|
Obama Waffles on School of
the Americas
NIKOLAS KOZLOFF
Counterpunch
Friday, June 27, 2008
For a candidate who talks the talk on human rights, Barack Obama
has little to say about the infamous School of the Americas (SOA).
Originally established in the Panama Canal Zone in 1946, the school
later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia in 1984. Since its inception,
the institution has instructed more than 60,000 Latin American
soldiers in military and law-enforcement tactics.
The Pentagon itself has acknowledged that in the past the School
of the Americas utilized training manuals advocating coercive
interrogation techniques and extrajudicial executions. After receiving
their training at the institution, officers went on to commit
countless human rights atrocities in countries like El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Colombia.
Activists long lobbied Congress to shut down the school, and
in the waning days of the Clinton presidency they nearly achieved
their goal. In July 1999, the House passed an amendment that cut
funding for the military institution, but the Senate decided to
pass its own version of the bill that included funding. Compromise
legislation between the House and Senate deleted the funding cut,
effectively restoring public support for the school. Shortly afterwards
Congress renamed the school Western Hemisphere Institute for Security
Cooperation (WHINSEC) and revised the institution’s structure
and curriculum.
(Article continues below)
Now fast forward to the 2006 mid-term Congressional election:
hoping to make use of their newfound majority on Capitol Hill,
some Democrats sought to eliminate WHINSEC’s funding once
and for all. Shortly after their victory in November they nearly
succeeded with 203 legislators voting against ongoing public support
of the school and 214 in favor. The closeness of the vote suggested
that if the Democrats were able to increase their legislative
majority in 2008, then the WHINSEC might indeed be history.
Outside the halls of Congress a number of prominent organizations
joined calls to shut WHINSEC including the AFL-CIO, the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME),
the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the NAACP, the United Methodist
Church, the Presbyterian Church, the United Church of Christ,
and over 100 U.S. Catholic Bishops.
Still, the Democratic presidential candidates refused to take
a stand against WHINSEC. In fact, the only two Democrats who expressed
opposition to the institution were long shots Mike Gravel and
Dennis Kucinich (on the Republican side, Ron Paul said he too
would shutter WHINSEC).
In the early stages of the presidential race, Kucinich pledged
to close the school if he were elected. A longtime foe of WHINSEC
who had voted repeatedly to close the institution while serving
in Congress, Kucinich even attended a political protest held at
the gates of the school in late 2007.
But the question is: where does Obama stand? On International
Human Rights Day last year the Senator remarked, “We in
the United States enjoy tremendous freedoms, but we also carry
a special responsibility—the responsibility of being the
country so many people in the world look to… for human rights
leadership.”
Obama then added that Bush had undermined human rights: “We
were told that waterboarding was effective. We were assured that
shipping men off to countries that tortured was good for national
security. We were led to believe that our military and civilian
courts were inadequate, and so we established a network of unaccountable
prisons.” He continued, “We have not only vacated
the perch of moral leader; we have also compounded the threat
we face, spurring more people to take up arms against us.”
Obama lamented that the Bush administration had destroyed the
moral credibility of the United States worldwide. In Darfur, Burma,
Zimbabwe, Russia, and Pakistan, human rights violations were on
the rise. Unfortunately, Washington no longer enjoyed any international
respect and could not speak with authority on human rights.
Poignantly, Obama closed by stating, “The very depth of
the anti-Americanism felt around the world today is a testament
not to hatred but to disappointment, acute disappointment. The
global public expects more from America. They expect our government
to embody what they have seen in our people: industriousness,
humanity, generosity, and a commitment to equality. We can become
that country again.”
Obama likes to employ soaring rhetoric when discussing human
rights. But late last year, he failed to take a strong position
opposing WHINSEC. When pressed, the candidate praised Congress’
revision of the school’s curriculum but said that he wanted
to continue to evaluate the institution.
What more information could Obama possibly need to reach a final
decision on the matter? An Obama spokesman said the senator "has
not committed to closing down the Western Hemisphere Institute
for Security Cooperation, but he will take a hard look at the
program and the progress it has made once he is elected."
The spokesman reiterated Obama was pleased with the institution's
inclusion of human rights courses.
To put this in all in perspective then, on this issue Obama has
staked out a position to the right of Ron Paul, many members of
Congress, and mainstream labor and Church organizations.
Given widespread public disgust towards torture and the like,
Obama’s meekness on WHINSEC is perplexing. In the wake of
the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and revelations about so-called
waterboarding, many U.S. citizens have soured on the War on Terror.
Meanwhile, the prisoner detention center at Guantánamo
Bay, Cuba, has become an international eyesore. Even President
Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have publicly said they’d
prefer to close the facility.
Obama also supports closing Guantánamo, which makes his
statements on WHINSEC all the more befuddling. In the present
political climate, what does the Senator have to lose by coming
out against the former School of the Americas? Perhaps he fears
the GOP might accuse him of being weak on defense. But Republican
nominee John McCain is not likely to use torture as ammunition
during the campaign—it hardly seems a winning electoral
issue for the Arizona Senator. What’s more, many voters
are oblivious to WHINSEC and have little knowledge of, or interest
in, U.S. policy towards Latin America.
No, it’s not fear of GOP retaliation on the campaign trail
that keeps Obama quiet on WHINSEC. What the Senator is really
concerned about is offending the movers and shakers within the
military-industrial complex. Closing WHINSEC would demonstrate
that the United States has no interest in dominating the peoples
of Latin America by military means. Obama however is reluctant
to make a clean break from the United States’ imperialist
past.
On the other hand, try as he might to skirt the issue, Obama
will soon be obliged to take a clearer stand on WHINSEC. That’s
because the House recently approved the McGovern-Sestak-Bishop
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009.
The amendment obliges WHINSEC to publicly release the names, rank,
country of origin, courses, and dates of attendance of the school's
graduates and instructors.
Legislators pressed for the measure because in recent years WHINSEC
has withheld vital information that would have helped to identify
the perpetrators of massacres, targeted assassinations, and human
rights abuses committed in Latin America. In a resounding defeat
for the Pentagon, the measure was approved by a vote of 220 to
189. The amendment now heads to the Senate where all eyes will
be on Obama.
The vote, however, will not resolve the larger question of whether
WHINSEC should be shuttered once and for all. If it chose to,
the media could prod the candidates to address U.S. military policy
towards Latin America during the fall campaign. So far however
reporters and pundits have ignored the topic, preferring instead
to ask Obama about his flag pin.
McCain has suggested the two candidates participate in town-hall
style debates, potentially allowing more direct engagement with
voters. The U.S. public would surely welcome this departure from
the relentless and insipid questioning featured in previous debates.
It would certainly be refreshing to see Obama questioned on issues
of real substance such as the historic U.S. role in Latin America,
military policy, and human rights.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
