U.S. Secretary of State: A Cautionary Tale

Eleven years ago, on December 22, 1997, paramilitary troops in earshot of a federal military base massacred 45 unarmed civilians -- mostly women and children -- as they prayed in a Church in the Mexican town of Acteal. The gunmen -- every major human rights and media organization now agrees -- sliced open the bellies of the pregnant women and shot the 45 Tzotzil-speaking farmers and their children at point blank range. The victims were members of a pacifist Catholic organization known as Las Abejas ("The Bees").

Bill Clinton was the president of the United States, Madeleine Albright his Secretary of State, and the Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere was Jeffrey Davidow, a State Department lifer with the dubious record of having been political officer at the US Embassy in Chile during the September 1973 US-backed coup d'etat there.

For more than a week prior to the massacre, non-governmental organizations in Chiapas, Mexico, had warned the US State Department of the impending atrocity. But the deal had already been struck with the Mexican regime that in exchange for its acquiescence to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the US would turn a blind eye to all matters of human rights in Mexican territory...

The story of Acteal is not an isolated incident nor aberration. I reported on it then and have reported too many hundreds of such stories since from Mexico and across this hemisphere. I would be happy to answer anybody's questions about it and the details of US complicity in a strategy of terror against peaceful social movements in Mexico and elsewhere that, I'm sure many will agree, has been the policy of the administration of the forty-third president George W. Bush but, as some will be reluctant to accept, was also the policy of the Clinton 42, Bush 41 and Reagan 40 administrations before it.

For some, whether liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, it does not matter or pinch their consciences what happens to subsistence level indigenous farmers in a small town in Mexico. (Nor do they want to look at the direct consequences to their own communities when millions of Mexicans over the past 14 years have streamed over the border to the United States to escape from the economic and political harms that have inflicted them since the enactment of NAFTA.) So let me please tell you another story that should hit anyone of the most minimal conscience a bit closer to home...

Nine years and many more atrocities after the Acteal massacre, on June 14 of 2006, in the next-door state of Oaxaca, Mexico, that state's despot governor Ulises Ruiz attacked a peaceful encampment of thousands of striking schoolteachers and their supporters. He sent 3,000 police in at dawn, as the protesters slept, with bullets, nightsticks and teargas canisters shot from the ground and dropped from a helicopter. It was only the latest incident in a violent and repressive chain. Only this time, the public, armed with nothing but sticks and stones and strength in numbers, regrouped and chased the police out of the city. They established their own government by popular assembly, set up locally-organized and volunteer-staffed barricades in each neighborhood, and the governor's security forces were unable to enter -- although they had tried on multiple occasions -- for five months after that. This publication published a book about those five months: The People Decide: Oaxaca's Popular Assembly, by Nancy Davies (2007, Narco News Books).

A 37-year-old Indymedia reporter by the name of Brad Will, whom I had known from my organizing days in New York, went to Oaxaca in early October 2006 to videotape the story. Responding to him via email, I had suggested that the situation had grown very dangerous -- especially for any reporter not already familiar with the territory and the players on all sides -- and recommended that he not go. Still, as was his prerogative, he went. On October 27, 2006, he filmed gunmen loyal to the despot governor -- some of them members of police forces, but not in uniform -- attacking one of the blockades and shooting their guns directly at him. He died with his camera in his hand. You can see Brad's final footage, here:

The case of Brad, a constituent from 2001 until his death of New York's Junior United States Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York), continues to provide a lurid example of the consequences of a violent and undemocratic Mexican regime and the bipartisan US policy that protects that government at all costs as long as it tows the line on trade, drug policy, and other matters.

Brad's family and friends have sought justice now for two years, but the gunmen captured on video continue to walk free, while, in an unbelievable (except that we must believe it) perversion of justice, the state recently charged -- without any evidence at all -- some of the protesters Brad had befriended as a journalist sympathetic to their cause with his assassination.

Some members of the New York Congressional delegation -- like US Rep. Jose Serrano (D-Bronx) -- have taken up the cause of seeking justice in that case.

But multiple and sustained efforts by Friends of Brad Will in New York to convince Senator Clinton to use her international bully-pulpit to help bring justice and closure to the case have gone unanswered.

A month ago, on October 22, some of them sat in front of Senator Clinton's New York office, at 780 Third Avenue in midtown Manhattan, and fasted to appeal for her assistance to her late constituent, his family and friends.

According to one report, Senator Clinton was physically present in the office on at least one of those days, but avoided responding to or speaking with those fasting out in front, much less writing the letters and making the public statements to bring justice to the case that any authentic advocate of human rights would do, especially if it involved a constituent.

There are those who claim that Senator Clinton is a "champion" of human rights, based on a solitary speech she gave in September of 1995 to the UN Conference on Women in Beijing, China, because her most quoted soundbite from that speech was "women's rights are human rights."

Nobody -- certainly not this correspondent -- takes issue with that truth: Women's rights are human rights, as are men's rights, children's rights, minority rights, and everybody else's. But if a politician doesn't have a basic understanding of what human rights are to begin with, and has shrunk from the duty to defend them time and time again even when they have hit close to home, that politician is not going to be able and ready to extend them to any gender or demographic.

In Latin America, as everywhere, the doctrine of Human Rights, begun in the Carter administration but left to atrophy by all administrations since, walks hand in hand with any pro-democracy agenda. When human rights are deprived as part and parcel of state terror campaigns against peaceful dissidents, labor, environmental and other community organizers, the chilling effect on all free speech and freedom of association makes democracy impossible.

And that's a big part of the story in Mexico for as long as the living can remember. The same goes for Colombia and other lands, where Democratic and Republican presidents -- beginning with Clinton and continued under Bush -- chose multi-billion dollar US military intervention (known as "Plan Colombia") and pushed for pro-corporate trade agreements over defense of human rights. Such policies have only emboldened the state terror campaigns in both countries and led to human tragedy after human tragedy.

Undeterred by the abject failure of "Plan Colombia" to improve human rights and democracy in that country (but probably spurred on by how it has given that country's despot, President Alvaro Uribe, the tools to repress the peaceful dissidents and movements that oppose him), the Bush administration proposed, and Congress approved, "Plan Mexico" last year which is already funding a kind of Colombianization of the country next-door to the United States.

Those policies have also damaged Americans at home as companies have closed their factories in the United States and moved them to Mexico and elsewhere where the state terror campaigns keep unions from organizing and citizens from speaking out against the pollution they cause to the natural environment.

And you might say that, "the next Secretary of State will have to follow the policies of the next president." In an ideal world, that would be true. But so much happens, day in, day out, in so many lands... so many daily attacks on dissidents, community organizers, and others who dare speak and act to improve their lives... that no US president could possibly micro-manage the situation and take preemptive action on each pending atrocity from the Oval Office. That's what a State Department is for: to handle the constant communications that are necessary with other governments.

And if -- as the mass media seems to agree right now -- US President-elect Barack Obama is about to install someone as the next Secretary of State who has shown zero understanding of, much less passion and action for, human rights in Mexico, Colombia and elsewhere (except in isolated cases where the same mass media has turned a particular case into an international cause celébre), we're going to see more of the same terrible story happen over and over again.

If you can't get somebody to act to defend human rights when she's your own local elected representative, do you really believe that such a person would begin to do so if she suddenly represented the entire country before the world?

I write these words in memory of my late good friend and labor lawyer Carlos Sánchez López (1954-2003), of Juchitán, Oaxaca, assassinated on the night of his daughter's fifteenth birthday, in August of 2003, who lived and died so that someday a change might truly come.

Crossposted from Narco News.

Follow Al Giordano on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlGiordano

Comments

[schatsie]

Maybe we need a SECRETARY OF HUMAN RIGHTS....I am suggesting Mrs. Obama for this until it can be regularized...It goes along with her concern for the FAMILIES of soldiers... FOR RESPECT for all of our brothers and sisters...

I have to agree with you that it really does sound like Hillary will not make this a significant concern.. I have read some of Hightower's comments regarding the Clintons...

[XME]

"If you can't get somebody to act to defend human rights when she's your own local elected representative, do you really believe that such a person would begin to do so if she suddenly represented the entire country before the world?"

Whoever Obama picks for every single position, SOMEONE will be unhappy, including some of his own supporters. As for Clinton, one big difference with her as a Senator as opposed the Secretary of State. As Senator, she's basically her own boss who only answers to voters. As Sec. of State she will have to answer to ONE person, and she will be expected to carry out his agenda, not her own.

[Rog49Thomas]

Sadly, the first step is a bit more fundamental: recognizing all people as humans is the first step to recognizing their human rights.

[anachoret]

Thank you, Mr. Giordano.

I hope that we are entering an era when people are going to start to see more than simply what they want to see. Whether it is a person you voted for or a person who you campaigned against, it is still just a person, and they make good and bad decisions, with consequences that shouldn't be ignored.

[Skeptic6]

Yes, it appears that it was very audacious indeed to hope for a change in the status quo. Live and learn, ladies & gents.

[moflard]

OK try to post again.....

Let's get something clear - Colombia is a mess, plain and simple, but a massively simplistic, binary view of the situation isn't at all helpful.

Uribe isn't a despot, he was "democratically" elected, and enjoys popular support not just amongst the wealthy, but also (surprisingly) amongst the poor. That doesn't mean he's a pleasant person; he's been accused of ties to the Paramilitaries and even the Cartels after all; and various members of his government have had to resign as scandals have come to light. However - just because he isn't a likely candidate for sainthood doesn't mean his opponents are.

These peaceful dissident movements the author mentions include FARC and ENL amongst others. Now FARC etc, started off with the best of intentions, but just because they're nominally left wing doesn't make them nice people either. Kidnappings, extortions, even bombs - what about the human rights of their victims? Massacres aren't ONLY carried out by Governments.

We need to throw away this binary world view of "white hats" and "black hats", and realise that all too often the tragedy of places like Colombia, is that the ordinary people are innocents trapped between two groups of thugs both swearing they're just defending the people when all they're really interested in, or care about, is power.

And the USA especially has to stop acting as active enabler to the abuses these groups carry out - either through aid in exchange for trade opportunities, or a massively

[moflard]

(supposed to finish...)

massively ill conceived "War on Drugs".

[Al Giordano - Huffpost Blogger]

Your presumption that in a climate of state terror - in which you could get killed simply because, say, you posted your opinion in the comments section of a blog - that a "democratically elected" president is a possible thing, doesn't live up to reality.

And please don't tell me what I mean by "peaceful" movements and dissidents and community organizers. The word by definition doesn't include armed insurgents. You don't seem to be aware that there are millions of Colombians that are not part of any guerrilla organization that try to organize to better their lives only to find themselves victims and martyrs of the Uribe government and its paramilitary bidders.

While in the newspapers you read there sure aren't many "white hats" in Colombia, below the radar of media coverage, in neighborhoods and towns all over the country, there sure are. And to use moral ambiguity to suggest that because there are shades of gray between good and evil that therefore Uribe cannot be a despot is willfully ignorant of the facts on hand, which my reporters and I have covered before, during and after his election campaigns. Yes, to use your terminology, he is the blackest hat of any head of state in the hemisphere with the possible exception of George W. Bush.

It's moral relativism and academic ambiguity of the sort you are pushing that helps embolden the violence and inhumanity of the Colombian regime. There is such a thing as evil in this hemisphere.

best,

[moflard]

This is going to take a bit.

I rely not on your reports (sorry if that's a blow to your ego) but the eye witness testimonies of my wife and her family and friends who don't report it -they live it, and not from inside the nice compounds or hotels either. I've also spent some time in Colombia myself (Cauca). So you may want to back off the subtext of "doesn't know what he's on about" thing you've got going. Honestly I disagree over some points and I must be "willfully ignorant"? Grow up - it's called a disagreement, not the end of the world.

I happen to love Colombia, which is perhaps why I get so fed up of "liberals" pontificating idealism when people are dying. However your point taken on FARC etc, I jumped the gun there, but considering some of the rubbish sprouted by the left wing about them I tend to bite first these days. And just so you know - I consider myself left wing, but coming from a working class background am more on the pragmatic than the ideological side of things.

[moflard]

Yes there are the peaceful local co-operatives and similar movements, but to say the majority are victims of overt political action by Uribe is a tad silly. The truth is they get hammered by both sides (check out the Spanish Civil War or the Russian Revolution to see how the left treat their own), and especially by the criminal culture that's especially grown up during the Civil War. Both the "right" and "left" have a great deal to gain from the continuing social unrest - CONTROL. But Uribe and his "backers" don't NEED to do anything overt - the chaos can take care of itself. And when it can't - well that's what fizzy drink manufacturers are for isn't it?

[moflard]

And moral relativism - well when does condemnation of that turn into ethnocentrism if you want to get all academic. I'm sorry, I'll take something that's imperfect but does some good to something that's perfect and no use at all. As I've repeatedly said, I don't condone Uribe, or even like him and his policies; nor the Paramilitaries or their friends (who I frankly loathe), but the truth is while the civil war continues nobody has any real hope in Colombia. It's a lousy situation to befall some of the most welcoming genuine people in the world and one of it's most beautiful countries, but unfortunately for things to get better in the future sometimes means a terrible price in the present. Sometimes, and it's a lesson from history, for a "despot" to be overthrown, they first need to be permitted to act despotically. Just stating the reality isn't saying I approve of it.

And I'm well aware that I'm in a nice office, in a safe Western nation, but my in-laws, my nieces and nephews aren't, so don't try that one.

Silly thing is - the rest of your article I agree with.

[Genifur2]

The problem with the very left leaning progressive part of the Democratic party is you all are just as judgemental as the right winged part of the Republican party. We can't solve every countries human rights problems. Don't forget China, parts of Africa, the Middle East and even in good ole USA. Geesh people, there are trillions of stories like this. It's interesting that he mentions an incident where Hilary chose deflect/ignore the problem but left out the many times where she chose to get involved.

Obama is not perfect and he won't do everything you want him to do. Bush has messed this country up soo much that even if Obama does 75% of what he promises people will still complain. Al, can you showed hold off and trust Obama's judgement and give Hilary a chance.

She's no longer beholden to her presidential aspirations, so maybe she'll be more inclined to do the right thing.

[coreyishere]

With each passing day, I too feel the air being sucked out of the celebratory "balloon" that came with Obama's election, it actually pains me to admit that. We can always hope that his personal ideals, at least his expressed ideals, will win over eventually, but it is looking less likely with each of the announced or potential appointments to his cabinet. We shall see.

[MeetJohnDoe]

I feel compassion for those who, like AG, have been severely disabled by Clinton Derangement Syndrome, but that compassion does not make me need to listen to their delusional thought-process.

I suggest you take AG for some sort of exercise on a daily basis, along with CBT from a competent professional.

[Al Giordano - Huffpost Blogger]

I find it telling that the predictable comments about "derangement syndrome" and such regarding any criticism of all of any politician named Clinton are usually offered without factual citation, or the use of logic or reason, but are mainly pitched as insult (not that it bothers me, it actually underscores my point). If there's any derangement going, I think most observers can see it in the rabid tone of drive-by comments like your own.

Have a nice day and thank you for your views!

[CalliDem]

Don't worry. You'll have plenty of work ahead of you. When Hillary fails to stop every single
war on the face of the earth,every single stray bullit fired in every corner of the world you can write what a horrible SoS she has been.

The rabid tone of each and every Post you print will be hailed as brilliant as you sit comfortable behind your computer screen while she lays her life on the line trying to dig us out of this mess.

She has already give more in one week of her life to help this earth than you have given in your entire life.

Have a nice day and scurry quick ... back to your blank screen where you are free to write you next drive by attack on someone who has spent her life trying to make this world a better place.

[Skeptic6]

Excellent history and brilliant insight to the truth, by Al Giordano! Thank you sir.

I really do hate to say it, but with every passing day and every new cabinet member, it becomes more apparent that Obamacain is a fraud. Meet the new boss, he's the same as the old boss.

[Dap]

This is why I thought Gov. Bill Richardson would be the best choice SOS. But what do I know?

[newshawk14]

I was glad to see your article, I feel that every American should read the book by William Blum,
called "Killing Hope", which details every military and CIA operation since the end of WWII to
2003. I guarantee it will not make you proud to be an American. He provides an extensive
bibliography that you can use to explore the internet and convince yourself of the truth or untruth
of his information.

[Nooneyouknow]

Thank you for this article. More than any other I've read it spells out why Obama's choosing Hillary to be secretary of state is chilling. The Clinton administration wasn't progressive; it was a centrist Republican administration, and Hillary is a centrist (read: corporatist) Republican. For more than a century, the U.S. government's policy in Central and South America, as well as Mexico, the U.S., and the rest of the world, has been to crush populist movements that might lessen U.S. corporate profits (unless the populist movement can be turned to the U.S.'s economic/political advantage). It now seems that the Obama administration will be more of the same. So, the fight for human rights and justice will continue. Thanks also for mentioning Brad Will's death. The coverup of his murder proves again that the Mexican government is corrupt to the core.

[Annoula]

THANK YOU, Mr. Giordano!
As a Latin American residing in this country, I know too well what the creation of the US for a "Plan du jour" for any country will ultimately entail:
Lots of thugs wandering the streets, killing and maiming innocent civilians with total impunity, censorship of the press, repression, torture, mysterious disappearances, violence...
I agree 100% with you that Hillary is a poor choice for SOS.
Just as she showed when she voted for giving Bush the authority to invade of Iraq, she is too concerned about her own image and too absorbed with her own career to care about anything else.
Including HUMAN RIGHTS, unless there's any way that they can be utilized to advance her personal agenda.
Just remember how she tried to use the situation in Kosovo during her campaign...
Bill Richardson should be the SOS!

[PKSSK]

This is so disturbing. Since Rawanda, I have never supported the Clinton's or their surrogates, as they have continually proved to be consumed by their own need for power and will do and say anthing to attain it. Sadly, I supported and worked hard to get Obama elected and am seriously concerned about his direction on foreign policy, as he seems to be appointing people with the same hawkish views that have not served us well in the world.