Like every US president to date, Ronald Reagan is responsible for prosecutable war crimes. Of course, we being the “good-guys” do not apply the same standards to ourselves that we expect the rest of the world to follow. It is little wonder you see the ironic smirks in the UN and other international bodies when the US is discussing “law and order” and commitment to human rights, because outside of the memory hole that defines our imperial culture the picture is quite clear cut. The national interest of the US trumps human rights, justice and law almost every time. We just do not get to hear about it here in fortress North America. What we also do not get to easily see is how we sow the seeds of our own discord, as in the case of Afghanistan and the current imperial war taking place there.
Here is what Rasil Basu, UN Developmental Program, senior advisor to the Afghan government for women’s development (1986 – 88) had to say.
“She reported “enormous strides” for women under the Russian occupation:
“Illiteracy declined from 98% to 75%, and they were granted equal rights with men in civil law, and in the Constitution… Unjust patriarchal relations still prevailed in the workplace and in the family with women occupying lower level sex-type jobs. But the strides [women] took in education and employment were very impressive… In Kabul I saw great advances in industry, factories, government offices, professions and the media. With large numbers of men killed or disabled, women shouldered the responsibility of both family and country. I met a woman who specialized in war medicine with dealt with trauma and reconstructive surgery for the war wounded. This represented empowerment to her. Another woman was a road engineer. Roads represented freedom – an escape from the oppressive patriarchal structures.”
By 1988, however, Basu “could see the early warning signals” as Russian troops departed and the fundamentalist Islamist extremists favoured by the Reagan administration took over, brushing aside the more moderate mujahideen groups. Saudi Arabian and American arms and ammunition “have been vital in giving fundamentalist groups an edge over the 
moderates,” providing them with military hardware used,” according to Amnesty International, to target unarmed civilians, most of them women and children.” Then followed much worse horrors as the U.S – Saudi favorites overthrew the Najibullah government. The suffering of the population was so extreme that the Taliban were welcomed when they drove out Reagan’s freedom fighters. Another chapter in the triumph of Reaganite reactionary ultranationalism, worshiped today by those dedicated to defaming the honourable term “conservative”.
– Noam Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects pages 245 – 246.
Hardly surprising considering the gross injustices wrought in Central America by Reagan and the United States. The 1980’s were grim years for Central America plagued by torture, terrorism and death all sponsored by the US.
More people need to educate themselves and do the reading into what exactly their foreign policy entails, because the American populace would certainly not endorse the terror wrought in their name if it was properly publicized and discussed realistically.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
8 comments
January 3, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Vern R. Kaine
For the injustices carried out in our names, I agree that these should always be brought to light. We should always question and debate whether or not we’re doing the right thing to evolve and improve ourselves as a species. I want to read Chomsky’s book, and as mentioned, I found Perkins’ book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man) interesting as well. We can never do wrong by being better informed.
However, I have to say that I continue to disagree with the convenient and fashionable demonizing of the US by many Canadians. While Canada can enjoy its reputation as a passive country, it rides the coattails of other countries that do the dirty work for it on one hand, and it does its own share of dirty work on the other. For one, its own JTF2 isn’t secretive/disavowed for no reason, and it doesn’t earn “Tier 1” elite status by being a bunch of pacifist angels out there rescuing kittens out of trees.
For another, Canada’s dirty work doesn’t always have to be with guns, either. If Canadians truly cared about what happens in other countries, then how could it let things like this to happen? http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/story/2010/06/28/national-asbestos.html Obviously Canadian jobs and Canadian interests won out over the rights and health of those in other countries, here.
For a third, we should take a closer look at Canada’s role in Central America. Sure, Canada acted as a mediator between the US and Latin American countries and deserves praise for its “Third Option”, but it was also involved in the Inter-American Development Bank from the beginning. It would be conveniently naive for anyone to think Canada had no idea what that fund was doing for its own self-interests at the expense of the indigenous people and environment it was pretending to serve. Want to do something malicious? Best way is to wrap it in something benevolent so you can have plausible deniability.
And today, Canadian companies continue enjoy economic opportunities in places like Panama that the actions of the IADB that U.S. covert economic and military actions helped paved the way for. Even if publicly Canada spoke against these actions, privately they had to have supported them because they continue to receive the economic benefits of those actions to this day. Anybody local in Canada producing pineapples or bananas? How many people does Chiquita Canada employ? ;)
So Canada as more “saintly” when compared to the US? Perhaps. But Canada as the beacon of sainthood? Hardly. Canadian Sanctimoniousness and American Arrogance are just two sides of the same coin as far as I’m concerned. If eyes need to be opened, they need to be opened on both sides.
LikeLike
January 3, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Vern R. Kaine
“She reported “enormous strides” for women under the Russian occupation”
Seriously? “Enormous Strides”? This is the anti-American angle Chomsky wants to promote? Here’s some comments by a Russian soldier:
“I remember how we once rounded up all the women and children, poured kerosene over them and set fire to them. Yes, it was cruel. Yes, we did it, but those kids were torturing our wounded soldiers with knives.” Yup, enormous strides for women there under the hands of those “they have to be better than the US” Russians. Let me guess – America’s cold war policy and ties to big oil forced abject poverty on the Russians, who then had to invade Afghanistan as a result, to which America armed its enemies, so now America is to blame for Russian soldiers burning women and children alive, and not making more of these “enormous strides” with the literacy rate and voting rights?
Or this…
“In three small villages near Qandahar, last year, the Soviets killed close to 350 women and children in retaliation for a Mujahadeen attack in the vicinity. After slitting the throats of the children, disemboweling pregnant women, raping, shooting and mutilating others, the Russians poured a substance on the bodies which caused instant decomposition.”[2]
Or this…
“The Russians tied dynamite to their backs and blew them up.” Another eyewitness described a fiendish practice that Russians used to extract information about the mujahadeen (Muslim freedom fighters): “They would slowly roast a child over fire.”
Source: http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Casualties-and-War-Crimes-in-Afghanistan
Yup. “Enormous strides” for women, and apparently children, too.
That quote is ridiculous, and to me, sickening. Consider, too, that if one woman out of 10 knows how to read, but then you raped, disemboweled, and shot 8 of them (where was the UN in all that, btw?), then ya, I guess you could “look on the bright side” and say that you increased female literacy rates by 500%. I’m sure Basu’s Russian diplomats at the UN (who happen to be key UN members, btw) loved hearing and repeating such good news about their presence there. Talk about spin.
And what’s the point of this post? that the Taliban have been the worst of all three (vs. the Russians and Mujahadeen), and because the US supported them, they’ve made things worse, and Regan is the devil?
Or is to simply say that things would have gotten better on their own, citing the UN’s opinion on female literacy rates and voting rights? Sorry, but I don’t happen to care about female literacy rates under the Russians when back then its solders were slowly gutting them and roasting their children live over a fire trying to KILL all the Mujahadeen, not empower them. I also care less about literacy rates now while the Taliban continues to perform its own atrocities on women and children at schools – not at the spurring on of allied forces, mind you, but rather in spite of them. But sure, just to make an anti-US point, let’s skip all that.
Maybe you want to make the US out to be the biggest devil of them all, or maybe you in fact believe that to be true, but how is it that your obvious disdain and contempt for the US seems to make you ignore and practically sympathize with far worse atrocities which, had America not been brought into the discussion, you would surely be attacking, criticizing, and denouncing for their absolute heinousness based on your own positions on women and human rights? You seriously want to suggest that under Russian occupation, things weren’t so bad as they are now?
If your point here was that Regan isn’t the saint or savior that many conservatives make him out to be, I actually agree, but with respect if so this was a horrible way to try and make your point. On the contrary, if I’ve missed something here, please tell me what it is.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:08 pm
The Arbourist
However, I have to say that I continue to disagree with the convenient and fashionable demonizing of the US by many Canadians.
I did not realize that in publishing the historical record I was, in fact, demonizing, the United States. If perchance the record is grim and does not portray the image that most people would like to think about their country, they should do something about that as opposed to decrying the messenger(s) when they do discuss a shameful past laden with atrocities against decency and humanity.
Obviously Canadian jobs and Canadian interests won out over the rights and health of those in other countries, here.
and
Canadian companies continue enjoy economic opportunities in places like Panama that the actions of the IADB that U.S. covert economic and military actions helped paved the way for.
and
So Canada as more “saintly” when compared to the US?
The best defence is a good offence is a good strategy when it comes to many things. Unfortunately when arguing, not so much. Known formally as the Tu Quoque fallacy it is a way of attempting to defend ones argument by focusing on the flaws of another.
* Person 1: Never smoke cigarettes. It is a terrible addiction.
* Person 2: I just saw you smoking a few minutes ago.
The original statement still stands, going after the person does nothing, except perhaps exposing their hypocrisy, to address the original argument.
So, how this applies to what you have written seems to be that well halfway admitting the US has done some pretty terrible things in the past but Canada dagummit is no paragon of virtue either. But saying Canada is just as bad does nothing to address the original idea of the piece.
Coming to terms with the actual past, and not the sanitized, glorified imperial version is important step toward improving the country and viewing its performance with a critical lens. “Acceptable” history does no one any favours, blinding the young to the sins of the old and enfeebling the present with saccharine narratives that prevent, rather than encourage public discourse on how a country is run.
LikeLike
January 4, 2011 at 12:34 pm
The Arbourist
“She reported “enormous strides” for women under the Russian occupation”
Seriously? “Enormous Strides”? This is the anti-American angle Chomsky wants to promote?
I’m curious as to why you would construe this as Anti-American. I do not mean to be glib Vern, but the policy actions taken in Afghanistan by the US are not particularly surprising, nor particulary damning given the historical record of imperial actions by imperial powers throughout history.
loved hearing and repeating such good news about their presence there. Talk about spin.
They were comments reported via someone on the ground who saw what was happening. Did Chomsky infer that this was the best of possible worlds for Afghanistan, he most certainly did not.
But again we must deal with the reflexive defence of American Foreign Policy. Look! Look! you cry (justifiably so) Look at what the Russians did! As mentioned in the response to your other post, this is another Tu Quoque appeal, that does not answer to the original statement of American malfeasance in Afghanistan.
Russian imperial atrocities like, the American ones are also on record and much more easily accessible since they are the crimes of an official enemy and are meant to be reviled and widely expounded. If only our own were given the same treatment, perhaps then we could truly move forward as a society and a civilization, because the current hall of mirrors treatment the historical record is receiving does no favours to anyone.
Maybe you want to make the US out to be the biggest devil of them all, or maybe you in fact believe that to be true, but how is it that your obvious disdain and contempt for the US seems
Should we not hold ourselves to the highest standards? If we, as we like to think, are the heralds of civilization and human rights, should we not act as we like to say in public, rather than the current hypocritical double standard? Ah, you say, the feasibility of such a project in the “real” world just could not happen, given current conditions.
The only ( I generalize) thing stopping us is the current hierarchical structures of power that are dedicated to keeping things as they are because it is profitable to them. I digress, but really, if the US wanted to be a force for justice and human rights in the world, it most certainly could; I believe in the fundamental goodness that pervades American society, but is shut out of the circles of power precisely because it is bad for business, so to speak.
I actually agree, but with respect if so this was a horrible way to try and make your point.
If the result is thoughtful discussion, then was it really so horrible? :>
As always Vern, you bring useful opinion, knowledge and even ire to the discussion :)
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 3:18 am
Vern R. Kaine
I did not realize that in publishing the historical record I was, in fact, demonizing, the United States. If perchance the record is grim and does not portray the image that most people would like to think about their country, they should do something about that as opposed to decrying the messenger(s) when they do discuss a shameful past laden with atrocities against decency and humanity.
I believe your demonizing was in fact deliberate, and started with your title. “Saint” Reagan? Is Reagan being a Saint part of the “historical record” you’re referring to?
Then this comment: “The 1980′s were grim years for Central America plagued by torture, terrorism and death all sponsored by the US.” By being a key part of the IADB, Canada (along with other countries) who were involved with the bank (as a matter of historical record) were there since the very beginning and therefore were sponsoring it, too. None of Canada’s “atrocities” (or coverups) are stated as part of your supposed argument against “Imperial versions” of history, and instead, you direct it all towards the U.S.. Would that not be demonizing, too?
And who in Canada has the right to sit up on some sanctimonious perch and demand (or even suggest) that another country’s citizens should “do something about it”? Tell you what – you get the Canadian government and all the Canadian companies to give back all the money they’ve ever made on atrocious or even morally questionable activities (which funds universities, btw), and then you can start “suggesting” what American citizens should do to change the past and live up to the holier-than-thou image of its northern neighbor who happens to currently be pumping asbestos into third-world workers’ lungs with barely a protest. :)
And I believe your assessment of my counterpoints as Tu Quoque fallacy are incorrect. For one, I have never NOT stated that the US has done some pretty awful things in the past. Very awful, in fact. You can refer to other posts of mine here and elsewhere as proof.
My argument is rather in support of my belief (and challenge) that you clearly seek to demonize the US while you seem to give Canada (and as it seems as well, Russians and the Taliban), a free pass on all the atrocities they commit. With the U.S. its apparently an entire country that’s a demon and yet with Canada you take the time and effort to single it out to Harper, or the Conservatives.
If it’s hypocrisy I’m pointing out here, so be it, but that’s not my concern. My concern, and response to your post, is that your (what seems to be unequivocal) hatred and vitriol directed at the U.S. does nothing to encourage “public discourse on how a country is run” which you say you’re trying to promote. In fact, I argue that it’s just the opposite. By making such blanket statements against an entire country as you do while singling out only individuals within your own, while repeatedly calling out the misdeeds of someone else’s country while giving zero mention to any misdeeds of your own which are relevant, and while continually dwelling on the negative acts of the past and focusing on none of the positives in either the past or the present of that country, all I believe you’re doing is polarizing. In doing so you’re deliberately trying to reinforce a (I believe false) belief that Canada is good, and the US is evil, which ironically promotes either side to act in its own self-interests at the expense of the other which is the very thing you’re criticizing the U.S. for.
So I’m not taking the bait with your “tongue-in-cheek” naivety. With the slant of your post, it would seem that your purpose in positing it has far more to do with you (once again) demonizing the US and furthering this polarization than it would at all have to do with “correcting imperialist history”. It saddens me, because I thought we were finally getting along so well! :) haha
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 4:12 am
Vern R. Kaine
“I’m curious as to why you would construe this as Anti-American.”
Wrong choice of words. “Anti-Invasion” is better suited.
Russian imperial atrocities like, the American ones are also on record and much more easily accessible since they are the crimes of an official enemy and are meant to be reviled and widely expounded.”
My pointing out of Russian atrocities in Afghanistan was to point out the ridiculous context of the “things were improving” statement made by the U.N.. Does it also support my point that the U.S. is one of the most moral fighting forces of today, and contradict your point that they are the most evil? Sure it does. Give me one example of a UNIT of soldiers (not some individual whacko, if there happens to be one), roasting a kid on a fire, or disemboweling pregnant women, and I’ll change my view.
Should we not hold ourselves to the highest standards?” Absolutely, and I think we hold ourselves to the highest standards out of everybody by equal comparison.
I think the real question here, however, is who sets that standard? Do the people of Canada have any right or authority to say what the standard for the U.S. should be? Do they have any basis to really judge any of these military actions or foreign policies when Canada itself benefits directly from these actions economically and commercially?
“Hypocritical double standard” – Arb, you’re seriously tossing that one out there?! Everybody has a double-standard. Especially me, and even you. (If you’ve actually given the land you live on back to the Indians, I’ll take that back.)
“if the US wanted to be a force for justice and human rights in the world, it most certainly could; I believe in the fundamental goodness that pervades American society
Even in the forward units of the American military? ;) I think you’ve heard me say (agree) before that I believe the whole “we’re doing this for the good of humanity” thing is b.s.. Canada does a lot more for people in this regard (legitimately, I mean), but even Canada has to see some sort of dollar signs behind it or it rarely gets done.
Besides, you make it sound like being a champion of human rights means that there’s an absolute to attain or aspire to. I don’t think there can be, and that the premise is false. There’s a give and take equation in human rights that has to be balanced. I guess again I’d ask, who has the right to define what “true” human rights is?
Overall, in my relations and travels between the two countries, I think America is now going through a bit of the identity crisis I saw Canada going through a while back when the U.S. economy was going up and up. I don’t know of any other time where so many aspects of American identity and culture have been challenged all at once. I think America’s going to be a “New Frontier” yet again in two years like it was way back when, even if that thinking is mostly on faith at this point.
“…and even ire to the discussion”
Haha. If I or other people like me didn’t have that ire, your salary would be reduced and you’d have less to give away to all the starving children and other causes that you do.
As for the examples of ire itself, some of my points may poke a bit, but they’re not intended to injure.
LikeLike
January 5, 2011 at 8:26 am
The Arbourist
Besides, you make it sound like being a champion of human rights means that there’s an absolute to attain or aspire to. I don’t think there can be, and that the premise is false. There’s a give and take equation in human rights that has to be balanced. I guess again I’d ask, who has the right to define what “true” human rights is?
Which human rights do you think are negotiable? Which ones do other people not deserve? The nations of the world in 1948 adopted thisdocument defining what human rights are to be expected.
As for the examples of ire itself, some of my points may poke a bit, but they’re not intended to injure.
Of course, and it is welcome here, make no mistake. I just like giving you a hard time Vern. :)
LikeLike
January 6, 2011 at 10:13 pm
Vern R. Kaine
Which human rights do you think are negotiable? Which ones do other people not deserve?
Not what I mean. Perhaps an example:
Article 3. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
“Right to life”. Are we talking the right to not let someone else take our life away (murder, capital punishment, etc.), or simply the right to eat, which is necessary to live? Someone takes away our food, we die.
If it’s the right to eat, then since we can’t grow our food we must then have a right to money, which means a right to a job. Where does the job, money, and food come from if it’s not earned? Either the state, or our own humanity, but then there’s a point where both can infringe on my right to life, liberty, and security. Now whose life is more valuable?
So it’s not a matter of “deserving” or “negotiating” so much as it is a matter of simply interpreting. Sure, a declaration or document is nice, but it’s a nice starting point, not an absolute or utmost ideal in my opinion. Therefore my point was that while scarcity of resources still exists, I don’t think an absolute or ideal can ever exist. I suspect this is why the capitalist vs. socialist vs. _______ debate continues today.
And on that note, I’ll say that there’s two forms of capitalists where most socialists/liberals only see one: those who are willingly and actually ACT to help others achieve life, liberty, and security, and those person who SAY they are willing, but either do not act, or they act otherwise. In that sense you will find many capitalists who have a great concern for human rights because they see, and promote, peoples’ potential, not cannibalize it.
LikeLike