[Peace-discuss] Lying abroad

[C. G. Estabrook]

[A 17th-century English diplomat said that an ambassador was
an "honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his
country." Our present Secretary of State is not a man, we have
little reason to believe that she's honest, and her lies are
not for the good of her country but for that of her
co-conspirators and the small class in whose interest they
rule.  But today her lies about US torture seem to be working
in Europe. Another example of this US diplomatic approach --
brazen mendacity -- was described by playwright Harold Pinter
in his Nobel prize speech this week.  --CGE]

[Video at 
<http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture.html>.]

<http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html>

[...]

The truth is something entirely different. The truth is to do
with 
how the United States understands its role in the world and
how it 
chooses to embody it.

But before I come back to the present I would like to look at the 
recent past, by which I mean United States foreign policy
since the 
end of the Second World War. I believe it is obligatory upon
us to 
subject this period to at least some kind of even limited
scrutiny, 
which is all that time will allow here.

Everyone knows what happened in the Soviet Union and throughout 
Eastern Europe during the post-war period: the systematic
brutality, 
the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of
independent 
thought. All this has been fully documented and verified.

But my contention here is that the US crimes in the same
period have 
only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone 
acknowledged, let alone recognised as crimes at all. I believe
this 
must be addressed and that the truth has considerable bearing on 
where the world stands now. Although constrained, to a certain 
extent, by the existence of the Soviet Union, the United States' 
actions throughout the world made it clear that it had
concluded it 
had carte blanche to do what it liked.

Direct invasion of a sovereign state has never in fact been
America's 
favoured method. In the main, it has preferred what it has
described 
as 'low intensity conflict'. Low intensity conflict means that 
thousands of people die but slower than if you dropped a bomb
on them 
in one fell swoop. It means that you infect the heart of the
country, 
that you establish a malignant growth and watch the gangrene
bloom. 
When the populace has been subdued - or beaten to death - the
same 
thing - and your own friends, the military and the great 
corporations, sit comfortably in power, you go before the
camera and 
say that democracy has prevailed. This was a commonplace in US 
foreign policy in the years to which I refer.

The tragedy of Nicaragua was a highly significant case. I
choose to 
offer it here as a potent example of America's view of its
role in 
the world, both then and now.

I was present at a meeting at the US embassy in London in the
late 1980s.

The United States Congress was about to decide whether to give
more 
money to the Contras in their campaign against the state of 
Nicaragua. I was a member of a delegation speaking on behalf of 
Nicaragua but the most important member of this delegation was a 
Father John Metcalf. The leader of the US body was Raymond Seitz 
(then number two to the ambassador, later ambassador himself).
Father 
Metcalf said: 'Sir, I am in charge of a parish in the north of 
Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a 
cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a
Contra 
force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the
school, the 
health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and
teachers, 
slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like 
savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its
support 
from this shocking terrorist activity.'

Raymond Seitz had a very good reputation as a rational,
responsible 
and highly sophisticated man. He was greatly respected in
diplomatic 
circles. He listened, paused and then spoke with some gravity. 
'Father,' he said, 'let me tell you something. In war, innocent 
people always suffer.' There was a frozen silence. We stared
at him. 
He did not flinch.

Innocent people, indeed, always suffer.

Finally somebody said: 'But in this case "innocent people"
were the 
victims of a gruesome atrocity subsidised by your government, one 
among many. If Congress allows the Contras more money further 
atrocities of this kind will take place. Is this not the case? Is 
your government not therefore guilty of supporting acts of
murder and 
destruction upon the citizens of a sovereign state?'

Seitz was imperturbable. 'I don't agree that the facts as
presented 
support your assertions,' he said.

As we were leaving the Embassy a US aide told me that he
enjoyed my 
plays. I did not reply.

[...]