martes, julio 31, 2007

Premio Iberoamericano de Poesía a Fina García Marruz

Encuentro en la Red informa que la presidente de Chile, Michelle Bachelet, entregó a Fina García Marruz el Premio Iberoamericano de Poesía Pablo Neruda (la decisión de otorgarle el premio había sido tomada en marzo). Es una noticia que me alegra porque Fina es seguramente la mejor poetisa del siglo XX cubano y, sin embargo, suele ser pasada por alto cuando no directamente ignorada. En 1992, la Real Academia y organizaciones afines pudieron corregir esa situación, pero prefirieron otorgarle el Cervantes a Dulce María Loynaz, entre otras cosas por un folleto turístico sobre Las Canarias escrito, dicen, en prosa poética. Por su parte, los funcionarios culturales cubanos encuentran menos conflictivo, y más de su gusto que todo hay que decirlo, dedicarle homenajes a Carilda Oliver Labra, que ha llevado el kistch pseudo-erótico a honduras insospechadas. Se podría objetar que a Fina García Marruz se le otorgó el Premio Nacional de Literatura en 1990, pero esto no implica por necesidad un reconocimiento a su obra. A fin de cuentas, el Premio Nacional de Literatura en Cuba parece otorgarse por riguroso escalafón a todas las personas que llegan a cierta edad y puedan presumir de algún vínculo, no importa cuan tangencial, con la literatura.

El catolicismo de Fina, su pertenencia a Orígenes, su poética, han sido elementos que explican la penumbra en que siempre la han ubicado. Ella misma ha preferido pasar su vida a la sombra de su esposo, el también poeta y ensayista Cintio Vitier. (Le hago el favor de no recordar su narrativa para que nadie vaya a decir que tengo algo contra el pobre hombre). Para mí, Fina no sólo tiene más talento como poeta que Cintio, sino que incluso como ensayista resulta más estimulante. Es cierto, Vitier es el autor de Lo cubano en la poesía, un libro que aun con todos sus fallos resulta esencial y no ha sido superado en ambición, mientras que su esposa no tiene una obra en ese género que pueda presumir de tal consistencia. Mas no por ello resulta menos interesante. Los ensayos de Fina, además de incluir intuiciones brillantes, inalcanzables para Vitier, tienen una cualidad que no abunda en el género: no sólo evidencian el entusiasmo de la autora con el tema, sino que lo contagian al lector, algo poco habitual en la ensayística del patio.

Esto del entusiasmo puede parecer una virtud lateral, sin embargo, le aporta a los ensayos de Fina un encanto que no se encuentra en los de otros, acaso de mayor peso, pero debido a esa ausencia menos interesantes. Y es que, como declaró R. L. Stevenson, el encanto es una virtud sin cuya presencia todas las demás resultan inútiles.

The Life And Times Of The CIA

No sé si a otros le habrá pasado, pero yo siempre he tenido la impresión de que la CIA sólo con trabajo clasificaría en un Top Five de los mejores servicios secretos, siempre por detrás del legendario Mossad israelí, de la KGB rusa, la Stasi de la Alemania Democrática o el MI6 británico. De hecho, el G2 cubano —bien organizado, pero sin duda con muchos menos recursos monetarios y tecnológicos a su disposición incluso durante la "bonanza" del financiamiento soviético— les ha anotado varios goles tanto en contrainteligencia como en inteligencia, dentro y fuera de la Isla, algo que debería avergonzar a los norteamericanos. En cualquier caso, esta impresión, fruto del no tener nada que hacer y de cierta inclinación hacia las especulaciones inútiles, podría verse confirmada gracias al libro Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, escrito por Tim Weiner y reseñado extensamente por Chalmers Johnson en el ensayo que sigue a continuación.

The American people may not know it, but they have some severe problems with one of their official governmental entities, the Central Intelligence Agency. Because of the almost total secrecy surrounding its activities and the lack of cost accounting on how it spends the money covertly appropriated for it within the defense budget, it is impossible for citizens to know what the CIA's approximately 17,000 employees do with, or for, their share of the yearly US$44 billion to $48 billion or more spent on "intelligence". This inability to account for anything at the CIA is, however, only one problem with the agency, and hardly the most serious one, either.

There are currently at least two criminal trials under way, in Italy and Germany, against several dozen CIA officials for felonies committed in those countries, including kidnapping people with a legal right to be in Germany and Italy, illegally transporting them to countries such as Egypt and Jordan for torture, and causing them to "disappear" into secret foreign or CIA-run prisons outside the United States without any form of due process of law.

The possibility that CIA funds are simply being ripped off by insiders is also acute. The CIA's former No 3 official, its executive director and chief procurement officer, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, is under federal indictment in San Diego for corruptly funneling contracts for water, air services, and armored vehicles to a lifelong friend and defense contractor, Brent Wilkes, who was unqualified to perform the services being sought. In return, Wilkes allegedly treated Foggo to thousands of dollars' worth of vacation trips and dinners, and promised him a top job at his company when he retired from the CIA.

Thirty years ago, in a futile attempt to provide some check on endemic misbehavior by the CIA, the administration of Gerald Ford created the President's Intelligence Oversight Board. It was to be a civilian watchdog over the agency. A 1981 executive order by president Ronald Reagan made the board permanent and gave it the mission of identifying CIA violations of the law (while keeping them secret so as not to endanger national security). Through five subsequent administrations, members of the board - all civilians not employed by the government - actively reported on and investigated some of the CIA's most secret operations that seemed to breach legal limits.

However, on July 15, 2007, John Solomon of the Washington Post reported that, for the first five and a half years of the administration of President George W Bush, the Intelligence Oversight Board did nothing - no investigations, no reports, no questioning of CIA officials. It evidently found no reason to inquire into the interrogation methods agency operatives employed at secret prisons or the transfer of captives to countries that use torture, or domestic wiretapping not warranted by a federal court.

Who were the members of this non-oversight board of see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil monkeys? The board now in place is led by former Bush economic adviser Stephen Friedman. It includes Don Evans, a former commerce secretary and friend of the president, former Admiral David Jeremiah, and lawyer Arthur B Culvahouse. The only thing they accomplished was to express their contempt for a legal order by a president of the United States.

Corrupt and undemocratic practices by the CIA have prevailed since it was created in 1947. However, US citizens have now, for the first time, been given a striking range of critical information necessary to understand how this situation came about and why it has been impossible to remedy. We have a long, richly documented history of the CIA from its post-World War II origins to its failure to supply even the most elementary information about Iraq before the 2003 invasion of that country.

Declassified CIA records
Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes is important for many reasons, but certainly one is that it brings back from the dead the possibility that journalism can actually help citizens perform elementary oversight on the US government.

Until Weiner's magnificent effort, I would have agreed with Seymour Hersh that, in the current crisis of US governance and foreign policy, the failure of the press has been almost complete. American journalists have generally not even tried to penetrate the layers of secrecy that the executive branch throws up to ward off scrutiny of its often illegal and incompetent activities. This is the first book I've read in a long time that documents its very important assertions in a way that goes well beyond asking readers merely to trust the reporter.

Weiner, a New York Times correspondent, has been working on Legacy of Ashes for 20 years. He has read more than 50,000 government documents, mostly from the CIA, the White House and the State Department. He was instrumental in causing the CIA Records Search Technology (CREST) program of the National Archives to declassify many of them, particularly in 2005 and 2006. He has read more than 2,000 oral histories of American intelligence officers, soldiers and diplomats and has himself conducted more than 300 on-the-record interviews with current and past CIA officers, including 10 former directors of central intelligence. Truly exceptional among authors of books on the CIA, he makes the following claim: "This book is on the record - no anonymous sources, no blind quotations, no hearsay."

Weiner's history contains 154 pages of endnotes keyed to comments in the text. (Numbered notes and standard scholarly citations would have been preferable, as well as an annotated bibliography providing information on where documents could be found; but what he has done is still light-years ahead of competing works.) These notes contain extensive verbatim quotations from documents, interviews and oral histories. Weiner also observes: "The CIA has reneged on pledges made by three consecutive directors of central intelligence - [Robert] Gates, [James] Woolsey, and [John] Deutch - to declassify records on nine major covert actions: France and Italy in the 1940s and 1950s; North Korea in the 1950s; Iran in 1953; Indonesia in 1958; Tibet in the 1950s and 1960s; and the Congo, the Dominican Republic, and Laos in the 1960s." He is nonetheless able to supply key details on each of these operations from unofficial, but fully identified, sources.

In May 2003, after a lengthy delay, the government finally released the documents on president Dwight D Eisenhower's engineered regime change in Guatemala in 1954; most of the records from the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco in which a CIA-created exile army of Cubans went to their deaths or to prison in a hapless invasion of that island have been released; and the reports on the CIA's 1953 overthrow of Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq were leaked. Weiner's efforts and his resulting book are monuments to serious historical research in America's allegedly "open society". Still, he warns,
While I was gathering and obtaining declassification authorization for some of the CIA records used in this book at the National Archives, the agency [the CIA] was engaged in a secret effort to reclassify many of those same records, dating back to the 1940s, flouting the law and breaking its word. Nevertheless, the work of historians, archivists, and journalists has created a foundation of documents on which a book can be built.
Surprise attacks
As an idea, if not an actual entity, the Central Intelligence Agency came into being as a result of December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked the US naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. It functionally came to an end, as Weiner makes clear, on September 11, 2001, when operatives of al-Qaeda flew hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center towers in Manhattan and the Pentagon in Washington, DC. Both assaults were successful surprise attacks.

The Central Intelligence Agency itself was created during the administration of Harry Truman to prevent future surprise attacks like that on Pearl Harbor by uncovering planning for them and so forewarning against them. On September 11, 2001, the CIA was revealed to be a failure precisely because it had been unable to discover the al-Qaeda plot and sound the alarm against a surprise attack that would prove almost as devastating as Pearl Harbor. After September 11, the agency, having largely discredited itself, went into a steep decline and finished the job. Weiner concludes: "Under [CIA director George Tenet's] leadership, the agency produced the worst body of work in its long history: a special National Intelligence Estimate titled 'Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction'." It is axiomatic that, as political leaders lose faith in an intelligence agency and quit listening to it, its functional life is over, even if the people working there continue to report to their offices.

In December 1941, there was sufficient intelligence on Japanese activities for the US to have been much better prepared for a surprise attack. Naval Intelligence had cracked Japanese diplomatic and military codes; radar stations and patrol flights had been authorized (but not fully deployed); and strategic knowledge of Japanese past behaviors and capabilities (if not of intentions) was adequate. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had even observed the Japanese consul general in Honolulu, Hawaii, burning records in his back yard but reported this information only to director J Edgar Hoover, who did not pass it on.

Lacking was a central office to collate, analyze, and put in suitable form for presentation to the president all US government information on an important issue. In 1941, there were plenty of signals about what was coming, but the US government lacked the organization and expertise to distinguish true signals from the background "noise" of day-to-day communications. In the 1950s, Roberta Wohlstetter, a strategist for the US Air Force's think-tank, the Rand Corporation, wrote a secret study that documented the coordination and communications failings leading up to Pearl Harbor. (Titled Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision, it was declassified and published by Stanford University Press in 1962.)

The legacy of the OSS
The National Security Act of 1947 created the Central Intelligence Agency with emphasis on the word "central" in its title. The agency was supposed to become the unifying organization that would distill and write up all available intelligence, and offer it to political leaders in a manageable form.

The act gave the CIA five functions, four of them dealing with the collection, coordination, and dissemination of intelligence from open sources as well as espionage. It was the fifth function - lodged in a vaguely worded passage that allowed the CIA to "perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security Council may from time to time direct" - that turned the CIA into the personal, secret, unaccountable army of the president.

From the very beginning, the agency failed to do what president Truman expected of it, turning at once to "cloak and dagger" projects that were clearly beyond its mandate and only imperfectly integrated into any grand strategy of the US government. Weiner stresses that the true author of the CIA's clandestine functions was George Kennan, the senior State Department authority on the Soviet Union and creator of the idea of "containing" the spread of communism rather than going to war with ("rolling back") the USSR.

Kennan had been alarmed by the ease with which the Soviets were setting up satellites in Eastern Europe and he wanted to "fight fire with fire". Others joined with him to promote this agenda, above all the veterans of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a unit that, under General William J "Wild Bill" Donovan during World War II, had sent saboteurs behind enemy lines, disseminated disinformation and propaganda to mislead Axis forces, and tried to recruit resistance fighters in occupied countries.

On September 20, 1945, Truman had abolished the OSS - a bureaucratic victory for the Pentagon, the State Department, and the FBI, all of which considered the OSS an upstart organization that impinged on their respective jurisdictions. Many of the early leaders of the CIA were OSS veterans and devoted themselves to consolidating and entrenching their new vehicle for influence in Washington. They also passionately believed that they were people with a self-appointed mission of world-shaking importance and that, as a result, they were beyond the normal legal restraints placed on government officials.

From its inception the CIA has labored under two contradictory conceptions of what it was supposed to be doing, and no president ever succeeded in correcting or resolving this situation. Espionage and intelligence analysis seek to know the world as it is; covert action seeks to change the world, whether it understands it or not. The best CIA exemplar of the intelligence-collecting function was Richard Helms, director of central intelligence (DCI) from 1966 to 1973 (who died in 2002). The great protagonist of cloak-and-dagger work was Frank Wisner, the CIA's director of operations from 1948 until the late 1950s when he went insane and, in 1965, committed suicide. Wisner never had any patience for espionage.

Weiner quotes William Colby, a future DCI (1973-76), on this subject. The separation of the scholars of the research and analysis division from the spies of the clandestine service created two cultures within the intelligence profession, he said, "separate, unequal, and contemptuous of each other". That critique remained true throughout the CIA's first 60 years.

By 1964, the CIA's clandestine service was consuming close to two-thirds of its budget and 90% of the director's time. The agency gathered under one roof Wall Street brokers, Ivy League professors, soldiers of fortune, ad men, newsmen, stuntmen, second-story men, and con men. They never learned to work together - the ultimate result being a series of failures in both intelligence and covert operations. In January 1961, on leaving office after two terms, president Eisenhower had already grasped the situation fully. "Nothing has changed since Pearl Harbor," he told his DCI, Allen Dulles. "I leave a legacy of ashes to my successor." Weiner, of course, draws his title from Eisenhower's metaphor. It would only get worse in the years to come.

The historical record is unequivocal. The United States is ham-handed and brutal in conceiving and executing clandestine operations, and it is simply no good at espionage; its operatives never have enough linguistic and cultural knowledge of target countries to recruit spies effectively. The CIA also appears to be one of the most easily penetrated espionage organizations on the planet. From the beginning, it repeatedly lost its assets to double agents.

Typically, in the early 1950s, the agency dropped millions of dollars' worth of gold bars, arms, two-way radios and agents into Poland to support what its top officials believed was a powerful Polish underground movement against the Soviets. In fact, Soviet agents had wiped out the movement years before, turned key people in it into double agents, and played the CIA for suckers. As Weiner comments, not only had five years of planning, various agents, and millions of dollars "gone down the drain", but the "unkindest cut might have been [the agency's] discovery that the Poles had sent a chunk of the CIA's money to the Communist Party of Italy" (pp 67-68).

The story would prove unending. On February 21, 1994, the agency finally discovered and arrested Aldrich Ames, the CIA's chief of counterintelligence for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, who had been spying for the USSR for seven years and had sent innumerable US agents before KGB firing squads. Weiner comments, "The Ames case revealed an institutional carelessness that bordered on criminal negligence" (p 451).

The search for technological means
Over the years, to compensate for these serious inadequacies, the CIA turned increasingly to signals intelligence and other technological means of spying, such as U-2 reconnaissance aircraft and satellites. In 1952, the top leaders of the CIA created the National Security Agency - an eavesdropping and cryptological unit - to overcome the CIA's abject failure to place any spies in North Korea during the Korean War. The CIA debacle at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba led a frustrated Pentagon to create its own Defense Intelligence Agency as a check on the military amateurism of the CIA's clandestine service officers.

Still, technological means, whether satellite spying or electronic eavesdropping, will seldom reveal intentions - and that is the raison d'etre of intelligence estimates. Haviland Smith, who ran operations against the USSR in the 1960s and 1970s, lamented, "The only thing missing is - we don't have anything on Soviet intentions. And I don't know how you get that. And that's the charter of the clandestine service" (emphasis in original, pp 360-61).

The actual intelligence collected was just as problematic. On the most important annual intelligence estimate throughout the Cold War - that of the Soviet order of battle - the CIA invariably overstated its size and menace. Then, to add insult to injury, under George H W Bush's tenure as DCI (1976-77), the agency tore itself apart over ill-informed right-wing claims that it was actually underestimating Soviet military forces. The result was the appointment of "Team B" during the Ford presidency, led by Polish exiles and neo-conservative fanatics. It was tasked to "correct" the work of the Office of National Estimates.

"After the Cold War was over," writes Weiner, "the agency put Team B's findings to the test. Every one of them was wrong" (p 352). But the problem was not simply one of the CIA succumbing to political pressure. It was also structural: "For 13 years, from [president Richard] Nixon's era to the dying days of the Cold War, every estimate of Soviet strategic nuclear forces overstated [emphasis in original] the rate at which Moscow was modernizing its weaponry" (p 297).

From 1967 to 1973, I served as an outside consultant to the Office of National Estimates, one of about a dozen specialists brought in to try to overcome the myopia and bureaucratism involved in the writing of these National Intelligence Estimates. I recall agonized debates over how the mechanical highlighting of worst-case analyses of Soviet weapons was helping to promote the arms race. Some senior intelligence analysts tried to resist the pressures of the US Air Force and the military-industrial complex. Nonetheless, the late John Huizenga, an erudite intelligence analyst who headed the Office of National Estimates from 1971 until the wholesale purge of the agency by DCI James Schlesinger in 1973, bluntly said to the CIA's historians:
In retrospect ... I really do not believe that an intelligence organization in this government is able to deliver an honest analytical product without facing the risk of political contention ... I think that intelligence has had relatively little impact on the policies that we've made over the years. Relatively none ... Ideally, what had been supposed was that ... serious intelligence analysis could ... assist the policy side to re-examine premises, render policymaking more sophisticated, closer to the reality of the world. Those were the large ambitions which I think were never realized. (p 353)
On the clandestine side, the human costs were much higher. The CIA's incessant, almost always misguided attempts to determine how other people should govern themselves; its secret support for fascists (eg, Greece under George Papadopoulos), militarists (eg, Chile under General Augusto Pinochet) and murderers (eg, the Congo under Joseph Mobutu); its uncritical support of death squads (El Salvador) and religious fanatics (Muslim fundamentalists in Afghanistan) - all these and more activities combined to pepper the world with blowback movements against the United States.

Nothing has done more to undercut the reputation of the United States than the CIA's "clandestine" (only in terms of the American people) murders of the presidents of South Vietnam and the Congo, its ravishing of the governments of Iran, Indonesia (three times), South Korea (twice), all of the Indochinese states, virtually every government in Latin America, and Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The deaths from these armed assaults run into the millions. After September 11, President Bush asked, "Why do they hate us?" From Iran (1953) to Iraq (2003), the better question would be, "Who does not?"

The cash nexus
There is a major exception to this portrait of long-term agency incompetence. "One weapon the CIA used with surpassing skill," Weiner writes, "was cold cash. The agency excelled at buying the services of foreign politicians" (p 116). It started with the Italian elections of April 1948. The CIA did not yet have a secure source of clandestine money and had to raise it secretly from Wall Street operators, rich Italian-Americans, and others.
The millions were delivered to Italian politicians and the priests of Catholic Action, a political arm of the Vatican. Suitcases filed with cash changed hands in the four-star Hassler Hotel ... Italy's Christian Democrats won by a comfortable margin and formed a government that excluded communists. A long romance between the [Christian Democratic] party and the agency began. The CIA's practice of purchasing elections and politicians with bags of cash was repeated in Italy - and in many other countries - for the next 25 years. (p 27)
The CIA ultimately spent at least $65 million on Italy's politicians - including "every Christian Democrat who ever won a national election in Italy" (p 298). As the Marshall Plan to reconstruct Europe got up to speed in the late 1940s, the CIA secretly skimmed the money it needed from Marshall Plan accounts. After the plan ended, secret funds buried in the annual defense appropriation bill continued to finance the CIA's operations.

After Italy, the CIA moved on to Japan, paying to bring Nobusuke Kishi, the country's World War II minister of munitions, to power as prime minister (in office 1957-60). It ultimately used its financial muscle to entrench the (conservative) Liberal Democratic Party in power and to turn Japan into a single-party state, which it remains to this day. The cynicism with which the CIA continued to subsidize "democratic" elections in Western Europe, Latin America and East Asia, starting in the late 1950s, led to disillusionment with the United States and a distinct blunting of the idealism with which it had waged the early Cold War.

Another major use for its money was a campaign to bankroll alternatives in Western Europe to Soviet-influenced newspapers and books. Attempting to influence the attitudes of students and intellectuals, the CIA sponsored literary magazines in Germany (Der Monat) and Britain (Encounter), promoted abstract expressionism in art as a radical alternative to the Soviet Union's socialist realism, and secretly funded the publication and distribution of more than two and a half million books and periodicals. Weiner treats these activities rather cursorily. He should have consulted Frances Stonor Saunders' indispensable The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters.

Hiding incompetence
Despite all this, the CIA was protected from criticism by its impenetrable secrecy and by the tireless propaganda efforts of such leaders as Allen W Dulles, director of the agency under Eisenhower, and Richard Bissell, chief of the clandestine service after Wisner. Even when the CIA seemed to fail at everything it undertook, writes Weiner, "The ability to represent failure as success was becoming a CIA tradition" (p 58).

After the Chinese intervention in the Korean War, the CIA dropped 212 foreign agents into Manchuria. Within a matter of days, 101 had been killed and the other 111 captured - but this information was effectively suppressed. The CIA's station chief in Seoul, Albert R Haney, an incompetent army colonel and intelligence fabricator, never suspected that the hundreds of agents he claimed to have working for him all reported to North Korean control officers.

Haney survived his incredible performance in the Korean War because, at the end of his tour in November 1952, he helped to arrange for the transportation of a grievously wounded marine lieutenant back to the United States. That marine turned out to be the son of Allen Dulles, who repaid his debt of gratitude by putting Haney in charge of the covert operation that - despite a largely bungled, badly directed secret campaign - did succeed in overthrowing the Guatemalan government of president Jacobo Arbenz in 1954. The CIA's handiwork in Guatemala ultimately led to the deaths of 200,000 civilians during the 40 years of bloodshed and civil war that followed the sabotage of an elected government for the sake of the United Fruit Co.

Weiner has made innumerable contributions to many hidden issues of postwar foreign policy, some of them still ongoing. For example, during the debate over America's invasion of Iraq after 2003, one of the constant laments was that the CIA did not have access to a single agent inside Saddam Hussein's inner circle. That was not true. Ironically, the intelligence service of France - a country US politicians publicly lambasted for its failure to support the United States - had cultivated Naji Sabri, Iraq's foreign minister. Sabri told the French agency, and through it the US government, that Saddam Hussein did not have an active nuclear or biological weapons program, but the CIA ignored him. Weiner comments ruefully, "The CIA had almost no ability to analyze accurately what little intelligence it had" (pp 666-67, n 487).

Perhaps the most comical of all CIA clandestine activities - unfortunately all too typical of its covert operations over the past 60 years - was the spying it did in 1994 on the newly appointed US ambassador to Guatemala, Marilyn McAfee, who sought to promote policies of human rights and justice in that country. Loyal to the murderous Guatemalan intelligence service, the CIA had bugged her bedroom and picked up sounds that led their agents to conclude that the ambassador was having a lesbian love affair with her secretary, Carol Murphy. The CIA station chief "recorded her cooing endearments to Murphy". The agency spread the word in Washington that the liberal ambassador was a lesbian without realizing that "Murphy" was also the name of her two-year-old black standard poodle. The bug in her bedroom had recorded her petting her dog. She was actually a married woman from a conservative family (p 459).

Back in August 1945, General William Donovan, the head of the OSS, said to president Truman, "Prior to the present war, the United States had no foreign intelligence service. It never has had and does not now have a coordinated intelligence system." Weiner adds, "Tragically, it still does not have one." I agree with Weiner's assessment, but based on his truly exemplary analysis of the Central Intelligence Agency in Legacy of Ashes, I do not think that this is a tragedy. Given his evidence, it is hard to believe that the United States would not have been better off if it had left intelligence collection and analysis to the State Department and had assigned infrequent covert actions to the Pentagon.

I believe that this is where we stand today: the CIA has failed badly, and it would be an important step toward a restoration of the checks and balances within the US political system simply to abolish it. Some observers argue that this would be an inadequate remedy because what the government now ostentatiously calls the "intelligence community" - complete with its own website - is composed of 16 discrete and competitive intelligence organizations ready to step into the CIA's shoes. This, however, is a misunderstanding. Most of the members of the so-called intelligence community are bureaucratic appendages of well-established departments or belong to extremely technical units whose functions have nothing at all to do with either espionage or cloak-and-dagger adventures.

The 16 entities include the intelligence organizations of each military service - the air force, army, coast guard, Marine Corps, navy, and Defense Intelligence Agency - and reflect inter-service rivalries more than national needs or interests; the departments of Energy, Homeland Security, State, Treasury, and Drug Enforcement Administration, as well as the FBI and the National Security Agency; and the units devoted to satellites and reconnaissance (National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office). The only one of these units that could conceivably compete with the CIA is the one that I recommend to replace it - namely, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). Interestingly enough, it had by far the best record of any US intelligence entity in analyzing Iraq under Saddam Hussein and estimating what was likely to happen if the US pursued the Bush administration's misconceived scheme of invading his country. Its work was, of course, largely ignored by the White House of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Weiner does not cover every single aspect of the record of the CIA, but his book is one of the best possible places for a serious citizen to begin to understand the depths to which the US government has sunk. It also brings home the lesson that an incompetent or unscrupulous intelligence agency can be as great a threat to national security as not having one at all.

Note
1. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner. Doubleday (June 28, 2007). ISBN-10: 038551445X. Price US$27.95, 702 pages.

Chalmers Johnson's latest book is Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (Metropolitan Books, 2007). It is the third volume of his Blowback Trilogy, which also includes Blowback and The Sorrows of Empire. A retired professor of international relations from the University of California (Berkeley and San Diego campuses) and the author of some 17 books primarily on the politics and economics of East Asia, Johnson is president of the Japan Policy Research Institute.

(Copyright 2007 Chalmers Johnson.)

viernes, julio 20, 2007

De la relatividad de la democracia

Ayer, en la portada de ese reflejo especular del Granma (y en ocasiones del Tribuna de La Habana, que es peor) que publican en Miami, apareció en la sección de Internacionales un titular que afirmaba: Adoctrinan jóvenes a favor de Putin.

Cabría imaginar que al enfrentarme a la noticia pude pensar: "Caramba, ya están de nuevo los Ivanes con la matraca del adoctrinamiento. ¿Pero es que no se cansan?". Siendo franco, la verdad es que no fue así. Más bien me dio por preguntarme si habría tanta diferencia entre estos y las Nuevas Generaciones del PP o su equivalente en el PSOE. O si no se adoctrinaría a los jóvenes norteamericanos afiliados a grupos de apoyo del partido demócrata o republicano. O para no salir de Europa del Este, si esta no podría ser una razonable respuesta rusa a organizaciones "espontáneas" como Optor —serbia— o Pora —ucraniana—, que han recibido dinero y asesoramiento de organizaciones tan desinteresadas y amantes de la democracia como el National Endowment for Democracy, el International Republican Institute y la US Agency for International Development.

Por otro lado, adoctrinamientos aparte y sin olvidar el hecho de que Vladimir Putin no es un hombre que deba inspirarnos simpatía, la realidad es que el presidente ruso goza de un índice de aprobación, incluso ahora al final de su segundo período de mandato, de alrededor de un 70%, lo que le dará envidia, supongo, a más de un líder de los gobiernos occidentales. (Sin esforzarme mucho, se me ocurre pensar en el actual premier israelí, pronto a convertirse en el primer político en desplazarse a la escala de los números negativos, y en el presidente Bush, que actualmente compite en impopularidad con Richard Nixon durante el período del Watergate.) Ya sé que los defensores de la democracia vendrán a decirme que un índice elevado de popularidad no es una garantía de nada, que los pueblos suelen meter la pata y que recuerde que Hitler llegó al poder mediante unas elecciones. Y no es que yo ignore el talento para el error de las personas, pero tampoco olvido que una de las condiciones imprescindibles de la libertad es poder ejercer la capacidad de equivocarse, tomar decisiones erróneas y hacer el tonto. A fin de cuentas, si no entendí mal el dogma católico, Dios nos otorgó un alma inmortal, pero dejó la decisión de salvarla o perderla para siempre en nuestras manos. No veo porque los gobiernos de los países más ricos del globo no pueden ser al menos igual de tolerantes que el Señor.

Si los rusos desean ser gobernados por un autócrata con tintes zaristas que ha resultado ser más capaz que aquel idiota del último de los Romanov y menos sangriento que el "padrecito" Stalin, no veo por qué nadie tenga que venir a meterse en ello.

martes, julio 03, 2007

The rise and rise of Hamas

By Stephen Zunes

In light of Hamas' seizure of the Gaza Strip, it is worthwhile to understand how this radical Islamist organization came to play such a major role in Palestinian political life and how Israel and the United States contributed to making that possible.

Ironically, it was Israel which encouraged the rise of the Palestinian Islamist movement as a counter to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the secular coalition composed of Fatah and various leftist and other nationalist movements.

Beginning in the early 1980s, with generous funding from the US-backed family dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, the antecedents of Hamas began to emerge through the establishment of schools, health care clinics, social service organizations and other entities which stressed an ultra-conservative interpretation of Islam, which up to that point had not been very common among the Palestinian population. The hope was that if people spent more time praying in mosques, they would be less prone to enlist in left-wing nationalist movements challenging the Israeli occupation.

While supporters of the secular PLO were denied their own media or right to hold political gatherings, the Israeli occupation authorities allowed radical Islamic groups to hold rallies, publish uncensored newspapers and even have their own radio station. For example, in the occupied Palestinian city of Gaza in 1981, Israeli soldiers - who had shown no hesitation in brutally suppressing peaceful pro-PLO demonstrations - stood by when a group of Islamic extremists attacked and burned a PLO-affiliated health clinic in Gaza for offering family planning services for women.

Hamas, an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya (Islamic Resistance Movement), was founded in 1987 by Sheik Ahmed Yassin, who had been freed from prison when Israel conquered the Gaza Strip 20 years earlier. Israel's priorities in suppressing Palestinian dissent during this period were revealing: in 1988, Israel forcibly exiled Palestinian activist Mubarak Awad, a Christian pacifist who advocated the use of Gandhian-style resistance to the Israeli occupation and Israeli-Palestinian peace while allowing Sheik Yassin to circulate anti-Jewish hate literature and publicly call for the destruction of Israel by force of arms.

American policy was not much different: up until 1993, US officials in the consular office in Jerusalem met periodically with Hamas leaders while they were barred from meeting with anyone from the PLO. This policy continued despite the fact that the PLO had renounced terrorism and unilaterally recognized Israel as far back as 1988.

Early boost
One of the early major boosts for Hamas came when the Israeli government expelled more than 400 Palestinian Muslims in late 1992. While most of the exiles were associated with Hamas-affiliated social service agencies, very few had been accused of any violent crimes. Since such expulsions are a direct contravention to international law, the UN Security Council unanimously condemned the action and called for their immediate return.

The incoming Bill Clinton administration, however, blocked the United Nations from enforcing its resolution and falsely claimed that an Israeli offer to eventually allow some of exiles back constituted a fulfillment of the UN mandate. The result of the Israeli and American actions was that the exiles became heroes and martyrs; the credibility of Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinians grew enormously - and so did their political strength.

Still, at the time of the Oslo Agreement between Israel and the PLO in 1993, polls showed that Hamas had the support of only 15% of the Palestinian community. Support for Hamas grew, however, as promises of a viable Palestinian state faded and Israel continued to expand its colonization drive on the West Bank, doubling the number of settlers over the next dozen years. The rule of Fatah leader and Palestine Authority president Yasser Arafat and his colleagues proved to be corrupt and inept, while Hamas leaders were seen to be more honest and in keeping with the needs of ordinary Palestinians.

In early 2001, Israel cut off all substantive negotiations with the Palestinians and a devastating US-backed Israeli offensive that followed destroyed much of the Palestine Authority's infrastructure, making prospects for peace and statehood even more remote. Israeli closures and blockades sank the Palestinian economy into a serious depression and Hamas-run social services became all the more important for ordinary Palestinians.

Seeing how Fatah's 1993 decision to end the armed struggle and rely on a US-led peace process had resulted in increased suffering, Hamas' popularity grew well beyond its hardline fundamentalist base, and its use of terrorism against Israel - despite being immoral, illegal and counter-productive - seemed to express the sense of anger and impotence of wide segments of the Palestinian population.

Meanwhile - in a policy defended by both the Bush administration and Democratic leaders in Congress - Israel's use of death squads resulted in the deaths of Sheik Yassin and scores of other Hamas leaders, turning them into martyrs in the eyes of many Palestinians and increasing Hamas' support still further.

The election of a Hamas government
With the Bush administration insisting that the Palestinians stage free and fair elections after the death of Arafat in 2004, Fatah leaders hoped that coaxing Hamas into the electoral process would help weaken its more radical elements. However, the response from Washington was overwhelmingly negative.

In December 2005, a month prior to the Palestinian election, the House of Representatives passed a resolution by an overwhelming 397-17 majority criticizing Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, for "his willingness to see Hamas participate in the elections without first calling for it to ... renounce its goal of destroying the state of Israel".

However, neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor other House leaders have ever criticized Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for his willingness to see parties, such as the National Union - which seeks to destroy any Palestinian national entity and expel its Arab population - participate in Israeli elections, an apparent acknowledgement that while Congress sees Israel's survival is axiomatic, Palestine's survival is an open-ended question. (In any case, under the Palestinian Authority, as with the state of Israel, the head of state simply does not have the authority to ban a political party simply because of its ideology, however repugnant.)

Similarly, the resolution - co-sponsored by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders - insisted that groups such as Hamas "should not be permitted to participate in Palestinian elections until such organizations recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state". Ironically, however, the United States allows a number of political organizations, such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Workers World Party - which also refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state - to participate in US elections, indicating that the apparent belief by Pelosi and her colleagues that Arab nations should not be able to experience the same degree of democracy Americans enjoy in their country which allows even those with extreme views to seek political office.

The Senate also weighed in. A letter signed by 73 of 100 senators - including 2008 Democratic presidential aspirants Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama - also questioned the decision to allow Hamas to participate in the election on the grounds that "no democracy in the world allows a political party to bear its own arms". Ironically, just weeks earlier the Senate had voted unanimously to praise the recently completed Iraqi parliamentary elections in which a number of political parties with their own militias openly participated and formed the new Iraqi government.

In addition, the United Kingdom - America's closest ally - allowed Sinn Fein to operate a legal political party and participate in elections even during the decades in which its armed wing, the Provisional wing of the Irish Republican Army, engaged in terrorist attacks against British citizens with no criticism of Westminster emanating from Capitol Hill.

Despite US objections, the Palestinian parliamentary elections went ahead in January 2006 with Hamas' participation. They were monitored closely by international observers and were universally recognized as free and fair. With reformist and leftist parties divided into a half dozen competing slates, Hamas was seen by many Palestinians disgusted with the status quo as the only viable alternative to the corrupt Fatah incumbents and with Israel refusing to engage in substantive peace negotiations with Abbas' Fatah-led government, they figured there was little to lose in electing Hamas.

In addition, factionalism within the ruling party led a number of districts to have competing Fatah candidates. As a result, even though Hamas only received 44% of the vote, they captured a majority of Parliament and the right to select the prime minister and form a new government.

Ironically, the position of prime minister did not exist under the original constitution of the Palestine Authority, but was added in March 2003 at the insistence of the United States, which desired a counterweight to the president, Arafat. As a result, while the elections allowed Abbas to remain as president, he was forced to share power with Ismail Haniya, the Hamas prime minister.

Efforts to undermine the government
Despite claiming support for free elections, the United States tried from the outset to undermine the Hamas government. It was largely due to US pressure that Abbas refused Hamas' initial invitation to form a national-unity government that would include Fatah and from which some of the more hardline Hamas leaders would have presumably been marginalized.

The Bush administration pressured the Canadians, Europeans and others in the international community to impose stiff sanctions on the Palestine Authority, though a limited amount of aid continued to flow to government offices controlled by Abbas.

Once one of the more prosperous regions in the Arab world, decades of Israeli occupation had resulted in the destruction of much of the indigenous Palestinian economy, making the Palestine Authority dependent on foreign aid to provide basic functions for its people. The impact of these sanctions, therefore, was devastating. The Iranian regime rushed in to partially fill the void, providing millions of dollars to run basic services and giving the Islamic Republic - which until then had not been allied with Hamas and had not been a major player in Palestinian politics - unprecedented leverage.

Meanwhile, record unemployment led angry and hungry young men to become easy recruits for Hamas militants. One leading Fatah official noted, "For many people, this was the only way to make money." Some Palestinian police, unpaid by their bankrupt government, clandestinely joined the Hamas militia as a second job, creating a dual loyalty.

The demands imposed at the insistence of the Bush administration and Congress on the Palestine Authority to lift the sanctions appeared to be designed to be rejected and were widely interpreted as a pretext for punishing the Palestinian population for voting the wrong way. For example, the United States demanded that the Hamas-led government unilaterally recognize the right of the state of Israel to exist, even though Israel has never recognized the right of the Palestinians to have a state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip or anywhere else.

Other demands included an end of attacks on civilians in Israel while not demanding that Israel likewise end its attacks on civilian areas in the Gaza Strip. They also demanded that the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority accept all previously negotiated agreements even as Israel continued to violate key components of the Wye River Agreement and other negotiated deals with the Palestinians.

While Hamas honored a unilateral ceasefire regarding suicide bombings in Israel, border clashes and rocket attacks into Israel continued. Israel, meanwhile, with the support of the Bush administration, engaged in devastating air strikes against crowded urban neighborhoods, resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties. Congress also went on record defending the Israeli assaults - which were widely condemned in the international community as excessive and in violation of international humanitarian law - as legitimate acts of self-defense.

A House resolution last summer, passed by an overwhelming 410-8 majority, went so far as to praise Israel's "longstanding commitment to minimizing civilian loss and welcomes Israel's continued efforts to prevent civilian casualties" despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Only seven Democrats voted against the resolution, which put them on record commending President George W Bush "for fully supporting Israel as it responds to these armed attacks by terrorist organizations and their state sponsors".

It was out of this environment that Hamas grew from a radical minority to an electoral majority and is now patrolling the streets of the Gaza Strip in full control.

Current US policy
Since their humiliating defeat in the Gaza Strip, Fatah militia have been engaging in a wave of arrests and kidnappings of Hamas activists in the West Bank. This has led to fears of a popular backlash if the repression goes too far.

Furthermore, while Hamas' popular support has traditionally been less in the West Bank than in the Gaza Strip, where the majority of its residents live in impoverished refugee camps, the Islamist group's support is still quite strong in the West Bank. Indeed, the weakness of Fatah's resistance to the Hamas uprising in the Gaza Strip - despite having a larger number and better-armed fighters than Hamas –is indicative of their continued weak political standing.

Despite its dubious constitutionality, Abbas announced a new emergency cabinet without any Hamas participation within days of Fatah's ouster from the Gaza Strip, and included some prominent technocrats, reformers and independents.

His new prime minister, Salam Fayyad, is a highly intelligent economist and former World Bank official who lived for most of his adult life in the United States. He served as the representative for the International Monetary Fund to the Palestine Authority before briefly becoming its finance minister in 2005 in a belated effort by Abbas to clean up the Fatah government's chronic corruption.

Fayyad then formed a small centrist party with scholar and human-rights activist Hanan Ashrawi to challenge both Fatah and Hamas in last year's parliamentary election, but their slate received only 2.4% of the vote. Though a sincere nationalist and reformer, Fayyad's close ties to the United States and international financial institutions, coupled with his poor electoral performance, raises questions regarding his legitimacy in the eyes of most Palestinians.

The makeup of his new government is not Abbas' biggest problem, however. The Palestinians recognize that the United States has defended repeated Israeli attacks against Palestinian population centers, supported the Israeli seizure of the Gaza Strip and vetoed a series of UN Security Council resolutions and blocked enforcement of a series of others calling on Israel to abide by international humanitarian law.

They are aware that the Bush administration and Congress have endorsed Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem and surrounding areas, funded Israel's occupation and colonization of the West Bank and defended Israel's construction of an illegal separation barrier deep inside occupied Palestinian territory.

They also know how the United States has rejected Palestinian proposals for a permanent peace with Israel in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied Palestinian territory while backing Israeli plans to annex much of the West Bank, confining the Palestinians into tiny cantons surrounded by Israel. As a result, the strong US backing shown so far by Washington for Abbas' new government may not help its credibility among the Palestinian population. Indeed, it is already been widely labeled as a collaborationist regime due to its strong backing from Israel and the United States.

Israel will unfreeze funds seized from the export of Palestinian goods to Abbas' new government. The government's hope is that by improving the quality of life for Palestinians, it will show how much better things are under Fatah than under Hamas and weaken support for the Islamists.

Concrete political initiatives
However, unless there are concrete political initiatives as well, this will not be enough.

Abbas has called for peace with strict security guarantees for Israel, including the dismantling of Hamas' militias, in return for an independent state on the 22% of Palestine occupied by Israel since 1967, and has even expressed his willingness to accept minor and reciprocal border adjustments. Polls show that a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip would accept such an agreement.

Israel has refused that offer, however, insisting on its right to annex large swaths of West Bank territory, including Arab East Jerusalem, in such a way that would make a contiguous and viable Palestinian state impossible.

Under this Israeli plan – endorsed by the Bush administration and a broad bipartisan majority of Congress - Israel would be able to control Palestinian air space, Palestinian water resources and movement in and out of the Palestinian entity and between its separated territories.

These non-contiguous Palestinian cantons, therefore, would more closely resemble the infamous Bantustans of apartheid South Africa than a viable independent state. And, unless the Palestinians have strong prospects that a viable independent state will eventually emerge, the credibility of Abbas' government will erode and the appeal by the radicals of Hamas will grow.

The Israeli government, with no apparent objection from the United States, has thus far refused to even put a freeze on the growth of Israeli settlements on the West Bank that are eating up ever more Palestinian land needed to make a Palestinian state viable.

Furthermore, Israeli occupation forces have yet to lift the scores of checkpoints paralyzing economic life in the West Bank. Israel also continues to refuse to release Palestinian prisoners, including Marwan Barghouti, the charismatic Fatah reformer who would be the most likely Palestinian leader to unite the country in accepting a two-state solution with Israel. Such confidence-building measures are critical in the period prior to a resolution of the important final status issues if talks are to move forward and extremists are to be marginalized.

However, as a result of the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, according to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, "The prime minister's advisers [declared] the Palestinian Authority dead, [saying] there is no one to talk to ... and that the Bush administration will not put pressure on Olmert at this stage to come up with ideas for renewing the negotiations with Abbas and promoting a diplomatic solution."

As Robert Malley, Middle East and North Africa program director for the International Crisis Group and former and former National Security Council member and special assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs under president Bill Clinton, has noted how "almost every decision the United States has made to interfere with Palestinian politics has boomeranged".

Hamas' armed takeover of the Gaza Strip has shown this to be all too true, and the US embrace of Abbas' new government without concomitant pressure on Israel may prove to have similar results.

Stephen Zunes is Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In Focus. He is a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: US Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).
Creative Commons License
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons.