The Official Commitment To Terrorism
By Max Kantar
18 March,
2008
Countercurrents.org
A good definition of terrorism can be found in the U.S. code manuals, stating that terrorism is "the use of violence to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the policy of a government through intimidation or coercion." Also found in the U.S. army code manuals is the policy we are officially committed to for conducting "low intensity warfare" which is nearly taken verbatim, from the definition of terrorism.
America's commitment to terrorism is deeply rooted in the objectives outlined in post WWII foreign policy planning, which can be read in declassified United States government documents. Summarizing the position of State and corporate power structure, highly influential policy planner, George Keenan, noted in a 1949 memo to the state department, that the clear objective of U.S. postwar foreign policy regarding the third world, is to assure that it "fulfills its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the benefit of U.S. corporations, namely to produce for export, regardless of the said country's popular demand or need." As American intellectual, Noam Chomsky correctly noted, all policy planners agreed that the greatest threat to the U.S. dominated world order were "nationalistic regimes" that are responsive to "popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" and popular calls for production for domestic needs, rather than foreign export.
Of course, the general populations of underdeveloped world, which includes most of the global population, would never accept this, so they have to be subjugated by the United States and its many proxy military forces it develops and supports across the world. Only through wide scale terrorism, can the United States maintain this hegemony and corporate order.
During the Reagan years, the United States conducted several terrorist operations in Central America to assure that multinational corporate interests were protected and to be sure that "the threat of a good example" did not arise. These policies resulted in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of people along the way.
The most prominent example is Nicaragua. When the popular Sandinista forces attempted to overthrow the brutal, U.S. backed right wing Somoza dictatorship, (Somoza fled the country) the United States funneled millions of dollars, weaponry, and military training to Somoza's National Guard, which was renamed the Contra forces. The Contras, who were entirely a U.S. production and able to sustain themselves only through American support, carried out Pol Pot style massacres of civilian populations in addition to bombing residential neighborhoods in the capital city of Managua. The United States also initiated an blatantly illegal economic embargo on Nicaragua, greatly crushing an already fragile economy.
Nicaragua, in accordance with global procedure for responding to international terrorism, took their case to the International Court of Justice at the U.N. in 1986. The court ruled that the United States was guilty of "unlawful use of force" or "unlawful aggression," which is considered a far greater offense than "international terrorism," due to its large scale and criminal nature. The U.S. was ordered to halt its terror and pay massive reparations to the Nicaraguan people.
Not only did the United States refuse to pay, they increased their terrorist activity by ordering their proxy military Contra forces to escalate their attacks on "soft targets," meaning civilian centers. This could be described as "low intensity warfare," the policy we are officially committed to. After the dust settled, approximately 40,000 people lay dead, and sadly, Nicaragua would serve as a model of democratic economic development for no one.
It is important to recognize that Nicaragua itself, was not particularly significant in regards to U.S. international business. But postwar policy planning documents make extremely clear that, as Secretary of State to the Truman administration, Dean Acheson stated, "one rotten apple can spoil the barrel." This means that a good example of democratic socioeconomic development can spread to neighboring nations in the region, where governments emerge that respond to the needs of their populations rather than the demands of foreign investors whose needs are tantamount to the exploitation of the general public.
If these sort of "nationalist regimes" began to sprout up with abundance around the world, an end to a U.S. dominated global order and economy would immediately follow. Under this formulation, and with the elite, unanimous assumption that the U.S. owns the world, it is clear why the United States elite power structure must indeed commit itself to consistent international terrorism in order to maintain its power and privilege.
The American commitment to terrorism is also evident in its voting record in regards to United Nations Security Counsel Resolutions, or international law. It is notable that the United States has vetoed far more resolutions than other nation. One special example illustrates our commitment to terrorism quite dramatically. In December of 1987, the United Nations General Assembly, passed a powerful resolution condemning terrorism and calling on all nations to help fight against it in every way possible. Naturally, the resolution passed unanimously, with the exception of two votes against it, the United States and Israel.
There is a very clear reason why the United States, and Israel, which votes reflexively with the U.S., would vote against an anti-terrorism resolution that condemned terrorism in the U.S.'s very own terms. The last paragraph in the resolution made clear that nothing in it "infringes on the rights of people struggling against racist and colonial regimes or foreign military occupation to continue their resistance in their just cause." The most obvious reason why the U.S. could not accept this was simply because the racist South African Apartheid regime was an official ally, whereas indigenous freedom fighting organizations, such as Nelson Mandela's ANC, were official 'terrorist' groups. Other reasons include the U.S. and Israeli collaborating efforts to maintain an illegal occupation of the internationally recognized Palestinian state, consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Countless examples of the U.S. commitment to terrorism exist, dating back to the American Indian genocide, the invasion of Vietnam, the funding and collaboration in the genocidal ethnic cleansing in Turkey, our longstanding proxy military force in Columbia, the massacres of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians through the Clinton years, and of course, the current bombing of civilians in the illegal occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, which by our own Nuremberg standards, constitute the gravest war crime of "unlawful aggression."
Clearly, the hypocrisy of the United States is unmatched to date.
The best
way the United States can contribute to the so called "war on
terror," is like Noam Chomsky said, "stop participating
in it."
Max Kantar is an undergraduate of Sociology at Ferris
State University. He can be reached for comment at [email protected]
