Elliott Abrams for Deputy Secretary of State: a rude shock for Latin America

by Taylor Lewis and Kate Teran

With the Trump Administration sponsoring what has been described as one of the most controversial cabinets in contemporary US history, it is critical for those who are interested in such political concerns to not only look at those at the highest level of policy making, but also those who are called upon to support them, particularly the individual being considered for the position of Deputy Secretary of State. On February 6, it was revealed by Politico that Elliott Abrams is under serious consideration for the position. An appointment that would place him directly below Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.[i] Elliott Abrams is a US diplomat who served during both the Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations. Under President Reagan, he served as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs and Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. Under George H.W. Bush, he served as Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, Special Assistant to the President, and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs.[ii] Given his experience, Abrams would appear to be a uniquely qualified choice below Tillerson, who, as the former CEO of Exxon Mobil, has little to no experience working within the US foreign policy positions and its operational base.

Despite his relevant qualifications, however, Elliott Abrams is infamous for withholding a whole series of information from his supervisors and providing false information to Congress at least three times during the investigation into the Iran-Contra Affair during the 1980s, as well as supporting the governments of Guatemala and El Salvador which were actively promoting genocide during the same decade. In 1991, Abrams was convicted and sentenced on two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was later pardoned by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, who then appointed him back into his administration.[iii] Given that Latin America and the Caribbean have enjoyed an increasing degree of independence and integration in the past two decades, a return to Reagan style interventionism would directly jeopardize diplomatic ties to the region that would have called for continued, stable bilateral relations. In fact, Abrams inflicted such irreparable damage to Washington’s reputation and lack of respect for Latin American opinions or concerns that the name of Elliott Abrams is already guaranteed to go down in infamy.

More generally, the Trump Administration’s repeated inability to seek out even remotely qualified candidates for both cabinet and diplomatic positions is sure to affect the future of US-Latin American relations in a negative manner for years to come.

Moreover, the consideration of Abrams for deputy secretary of state has brought renewed attention to widespread criticism that the Trump administration has been remarkably shortsighted and off-handed in its selection of cabinet members and its methodology to select diplomats thus far. Additionally, the announcement of Mr. Abrams’s candidacy became more troubling with President Trump’s recent claim in an interview with Fox News in which Bill O’Reilly alleged that “Vladimir Putin is a killer,” to which Trump replied, “We have a lot of killers. Well, you think our country is so innocent?””[iv] This comment, while possibly nothing more than “political theater” begs the question of whether Trump’s administration could be aiming its sights at a new foreign policy agenda that shamelessly uses hegemonic strength to leverage its control of Latin American markets at a detrimental cost to Latin America.

Iran-Contra Affair and other controversial precedents

Elliott Abrams is an unprincipled Cold War hardliner who has not easily conceptualized the right of self-representation as evidenced by his exceptionalist approach to Latin America in the 1970-80’s. The Iran-Contra Affair began during the Carter Administration, but escalated under President Reagan as a direct result of his administration’s “anything goes” approach to Nicaragua and Iran.. In Nicaragua, Reagan signed an order on December 1, 1981 that directed the CIA to support the paramilitaries of Nicaragua, the Contras, with the funds and arms they would need to defeat the Sandinistas.[v] In the mid-1980s, with the codification of the Reagan Doctrine, which called for “supporting democratization everywhere,” it quickly became clear that US operations in Nicaragua were not intended to protect the Nicaraguan people from the danger of the Sandinistas, but rather, an attempt to impose enhanced control by Washington over foreign governments at any cost . In order to do so, and to prevent public disapproval, the Central Intelligence Agency carried out a series of secret attacks against the Sandinistas without prior approval from Congressional intelligence oversight committees.[vi]

One of the leading figures in spearheading these efforts was Abrams, who sought to continue funding the Contras illegally after the formation of the 1982 Boland Agreement, effectively shutting down United States funding of the Contras. To accomplish this, he and others in the US government sold armaments to militaries around the world and funneled a portion of the revenue received from these transactions to the Contras. Afterwards, when John Kerry (D-MA), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked Abrams during a committee hearing if he knew of any foreign country that financially supported the Contras, he replied, “I don’t know. But not that I am aware of and not through us.”[vii]

Perhaps one of Abrams’s most nefarious actions, aside from evading congressional legislation, was his attempt to protect General Efrain Rios Montt, the Guatemalan dictator whose murderous regime decimated a large number of indigenous populations in the 1980s. According to a report from the United Nations, between 1960 and 1996 in Guatemala, “more than 200,000 died or were subjected to forced disappearance, over 80 percent from Mayan indigenous populations.”[viii] Furthermore, the commission found that “the state was responsible for systematic violence — including extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, sexual violence, death squads, the denial of justice, and other crimes and violations.”[ix] In spite of the rampant violence that plagued Guatemala for more than 30 years, Abrams praised General Efrain Rios Montt’s regime as having “brought considerable progress” to the Guatemalan people, going so far as to urge Congress to consider funding his efforts.[x] Moreover, while Elliott Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State, 98 percent of Guatemalans who attempted to seek refuge in the United States were refused asylum and were forced to return to the war zones they once called home.[xi]

The indigenous people of Guatemala were not the only ones to suffer at the hand of Elliott Abrams’s fatal decisions regarding US intervention in the 1980s. Between 1980 and 1992, the Salvadoran Civil War took close to 75,000 lives largely as a result of the US inability to appropriately address the rampant violence the US was funding. In 1982, when reports first emerged out of El Salvador of the El Mozote Massacre, in which hundreds of Salvadoran civilians were slaughtered by the El Salvadoran military, Abrams denounced these reports as “not credible” and “propaganda,” despite recent reports that he was well aware of the reality of the situation at the time.[xii] Because of Abrams’s claim that the massacre was nothing more than “fake news,” US dollars continued to flow into the hands of the Salvadoran military which resulted in the death of thousands of innocent Salvadorans.

Looking forward

Even members of the Republican Party, who widely supported Trump’s selection of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, have spoken out against Abrams as a war criminal who is unfit for the job. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) wrote on February 6, “I hope Secretary Rex Tillerson will continue the search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead.”[xiii]

Many Republicans favor Paula Dobriansky for the position, a former diplomat to the UN under George W. Bush, who is well liked on both sides of the aisle and has been lauded for her role in the creation of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.[xiv] If Abrams were to be appointed and confirmed, testimonies like Rand Paul’s seem to suggest an unavoidable chasm between President Trump, his inner circle, and the traditional Republicans of his party.

The appointment of Elliott Abrams as Deputy Secretary of State would send a message to Latin America that the United States is either unwilling or unable to learn from its past. By putting Abrams in such a key position, the United States would be effectively telling the world that they are willing and able to impose a neoliberal agenda even at the expense of regional peace and independence, and that a man who is almost universally despised by the Latin Americans is somehow being outrageously rewarded for his great misdeeds. Ultimately, the wounds of these wars that Abrams played such a critical role in have not yet healed, as Central American war criminals of the 1970s-80s continue to live with impunity and victims must learn to live in a post-war society.

Ultimately, the wounds of these wars that Abrams played such a critical role in have not yet healed, as Central American war criminals of the 1970s-80s continue to live with impunity and victims must learn to live in a post-war society.

by Taylor Lewis and Kate Teran
Research Associates at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Additional editorial support by Brandon Capece, Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

Notes

[i] Crowley, Michael, John Bresnahan and Burgess Everett, Mike Zapler, Jack Shafer, Joshua Zeitz, Rich Lowry, and Justin Gest. “Trump sizes up a critic for high-level State Department job.” POLITICO. February 6, 2017. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-state-elliott-abrams-234671.

[ii] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-abrams.php.

[iii] Harris, Gardiner. “Elliott Abrams, Neoconservative Who Rejected Trump, May Serve Him.” The New York Times. February 6, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/us/politics/donald-trump-elliott-abrams.html?_r=0

[iv] Beinart, Peter. “For Trump, ‘We Have a Lot of Killers’ Isn’t a Criticism.” The Atlantic. February 6, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/for-trump-we-have-a-lot-of-killers-isnt-a-criticism/515748/.

[v] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/timeline-n-i.php.

[vi] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Iran-Contra Affairs.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Iran-Contra Affairs. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/n-contrasus.php.

[vii] “Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams.” Understanding the Iran-Contra Affairs – The Legal Aftermath – Elliott Abrams. https://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/profile-abrams.php.

[viii] “Efrain Rios Montt Background.” International Justice Monitor. https://www.ijmonitor.org/efrain-rios-montt-and-mauricio-rodriguez-sanchez-background/.

[ix] “Efrain Rios Montt Background.” International Justice Monitor. https://www.ijmonitor.org/efrain-rios-montt-and-mauricio-rodriguez-sanchez-background/.

[x] Alterman , Eric. “The Upside of Genocide.” The Nation. June 29, 2015. https://www.thenation.com/article/upside-genocide/.

[xi] “Guatemalan Migration in Times of Civil War and Post-War Challenges.” Migrationpolicy.org. September 25, 2015.http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/guatemalan-migration-times-civil-war-and-post-war-challenges/.

[xii] Alterman , Eric. “An Actual American War Criminal May Become Our Second-Ranking Diplomat.” The Nation. February 02, 2017. https://www.thenation.com/article/an-actual-american-war-criminal-may-become-our-second-ranking-diplomat/.

[xiii] “Rand Paul: Do not let Elliott Abrams anywhere near the State Department.” Rare. February 07, 2017. http://rare.us/rare-politics/rand-paul-do-not-let-elliott-abrams-anywhere-near-the-state-department/.

[xiv] “State Department: Bush-era climate figure a finalist for No. 2 slot.” State Department. Friday, February 3, 2017. http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060049505.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

Aggravated corruption with Odebrecht

by Miguel Antonio Bernal

From day one when the criminal mega-business that is Odebrecht set foot in our country, it not only knew what would come. It also know how and through whom it would act to reach its despicable objectives.

By 2006 they had developed and accumulated experience not only in their country of origin but also in other latitudes, where they acted the same. Here they came and stayed. They found a whole legal, financial and economic system fit for their purposes. And, like other transnational companies before and after them, they had previously done a study of the psychological features of the power brokers in Panama.

They knew then, as it is said, where the locust sleeps. The locust that in Panama has had a particular mutation that, when crossed with piranhas and termites, has resulted in a new hybrid, an instrument for enhanced corruption, for a gradual conditioning.

Thus during two administrations they were given all kinds of luxuries and managed to mount a whole constellation to run operate with impunity and plunder the Panamanian people of everything they wanted and could steal.

Early on they did and undid things to give themselves the royal and holy victory, with the collusion, by acts or omissions, of three governments that one after another lent the country and lent themselves for the modern plundering of our pockets. The Ali Babas were fueled by impunity, which helped them to further consolidate.

Today, the Panamanian people have yet to recover from the looting of the national coffers by the local bosses and their party machines, and haven’t even been able to measure the damage that this has meant and will mean for our national dignity and our international status.

But the dance of millions continues, given that so far there is no real will on the part of the authorities and of important national sectors to put a definitive end to this.

Thus the Citizens March of January 25, like the upcoming vigil on Wednesday, February 8, are just a footstep on the long road to be traveled.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.

Respect the Green Line!

by Uri Avnery — Gush Shalom

The most incisive analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I have ever read was written by the Jewish-Polish-British historian Isaac Deutscher. It consists of a single image.

A man lives on the upper floor of a building, which catches fire. To save his life, he jumps out of a window and lands on a passerby in the street below. The victim is grievously injured, and between the two starts an intractable conflict.

Of course, no metaphor is completely perfect. The Zionists did not choose Palestine by chance, the choice was based on our religion. The founder of the movement, Theodor Herzl, initially preferred Argentina.

Still, the picture is basically valid, at least until 1967. From then on, the settlers continued to jump across the Green Line, with no fire in sight.

There is nothing holy about the Green Line. It is no different from any other border line around the world, whatever its color.

Most borders were drawn by geography and the accidents of war. Two peoples fight for the territory between them, at some point the fighting comes to an end, and a border is born.

The land borders of Israel — known for some reason as the “Green Line” — were also established by the accidents of war. A part of that line was the result of a deal between the new Israeli government and the king of Jordan, Abdallah I, who gave us the so-called Triangle as a baksheesh, in return for Israel’s agreement to his annexation of most of the rest of Palestine.

So what’s so holy about this border? Nothing, except that it’s there. And that is true for many borders throughout the world.

A border is established by accident and confirmed by agreement. True, the United Nations drew borders between the Jewish and the Arab states in its 1947 resolution, but after the Arab side started a war in order to thwart this decision, Israel greatly enlarged its territory.

The 1948 war ended without a peace treaty. But the armistice lines established at the end of the war were accepted by the entire world as the borders of Israel. This has not changed during the 68 years that have passed since then.

This situation prevails both de facto and de jure. Israeli law applies only within the Green Line. Everything else is occupied territory under military law. Two small territories — East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights – were unilaterally declared to be annexed by Israel, but nobody in the world recognizes this status.

I elaborate on these well-known facts because the settlers in the occupied territories have lately started to taunt their critics in Israel by bringing up a new argument: “Hey, what’s the big difference between us?”

You too sit on Arab lands, they tell us. True, before 1948 the Zionists settled on land they bought with good money — but only a small part of it was bought from the fellahin who tilled it. Most of it was acquired from rich absentee landowners, who had bought it cheaply from the Turkish sultan when the Ottoman Empire was in dire financial straits . The tillers of the land were driven out by the Turkish, and later the British, police.

Large stretches of land were “liberated” during the fighting of 1948, when masses of Arab villagers and city-dwellers fled before the advancing Israeli forces, as civilians do in every war. If they didn’t, a few salvos of machine-gun fire were enough to drive them out.

The inhabitants who were left in Jaffa after the town was conquered, were simply packed on trucks and sent to Gaza. The inhabitants of Lod (Lydda) were driven away on foot. In the end, about 750 thousand Arabs were expelled, more than half the Palestinian people at the time. The Jewish population in Palestine amounted then to 650 thousand.

Some inner voice compels me at this point to mention a Canadian-Jewish officer named Ben Dunkelmann, then 36 years old, who commanded a brigade in the new Israeli army. He had served with distinction in the Canadian army in World War II. He was ordered to attack Nazareth, the home-town of Jesus, but succeeded in inducing the local leaders to surrender without a fight. The condition was that the local population would not be harmed.

After his troops had occupied the town, Dunkelmann received an oral order to drive the population out. Outraged, Dunkelmann refused to break his word of honor as an officer and a gentleman, and demanded the order in writing. Such a written order never arrived, of course (no such orders were ever put in writing), but Dunkelmann was removed from his post.

Nowadays, when I pass Nazareth, a thriving Arab town, I remember this brave man. After that war, he returned to his native Canada. I don’t think he ever came back here again. He died 20 years ago.

Honest disclosure: I took part in all this. As a simple soldier, and later as a squad leader, I was a part of the events. But immediately after the war I wrote a book that disclosed the truth (“The Other Side of the Coin”), and a few years later I published a detailed plan for the return of some of the refugees and the payment of compensation to all the others. That, of course, never happened.

Most of the land and the houses of the refugees were filled with new Jewish immigrants.

Now the settlers say, not without some justice: “Who are you to despise us? You did the same as we are doing! Only you did it before 1967, and we do it now. What’s the difference?”

That is the difference. We live in a state that has been recognized by most of the world within established borders. You live in territory that the world considers occupied Palestinian territory. The state of Texas was acquired by the USA in a war with Mexico. If President Trump were now to invade Mexico and annex a chunk of land (why not?), its status would be quite different.

Binyamin Netanyahu — some now call him Trumpyahu — is all for enlarging the settlements. This week, under pressure from our Supreme Court, he staged the removal of one tiny little settlement, Amona, with a lot of heartbreak and tears, but immediately promised to put up many thousands of new “housing units” in the occupied territories.

Opposite political extremes often touch each other. So it is now.

The settlers who want to wipe out the difference between us and them, do it not just to justify themselves. Their main aim is to erase the Green Line and include all the occupied territories in Greater Israel, which would extend from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

A lot of Israel-haters want the same borders — but as an Arab state.

Indeed, I would love to chair a peace conference of Israel-haters and Palestine-haters. I would propose to decide first on the points they all agree on — namely the creation of a state from sea to river. I would leave to the end the decision whether to call it Israel or Palestine.

A world-wide movement called BDS now proposes to boycott all of Israel, in order to achieve this end. I have a problem with that.

Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace organization to which I belong, takes great pride in being the first to declare a boycott on the products of the settlements many years ago. We still uphold this boycott, though it is now illegal under Israeli law.

We did not declare a boycott on Israel. And not only because it is rather awkward to boycott oneself. The main object of our boycott was to teach Israelis to differentiate between themselves and the settlements. We published and distributed many thousand copies of the list of companies located and products produced outside the Green Line. Many people are upholding the boycott.

The BDS boycott of all Israel achieves the exact opposite: by saying that there is no difference between Israel within the Green Line and the settlers outside, it pushes ordinary Israelis into the arms of the settlers.

The settlers, of course, are only too happy to get the assistance of BDS in erasing the Green Line.

I have no emotional quarrel with the BDS people. True, a few of them seem to be old-school anti-Semites in a new garb, but I have the impression that most BDS supporters act out of sincere sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinians. I respect that.

However, I would urge the well-meaning idealists who support BDS to think again about the paramount importance of the Green Line — the only border that makes peace between Israel and Palestine possible, with some minor mutually agreed adjustments.

Israel is there. It cannot be wished away. So is Palestine.

If we all agree on that, we can also agree on the continued boycott of the settlements — and of the settlements only.

~ ~ ~

These announcements are interactive. Click on them for more information.