Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Blog

Operation Condor’s Lessons for the “War on Terror”

By J. Patrice McSherry

International attention is focusing again on Operation Condor, the Cold War-era covert network of U.S.-backed military regimes in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, later joined by Ecuador and Peru. The anticommunist Condor apparatus carried out a program of transnational political repression against exiled political opponents during the 1970s. Multinational Condor squads crossed into one another’s territory to carry out hundreds of disappearances, illegal cross-border transfers, tortures, and assassinations, including one in Washington, D.C. Condor’s targets included pro-democracy activists, unionists, Christian Democrat leaders, constitutionalist military officers, former ministers, and critics of the military regimes as well as guerrillas. Today in Latin America and Europe several trials of former Condor commanders and operatives are underway. One Italian judge recently called for the extradition of some 140 military and intelligence officers from Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, and elsewhere for cross-border Condor crimes.

One recent news report highlighted the 1980 abductions of Noemi Gianetti de Molfino, a former Mother of the Plaza de Mayo of Argentina, and three other Argentines in Peru. U.S. officials knew of their capture by a joint Peruvian-Argentine commando, and one had advance knowledge of Condor's plan for the “permanent disappearance” of the Argentines. I discovered this document in the course of my research for a book published by Rowman & Littlefield in 2005, Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America. No steps were taken to avert the murder of the four.

In the course of my research on the repressive Condor system over the last fourteen years I have spoken to a number of survivors. They tell of abductions in the middle of the night, sadistic tortures they suffered at the hands of Condor teams, and the despair they endured in squalid secret prisons. Today, as we witness our own government using extralegal means such as abductions and cross-border transfers (“extraordinary rendition”), “waterboarding,” and incommunicado detention in Guantánamo and other secret “black sites,” their stories are painfully relevant.

In fact, I uncovered significant evidence of secret U.S. support for, and collaboration with, Operation Condor in the 1970s. During the Cold War, anticommunism often overrode human rights in Washington’s policy calculus. U.S. policy-makers feared that progressive or nationalist movements in the developing world were communist-inspired, and cultivated anticommunist allies who shared U.S. strategic interests. Declassified documents suggest that U.S. military and intelligence officials considered the Condor system to be an effective weapon in the hemispheric anticommunist crusade. It seems that a similar mentality prevails today among some of those in government.

In the 1970s Defense Department and CIA personnel had up-to-the-minute knowledge of Condor operations. One Defense Intelligence Agency report of October 1976 discussed a secret Argentine-Uruguayan intelligence operation in which members of an opposition organization of Uruguayans in Buenos Aires were abducted. The report noted that “a very secret phase of ‘Operation Condor’ involves the formation of special teams from member countries who are to carry out operations including assassinations….A special team has apparently been organized in Argentina…structured much like a U.S. Special Forces Team.”

Perhaps the most significant document I uncovered in my research was a report indicating that Condor was granted authorized access to the U.S. continental communications system housed in the Panama Canal Zone. The 1978 cable, from U.S. Ambassador to Paraguay Robert White to the Secretary of State, reported that the commander of Paraguay’s armed forces had told him that intelligence chiefs from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay used “an encrypted system within the U.S. telecommunications net[work],” which covered all of Latin America, to communicate and coordinate intelligence—and presumably operations against Condor targets. Essentially, U.S. military and/or intelligence forces put the official U.S. communications channel at the disposal of Operation Condor. The conclusion was unavoidable: such collaboration reflected high-level approval of the Condor apparatus.

Why did Washington support the military dictatorships of the Cold War era and collaborate with Condor? Clearly, top U.S. policy-makers considered such support to be in the U.S. interest. But that time of terror resulted in the destruction of democracy and widespread human rights atrocities that still reverberate in Latin America. Today there are many disturbing echoes of Operation Condor in the so-called war on terror. Again it is argued that the ends justify the means. But Operation Condor should have made clear that egregious violations of human rights and the rule of law are not the means to any good end.

J. Patrice McSherry, author of Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America, is professor of political science and director of the Latin American & Caribbean Studies program at Long Island University.

Silda Spitzer: Why Was She There?

by Nichola D. Gutgold

“She looked like she aged.” That’s what former New York mayor, Ed Koch, said about Silda Spitzer when he saw her standing by her husband, Elliot Spitzer, during his shameful admission that he had violated his obligations to his family and his “sense of right and wrong.” It seems to me, that while accompanying your political spouse to his swearing in and glitzy round of inaugural balls, this first lady ritual – the standing by your man silently while he apologizes for his mistakes—seems like a ritual worth abandoning. It is no wonder if Ed Koch is right and Silda Spitzer seemed to age overnight. I imagine that being internationally humiliated can take its toll. Maybe Ed Koch should put himself in Silda Spitzer’s shoes: trying to look together while your whole world is unraveling. To endure such a humiliation is first lady media waterboarding. And she did it again when Governor Spitzer resigned. She didn’t say a word: so why was she there?

Why do these women allow themselves to appear in public when their husband announces his wrongdoing? It is becoming an all too familiar sight. By participating in these public spectacles, what do these women accomplish? Silda Spitzer, looking forlorn and all cried out, is as accomplished as her husband. A Harvard trained lawyer, she played the role of the political spouse to perfection and the media quickly showed the vignettes of happier times. Dressed up for the inauguration, beautiful family photos, swelling with pride at her husband’s inaugural swearing-in ceremony. And there she was on Monday at the press conference: perfectly groomed, gloomily enduring the public humiliation of the “I messed up” speech. Silda Spitzer brought back images of Dina McGreevey, the ex-wife of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey who resigned in 2004 over a gay affair with a man. As McGreevey announced to the world, “I am a gay American,” Dina McGreevy stood there, with a forced, partial smile, but saying nothing. It begs the question: “Why are they there?” I want to say, “Go home.” Even if her goal is to keep the family together, this seems like one outing she could skip and still fulfill her goal. America doesn’t need the wronged woman visual. We’ve come too far. Stay with him if you choose, for your own, very personal and private reasons, whether they are religious or political, but save the public and yourself the sad replay of the painful event. This isn’t your wrongdoing, so why participate?

Despite the rich first lady tradition in our country and the visual of looking supportive is an important one as first lady, this is where first ladies should draw the line. Why don’t these women say, “We can deal with this in private. Go make your speech. I’m sitting this one out”? She could save herself the international humiliation since she is only standing there, and she isn’t speaking. When Hillary Clinton appeared on 60 Minutes in 1992 and defended her husband, she spoke, like Wendy Vitter did when she commented on her conservative husband’s name appearing on the client list of a D.C. madam. Though she previously criticized Hillary Clinton for staying with Bill Clinton through his infidelities, she commented that, "To forgive is not only always the easy choice, but it was the right choice for me.” Forgiving is divine, but must it include standing in public while your spouse makes his speech of mea culpa? As the role of the political spouse continues to evolve with some spouses who are as qualified to be president as the one who is elected, it makes sense that future spouses would refuse the public humiliation of standing by her spouse in a public speech that declares his wrongdoing.

It begs the question: Would a male political spouse stand next to his wife in such a situation?

Nichola D. Gutgold is associate professor or communication arts and sciences at Penn State University at Lehigh Valley and is author of Paving the Way for Madam President (Lexington Books) and Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (Lexington Books).

How much more peacemaking can the Middle East endure?

By Stephen Marmura

The ongoing violence between Palestinian militants operating from inside Gaza and Israeli forces raises real concerns about the future and well being of the region and its peoples. It also invites worrisome questions about the true character and ultimate objectives of American state policies towards Israel/Palestine. When Arial Sharon decided to remove Israeli settlements from Gaza in 2005, he did so for strategic reasons, and without any prodding from the Bush administration. Likewise, Israel’s accompanying strategy of consolidating its hold and on the West Bank has met with no resistance from the US. Quite the contrary, Bush effectively endorsed Sharon’s (and now Olmert’s) strategy of expanding existing settlements by stating that it was unrealistic for the Palestinians to ever expect sovereignty over West Bank territory where Israel has its largest settlement blocs. Not coincidentally, these blocs are located above the West Bank’s main water aquifers. As was the case under previous administrations, US aid to Israel, which amounts to roughly one third of all American aid world-wide, continues to flow in the face of Israel’s illegal settlement building practices.

The unforgiving stance which the US has long adopted towards the Palestinian people is matched only by its unwavering support for the Israeli state. Three years ago, Bush declared that “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” Yet, when Palestinians exercised their democratic rights and elected Hamas into power in Gaza in 2006, the Bush administration responded by cutting off aid while simultaneously encouraging Fatah to launch a coup. While placing sanctions on a people already living under an illegal military occupation may represent a historic novelty, it is also an act which is entirely in keeping with American policies dating back to Israel’s capture of the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the Six-Day War of 1967. When the Carter administration induced Egypt to sign a separate peace with Israel in 1979, it effectively neutralized the only Arab force potentially capable of countering Israeli militarism and expansionism. No sooner were the Camp David Accords signed, than Israel began to intensify its settlement building in the West Bank. Three years later, when Israel invaded Lebanon in an attempt to crush the PLO as a political force, it was able to do so without fear of any serious resistance from the larger Arab world, and was quickly rewarded for its efforts with a generous increase in US financial and military aid. All rhetoric about peacemaking aside, the fact is that the US has effectively been subsidizing Israeli settlement building in the remainder of historic Palestine while shielding successive Israeli governments from international pressure for the past forty-one years.

While it may not be common knowledge among North Americans, since at least the mid-1970s the PLO, along with every Arab state bordering Israel, has indicated its willingness to make peace with Israel based on relevant Security Council resolutions and recognition of Palestinian national rights. That willingness was formalized at the Fez Summit of 1982, and reaffirmed by the Arab League during the Saudi peace initiative of 2002. The Bush administration has responded predictably to the latter, issuing statements about the need for substantive peace talks, while placing no serious pressure on Israel to respond to the initiative favorably. The recent US sponsored “peace summit” in Annapolis merely underscores this point. Rather than being used as an opportunity to push for resolution of the most crucial issues standing in the way of a two-state solution, such as the Palestinian refugee issue, Israeli settlements and the status of East Jerusalem, the summit was instead seized upon by the Bush administration as a platform to encourage the formation of a common front amongst Israel and “moderate” Arab states against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Needless to say the latter were not invited to the peace talks. Likewise, Hamas’ recent offers to recognize the state of Israel – as opposed to Israel’s alleged “right” to lay claim to most of historic Palestine – and negotiate a peace agreement with it have been dismissed by both the Bush administration and the Israeli political elements it favors.

That the unqualified support which successive US administrations have given to Israel’s expansionist policies is directly at odds with America’s proclaimed desire to facilitate a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians is clear. Obvious as well, is the fact that a truly even-handed approach to peacemaking – one whereby the US would stop vetoing every UN resolution critical of Israel’s occupation practices and instead use its influence to compel Israel to withdraw from illegally occupied land – would greatly enhance America’s effectiveness in its present War on Terror. Al Qaeda would certainly not be placated or deterred from attacking US interests, but it would lose a key basis of its popular support, making it far easier for America’s allies in the Arab and Muslim worlds to isolate and diminish it as a serious political and military force. These rather elementary observations beg two very serious questions. First, what exactly are the primary motivations and political forces driving US policies towards Israel/Palestine? Secondly, what if anything could conceivably induce a policy shift?

Recently, Mearsheimer & Walt (2008) have come under fire for suggesting that American Mideast policies are best explained by the apparent stranglehold which Jewish Zionist and Christian fundamentalist pro-Israel lobbies have on Congress. By contrast, critics on the left such as Noam Chomsky and Stephen Zunes have downplayed the relative importance of such pressure groups, pointing instead to longstanding US interests in the region’s oil supply and to Israel’s related role as America’s regional enforcer. These two lines of argument are not mutually exclusive. Equally important is the fact that lobbies such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the Christian Coalition differ in character from commercial lobbies such as those representing the oil industry, tobacco, or major arms manufacturers. More specifically, their dual nature as entrenched presences on capital hill on the one hand, and genuine expressions of grassroots ideological currents in American society on the other, make them particularly formidable allies of those elite interests driving US foreign policy more generally. The challenges that this reality presents to activists hoping to bring about a more progressive role for the US in Middle East affairs are considerable. In fact, given the almost complete absence of media and (hence) public scrutiny of the issues raised above, it appears very likely that present policies will change only after their detrimental effects on American interests become so severe that they can no longer be countenanced. This should come as little comfort to the Middle Easterners who continue to bear the brunt of US “peacemaking”.

Stephen M. E. Marmura teaches sociology at Queen's University and is the author of Hegemony in the Digital Age: The Arab/Israeli Conflict Online.

Issues Raised by Writers Guild of America Strike

by Vincent Mosco

The strike of the Writers Guild of America captured a lot of attention because it deprived millions of their favorite television programs. But the issues it raised will persist long after people comfortably settle into new episodes of CSI. Here are some observations to consider.

The strike demonstrated the importance of new media for old media industries and especially for their workers. After all, a central issue in the strike was the distribution of revenues from new media uses of traditional television programming. What, if any, compensation should writers receive for work that is increasingly repackaged for the digital world, especially the internet? With the producers proposing to end the system of residuals and develop new forms of compensation, and the writers determined to press for expanded residual payments, it came as no surprise that the WGA took to the picket line on November 1, 2007. The strike, which lasted three months and cost Hollywood an estimated $2.5 billion, was resolved with a deal that promised writers a stronger foothold in the online world. In the first two years of the three-year contract, writers would get a maximum flat fee of about $1,200 for programs streamed online. In the third year, however, they would receive two percent of a distributor’s gross, a key union demand. Other provisions include increased residual payments for downloaded movies and TV programs.

No one is sure what the size of the revenue stream will be from streaming and downloading, but it should be clear to anyone familiar with research on labor, especially in the communication industry, Hollywood workers would benefit from greater solidarity among its many unions. With separate unions representing directors, writers, actors and technicians, it is difficult for them to speak with one voice against increasingly integrated media conglomerates that dominate both old and new media. The Communication Workers of America which represents journalists, telephone workers, media technicians, and high tech workers has benefited from solidarity. But attempts to bring together the Hollywood unions have failed, often on very close votes. There are many reasons for this but a narrow craft consciousness and a guild, rather than a union, culture have been especially difficult to overcome. In essence, they have failed to match technological and industry convergence with the labor convergence that would provide Hollywood workers with the resources to defend their interests.

Finally, as a communication scholar, it was disappointing to observe how few researchers in the field commented on the strike to offer the historical background and context for the events. Academics, especially those working on the issues swirling around new media and the internet, need to spend more time on the labor dimension. It is not enough to ask: What will be next new thing? We also need to ask whether media workers of the world will unite.

Vincent Mosco is professor of sociology and Canada Research Chair in Communication and Society at Queen's University and co-author with Catherine McKercher of Knowledge Workers in the Information Society.

From Silence to Prominence; The Story of Women is Evident in Their Television Images

by Nichola D. Gutgold

Being First Lady seems like a dread for any woman who wishes to be known for her own achievements. Louisa Adams, the wife of John Quincy Adams was so unhappy and desperate that most of the time she could be found indulging in chocolate and penning a biography titled  Adventures of a Nobody.  Eleanor Roosevelt carved out a life for herself as first lady, though the press pounced on her unorthodox role as she traveled around the country serving as the legs of her husband. But at least she had a voice. To see the progress that women have made in society we need only to turn on our televisions and see that women are not only major figures in the news, they are major figures reporting the news, too. Hillary Clinton as a viable presidential candidate is major progress over the symbolic presidential aspirations of Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Pat Schroeder, Elizabeth Dole and Carol Moseley Braun. As she said, she is “in, and in it to win.” Being a front runner, even if she doesn’t win the nomination, is closer than any woman in American history. And she was first lady. To be seen and heard is progress for women in politics and in broadcasting. From curvaceous weather forecasters hired more for their looks than their understanding of meteorology, women have become forces in television news. Women like Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley and Dana Bash, who are front and center reporting on the latest political developments. Crowley has become a presence on CNN, reporting on Washington politics. She has distinguished herself with witty, yet serious and intelligent coverage of the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, George Bush, Pat Buchanan, Paul Tsongas, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Since the nomination of Jimmy Carter, she has reported from all but one of the national political conventions. Her strong, confident voice and insightful questions and commentary make her a fixture on the political scene. She is a self described “political junkie” who revels in participating in the campaigns and the other political rituals that she covers. Dana Bash represents the younger broadcast journalist who grew up with role models, including her own father, who had long and productive careers. Though her career trajectory demonstrates her strong work ethic and persistence—she started out labeling archival tapes--she recognizes that several women in broadcasting who went before her have paved the way for her to be successful at the most difficult and prestigious levels of journalism. She recalls telling Judy Woodward one day as she prepared for a stand up report from the White House, “I’m standing here on the North Lawn of the White House because you stood here before me.” She told me that though both her mother and father graduated from one of the top journalism schools in the country, her father immediately landed a good job in television, while the best job her mother could find was as a secretary. And we should remember some of the trailblazing women in journalism – women like NBC’s Nancy Dickerson whose son, John Dickerson is chief political correspondent of Slate.com. Dickerson was the first woman to cover the White House for television on a regular basis. She tenaciously studied speech at Catholic University while she was a producer at CBS with the hope that she could become a correspondent, though the idea of that was outrageous at the time. In 1965 Liz Trotta was television’s first woman assigned full-time as a foreign correspondent. She stayed with NBC for thirteen years, covering major stories in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. In 1962 Barbara Walters became a reporter for NBC’s Today show and is still a major presence—with a Star on Hollywood’s Walk of Fame-- she has interviewed every American president and first lady since Richard and Pat Nixon. Many of the most controversial world leaders have sat down to tell their stories to her including Menachen Begin, Margaret Thatcher, Fidel Castro, Anwar Sadat, Vladimir Putin, Boris Yeltsin, King Hussein of Jordan and Premier Jiang Zemin. Her tenacity and hard work were especially evident she was the first of the three big network news anchors to conduct a joint interview with Egypt’s President Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Something that Walter Cronkite noted in his autobiography he “did not count on.” Lesley Stahl joined CBS as a correspondent in 1972 and was the first woman to co-anchor election night coverage.  And of course, Katie Couric is making history as the first sole anchor of CBS Evening News. So, yes, we are seeing women make gains not only as major figures in the news, but as major figures reporting the news.

 

Nichola D. Gutgold is associate professor or communication arts and sciences at Penn State University at Lehigh Valley and is author of Paving the Way for Madam President  (Lexington Books) and Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (Lexington Book, forthcoming, March 2008)

 

The Greatest (Black) Generation

By Maggi M. Morehouse

The black “Citizen Soldiers” who participated in the “Good War" also form part of the “Greatest Generation," yet they continue to be invisible in the general histories of World War II. Why have representations of World War II—books and films—overlooked the multitude of black experiences and voices? How can we “save the black privates” from obscurity? If we can agree that World War II was a watershed event that affected all Americans, then we must add in the narratives of the black Americans who served in the armed forces. I suspect one of the main reasons we overlook the history of black Americans during the war years is because the story is a complicated one—one filled with moments of glory as well as moments of shame—and many more moments of simple everyday life. It is a difficult job to include the story of a group of people who were excluded from American life. Still, World War II affected black Americans as deeply—perhaps more deeply—than white Americans. We need to complicate the narrative of World War II to include, not occlude, the black experience.

The black Americans who served in one of the two segregated infantry divisions during World War II were changed by their experiences in the war. The changes individual men experienced were not uniform, but each man's life was altered as a consequence of serving in the segregated Army. Black infantry combat soldiers from the 93rd Infantry Division fought the Japanese enemy on the island jungles of the southwest Pacific. The 92nd “Buffalo Soldier” Division routed the German enemy from the shores of the Italian Mediterranean to the peaks of the Italian Apennines, and finally they liberated the country village-by-village. On American shores black combat soldiers also fought an enemy, an old, intractable enemy—racism. All three theaters of war had long lasting effects on the participants.

We need to engage in a new conceptual framework when undertaking studies of World War II. It is inadequate, and to me boring, to continue with this trend of battle stories and hagiographies without adding in the narratives of all Americans. I am encouraged by the outpouring of recent publications that give voice to the legion of women, blacks, Native Americans, Japanese Americans, and Latinos who participated in the war effort. These new multicultural accounts—in the words of Navajo “code talkers,” black women WACs, black veterans and wives, “Rosita the Riveters,” interned Japanese families, and Puerto Rican combat soldiers—illustrate the multitude of stories and voices that have been largely overlooked. This new multicultural picture of World War II is the most realistic portrait of the American people; not that insipid, white warrior with his vapid homemaker wife image that has been constantly replicated within popular culture ad nauseam. These new texts demonstrate why these stories should not be ignored—the participants are all part of the American mosaic. These monographs complicate the narrative of World War II by addressing the pervasive and persistent “whitewashing.”

Maggi M. Morehouse is the author of Fighting in the Jim Crow Army: Black Men and Women Remember World War II and assistant professor of history and director of the honors program at the University of South Carolina, Aiken.