To: ce137z1@prism.gatech.edu In-reply-to: gaia's message of Thu, 31 Jan 91 14:38:29 -0500 <9101311938.AA11399@prism.gatech.edu> Subject: --text follows this line-- > Cockburn has said in PUBLIC that he is in favor of the Cuban-backed > rebel forces in El Salvador. He has made a choice on who he wants to > win in the conflict. Here's what someone else had to say about the war in El Salvador, and it's causes: "Fifty years of lies, fifty years of injustice, fifty years of frustration. This is a history of people starving to death, living in misery. For fifty years the same people had all the power, all the money, all the jobs, all the education, all the opportunities. Those who did not have anything tried to take it away from those who had everything. But there were no democratic systems available to them, so they have radicalized themselves, have resorted to violence. And of course this second group, the rich, do not want to give up anything, so they are fighting." The author was former president Jose Napoleon Duarte, in a 1980 interview, when asked about the origins of the conflict in El Salvador. Raymond Bonner, the interviewer, was surprised by Duarte's sympathetic explanation for the revolution, and added: "But what struck me more...was what he [Duarte] had not said. He had said nothing about Castro or Cuba. He had not mentioned the Sandinistas or Nicaragua. There was no talk of the cold war and the Soviet Union. (Duarte was to raise those themes later, when they reflected the views of the Reagan administration in Washington) What Duarte was saying was that the revolution had been caused and fueled by the conditions in El Salvador" ---------- Here's what someone else has to say about El Salvador, and about the rebels; someone who had been a strong defender of El Salvador in the past: "The history of El Salvador bears consistent witness to the greed and brutality of men who look on compromise as weakness and who regard torture and murder as routine and acceptable methods of coping with dissent. The failure of US policy makers to press for a negotiated end to the war in El Salvador has placed our country in league with a clique of assassins masquerading as an army... [...] "President Bush described the Salvadoran revolutionaries as `terrorists' and the Salvadoran Government as `a democracy'. Wrong on both counts. "The revolutionaries took up arms only after the military and economic elites of El Salvador had rejected all avenues of peaceful change for more than half a century. No competent observer doubts that the Salvadoran revolution is home grown, authentic and enjoys wide popular support... [the revolutionaries'] demand that the military purge itself of its most notorious abusers of human rights was derided as `absurd, ridiculous and impossible' [by the government] "..The outdated security doctrine that guides Bush Administration thinking demands the subordination of El Salvador's need for social and economic justice to our supposed national security requirements. This has meant the establishment of a veneer of democracy in El Salvador, where the armed forces, with U.S. acquiescence, decide with deadly force who can and cannot participate in political life. In El Salvador, the fundamental duty of a democratic government to protect its citizens has been stood on its head. People are tortured, disappear and are killed at the whim of security forces that enjoy absolute immunity from legal action..." --Former U.S. Ambassador Robert White, in the New York Times, Nov. 21, 1989 ---------- So Cockburn is in good company. However, to further their agendas, successive U.S. administrations have successfully manipulated the arena of discussion, the media, the political atmosphere, so that expressing such realities is forbidden, and make you a "far-left radical," just as rising up to fight against a regime of mass-slaughter makes who a "terrorist", "communist" etc, when the regime of mass-slaughter in question is "friendly to U.S. interests," meaning friendly to the real agendas of those in power in the U.S. This strategy has successfully allowed the pursuit of the foreign policy objectives of those in power in this country which have had little or nothing to do with "democracy," "human rights" etc., and the support of brutal dictatorships helping maintain U.S. dominance and profitability of business, at the expense of the vast majority of the population, have successfully been justified, any domestic resistance in those countries being wiped out by National Guards, Death Squads, etc, an labeled "weeding out Communists" etc. But no amount of evidence will convince you unless you are willing to fundamentally alter your world-view --a scary and difficult process, as I can personally attest, and not an unpainful one-- the world-view we were brought up with, the leaders of OUR country pursuing noble goals in foreign policy, faced with Evil adversaries, especially Communists. If you are serious in your willingness to re-examine these issues, the short book I would most recommend is one written for the American Friends (as in Quaker) Service Committee (AFSC) by a Dartmouth professor: _What Are We Afraid Of?_; here's the entry in AFSC's catalog: WHAT ARE WE AFRAID OF? An Assessment of the ``Communist Threat'' in Central America By John Lamperti ``An excellent primer on the facts and fable in the Central American debate. Must reading for anyone who wants to understand U.S. policy in the region'' -- Penny Lernoux, author, _In Banks We Trust_ ``Explores how rigid Cold War thinking led the United States into a destined-to-fail policy in Central America and offers clear and sensible solutions for peace in our hemisphere'' -- Frances Moore Lappe ``Lamperti's book teaches us how to realistically analyze what security interests are and are not at stake in Central America.'' --Kenneth Sharpe, Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore ``Mr. Lamperti writes clearly, documents his charges, and, after showing how inconsistent and wrong our present policy is, offers clear and concrete alternatives.'' -- Robert McAfee Brown, Prof. Emeritus of Theology and Ethics, Pacific School of Religion This book by John Lamperti lays bare the myth of ``Moscow-inspired'' Central American revolutions and calls into question the red-baiting rhetoric behind U.S. military control of the region. _What Are We Afraid Of?_ with its clear concise analysis is of value to activists and to other who want to understand U.S. policy in the region. Published by South End Press (1988, 125 pages) New discount price $5.00 each, 10 or more copies $4.00 each. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "The address to order any of the above items, or (better), to order the (free) catalog for yourself, is: Literature Resources American Friends Service Committee 1501 Cherry St. Philadelphia, PA 19102 The phone number is (215)-241-7048 or 7167" [Postage is $2.] ################################################################## I also have Amnesty's human rights reports on Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, etc. I also have Oxfam's mid-80's report on Nicaragua, references on the '84 Nicaraguan elections, etc; but none of these can really be given a fair reading so long as the aforementioned "Communist Threat" is allowed to continue in its customary exaggerated and distorted manifestation we've grown up with. I am closing with excerpts from a recent post, documenting the charge that the contras were a terrorist force. Perhaps this is not as useful to include as I had hoped; after all, you agree that El Salvador is a brutal regime, but continue to support it because of the instilled fear that the rebels *must* be of a nature which would be still worse for El Salvador and the U.S. (if only the later, I would challenge the morality of subjecting a country to mass-slaughter due to "U.S. interests" (it's ok for "our side" to support murder in the defense of Higher Goals), especially in light of the fact that "[worse] for the U.S." actually means "for the policy objectives of the administration"). But if, reading the documentation below, you are willing to believe, indeed, be convinced that, the Reagan administration lied about the "freedom fighters," the "moral equivalent of our founding fathers," why not be willing to believe that they lied about the lack of democracy/fairness in the 1984 Sandinista elections (this one is easy to disprove), and why not be willing to believe that they lied about the nature of the Sandinista regime (this is more difficult but not too difficult to prove, with sufficient amounts of documentation of Sandinista versus Somoza's or other CA countries' human rights records, and many independent international sources of documentation of the genuine progress made by the revolution), and if so, why not be willing to believe that the "communist threat" which we as American citizens have been made hostage to by virtually every administration in silencing any fundamental critique of U.S. policy, is also, to a large extent, a lie, or giving a vastly inaccurate picture? (this, alas, is very difficult to prove. Human rights records; fairness of elections; improved social conditions, are one thing; how do you address the fears of American citizens, and claims about the "aims" of "dark forces"?) In this regard, I encourage you to examine these issues at the cost of $7; I have yet to see someone unaffected by that book. Sincerely yours, Harel ################################################################## From my post: [concerning lies about the "contras"] -- the idea that *had* the Reagan/Bush administration the justification to attack the Sandinistas, that this is what they were engaged in in their creation and support of the "freedom fighters" employed in Washington's war on Nicaragua, who were in fact not fighting "against the Sandinistas" but engaged in a terrorist campaign against the Nicaraguan population designed to erode support for Sandinista reforms by brutalizing anyone who cooperated, including the murder, kidnapping, rape, and torture of health care workers, literacy volunteers; blowing up Sandinista-built hospitals, etc. Harel ------------------------------------------------------------------ We may try to scratch the surface of that last item: "The contras have ROUTINELY attacked civilian populations. Their forces kidnap, torture, and murder health workers, teachers, and other government employees." -- Americas Watch(*) [Emphasis added] "_Terrorism_ is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against NONCOMBATANT TARGETS by subnational groups or clandestine state agents" -- U.S. Department of State, _Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1983_, Sept. 1984. (*)From the Americas Watch report _With Friends Like These_, edited by Cynthia Brown (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985). For the contras' history and human rights practices, see also Christopher Dickey, _With the Contras: A Reporter in the Wilds of Nicaragua_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985), and Reed Brody's _Contra Terror in Nicaragua: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission, September 1984-January 1985 (Boston: South End Press, 1985) ------------------------------------------------------------------ "There can be no doubt, on the basis of what we head and saw, that a planned strategy of terrorism is being carried out by the contras along the Honduras border" --Chairmen of Americas Watch and Helsinki Watch, after a personal visit to study the "great divergence between President Reagan's rhetoric and the conclusions of the [Americas Watch] report" on contra atrocities. Orville Schell and Robert Bernstein, Wall St. Journal, April 23, 1985. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off, and their eyes poked out. They where killed by slitting their throats, and pulling the tongue out through the slit." Survivor's account of a contra attack. Jonathan Steele and Tony Jenkins, Manchester Guardian Weekly, Nov. 25, 1984. ------------------------------------------------------------------ "..The contras cross the border from their bases in Honduras to commit acts of sabotage: burning cooperatives, blowing up bridges, killing and kidnapping teachers, health workers, and farmers." The victims of contra terror include people like the Barreras, a couple in their 60's who were well known and respected in the town of Esteli'. Last year the Barreras volunteered to help pick coffee near the boder because they felt this was part of their duty as Christians. The couple was kidnapped by contras and taken to a town in Honduras. There they were kept outside for four months and tortured daily as an example --their torturers said-- of what would happen to Christians who support the revolution. Later, other coffee pickers who managed to escape brought back word that the Barreras were dead. By September, 1983, the contras had killed nearly 700 Nicaraguans and had caused $600 million in damage to the economy..." --Oxfam America report, Sept. 1983