Shifting Blame to Official Enemies
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon & Palestine
 

When a crime is committed there are proper ways of seeking justice and a just punishment. First, the primary suspect must be identified, then he must be tried accordingly based on the evidence presented against or in his defense. If convicted, a punishment must be sought for. This is only a generalized description but regardless of what the crime is it is necessary to examine and understand the reasons for such actions, even for the most heinous crimes. In a civilized, enlightened, and democratic society, this is how justice is sought after.

|| Using Afghanistan to Establish the Framework of Discussion ||

When the Bush II administration refused to allow international institutions to take part in trying to apprehend Osama bin Laden, so that he could be placed on trial before a World Court, regardless of how effective it would have been, it is this very notion of “justice” that resulted in U.S. disapproval. A World Court would most likely seek such justice in a way described in the first paragraph. Such a procedure will expose far more than Washington is willing to reveal or concede to. Although far from being a secret, an inquiry into the past could be embarrassing to Washington. Instead of the obvious and vague concessions made about Bin Laden’s past, a stream of other dangerous questions will barrage an already unstable system of lies and deception. Those which would reveal a Washington that is willing to systematically support criminals and mass murderers everywhere if it is to their interest – questions that would reveal past crimes, the hypocrisy, and the culture of terrorism that thrives within U.S. foreign policy. In order to deal with the inconvenience of guilt for past crimes, the United States directly or through its allies has adopted the policy of systematically forgetting the past and shifting the blame to official enemies. Crimes will be ignored if they cannot be attributed to latter. While it may take more intellectual legwork than usual, seeing through such obvious half-truths, misrepresentations and outright lies is not a daunting task for anyone as scholarly sources are readily available. Grounded on these sources, I will look at how such a tactic is applied when it comes to Nicaraguan history as interpreted by the U.S. State Department. Secondly, I will look into the parallels that can be made between Nicaragua, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.

|| Nicaragua’s History According to the U.S. State Department ||

Nicaragua, one of countless uncontroversial examples, provides an excellent illustration of this. United States terrorism in Nicaragua during the 1980’s was certainly disgraceful, but the unrepentant attitude and voluntary amnesia that confront this unwanted piece of history are even more so. The U.S. State Department “Reports On Human Rights Practices For 1995” on Nicaragua offers abundant insight in support of this claim. The report is valuable in its description of the state terror, brutality, and the instability the country is trapped in. While it is valuable in this sense, its outright disregard for history far exceeds this value.

An in-depth analysis of history is clearly not required by the authors of the report. Although, the underlying motives of its writers, to shift blame toward official enemies, specifically the Sandanistas, naturally change this requirement. By engaging in indirect, sometimes blunt, attacks on the Sandanistas without offering adequate historical background, the report as a result becomes nothing more than government propaganda. Perhaps it would have been better, to avoid dangerous questions, if the report only concentrated on 1995 without any type of historical reference. Even so, this task remains difficult to accomplish because historical background is necessary if present problems are to be addressed correctly -- in turn, a sense of justice would have been gained. A careful reader would detect, with little or no effort, the odd way the report chooses to go about this task. Beneath its own hypocritical condemnations, the report falters.

As noted earlier, the propagandistic function of the report, as long as the reader has some knowledge of Nicaraguan history, can be detected with little or no effort. By citing Nicaragua’s turbulent past as the root of present problems, accompanied only with vague accounts of it, the burden of blame, scornfully rejected by the U.S., is automatically shifted to the Sandanistas. While the Sandanistas should shoulder blame, the United States should not be deciding how much they are responsible for. Even if some minimally credible charges are to be allowed to slide against the Sandanistas, their record is far better than those of U.S. clients in the region. In order for the report to be successful in its underlying motives, it requires that unpleasant parts of history are omitted. The report is very successful in this regard.

While undoubtedly correct in stating that “Nicaragua is an extremely poor country,” the vague statements that followed are highly questionable. It concludes that the country’s “economy grew for the second year” in 1995 despite the “10 years of negative growth.” Clearly, without historical background on this “negative growth,” it needs not mention that the Sandanistas (1979-1990) are to blame. What the report fails to mention was the role the United States played in these 10 years of downward spiral.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with Nicaraguan history or U.S. terrorism will find the information provided about this negative growth inadequate. They would know of the Somoza dictatorship that the U.S. helped establish, protected and supported until the very end. A rule which resulted in thousands killed (exact numbers are unknown) in addition to the 50,000 or so that perished in the last stages of his rule. They would also know that after he was overthrown by the Sandanistas in 1979, a brutal “Contra” war based in the Honduras was fought. These Contras, also aptly dubbed as “death squads” by the very people they terrorized were armed by the Carter administration. Furthermore, these mercenary armies, not “guerrillas” as Washington officials prefer to call them, were extremely well-equipped with the latest weaponry which outmatched the Nicaraguan army in some respects. These mercenaries, contrary to Washington’s purported concern for human rights, focused its brutality on the population. This Contra war, which was ideologically and financially supported by the United States, was no doubt an illegal campaign according to international law. There is nothing controversial about this statement whatsoever. This illegality became evident when the World Court upheld Nicaragua’s charges of U.S. international terrorism and illegal economic warfare in 1984. Not surprisingly, the decision was rejected by Ronald Reagan. He announced that the United States would no longer recognize the World Court and that from then on they are irrelevant. Ironically, a day after rejecting international law, Reagan in a Presidential Proclamation declared May 1^st as “Law Day 1984” as a tribute to the rule of law. Such hypocrisy is important to note as it is the basis for the collective amnesia utilized to shift blame to official enemies.

The report points out that the country “reached hyperinflation levels in the late 1980’s through 1990,” that the “little government initiative,” particularly the Sandanistas lack of initiative, is responsible for such downward spiral. Similar to earlier statements, without historical background, it is not necessary to mention who is responsible for this hyperinflation. Based on these statements alone, the blame could be shifted to the incumbent Sandanistas which were in power from 1979 to 1990. What the report fails to mention, in addition to the brutal Contra war that crippled the country, was that Nicaragua experienced substantial social improvements prior to the late-1980’s hyperinflation, or more importantly, the escalation of U.S. attacks. The education and health budget of the country rose rapidly under the Sandanistas, an effective land reform program was institutionalized and infant mortality decreased dramatically. As a reward for its health achievements, Nicaragua was given an award by the World Health Organization. These achievements were even more impressive considering the horrifying conditions left by the Somoza legacy. Therefore, the much reviled hyperinflation must have been perpetuated by something that forced drastic changes. In particular, the drastic changes which affected the economy and domestic policy, particularly changes which diverted funding for social programs to the military so the country may be able to defend itself against international terrorism directed by the United States.

The hypocritical showings in the report continue when it condemns the “lack of training in sophisticated investigative techniques that would enable the police to avoid” using “brutal methods” to obtain their goals. While the brutality of the Nicaraguan police forces should be rightfully condemned, the hypocrisy of the U.S. State Department and the crimes of Washington should not be overlooked. During the Contra wars, the United States particularly had no problems supporting death squads, which terrorized the Nicaraguan population. Not to mention direct military actions, as well as the other Contra armies supported by the U.S. in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Another questionable conclusion was put forth when the report claimed that the first free election in Nicaragua took place on February 1990. It added that it was declared “free and fair” by “international observers.” Assuming that these observers had no connection to Washington, whether or not their observations are true, it is again important to note what is not mentioned. In 1984, the Reagan administration constructed a tale about Russian MIGs that have been sent to Nicaragua in order to divert attention from the Nicaraguan election that it sought to undermine. They also sought to divert attention from the massacre of peasants they were facilitating in El Salvador by sending an advanced aircraft over. Assuming that the claims of the report are true, one can hardly expect a country to have effective elections when it is subjected to massive terrorist attacks.

Taking a more proper look compared to the U.S. State Department, the 1994 conference of Salvadoran Jesuits recognized the culture of terror that continually remained in Central America due to international terrorism. In a research journal of the Jesuit University of Managua, it mentioned that because of destructive U.S. policies, Nicaragua as a result was plunged into a terrible aftermath. This aftermath, with the causes largely traceable to Washington, are of course used in the 1995 U.S. State Department report to condemn the Sandanistas.

The U.S. State Department continually whines in the report that despite “significant foreign debt relief,” Nicaragua continues to be “heavily dependent on foreign assistance.” The country’s debt is over $7 billion and $3 billion of that was accumulated from the post-1990 period when the United States had control over the country. To further counter such complaints, the World Court in 1984 ordered reparations to be paid to Nicaragua. These reparations have been estimated to be around $17 billion. In light of all this, the U.S. State Department certainly has no grounds to complain. To do so would be to succumb to the deepest of hypocritical practice.

In addition to the World Court and countless Security Council condemnations, congress passed the Boland amendment which cut off military aid to the Contras. Despite congress opposition, the U.S. administration sold arms to Iran secretly, while it was under embargo for holding American citizens hostage, and funneled profits to the Contras. This eventually led to the notorious Iran-Contra scandal where key Washington officials such as John Negroponte, Otto Reich, and Elliot Abrams were convicted for their crimes. Elliot Abrams in particular, the person who led the Reagan administration’s Central American policy, said that what the U.S. was trying to do in Central America was tremendously difficult, never mind the illegality. He believed that strengthening the military as an institution while doing the same with civilian control over the government led to some success. This comment was made in 1993, two years after pleading guilty on two counts for lying over his role in the scandal. His comments are important when comparing it to the 1995 report.

Similar to the collective amnesia that pardoned the U.S., in their eyes anyway, of all responsibility and blame in Nicaragua, Abrams was pardoned by Bush I and Bush II appointed him to the National Security Council as Director. His portfolio includes dealing with issues relating to democracy, human rights, and international operations. Despite coddling torturers, protecting death squads, and helping in the massacre of peasants in Central America, his crimes are not important unless it could be used to Washington’s advantage. Or in the logic of the 1995 report, crimes will be ignored if not attributable to official enemies.

|| Shifting Blame Directly or Through Clients: Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine ||

The 1995 report has strong relevance to the war on Iraq. The unrepentant attitudes and ignorance that continue to confront U.S. terrorism, their support and direct participation in it, in many respects surpasses the acts themselves. Such collective amnesia maintains the myth that the Bush II administration (and those that preceded him, from Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy to his own father) is benevolent in intent, anti-imperialist, and pro-democracy. If history is of any importance such claims are merely hysterical ranting and is bankrupt in the deepest sense. U.S. Foreign policy has changed very little in the span of the 20^th century, it is wishful thinking, or outright reckless, to think otherwise.

We see plenty parallels in other parts of the world such as the Middle East where Israel is given free reign with its military adventurism in both Palestine and Lebanon. They receive tremendous amount of political, economic, financial and military support from the United States. Practically every single justification that is used is designed to twist timelines that led to a specific conflict and ignores the disproportionate amount of abuses committed by Israel in comparison to its adversaries. There is no controversy to the human rights abuses committed by Israel as they have been documented thoroughly by organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’tselem (an Israeli based human rights organization). Myths have been debunked but they still continue to perpetuate within mainstream discussions. For example, Human Rights Watch has already debunked the myth that Hezbollah used civilian shields – thus, accounting for a large part of civilian casualties – during the July-August 2006 war between the two (Israel/Lebanon: Israeli Indiscriminate Attacks Killed Most Civilians – Released on June 9/07). The pretense that this war was waged under by Israel has already been proven to be highly dubious as they see the provocation by Hezbollah to have begun on June 25^th with the abduction of Corporal Shalit. Of course, it omits from the timeline June 9^th and 24^th in which a family was killed in a beach blast and when two Palestinian civilians were abducted by Israeli forces. Not to mention the fact that Corporal Shalit was actually on Palestinian territory when he was “abducted” while the two civilians were not within Israel’s borders. Before these clear acts of provocation by Israel there was a Hamas 16 month informal ceasefire which quickly came to an end (read more here).

Disagreements in political opinions are completely understandable. If a person argues that the right of return is not realizable that is a political judgment. That being said, you cannot argue against facts. There are people who attempt to contrive the issue by saying that there is a large body of disagreement but it is purely contrived. There are zero controversies. The international community votes every year in the United Nations calling for a two state settlement: Israel fully withdraws from the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem as international law calls for. All lands taken after 1967 must all be returned unconditionally. They must recognize that it is illegal to acquire land through war and Palestinians and the Arab states must recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Palestinians are almost always framed in a way that they are the ones who are consistently being rejectionist when it comes to solutions that are proposed by Israel or a mediating party. The Camp David proposals in 2000 are being touted as an excellent opportunity that Arafat missed. It is argued that tremendous concessions were made at Camp David but this is only true when it is framed within the context of: what Israel wanted. In light of what they wanted before, they made huge concessions. Within international law, they did not make any concessions whatsoever nor did they pay heed to international consensus. Palestinians were expected to make concessions as it related to: borders, settlements, refugees and Jerusalem. It is wrong to work with the framework of what Israel originally wanted because the correct one is: what are they entitled to according to international law.

|| Conclusion ||

With these examples we see a similar trend in the tactic being used in that the blame is being shifted toward official enemies. By ignoring the history in the 1995 human rights report in Nicaragua, the blame had been shifted towards the Sandanistas, the official enemy. The same logic has been applied in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine – specifically, against Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinians in general. Taking Iraq as an example, by condemning Hussein’s atrocities without historical background, except for the standard vague references, the blame had been shifted to Iraq, in turn, erasing past U.S. compliance to such atrocities. Likewise, the same happens as it relates to Israel when their actions are allowed to slide due to United States support. Only before a full historical view can the global community shape a world that ensures human welfare by purging hypocrites and criminals from positions of control.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood