Ich bin verwirrt. Kann mir vielleicht irgendjemand helfen?
Neil Clark ist Journalist, Autor und Radiomoderator. Sie finden seinen preisgekrönten Blog unter http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.
Veröffentlicht am 15. April 2014
Ich bin verwirrt. Vor ein paar Wochen hat man uns im Westen erzählt, dass die Besetzung der Regierungsgebäude in der Ukraine eine gute Sache wäre. Es würde sich bei diesen Leuten um „pro-demokratische Protestler“ handeln. Zumindest haben uns das unsere politischen Führer und die Elite-Medienberichterstatter erzählt.
Die amerikanische Regierung hat die ukrainischen Behörden gewarnt, gewaltsam gegen diese „pro-demokratischen Protestler“ vorzugehen, obwohl laut der Bilder, die wir gesehen haben, einige von ihnen Neonazis sind, die Molotowcocktails und andere Dinge gegen die Polizei geworfen, Statuten niedergerissen und Gebäude in Brand gesetzt hatten.
Heute, nur ein paar Wochen später, erzählt man uns, dass die Leute, die die Regierungsgebäude in der Ukraine besetzen, gar keine „pro-demokratischen Protestler”, sondern „Terroristen” oder „Militante” sind.
Warum war das Besetzen von Regierungsgebäuden in der Ukraine im Januar eine gute, im April hingegen eine sehr schlechte Sache? Warum war die Gewalt der Behörden gegen die Protestler im Januar absolut inakzeptabel und jetzt nicht mehr? Ich bin verwirrt. Kann mir vielleicht irgendeiner helfen?
Die Anti-Regierungs-Protestler in der Ukraine erhielten im Winter Besuch von mehreren bedeutenden westlichen Politikern, darunter der US-Senator John McCain und Victoria Nuland vom amerikanischen Außenministerium, die sogar Kuchen mitgebracht hatte. Aber es gab vor Kurzem auch eine Menge anderer großer Anti-Regierungsproteste in vielen anderen westeuropäischen Ländern. Diese Proteste hingegen wurden weder von diesen Personen noch von den westlichen Elite-Medienberichterstattern unterstützt. Geschweige denn, dass die Protestler Kuchen vom amerikanischen Außenministerium bekommen hätten.
Hätten McCain und Nuland, wenn sie von den Antiregierungsprotesten auf den Straßen in Europa so begeistert sind und diese als die wahrste Form der „Demokratie” betrachten, nicht ebenso auch ihre Solidarität mit den Protestlern, die in Madrid, Rom, Athen und Paris auf die Straßen gegangen sind, bekunden müssen? Ich bin verwirrt. Kann mir mal irgendeiner helfen?
Vor ein paar Wochen habe ich ein Interview mit dem amerikanischen Außenminister John Kerry gesehen. Er sagte: „Man überfällt ein anderes Land nicht mit einem erfundenen Vorwand, nur um seine eigenen Interessen durchzusetzen.“ Aber ich meine mich zu erinnern, dass die USA genau das in den letzten 20 Jahren oder so mehr als einmal gemacht hat.
Ist meine Erinnerung an die „Behauptung, der Irak verfüge über Massenvernichtungswaffen”, falsch? Habe ich das seinerzeit in 2002 und zu Beginn des Jahres 2003 alles nur geträumt, als die Politiker und die neo-konservativen Gelehrten jeden Tag im Fernsehen waren und uns kleinen Leuten erzählten, dass wir wegen der Bedrohung durch Saddams tödliches Waffenarsenal in den Krieg gegen den Irak ziehen müssten? Warum wird das demokratische Stimmrecht auf der Krim, sich wieder Russland anzuschließen, als schlimmer als der brutale tödliche Einmarsch in den Irak angesehen – ein Einmarsch, bei dem bis zu 1 Millionen Menschen um´s Leben gekommen sind? Ich bin verwirrt. Kann mir vielleicht mal jemand helfen?
Außerdem haben uns sehr seriös wirkende westliche Politiker und Medien-„Experten“ erzählt, dass das Krim-Referendum keine Gültigkeit hätte, da es unter einer „militärischen Besetzung“ stattgefunden hatte. Aber ich habe in der Berichterstattung über die Wahlen in Afghanistan, die unter Militärbesetzung durchgeführt wurden, gesehen, dass führende westliche Personen wie der NATO-Chef Anders Fogh Rasmussen diese als einen „historischen Moment für Afghanistan“ und als einen großen Erfolg für die „Demokratie“ gefeiert haben. Warum wird die Abstimmung auf der Krim abgelehnt, die Abstimmung in Afghanistan (oder in Deutschland) hingegen gefeiert? Ich bin verwirrt. Vielleicht hilft mir Die Lage in Syrien ist ebenfalls sehr verwirrend. Es wird immer noch behauptet, dass radikale islamische Terrorgruppen die größte Bedrohung für unseren Frieden, unsere Sicherheit und unsere „Art zu leben“ darstellen. Dass die Al-Qaida und anderen dieser Gruppierungen zerstört werden müssen. Dass wir einen umbarmherzigen „Krieg gegen den Terror“ gegen sie führen müssten. Jetzt haben sich unsere politischen Führer an die Seite dieser radikalen Gruppen in Syrien in ihrem Krieg gegen eine säkulare Regierung gestellt, die die Rechte religiöser Mindereinheiten einschließlich der Christen respektiert.
Unsere politischen Führer verurteilen es nicht, wenn die Bomben der Al-Qaida und deren angeschlossener Gruppierungen auf Syrien heruntergehen und unschuldige Menschen getötet werden. Aber sie verurteilen die säkulare syrische Regierung, die gegen radikale Islamisten kämpft und die unsere politischen Führer und Elite-Medienberichterstatter jetzt verzweifelt versuchen, zu stürzen. Ich bin verwirrt. Vielleicht hilft mir jetzt mal jemand.
Dann die Schwulenrechte. Uns wurde erzählt, dass Russland ein schlechtes und rückständiges Land ist, da es ein Gesetz gegen die Förderung der Homosexualität Minderjährigen gegenüber verabschiedet hat. Trotzdem besuchen unsere politischen Führer, die wegen dieses Gesetzes die Winterspiele in Sochi boykottiert hatten, die Golfstaaten, obwohl hier Homosexuelle inhaftiert oder sogar hingerichtet werden können, und umarmen die dortigen Machthaber, ohne auch nur ein Wort über das Problem mit den Schwulenrechten zu verlieren.
Ist denn die Inhaftierung oder gar Hinrichtung schwuler Menschen nicht viel schlimmer als ein Gesetz, das die Förderung der Homosexualität Minderjährigen gegenüber verbietet? Warum attackieren, wenn sich unsere politischen Führer ernsthaft Sorgen um die Schwulenrechte machen, sie dann Russland und nicht die Länder, in denen schwule Menschen inhaftiert oder hingerichtet werden? Ich bin verwirrt. Hilft mir mal jemand?
In unzähligen Zeitungsartikeln wurde gesagt, dass die ungarische ultranationale Partei Jobbik sehr schlecht ist und dass deren Aufstieg, obwohl diese Partei nicht in der Regierung ist oder wahrscheinlich auch nicht sein wird, ein Grund ist, sich große Sorgen zu machen. Aber in der neuen Regierung der Ukraine, die unsere politischen Führer im Westen geradezu begeistert unterstützen, werden Positionen von Neonazis und Ultranationalisten bekleidet. Die ganz rechte Gesinnung hat bei dem Sturz der demokratisch gewählten Regierung in der Ukraine im Februar eine Schlüsselrolle gespielt. Eine „Revolution“ übrigens, die im Westen umjubelt wurde. Warum sind Ultranationalisten und ganz rechte Gruppierungen in Ungarn inakzeptabel, in der Ukraine aber absolut vertretbar? Ich bin verwirrt. Hilft mir bitte mal jemand?
Uns wurde erzählt, dass Russland eine aggressive imperialistische Macht ist und dass sich die Bemühungen der NATO gegen die russische „Bedrohung“ richten. Ich habe am nächsten Tag mal auf die Landkarte geschaut und dabei viele Länder in unmittelbarer Nähe zu Russland oder an Russland angrenzend gesehen, die Mitglieder der NATO sind. Die NATO ist ein Militärbündnis unter amerikanischer Leitung, dessen Mitglieder in den letzten 15 Jahren viele Länder angegriffen und zerbomt hatten. Aber ich habe keine Länder in unmittelbarer Nähe zu Amerika gesehen, die Teil eines russischen Militärbündnisses wären. Ebenso wenig habe ich russische Militär- oder Bombenstützpunkte in Ländern gesehen, die an die USA angrenzen oder sich in deren unmittelbarer Nähe befinden. Aber Russland ist, so versucht man uns zu erzählen, der „Aggressor“. Ich bin echt verwirrt. Kann mir mal jemand weiterhelfen?
I’m confused, can anyone help me?
Neil Clark is a journalist, writer and broadcaster. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com.
Published time: April 15, 2014 10:06
I’m confused. A few weeks ago we were told in the West that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine was a very good thing. These people, we were told by our political leaders and elite media commentators, were ‚pro-democracy protestors‘.
The US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these ‚pro-democracy protestors‘ even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.
Now, just a few weeks later, we’re told that people occupying government buildings in Ukraine are not ‚pro-democracy protestors‘ but ‚terrorists‘ or ‚militants‘.
Why was the occupation of government buildings in Ukraine a very good thing in January, but it is a very bad thing in April? Why was the use of force by the authorities against protestors completely unacceptable in January, but acceptable now? I repeat: I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
The anti-government protestors in Ukraine during the winter received visits from several prominent Western politicians, including US Senator John McCain, and Victoria Nuland, from the US State Department, who handed out cookies. But there have been very large anti-government protests in many Western European countries in recent weeks, which have received no such support, either from such figures or from elite Western media commentators. Nor have protestors received free cookies from officials at the US State Department.
Surely if they were so keen on anti-government street protests in Europe, and regarded them as the truest form of ‚democracy‘, McCain and Nuland would also be showing solidarity with street protestors in Madrid, Rome, Athens and Paris? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
A few weeks ago I saw an interview with the US Secretary of State John Kerry who said, “You just don’t invade another country on phony pretexts in order to assert your interests.” But I seem to recall the US doing just that on more than one occasion in the past 20 years or so.
Have I misremembered the ‚Iraq has WMDs claim‘? Was I dreaming back in 2002 and early 2003 when politicians and neocon pundits came on TV every day to tell us plebs that we had to go to war with Iraq because of the threat posed by Saddam’s deadly arsenal? Why is having a democratic vote in Crimea on whether to rejoin Russia deemed worse than the brutal, murderous invasion of Iraq – an invasion which has led to the deaths of up to 1 million people? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
We were also told by very serious-looking Western politicians and media ‚experts‘ that the Crimea referendum wasn’t valid because it was held under “military occupation.” But I’ve just been watching coverage of elections in Afghanistan, held under military occupation, which have been hailed by leading western figures, such as NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen as a “historic moment for Afghanistan” and a great success for “democracy.” Why is the Crimean vote dismissed, but the Afghanistan (and the German) vote celebrated? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Syria too is rather baffling. We were and are told that radical Islamic terror groups pose the greatest threat to our peace, security and our ‚way of life‘ in the West. That Al-Qaeda and other such groups need to be destroyed: that we needed to have a relentless ‚War on Terror‘ against them. Yet in Syria, our leaders have been siding with such radical groups in their war against a secular government which respects the rights of religious minorities, including Christians.
When the bombs of Al-Qaeda or their affiliates go off in Syria and innocent people are killed there is no condemnation from our leaders: their only condemnation has been of the secular Syrian government which is fighting radical Islamists and which our leaders and elite media commentators are desperate to have toppled. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
Then there’s gay rights. We are told that Russia is a very bad and backward country because it has passed a law against promoting homosexuality to minors. Yet our leaders who boycotted the Winter Olympics in Sochi because of this law visit Gulf states where homosexuals can be imprisoned or even executed, and warmly embrace the rulers there, making no mention of the issue of gay rights.
Surely the imprisonment or execution of gay people is far worse than a law which forbids promotion of homosexuality to minors? Why, if they are genuinely concerned about gay rights, do our leaders attack Russia and not countries that imprison or execute gay people? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told in lots of newspaper articles that the Hungarian ultra-nationalist party Jobbik is very bad and that its rise is a cause of great concern, even though it is not even in the government, or likely to be. But neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists do hold positions in the new government of Ukraine, which our leaders in the West enthusiastically support and neo-Nazis and the far-right played a key role in the overthrow of Ukraine’s democratically elected government in February, a ‘revolution’ cheered on by the West. Why are ultra-nationalists and far-right groups unacceptable in Hungary but very acceptable in Ukraine? I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
We are told that Russia is an aggressive, imperialist power and that NATO’s concerns are about opposing the Russian ‘threat’. But I looked at the map the other day and while I could see lots of countries close to (and bordering) Russia that were members of NATO, the US-led military alliance whose members have bombed and attacked many countries in the last 15 years, I could not see any countries close to America that were part of a Russian-military alliance, or any Russian military bases or missiles situated in foreign countries bordering or close to the US. Yet Russia, we are told, is the ‘aggressive one’. I’m confused. Can anyone help me?
US-Militäreinsätze nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg
US-Militäreinsätze Korea-Krieg: 27. Juni 1950 bis 27. Juli 1953 Suez-Krise: Ägypten, 26. Juli 1956 bis 15. November 1956 Operation „Blue Bat“: Libanon, 15. Juli 1958 …
US government Korea-Krieg: 27. Juni 1950 bis 27. Juli 1953
Suez-Krise: Ägypten, 26. Juli 1956 bis 15. November 1956
Operation „Blue Bat“: Libanon, 15. Juli 1958 bis 20. Oktober 1958
Taiwan-Straße: 23. August 1958 bis 1. Juni 1963
Kongo: 14. Juli 1960 bis 1. September 1962
Operation „Tailwind“: Laos, 1970
Operation „Ivory Coast/Kingoin“: Nordvietnam, 21. November 1970
Operation „Endweep“: Nordvietnam, 27. Januar 1972 bis 27. Juli 1973
Operation „Linebacker I“: Nordvietnam, 10. Mai 1972 bis 23. Oktober 1972
Operation „Linebacker II“: Nordvietnam, 18. Dezember 1972 bis 29. Dezember 1972
Operation „Pocket Money“: Nordvietnam, 9. Mai 1972 bis 23. Oktober 1972
Operation „Freedom Train“: Nordvietnam, 6. April 1972 bis 10. Mai 1972
Operation „Arc Light“: Südostasien, 18. Juni 1965 bis April 1970
Operation „Rolling Thunder“: Südvietnam, 24. Februar 1965 bis Oktober 1968
Operation „Ranch Hand“: Südvietnam, Januar 1962 bis Januar 1971
Kuba-Krise: weltweit, 24. Oktober 1962 bis 1. Juni 1963
Operation „Powerpack“: Dominikanische Republik, 28. April 1965 bis 21. September 1966
Sechs-Tage-Krieg: Mittlerer Osten, 13. Mai 1967 bis 10. Juni 1967
Operation „Nickel Grass“: Mittlerer Osten, 6. Oktober 1973 bis 17. November 1973
Operation „Eagle Pull“: Kambodscha, 11. April 1975 bis 13. April 1975
Operation „Freequent Wind“: Evakuierung in Südvietnam, 26. April 1975 bis 30. April 1975
Operation „Mayaguez“: Kambodscha, 15. Mai 1975
Operationen „Eagle Claw/Desert One“: Iran, 25. April 1980
El Salvador, Nikaragua: 1. Januar 1981 bis 1. Februar 1992
Operation „Golf von Sidra“: Libyen, 18. August 1981
US-Multinational Force: Libanon, 25. August 1982 bis 11. Dezember 1987
Operation „Urgent Fury“: Grenada, 23. Oktober 1982 bis 21. November 1983
Operation „Attain Document“: Libyen, 26. Januar 1986 bis 29. März 1986
Operation „El Dorado Canyon“: Libyen, 12. April 1986 bis 17. April 1986
Operation „Blast Furnace“: Bolivien, Juli 1986 bis November 1986
Operation „Ernest Will“: Persischer Golf, 24. Juli 1987 bis 2. August 1990
Operation „Praying Mantis“: Persischer Golf, 17. April 1988 bis 19. April 1988
Operation „Just Cause“: Panama, 20. Dezember 1989 bis 31. Januar 1990
Operation „Nimrod Dancer“: Panama, Mai 1989 bis 20. Dezember 1989
Operation „Promote Liberty“: Panama, 31. Januar 1990
Operation „Ghost Zone“: Bolivien, März 1990 bis 1993
Operation „Sharp Edge“: Liberia, Mai 1990 bis 8. Januar 1991
Operation „Desert Farewell“: Südwest-Asien, 1. Januar 1992 bis 1992
Operation „Desert Calm“: „Südwest-Asien, 1. März 1991 bis 1. Januar 1992
Operation „Desert Shield“: 2. August 1990 bis 17. Januar 1991
Operation „Desert Storm“: Irak, 17. Januar 1991 bis 28. Februar 1991
Operation „Eastern Exit“: Somalia, 2. Januar 1991 bis 11. Januar 1991
Operation „Productiv Effort/Sea Angel“: Bangladesh, Mai 1991 bis Juni 1991
Operation „Fiery Vigil“: Philippinen, 1. bis 30. Juni 1991
Operation „Victor Squared“: Haiti, 1. bis 30. September 1991
Operation „Quick Lift“: Zaire, 24. September 1991 bis 7. Oktober 1991
Operation „Silver Anvil“: Sierra Leone, 2. Mai 1992 bis 5. Mai 1992
Operation „Distant Runner“: Ruanda, 9. April 1994 bis 15. April 1994
Operationen „Quiet Resolve“/“Support Hope“: Ruanda, 22. Juli 1994 bis 30. September 1994
Operation „Uphold/Restore Democracy“: Haiti, 19. September 1994 bis 31. März 1995
Operation „United Shield“: Somalia, 22. Januar 1995 bis 25. März 1995
Operation „Assured Response“: Liberia, April 1996 bis August 1996
Operation „Quick Response“: Zentralafrikanische Republik, Mai 1996 bis August 1996
Operation „Guardian Assistance“: Zaire/Ruanda/Uganda, 15. November 1996 bis 27. Dezember 1996
Operation „Pacific Haven/Quick Transit“: Irak – Guam, 15. September 1996 bis 16. Dezember 1996
Operation „Guardian Retrieval“: Kongo, März 1997 bis Juni 1997
Operation „Noble Obelisk“: Sierra Leone, Mai 1997 bis Juni 1997
Operation „Bevel Edge“: Kambodscha, Juli 1997
Operation „Noble Response“: Kenia, 21. Januar 1998 bis 25. März 1998
Operation „Shepherd Venture“: Guinea-Bissau, 10. Juni 1998 bis 17. Juni 1998
Operation „Infinite Reach“: Sudan/Afghanistan, 20. bis 30. August 1998
Operation „Golden Pheasant“: Honduras, ab März 1988
Operation „Safe Border“: Peru/Ekuador, ab 1995
Operation „Laser Strike“: Südafrika, ab 1. April 1996
Operation „Steady State“: Südamerika, 1994 bis April 1996
Operation „Support Justice“: Südamerika, 1991 bis 1994
Operation „Wipeout“: Hawaii, ab 1990
Operation „Coronet Oak“: Zentral- und Südamerika, Oktober 1977 bis 17. Februar 1999
Operation „Coronet Nighthawk“: Zentral- und Südamerika, ab 1991
Operation „Desert Falcon“: Saudi Arabien, ab 31. März 1991
Operation „Northern Watch“: Kurdistan, ab 31. Dezember 1996
Operation „Provide Comfort“: Kurdistan, 5. April 1991 bis Dezember 1994
Operation „Provide Comfort II“: Kurdistan, 24. Juli 1991 bis 31. Dezember 1996
Operation „Vigilant Sentine I“: Kuwait, ab August 1995
Operation „Vigilant Warrior“: Kuwait, Oktober 1994 bis November 1994
Operation „Desert Focus“: Saudi Arabien, ab Juli 1996
Operation „Phoenix Scorpion I“: Irak, ab November 1997
Operation „Phoenix Scorpion II“: Irak, ab Februar 1998
Operation „Phoenix Scorpion III“: Irak, ab November 1998
Operation „Phoenix Scorpion IV“: Irak, ab Dezember 1998
Operation „Desert Strike“: Irak, 3. September 1996; Cruise Missile-Angriffe: Irak, 26. Juni 1993, 17. Januar 1993, Bombardements: Irak, 13. Januar 1993
Operation „Desert Fox“: Irak, 16. Dezember 1998 bis 20. Dezember 1998
Operation „Provide Promise“: Bosnien, 3. Juli 1992 bis 31. März 1996
Operation „Decisive Enhancement“: Adria, 1. Dezember 1995 bis 19. Juni 1996
Operation „Sharp Guard“: Adria, 15. Juni 1993 bis Dezember 1995
Operation „Maritime Guard“: Adria, 22. November 1992 bis 15. Juni 1993
Operation „Maritime Monitor“: Adria, 16. Juli 1992 bis 22. November 1992
Operation „Sky Monitor“: Bosnien-Herzegowina, ab 16. Oktober 1992
Operation „Deliberate Forke“: Bosnien-Herzegowina, ab 20. Juni 1998
Operation „Decisive Edeavor/Decisive Edge“: Bosnien-Herzegowina, Januar 1996 bis Dezember 1996
Operation „Deny Flight“: Bosnien, 12. April 1993 bis 20. Dezember 1995
Operation „Able Sentry“: Serbien-Mazedonien, ab 5. Juli 1994
Operation „Nomad Edeavor“: Taszar, Ungarn, ab März 1996
Operation „Nomad Vigil“: Albanien, 1. Juli 1995 bis 5. November 1996
Operation „Quick Lift“: Kroatien, Juli 1995
Operation „Deliberate Force“: Republika Srpska, 29. August 1995 bis 21. September 1995
Operation „Joint Forge“: ab 20. Juni 1998
Operation „Joint Guard“: Bosnien-Herzegowina, 20. Juni 1998
Operation „Joint Edeavor“: Bosnien-Herzegowina, Dezember 1995 bis Dezember 1996
Operation „Determined Effort“: Bosnien, Juli 1995 bis Dezember 1995
Operation „Determined Falcon“: Kosovo/Albanien, 15. Juni 1998 bis 16. Juni 1998
Operation „Eagle Eye“: Kosovo, 16. Oktober 1998 bis 24. März 1999
Operation „Sustain Hope/Allied Harbour“: Kosovo, ab 5. April 1999
Operation „Shining Hope“: Kosovo, ab 5. April 1999
Operation „Cobalt Flash“: Kosovo, ab 23. März 1999
Operation „Determined Force“: Kosovo, 8. Oktober 1998 bis 23. März 1999
Recherchebasis FAS, Washingtonassassination plots since World War II
A Brief History of U.S. Interventions: 1945 to the Present
by William Blum, Z magazine , June 1999
The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
* making the world safe for American corporations;
* enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
* preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
* extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a „great power.“
This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.
The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of „saving democracy“ in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.
Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
South Korea, 1945-53:
After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.
The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.
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.
Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./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 and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.
A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn’t even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala’s social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
Middle East, 1956-58:
The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States „is prepared to use armed forces to assist“ any Middle East 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 U.S.-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.
Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. 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.“ The CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno’s assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phony sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64:
For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist-more so than Sukarno or Arbenz-his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington’s greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics-from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U. S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. 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 became people.
The slippery slope began with siding with ~ French, the former colonizers and 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. 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. 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.
Twenty-three years and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had achieved its main 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.
Prince Sihanouk was yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards 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 five 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 on this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.
The Congo/Zaire, 1960-65:
In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo’s first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation’s economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The man was obviously a „Communist.“ The poor man was obviously doomed.
Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September, Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country 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 plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
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 deep, covert American involvement. 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 that Latin America has come to know 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…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.
Dominican Republic, 1963-66:
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 U.S. 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.
Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform, low-rent housing, modest nationalization of business, and 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 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 congresspeople 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 U.S. 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.
Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.
Cuba, 1959 to present:
Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of March 10, 1959 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 were all there. But we’ll never know. And that of course was the idea.
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 a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that 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 U.S. embassy had compiled lists of „Communist“ operatives, 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. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands,“ said one U.S. diplomat. „But that’s not all bad. There’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment. “
Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power-an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones on which the anti-Communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that „communists“ can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
After sabotaging Allende’s electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.
They closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown into bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that „In Chile women wear dresses!“; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check- books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for j national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a „Communist takeover.“ Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.
It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that „a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand“ the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.
Becket reported the following: Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: „You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can’t fight us, we are Americans.“
George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-Communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the Cold War, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.
East Timor, 1975 to present:
In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U. S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. Iaw, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington’s most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia’s claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.
When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast-„another Cuba.“ Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington’s proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza’s vicious National Guard and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan’s „freedom fighters.“ There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.
What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110,000? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro’s, Washington was again driven by its fear of „another Cuba,“ particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.
U. S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers.
At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada’s new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called „an increasingly authoritarian style.“
Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U. S . also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi’s daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.
Washington’s bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
Question from reporter: „Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?“
George Bush: „Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it.“
Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the „Soviet threat.“ The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega’s drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
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; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storage and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.
Iraq was the strongest military power among the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: „It’s been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. 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. “
Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.
El Salvador, 1980-92:
El Salvador’s dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protesters and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
Officially, the U.S. 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 U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.
The U.S. 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, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend-because of all their rhetoric about „democracy“-that they supported Aristide’s return to power in Haiti 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, 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 literally starvation wages.
The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by „humanitarian“ impulses. Perhaps the above history of U.S. interventions can help one decide how much weight to place on this claim.
William Blum is the author of Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II. Portions of the book can be read at: http://members.aol. com/bblum6/American holocaust.htm.
DJ Psycho Diver Sant – too small to fail
Tonttu Korvatunturilta Kuunsilta JSB
Tip tap tip tap tipetipe tip tap heija!