The idea that terrorism is on the eye of the beholder is not new.
It just became more evident after the September 11 attacks.
US was demanding, and for the most part receiving absolute condemnation
of the abhorrent attacks; but soon enough it began to hear, from
the rest of the world, an emphasis on context and root causes of
terrorism. There were people in the US saying similar things, but
those were termed traitors or worse.
There is a sad truth US government and many of its citizens have
trouble coming to terms with: the rest of the world does not appreciate
double standards. Does that mean other countries do not violate
the rules? Of course they do. What bothers them is the US arrogance
and presumption of perfection that never measures up to, speaking
in military terms, the facts on the ground.
For instance, the US government denied a visa to Dora Maria Téllez,
one of the best-known figures in recent Latin American history,
who has frequently visited the US in the past, and who epitomized
the 1979 Nicaraguan revolution that overthrew the dictator Anastasio
Somoza.
Téllez, now a famous historian, was appointed as the Robert
F Kennedy visiting professor in Latin American studies in the divinity
department at Harvard.
The US told Téllez she is ineligible for the visa because
she was involved in “terrorist acts,” which, as a professor
of Harvard puts it, place her in the same category of George Washington:
people fighting for freedom, and against 'bloody dictators'. Remember
Saddam? But Téllez was doing that against US interests, and
that's where US draws the line.
Coincidentally, this happens around the time when John Negroponte,
also a famous figure very involved in the defense of the military
regimes of Central America, in the 70s and 80s, was appointed by
the President Bush to be the intelligence zar.
It's worth remembering that, under late President Ronald Reagan,
US opposed the Sandinistas movement even after they had been elected
in 1984, and kept supporting the contras and keeping alive a savage
civil war, despite repeated condemnations and resolutions from the
UN and many other international institutions. Remember when Bush
said that Saddam did not obey UN resolutions?
In fact, the Iran-contras scandal that did not manage to stain the
pristine image of Reagan, needs no introduction. It's certainly
very ironic: in Iran and in Nicaragua US managed both times to opposed,
and help bring down, democratically elected governments, only to
later go to Iraq to help establish a democratically elected government,
and took down a “bloody dictator.”
With Luis Posada Carriles, an anti Castro militant who has a nice
history of violent conspiracy, US is presented with the opposite
case. The documents of his link to the CIA and of being on the agency's
payroll are now public. At the peek of his career, Posada killed,
in his own words, “73 dogs,” and had those been actual
dogs he would has been prosecuted for cruelty against animals, but
these were 73 teenagers members of a fencing team, returning home
to Cuba. Posada Carriles bombed their plane. No survivors.
Interestingly enough, the Bush administration wasn't sure what to
do with this one: should he be considered a freedom fighter like...
Osama? Or someone fighting against a dictator like... Téllez?
Should innocent civilians be killed to make a point like Osama believes?
Or should anyone who does that should be considered a terrorist
and be brought to justice?
Again, terrorism seems to be on the eyes of the beholder, but in
this hearts and minds crusade US has embarked, we better begin setting
our record straight and making our glossary of terms public.
For instance, what's exactly the difference between innocent civilians
and collateral damages?
|
