>(from http://www.lbbs.org) > >ATROCITIES MANAGEMENT > >Edward S. Herman > >It is extremely easy to demonize by atrocities management. I became steeped >in this subject during the Vietnam War era, and even published a small >volume in 1970 entitled Atrocities in Vietnam: Myths and Realities. The >marvel of that era was how easily and effectively the U.S. establishment >and media focused on the cruel acts and killings of the indigeous National >Liberation Front (NLF, "Vietcong") and made them into sinister killers >("terrorists"), when in fact the terror of the U.S. and its local and >foreign proxies was worse by a very large factor. The violence of the Diem >government in the late 1950s was extremely brutal, indiscriminate, and >massive; and when the US entered the fray directly in the 1960s a new level >of (wholesale terror) was reached with chemical warfare, napalm, >fragmentation bombs, "free fire zones," and high level B-52 bombing raids >on "suspected Vietcong bases" (i.e., villages). The NLF was always more >selective in its killing, for strategic and political reasons--it had a >mass base in the countryside that it did not want to harm or alienate. The >Diem government, its successors, and the US, were less discriminating for >the same reason--they had little or no peasant support, so that >indiscriminate terror and mass killing was the understandable strategy of >aggression. > >But the U.S. media featured the relatively small and selective terrorist >acts of the enemy, dramatized and personalized them with details, and gave >correspondingly slight and more antiseptic attention to the horrendous >behavior of our clients and ourselves, also presented as defensive and >retaliatory. I recall being one- upped on a radio debate on the war when my >opponent pulled out an article in Time magazine showing a picture of two >Vietnamese, hands-tied, allegedly executed by the NLF. This may or may not >have been an instance of NLF terror, but two things were clear: the >political selectivity of Time here and in general completely distorted the >overall truth regarding terror in Vietnam, and the selectivity and >dramatization made for very effective propaganda. While the U.S. was >destroying Vietnam in order to "save" it, the U.S. media found only the >Vietnamese enemy evil; the U.S. failed there, but with the noblest intentions. > >Another important result of the effective demonization of the NLF as >terroristic was to paralyse many liberals and leftists, unwilling to be >tagged as not only unpatriotic but siding with terrorists. Many lapsed into >silence; others condemned both sides, calling weakly for restraint and >compromise; and only "extremists" were willing to call the U.S. aggression >and long struggle against Vietnamese self-determination by its right name. >This paralysis and marginalization of a principled position weakened the >oppositional movement to the war. > >The U.S. also destroyed Cambodia in a "sideshow" to the Vietnam war >(1969-75), and following the devastating four year rule of the Khmer Rouge, >the US supported the ousted Pol Pot forces as the "enemy of my enemy" >(Vietnam). The U.S. media focused intensively and indignantly on the Khmer >Rouge genocide, but from 1969 to today have largely blacked out the >atrocities of the "sideshow" years, the misdeeds of the Khmer Rouge during >the period of U.S. support, and the fact of that support. Here again, the >power of media propaganda has been such that calling attention to the U.S. >role as the first phase genocidists and its badly compromised position as >Pol Pot supporter after 1978 is virtually unheard of, and departures from >an exclusive focus on KR crimes makes one an apologist for the KR. This >process extends to the "left," with repeated illustrations in the >Progressive and In These Times, and in an Institute for Policy Studies >(IPS)-Interhemispheric Resource Center publication, Foreign Policy in >Focus. In the latter case, a 1997 essay on Cambodia by Philip Robertson >focused entirely on KR crimes, portrayed the US as a neutral party in that >country and suitable adjudicator of policy, and supplied a list of policy >recommendations for it to implement there, including U.S. support for war >crimes trials for KR leaders. > >Another sideshow of the Vietnam war was the mass killings in Indonesia in >1965-66, which destroyed the base of the Communist Party and brought >Indonesia into the U.S. sphere of influence. This sideshow was greeted >enthusiastically by the U.S. establishment. Given this approval, and 33 >years of U.S. support for the Suharto dictatorship, atrocities management >has required that the large- scale murders and rule by violence, and the >mass killings in East Timor from 1975-1999, be kept under the rug. The U.S. >media have done a great job here. There are no UN forensic groups over >there looking at bodies, and there are no demands for ending Suharto's >impunity. > >Similarly, with the US "constructively engaged" with South Africa, Israel, >and Turkey over the past several decades, the South African occupation of >Namibia, assaults on the front line states, and support of Renamo and >Savimbi, Israel's invasions and "iron fist" attacks on Lebanon, and >Turkey's scorched earth policies and killings of Kurds, could proceed for >many years killing hundreds of thousands unimpeded by any intense focus on >atrocities or serious attention from the "international community." Turkey >could even offer to lend armed support to the NATO effort in Kosovo, >presumably diverting troops from killing Kurds, without eliciting the >slightest sense of irony in the West. > >Only when the Godfather needs atrocities--as with the NLF, PLO, or >Serbs--do atrocities come on line, with intense focus and indignation. This >is done with such assurance and self-righteous virtue that liberals and >leftists jump on the bandwagon and welcome the Godfather's gracious >willingness in this particular case to finally properly lead and bring >justice to the targeted villain and area. The willingness of leftists to >accept the U.S. (and NATO) as proper authorities to decide, judge and drop >bombs is nothing short of astonishing. Some of them might the previous week >have condemned the murderous U.S. sanctions that are killing more Iraqi >children each month than the aggregate casualties in Kosovo, U.S. support >of the Turkish war against the Kurds, the U.S. bombing of the Sudan, etc., >but still their political vision is so limited, their response to >atrocities so elemental, that they collapse intellectually and morally. One >leftist is reported to have said that the Serbs are pulling people out of >houses and killing them, implying that this justified the NATO bombing of >Serbia. On this kind of reasoning, Israel would have been bombed after >Sabra- Shatila and on many other occasions; and of course the governments >of El Salvador and Guatemala would have been bombed incessantly in the >1980s, instead of being supplied and protected by the US. > >With Milosevec and the Serbs effectively demonized, the left even puts >forward spokespersons who openly favor the NATO bombing. Both IPS and >Mother Jones offer as an expert and spokesperson Albert Cevallos of the >International Crisis Group, who urges "the need of bombing to bring Serbia >back into the peace process," to be followed by an international >peacekeeping army in Kosovo. Mother Jones also provides Doug Hostetter of >the Fellowship of Reconciliation, who proposes that as Milosevic is >carrying out "genocidal acts" the U.S. should seek to bring him before the >war crimes tribunal. Reminiscent of the Vietnam War paralysis, the IPS and >Mother Jones leftists oppose the bombing (Cevallos excepted) mainly because >it won't work in achieving purportedly humane goals, whose substantive >primacy is taken for granted. Not one of these experts condemns the U.S. >and NATO for tearing Yugoslavia apart, for violating international law in >the bombing, and for their political selectivity and gross double standard >in choice of innocents to be protected from crimes against humanity. > >Atrocities management works, but it also requires a complementary gross >misunderstanding of the issues at stake and context of the actions taken. >The Serbs have committed terrible acts in Kosovo and deserve condemnation; >and international efforts to end that crisis are eminently desirable. But >past NATO policies have contributed to the ongoing violence and are part of >the problem--their bombing strategy is the culmination of policies that >have exacerbated the crisis. The bombing is not merely immoral and illegal, >it is part of an ugly and destructive policy sequence rooted in >self-serving geo-political strategies. _ > >------ >Edward S. Herman, Professor of Finance at the Wharton School of the >University of Pennsylvania, is co-author (with Noam Chomsky) of >MANUFACTURING CONSENT: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE MASS MEDIA (Pantheon, >1988). ------------------------------- Robert Naiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st NW Washington, DC 20009 phone: 202-265-3263 fax: 202-265-3647 http://www.preamble.org/ -------------------------------
