Udo Schuklenk writes,
Is it not remarkable that the American Medical Association has not come out with a strong statement condemning the participation of US medical doctors in the torturing of prisoners of war in Guantanamo Bay?
The rest is here You need to read it.
Fearless denouncer of the dictatorship when few had the courage to do so, antisemite, darling of visiting pop stars, fan of both the Castro dictatorship in Cuba and Osama Bin Laden, international human rights icon and much else besides, Hebe de Bonafini is quoted in The Buenos Aires Herald’s coup anniversary supplement (which may be available online for those who have a subscription) as saying,
At Madres we believe that the Buenos Aires Herald has two facets. During the dictatorship it always spoke well of the Madres de Plaza de Mayo but it also supported (Economy Minister) Martínez de Hoz and his economic project. The newspaper was in favour of the multinationals and against our children. And there is no doubt that those who are against our children are against us. Therefore this association (the Madres) was never in agreement with The Buenos Aires Herald, because it doesn’t love our children.
I have heard it suggested that what I wrote in the second part of this post may be disproved by the example of Salvador Allende’s government in Chile. I don’t think so. His government fell not primarily because of the actions of the United Sates but because there was a large section of Chilean society, including elements of the armed forces, which never reconciled itself to the legitimacy of his government. The machinations of Kissinger and the CIA would have counted for nothing had there not been droves of Chileans anxious to collaborate with them and had they not found leader of infinite found a leader of Pinochet’s infinite cunning and ruthlessness to lead them.
And what could Allende have done differently that might have saved him? He could have armed the workers that supported him and attempted to use force against the opposition. It might have worked, who knows? It’s hard to imagine though that the Armed Forces of Chile that led the 1973 coup and ruled the country as a dictatorship until 1990(!) would have allowed itself to have been rolled over by a workers militia just like that. And even if Allende had crushed the opposition, what sort of society would that victory have produced? It’s very hard to resort to unconstitutional methods to beat your opponents and when you have them beaten to return to the Queensbury rules as if nothing had happened. Had he lived, Allende would have turned 80 in 1988. If he had then popped his clogs and passed on power to a member of his family after 18 years of Cuban-style socialism I doubt if he if would be so genuinely mourned as he still is today. His recognition that bourgeois freedoms are real freedoms and his refusal to permit their destruction was part of his greatness and accounts for much of his historical stature and the quality of his moral and political example.
Norm indirectly provides an antidote to the nauseating wave of eulogies to the dictator who has just decided to call time on deciding everything for everybody from supposedly leftist and progressive opinion. He says,
… capitalist democracies are democracies and none of the would-be anti-capitalist countries, anywhere, has managed to sustain comparably good or better democratic institutions over any length of time. Note that I do not say this means it could never happen; I don’t believe that. What it does mean, however, is that the democratic institutions we are familiar with have yet to be improved upon in any of those places that some leftists are given to casting an indulgent eye upon even while they seek to distance themselves critically from the institutions they themselves benefit from and which are superior.
And another point occurs to me. The usual excuse for the lack of democracy in Cuba is the fact that it has a very hostile superpower just over the horizon and that this situation explains and, at least to some degree, justifies the repressive nature of the Cuban regime.
Now think of Israel. For the sake of argument let’s say that only Jewish Israelis enjoy democratic rights and not Arab ones and that the Israeli state is a monstrous and illegitimate one. I don’t think this is true at all but if it was it wouldn’t falsify my argument. That argument is that despite being at daggers drawn with many of its larger neighbours for much of its history and fighting several wars with them – the loss of any which would have led to its own destruction and disappearance – Israel has managed to maintain a pretty acceptable version of a liberal democracy – you know the sort of stuff: free elections with different parties contesting them, a free press, an independent judiciary etc – throughout its history for most of its citizens.
I know, I know, Israel is now very powerful militarily and is best pals with the USA but the close alliance with the Yanks only really got going post-1967 and being strong militarily didn’t stop them getting into serious difficulties in the Second Lebanon War. And now of course there is the threat from Iran too. So a strong external threat doesn’t have to lead to internal repression but it can be a great excuse for introducing and maintaining it if that is what you are inclined to do anyway.
