Laman Webantu KM2: 6258 File Size: 7.9 Kb * |
Monbiot: What's the difference between Al Qaeda and Fort Benning? By George Monbiot 31/10/2001 1:24 pm Wed |
http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=465
America's Terrorist Training Camp What's the difference between Al Qaeda and Fort Benning?
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 30th October 2001
"If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents,"
George Bush announced on the day he began bombing
Afghanistan, "they have become outlaws and murderers
themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril."
I'm glad he said "any government", as there's one which, though it
has yet to be identified as a sponsor of terrorism, requires his urgent
attention. For the past 55 years it has been running a terrorist training camp,
whose victims massively outnumber the people killed by the attack
on New York, the embassy bombings and the other atrocities laid,
rightly or wrongly, at Al-Qaeda's door. The camp is called the
Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHISC. It
is based in Fort Benning, Georgia, and it is funded by Mr Bush's
government. Until January this year, WHISC was called "the School of the
Americas", or SOA. Since 1946 SOA has trained over 60,000 Latin
American soldiers and policemen. Among its graduates are many of
the continent's most notorious torturers, mass murderers, dictators
and state terrorists. As hundreds of pages of documentation
compiled by the pressure group SOA Watch shows, Latin America
has been ripped apart by its alumni.
In June this year, Colonel Byron Lima Estrada, once a student at
the school, was convicted in Guatemala City of murdering Bishop
Juan Gerardi in 1998. Gerardi was killed because he had helped to
write a report on the atrocities committed by Guatemala's "D-2", the
military intelligence agency run by Lima Estrada with the help of
two other SOA graduates. D-2 coordinated the "anti-insurgency"
campaign which obliterated 448 Mayan Indian villages, and
murdered tens of thousands of their people. Forty per cent of the
cabinet ministers who served the genocidal regimes of Lucas
Garcia, Rios Montt, and Mejia Victores studied at SOA.
In 1993, the United Nations Truth Commission on El Salvador
named the army officers who had committed the worst atrocities of
the civil war. Two-thirds of them had been trained at the School of
the Americas. Among them were Roberto D'Aubuisson, the leader
of El Salvador's death squads; the men who killed Archbishop
Oscar Romero; and 19 of the 26 soldiers who murdered the Jesuit
priests in 1989. In Chile, the school's graduates ran both Augusto
Pinochet's secret police and his three principal concentration
camps. One of them helped to murder Orlando Letelier and Ronni
Moffit in Washington DC in 1976. Argentina's dictators Roberto Viola and Leopoldo Galtieri, Panama's
Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado
and Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez all benefitted from the school's
instruction. So did the leader of the Grupo Colina death squad in
Fujimori's Peru; four of the five officers who ran the infamous
Battalion 3-16 in Honduras (which controlled the death squads
there in the 1980s) and the commander responsible for the 1994
Ocosingo massacre in Mexico. All this, the school's defenders insist, is ancient history. But SOA's
graduates are also involved in the dirty war now being waged, with
US support, in Colombia. In 1999 the US State Department's report
on human rights named two SOA graduates as the murderers of the
peace commissioner Alex Lopera. Last year, Human Rights Watch
revealed that seven ex-pupils are running paramilitary groups there
and have commissioned kidnappings, disappearances, murders and
massacres. In February this year a SOA graduate in Colombia was
convicted of complicity in the torture and killing of 30 peasants by
paramilitaries. The school is now drawing more of its graduates from
Colombia than from any other country.
The FBI defines terrorism as "violent acts ...intended to intimidate or
coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government,
or affect the conduct of a government", which is a precise
description of the activities of SOA's graduates. But how can we be
sure that their alma mater has had any part in this? Well, in 1996,
the US government was forced to release seven of the school's
training manuals. Among other top tips for terrorists, they
recommended blackmail, torture, execution and the arrest of
witnesses' relatives. Last year, partly as a result of the campaign run by SOA Watch,
several US congressmen tried to shut the school down. They were
defeated by 10 votes. Instead, the House of Representatives voted
to close it then immediately reopen it under a different name. So,
just as Windscale turned into Sellafield in the hope of parrying
public memory, the School of the Americas washed its hands of the
past by renaming itself WHISC. As the school's Colonel Mark
Morgan informed the Department of Defense just before the vote in
Congress, "Some of your bosses have told us that they can't
support anything with the name 'School of the Americas' on it. Our
proposal addresses this concern. It changes the name." Paul
Coverdell, the Georgia senator who had fought to save the school,
told the papers that the changes were "basically cosmetic."
But visit WHISC's website and you'll see that the School of the
Americas has been all but excised from the record. Even the page
marked "History" fails to mention it. WHISC's courses, it tells us,
"cover a broad spectrum of relevant areas, such as operational
planning for peace operations; disaster relief; civil-military
operations; tactical planning and execution of counter drug
operations." Several pages describe its human rights initiatives. But,
though they account for almost the entire training programme,
combat and commando techniques, counter-insurgency and
interrogation aren't mentioned. Nor is the fact that WHISC's "peace"
and "human rights" options were also offered by SOA in the hope
of appeasing Congress and preserving its budget: but hardly any of
the students chose to take them. We can't expect this terrorist training camp to reform itself: after all it
refuses even to acknowledge that it has a past, let alone to learn
from it. So, given that the evidence linking the school to continuing
atrocities in Latin America is rather stronger than the evidence
linking the Al-Qaeda training camps to the attack on New York,
what should we do about the "evil-doers" in Fort Benning,
Georgia? Well, we could urge our governments to apply full diplomatic
pressure, and to seek the extradition of the school's commanders for
trial on charges of complicity in crimes against humanity.
Alternatively, we could demand that our governments attack the
United States, bombing its military installations, cities and airports in
the hope of overthrowing its unelected government and replacing it
with a new administration overseen by the UN. In case this proposal
proves unpopular with the American people, we could win their
hearts and minds by dropping naan bread and dried curry in plastic
bags stamped with the Afghan flag.
You object that this prescription is ridiculous, and I agree. But, try
as I might, I cannot see the moral difference between this course of
action and the war now being waged in Afghanistan.
30th October 2001
|