A few examples of Americas concern for "Human Rights"
Mass murder in Indonesia elicited a response from Western leaders: they supported it. A bloody CIA-backed military coup toppled President Sukarno and brought General Suharto to power in 1965. Following the coup, an estimated 500,000 to one million members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), trade unionists, peasants and ethnic Chinese were killed in one of the most barbaric mass slaughters in history. The U.S. government supplied Suharto with a list of several thousand Indonesian communists it wanted to see eliminated. Researcher Kathy Kadane discovered through interviews with former U.S. embassy personnel that "as many as 5,000 names were furnished to the Army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured…"
As the Indonesian Army hunted down and butchered its victims, U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk cabled the embassy in Jakarta that the "campaign against the PKI must continue," and urged embassy officials to "get across that Indonesia and Army have real friends who are ready to help." The U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Marshall Green, responded to Rusk that "we have made it clear that Embassy and USG [U.S. Government] generally sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing."
Unable to keep up with the pace of killing demanded by Washington, the Army organized Muslim extremists and right wing death squads and set them loose in a frenzied killing spree. Indonesian generals asked the U.S. Government for more weapons "to arm Muslim and nationalist youths in central Java for use against the PKI," and Washington responded quickly with covert shipments of arms. One former State Department official told Kadane, "No one cared as long as they were communists that were being butchered." An internal CIA report later noted that it was "extremely proud" of its role in the coup.
As Ambassador Green remarked in a cable to Washington, "Bluntest remark was question of how much is it worth to U.S. that PKI be smashed and trend here reversed, thereby swinging big part of SEA [Southeast Asia] from communism." Once Suharto formally assumed the post of acting president on March 11, 1966, economic aid was forthcoming and U.S. and Western European advisors helped chart economic policy in New Order Indonesia. By 1967, Indonesia had rejoined the IMF and World Bank, passed an investment law favorable to foreign corporations, and was rewarded with a large increase in U.S. aid, rising to $200 million by 1969. In the years to come, New Order Indonesia would continue to imprison, torture and execute several hundred thousand people. Only in Suharto’s last months in office did Western support for him wane, due to a people’s revolution which threatened to topple him. A shift in the West’s support was imperative in order to ensure a cosmetic change of leadership to protect their interests.
In 1983, the CIA supplied a long list of members of the communist Tudeh Party to the Khomeini government in Iran, branding those identified as "Soviet agents." The expectation was that these people would be arrested and executed, a hope that was not disappointed. The Iranian government sprang into action, arresting and executing 200 party members and outlawing the Tudeh Party. More arrests would follow, including the entire party leadership, who were tortured and forced to make false televised confessions. The British government also supplied information on Tudeh to Iranian authorities. Eventually over 10,000 members and supporters of Tudeh would be imprisoned and tortured. In 1989 a specially appointed committee swept through the prisons and sentenced to death thousands. At least 5,000 people from various political parties were executed, including hundreds of Tudeh Party members. The U.S. concern was that a post-Khomeini Iran might move to the left. The Western assisted decimation of Tudeh aimed to forestall that prospect.
In 1975, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge; virtually the entire country was turned into a forced labor camp as they implemented a primitive agrarian economy. Over the next four years as many as two million Cambodians perished from starvation, disease and executions. Several hundred thousand people were tortured and murdered in often-brutal ways. Here was crime against humanity on a grand scale. Following a Khmer Rouge invasion of Vietnam, counter-attacking Vietnamese forces, in conjunction with an uprising of the Cambodian people, drove the Khmer Rouge from power in January 1979. A socialist government led by Hun Sen was established as Cambodia began its long road back to recovery. Khmer Rouge troops, in alliance with right-wing forces, launched a fierce guerrilla war against the new Cambodian government which lasted several years. Guerrilla leaders Prince Norodom Sihanouk and Son Sann joined the Khmer Rouge in forming a Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, which at Western insistence, represented Cambodia at the United Nations in place of the government of Cambodia. This provided a fig leaf of legitimacy for Western support of a movement dominated by the Khmer Rouge. American and British advisors and arms shipments aided Sihanouk’s and Sann’s forces, which carried out coordinated military operations with Khmer Rouge troops and were often commanded by Khmer Rouge officers. Western arms frequently found their way into Khmer Rouge arsenals as many members of Sihanouk’s and Sann’s organizations belonged to the Khmer Rouge. U.S. officials pressured humanitarian groups to supply food and aid to help sustain the Khmer Rouge.
After the fall of the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam maintained a troop presence in Cambodia in order to help defend the fledging Hun Sen government and prevent the return to power of mass murders. American officials were outraged, and spared no effort to reverse the situation. Western sponsored peace negotiations in 1989-1990 succeeded in obtaining the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops. The second goal of Western negotiators was to replace or weaken socialist forces in Cambodia. Under pressure, Cambodia was obliged to bring officials from Son Sann’s and Norodom Sihanouk’s organizations into the government. Cambodia was also compelled to restore the monarchy and place Sihanouk back on the throne. During the peace negotiations, American officials insisted that the Khmer Rouge be given a prominent role in the new governing coalition. As one U.S. negotiator explained, "No Khmer Rouge, no deal." The Khmer Rouge, fiercely anti-Vietnamese, still harbored dreams of seizing territory from Vietnam. This harmonized with U.S. goals in the region, also fiercely anti-Vietnamese. A Hun Sen government in Cambodia friendly to Vietnam was impermissible. Vietnam had to be isolated, even if it meant risking the return to power of executioners in Cambodia. Only Khmer Rouge intransigence failed to bring about the realization of the Western demand for the inclusion of Khmer Rouge officials in the government. Preferring to continue the guerrilla struggle, the Khmer Rouge hoped to grab sole control of governing reins through force of arms.
As Cambodian government troops closed in on the last remnants of Khmer Rouge forces in March 1998, Khmer Rouge warlord Ta Mok communicated an offer through Thai military channels to turn the Khmer Rouge leader, Pol Pot, over to the United States. Taken by surprise, U.S. officials turned down the offer. No desire for a tribunal here. They didn’t want him. But Cambodia wanted him, so the U.S. had to act to prevent that eventuality. The U.S. needed time to structure proceedings, presumably in order to ensure that the American role in support of Pol Pot would not surface during a trial. While U.S. officials worked on arrangements for a trial on their terms, Pol Pot committed suicide.
Following the final defeat of the Khmer Rouge, the Cambodian government announced that Khmer Rouge leaders would be tried for crimes against humanity. Without delay, the U.S. responded by demanding that any trial be conducted solely under United Nations auspices, in other words, under terms dictated by the U.S. After lengthy wrangling, Western threats and pressure forced Cambodia to relent and seek a compromise in which the trials would be conducted in Cambodia, but with a mix of Cambodian and Western prosecutors and judges. A major sticking point is whether the controlling majority will be Cambodian or Western. In response to a hostile letter sent from UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in April 2000, Hun Sen announced that the Khmer Rouge trials would not be limited to the years in which it held power, but would cover the entire period of 1970 to 1999. This touched directly on the worst fears of U.S. officials, spanning events from the CIA-backed military coup in Cambodia in 1970 through the final years of Western support for the Khmer Rouge. Only a hastily drawn American plan for evenly divided prosecution and judicial teams brought an agreement on the trial, ensuring that only the events of Khmer Rouge power would be considered. The Cambodians also had reason to worry. Their justifiable fear was that a prosecution team with a Western majority would seize the opportunity to seek the arrest of Hun Sun and other Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) leaders on trumped-up charges. The elimination of the CPP from the scene and the installation of a government more amenable to Western dictate has long been a Western goal. Clearly the U.S. motivation is to steer any trials in a direction favorable to its interests.
Despite apparent agreement, Western insistence on majority control continues. When Hun Sen announced that a draft law on the conduct of the trial would be passed by August 2001, Kofi Annan fired off a threatening letter, demanding full adherence to all Western demands. Unbowed, Hun Sen responded, "It seems to me that the UN does not want Cambodia to proceed with the trial, so I want Kofi Annan to be careful with the sovereignty and the independence of a nation, and let’s talk straight and be clear with each other. I am afraid of nobody. This is a Cambodian issue. To join us or not is up to you."
Whether waving the banner of freedom or waving the banner of human rights, Western leaders have consistently sought to obscure both their motivations and the often-dreadful consequences of their actions. Freedom was never a concern. Nor were human rights, but such rhetorical justifications helped to engage domestic public support for international adventures designed to serve corporate interests. The lure of profit always takes precedence over the lives of millions. Every year, 40 million people die needlessly of hunger, victims of a global capitalist system that cherishes wealth, but human lives not at all. In terms of death, this silent holocaust is the equivalent of a Second World War - in which 55 million died - taking place every year and a half. Yet a drop in the Stock Market evokes more concern. Such a system is monstrous. One can gauge Western commitment to human rights and justice by examining the record of these self-appointed judges. History is replete with examples, so these few cases will have to serve as a synecdoche.
Gregory Elich
http://english.pravda.ru/main/2001/09/25/16153.html
