Showing posts with label Cold War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cold War. Show all posts

Tuesday, 26 June 2007

'Family jewels' on public display

Today the CIA released of its files on some of the more, to use Gen Hayden's phrase, the current CIA director who announced the release of the documents last week (see post for background) — although their declassification has been promised for quite some time now — "unflattering" Cold War operation. In 1973 then-CIA director Schlesinger asked for a complete report on some of the more questionable actions of the Central Intelligence Agency. The report, at nearly 700 pages, has now been declassified for public eyes along with more Cold War-era documents: 11,000 pages — over a span of 20 years (1953-1973) on Soviet and Chinese politics and the relations between the two communist superpowers. The analysis might have been used to aid American plots for internally collapsing the two governments.

Links:

  • CIA's FOIA Electronic Reading Room
  • The "family jewels"/"skeletons" collection
  • CAESAR, POLO, and ESAU page
  • Updated National Security Archive report on "family jewels"

    Update:
    See also 27 June Washington Post article.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Friday, 22 June 2007

    The CIA: coming clean

    The CIA is to declassify years of documents confirming many of it's shady and illegal Cold War practices. Topics like this — knowing, or rather not knowing, what a supposedly free and democratic country as the United States was and still is doing against any measure of human rights, freedoms, and more — get me a bit fired up.

    The Washington Post reported:

    The CIA will declassify hundreds of pages of long-secret records detailing some of the intelligence agency's worst illegal abuses -- the so-called "family jewels" documenting a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said yesterday.

    The documents, to be publicly released next week, also include accounts of break-ins and theft, the agency's opening of private mail to and from China and the Soviet Union, wiretaps and surveillance of journalists, and a series of "unwitting" tests on U.S. civilians, including the use of drugs.

    "Most of it is unflattering, but it is CIA's history," Hayden said in a speech to a conference of foreign policy historians. The documents have been sought for decades by historians, journalists and conspiracy theorists and have been the subject of many fruitless Freedom of Information Act requests.
    ...
    The CIA documents scheduled for release next week, Hayden said yesterday, "provide a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency."
    ...
    Hayden's speech and some questions that followed evoked more recent criticism of the intelligence community, which has been accused of illegal wiretapping, infiltration of antiwar groups, and kidnapping and torturing of terrorism suspects.


    The BBC went further into what exactly these papers will reveal.
    The papers, to be released next week, will detail assassination plots, domestic spying and wiretapping, kidnapping and human experiments.

    Many of the incidents are already known, but the documents are expected to give more comprehensive accounts.
    ...
    Among the incidents that were said to "present legal questions" were:

    * the confinement of a Soviet defector in the mid-1960s
    * assassination plots of foreign leaders, including Cuba's Fidel Castro
    * wiretapping and surveillance of journalists
    * behaviour modification experiments on "unwitting" US citizens
    * surveillance of dissident groups between 1967 and 1971
    * opening from 1953 to 1973 of letters to and from the Soviet Union; from 1969 to 1972 of mail to and from China


    These actions are not those of an agency of a free, liberal democratic government. While not turning into a paranoid, "everyone's out to get me"-ist, a citizen should always remain aware of what his or her government is doing to prevent the removal of their own liberties. Those of us who live in America, Germany, India, and other democratic countries should protect our freedom by using the powers democratic governance gives us; those who live in unfree states should also do what they can for freedoms. Moreover, fake wars are no excuse for taking away the freedom of citizens or of others outside of the country. Doing so is counter-intuitive and, as I said before, not the actions of a free state.

    People like former secretary of state and still-foreign policy leader Henry Kissinger want skeletons like these to remain in the dark closets of the CIA, so to speak. He has fought any investigation into America's intelligence agency's misdeeds. Perhaps the reason he fights against the ugly truth is because he himself was a proponent of despicable policy, like bombing civilians in Cambodia or overthrowing democratically-elected world leaders and killing many for the sake of posturing. Why stoop to the enemy's level? Who did Kissinger turn to to commit these misdeeds? The CIA. These are no conspiracy theories.

    In 1975, CIA Director William Colby told then-President Gerald Ford that his summary of the CIA's activity had descriptions of "things [the CIA] shouldn't have done". A day later on 4 January, Secretary of State Kissinger told Ford that divulging these documents — in effect telling a nation the truth about all the horrible things its government has been doing — would result in a political disaster, like a new Watergate. Further withholding information of illegal and shady deeds from the public for your own political security is pretty sad on the part of Kissinger and the Ford administration.

    While it's good that the CIA is finally doing this (a bit late though), I wonder how exactly some of these — need I emphasize it more — horrible acts are, as Hayden calls them, "crown jewels". Moreover they are reminders of a time which I for one hope America never returns too. The Cold War was much worse than the current GWOT in how the government acted and how people's freedoms were suppressed — but that's no excuse for the Bush administration's condemnable "war on terror" actions either.

    Many of the misdeeds listed above were similar to what the unfree, authoritarian Soviet government agencies were doing, just as Bush is in some ways using similar scare tactics as the terrorists he is fighting against. See a pattern? An enemy develops, government takes advantage of people's fear, government gains power and engages in illegal and bad activities for its own power and for whatever other reasons in its 'war'.

    Nowadays the CIA is actually weak. It has lost the badge of authority it carried as it painted a picture of the Red Army marching across American soil and performed commonly operations like the ones listed above. Now the Defense Department has far more power; the CIA is underfunded and the intelligence community often thrust aside — even when it is right, like in the case of 9/11 and the failure in Iraq; and more directly under the president's political authority, the FBI is more notorious for restrictions of domestic civil liberties.

    For a bit more on the foreign policy of America during and before the Cold War, see my Monroe Doctrine essay. The National Security Archive has a page on these "family jewels".
    The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s, according to declassified documents posted today on the Web by the National Security Archive at George Washington University.


    Let's just hope that chapter in the American intelligence community's history has come to a close, or is to end at least with the next president. I highly recommend checking out the archive page linked above; it also documents all the CIA's broken promises of declassification — making Hayden's announcement look less and less like a positive step forward and more like something that should have happened long ago.

    Tuesday, 8 May 2007

    How to let an alleged terrorist off the hook...

    More horrible American hypocrisy in the 'war on terror' involving a real terrorist — Luis Posada Carriles.

    BBC News:

    A US judge has dropped immigration charges against a Cuban exile, Luis Posada Carriles, who has been accused of blowing up a Cuban airliner.

    Mr Posada, 79, was detained in May 2005 after entering the US illegally, but was released on bail last month.

    A former CIA employee, he is wanted in Venezuela and Cuba over the downing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 in which 73 people died. He denies involvement.

    US authorities have ruled out returning him to Cuba or Venezuela.
    ...
    His lawyer, Felipe Millan, said the judge had ruled that statements by Mr Posada that were to be used against him had been obtained illegally.
    ...
    US justice department spokesman Dean Boyd said: "We're reviewing the decision."


    How hard is it to botch immigration charges? Compared to terrorism charges, it's pretty simple. I mean, honestly...

    Posada is suspected of committing one of the worst terrorist acts in Latin American history. Apparantly — and this was in the height of the Cold War, where many innocents' blood was spilled at the hands of two great powers fighting via vague proxy — the United States knew ahead of time of the attack.

    The Economist:
    The Justice Department claims it did everything it could to dissuade the judge from ordering Mr Posada's release. “We can't just unilaterally order a person to be held,” a spokesman said. But critics point out that the government frequently does just that under the anti-terrorist Patriot Act.
    ...
    Prosecutors say that he lied about how he returned to the United States in 2005 in order to protect fellow Cuban exiles in Miami who helped smuggle him in by boat. That may prove to be his undoing. But the failure to extradite him may make other countries warier of collaborating with American justice.


    For once an almost certainly bona-fide terrorist can be put to justice, but he is not. Is that what America's GWOT symbolizes? Political hypocrisy and looking the other way? That just plays into the hands of the US's enemies — whether 'communist' or Qaeda — and is no doubt more bad PR possibly increasing the severity of attacks against America. The US did enough harm to Latin America in its previous 'war'. Isn't it time for justice before relations deteriorate further, and people like Hugo Chavez gain the upper hand?

    Alas, Posada's health has taken a turn for the worse, which probably played a role in the judge's ruling on his release. While it's probably never too late for justice, the US missed its chance on showing its southern neighbors it wasn't all talk and hypocrisy.

    This story — like several others of the Cold War — resembles a conspiracy spy movie-like plot, and it looks like our main character may yet get away with the acts he committed. It is the fault for the government back then for not stopping him, or even urging him; and the fault of the government now for not ending this chapter of a story that should have ended long ago.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

    Friday, 20 April 2007

    Bring a real terrorist to justice

    It's not often I side with the likes of people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, but it is time for the United States to bring a real terrorist to justice instead of running around, accusing and aimlessly charging the Jose Padillas -- the 'war on terror' phony political examples -- out there.

    AP via CNN

    Venezuela plans to ask the United Nations to investigate why the United States has failed to prosecute or extradite Cuban militant Luis Posada Carriles on charges he masterminded the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner, a lawyer for the Venezuelan government said Friday.

    Venezuela also plans to join other countries in appealing to the Organization of American States and challenging the U.S. government's actions in international courts after the 79-year-old posted bail and was freed from jail Thursday, lawyer Jose Pertierra told The Associated Press.

    Posada is awaiting trial in the U.S. on immigration fraud charges.

    In Cuba, relatives of the 73 people killed in the bombing off Barbados held a vigil in front of a U.S. mission, while the government accused the White House of arranging Posada's release to cover up past CIA secrets.

    President Hugo Chavez's government made an extradition request for the United States to hand over Posada nearly two years ago to be tried for the bombing, allegedly planned in Caracas. Pertierra accused the Bush administration of flouting a 1922 extradition treaty with Venezuela.


    Not only is this bad foreign politics for America, its bad legal ethics. Isolation only empowers the 'enemy' — whether Iran or Cuba — but the Bush administration just does not get it.

    And, alas, this is not the only case where the US has a known or alleged terrorist in its custody. (I guess the White House wouldn't want to dispel the Muslim/Arab stereotypical terrorist it has worked so hard on implementing.)

    And George Bush wonders why Latin American opinion is so much against his country? A combination from an arguable continuance of Cold War-ish policies and the president's ignoring of his southern neighbors is one solid set of reasons.

    America and its Soviet rival did enough damage to the world during the Cold War, fostering undemocratic regime changes, supporting maniacal dictators, and instigating proxy wars to the harm of the third party. It is time for the United States to come to terms with its past demons and initiate something other than so-called free trade talks with its fellow countries in the Americas. The days of Pinochet and the CIA puppet governments are over. Why can't the US open its eyes to that?

    On the other hand people like Venezuela's Chavez, who is becoming more and more of a dictator like his Cuban idol, need to lay off the conspiracy theories, or the real issues and actual sources of tension, like in the case of Luis Posada Carriles, will not be reckoned with or taken seriously by the international community.

    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Tuesday, 12 December 2006

    US Cold War foreign policy and the death of Pinochet, and the GWOT

    Pinochet
    From BBC News:

    Chile's former military leader Augusto Pinochet has died in hospital aged 91.
    A Washington Post feature:
    Pinochet assumed power on Sept. 11, 1973, in a bloody coup supported by the United States that toppled the [democratically] elected government of Salvador Allende, a Marxist who had pledged to lead his country "down the democratic road to socialism."

    First as head of a four-man military junta and then as president, Pinochet served until 1990, leaving a legacy of abuse that took successive governments years to catalogue. According to a government report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, his government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973.
    It seems that many throughout the Americas still have the ignorance of the Cold War. (BBC News)
    Despite his human rights record, many Chileans loved him and said he saved the country from Marxism.
    And
    His supporters argue, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said, that Pinochet "saved Chile for democracy".

    They contend that he stepped in when the country was on the verge of chaos that could have led to a Communist take-over and alignment with the Soviet Union.
    More like 'saved Chile from democracy'. Anyone ever wonder if he was the one who instigated much of that chaos? Thatcher, as many know, was not too much of a friend of the people, so she shouldn't even talk about democracy, especially when saying that brutal dictatorship is better than democracy. Pinochet cheated the Chilean people by stealing their money, killing and torturing, trampling on human rights, and basically ransacking the government and social structure.

    In all irony, Pinochet died on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights' 50th anniversary.

    Cold War
    Some of these anti-Communist diplomatic maneuvers used by the United States during the Cold War era were mentioned in the essay I posted on this blog about the Monroe Doctrine:
    Throughout the early 20th century, the U.S. sometimes questionably created regime changes in Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and other nations, as well as occupying or invading (and many times running or controlling in some way) Mexico, Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Haiti, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and El Salvador, among others. In addition, the CIA and other clandestine agencies also interfered with many Latin American nations from the 1950s through the 1980s (Rosenfelder; Wikipedia). Many of these interferences, including regime changes, the establishing of puppet governments, assassinations, occupations, and embargoes, were done in the climate of fear of communism that encapsulated the Cold War, some of which the legality is disputed and the “claim of self-defense” had “no legal basis” (Hilaire 96). Many times regimes were changed from left-leaning or even moderate democracies or republics to military dictatorships, because of the fear that the democracies or republics could turn to communism.
    Chile was one of the nations the US undeniably supported, that is, during the reign of Pinochet.

    Counterpoints
    On an Oxblog post made by conservative-leaning David Adesnik, I commented
    David, you know that the United States was a major force that got Pinochet into power and kept him there, right? (Oh, that Kissinger...) Yes, and he obviously wasn't too great for the Chilean economy; replacing democratically-elected leaders with a coup backed by the US was all too widespread and common during the Cold War.
    In a civil and direct response, the author replied
    Clearthought, I'm glad you pointed out Kissinger's role in Pinochet's rise to power. An important reminder of what "realism" in foreign policy is all about.

    With regard to replacing elected governments with dictatorships during the Cold War, even one instance counts in my book as "all too common", but actually there weren't that many.

    Off hand, I can think of Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954 and Chile in 1973. There were also instances in which we didn't do enought to prevent democratic governments from falling to a coup d'etat or other assault.

    But the real thing we did is stand by and not complain too much about all of the dictators we chose to collaborate with. Was that the best way to prevent Soviet expansion? I don't think so.

    And now we face the same question today. Should we push hard for democracy in the Middle East, or focus on stabilizing pro-Western dictatorships. Strangely, many of those who think we shouldn't have befriended dictators during the Cold War are now calling for exactly that approach to the War on Terror.


    "War on terror"
    The final thought he presented in Adesnik's reply comment is one to ponder: how are US policy support of governments during the Cold War different than that of this "war on terror" (see this post). One point is that the Cold War was an era, it had an inevitable ending and, although it was not clearly set out the objectives of the War, there was a start and finish to the United States-Soviet Union conflict. In this "war on terror", there is no real start and finish. There has pretty much always been terror; there will always be terror. It's part of our existence, though one may argue the civility of such existence. The "war on terror", like the "war on drugs", is only a metaphorical war, the target is not concrete, and even less is the objective. It is a shame the media did not challenge the wording of the politically-charged words "war on terror" soon after their post-9/11 existence, now this "war" is imprinted into history. As Juan Cole noted in an article for Foreign Policy republished here.
    'The war on terror has no end.'

    That's the plan. The Bush administration has defined the struggle vaguely precisely so that it can't end; President Bush clearly enjoys the prerogatives of being a war president.

    So the administration has expanded the goals and targets of this war from one group or geographical area to another.
    If the "war on terror" is indeed all these things, then it could drag on for decades. More likely, the American public will not tolerate such a costly grab bag of initiatives for much longer.

    If there is no major attack in the United States, pressure will build on Washington to stop fiddling with the politics of Kandahar and Ramadi, much less those of Damascus and Tehran. At some point, the American public will have to choose between paying for Bush's ongoing wars and Medicare. And that will be the true end of the war on terror.
    As far as the popular counter argument about the GWOT and the "clash of civilizations" between the US and Islam, Cole cleans that up too.
    '9-11 was a clash of civilizations.'

    False. The notion that Muslims hate the West for its way of life is simply wrong, and 9-11 hasn't changed that.

    The exhaustive World Values Survey found that more than 90% of respondents in much of the Muslim world endorsed democracy as the best form of government.
    If it is not a clash of civilizations, what is it? It is a clash over policy.
    The bloody U.S. occupation of Iraq has now created another point of tension: The Muslim world does not believe that Iraq will be better off because of the U.S. intervention.

    Autonomy and national independence appear to be part of what Muslims mean by "democracy," and they consider Western interventions in Muslim affairs a betrayal of democratic ideals. Sept. 11 and the American response to it have deepened the rift over policy, but they haven't created a clash of civilizations.


    Technorati technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,