Showing posts with label Henry Kissinger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Henry Kissinger. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Kissinger

Maybe to correct for actually agreeing with Henry Kissinger a couple of days ago, I feel obliged to link to this excellent run-down of all the human rights abuses Kissinger approved of during his years working for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. We tend to focus on his actions in Chile here because we write a lot about Latin America.  But his actions in Asia were probably even worse, with direct responsibility for massive death in Bangladesh, East Timor, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iraq.

Kissinger really is one of the worst people in American history.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Kissinger v. Gerson

I do love me some Republican infighting....

Michael Gerson claims that the foreign policy realism of Nixon and Kissinger failed to bring about effective results.  Using the issue of emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union, Gerson states that

Realists often hold a simplistic view of great-power relations, asserting that any humanitarian pressure on Russia or China will cause the whole edifice of global order to crumble. This precludes the possibility of a mature relationship with other nations in which America both stands for its values and pursues common interests.

Gerson then goes on to claim that the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, which linked normal trade relations between the US and USSR with the freedom of Soviet Jews to emigrate, helped lead to the end of the Cold War, showing the amorality of realism.

But Jackson-Vanik turned out to be a pivot point in the Cold War. After an initial drop in emigration, the legislation exerted two decades of pressure on Soviet leaders, eventually resulting in higher emigration levels. It pressed one of the West's most powerful ideological advantages against the Soviet Union by demonstrating the weakness of a system that must build walls to keep its people from fleeing. This emphasis on human rights inspired not only Jewish refuseniks but other groups and nationalities that inhabited the Soviet prison.
Jackson-Vanik was both a rejection of Kissinger's realism and a preview of Reaganism. It asserted that oppressive regimes are more likely to threaten their neighbors, placing human rights nearer the center of American interests. It elevated standards of human dignity that were direct threats to regimes premised on their denial.
This is, of course, absurd, as Kissinger points out in his rebuttal.

Gerson ascribes the collapse of the Soviet Union in part to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment. The amendment played no significant role in what resulted from imperial overstretch, incompetent economic management and the determined resistance of a succession of presidents from both parties, culminating in the Reagan period.
But then again, this debate sums up Republican foreign policy--the grown-ups of the 70s and 80s versus the immature children of the Bush administration who saw every foreign policy as the penultimate battle between good and evil.

I detest Kissinger with great passion, but he is certainly right here. Gerson presents his case wearing classic neoconservative clothing--the fetishization an idealized version of Israel and Jewish people, the overly simplistic argument, the claiming of Reagan as all things good and right in the world, and the idea that America working from a moralistic standpoint can use its power to magically force the world's bad guys to change.

Never mind the abject failures of Iraq, Afghanistan, and every other piece of Bush's foreign policy.

Meanwhile, Kissinger provides actual evidence and demonstrates the great complexity of early 70s foreign policy issues, of which Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union had to play a relatively minor part.

To put this in the context of a class, Kissinger is the student whose politics make me retch but who knows what he's talking about, writes a sophisticated paper, and gets an A before going on to a graduate program at Harvard or Georgetown. Gerson is the equivalent of the privileged but moronic freshman who writes a poorly written and naive power about how America rocks and the commies are evil. He gets a C, but it doesn't matter because Daddy is going to take care of him no matter what happens.

That the morons control the appartus of Republican foreign policy scares me far more than the competent but evil Republicans of years past.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Kissinger Linked to Assassinations

Remind me why Henry Kissinger is respected today?

As secretary of state, Henry Kissinger canceled a U.S. warning against carrying out international political assassinations that was to have gone to Chile and two neighboring nations just days before a former ambassador was killed by Chilean agents on Washington's Embassy Row in 1976, a newly released State Department cable shows.

Whether Kissinger played a role in blocking the delivery of the warning against assassination to the governments of Chile, Argentina and Uruguay has long been a topic of controversy.
Discovered in recent weeks by the National Security Archive, a non-profit research organization, the Sept. 16, 1976 cable is among tens of thousands of declassified State Department documents recently made available to the public.

'You can instruct'' the U.S. ambassadors ''to take no further action'' on the subject of Operation Condor, said the Sept. 20 cable by Harry Shlaudeman, assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs, to Shlaudeman's deputy.

The next day, on Sept. 21, 1976, agents of Chilean Gen. Augusto Pinochet planted a car bomb and exploded it on a Washington, D.C., street, killing both former Ambassador Orlando Letelier, and an American colleague, Ronni Karpen Moffitt. Letelier was one of the most outspoken critics of the Pinochet government.

It is nice having hard evidence implicating Kissinger. It'd be nicer if he stood trial for the murders and died behind bars.

Monday, April 13, 2009

From Colony to Superpower, Part XVII

This is the seventeenth installment in the 20 part series Rob Farley and I have commenced to review George Herring's From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. See the Herring Review tag below for previous entries.

This week Herring talks about Nixon. I like this chapter because Herring is morally outraged, which always makes writing more lively. Herring clearly has little but contempt for Nixon and Kissinger. I agree, but Herring differentiates between Nixon and other presidents in ways that I am not really comfortable with.

Nixon's foreign policy successes are of some legend--opening up China, beginning arms negotiations with the Soviets. His failures are equally legendary--his invasion of Cambodia, his support for Pinochet and other South American dictators. Herring provides a nuanced discussion of these events. I found the Chinese issues particularly interesting, including that Nixon involved Reagan by sending him to Taiwan in order to settle them down. The repercussions of visiting China in the rest of Asia was also quite fascinating. The Japanese were extremely unhappy and it led to a low point in postwar U.S.-Japan relations. I also thought that Nixon's lack of policy toward Europe was interesting because it created a vacuum ably filled by West Germany's Willy Brandt. I wonder if there's been a president in postwar America less concerned about European issues (outside of the Soviets) than Nixon?

Herring also details how Israel joined Iran and Saudi Arabia as the third pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. The long term benefits of this decisions have been minimal to say the least. Nixon was less favorable to Israel than Johnson, being an anti-Semite and all. But under Kissinger's guidance, the U.S. allowed Israel to further their cause in the Yom Kippur War by delay the cease fire and then did everything he could to stick it to the Arabs and their Soviet allies in coming days. Where was Nixon during all of this? Drunk apparently, at least when Kissinger presided over an emergency National Security Council meeting which moved military forces to DefCon 3.

I know Herring likes dishing the dirt on Nixon with stories like this. But the evidence doesn't suggest that Nixon was that much worse than Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, or Johnson on the issues Herring attacks him over. Imposing a Cold War mindset on Latin America and South Asia? How is this different than the previous 4 presidents exactly? Nixon did a terrible thing when he invaded Cambodia, but does anyone think Johnson wouldn't have done the same thing if he thought it was necessary? Supporting Pinochet was disgusting, but the CIA had been undermining Chilean democracy since at least the mid 60s. Plus was it any worse than what Eisenhower did in Guatemala? Nixon's biggest sin probably comes in Vietnam, where he eventually negotiated American withdrawal for basically the same effect that he could have achieved when he took office in 1969. How many American, Vietnamese, Cambodian, and Laotian lives were lost because of Nixon and Kissinger's policies? But that's almost standard U.S. foreign policy in the Cold War.

None of this excuses Nixon and Kissinger. They were bad men. But they also acted in the same universe as both previous and future presidents. Their actions aren't that much worse than Reagan or Johnson. Herring is disgusted by Nixon's personal behavior and of course Watergate. Moral condemnation is a proper response to Nixon, but he takes it too far in analyzing Nixon's foreign policy, slamming him for policies that fit very comfortably within the Cold War context.

Much more to talk about, including India and Pakistan, but I'll send it to Rob now.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

How to Overthrow a Government (II): Chile in 1973

When compared to its more unstable neighbors, Chile prided itself on its rich democratic tradition. Since declaring independence in 1818, Chile had seen some political turbulence, but not with the frequency of dictatorships, monarchies, and overthrows witnessed in places like Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil. Indeed, since 1932, Chile had not seen its democratic processes interrupted. This rich tradition and national pride has made the overthrow of democratically and constitutionally-elected Salvador Allende on September 11, 1973, and the establishment of Augusto Pinochet's seventeen-year dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, that much harder to swallow. By the time Chileans realized that there would be no quick return to democracy like many of them had imagined when Allende was overthrown, Pinochet's repressive apparatus would be in place, greatly quashing any resistance to his rule.

Since 1932, Chile had operated on a system in which the population voted for one of any number of candidates, and the Chilean Congress would then ratify the winner of the plurality. This latter step was generally little more than a formality, no matter how low the plurality. Thus, when Jorge Alessandri, a center-right candidate, defeated Salvador Allende in his first presidential run in 1958, Alessandri only garnered 31% of the vote (versus Allende's 28.9%), and was ratified by Congress.

After his 6-year term was up, the center-left Christian Democrat coalition, led by Eduardo Frei, won the presidency, defeating Allende and Julio DurĂ¡n, the center-right coalition's candidate. While a member of the center in Chile's political spectrum, Frei's six-year term witnessed an increasing progressiveness. During his administration, Frei initiating limited land reform, promoted neighborhood associations, and pushed for social justice, even going so far as to grant the Rapa Nui of Easter Island full citizenship for the first time since Chile had acquired the island in 1888.

By the time the 1970 elections rolled around, the atmosphere was increasingly polarized. While Frei had endeared himself to many on the left, they also felt that his reforms were not enough, while many on the right who were initially open to his administration were incresingly fearful of Chile's leftward shift, fearing a turn to "communism" or becoming "another Cuba." Nor were Chileans alone in this. President Richard Nixon, together with National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, authorized spending millions of dollars for the other candidates in an effort to prevent Allende's victory. Unfortunately for Nixon, when the votes were tallied, Allende won the plurality with 36.3% of the vote over previous president Jorge Alessandri (35.7%) and Christian Democrat Radomiro Tomic (27.8%). Many thought the congressional approval would once again be a mere formality. However, Allende's opponents quickly mobilized in an effort to prevent his approval, thereby throwing his presidency in doubt, and even the CIA launched a major propaganda campaign in an effort to sway the outcome. Only after Allende signed a statute guaranteeing he would defend Chile's constitution did Congress approve Allende's election 153-35.

Nixon and Kissinger were appalled at the approval of Allende's election, fearing Chile was about to become another Cuba in the Western Hemisphere. In an effort to destabilize the situation, Nixon cut nearly all U.S. funding to Chile in an effort to undermine stability. They also took far more covert measures to try to remove Allende. Kissinger and the CIA were constantly trying to find military leaders who would perform a coup against Allende upon Allende's victory. Unfortunately for them, the chief of the Army, Gen. Rene Schneider, supported the Constitution, and would not support a coup against the constitutionally and democratically elected Allende. However, an anti-communist general, Roberto Viaux, who had also attempted a coup against Frei in 1969, tried to kidnap Schneider in October 1970 in an effort to prevent Allende's inauguration. Viaux botched the attempt, though, and Schneider ended up dead, resulting in the Chilean military and people supporting Allende heading into the inauguration. While no documentary evidence has demonstrated that the U.S. was involved in this attempt, it had previously had contacts with Viaux. Due to the botched kidnapping, though, the U.S. lay low, being forced to wait.

Being finally approved, Allende was inaugurated on 3 November, 1970. Aware that he had only 6 years to implement his reforms, Allende began setting about trying to show the world how to establish a "peaceful path to socialism." Allende nationalized the copper industry in Chile (something also begun under Frei, when Chile became a 51% holder of the El Teniente copper mine, one of the largetst in the country), as well as nationalizing health care. He also established several wage increases that benefitted Chile's workers in his first two years, as well as launching more comprehensive land reform and educational reform. In his first year, his economic plan actually led to a reduction of Chile's inflation, and it witnessed remarkable growth.

These efforts left many on both the left and right dissatisfied. Conservative sectors of society, fearful of things such as "nationalization" and reform, and disheartened by the economic growth under Allende in that first year, began actively mobilizing against him. They also tried to disrupt the economy, often reducing production of basic goods and foodstuffs or hoarding these items in warehouses in order to drive demand and prices up and create market instability. The U.S. also withdrew much of its funding to Chile upon Allende's election. Independently of internal factors, as well, the economy began to take a beating in 1971, as copper prices dropped globally, greatly impacting the Chilean economy. The right used these instances to try to further stoke discontentment, and even many moderates in Chile became disturbed by the leftward path Allende was taking. However, many on the left were equally dissatisfied, feeling that Allende was not moving fast enough. Many of his more radical and poorer supporters tried to force his hand by performing land and factory occupations and expropriations in large numbers. Many intellectuals argued that the only way true reform could happen would be if the entire system was overthrown and Chile started over. Entire sections of his coalition, such as the Socialist Party, were leery that Allende could really implement the revolution they desired.

Matters in Chile really began to deteriorate in 1973. That year, the mid-term elections were held, and the Popular Unity actually increased its presence, winning 43% of the seats. To the right and many in the center, this was too much, and they began taking to the streets to protest the encroaching "Communism." Sectors of the military also were beginning to take notice of the growing instability and political division of Chile, and feared that the entire country would be torn into civil war if things continued down that path. Meanwhile, the Popular Unity's supporters, encouraged by the election results, continued to rally for Allende in the streets and push for more land and factory takeovers. Allende, a cosummate politician in terms of playing the game smartly, was increasingly finding himself pushed towards a path he was hesitant to fully embrace for practial political reasons.

In the meantime, the Chilean economy in 1973 continued to worsen, as income from exports continued to decline. The economy was also finding itself wracked by the emergence of the first petroleum crisis. Inflation was rampant and only picking up steam, and bread-lines at supermarkets were getting longer and longer, leading to dissatisfaction among middle-class and workign-class housewives who were responsible for groceries and cooking. Strikes had also been breaking out since 1972, when truckers went on strike to protest against Allende, crippling the supply system in Chile. Soon, small business owners, copper workers, and other went on strike in protest of Allende, while the left launched counter-strikes for support. Additionally, the far-right paramilitary group Patria y Libertad ("Fatherland and Liberty"), with support from the CIA, had begun attempting to sabotage Chile's infrastructure in order to further weaken Allende, and the CIA continued exploring options for launching a successful coup. In August, Chile's chamber of deputies passed a resolution that openly asked the military to intervene and restore "order" to the country. In another major blow, Allende lost one of his major supporters, the constitutionalist head of the Army, Carlos Prats, who resigned when officers' wives protested in front of his home, calling him a "coward" for failing to help Chile emerge from the morass. His replacement as Commander in Chief of the Army was his second-in-command, Augusto Pinochet, a general many believed was, like Prats, loyal to Allende.

As September dawned, the prospects for Allende were increasingly diminishing. He was simply losing control of the country. Into this growing vacuum, a military junta composed of the heads of the Navy, Air Force, and Army decided to act. Navy chief Jose Toribio Merino planned the coup, and on the morning of September 11, 1973, the Navy captured the coastal port-town of Valparaiso, only 74 miles from Santiago. The national police went to the presidential palace, La Moneda, to defend Allende, who held out hope that Pinochet was still loyal to him. By mid-morning, though, it was clear that he had no military support, and that all of Chile outside of Santiago had fallen. General Gustavo Leigh, the head of the Air Force, ordered La Moneda to be bombed by aircraft. Allende refused to resign, though, and issued an address to the nation via radio. The military arrived at La Moneda and stormed the palace, with Allende dead inside in what was probably a suicide. By the end of September 11th, the military junta, led by Pinochet, was in control, with open support from a Nixon administration that was proud of the role it had played in the overthrow of a democratically and constitutionally elected president, support the new Chilean government would continue to enjoy by such dignitaries as Kissinger, Milton Friedman, and Jesse Helms.

And so, on September 11th, 1973, many Chileans went to bed satisfied with the end of Allende and pleased with the military intervention. While those Chileans slept, that new military government that had already begun rounding up, torturing, and murdering leftists and other "subversives" that it felt had put Chile in such grave danger. Augusto Pinochet shored up control of the junta, becoming the sole leader of Chile. Thus was established Chile's first military dictatorship, which would last another 17 years and would oversee the deaths of over 3000 of its own citizens in Chile, aid in the deaths of many others throughout South America, torture tens of thousands more of its own civilians, launch its own terrorist action in Washington D.C. in 1976 that left two dead, and leave millions affected by its actions.

Wednesday, December 03, 2008

Conservapedia's Entry on Henry Kissinger

In the comment thread to this Dave Noon post over at LG&M, many people were playing with Conservapedia ("The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"!) and laughing about the Obama entry there. Obama's entry is indeed a gold-mine of laughs -among other things, he was "allegedly" born in Honolulu, he has referred to "my Muslim faith," and he could be sworn in on the Koran! (And the footnotes for every one of those is as funny as the claim they support).

However my favorite part of the Obama entry is the claim "President Obama will be the first person having ties to a known former terrorist to gain control over America's nuclear weapons." Of course, I thought of a previous member of the cabinet whose activities could be called "terrorist," so I went ahead and looked up Henry Kissinger's entry at Conservapedia.

Not so surprisingly, it's not as long as one might think (Wikipedia's entry being far more detailed). For example, in dealing with Latin America, the entry devotes an entire 169 words, and only mentions Chile in detail - no Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, Uruguay, Brazil, Mexico - nobody. And on Chile, it simply claims, "Kissinger and Nixon permitted covert operations by the CIA and military]] designed to destabilize the anti-American Allende regime in Chile. Allende was overthrown by the Chilean military with no help from the U.S., but hatred of Kissinger on the left escalated another notch as their favorite regime collapsed. " Nevermind those declassified documents that show how close Kissinger and Pinochet were in bed after the latter launched mass murder and torture, and nevermind those documents that put CIA agents on the ground when the coup took place. Kissinger is just blamed because of the hatred of Kissinger on the left!

No doubt, Conservapedia defendants would claim Wikipedia's length and detail is just due to "leftists filled with hatred" for Kissinger, but given how vaguely Conservapedia glosses over some key portions of Kissinger's acts, or even totally ignores them (as in the case of the Khmer Rouge, East Timor, or anywhere in Africa, particularly Angola), it seems far more likely that Kissinger is such an unforgiveable piece of filth, even Conservapedia doesn't have that much good to say about him. And that truly is amazing, given the steaming piles of allegations that pass at Conservapedia.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Just a Reminder What a Horrible Excuse Henry Kissinger Is for a Human Being

I've often commented on what a miserable, unforgiveably evil man Henry Kissinger is, generally in terms of his policy towards supporting the overthrow of Salvador Allende and his tacit agreements with the Argentine military dictatorship of 1976-1983 to turn the other way when it came to human rights abuses. For those who want to more fully appreciate what a truly despicable bastard Kissinger was not just in South America, but in the world more generally, this story at CNN on a French missionary who tried to make public the genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge has as damning a passage from Kissinger (with a link to the declassified document containing the passage from Kissinger) as one can find. Regarding the mass murders, Kissinger refused to condemn the Khmer Rouge because of their opposition to Vietnam, commenting,

"Tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them," Kissinger told an official in the region, according to a declassified State Department account. The Khmer Rouge "are murderous thugs," he said, "but we won't let that stand in our way."
It certainly puts a presidential campaign in which Palin was claiming Obama was "palling around with terrorists" in perspective when one stops to think that, 32 years ago, a Republican Secretary of State had no problem with the knowledge that a state was killing literally hundreds of thousands of its own civilians, yet it wasn't going to let that "stand in the way" of friendly relations. Truly, words cannot express what an evil, evil man Kissinger was and is. The day he dies, the world will be a far better place.

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Speaking of Ties to "Terrorists"....

There are many reasons not to buy into Palin's (and McCain's) claptrap talk about Obama being linked to "terrorists," (including the fact that basically every investigation has shown little beyond occasional run-ins), and I'm sure I'm not the first one to bring this up.

That said, it's really, really, REALLY hard to swallow "terrorist" claims from a campaign that embraces Henry Kissinger, given how Kissinger intentionally worked to overthrow democratically elected leaders and actively worked to implant and support regimes murderous in Chile, Argentina, (to mention only a few just in Latin America) that collectively used state-sponsored terrorism to kill more than 34,000 of their own citizens. But calling out Kissinger for war crimes and crimes against humanity - that's just crazy-talk from obvious anti-American radicals!

.....and if the Kissinger link weren't bad enough, Dave reminds us of McCain's "Nazi fetishist" friend. I'll say this for the McCain campaign: I've never seen a campaign at any level that was so willing to rely almost entirely upon arguments against their opponent (Obama's inexperienced; Biden's old; ties to "terrorists") that the candidates levelling the charges were even more guilty of (Palin's "experience"; McCain at 72; Kissinger and Liddy). It would be funny if it weren't so real....

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Historical Image of the Day



Meeting between Henry Kissinger and Augusto Pinochet, 1974. I believe they are also talking about bunnies and flowers.

Henry is telling Pinochet about how much Nixon loves to send poisoned chocolate to America's kids around Easter. Pinochet looks on with interest, thinking how he can place time bombs inside of stuffed rabbits as a way to eliminate the children of lefties.

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Historical Image of the Day



Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

No doubt they are talking about how much they love bunnies and flowers.