprehended as legitimate by the "Western" mind.

On New Year's Day 1994, peasants in Mexico's state of Chiapas staged a bloodless takeover of nearby communities under the banner of the Zapatista National Liberation Army. It was the same day that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect, as the Zapatistas were careful to point out. The Mexican military responded

brutally. As the conflict dragged on, to the NAFTA-powers-that-be in Washington the situation threatened to be an embarrassing impediment to the peaceful implementation of the trade agreement.

Whether by coincidence or not, as the Zapatista rebellion has continued to the present day, the Mexican enrollment at SOA has proceeded accordingly. Here are the figures for number of students: 1994 - 15; 1995 - 24; 1996 - 148; 1997 - 333; 1998 - 219.

Presumably, by 1998, Mexico had sufficient trained officers to be able to cut back, although their enrollment number was still the highest of any country for that year. These newly-honed SOA "professionals" have formed an "army of occupation", which has militarized Chiapas, setting up camps from which they beat, terrorize, often murder, and dislocate the indigenous population and inhibit free movement with roadblocks.

In September 1996, under continual insistence from religious and grassroots groups, the Pentagon released seven Spanish-language training manuals used at the SOA until 1991.

A New York Times editorial declared:

Americans can now read for themselves some of the noxious lessons the United States Army taught to thousands of Latin American military and police officers at the School of the Americas during the 1980s. A training manual recently released by the Pentagon recommended interrogation techniques like torture, execution, blackmail and arresting the relatives of those being questioned. 3

SOA graduates have led a number of military coups—so many that the Washington Post reported in 1968 that the school was "known throughout Latin America as the 'escuela de golpes' or coup school" 4—and are responsible for the murders of thousands of people, particularly in the 1980s, such as the Uraba massacre in Colombia; the El Mozote massacre, the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the rape and murder of four US

churchwomen and the Jesuit massacre in El Salvador; the La Cantuta massacre in Peru; the torture and murder of a UN worker in Chile; and hundreds of other human-rights abuses.

In the village of El Mozote, El Salvador, in December 1981, from 700 to 1,000 persons were reported killed, mostly the elderly, women and children, in extremely cruel and gruesome ways. 5 Ten of the twelve soldiers cited for the massacre were SOA graduates.

In the slaying of six Jesuit priests and two others in November 1989, the UN Truth Commission revealed that 19 of the 26 Salvadoran officers involved had been trained at the SOA. 6

The full scope of atrocities committed by SOA graduates will likely never be known because members of Latin American militaries are generally above the law. It has been rare that crimes by members of these militaries have been investigated, and rarer still that the names of those suspected have been released.

The SOA has always claimed that it doesn't teach its students how to torture or how to commit other human-rights abuses. When the truth was revealed by the release of the

training manuals, the SOA claimed that it had changed. But only one of 42 courses in the 1996 course catalogue—"Democratic Sustainment"—centers on issues of democracy and human rights. In 1997, only 13 students took this course, compared with 118 who took

"Military Intelligence". The "mandatory human-rights component" of other courses comprises only a very small portion of the total course hours. Former SOA human-rights instructor Charles Call has reported that human-rights training is not taken seriously at the school, comprising an insignificant amount of students' overall training. 7

Access

Why, in the face of decades of terrible publicity, increasingly more militant protests, thousands of arrests, and sharply decreasing Congressional support, has the Pentagon clung to the School of the Americas? What is it that's so vital to the military brass? The answer may lie in this: the school and its students, along with a never-ending supply of US military equipment to countries around the world, are part of a package that serves the US foreign policy agenda in a special way. The package is called "access". Along with the equipment come American technicians, instructors, replacement parts and more. Here is the testimony before Congress of General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief, US Central Command (CENTCOM), in 1990.

Security assistance leads directly to access, and without access afforded by our friends we cannot project U.S. military forces into [an] area and stay there for any appreciable length of time...[If] our military assistance programs diminish, our influence will erode and we will come to the point where we will have little or no ability to control the use of the weapons or the escalation of hostilities...The second pillar of our strategy is presence. It is the symbol of America's continued interest in and commitment to stability in the region...The third pillar of CENTCOM's strategy is combined [military] exercises. They demonstrate our resolve and commitment to the region. They foster increased cooperation, and they enhance our ability to work with our friends in a coalition environment." 8

Thus it is that military aid, military exercises, naval port visits, etc.—like the School of the Americas—means repeated opportunities to foster close ties, even camaraderie, between American officers and foreign military personnel; and, at the same time, the opportunity to build up files of information on many thousands of these foreigners, as well as acquiring language skills, maps and photos of the area. In sum total: personal connections, personal information, country data bases—indispensable assets in time of coup, counter-coup, revolution, counter-revolution or invasion.

US military presence has, in effect, served the purpose of "casing the joint"; it also facilitates selecting candidates, not just Latin Americans for SOA, but thousands of military and police personnel from other continents who come to the US for training at scores of other military schools; the process of access replenishes itself. It is not unusual for the military-to-military contacts to thrive even while diplomatic relations between Washington and the students' government are rather cool (in recent years, e.g., Algeria, Syria and Lebanon)—another indication of the priority given to the contacts. 9

Historically, as shown in this chapter and others, strong military' to-military ties have tended to undermine civilian institutions and fuel human-rights abuses, particularly in Latin America, where fledgling democracies are now trying to keep their militaries in the barracks.

The equipment $ale$ that access leads to ain't bad either.

The New Improved School of the Americas

When Congress came close to ending funding for the school in fall 1999, the Defense Department finally saw the writing on the wall. It announced in November that it was planning on making major changes by spring 2000—making the focus less strictly military and more academic; admitting civilian students as well as military; teaching democratic principles, etc.; changing the name to the Center for Inter-American Security Cooperation.

The question remains: Why keep the school at all? Are there not enough academic schools here and in Latin America that fill the bill? Americans don't have free university education. Why should we provide it for foreigners?

The answer appears to be the factor that the changes wouldn't affect—access; perhaps new, improved access, inasmuch as in addition to military students, there will be access to present and future political and civilian leaders as students. 10

In any event, there will still be the numerous other military training facilities for foreigners in the US, in addition to the extensive training the Pentagon carries out abroad.

Office of Public Safety schools

From the early 1960s until the mid 1970s, the US Office of Public Safety (part of AID), operated The International Police Academy, at first in Panama, then in Washington. It did for foreign police officers what the SOA did for the military. OPS provided training abroad for more than a million policemen in the Third World, ten thousand of whom were selected to come to Washington for advanced training. There may well have been more serious human-rights abusers amongst the OPS police students than amongst the SOA military graduates because of the former's closer and more frequent contact with the populace. Moreover, most of the classes were held abroad, where the instructors could feel less constrained than in Washington or Georgia about lecturing in a very militant manner on "the communist menace" and the use of any means necessary to combat it.

Amongst the means sometimes taught was torture. (See "Torture" chapter.) OPS provided the police with weapons, ammunition, radios, patrol cars, tear gas, gas masks, batons and other crowd control devices; a class on Assassination Weapons—"A discussion of various weapons which may be used by the assassin" is how OPS put it; and instruction on the design, manufacture and employment of bombs and incendiary

devices, taught at the "bomb school" in Los Fresnos, Texas. The official OPS explanation for the bomb courses was that policemen needed such training in order to deal with bombs placed by terrorists. There was, however, no instruction in destroying bombs, only in making them. 11

When Congress abolished the Public Safety Program in 1975 in response to rising criticism of this dark side of American foreign policy, the Drug Enforcement Administration, with help from the FBI and the Defense Department, quietly stepped in and continued the program. 12 In various reincarnations, the program continues, just as the School of the Americas made it to the 21st century. 13

Brazil

The Escola Superior de Guerra (Higher War College), founded in Rio de Janeiro in 1949, allowed the United States to foster relationships with Brazilian officers similar to those with SOA students, while passing on a similar political mentality. Latin America historian Thomas E. Skidmore has observed:

Under the U.S.-Brazilian military agreements of the early 1950s, the U.S. Army received exclusive rights to render assistance in the organization and operation of the college, which had been modeled on the National War College in Washington. In view of the fact that the Brazilian War College became a rallying point for leading military opponents of civilian populist politicians, it would be worth examining the extent to which the strongly anti-Communist ideology—bordering on an anti-political attitude—was reinforced (or moderated?) by their frequent contacts with United States officers. 14

There was, moreover, the ongoing US Military Assistance Program, which US

Ambassador Lincoln Gordon described in a March 1964 cable to the State Department as a "major vehicle for establishing close relationships with personnel of the armed forces"

and "a highly important factor in influencing [the Brazilian] military to be pro-US." 15

Just weeks after this cable was sent, the Brazilian military overthrew a populist government which was on Washington's hate/hit list.

War Criminals: Theirs and Ours

On December 3, 1996, the US Justice Department issued a list of 16 Japanese citizens who would be barred from entering the United States because of "war crimes" committed during the Second World War. Among those denied entry were some who were alleged to have been members of the infamous "Unit 731," which, said the Justice Department,

"conducted inhumane and frequently lethal pseudo-medical experiments—on thousands of...prisoners and civilians," including mass dissections of living humans. 1 Oddly enough, after the war the man in charge of the Unit 731 program—whose test subjects

included captured American soldiers—General Shiro Ishii, along with a number of his colleagues, had been granted immunity and freedom in exchange for providing the United States with details about their experiments, and were promised that their crimes would not be revealed to the world. The justification for this policy, advanced by American scientists and military officials, was, of course, the proverbial, ubiquitous

"national security." 2

Apart from the hypocrisy of the Justice Department including Unit 731 members on such a list, we are faced with the fact that any number of countries would be justified in issuing a list of Americans barred from entry because of "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." Such a list might include the following: William Clinton, president, for his merciless bombing of the people of Yugoslavia for 78

days and nights, taking the lives of many hundreds of civilians, and producing one of the greatest ecological catastrophes in history; for his relentless continuation of the sanctions and rocket attacks upon the people of Iraq; and for his illegal and lethal bombings of Somalia, Bosnia, Sudan and Afghanistan.

General Wesley Clark, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, for his direction of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia with an almost sadistic fanaticism..."He would rise out of his seat and slap the table. Tve got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign—

now!'" 3

George Bush, president, for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including many thousands of children, the result of his 40 days of bombing and the institution of draconian sanctions; and for his unconscionable bombing of Panama, producing widespread death, destruction and homelessness, for no discernible reason that would stand up in a court of law.

General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for his prominent role in the attacks on Panama and Iraq, the latter including destruction of nuclear reactors as well as plants making biological and chemical agents. It was the first time ever that live reactors had been bombed, and ran the risk of setting a dangerous precedent. Hardly more than a month had passed since the United Nations, under whose mandate the United States was supposedly operating in Iraq, had passed a resolution reaffirming its "prohibition of military attacks on nuclear facilities" in the Middle East. 4 In the wake of the destruction, Powell gloated: "The two operating reactors they had are both gone, they're down, they're finished." 5 He was just as cavalier about the lives of the people of Iraq. In response to a question concerning the number of Iraqis killed in the war, the good general replied: "It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." 6

And for his part in the cover up of war crimes in Vietnam by troops of the same brigade that carried out the My Lai massacre. 7

General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander in Chief, US Central Command, for his military leadership of the Iraqi carnage; for continuing the carnage two days after the cease-fire; for continuing it against Iraqis trying to surrender.

Ronald Reagan, president, for eight years of death, destruction, torture and the crushing of hope inflicted upon the people of El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Grenada by his policies; and for his bombings of Lebanon, Libya and Iran. He's forgotten all this, but the world shouldn't.

Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State under Reagan, for rewriting history, even as it was happening, by instituting lying as public policy. He was indispensable to putting the best possible face on the atrocities being committed daily by the Contras in Nicaragua and by other Washington allies in Central America, thus promoting continued support for them; a spinmeister for the ages, who wrestled facts into ideological submission. "When history is written," he declared, "the Contras will be folk heroes." 8

Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense for seven years under Reagan, for his official and actual responsibility for the numerous crimes against humanity perpetrated by the United States in Central America and the Caribbean, and for the bombing of Libya in 1986. George Bush pardoned him for Iran-Contra, but he should not be pardoned for his war crimes.

Lt. Col. Oliver North, assigned to Reagan's National Security Council, for being a prime mover behind the Contras of Nicaragua, and for his involvement in the planning of the invasion of Grenada, which took the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians.

Henry Kissinger (who has successfully combined three careers: scholar, Nobel peace laureate, and war criminal), National Security Adviser under Nixon and Secretary of State under Nixon and Ford, for his Machiavellian, amoral, immoral roles in the US

interventions into Angola, Chile, East Timor, Iraq, Vietnam and Cambodia, which brought unspeakable horror and misery to the peoples of those lands.

Gerald Ford, president, for giving his approval to Indonesia to use American arms to brutally suppress the people of East Timor, thus setting in motion a quarter-century-long genocide.

Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense under presidents Kennedy and Johnson, a prime architect of, and major bearer of responsibility for, the slaughter in Indochina, from its early days to its extraordinary escalations; and for the violent suppression of popular movements in Peru.

General William Westmoreland, Army Chief of Staff, for the numerous war crimes under his command in Vietnam. In 1971, Telford Taylor, the chief US prosecutor at the post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal, cited the "Yamashita" case as grounds for indicting Westmoreland. Following the war, a US Army Commission had sentenced Japanese general Tomayuki Yamashita to be hung for atrocities committed by his troops in the

Philippines. The Commission held that as the senior commander, Yamashita was responsible for not stopping the atrocities. The same ruling could of course apply to General Powell and General Schwarzkopf. Yamashita, in his defense, presented considerable evidence that he had lacked the communications to adequately control his troops; yet he was still hung. Taylor pointed out that with helicopters and modern communications, Westmoreland and his commanders didn't have this problem. 9

The crime of bombing

As mentioned in the "Bombings" chapter, the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. This is a legacy of World War II. The Nuremberg and Tokyo judgments are silent on the subject of aerial bombardment. Since both sides had played a terrible game of urban destruction—the Allies far more successfully—there was no basis for criminal charges against Germans or Japanese, and in fact no such charges were brought. But as Telford Taylor has asked: "Is there any significant difference between killing a babe-in-arms by a bomb dropped from a high-flying aircraft, or by an infantryman's point-blank gunfire?...The aviator's act [is described] as more 'impersonal' than the ground soldier's. This may be psychologically valid, but surely is not morally satisfactory." 10

No one ever thinks they're guilty of anything...they're all just good ol' patriots

"Asked whether he wants to apologize for the suffering he caused, he looks genuinely confused, has the interpreter repeat the question, and answers 'No'...'I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country."' Journalist Nate Thayer interviewing a dying Pol Pot, 1997 11

How to deal with the unthinkable

At the close of World War II, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East was held. At the trial in Tokyo of former Japanese prime minister Hideki Tojo, his lawyers asked why Tojo's crimes were any worse than dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At that moment, the prosecution interrupted the Japanese translation and ordered the removal of the remarks in the official trial record and in the press. 12

Another unthinkable

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ("Genocide Convention"), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948..."The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish."

The Convention then goes on to define genocide as certain acts, listed therein,

"committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."

Missing from this list is perhaps the most significant manifestation of genocide in modern times: the extermination of people because of their political ideology. The Nazis became notorious for their slaughter of Jews and Gypsies, but German fascism, as in Italy, Spain, Greece, Chile, Indonesia, and elsewhere, was firstly and primarily directed against socialists and communists, regardless of any other characteristic. (Hitler, in any event, largely equated Jews and communists.)

As can be seen in the chapter on "Interventions" and in other chapters—from China and the Philippines in the 1940s to Colombia and Mexico in the 1990s, the United States has long been practicing this politicide. However, the CEOs of The World's Only Superpower can rest easy. There will be no international convention against it, and no American official will ever have to answer to a court for it. 13

Yugoslavia—another war-crimes trial that will never be

Beginning about two weeks after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began in March 1999, international-law professionals from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece and the American Association of Jurists began to file complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and officials of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had issued indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges filed were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including

"wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences."

The Canadian suit names 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark and Jamie Shea. The complaint also alleges "open violation"

of the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions and the Principles of International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

The complaint was submitted along with a considerable amount of evidence to support the charges. The evidence makes the key point that it was NATO's bombing campaign which had given rise to the bulk of the deaths in Yugoslavia, provoked most of the Serbian atrocities, created an environmental disaster and left a dangerous legacy of unexploded depleted uranium and cluster bombs.

In June, some of the complainants met in The Hague with the court's chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour of Canada. Although she cordially received their brief in person, along with three thick volumes of evidence documenting the alleged war crimes, nothing of substance came of the meeting, despite repeated followup submis-sions and letters by

the plaintiffs. In November, her successor, Carla Del Ponte of Switzerland, also met with some of the complainants and received extensive evidence.

The complainants' brief in November pointed out that the prosecution of those named by them was "not only a requirement of law, it is a requirement of justice to the victims and of deterrence to powerful countries such as those in NATO who, in their military might and in their control over the media, are lacking in any other natural restraint such as might deter less powerful countries." Charging the war's victors, not only its losers, it was argued, would be a watershed in international criminal law.

In one of the letters to Arbour, Michael Mandel, a professor of law in Toronto and the initiator of the Canadian suit, stated:

Unfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised about the impartiality of your Tribunal In the early days of the conflict, after a formal and, in our view, justified complaint against NATO leaders had been laid before it by members of the Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you appeared at a press conference with one of the accused, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of Serbian war crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press conference with US

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the subject of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of civilians in Yugoslavia. Albright publicly announced at that time that the US was the major provider of funds for the Tribunal and that it had pledged even more money to it. 14

Arbour herself made little attempt to hide the pro-NATO bias she wore beneath her robe.

She trusted NATO to be its own police, judge, jury and prison guard. In a year in which the arrest of General Pinochet was giving an inspiring lift to the cause of international law and international justice, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, under Arbour's leadership, ruled that for the Great Powers it would be business as usual, particularly the Great Power that was most vulnerable to prosecution, and which, coincidentally, paid most of her salary. Here are her own words: I am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of international humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of NATO countries. I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct their operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in full compliance with international humanitarian law. I have reminded many of them, when the occasion presented itself, of their obligation to conduct fair and open-minded investigations of any possible deviance from that policy, and of the obligation of commanders to prevent and punish, if required. 15

NATO Press Briefing, May 16, 1999:

Question: Does NATO recognize Judge Arbour's jurisdiction over their activities?

Jamie Shea: I think we have to distinguish between the theoretical and the practical. I believe that when Justice Arbour starts her investigation [of the Serbs], she will because

we will allow her to...NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to set up the Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers.

The Tribunal—created in 1993, with the US as the father, the Security Council as the mother, and Madeleine Albright as the midwife—also relies on the military assets of the NATO powers to track down and arrest the suspects it tries for war crimes.

There appeared to be no more happening with the complaint under Del Ponte than under Arbour, but in late December, in an interview with The Observer of London, Del Ponte was asked if she was prepared to press charges against NATO personnel. She replied: "If I am not willing to do that, I am not in the right place. I must give up my mission."

The Tribunal then announced that it had completed a study of possible NATO crimes, which Del Ponte was examining, and that the study was an appropriate response to public concerns about NATO's tactics. "It is very important for this tribunal to assert its authority over any and all authorities to the armed conflict within the former Yugoslavia."

Was this a sign from heaven that the new millennium was going to be one of more equal justice? Could this really be?

No, it couldn't. From official quarters, military and civilian, of the United States and Canada, came disbelief, shock, anger, denials..."appalling"..."unjustified". Del Ponte got the message. Four days after The Observer interview appeared, her office issued a statement: "NATO is not under investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is no formal inquiry into the actions of NATO during the conflict in Kosovo." 16 And there wouldn't be, it was unnecessary to add.

But the claim against NATO—heretofore largely ignored by the American media—was now out in the open. It was suddenly receiving a fair amount of publicity, and supporters of the bombing were put on the defensive. The most common argument made in NATO's defense, and against war-crime charges, has been that the death and devastation inflicted upon the civilian sector was "accidental". This claim, however, must be questioned in light of certain reports. For example, the commander of NATO's air war, Lt. Gen.

Michael Short, declared at one point:

If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, "Hey, Slobo, what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?" 17

General Short, said the New York Times, "hopes that the distress of the Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in Belgrade." 18

At another point, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea added: "If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign." 19

After the April NATO bombing of a Belgrade office building—which housed political parties, TV and radio stations, 100 private companies and more—the Washington Post reported:

Over the past few days, U.S. officials have been quoted as expressing the hope that members of Serbia's economic elite will begin to turn against Milosevic once they understand how much they are likely to lose by continuing to resist NATO demands. 20

Before missiles were fired into this building, NATO planners spelled out the risks:

"Casualty Estimate 50-100 Government/Party employees. Unintended Civ Casualty Est: 250—Apts in expected blast radius." 21 The planners were saying that about 250 civilians living in nearby apartment buildings might be killed in the bombing. What do we have here? We have grown men telling each other: We'll do A, and we think that B may well be the result. But even if B does in fact result, we're saying beforehand—as we'll insist afterward—that it was unintended.

Following World War II there was an urgent need for a permanent international criminal court to prosecute those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, but the Cold War intervened. Finally, in 1998 in Rome, the nations of the world drafted the charter of the International Criminal Court. American negotiators, however, insisted on provisions in the charter that would, in essence, give the United States veto power over any prosecution through its seat on the Security Council. The American request was rejected, and primarily for this reason the US refused to join 120 other nations who supported the charter. The ICC is an instrument Washington can't control sufficiently to keep it from prosecuting American military and government officials. Senior US officials have explicitly admitted that this danger is the reason for their aversion to the proposed new court. 22 But this is clearly not the case with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. It's Washington's kind of international court, a court for the New World Order.

Washington journalist Sam Smith observed in 1999: "It seems that the international war crimes tribunal has been taking selective enforcement lessons from the New Jersey State Police. The only war criminals it indicted this week were those with hard-to-spell foreign names. No one with a simple Anglican name—say like Clinton or Blair—was charged."

During its destructive military operations in Yugoslavia, the United States was supremely unconcerned about the possibility that anyone would even consider filing charges against NATO at the Hague, yet we now know that: "Midway through the war with Yugoslavia, the Defense Department's top legal office issued guidelines warning that misuse of cyber attacks could subject U.S. authorities to war crimes charges." This was a reference to the fact that the Pentagon's was considering hacking into Serbian computer networks to disrupt military operations and basic civilian services. 23

Haven for Terrorists

I n 1998, the State Department issued its annual human-rights report, listing Cuba amongst those nations alleged to "sponsor terrorism". Curious about this, I called up the State Department and was connected to what they called "The Terrorism Desk", where a gentleman named Joe Reap told me that Cuba was included because "They harbor terrorists."

"So does the United States," I replied. "The Cuban exiles in Miami have committed hundreds of terrorist acts, in the US and abroad."

Mr. Reap exploded. "Sir," he cried in a rising voice, "that is a fatuous remark and I will not listen to such nonsense!" And he hung up.

Unrepentant trouble-maker that I am, the following year, May 4, 1999 to be exact, when the new human-rights report was issued (does the word "self-righteous" ring a bell with the folks at the State Department?), I again called 202-647-8682, and again 'twas Joe Reap who answered. I doubt he knew that I was the same caller as the year before but, in any event, we went through the same dance steps. When I repeated my comment about the Cuban terrorists being harbored in Miami, he became instantly indignant and said that they were not terrorists.

"But the FBI has labeled some of them just that," I said.

"Then take it up with the FBI," said Joe.

"But we're discussing a State Department report," I pointed out.

His voice rose..."I will not listen to people call this government a terrorist sponsor!"

Phone slammed down. The intervening year had not mellowed ol' Joe any more than it had me.

It's always fascinating to observe how a True Believer reacts to a sudden, unexpected and unanswerable threat to his fundamental ideological underpinnings.

The Cuban exiles are in fact one of the longest-lasting and most prolific terrorist groups in the world, and they're still at it. During 1997 they carried out a spate of hotel bombings in Havana, directed from Miami. 1

Hijacking is generally regarded as a grave international crime, but although there have been numerous air and boat hijackings over the years from Cuba to the US, at gunpoint, knifepoint and/or with the use of physical force, including at least one murder, it's difficult to find more than a single instance where the United States brought criminal

charges against the hijackers. In August 1996, three Cubans who hijacked a plane to Florida at knifepoint were indicted and brought to trial. In Florida. This is like trying someone for gambling in a Nevada court. Even though the kidnapped pilot was brought back from Cuba to testify against the men, the defense simply told the jurors that the man was lying, and the jury deliberated less than an hour before acquitting the defendants. 2

Cubans are not the only foreign terrorists or serious human-rights violators who have enjoyed safe haven in the United States in recent years. Like the Cubans, the others listed below are fervent anti-communists, or in some other way are compatible with past or present US foreign-policy objectives. (For sources not indicated, see this note. 3) There's former Guatemalan Defense Minister Hector Gramajo Morales. In 1995, a US

court ordered Gramajo to pay $47.5 million in damages to eight Guatemalans and a US

citizen for his responsibility in the torture of the American (Sister Dianna Ortiz—see

"Torture" chapter) and the massacre of family members of the Guatemalans (among thousands of other Indians whose death he was responsible for). Gramajo had been served a court summons in 1991 as he gradu-ated from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where he had studied on a scholarship provided by the US

government. The judge stated that "The evidence suggests that Gramajo devised and directed the implementation of an indiscriminate campaign of terror against civilians." It was only following the court judgment that the Defense Department withdrew Gramajo's invitation to speak at a military seminar. 4 Gramajo subsequently returned to Guatemala, without having paid any of the court judgment. In speaking of his previous residence in Guatemala, he said that he had carried out what he described as "a more humanitarian"

means of dealing with perceived dissenters. "We instituted civil affairs [in 1982] which provides development for 70 percent of the population, while we kill 30 percent. Before, the strategy was to kill 100 percent." 5

Florida is the retirement home of choice for serious human-rights violators seeking to depart from the scene of their crimes. Former general Jose Guillermo Garcia, head of El Salvador's armed forces in the 1980s, when military-linked death squads killed thousands of people suspected of being "subversives", has lived in Florida since the early 1990s.

Garcia's successor, Gen. Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, who also served as the head of the much-feared national guard, is now a resident of the sunshine state too. According to the UN Truth Commission for El Salvador, Vides covered up for and protected those who raped and murdered three American nuns and a lay worker in 1980. He was physically present on at least two occasions when Dr. Juan Romagoza Arce was tortured; in the end, the injuries inflicted on Arce left him unable to perform surgery. (Interviewed in 1999, Vides was moved to declare: "I ask myself over and over if there is anything I have done wrong, and I can't find anything.")

During the time that Garcia and Vides have lived in the United States, US Immigration has been denying asylum status to many refugees from El Salvador even though they've claimed they were in fear of being tortured or losing their lives if sent back.

Numerous Haitian human-rights violators have resided in the United States in recent years, unmolested by the authorities. Their hands and souls are bloody from carrying out the repression of the Duvalier dynasty, or the overthrow of the democratically elected Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991, or the return to repression after the coup. Among their numbers are:

Luckner Cambronne, Haiti's minister of the interior and defense under Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier and adviser to his son and successor, Jean Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier.

Army Lt. Col. Paul Samuel Jeremie. After Baby Doc was forced to abdicate in 1986, Jeremie was convicted of torturing Duvalier opponents and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He escaped in 1988.

General Prosper Avril, another Haitian dictator, responsible for the torture of opposition activists, whom he then displayed, bloodied, on television. Forced out by angry mobs in 1990, he was flown to Florida by the US government, where he might have lived happily ever after except that some of his former torture victims brought suit against him. At one point in the process, he failed to make a court appearance and thus defaulted. He fled to several countries trying to find haven. Meanwhile, in 1994, a US federal judge awarded $41 million to six Haitians living in the US.

During the period of Aristide's exile, 1991-94, Colonel Carl Dorelien oversaw a 7,000-man force whose well-documented campaign of butchery included murder, rape, kidnapping and torture, leading to the deaths of some 5,000 Haitian civilians. The good colonel has found a home in Florida as well.

We also have leading Haitian death-squad leader Emmanuel Constant, former head of FRAPH, the paramilitary group of thugs which spread deep fear amongst the Haitian people with its regular murders, torture, public beatings, arson raids on poor neighborhoods and mutilation by machete in the aftermath of the coup against Aristide.

He was on the CIA payroll in Haiti and now lives in New York. The State Department refused a Haitian extradition request for Constant and stopped his deportation back to that country. Constant apparently knows of a lot of skeletons in the American closet.

Other Haitians of this ilk residing in the United States include Major General Jean-Claude Duperval, and Ernst Prud'homme, a former high-ranking member of the Bureau du Information et Coordination, a notoriously violent propaganda unit.

Armando Fernandez Larios, a member of a Chilean military squad responsible for the torture and execution of at least 72 political prisoners in the month following the 1973

coup, is now residing in the United States. Fernandez has publicly acknowledged his service as a member of the military squad, as well as his role as an agent of Chile's notorious secret police, the DINA, during the Pinochet regime. He struck a plea bargain with US government prosecutors, pleading guilty to being an "accessory after the fact" in the DINA-sponsored 1976 Washington, DC bombing murder of former Chilean dissident official Orlando Letelier. The Chilean government reportedly would like Fernandez

extradited from the US, but his lawyer in Miami has said that the 1987 plea-agreement between his client and the Department of Justice stipulated that Fernandez would never be returned to Chile. Department of Justice officials have declined to comment on the degree of Fernandez's protection under the terms of the agreement, which is under court seal. 6

Michael Townley of Chile played an even more significant role in the Letelier assassination. He served some time in a US prison and is now in the Federal Witness Protection Program. So if you see him, you don't know him.

Argentine admiral Jorge Enrico, who was associated with the Escuela Mecanica in Buenos Aires, the infamous torture center of the "Dirty War" period (1976-83), now freely enjoys Hawaii when he wishes.

At least two former members of the Honduran army's Battalion 316 (see "Torture"

chapter), a CIA-trained intelligence unit that murdered hundreds of suspected leftists in the 1980s, are also known to be living the good life in South Florida.

Kebassa Negawa of Ethiopia was a defendant in an Atlanta case for torture. When he lost the case and his wages began to be garnished, he disappeared.

Also a resident is Sintong Panjaitan, an Indonesian general responsible for the 1991 Santa Cruz massacre in East Timor that took hundreds of lives.

At Washington's insistence, Thiounn Prasith was the Cambodian envoy to the United Nations for Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge from 1979 to 1993, even though the Khmer Rouge were ousted from power in 1979. Prasith was a leading apologist for Pol Pot's horrendous crimes and played a major role in their cover up. (See "Pol Pot" chapter.) He resides in peace and comfort in Mount Vernon, New York. 7

General Mansour Moharari, an Iranian who was in charge of prisons under the Shah, and thus is no stranger to the practice of torture, has lived in the US for many years despite a price being put on his head by the Iranian mullahs.

Twenty former South Vietnamese officers who have admitted to committing torture and other human-rights violations during the Vietnam War are residing legally in California.8

Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, numerous other Vietnamese in California carried out a violent terrorist campaign against their countrymen who were deemed not sufficiently anti-communist, sometimes merely for calling for resumption of contacts with Hanoi; others were attacked simply for questioning the terrorists' actions. Under names such as "Anti-Communist Viets Organization" and "Vietnamese Organization to Exterminate Communists and Restore the Nation", on hundreds of occasions they assaulted and murdered, burned down businesses and vehicles, forced Vietnamese newspapers to cease publishing, issued death threats, engaged in extortion and many other aspects of organized crime... all with virtual impunity, even with numerous

witnesses to some murders. In the few cases where arrests were made, suspects were generally released or acquitted; the few who were convicted had their wrists slapped.9

This clear pattern of law-enforcement neglect suggests some kind of understanding with higher-ups in Washington. If there was indeed a "see-no-evil" federal policy, the most likely explanation would be the powerful, lingering antipathy toward any Vietnamese with a presumed leaning toward Hanoi.

Additionally, a number of persons from the former Yugoslavia who have been accused of war crimes by their fellow nationals are also living in the US, although in most cases it appears to be due to American bureaucratic failings, rather than a knowing offering of haven to the henchmen of former allies.

The above doesn't include all the dictators cum terrorists whom the United States was kind enough to fly to safe havens in third countries (enabling them to be reunited with their bank accounts), such as those from Haiti who are still alive: Gen. Raoul Cedras and President Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier; as well as the nefarious police chief Joseph Michel Francois.

In 1998 President Clinton went before the United Nations to speak about terrorism.

"What are our global obligations?" he asked. "To give terrorists no support, no sanctuary." 10

Extradite or prosecute

The system of international criminal prosecution covering genocide, terrorism, war crimes and torture makes all governments responsible for the criminal prosecution of offenders. Under this basic principle of "universal enforcement," countries where alleged offenders are found are obligated either to extradite them for prosecution by a more directly affected government (e.g., the country where the offenses were committed, or the country of citizenship of the victims or the abusers), or to initiate prosecution themselves.

The Pinochet case in the UK was begun in 1998 as an example of this.

The US government strongly supports this principle of "extradite or prosecute" in theory, and in fact invoked it a few years ago in a proceeding before the International Court of Justice as the basis for seeking extradition from Libya of two men alleged to be responsible for the bombing of Pan Am flight 103. The US government also strongly supports the application of this principle to those indicted for war crimes by the International War Crimes Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. One of those indicted as a war criminal by the Rwanda tribunal was discovered in Texas, arrested, and bound over for criminal extradition by a federal court in that state. 11

Yet, when it comes to the relics of the Cold War being given haven in the US, as listed above, Washington chooses to neither prosecute nor extradite, although Cuba, for one, has asked for the extradition of a number of individuals.

Zero tolerance for other havens

Presidential Decision Directive 39, signed by President Clinton in 1995, states: If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation.

Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government. 12

So determined was the Clinton administration to punish other states that compete with the US in harboring terrorists, that in February 1999 it asserted the right to bomb government facilities in such nations. "We may not just go in a strike against a terrorist facility; we may choose to retaliate against the facilities of the host country, if that host country is a knowing, cooperative sanctuary," Richard Clarke, President Clinton's coordinator for counter-terrorism, declared. 13

I tried to reach Mr. Clarke at his White House office to ask him what he thought of the proposition that Cuba could justifiably designate the United States as a "knowing, cooperative sanctuary" and bomb CIA headquarters or a Cuban exile office in Miami, amongst other sites. However, I was told that he was "not available to the general public to speak to". Pity. So I sent him a letter posing these questions, with little expectation of an answer. I was not disappointed.

Supporting Pol Pot

The Killing Fields...the borders sealed, the cities emptied at gunpoint, a forced march to the countryside... be ing a professional, knowing a foreign language, wearing eyeglasses, almost anything, might be cause enough for persecution, execution...or the overwork will kill you, or a beating, or the hunger, or disease. For whatever reason: shortage of food, creation of an agrarian society impervious to the economic world order, internal party power, security...well over a million dead at the hands of the Cambodian Communist Party, the Khmer Rouge, under Pol Pot, after ousting the US-supported regime of Lon Nol...the world is horrified, comparisons to the Nazi genocide mushroom, "worse than Hitler" is Pol Pot...

Four years later, January 1979, Vietnam—responding to years of attacks by the Khmer Rouge against ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia and cross-border raids into Vietnam itself—invaded what was now called Kampuchea, overthrew Pol Pot's government, and installed a government friendly to Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge forces retreated to the western end of Cambodia, by the border with Thailand, and later some set up camp in Thailand itself.

Washington's reaction was not any kind of elation that the Cambodian nightmare had come to an end, but rather undisguised displeasure that the hated Vietnamese were in control and credited with ousting the terrible Khmer Rouge. For years afterwards, the

United States condemned Vietnam's actions as "illegal". A lingering bitterness on the part of American cold warriors towards the small nation which monumental US power could not defeat appears to be the only explanation for this attitude. Humiliation runs deep, particularly when you're the world's only superpower.

Thus it was that an American policy took root—to provide the Khmer Rouge with food, financial aid and military aid beginning soon after their ouster 1 The aim, in conjunction with China and long-time American client state Thailand, was to restore Pol Pot's troops to military capability as the only force which could make the Vietnamese withdraw their army, leading to the overthrow of the Cambodian government.

President Carter's National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has stated that in the spring of 1979: "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the [Khmer Rouge]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people.[sic] Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could." 2

In November 1980, Ray Cline, former Deputy Director of the CIA, visited a Khmer Rouge enclave inside Cambodia in his capacity as senior foreign-policy adviser to President-elect Ronald Reagan. A Khmer Rouge press release said that Cline "was warmly greeted by thousands of villagers." 3 The Reagan administration was apparently preparing to continue the policy of opposition to the Vietnamese-supported Phnom Penh government.

Some of the relief organizations operating in Cambodia considered supporting the Khmer Rouge guerrillas inconsistent with their humanitarian goals, in addition to the fact that distributing aid to military personnel was impermissible for such organizations as UNICEF and the International Committee of the Red Cross. But as two American relief aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote: "Thailand, the country that hosted the relief operation, and the U.S. government, which funded the bulk of the relief operation, insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed." 4

In the 1979-81 period, the World Food Program, which was strongly under US influence, gave almost $12 million in food to the Thai Army to distribute to predominantly Khmer Rouge camps by the border. 5

In 1982, trying to remove the smell from the Khmer Rouge, the United States put together a coalition composed of the Khmer Rouge and two "non-communist" groups also opposed to the Cambodian government, one headed by former Cambodian ruler Prince Sihanouk.

The coalition became the recipient of much aid from the US and China, mainly tunneled through Thailand. The American aid, by the late 1980s, reached $5 million officially, with the CIA providing between $20 and $24 million behind Congress's back. 6 The aid was usually referred to as "non-lethal" or "humanitarian", but any aid freed up other money to be used to purchase military equipment in the world's arms markets. Officially, Washington was not providing any of this aid to the Khmer Rouge, but it knew full well

that Pol Pot's forces were likely to be the ultimate beneficiaries. As one US official put it:

"Of course, if the coalition wins, the Khmer Rouge will eat the others alive". 7 In any event, the CIA and the Chinese were supplying arms directly as well to the Khmer Rouge. 8

From 1985 on, there was a Federal law prohibiting the government from providing any money to Cambodia which would have the effect of helping the Khmer Rouge's fighting capacity, either directly or indirectly. 9 After reports appeared in 1990 that aid to the coalition was getting into the hands of the Khmer Rouge, the Bush administration announced an official halt to the program. 10 Whether this was a serious effort to comply with the law, or simply an effort at damage control is not known; nor is it clear how long the halt lasted, if indeed it was halted at all. The following February, the administration acknowledged to Congress that there may have been "tactical military cooperation"

between US-backed non-communist forces and the Khmer Rouge during an unspecified period. 11

The Khmer Rouge were meanwhile using this aid to regularly attack Cambodian villages, seed minefields, kill peasants and make off with their rice and cattle. But they never seriously threatened the Phnom Penh government.

The United States also successfully defended the right of the Khmer Rouge to the United Nations' Cambodian seat, although their government had ceased to exist in January 1979.

They held the seat until 1993. Beginning in 1982, the seat ostensibly represented the coalition, but the chief UN representative, Thiounn Prasith, was a leading apologist for Pol Pot's horrendous crimes and played a major role in their cover up. When asked by Newsweek about reports that a million Cambodians had perished under Pol Pot's rule, he said: "We estimate between 10,000 and 20,000 persons were killed, 80 per cent of them by Vietnamese agents who infiltrated our government." 12

During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, the United States pressed for the dismantling of the Cambodian government and the inclusion of the Khmer Rouge in an interim government and in elections, 13 despite still-lingering revulsion against Pol Pot and his followers amongst the Cambodian people and the international community, and despite the fact that the Vietnamese withdrew virtually all their forces from Cambodia in September 1989.

The death of Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot has again brought to international attention one of the most tragic chapters of inhumanity in the twentieth century—senior Khmer Rouge, who exercised leadership from 1975 to 1979, are still at large and share responsibility for the monstrous human rights abuses committed during this period. We must not permit the death of the most notorious of the Khmer Rouge leaders to deter us from the equally important task of bringing these others to justice.

President William Clinton, April 16, 199814

United States Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Bombings

It is a scandal in contemporary international law, don't forget, that while "wanton destruction of towns, cities and villages" is a war crime of long standing, the bombing of cities from airplanes goes not only unpunished but virtually unaccused. Air bombardment is state terrorism, the terrorism of the rich. It has burned up and blasted apart more innocents in the past six decades than have all the antistate terrorists who ever lived.

Something has benumbed our consciousness against this reality. In the United States we would not consider for the presidency a man who had once thrown a bomb into a crowded restaurant, but we are happy to elect a man who once dropped bombs from airplanes that destroyed not only restaurants but the buildings that contained them and the neighborhoods that surrounded them. I went to Iraq after the Gulf War and saw for myself what the bombs did; "wanton destruction" is just the term for it.

C. Douglas Lummis, political scientist 1

The above was written in 1994, before the wanton destruction begot by the bombing of Yugoslavia, the latest in a long list of countries the United States has bombarded since the end of World War II, which is presented below.

There appears to be something about launching bombs or missiles from afar onto cities and people that appeals to American military and political leaders. In part it has to do with a conscious desire to not risk American lives in ground combat. And in part, perhaps not entirely conscious, it has to do with not wishing to look upon the gory remains of the victims, allowing American GIs and TV viewers at home to cling to their warm fuzzy feelings about themselves and their government.

Washington officials are careful to distinguish between the explosives the US drops from the sky and "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD), which only the officially-designated enemies (ODE) are depraved enough to use. The US government speaks sternly of WMD, defining them as nuclear, chemical and biological in nature, and "indiscriminate"

(meaning their use can't be limited to military objectives), as opposed to the likes of American "precision" cruise missiles. This is indeed a shaky semantic leg to stand on,

given the well-known extremely extensive damage to non-military targets, including numerous residences, schools and hospitals, in the bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia by American "smart" bombs.

Moreover, Washington does not apply the term "weapons of mass destruction" to other weapons the US has regularly used, such as landmines and cluster (anti-personnel) bombs, which are highly indiscriminate.

WMD are sometimes further defined as those whose effects linger in the environment, causing subsequent harm to people. This would certainly apply to landmines, cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons, the latter remaining dangerously radioactive after exploding. It would apply less to "conventional" bombs, but even with those there are unexploded bombs lying around, and the danger of damaged buildings later collapsing.

But more important, it seems highly self-serving and specious, not to mention exceptionally difficult, to try to paint a human face on a Tomahawk cruise missile whose payload of a thousand pounds of TNT crashes into the center of a densely-populated city, often with depleted uranium in its warhead.

A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force China 1945-46

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-1961

Guatemala 1960

Congo 1964

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Grenada 1983

Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1980s

Nicaragua 1980s

Iran 1987

Panama 1989

Iraq 1991

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1993

Bosnia 1994, 1995

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Plus?

China, 1999—its heavily bombed embassy in Belgrade is legally Chinese territory, and it appears rather certain now that the bombing was no accident (see chapter 25).

Bulgaria and Macedonia, 1999—both hit by US missiles during the bombing of Yugoslavia.

Pakistan, 1998—at least one missile fell on it during the bombing of Afghanistan.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 13, 1985—A bomb dropped by a police helicopter burned down an entire block, some 60 homes destroyed, 11 dead, including several small children. The police, the mayor's office and the FBI were all involved in this effort to evict a black organization called MOVE from the house they lived in.

Them other guys are really shocking

"We should expect conflicts in which adversaries, because of cultural affinities different from our own, will resort to forms and levels of violence shocking to our sensibilities."

Department of Defense, 1999 2

So is nature

What does the media call it when 10,000 persons in Central America die because of a hurricane? "A great human tragedy."

What does the Pentagon call it when 10,000 persons in Iraq die because of American bombing attacks? "A medium case scenario."

This was the estimate made during an internal discussion in 1998 by high-ranking Clinton administration officials on how to respond to Iraq's balking at the extent and nature of UN weapons inspections. 3

The US vs. Osama bin Laden

Something fundamentally peculiar has happened when the US government fires cruise missiles at an individual, Osama bin Laden. When has a government ever declared war on an individual?

The survivors

A study by the American Medical Association: "Psychiatric disorders among survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing":

Nearly half the bombing survivors studied had an active postdisaster psychiatric disorder, and full criteria for PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] were met by one third of the survivors. PTSD symptoms were nearly universal, especially symptoms of intrusive reexperience and hyperarousal. 4

Martin Kelly, publisher of a nonviolence website:

We never see the smoke and the fire, we never smell the blood, we never see the terror in the eyes of the children, whose nightmares will now feature screaming missiles from unseen terrorists, known only as Americans.

Depleted Uranium

“The United States,” wrote international environmental activist Dr. Helen Caldicott several years ago, “has conducted two nuclear wars. The first against Japan in 1945, the second in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991.”

We can now add a third. Yugoslavia in 1999.

Depleted uranium (DU) is a byproduct of the production of enriched fuel for nuclear reactors and weapons. It's used in the manufacture of armaments such as tank cartridges, bombs, rockets and missiles.

Because DU is denser than steel, shells containing it are capable of drilling a hole through the strongest of tank armors. But depleted uranium does have a drawback—it's radioactive. And like all heavy metals, uranium is chemically toxic. Upon impact with a target, DU aerosolizes into a fine mist of particles, which can be inhaled or ingested and then trapped in the lungs, the kidneys or elsewhere in the body. This can lead to lung cancer, bone cancer, kidney disease, genetic defects and other serious medical problems.

Or a person can be hit by DU shrapnel, and have a chunk of radioactive metal imbedded in their insides. One atomic scientist has asserted that DU particles thrown into the air by the round's impact, or by resultant fires and explosions, can be carried downwind for 25

miles or more. 1

In the Gulf War, countless Iraqi and American soldiers breathed in the deadly DU dust, the product of tens of thousands of DU rounds fired by US aircraft and tanks. A study by the Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm Association revealed that out of 10,051 Gulf War veterans who have reported mysterious illnesses, 82 percent had entered captured enemy vehicles, the main targets of DU weapons.

They did so in full innocence of even the existence of DU, let alone its danger. 2

In 1991, a report of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority warned that there was enough DU radioactive and toxic rubble left behind in Kuwait and southern Iraq to cause 500,000 deaths through increased cancer rates. This is not a realistic calculation because for it to happen all the DU munitions would have to be pulverized into dust and half a million people would have to line up in the desert and inhale equal quantities. But the fact remains that the DU debris was left lying there, in various states of smash-up, subject to any mishap, and with surface radioactivity that will last forever. Moreover, if DU gets into the food chain or water, the potential health problems will be multiplied. 3

And now it may well be in the soil, the ground water, the air and the lungs of Yugoslavia.

In 1995, Iraqi health officials reported alarmingly high increases in rare and unknown diseases, primarily in children, and presented a study of this state of affairs to the United Nations. The increases occurred in leukemia, carcinoma, cancers of the lung and digestive system, late'term miscarriages, congenital diseases, and deformities in fetuses, such as anencephaly (absence of a brain), and fused fingers and toes, not unlike those found in the babies of Gulf War veterans. The Austrian president of the International Yellow Cross, Dr. Siegwart Gunther, stated that there was one significant common denominator: the allies' use of depleted uranium in the bombing of Iraq. 4

In Scotland as well, DU has been linked to a leukemia cluster around the Ministry of Defense firing range at Dundrennan, near the Solway Firth. Communities close to the range, where 7,000 shells have been tested since 1983, reportedly show the highest rate of childhood leukemia in the UK. 5

Victims at home

The United States radiates and poisons its own as well. In training exercises, DU is dropped on the island of San Clemente off the California coast, and perhaps only on some future day will we realize what the effects were of what drifted across to the mainland by air and sea. That island is at least uninhabited, unlike the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico, where over 9,000 American citizens dwell They've had to endure almost 60 years of aerial target practice and war games, including the dropping of napalm, and in recent years, depleted uranium shells. Puerto Rican activists claim that Vieques has become contaminated with radioactivity, which contributes to a cancer rate among the island's inhabitants that is twice the national average. Studies have in fact shown that Vieques'

cancer rate is by far the highest of any of Puerto Rico's 78 municipalities. 6 Moreover, the island's drinking water has reportedly been contaminated by the chemical soup formed by the myriad pieces of ordnance that have fallen from the sky over the years; a civilian security guard was killed and four others were wounded in April 1999 by a bomb that missed its mark by three miles; the landscape is littered with bomb and shell casings, including some that the US Navy warns are still live; a container with three unexploded anti-tank rockets (presumably DU-tipped) was found in a civilian sector in 1997; and, amongst other mishaps, four years earlier five 500-pound bombs were dropped, and exploded, one-and-a-half miles from civilian homes. 7

In response to rising protests, US military officials told members of the Puerto Rico Senate that they couldn't conduct the exercises on the US East Coast because population centers were too close. For obvious reasons, this remark served only to increase the rage of many in the country. 8 President Clinton, however, showed a bit more sensitivity. He announced that the Navy will abandon the Vieques bombing range. Within five years. 9

Subsequently, Washington offered $40 million in aid to the island, and a further $50

million if the people, in a scheduled referendum, would vote, in effect, to stop putting their health and safety ahead of "national security".

And while we were all quietly and unconsciously living our lives these past decades, the military-industrial complex was quietly paying off members of Congress and state legislatures, and anyone else who could wink and nod, to allow the acquisition of large tracts of public land, primarily in western states, and permit end-runs around existing environmental and other laws, as well as pesky environmental activists. These hundreds of thousands of acres were then turned into depleted-uranium-weapons testing grounds in California, Nevada, Washington, New Mexico and other states.

In New Mexico, open-air testing of DU has been going on in some parts since 1950. Los Alamos National Laboratory, White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque—these are some of the famous institutions that blast DU munitions into mountains and soil, contaminating the ground, water and air; at the same time, using their not-inconsiderable influence to convince the state's citizens that—even though they admit the contamination—radiation levels are no more than the proverbial "background level", or within EPA safety levels, etc. As the old saying goes, just don't breathe the air or drink the water. And don't raise your babies anywhere nearby.

In Socorro, the residents did not know until 1986 that DU testing had been taking place since 1972 less than two miles from the town square, which is downwind from the proving grounds. Over the years, there have been a few scattered surveys and anecdotal evidence of a high incidence of the congenital birth defect hydrocephalus, but the year 1999 saw an increasing movement of Socorro citizens demanding broad epidemiological and contamination surveys of the area. 10

In April 1995, French general and military author Pierre-Marie Gallois observed, "If we equip these tanks with these sorts of munitions [DU], that means that chemical-nuclear war is morally allowable." 11 And legally allowable as well, perhaps, inasmuch as the United States is establishing precedents, albeit by the law of force rather than the force of law, as well as facilitating other precedents—Washington is doing a thriving business selling DU. As of late 1996, the Pentagon had already sold DU ammunition to Thailand, Taiwan, Bahrain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Greece, Korea, Turkey, Kuwait and other countries. 12

Cluster Bombs

The Pentagon puts them in the category of "combined effects munition." The manufacturer describes them as an "all-purpose, air-delivered cluster weapons system."

Human rights and anti-landmine campaigners say that cluster bombs are indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction, and they have requested that they be placed explicitly on the Geneva Convention list of banned weapons.

Cluster bombs are ingeniously designed. After being dropped from a plane, the heavy weapon breaks open in midair, scattering 200 or more "bomblets", the size of soda cans.

The bomblets then explode, shooting out hundreds of high-velocity shards of jagged steel shrapnel, saturating a very wide area. One description of cluster bombs says "they can spray incendiary material to start fires, chunks of molten metal that can pierce tanks and other armor, or shrapnel that can slice with ease through 1/4-inch plate—or human flesh and bone." 1

The yellow bomblets are aided by little parachutes which slow down their descent and disperse them so they hit plenty of what the manufacturer calls "soft targets"; i.e., people—military or civilian.

According to the Defense Department, US warplanes dropped 1,100 cluster bombs upon Yugoslavia in 1999, each carrying 202 bomblets. Thus, 222,200 of these weapons were propelled across the land. With a stated failure rate of 5 percent (other reports claim rates of 10 to 30 percent), this means that about 11,110 cluster bomblets were left lying unexploded 2, ready to detonate on contact, in effect becoming landmines. Some members of the US military oppose signing the International Treaty Banning the Use, Production, Stockpiling and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Landmines because the treaty's definition of land mines is broad enough to cover cluster bombs. Under the treaty, an anti-personnel mine is one "designed to be exploded by the presence, proximity or contact of a person and that will incapacitate, injure or kill one or more persons." Human-rights activists argue that since manufacturers of cluster bombs calculate "dud rates" into their design, the bombs can be included under the definition. 3 The treaty entered into force on March 1, 1999 without the United States being a signatory.

Unexploded bomblets are even more of a concern than regular landmines because children in particular are drawn to the colorful devices with the little parachutes. (On April 24, 1999, even before the bombing of Yugoslavia had come to an end, five young brothers playing with an unexploded cluster bomb were killed, and two cousins were severely injured, near Doganovic in southern Kosovo. 4) Landmines are usually laid down in more or less expected places, whereas unexploded bomblets can wind up in the back yards of homes, school playgrounds, anywhere. Moreover, the laying down of landmines is often tracked or mapped, the fields marked; not so with unexploded cluster bomblets.

Some of them are designed to self-destruct after a set time period, but whether any of those scattered about Yugoslavia are of this type has not been reported. In any event, the

Landmine Treaty does not recognize the distinction between "smart" and "dumb"

landmines.

When the bombing ended in June 1999, many areas of villages were left virtually uninhabitable, in desperate need of explosive experts who could find and incapacitate all the volatile live remnants. This will hinder agricultural and economic rehabilitation well into the future. Shortly after the end of the bombing, as people began to return to their villages and farms, more incidents involving the unexploded devices occurred, including one in which two British peacekeeping soldiers and three Albanians lost their lives in a Kosovo village. 5

The words of a Yugoslav orthopedist: "Neither I nor my colleagues have ever seen such horrific wounds as those caused by cluster bombs. They are wounds that lead to disabilities to a great extent. The limbs are so crushed that the only remaining option is amputation. It's awful, awful." 6

Unexploded ordnance-—mainly cluster bombs—is still killing and maiming people in Laos a generation after the massive US carpet-bombing of 1965-73. It is estimated that up to 30 percent of the two million tons of bombs dropped by the United States failed to explode, and there have been 11,000 accidents so far. "More than half of the victims die almost immediately following the accident. If the victim survives, the explosion often causes severe wounding and trauma, especially to the upper half of the body." 7 Vietnam and Cambodia harbor similar dangers. As does the Persian Gulf. A 1999 Human Rights Watch report says that of an estimated 24 to 30 million bomblets dropped during the Gulf War, between 1.2 and 1.5 million did not explode, leading so far to 1,220 Kuwaiti and 400 Iraqi civilian deaths. 8

The effects of the unexploded munitions from the bombing of Yugoslavia have reached beyond that country's borders. Two months after the war's end, 161 explosive devices, including 97 bomblets, had been recovered by NATO minesweepers in the Adriatic Sea.

The munitions caused deaths and injuries to Italian fishermen and cost others the majority of their year's profits. A fishing ban was imposed in the Adriatic to allow minesweepers to collect more of the devices. In addition, tourists abandoned the beaches along the Adriatic coast during the summertime for fear of encountering unexploded bombs. 9

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is working on the development of newer and better cluster bombs—higher-tech, heat-seeking, spraying super-hot shrapnel, producing greater lethality...cluster bombs suitable for the new millennium. America deserves nothing less.

United States Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons Abroad

Poison gas and germ weapons turn civilization on its head. Diseases are not fought, but carefully cultivated; doctors use their knowledge of the functions of the human body to

devise ever more effective means of halting those functions; agriculturalists deliberately induce fungi and develop crop destroyers...Modern nerve gases were originally designed to help mankind by killing beetles and lice: now, in the hands of the military, they are, literally, insecticides for people. Chemical and biological warfare, as one writer has put it, is "public health in reverse". 1

Bahama Islands

From the late 1940s to sometime in the 1950s, a joint US-Canadian-British team sprayed bacteria known to be dangerous in this area of the Caribbean. Thousands of animals died as a result of the tests.

It is not known whether there were any human victims. Details of the tests are still classified. 2

Canada

In 1953, the US Army used air blowers atop trucks to disseminate potentially dangerous zinc cadmium sulfide through the city of Winnipeg as part of its chemical and biological weapons tests. 3

China and Korea

In the early part of 1952, during the Korean War (1950-53), the Chinese claimed that the United States was dropping quantities of bacteria, insects, feathers, decaying animal and fish parts and many other strange objects that carried disease, over Korea and northeast China. The Chinese government declared that there had been casualties and quick deaths from plague, anthrax and encephalitis, amongst other diseases. They took testimony from some 36 captured American airmen who had purportedly flown the planes with the deadly cargo, and published 25 of these accounts. Many of the men went into voluminous detail about the entire operation: the kinds of bombs and other containers dropped, the types of insects, the diseases they carried, etc. Photographs of the alleged germ bombs and insects were also published. Then, in August, an "International Scientific Committee"

was appointed, composed of scientists from Sweden, France, Great Britain, Italy, Brazil and the Soviet Union. After an investigation in China of more than two months, the committee produced a report of some 600 pages, many photos, and the conclusion that:

"The peoples of Korea and China have indeed been the objectives of bacteriological weapons. These have been employed by units of the U.S.A. armed forces, using a great variety of different methods for the purpose."

However, some of the American airmen's statements contained so much technical biological information and were so full of communist rhetoric—"imperialist, capitalist Wall Street war monger" and the like—that their personal authorship of the statements must be seriously questioned. Moreover, it was later learned that most of the airmen had

confessed only after being subjected to great mental and physical duress, and at least one case of a beating. And some did not necessarily know what they were dropping in their supposed explosive or leaflet bombs. When the pilots came home after the war, they retracted their confessions, but that was under threat of court martial, even "charges of treason", said the US Attorney General, and other threatened punishments—in short, great mental duress. 4

It should be noted that it was revealed in 1979 that the US Army had experimented within the United States with the use of turkey feathers to conduct biological warfare. 5

Moreover, in December 1951, the US Secretary of Defense had ordered that "actual readiness be achieved in the earliest practicable time" for offensive use of biological weapons. Within weeks, the chief of staff of the Air Force reported that such capabilities

"are rapidly materializing". 6

The United States also dropped huge amounts of napalm on Korea, an average of 70,000

gallons daily in 1952. 7

And in 1980 it was disclosed for the first time that during the 1967-69 period, the US had sprayed Agent Orange over 23,607 acres of the southern boundary of the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, in order to strip vegetation and discourage North Korean infiltration. 8

Vietnam

For about a decade beginning in the early 1960s, the United States sprayed tens of thousands of tons of herbicides over three million acres of South Vietnam (as well as parts of Laos and Cambodia) to wipe out the foliage used as a cover by the enemy and to destroy crops. The herbicides, particularly the extensively-used Agent Orange, polluted Vietnam with some five hundred pounds of dioxin, a nearly indestructible pollutant that is regarded as one of the most toxic substances in the world—at least as toxic as nerve gas, and highly carcinogenic. Amongst other health effects associated with exposure to dioxin are metabolic disorders, immunological abnormalities, reproductive abnormalities, and neuro-psychiatric disorders. 9 Three ounces in the water supply is thought to be enough to wipe out the population of New York. 10

As many as two million people were affected by these poisons in Vietnam (in addition to many thousands of American soldiers). There have been reports of high levels of birth defects in areas which were saturated with Agent Orange, and the Vietnam government estimates that the various chemicals have contributed to birth defects in 500,000

children, although this has not been documented. 11 No compensation has ever been paid by the United States to the Vietnamese people or government for any damage to health.

In addition, the US Army employed CS, DM and CN gases, which, Washington officials insisted, did not constitute "gas warfare". They designated these gases as "riot control"

agents. The Army pumped CS gas—a violent purgative that causes uncontrollable vomiting—into Vietnamese tunnels and caves, causing many Vietcong to choke to death on their own vomit in the confined spaces. 12 The North Vietnamese branch of the International Red Cross and other international sources reported numerous deaths amongst women and children from these gases, as well as injuries such as destroyed eye-balls, blistered faces and scorched and erupted skin. 13 US Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance admitted that cyanide and arsenic compounds were being used as well. 14

Other harmful chemicals employed by the US in Vietnam were napalm and naphthalene flame throwers.

Laos

In September 1970, American forces in Laos, acting under Operation Tailwind, used aerosolized sarin nerve gas (referred to also as CBU-15 or GB) to prepare their entry in an attack upon a Laotian village base camp, with the object of killing a number of American military defectors who were reported to be there. The operation succeeded in killing in excess of 100 people, military and civilian, including at least two Americans.

How many died before the attack from the gas and how many from the attack itself is not known.

Sarin, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s, can kill within minutes after inhalation of its vapor. A tiny drop of it on the skin will do the same; it may even penetrate ordinary clothing. It works by inhibiting an enzyme needed to control muscle movements. Without the enzyme, the body has no means of stopping the activa-tion of muscles, and any physical horror is possible.

When the invading Americans were making their getaway, they were confronted by a superior force of North Vietnamese and communist Pathet Lao soldiers. The Americans called for help from the air. Very shortly, US planes were overhead dropping canisters of sarin upon the enemy. As the canisters exploded, a wet fog enveloped the enemy soldiers, who dropped to the ground, vomiting and convulsing. Some of the gas spread towards the Americans, not all of whom were adequately protected. Some began vomiting violently.

Today, one of them suffers from creeping paralysis, which his doctor diagnoses as nerve-gas damage. 15

This story was reported on June 7, 1998, on the TV program "NewsStand: CNN & Time", and featured Admiral Thomas Moorer, who had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1970, as well as lesser military personnel, both on and off camera, who corroborated the incidents described above.

Then all hell broke loose. This was a story too much in conflict—painfully so—with American schoolbooks, Reader's Digest, the flag, apple pie and mom. It was damage-control time. The big guns were called out—Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Green Beret veterans, the journalistic elite, the Pentagon itself. The story was wrong, absurd, slanderous, they all cried. CNN retracted, Moorer retracted, the show's producers were fired...lawsuits all over the place... 16

Like the dissidents who became "non-persons" under Stalin, Operation Tailwind is now officially a "non-event".

Notwithstanding this, the program's producers, April Oliver and Jack Smith, put together a 77-page document supporting their side of the story, with actual testimony by military personnel confirming the use of the nerve gas. 17

Panama

From the 1940s to the 1990s, the United States used various parts of Panama as a testing ground for all manner of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, VX, sarin, hydrogen cyanide and other nerve agents, in such forms as mines, rockets and shells; perhaps tens of thousands of chemical munitions in total. Some of the earlier tests used US troops as guinea pigs, with horrific results for some of the soldiers. When the US military vacated Panama at the end of 1999, it left behind many sites containing chemical and conventional weapons residue, including numerous chemical weapons (dropped from planes) which failed to detonate. Since 1979, 21 Panamanians have died from accidents with unexploded conventional weapons. 18

The US military also conducted secret tests of Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides in Panama during the 1960s and 1970s, potentially exposing many civilians and military personnel to these lethal chemicals. Hundreds of drums of dioxin-containing Agent Orange were shipped to Panama. Spraying was carried out in jungle areas and near popular outdoor sites in an effort to simulate the tropical battlefield conditions of Southeast Asia. 19

During the invasion of Panama in December 1989 it was reported that the semi-mountainous village of Pacora, near Panama City, was bombed with a chemical substance by helicopters and aircraft from the US Southern Command in Panama.

Residents complained to human-rights organizations and the press that the substances burned their skin, producing intense stinging and diarrhea. The bombing may have been carried out to keep the villagers from offering any assistance to the Panamanian soldiers who were camped in the nearby mountains. 20 What the long-term effects of the chemical exposure have been are not known.

Cuba

1) In August 1962, a British freighter under Soviet lease, having damaged its propeller on a reef, crept into the harbor at San Juan, Puerto Rico for repairs. It was bound for a Soviet port with 80,000 bags of Cuban sugar. The ship was put into dry dock and 14,135 sacks of sugar were unloaded to a warehouse to facilitate the repairs. While in the warehouse, the sugar was contaminated by CIA agents with a substance that was allegedly harmless but unpalatable. When President Kennedy learned of the operation he was furious because it had taken place in US territory and if discovered could provide the Soviet

Union with a propaganda field day and set a terrible precedent for chemical sabotage in the Cold War. He directed that the sugar not be returned to the Russians, although what explanation was given to them is not publicly known. 21 Similar undertakings were apparently not canceled. A CIA official, who helped direct worldwide sabotage efforts against Cuba, later revealed that "There was lots of sugar being sent out from Cuba, and we were putting a lot of contaminants in it." 22

2) The same year, a Canadian agricultural technician working as an adviser to the Cuban government was paid $5,000 by "an American military intelligence agent" to infect Cuban turkeys with a virus which would produce the fatal Newcastle disease.

Subsequently, 8,000 turkeys died. The technician later claimed that although he had been to the farm where the turkeys had died, he had not actually administered the virus, but had instead pocketed the money, and that the turkeys had died from neglect and other causes unrelated to the virus. This may have been a self-serving statement. The Washington Post reported that "According to U.S. intelligence reports, the Cubans—and some Americans—believe the turkeys died as the result of espionage." 23

3) According to a participant in the project:

During 1969 and 1970, the CIA deployed futuristic weather modification technology to ravage Cuba's sugar crop and undermine the economy. Planes from the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in the California desert, where high tech was developed, overflew the island, seeding rain clouds with crystals that precipitated torrential rains over non-agricultural areas and left the cane fields arid (the downpours caused killer flash floods in some areas). 24

This said, it must be pointed out while it's not terribly surprising that the CIA would have attempted such a thing, it's highly unlikely that it would have succeeded except through a great stroke of luck; i.e., heavy rains occurring at just the right time.

4) In 1971, also according to participants, the CIA turned over to Cuban exiles a virus which causes African swine fever. Six weeks later, an outbreak of the disease in Cuba forced the slaughter of 500,000 pigs to prevent a nationwide animal epidemic. The outbreak, the first ever in the Western hemisphere, was called the "most alarming event"

of the year by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. 25

5) Ten years later, the target may well have been human beings, as an epidemic of dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) swept across the island. Transmitted by blood-eating insects, usually mosquitos, the disease produces severe flu-like symptoms and incapacitating bone pain. Between May and October 1981, over 300,000 cases were reported in Cuba with 158 fatalities, 101 of which were children under 15. 26

The Center for Disease Control later reported that the appearance in Cuba of this particular strain of dengue, DEN-2 from Southeast Asia, had caused the first major epidemic of DHF ever in the Americas. 27 Castro announced that Cuba had asked the

United States for a pesticide to help eradicate the fever-bearing mosquito, but had not been given any. 28

In 1956 and 1958, declassified documents have revealed, the US Army loosed swarms of specially bred mosquitos in Georgia and Florida to see whether disease-carrying insects could be weapons in a biological war. The mosquitos bred for the tests were of the Aedes aegypti type, the precise carrier of dengue fever as well as other diseases. 29

In 1967 it was reported by Science magazine that at the US government center in Fort Detrick, Maryland, dengue fever was amongst those "diseases that are at least the objects of considerable research and that appear to be among those regarded as potential BW

[biological warfare] agents." 30 Then, in 1984, a Cuban exile on trial in New York on an unrelated matter testified that in the latter part of 1980 a ship traveled from Florida to Cuba with:

a mission to carry some germs to introduce them in Cuba to be used against the Soviets and against the Cuban economy, to begin what was called chemical war, which later on produced results that were not what we had expected, because we thought that it was going to be used against the Soviet forces, and it was used against our own people, and with that we did not agree.31

It's not clear from the testimony whether the Cuban man thought that the germs would somehow be able to confine their actions to only Russians, or whether he had been misled by the people behind the operation.

6) On a clear day, October 21, 1996, a Cuban pilot flying over Matanzas province observed a plane releasing a mist of some substance about seven times. It turned out to be an American crop-duster plane operated by the US State Department, which had permission to fly over Cuba on a trip to Colombia via Grand Cayman Island. Responding to the Cuban pilot's report, the Cuban air controller asked the US pilot if he was having any problem. The answer was "no". On December 18, Cuba observed the first signs of a plague of Thrips palmi, a plant-eating insect never before detected in Cuba. It severely damages practically all crops and is resistant to a number of pesticides. Cuba asked the US for clarification of the October 21 incident. Seven weeks passed before the US replied that the State Department pilot had emitted only smoke, in order to indicate his location to the Cuban pilot. 32 By this time, the Thrips palmi had spread rapidly, affecting corn, beans, squash, cucumbers and other crops.

In response to a query, the Federal Aviation Administration stated that emitting smoke to indicate location is "not an FAA practice" and that it knew of "no regulation calling for this practice". 33

In April 1997, Cuba presented a report to the United Nations which charged the US with

"biological aggression" and provided a detailed description of the 1996 incident and the subsequent controversy. 34 In August, signatories of the Biological Weapons Convention convened in Geneva to consider Cuba's charges and Washington's response. In

December, the committee reported that due to the "technical complexity" of the matter, it had not proved possible to reach a definitive conclusion. There has not been any further development on the issue since that time. 35

The full extent of American chemical and biological warfare against Cuba will never be known. Over the years, the Castro government has in fact blamed the United States for a number of other plagues which afflicted various animals and crops. 36 In 1977, newly-released CIA documents disclosed that the Agency "maintained a clandestine anti-crop warfare research program targeted during the 1960s at a number of countries throughout the world." 37

The US military abroad—a deadly toxic legacy

It's not quite chemical or biological weaponry, but it's toxic, it sickens and it kills. It's what thousands of American military installations in every corner of the world (hundreds in Germany alone) have left behind: serious environmental damage. The pollution is remarkably widespread, the record too extensive to offer more than a taste here, such as this snippet from a lengthy piece in the Los Angeles Times: U.S. military installations have polluted the drinking water of the Pacific island of Guam, poured tons of toxic chemicals into Subic Bay in the Philippines, leaked carcinogens into the water source of a German spa, spewed tons of sulfurous coal smoke into the skies of Central Europe and pumped millions of gallons of raw sewage into the oceans. 38

The military has done the same in the United States at countless installations. 39

United States Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons at Home

In a January 1999 interview, President Clinton said that what keeps him awake some nights is the fear of germ warfare. 1 It is safe to say that he did not have the Department of Defense or the CIA in mind as the purveyor of the source of his fear. Yet for two decades these two institutions conducted tests in the open air in the United States, exposing millions of Americans to large clouds of possibly-dangerous bacteria and chemical particles. They did so without informing the potentially affected populations, without taking any precautions to protect the health and safety of these people, and with no followup monitoring of the effects.

Government officials have consistently denied that the biological agents used could be harmful despite a plentitude of expert and objective scientific evidence that exposure to heavy concentrations of even apparently innocuous organisms can cause illness, at a minimum to the most vulnerable segments of the population—the elderly, children and those suffering from a variety of ailments. "There is no such thing as a microorganism that cannot cause trouble," George Connell, assistant to the director of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, testified before the Senate in 1977. "If you get the right concentration at the right place, at the right time and in the right person, something is going to happen." 2

The Army has acknowledged that between 1949 and 1969, 239 populated areas from coast to coast were blanketed with various organisms during tests designed to measure patterns of dissemination in the air, weather effects, dosages, optimum placement of the source and other factors. Testing over such areas was supposedly suspended after 1969, but there is no way to be certain of this. In any event, open-air spraying continued at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. 3

Following is a small sample of the tests carried out in the 1949-69 period.

Watertown, NY area and Virgin Islands

1950: The Army used aircraft and homing pigeons to drop turkey feathers dusted with cereal rust spores to contaminate oat crops, to prove that a "cereal rust epidemic" could be spread as a biological warfare weapon. 4

San Francisco Bay Area

September 20-27,1950: Six experimental biological warfare attacks by the US Army from a ship, using Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcescens, at one point forming a cloud about two miles long as the ship traveled slowly along the shoreline of the bay. One of the stated objectives of the exercise was to study "the offensive possibilities of attacking a seaport city with a BW [biological warfare] aerosol" from offshore, (emphasis added).

Beginning on September 29, patients at Stanford University's hospital in San Francisco were found to be infected by Serratia marcescens. This type of infection had never before been reported at the hospital. Eleven patients became infected, and one died.5 According to a report submitted to a Senate committee by a professor of microbiology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook: "an increase in the number of Serratia marcescens can cause disease in a healthy person and...serious disease in sick people." 6

Between 1954 and 1967, other tests were carried out in the Bay Area, including some with a base of operations at Fort Cronkhite in Marin County. 7

Minneapolis

1953: 61 releases of zinc cadmium sulfide in four sections of the city, involving massive exposure of people at home and children in school. The substance was later described by the EPA as "potentially hazardous because of its cadmium content", and a former Army scientist, writing in the professional journal Atmosphere Environment, in 1972, said that cadmium compounds, including zinc cadmium sulfide, are "highly toxic and the use of them in open atmospheric experiments presents a human health hazard". He stated that the symptoms produced by exposure to zinc cadmium sulfide include lung damage, acute kidney inflammation and fatty degeneration of the liver. 8

St. Louis

1953: 35 releases of zinc cadmium sulfide over residential, commercial and downtown areas, including the Medical Arts Building, which presumably contained a number of sick people whose illnesses could be aggravated by inhaling toxic particles. 9

Washington, DC area

1953: Aerial spraying from a height of 75 feet of zinc cadmium sulfate combined with lycopodium spores. The areas sprayed included the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland and Leesburg, Virginia, 30 miles from the capital. 10

In 1969, the Army conducted 115 open-air tests of zinc cadmium sulfate near Cambridge, Maryland. 11

Earlier in the 1960s, the Army covertly disseminated a large number of bacteria in Washington's National Airport to evaluate how easy it would be for an enemy agent to scatter smallpox through the entire country by infecting air travelers. The bacterium used, Bacillus subtilis, is potentially harmful to the infirm and the elderly, whose immune system is impaired, and to those with cancer, heart disease or a host of other ailments, according to a professor of microbiology at the Georgetown University Medical Center.

A similar experiment was carried out at the Washington Greyhound bus terminal.

Sometime during Richard Nixon's time in office (apparently 1969), the Army

"assassinated" him with germs via the White House air conditioning system. 12

And at a building used by the Food and Drug Administration, the Army surreptitiously placed a (supposedly harmless) colored dye into the water system. Whether anyone suffered harm from drinking a certain quantity of that water is not known.13

Florida

1955: The CIA conducted at least one open-air test with whooping-cough bacteria around the Tampa Bay area. The number of whooping cough cases recorded in Florida jumped from 339 and one death in 1954 to 1080 and 12 deaths in 1955. The Tampa Bay area was one of three places that showed a sharp increase in 1955. 14

Savannah, Georgia and Avon Park, Florida

1956-58: The Army, wishing to test "the practicality of employing Aedes aegypti mosquitos to carry a BW agent", released over wide areas hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of this mosquito, which can be a carrier of yellow fever and dengue fever, both highly dangerous diseases. The Army stated that the mosquitos were uninfected, but prominent scientists said that, for several reasons, the experiment was not without risk,

and was a "terrible idea". 15 The actual effects upon the targeted population will probably never be known.

New York City

Feb. 11-15, 1956: A CIA-Army team sprayed New York streets and the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, using trick suitcases and a car with a dual muffler. 16

June 6-10, 1966: The army report of this test was called "A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Attack with Biological Agents".

Trillions of Bacillus subtilis variant niger were released into the subway system during rush hours. One method was to use light bulbs filled with the bacteria; these were unobtrusively shattered at sidewalk level on subway ventilating grills or tossed onto the roadbeds inside the stations. Aerosol clouds were momentarily visible after a release of bacteria from the light bulbs. The report noted that "When the cloud engulfed people, they brushed their clothing, looked up at the grating apron and walked on." 17 The wind of passing trains spread the bacteria along the tracks; in the time it took for two trains to pass, the bacteria were spread from 15th Street to 58th Street. 18 It will never be known how many people later became ill from being unsuspecting guinea pigs, for the United States Army exhibited not the slightest interest in this question.

Chicago

1960s: The Chicago subway system was the scene of a similar Army experiment. 19

Stockyards

November 1964 to January 1965: The Army conducted aerosol tests over stockyards in Texas, Missouri, Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska, using "anti-animal non-biological simulants". 20 It's not clear why stockyards were chosen, or what effect this might have had upon the meat consumed by the public.

Nuremberg

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany, 1946-1949, revealed many details of the Nazi medical experiments on involuntary subjects, leading the judges to formulate a set of principles that came to be called The Nuremberg Code; in effect, a bill of rights for people selected for medical experimentation. The Code's first tenet states:

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." Very shortly thereafter, the US Army-CIA testing program began, and although the tests were of course nowhere near as gruesome as those of the Nazis, and the subjects of the tests were not humans as such, but rather the behavior of certain substances released in the air, the fact remains that the testers knew that untold numbers of humans were being directly contaminated by the tests, and none of the reports of the tests mentions a word about obtaining the consent of any of these humans. If the testers did not "know" that the contaminating substances were potentially dangerous, it can only be because they didn't

investigate this question, which is the same as saying that they didn't know because they didn't want to know.

Not to mention radiating the environment

During the period of 1948-1952, the government conducted many deliberate releases of radioactive material, mainly from airplanes, which carried as much as 10 miles over populated areas, in order to study fallout patterns and the rate at which radioactivity decayed, and to study the feasibility of creating "an offensive radiation warfare device". 21

And the face-to-face human experimentation

In terms of sheer numbers, there cannot be any parallel in all of history...a government conducting innumerable medically dangerous and medically unethical experiments on its own people. For decades after the end of World War II, the US government conducted experiments with literally millions of human subjects, both civilian humans and military humans, for the purpose of measuring the effects upon them of: a) sundry chemical and biological materials, including nerve agents; b) nuclear radiation, including injecting many with plutonium; c) a host of mind-control drugs: LSD and other hal-lucinogens, as well as assorted other exotic chemical concoctions. 22

For the human experimentation, the various government agencies appear to have chosen as their subjects primarily those who had the least political clout, such as servicemen and

-women, conscientious objectors, prison inmates, blacks, the poor, the retarded, the elderly, the young, mental patients...

"It's a little cocktail. It'll make you feel better," Helen Hutchison recalled the doctor telling her in July 1946, during a visit to the Vanderbilt University Hospital Prenatal Clinic. It didn't make her feel better at all. It contained radioactive iron. She was one of 829 women to receive various doses of the potion over a two-year period. Both Hutchison and the daughter she carried went on to suffer a lifetime of strange ailments.

Hutchison's hair fell out at one point, she suffers from pernicious anemia, and she is highly sensitive to sunlight. Her daughter, now grown, suffers from an immune system disorder and skin cancer. 23

By 1999, perhaps the American public had learned something. When it was disclosed that the federal government's Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico planned to release a strain of bacteria into the atmosphere to test new biowarfare detectors, the public outcry was such that the test was canceled. At a public hearing aimed at easing the public's fear, a Santa Fe resident asked a Laboratory representative: "If it's so safe, why don't you release it into the office of someone in Washington, DC?" 24

A final thought...What if?

On June 9, 1969, Dr. Donald M. MacArthur, Deputy Director, Research and Engineering, Department of Defense, testified before Congress.

Within the next 5 to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a new infective microorganism which could differ in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organisms. Most important of these is that it might be refractory [resistant] to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease. 25

Encouragement of the Use of CBW by Other Nations

Egypt

It was reported in 1969 that for some years the US Army had been instructing foreign specialists in chemical and biological warfare. A total of 550 foreigners from 36 nations, including Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yugoslavia and South Vietnam, had taken courses at the Army's Chemical School at Ft. McClellan, Alabama.

The Egyptian specialists reportedly used their new American know-how to help plan the poison-gas attacks upon Yemen in 1967. The International Red Cross verified that Egyptian pilots dropped canisters of poison gases from planes over Yemen.

Subsequently, the US Defense Intelligence Agency also confirmed this. Some 150

villagers gagged, coughed and bled to death. 1

South Africa

According to testimony before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 1998, the United States encouraged South Africa's apartheid regime to develop a CBW program that was aimed at the country's black population. Dr. Wouter Basson, the South African general who headed the project from its inception in 1981, testified from notes he made of a meeting with US Maj. Gen. William Augerson: "He [Augerson] feels that chemical warfare is an ideal strategic weapon because infrastructure is preserved together with facilities, and only living people are killed. The warm climate of Africa is ideal for this type of weapon because the diffusion of the poison is better and the absorption is increased by perspiration and increased blood flow in the persons who are targets." 2

South Africa's CBW program did in fact work on a number of projects that echoed US

programs: using black soldiers as guinea pigs for experimental drugs; developing a toxin to cause a heart attack, which would appear to be the "natural" cause of death; contaminating drinking water with disease pathogens; using a variety of poisonous gases to paralyze and kill opponents in South Africa and neighboring states. 3

Iraq

In his January 1998 State of the Union address, President Clinton spoke of how we must

"confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them." He castigated Iraq for

"developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons" and called for a strengthening of the Biological Weapons Convention. Who among his listeners knew, who among the media reported, that the United States had been the supplier to Iraq of much of the source biological materials Saddam Hussein's scientists required to create a biological warfare program?

According to reports of a US Senate Committee in 1994, from 1985, if not earlier, through 1989, a veritable witch's brew of biological materials was exported to Iraq by private American suppliers pursuant to application and licensing by the US Department of Commerce. Amongst these materials, which often produce slow, agonizing deaths, were:

Bacillus anthrads, cause of anthrax.

Clostridium botulinum, a source of botulinum toxin.

Histoplasma capsulatam, cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord and heart.

Brucella melitensis, a bacteria that can damage major organs.

Clostridium perfringens, a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness.

Clostridium tetani, highly toxigenic.

Also, Escherichia coli (E.coli); genetic materials; human and bacterial DNA. Dozens of other pathogenic biological agents were shipped to Iraq during the 1980s. The Senate report pointed out that "These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction."

"It was later learned," the committee stated, "that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program."

The report noted further that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical-warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare production facilities and chemical-warhead filling equipment.

These exports continued to at least November 28, 1989 despite the fact that Iraq had been reported to be engaging in chemical warfare and possibly biological warfare against Iranians, Kurds and Shiites since the early 1980s as part of its war with Iran. 4

Presumably, Iraq's use of these weapons against Iran is what Washington expected would happen.

Hypocrisy of this magnitude has to be respected

For the better part of six years, 1992-98, following the Gulf War, the United States, acting through the United Nations, forced Iraq to open up its country to inspection for

"weapons of mass destruction"—no building or structure was exempted. The wishes of

the Iraqi government to place certain sites off limits were dismissed out of hand by US

officials and the American media, who had a lot of fun with the issue. "What does Saddam have to hide?" was the prevailing attitude.

Then, in May 1997, the US Senate passed an act to implement the "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction" ["Chemical Convention"], an international treaty which had been ratified by more than 100 nations in its four-year life. But the Senate insisted on adding an amendment before it would ratify the Convention.

The Senate amendment, Section 307, stipulates that "the President may deny a request to inspect any facility in the United States in cases where the President determines that the inspection may pose a threat to the national security interests of the United States."

Saddam Hussein had asked for no more than this for Iraq.

It can be surmised that under the Senate amendment the White House, Pentagon, etc.

would be off limits, as Saddam had insisted his presidential palaces should be, as well as the military unit responsible for his personal security, which an American colonel had demanded to inspect.

Moreover, we now know that in closing off certain places to the inspectors, Saddam was not being entirely paranoid or arbitrary, inasmuch as it was later revealed that for some time the United States had been supplying certain inspectors with the means of planting recording devices wherever they could gain access.

It may be further relevant that a detailed study of the first one-and-a-half years of the Chemical Convention's life has shown that Washington's record in complying with the Convention has been remarkably dismal, setting a rather bad example for other nations.5

A Rogue State versus the World

A Concise History of United States Global Interventions, 1945 to the Present

Presented here is the most extensive compilation ever of serious post-World War II American interventions into the life of other nations, covering many more cases than found in the author's book, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since

World War 11 (Please see this book for further details of some of the interventions and for sources not indicated below.)

The Roman Empire

There was no comer of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive such an interest—why, then it was the national honor that had been insulted. The fight was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbors...The whole world was pervaded by a host of enemies, it was manifestly Rome's duty to guard against their indubitably aggressive designs...Even less than in the cases that have already been discussed, can an attempt be made here to comprehend these wars of conquest from the point of view of concrete objectives. Here there was neither a warrior nation in our sense, nor, in the beginning, a military despotism or an aristocracy of specifically military orientation. Thus there is but one way to an understanding: scrutiny of domestic class interests, the question of who stood to gain.

Joseph Schumpeter, 1919 1

America is today the leader of a worldwide anti-revolutionary movement in the defense of vested interests. She now stands for what Rome stood for. Rome consistently supported the rich against the poor in all foreign communities that fell under her sway; and, since the poor, so far, have always and everywhere been far more numerous than the rich, Rome's policy made for inequality, for injustice, and for the least happiness of the greatest number.

Arnold Toynbee, 1961 2

The American Empire:

COMING SOON TO A COUNTRY NEAR YOU

China, 1945-51

At the close of World War II, the US intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists against Mao Tse-tung's Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the war. To compound the irony, the US

used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. After their defeat in 1949, many Nationalist soldiers took refuge in northern Burma, where the CIA regrouped them, brought in other recruits from elsewhere in Asia, and provided a large supply of heavy arms and planes. During the early 1950s, this army proceeded to carry out a number of

incursions into China, involving at times thousands of troops, accompanied by CIA advisers (some of whom were killed), and supplied by air drops from American planes.

France, 1947

Communist Party members had fought in the wartime resistance, unlike many other French who had collaborated with the Germans. After the war the Communists followed the legal path to form strong labor unions and vie for political office. But the United States was determined to deny them their place at the table, particularly since some unions were taking steps to impede the flow of arms to French forces seeking to reconquer their former colony of Vietnam with US aid. The US funneled very large amounts of money to the Socialist Party, the Communists' chief rival; sent in American Federation of Labor (AFL) experts to subvert the CP's union dominance and import scabs from Italy; supplied arms and money to Corsican gangs to break up Communist strikes, burn down party offices and beat up and murder party members and strikers; sent in a psychological warfare team to complement all of these actions and used the threat of a cutoff of food aid and other aid...all to seriously undermine Communist Party support and prestige. It worked.

A portion of the financing for these covert operations came from the funds of the Marshall Plan, which also helped finance the corruption of the Italian elections of 1948

(see below), and set up a special covert operations agency which later melded into the CIA. 3 These are a few of the hidden sides of the Marshall Plan, which has long been held up to the world as a shining example of America's unselfish benevolence.

At the same time, Washington was forcing the French government to dismiss its Communist ministers in order to receive American economic aid. Said Premier Paul Ramadier: "A little of our independence is departing from us with each loan we obtain." 4

Marshall Islands, 1946-58

Driven by perceived Cold War exigencies, the United States conducted dozens of intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), nuclear bomb and other nuclear tests on this trust territory in the Pacific, after forcing the residents of certain islands, notably Bikini Atoll, to relocate to other, uninhabited islands. In 1968, the former residents of Bikini were told by the Johnson administration that their island had been cleaned and was safe for habitation. Many went back, only to be told later that they had been subjected to massive doses of radiation and would have to leave again. In 1983, the US Interior Department declared that the islanders could return to their homes immediately—

provided they ate no home-grown food until the late 21st century. 5 They have never returned.

Italy, 1947-1970s

In 1947, the US forced the Italian government to dismiss its Communist and Socialist cabinet members in order to receive American economic aid. The following year and for decades thereafter, each time a combined front of the Communists and Socialists, or the Communists alone, threatened to defeat the US-supported Christian Democrats in national elections, the CIA used every (dirty) trick in the book and trained its big economic, political and psychological-warfare guns on the Italian people, while covertly funding the CD candidates. And it worked. Again and again. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. American corporations also contributed many millions of dollars to help keep the left from a share of power.

Greece, 1947-49

The United States intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left, who had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a suitably repressive internal security agency. For the next 15 years, Greece was looked upon much as a piece of real estate to be developed according to Washington's needs.

Philippines, 1945-53

The US military fought against the leftist Huk forces even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders in the world war. After the war, the US organized Philippine armed forces to continue the fight against the Huks, finally defeating them and their reform movement. The CIA interfered grossly in elections, installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the long dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, for whom torture was la spécialité de la maison (see Elections chapter).

Korea, 1945-53

After World War II, the United States suppressed popular progressive organizations, who had been allies in the war—at times with brutal force—in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. As a result, the best opportunities to unify North and South were derailed. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary and ruthless governments in the South and the huge, war-crime-filled American military intervention of 1950-53 in the "Korean War", which was far from the simple affair of North Korea invading South Korea on a particular day, which the world has been led to believe.

In 1999, we learned that shortly after the war began, American soldiers machine-gunned hundreds of helpless civilians; amongst many other such incidents, hundreds were killed when the US purposely blew up bridges they were crossing. 6

Albania, 1949-53

By infiltrating emigre guerrillas into the country, the US and Britain tried to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western, albeit composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Hundreds of the émigrés lost their lives or were imprisoned.

Eastern Europe, 1948-56

Allen Dulles, Director of the CIA, in a remarkable chess game, instigated a high Polish security official, Jozef Swiatlo, to use a controversial American, Noel Field, to spread paranoia amongst the security establishments of Eastern Europe, leading to countless purge trials, hundreds of thousands of imprisonments and at least hundreds of deaths. 7

Germany, 1950s

The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

The United States also created a secret civilian army in Germany, which drew up a list of 200 leading Social Democrats, 15 Communists and various others who were to be "put out of the way" if the Soviet Union invaded.

This secret army had its counterparts all over Western Europe as part of "Operation Gladio", developed by the CIA and other intelligence services, and not answerable for its actions under the laws of any state. After NATO was formed in 1949, Gladio came under its discreet aegis. "Gladiators" were responsible for numerous acts of terrorism in Europe, foremost of which was the bombing of the Bologna railway station in 1980, claiming 86

lives. The purpose of the terrorism was to place the blame for these atrocities on the left and thus heighten public concern about a Soviet invasion and at the same time discredit leftist electoral candidates. NATO feared that if the left came to power in the government of any of its members, they might pass legislation that would be a threat to the NATO

installations or operations in that country. 8

Iran, 1953

Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint US-British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power, initiating a period of 25 years of repression and torture, while the oil industry was

restored to foreign ownership, with the US and Britain each getting 40 percent.

Guatemala, 1953-1990s

Humorist Dave Barry boils the Monroe Doctrine down to three simple precepts: 1) Other nations are not allowed to mess around with the internal affairs of nations in this hemisphere. 2) But we are. 3) Ha ha ha.

A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of military-government death squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions and unimaginable cruelty, totaling more than 200,000

victims—indisputably one of the most inhumane chapters of the 20th century. The justification for the coup that has been put forth over the years is that Guatemala had been on the verge of the proverbial Soviet takeover. In actuality, the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem was that Arbenz had taken over some of the uncultivated land of the US firm United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. Moreover, in the eyes of Washington, there was the danger of Guatemala's social-democracy model spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Despite a 1996 "peace" accord between the government and rebels, respect for human rights remains as only a concept in Guatemala; death squads continue to operate with a significant measure of impunity against union activists and other dissidents; torture still rears its ugly head; the lower classes are as wretched as ever; the military endures as a formidable institution; the US continues to arm and train the Guatemalan military and carry out exercises with it; and key provisions of the peace accord concerning military reform have not been carried out. 9

Costa Rica, mid-1950s, 1970-71

To liberal American political leaders, President Jose Figueres was the quintessential

"liberal democrat", the kind of statesman they liked to think, and liked the world to think, was the natural partner of US foreign policy rather than the military dictators who somehow kept popping up as allies. Yet the United States tried to overthrow Figueres (in the 1950s, and perhaps also in the 1970s, when he was again president), and tried to assassinate him twice. The reasons? Figueres was not tough enough on the left, led Costa Rica to become the first country in Central America to establish diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and on occasion questioned American foreign policy, like the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Middle East, 1956-58

The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle Eastern country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism". The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the Middle East and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "communist". In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to US-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome Middle-East nationalism.

Indonesia, 1957-58

Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide: a nationalist who was serving the wrong national interest. He took neutralism in the Cold War seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China as well as to the White House. He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. And he refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas". Thus it was that the CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phoney sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government, including bombing runs by American pilots. Sukarno survived it all.

Haiti, 1959

The US military mission, in Haiti to train the troops of noted dictator Francois Duvalier, used its air, sea and ground power to smash an attempt to overthrow Duvalier by a small group of Haitians, aided by some Cubans and other Latin Americans.

Western Europe, 1950s-1960s

For two decades, the CIA used dozens of American foundations, charitable trusts and the like, including a few of its own creation, as conduits for payments to all manner of organizations in Western Europe. The beneficiaries of this largesse were political parties, magazines, news agencies, journalists' and other unions, labor organizations, student and youth groups, lawyers' associations and other enterprises, all ostensibly independent, but nonetheless serving Washington's Cold-War, anti-communist, anti-socialist agenda—an agenda which also included a militarized and united Western Europe, allied to (and dominated by) the United States, and support for the Common Market and NATO, all part of the bulwark against the supposed Soviet threat.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64

The United States and Great Britain made life extremely difficult for the democratically elected leader, Cheddi Jagan, finally forcing him from office (see Elections chapter).

Jagan was another Third World leader who incurred Washington's wrath by trying to remain neutral and independent. Although a leftist—more so than Sukarno or Arbenz—

his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still targeted, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.

One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export had become people.

Iraq, 1958-63

In July 1958, Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem overthrew the monarchy and established a republic. Though somewhat of a reformist, he was by no means any kind of radical. His action, however, awakened revolutionary fervor in the masses and increased the influence of the Iraqi Communist Party. By April of the following year, CIA Director Allen Dulles, with his customary hyperbole, was telling Congress that the Iraqi Communists were close to a "complete takeover" and the situation in that country was "the most dangerous in the world today". 10 In actuality, Kassem aimed at being a neutralist in the Cold War and pursued rather inconsistent policies toward the Iraqi Communists, never allowing them formal representation in his cabinet, nor even full legality, though they strongly desired both. He tried to maintain power by playing the Communists off against other ideological groups. 11

A secret plan for a joint US-Turkish invasion of the country was drafted by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the 1958 coup. Reportedly, only Soviet threats to intercede on Iraq's side forced Washington to hold back. But in 1960, the United States began to fund the Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq who were fighting for a measure of autonomy12 and the CIA undertook an assassination attempt against Kassem, which was unsuccessful. 13 The Iraqi leader made himself even more of a marked man when, in that same year, he began to help create the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), which challenged the stranglehold Western oil companies had on the marketing of Arab oil; and in 1962 he created a national oil company to exploit the nation's oil.

In February 1963, Kassem told the French daily, Le Monde, that he had received a note from Washington—"in terms scarcely veiled, calling upon me to change my attitude, under threat of sanctions against Iraq...All our trouble with the imperialists [the US and the UK] began the day we claimed our legitimate rights to Kuwait." 14 (Kuwait was a key element in US and UK hegemonic designs over Mid-East oil.) A few days after Kassem's remarks were published, he was overthrown in a coup and summarily executed;

thousands of communists were killed. The State Department soon informed the press that it was pleased that the new regime would respect international agreements and was not interested in nationalizing the giant Iraq Petroleum Co., of which the US was a major owner. 15 The new government, at least for the time being, also cooled its claim to Kuwait.

Papers of the British cabinet of 1963, later declassified, disclose that the coup had been backed by the British and the CIA. 16

Soviet Union, 1940s-1960s

The US infiltrated many hundreds of Russian emigres into the Soviet Union to gather intelligence about military and technological installations; commit assassinations; obtain current samples of identification documents; assist Western agents to escape; engage in sabotage, such as derailing trains, wrecking bridges, actions against arms factories and power plants; or instigate armed political struggle against Communist rule by linking up with resistance movements. There was also a mammoth CIA anti-Soviet propaganda campaign, highlighted by the covert publishing of well over a thousand books in English, a number by well-known authors, which were distributed all over the world, as well as hundreds in foreign languages.

Vietnam, 1945-73

"What we're doing in Vietnam is using the black man to kill the yellow man so the white man can keep the land he took from the red man."—Dick Gregory The slippery slope began with the US siding with the French, the former colonizers, and with collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers, who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of "communist" (one of those bad-for-you label warnings). He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. For he was some kind of communist. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with..." But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of communist.

More than twenty years and more than a million dead later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people believe that the US lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, by poisoning the earth, the water and the gene pool for generations, Washington had in fact achieved its primary purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia, 1955-73

Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client.

After many years of hostility toward his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But the years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.

Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon this unhappy land.

And to multiply the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese (See "Pol Pot" chapter).

Laos, 1957-73

The Laotian left, led by the Pathet Lao, tried to effect social change peacefully, making significant electoral gains and taking part in coalition governments. But the United States would have none of that. The CIA and the State Department, through force, bribery and other pressures, engineered coups in 1958,1959 and 1960. Eventually, the only option left for the Pathet Lao was armed force. The CIA created its famous Armee Clandestine—

totaling 30,000, from every corner of Asia—to do battle, while the US Air Force, between 1965 and 1973, rained down more than two million tons of bombs upon the people of Laos, many of whom were forced to live in caves for years in a desperate attempt to escape the monsters falling from the sky. After hundreds of thousands had been killed, many more maimed, and countless bombed villages with hardly stone standing upon stone, the Pathet Lao took control of the country, following on the heels of events in Vietnam.

Thailand, 1965-73

While using the country to facilitate its daily bombings of Vietnam and Laos, the US

military took the time to try to suppress insurgents who were fighting for economic reform, an end to police repression and in opposition to the mammoth US military presence, with its huge airbases, piers, barracks, road building and other major projects, which appeared to be taking the country apart and taking it over. Eventually, the American military personnel count in Thailand reached 40,000, with those engaged in the civil conflict—including 365 Green Beret forces—officially designated as "advisers", as they were in Vietnam.

To fight the guerrillas, the US financed, armed, equipped and trained police and military units in counterinsurgency, significantly increasing their numbers; transported

government forces by helicopter to combat areas; were present in the field as well, as battalion advisers and sometimes accompanied Thai soldiers on anti-guerrilia sweeps. In addition, the Americans instituted considerable propaganda and psychological warfare activities, and actually encouraged the Thai government to adopt a more forceful response. 17 However, the conflict in Thailand, and the US role, never approached the dimen' sions of Vietnam.

In 1966, the Washington Post reported that "In the view of some observers, continued dictatorship in Thailand suits the United States, since it assures a continuation of American bases in the country and that, as a US official put it bluntly, 'is our real interest in this place'." 18

Ecuador, 1960-63

Infiltrating virtually every department of the government, up to and including the second and third positions of power, along with an abundant use of dirty tricks, enabled the CIA to oust President Jose Maria Velasco because of his refusal to go along with US Cuba policy and because he did not clamp down hard on the left domestically; and when his replacement also refused to break relations with Cuba, a military leader in the pay of the CIA gave him an ultimatum, which he acceded to.

The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65, 1977-78

In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba—legally and peacefully—became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. At Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, Lumumba called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, recounting a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a "communist". And obviously doomed, particularly since Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, and prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth.

Eleven days later, Katanga seceded; in September Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States; and in January 1961 he was assassinated, with CIA involvement, after Eisenhower had requested that Lumumba should depart from this life. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power in 1965 of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country (which he renamed Zaire) for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the country's extraordinary natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

In both 1977 and 1978, the Carter administration rushed extensive military aid to Zaire, including airlifting Moroccan troops, to help Mobutu quell rebel uprisings and remain in

power. President George Bush was later to remark that Mobutu was "our best friend in Africa". 19

France/Algeria, 1960s

The CIA apparently supported a French military coup in Algeria to block that country's independence in the face of French president Charles de Gaulle's determination to grant independence. The US was concerned that an independent Algeria would have a

"communist" government. Washington also hoped that the repercussions would topple de Gaulle, who was a major obstacle to American hegemonic plans for NATO. A few years later, evidence indicates, the CIA was involved in an aborted plot to assassinate the French president.

Brazil, 1961-64

President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: he took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had covert American involvement and indispensable support. The official Washington line was...yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil...but still, the country has been saved from communism.

For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship which Latin America has come to know and love were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized...there were disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture. The government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.

Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Peru, 1965

The US military set up "a miniature Fort Bragg" in the Peruvian jungle and proceeded to wipe out several guerrilla groups, which had arisen in response to the deep-seated poverty of the Peruvian masses.

Dominican Republic, 1963-65

In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-communist, to counter the charge that the US supported only military dictatorships.

Bosch's government was to be the long-sought "showcase of democracy" that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.

To Washington's dismay, however, Bosch was true to his beliefs.

He called for land reform; low-rent housing; modest nationalization of business; foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about the thing called civil liberties: communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.

A number of American officials and congressmen expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the US press Bosch was red-baited.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing. (The most recent demonstration of this was in Ecuador in January 2000, where a military coup was rescinded almost immediately after a few calls from Washington officials.)20

Nineteen months later, April 1965, a widespread popular revolt broke out, which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent in 23,000

troops to help crush it.

Cuba, 1959 to present

The motto of the CIA: "Proudly overthrowing Fidel Castro since 1959." 21

Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. As early as March 10, a US National Security Council meeting included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba". There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargoes, isolation, assassinations...Cuba had

carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.

The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent, the internationalism were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course has been the idea.

The Cuban government, its critics claim, sees the CIA behind every problem. In actuality, the CIA is behind only half of the problems. The problem is, the Cuban government can't tell which half.

Indonesia, 1965

A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by General Suharto and the Indonesian military, which was very closely tied to the US military. The massacre that then began immediately—of communists, communist sympathizers, suspected communists, suspected communist sympathizers and none of the above—was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history".

The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the US embassy had compiled lists of "communists", from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army," said one US diplomat. "They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands. But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment."

Ghana, 1966

When Kwame Nkrumah tried to lessen his country's dependence on the West by strengthening economic and military ties to the Soviet Union, China and East Germany, he effectively sealed his fate. A CIA-backed military coup sent the African leader into exile, from which he never returned. A CIA document, declassified in 1977, revealed that the Agency was in close contact with the military plotters and had been reporting to Washington for a year on the military's plans to oust Nkrumah; the last such report was the day before the coup. There is no indication that the CIA ever informed Nkrumah of any of these plots. 22

Uruguay, 1969-72

The 1960s was the era of the Tupamaros, perhaps the cleverest, most resourceful, most sophisticated, least violent, Robin-Hood-like urban guerrillas the world has ever seen.

They were too good to be allowed to endure. A team of American experts arrived, to supply the police with all the arms, vehicles, communications gear, etc. they needed, to train them in assassination and explosives techniques, to teach methods of interrogation cum torture, to set up an intelligence service cum death squad. It was all-out war against the Tupamaros and any suspected sympathizers. The Tupamaros lost.

In 1998, Eladio Moll, a retired Uruguayan Navy rear admiral and former intelligence chief, testifying before a commission of the Uruguayan Chamber of Deputies, stated that during Uruguay's "dirty war" (1972-1983), orders came from the United States concerning captive Tupamaros. "The guidance that was sent from the U.S.," said Moll,

"was that what had to be done with the captured guerrillas was to get information, and that afterwards they didn't deserve to live." 23

Chile, 1964-73

Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for the Washington power elite, who could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power—an elected Marxist in power, one who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones upon 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 undermining the economy and building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military, under General Pinochet, overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.

Thus it was that 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, dogs trained to sexually molest female prisoners were set loose; the subversive books were thrown to the 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 checkbooks. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more had disappeared, tens of thousands tortured. 24

The FBI accommodated the new government by trying to track down Chilean leftists in the United States, while Secretary of State Henry Kissinger assured Pinochet that "In the United States, as you know, we are sympathetic with what you are trying to do here...We wish your government well." 25

Greece, 1967-74

A military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. The coup had been a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, the CIA and the American military stationed in Greece, and was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings 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". Torture, inflicted in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States, became routine.

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.

Andreas Papandreou had been arrested at the time of the coup and held in prison for eight months. Shortly after his release, he and his wife Margaret visited the American ambassador, Phillips Talbot, in Athens. Papandreou related the following: I asked Talbot whether America could have intervened the night of the coup, to prevent the death of democracy in Greece. He denied that they could have done anything about it.

Then Margaret asked a critical question: What if the coup had been a Communist or a Leftist coup? Talbot answered without hesitation. Then, of course, they would have intervened, and they would have crushed the coup.

South Africa, 1960s-1980s

The CIA collaborated closely with South African intelligence, one of the principal focuses being the African National Congress, the leading anti-apartheid organization which had been banned and exiled. The Agency cooperated in suppressing internal dissent, provided specific warnings of planned attacks by the ANC and information about ANC members residing in neighboring countries; on at least one occasion, in Mozambique in 1981, this led to South Africa sending an assassination squad to wipe out the fingered individuals. The CIA was also responsible for the capture of ANC leader Nelson Mandela. Additionally, for a number of years in the 1970s and 1980s, the US

supported South Africa in the UN, and the CIA violated the UN's arms embargo against South Africa (of which the US was a declared supporter) by covertly providing the

country with weapons and supporting its efforts to militarily determine the political makeup of Southern Africa. 26

Bolivia, 1964-75

An armed popular revolt in 1952 had defeated the military and reduced it to a small, impotent and discredited force. But under US guidance and aid, there was a slow but certain rejuvenation of the armed forces. By 1964, the military, with the indispensable support of the CIA and the Pentagon, was able to overthrow President Victor Paz, whom the United States had designated a marked man because of his refusal to support Washington's Cuba policies. The US continued to dictate who should lead Bolivia long after.

In 1967, a CIA operation, employing some of the Agency's Cuban exile agents, tracked down Che Guevara, resulting in his summary execution.

Australia, 1972-75

The CIA channeled millions of dollars to the Labor Party's opposition, but failed to block Labor's election. When the party took power in December 1972, it immediately rankled Washington by calling home Australian military personnel from Vietnam and denouncing US bombing of Hanoi, among other actions against the war. The government also displayed less than customary reverence for the intelligence and national security games so dear to the heart of the CIA. Edward Gough Whitlam, the new prime minister, was slowly but surely sealing his fate. Through complex supra-legal maneuvering, the US, the British and the Australian opposition were eventually able to induce Governor-General John Kerr—who had a long history of involvement with CIA fronts—to "legally" dismiss Whitlam in 1975.

Iraq, 1972-75

As a favor to a very important ally, the Shah of Iran, President Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger provided military aid to the Kurds fighting for their autonomy in Iraq, Iran's perennial foe. Though the military aid was to total some $16

million, the object—unknown to the Kurds—was not to win them their autonomy, but to sap the Iraqi resources and distract them from Iran. Said a CIA memo of 1974: "Iran, like ourselves, has seen benefit in a stalemate situation...in which Iraq is intrinsically weakened by the Kurds' refusal to relinquish semi-autonomy. Neither Iran nor ourselves wish to see the matter resolved one way or the other." The congressional Pike Committee, later investigating the CIA, commented: "This policy was not imparted to

[the Kurds], who were encouraged to continue fighting. Even in the context of covert action, ours was a cynical enterprise."

In 1975, oil politics brought Iraq and Iran together, and the latter, along with the United States, abandoned the Kurds to a terrible fate. At a crucial point, the Kurds were begging Kissinger for help, but he completely ignored their pleas. Kurd forces were decimated; several hundred of their leaders were executed. Later, when questioned about this by the Pike Committee, Kissinger responded: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work." 27

Portugal, 1974-76

A bloodless military coup in 1974 brought down the US-supported 48-year fascist regime that was the world's only remaining colonial power. This was followed by a program centered on nationalization of major industries, workers' control, a minimum wage, land reform and other progressive measures. Washington and multinational officials who were on the board of directors of the planet were concerned. Destabilization became the order of the day: covert actions; attacks in the US press; subverting trade unions; subsidizing opposition media; economic sabotage through international credit and commerce; heavy financing of selected candidates in elections; a US cut-off of Portugal from certain military and nuclear information commonly available to NATO members; NATO naval and air exercises off the Portuguese coast, with 19 NATO warships moored in Lisbon's harbor, regarded by most Portuguese as an attempt to intimidate the provisional government. 28 The Portuguese revolution was doomed. The CIA-financed candidates took and retained power for years.

East Timor, 1975-99

While East Timor was undergoing a process of decolonization from Portugal in 1975, various political groupings were formed on the island. In August one of the parties, the UDT, attempted a coup against Portuguese rule, which was almost certainly instigated by Indonesia. A brief civil war broke out, in which a movement of the left, Fretilin, gained the upper hand. By September, Fretilin had prevailed and in November declared East Timor's independence from Portugal. Nine days later, Indonesia invaded East Timor. The invasion was launched the day after US President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving President Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under US law, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable ally in Southeast Asia, and, in any event, the United States was not inclined to look kindly on any leftist government. 29

Indonesia soon achieved complete control over East Timor, with the help of American arms and diplomatic support. Daniel Moynihan, who was US ambassador to the UN at the time, later wrote that the "United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success." 30

Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops had killed 200,000

people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States stood virtually alone in the world in its consistent support of Indonesia's claim to East Timor, 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.

Despite denials to the contrary, Washington continued this military aid up to and including the period of extensive massacres of pro-independence Timorese in 1999 by Indonesian soldiers and their militia allies. 31

In 1995, a senior official of the Clinton administration, speaking of Suharto, said: "He's our kind of guy." 32

Angola, 1975-1980s

The United States, China and South Africa supported one side of the civil war, while the Soviet Union and Cuba supported the other side. It dragged on bloodily, horribly and pointlessly for decades, and simmers yet, perhaps half a million lives lost, widespread hunger and what is said to be the highest amputee rate in the world, caused by the innumerable land mines. In the early years Henry Kissinger personally prevented what might well have been a peaceful solution, but the man was wholly obsessed with countering Soviet moves anywhere on the planet—significant or trivial, real or imagined, fait accompli or anticipated. In the 1990s, Washington tried to rein in its client, Jonas Savimbi, head of UNITA, to keep him from prolonging the war, but it would have been immensely better for the people of Angola if the US had not intervened at all in Angolan politics beginning in the early 1960s. The Russians would then have had no interest. Nor Henry Kissinger.

Jamaica, 1976

Prime Minister Michael Manley got on Washington's bad side: by supporting the wrong faction in Angola, by establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba, and by going up against the transnational aluminum companies. The United States employed many tactics in an attempt to defeat Manley's bid for reelection in 1976, but failed. 33

Honduras, 1980s

The US turned Honduras into an instant colony in the early 1980s, a military base with thousands of American troops, to support counterinsurgency operations in El Salvador and Guatemala, and, above all, to serve as a staging area, supply center and refuge for the Contras and their war against the Nicaraguan government. Inasmuch as the uninterrupted continuance of such operations required a quiescent population, the US gave the Honduran military and police the training, arms, equipment and funds needed to efficiently suppress dissidents—the anti-American types (who mockingly referred to their

country as the U.S.S. Honduras), those involved in solidarity campaigns for the Salvadoran rebels and the Sandinistas of Nicaragua and those striving for social change within Honduras, though still far from becoming a guerrilla threat. 34 "American diplomats," observed the New York Times in 1988, "exercise more control over domestic politics in Honduras than in any other country in the hemisphere, and in private that fact is universally acknowledged here." 35

Nicaragua, 1978-90

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 Guardsmen 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 the charming gentlemen Ronald Reagan liked to call

"freedom fighters".

In 1990, the US seriously interfered in national elections, resulting in the defeat of the Sandinistas. 36

As with Cuba, we'll never know what kind of progressive society the Sandinistas might have created if allowed to live in peace and not have to spend half their budget on fighting a war. Oxfam, the international development organization, said that from its experience of working in 76 developing countries, Nicaragua under the Sandinistas was

"exceptional in the strength of that government's commitment...to improving the condition of the people and encouraging their active participation in the development process." 37

A decade after returning to the rule of the free market, Nicaragua had become one of the poorest nations in the hemisphere, with more than half its people suffering from malnutrition and with illiteracy widespread.

Philippines, 1970s-1990s

Another scenario of poverty, social injustice, death squads, torture, etc. leading to wide-ranging protest and armed resistance...time once again for the US military and CIA to come to the aid of the government in suppressing such movements. In 1987 it was revealed that the Reagan administration had approved a $10 million, two-year plan for increased CIA involvement in the counterinsurgency campaign. 38 The CIA undertook large-scale psychological warfare operations and US military advisers routinely accompanied Philippine troops during their maneuvers. 39 The Philippines has long been

the most strategic location for US war-making in Asia, the site of several large American military bases, which have been the object of numerous protests by the citizens. In 1991, the US embassy informed the media that embassy polls indicated that 68 percent, 72

percent, even 81 percent of the Philippine people favored the bases. The polls, however, never existed. "I made the numbers up," an embassy official conceded. 40

Seychelles, 1979-81

The country's leader, France Albert Rene, amongst other shortcomings in the eyes of Washington, was a socialist, pursued non-alignment, wanted to turn the Indian Ocean into a nuclear-free zone and was not happy that his island nation was the home of a US

Air Force satellite tracking station. For this he was the object of various US

destabilization conspiracies beginning in 1979. In November 1981, the CIA reportedly was behind a mercenary invasion of the island nation, which originated in South Africa and got no further than an armed battle at the Seychelles airport. 41

South Yemen, 1979-84

Partly to cater to the wishes of next-door Saudi Arabia, and partly as Cold-War reflex, the US supported paramilitary forces in South Yemen to undermine the government, which was perceived as the proverbial "Soviet satellite", as opposed to North Yemen, which was seen to be the proverbial "pro-Western" good guys. North and South had been fighting on and off for years. The US sent North Yemen military aid and trained paramilitary forces to blow up bridges and carry out other acts of sabotage in the South.

In March 1982, a 13-man paramilitary team was captured in the South; under torture, they confessed (honestly) to a CIA training connection and 12 were executed; the operation soon came to an end. Reagan's CIA Director, William Casey, a genuine anti-Soviet primitive, had been convinced that the South Yemenis were part of a Soviet-run international terrorist network, along with Cubans, the Italian Red Brigades and the IRA. 42 In reality, since 1979, the Soviet Union had been providing military support and advisers to both North and South, sometimes at the very same time, and even helped North Yemen to put down a leftwing guerrilla movement. 43 In 1990, North and South combined into one country, the Republic of Yemen. The Cold War as vaudeville.

South Korea, 1980

In May, the United States—which had the first and last word on matters military in South Korea—acting on a government request, released some South Korean forces from the combined US-Korean command to be used by military strongman Chun Doo Hwan to suppress an uprising of students and workers in the city of Kwangju. 44 The protestors were pressing for an end to martial law, the arrest of dissidents and their families and friends, fraudulent elections, torture and unmet social needs. A brutal crackdown followed, estimates of the death toll ranging between several hundred and 2,000, with a

number of gross atrocities committed by the armed forces, 45 The US support came from the Carter administration, heralded as human^ rights advocates. Said a State Department spokesman: "Our situation, for better or worse, is that Korea is a treaty ally, and the US

has a very strong security interest in that part of the world." 46

In February 1981, Chun was honored by being invited to the White House as President Reagan's first state visitor; the US and South Korea engaged in the first joint military exercises of the new administration; the administration asked Congress to delay publication of the annual worldwide report on human rights while the South Korean president was still in Washington, to avoid embarrassing him; and Reagan, in his toast to Chun, was moved to declare: "You've done much to strengthen the tradition of 5,000

years' commitment to freedom." 47 In 1996, a Korean court convicted Chun of treason and murder, and sentenced him to death, for his role in the Kwangju massacre.

Chad, 1981-82

The Reagan administration's obsession with Moammar Qaddafi of Libya knew no limits: geographical, legal or ethical. Libya maintained a military force in neighboring Chad at the request of that government—which was faced with armed insurgents—and to serve Libya's desire for a friendly government on its border. The United States wanted to replace the Chadian government with one not very friendly to Libya, at the same time giving free rein to anti-Qaddafi Libyan exiles in Chad to mount attacks on Libya from across the border.

Thus it was that the US, along with France, the former colonial power in Chad, employed bribes and political pressures to induce the Chad government to ask the Libyans to leave—which Libya reluctantly did—and to replace them with forces of the Organization of African Unity. The OAU was given a vague mandate to maintain security in Chad.

This proved to be a sort of Trojan horse. The CIA rebuilt an opposition Chadian force in the Sudan and provided it with money, arms, political support and technical assistance.

Then, as the OAU stood by doing nothing, this army, led by Hissen Habré, succeeded in overthrowing the Chadian government in June 1982. 48 With US support, Habre went on to rule for eight years, during which his secret police reportedly killed tens of thousands, tortured as many as 200,000, and disappeared an undetermined number. In 2000, some of his torture victims succeeded in having him indicted in Senegal, where he resided, calling him "Africa's Pinochet". 49

Grenada, 1979-83

How impoverished, small, weak or far away must a country be before it is not a threat to the US government? In a 1979 coup, Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in this island country of 110 thousand, 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.

Reagan administration destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup, featuring outrageous disinformation and deception. Finally came the invasion in October 1983, which put into power individuals more beholden to US foreign policy objectives. The US suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400

Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers. The invasion was attended by yet more transparent lies, created by Washington to justify its gross violations of international law.

Suriname, 1982-84

A plot was hatched by the United States to overthrow the government because it allegedly was falling into "the Cuban orbit". It was to be an invasion by some 300 men, half US and South American and half Surinamese. The CIA had actually informed Congress of its plan to use a paramilitary force, which President Reagan had authorized.

Congress was not enthused, but William Casey and his CIA cowboys went ahead with their planning anyway, and were induced to call it off only after the scheme was discovered by the internal security agency of the Netherlands, the former colonial power in Suriname when it was known as Dutch Guiana.

Libya, 1981-89

The official reason for the Reagan administration's intense antipathy toward Moammar Qaddafi was that he supported terrorism. In actuality, the Libyan leader's crime was not his support for terrorist groups per se, but that he was supporting the wrong terrorist groups; i.e., Qaddafi was not supporting the same terrorists that Reagan was, such as the Nicaraguan Contras, UNITA in Angola, Cuban exiles in Miami, the governments of El Salvador and Guatemala and the US military in Grenada. The one band of terrorists the two men supported in common was the Moujahedeen in Afghanistan.

On top of this, Washington has a deep-seated antipathy toward Middle East oil-producing countries that it can't exert proper control over. Qaddafi was uppity, and he had overthrown a rich ruling clique and instituted a welfare state. He and his country would have to be put in their place. In 1981, US planes shot down two Libyan planes in Libyan air space. Five years later, the United States bombed one of Qaddafi's residences, killing scores of people. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, economic sanctions, and a major disinformation campaign reporting one piece of nonsense after another, including conspicuous exaggera-tions of his support for terrorism, and shifting the blame for the 1988 bombing of PanAm 103 to Libya and away from Iran and Syria when the Gulf War campaign required the support of the latter two countries. To Washington, Libya was like magnetic north: the finger always pointed there.

Fiji, 1987

Prime Minister Timoci Bavrada was ousted in a military coup only a month after taking office in April following a democratic election. Bavrada, of the Labour Party, made Washington officials unhappy by identifying himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, and even more so by taking office with a pledge to reinstate Fiji as a nuclear-free zone, meaning that nuclear-powered or nuclear-weapons-carrying ships could not make port calls. When Bavrada's predecessor, R.S.K. Mara, instituted the same policy in 1982, he was put under great US pressure to drop it. Said the former US ambassador to Fiji that year, William Bodde, Jr., "a nuclear free zone would be unacceptable to the US given our strategic needs...the US must do everything possible to counter this movement." 50 The following year, Mara dropped the policy. Bavrada would clearly not be so easily swayed.

He had taken office as part of a Nuclear-Free-Pacific Coalition.

Two weeks after Bavrada took office, American UN Ambassador Vernon Walters visited the island. The former Deputy Director of the CIA has had a history of showing up shortly before, during, or shortly after CIA destabilization operations. Walters met with Bavrada, ostensibly to discuss UN matters. He also met with Lt. Col. Sitiveni Rabuka, third-in-command of the Army. Two weeks later, Rabuka led a military coup which ousted Bavrada.

During Bavrada's month in office, a multi-layered "Libyan scare" campaign suddenly and inexplicably broke out in the Pacific area. The Reagan administration had already been exposed for its phoney Libya-scare campaign in the United States. When the Fiji coup took place, Rabuka and his supporters pointed to the Libyan "threat" as justifying the coup. 51

There are more of such "coincidences" in this drama, including appearances in Fiji before the coup of the National Endowment for Democracy (q.v.) and its funding, some of the CIAs labor mafia, and units of the US military in the Pacific. 52

The day after the coup, a Pentagon source, while denying US involvement, declared:

"We're kinda delighted.. .All of a sudden our ships couldn't go to Fiji, and now all of a sudden they can." 53

Panama, 1989

Less than two weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States showed its joy that a new era of world peace was now possible by invading Panama, as Washington's mad bombers struck again. On December 20, 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City was wiped out; 15,000 people were left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting between US and Panamanian forces, 500-something natives dead was the official body count—i.e., what the United States and the new US-installed Panamanian

government admitted to. Other sources, examining more evidence, concluded that thousands had died. Additionally, some 3,000 Panamanians were wounded, 23

Americans died, and 324 were 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 hardly a major 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 despite 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. And they could easily have gotten their hands on the man without wreaking such terrible devastation upon the Panamanian people. 54

Afghanistan, 1979-92

The striking repression of women in Afghanistan carried out by the Taliban Islamic fundamentalists is well known. Much less publicized is that in the late 1970s and most of the 1980s Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly underdeveloped country into the 20th century (never mind the 21st), including giving women equal rights. The United States, however, poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. By aiding the fundamentalist opposition, Washington knowingly and deliberately increased the probability of a Soviet intervention. 55 And when that occurred, the CIA became the grand orchestrator: hitting up Middle Eastern countries for huge financial support, on top of that from Washington; pressuring and bribing neighboring Pakistan to rent out its country as a military staging area and sanctuary; supplying a great arsenal of weaponry and military training.

In the end, the United States and the Taliban "won", and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million were dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92

Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with US support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds

of protestors and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.

Washington responded immediately.

Officially, the US military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis.

About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a US role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992 with these results: 75,000 civilian deaths; the US Treasury depleted by six billion dollars; meaningful social change thwarted; a handful of the wealthy still owning the country; the poor remaining as ever; dissidents still having to fear right-wing death squads; there would be no profound social change in El Salvador.

Haiti, 1987-94

The US supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers and drug traffickers. With this as background, in 1994 the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend—because of all their rhetoric about "democracy"—that they supported the democratically-elected Aristide's return to power after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, literally; and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving starvation wages, literally. If Aristide had thoughts about breaking the agreement forced upon him, he had only to look out his window—US troops were stationed in Haiti for the remainder of his term.

Bulgaria, 1990-91

In November 1999, President Clinton visited Bulgaria and told a crowd in Sofia that he hailed them for throwing off communism and holding fair elections. 56 What he failed to mention was that after one of their fair elections had been won by the communists, the US government had proceeded to overthrow them.

In 1990, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) poured more than $1.5 million into Bulgaria in an attempt to defeat the Bulgarian Socialist Party (the former Communist Party) in the June 1990 national election. On the basis of population, this was equivalent to a foreign power injecting some $38 million into an American electoral campaign. The main recipient of NED largesse was the leading opposition party, the Union of Democratic Forces, which received $517,000, in addition to its newspaper receiving $233,000. 57 Much to the shock and dismay of Washington, the BSP won.

This would not do. Washington's ideological bottom line was that the Bulgarian Socialist Party could not, and would not, be given the chance to prove that a democratic, socialist-oriented mixed economy could succeed in Eastern Europe while the capitalist model was already beginning to disillusion people all around it. NED stepped in with generous funding and advice to specific opposition groups which carried out a campaign of chaos lasting almost five months: very militant and disruptive street demonstrations, paralyzing labor strikes, sit-ins, hunger strikes, arson.. .parliament was surrounded, the government was under siege...until finally the president was forced to resign, followed by some of his ministers; lastly, the prime minister gave up his office.

In 1991, NED again threw hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election; this time, what NED calls the "democratic forces" won. 58

Albania, 1991-92

This tale is very similar to that of Bulgaria. A Communist government won overwhelming endorsement in the March 1991 elections, followed immediately by two months of widespread unrest, including street demonstrations and a general strike lasting three weeks, which finally led to the collapse of the new government by June. 59 NED

had been there also, providing $80,000 to the labor movement and $23,000 "to support party training and civic education programs". 60

A new election was held in March 1992. During the election campaign, US political strategists and diplomats, including the American ambassador, openly accompanied candidates of the Democratic Party (the Communists' chief opposition) on their stumping tours and got out the message that said—frankly and explicitly—If the Communists win again, there will be no US aid, and "a lot of Western investors and governments are going to direct their aid elsewhere". The NED, once again, was there with all kinds of goodies for "the good guys", including brand new Jeep Cherokees. 61 The Democratic Party won.

Somalia, 1993

It was supposed to be a mission to help feed the starving masses. Before long, the US was trying to rearrange the country's political map by eliminating the dominant warlord, Mohamed Aidid, and his power base. On many occasions, beginning in June, US

helicopters strafed groups of Aidid's supporters and fired missiles at them. Scores were killed. Then, in October, a daring attempt by some 120 elite American forces to kidnap two leaders of Aidid's clan resulted in a horrendous bloody battle. The final tally was five US helicopters shot down, 18 Americans dead, 73 wounded, 500 to 1,000 Somalians killed, many more injured.

It's questionable that getting food to hungry people was as important as the fact that four American oil giants were holding exploratory rights to large areas of land and were

hoping that US troops would put an end to the chaos which threatened their highly expensive investments. There was also the Pentagon's ongoing need to sell itself to those in Congress who were trying to cut the military budget in the post-Cold War world.

"Humanitarian" actions and (unnecessary) amphibious landings by US Marines on the beach in the glare of TV cameras were thought to be good selling points. Washington designed the operation in such a way that the show would be run by the US military and not the United Nations, under whose aegis it supposedly fell.

In any event, by the time the Marines landed, the worst of the famine was over. It had peaked months before. 62

Iraq, 1990s

Mental hospitals and prisons are filled with people who claim to have heard voices telling them to kill certain people, often people they've never met before, people who've never done them any harm, or threatened any harm.

American soldiers went to the Middle East to kill the same kind of people after hearing a voice command them: the voice of George Bush.

Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world to that time; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancers and sundry congenital problems; blowing up chemical and biological weapon and oil facilities, a terrible poisoning of the atmosphere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with dreadful effects on health; sanctions continued into the 21st century, multiplying the health problems; more than a million children dead from all of these factors, even more adults. UNICEF, in an August 1999

report, stated that in southern and central Iraq, the death rate for children under five had more than doubled in the years of the sanctions.

Until the present day, the US and Great Britain have continued to launch missiles against the burned-out ash called Iraq, as their planes fly over the country on virtually a daily basis, the authority for which Washington and London derive from each other. In the first eight months of 1999, the two countries flew some 10,000 sorties over Iraq, unleashing more than 1,000 bombs and missiles on more than 400 targets, killing or wounding many hundreds of people. Said US Brig. General William Looney, a director of this operation: If they turn on their radars we're going to blow up their goddamn SAMs. They know we own their country. We own their airspace.. .We dictate the way they live and talk. And that's what's great about America right now. It's a good thing, especially when there's a lot of oil out there we need. 63

It can be said that the United States has inflicted more vindictive punishment and ostracism upon Iraq than upon Germany or Japan after World War II.

Noam Chomsky has written: "It's been a leading, driving doctrine of US foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price."

This may have been Iraq's crime, not that they invaded Kuwait in 1990, an invasion encouraged by the United States and provoked by Washington's close ally, Kuwait, itself; an invasion that gave the US all the pretext it needed to take action. Iraq's invasion was, after all, no more than Indonesia had done to East Timor, with Washington's blessing.

Peru, 1990s-present

For more than a decade the US has provided Peru with an unending stream of military advisers and trainers, Navy Seals and Green Berets, all manner of arms and equipment, surveillance flights, radar stations in the Andes, whatever—all to one of the most dictatorial and repressive regimes in the Western Hemisphere, condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch/Americas and State Department Human Rights reports for its medieval prisons, routine torture and other human-rights violations, led by an autocrat named Alberto Fujimori.

For what purpose has this support been rendered? The official Washington explanation is to fight drugs. But whereas four air force officers, including one of Fujimori's personal military pilots, were arrested after 383 pounds of cocaine were found on their military plane; whereas on four separate occasions cocaine was seized from navy ships, totaling 220 pounds; 64 whereas Fujimori's closest adviser, Vladimir Montesino, has a history of being a drug kingpin, and formerly a lawyer for drug traffickers; 65 whereas Montesino, who has long been on the CIA payroll, runs the intelligence service, which also has its hands deep into the drug cookie jar and was publicly condemned by the US Senate in 1999 for its corruption; 66 and whereas the military is known to have tipped off drug traffickers to DEA raids and physically protected the traffickers' cocaine caches from seizure by the police67...what can Washington possibly be thinking?

They're thinking of the usual: helping the government suppress guerrilla movements is the main priority. In 1997, Fujimori ordered the summary execution of 14 leftists, most of them very young, who had taken over the Japanese ambassador's home to press for human rights and economic improvements, and tried to surrender peacefully before being shot in cold blood. The commandos who carried out the raid received training and sophisticated technological help from the United States for their operation, including overflights of the RU-38A airplane, which can photograph a building and gauge the thickness of its walls, amongst a host of other details crucial to planning the raid. 68

The United States did not aid in the execution of these young people because of drug trafficking.

Mexico, 1990s-present

The Mexican government "will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy...[and] will need to consider carefully whether or not to allow opposition victories if fairly won at the ballot box." Thus reads a 1995 memorandum from Riordan Roett, a consultant on Latin America's emerging markets, working for Chase Manhattan Bank in New York. 69

He was speaking of the movement of indigenous people in Mexico who were, and still are, demanding their economic and political rights and their autonomy. These desires, however, conflict with the needs of NAFTA and other components of the globalized economy, which want the Zapatistas out of certain areas—or at least not claiming own^

ership to the land—for various reasons, oil and other natural resources being amongst them, as well as the decidedly bad example being set for other Mexican and Central American peasants. NAFTA's plans call for the "subsistence" agriculture long practiced by the indigenous people to be "modernized"; i.e., to produce "high-profit" export crops, such as rubber and lumber. 70

In the name of fighting drugs, the United States has poured hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid and training into Mexico, bringing in the usual complement of American police agents, Army advisers, CIA operatives and Special Forces. 71 And all in support of a remarkably corrupt government, military, "paramilitary" and police, many of whom are involved in drug trafficking themselves, carry out massacres and regularly engage in torture and other violations of human rights. 72 The Zapatistas claim that US

and Argentine advisers have been providing training to the paramilitaries, the main force behind this newest "dirty war", so terribly familiar to Latin America. 73

The American military aid has included sophisticated surveillance technology to track the Zapatistas in forests and hills, and hundreds of helicopters, which have been used to attack communities with machine guns, rockets and bombs. Such US aid and training is, still, commonplace in the Third World. In an excellent series on the subject in 1998, the Washington Post pointed out that:

[Even] where armed domestic opposition is negligible or nonexistent, U.S. forces are teaching armies how to track down opponents, surprise them in helicopter attacks, kill them with more proficiency, or, in some cases, how to lead house-to-house raids in "close quarters combat" designed for cities. 74

Much of the military aid to Mexico has been in violation of congressional laws banning military assistance to foreign security units guilty of human-rights violations. 75

Oddly enough, no one accuses the Zapatistas of being involved with drug trafficking, so Washington's effective participation in the war being waged against them can only be seen in ideological terms.

Colombia, 1990s-present

By the end of the decade, Colombia—the most violent nation in the world—had become the third largest recipient of US military aid, with hundreds of American military personnel posted there in a growing number of military and radar bases to aid in counterinsurgency actions against leftist guerrillas. The US has aided government bombing raids and other military functions by providing helicopters, intelligence information about guerrilla movements, satellite images and communications intercepts. At times, US

planes fly overhead during combat operations. The guerrillas claim that Americans are conducting covert counterinsurgency operations and warned that they will be targeted. 76

Again, the public rationale given for taking sides in a civil war has been "to fight drugs".

To drive home this point, US drug czar Barry McCaffrey routinely refers to the leading guerrilla group, FARC, as "narco-traffickers". But the DEAs Acting Administrator testified in 1999 that the DEA had "not yet really come to the conclusion" that "the FARC and ELN are drug trafficking entities per se", 77 even though the guerrillas do finance themselves in part through protecting and "taxing" drug producers.

However, the main recipient of the American aid, the Colombian military, is involved in drug trafficking, at the same time being intimately linked to paramilitary forces which are also active in drug trafficking and in protecting drug producers. 78 In November 1998, a Colombian Air Force cargo plane that landed at Ft. Lauderdale, Florida was found to contain 1,639 pounds of cocaine. In 1996, Colombian Air Force officers tried to smuggle heroin to the United States aboard the plane used by then-President Ernesto Samper. 79

Samper himself was labeled a "drug trafficker" by a senior Clinton administration official. 80

As Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) pointed out in 1999, in speaking of Colombia: "What we are really seeing is a ratcheting up of a counterinsurgency policy masquerading as a counter-drug policy." 81

In a 1994 report, Amnesty International estimated that more than 20,000 people had been killed in Colombia since 1986, mainly by the military and its paramilitary allies—"not in the 'drug wars' but for political reasons". Many of the victims were "trade unionists, human-rights activists and leaders of legal leftwing movements." Amnesty charged that

"U.S.-supplied military equipment, ostensibly delivered for use against narcotics traffickers, was being used by the Colombian military to commit these abuses in the name of 'counterinsurgency'." 82 As with Mexico, much of this aid is in violation of congressional human-rights laws. The Pentagon has barely masked its scorn of these restrictions. 83

A March 1997 letter by members of the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee to Secretary of State Albright stated that "efforts by the Colombian government to take action to curb the increased abuses committed by paramilitary groups, or to curb extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture, political killings and other forms of human rights abuses committed by security forces [i.e., the regular military] are not sufficient to warrant the provision of over $100 million in military assistance and the resumption of lethal aid." 84

The lethal aid, however, has continued. Washington suspects that the Colombian insurgents, if they ever took power, would just not fit in very well in the globalized economy of the New World Order.

Yugoslavia, 1995-99

In April 1996, President Clinton visited Russia during a pause in the brutal military struggle between Moscow and its breakaway province of Chechnya. At a press conference, the president declared:

You say that there are some who say we should have been more openly critical. I think it depends upon your first premise; do you believe that Chechnya is a part of Russia or not?

I would remind you that we once had a Civil War in our country in which we lost on a pet-capita basis far more people than we lost in any of the wars of the 20th century over the proposition that Abraham Lincoln gave his life for, that no State had a right to withdraw from our Union. 85

Three years later Clinton destroyed much of Yugoslavian civilized life and culture in Operation Bomb for Humanity, in effect rejecting the idea that Slobodan Milosevic had the right to try to prevent the province of Kosovo from withdrawing from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The United States, under the cover of NATO, intervened in a civil war less violent than the American civil war; indeed, a lot less violent, and of shorter duration, than several other civil conflicts going on in the world at the same time, such as in Turkey, Sri Lanka, Indonesia/East Timor, Angola and other places in Africa; and it was the supposed extreme (one-sided?) violence of Serbia against the Kosovars that tore at the heartstrings of the kindly American and NATO leaders.

To those who argue that the US couldn't be saving the entire world, it must be pointed out that far from simply not saving certain peoples, Washington had been actively supporting Turkey and Indonesia for years in their mailed-fist military suppressions, and helped Croatia carry out, and then cover up, its ethnic cleansing of the Krajina Serbs in 1995. 86

Turkey, in fact, had nearly threatened to veto the NATO decision that it could act on Kosovo unless

A Concise History of US Global Interventions 165

Ankara was assured that this policy could never be applied to Turkey's treatment of Kurds. 87

But it was imperative for the United States that certain principles be established: 1) that NATO—in the absence of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact—still had a purpose in life; 2) that NATO had the right to intervene anywhere, even outside of its own geographical boundaries, and without having to seek explicit authority from the UN Security Council; 3) that NATO was to be the military arm of the New World Order (corporate headquarters located in Washington, DC).

Yugoslavia was not inclined to worship these principles; nor, as we have seen, had the Serbs shown proper reverence for joining the club of globalized American allies cum obedient junior partners. Most of their industry and financial sector was still state owned.

They had not even banned the word "socialism" from polite conversation yet. Veritable dinosaurs they were! All in all, an ideal humanitarian bombing target. The fact that Milosevic is a dictator was of no strategic significance, except for its propaganda value.

So Yugoslavia, which for years had feared an attack from the East (the Soviet Union), instead was devastated by the Western "free world". While the bombing attacks were being carried out, Serbian TV was also targeted, because it was broadcasting things which the United States did not like. The bombs took the lives of many of the station's staff, and both legs of one of the survivors, which had to be amputated to free him from the wreckage. 88

"Once you kill people because you don't like what they say," observed noted British foreign correspondent, Robert Fisk, "you change the rules of war." 89

Perhaps the strangest aspect of the whole conflict is the collective amnesia that appears to have afflicted countless intelligent, well-meaning people, who are convinced that the US/NATO bombing took place after, the mass forced deportation of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo was well underway; which is to say that the bombing was launched to stop this "ethnic cleansing". In actuality, the systematic forced deportations of large numbers of people did not begin until a few days after the bombing began, and was clearly a reaction to it, born of extreme anger and powerlessness. This is easily verified by looking at a daily newspaper for the few days before the bombing began the night of March 23/24, and the few days after. Or simply look at the New York Times of March 26, page 1, which reads:

...with the NATO bombing already begun, a deepening sense of fear took hold in Pristina

[the main city of Kosovo] that the Serbs would now vent their rage against ethnic Albanian civilians in retaliation [emphasis added].

On March 27, we find the first reference to a "forced march" or anything of that sort.

But the propaganda version may already be set in marble. It's the neatest con-game since the church sprang "papal infallibility" upon a gullible people.

There's a lot more, hay mucho mas, il y a beaucoup plus, es gibt noch viel mehr In addition to the above, there have been literally dozens of other serious American interventions in every corner of the world, against both governments and movements, from the 1950s on. The amount of US government roguery to be uncovered appears to be infinite, while the author's time is finite. The US intervention machine has been, more or less, on automatic pilot...perpetual war for perpetual peace.

Narco-terrorists gonna get your mama

US government officials often seem desirous of identifying leftist guerrillas with drug trafficking, whether the linkage is factual or not. They also like to make use of the expression "narco-terrorists" in speaking of the guerrillas. These linguistic associations may serve a function beyond the purely descriptive. Here is Special Forces commander Col. John Waghelstein, speaking in 1987 about this linkage: A melding in the American public's mind and in Congress of this connection would lead to tbe necessary support to counter tbe guerrilla/narcotics terrorists in this hemisphere...Congress would find it difficult to stand in the way of supporting our allies with the training, advice and security assistance necessary to do the job. Those church and academic groups that have slavishly supported insurgency in Latin America would find themselves on the wrong side of the moral issue. Above all, we would have the unassailable moral position from which to launch a concerted effort using Department of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD assets. 90

Victims Memorial Museums

For several years, Cold-War conservatives have been planning for the opening of "The Victims of Communism Memorial Museum" near the Mall in Washington. This building has been commissioned by an act of Congress and signed by President Clinton. The literature its backers put out in behalf of this project is egregiously inaccurate and propagandistic. But that is not the point I wish to make here so much as to call for the erection of "The Victims of Anti-Communism Memorial Museum"; right next door would be a good spot. Displays dealing with the interventions described above and with the torture and support of terrorism detailed in other chapters would provide more than enough material to fill a good-sized edifice.