Another Blicero?

[Doug Millison]

OBSTINATE MEMORY AND PURSUIT OF THE PRESENT
By Norman Solomon

Henry Kissinger usually has an easy time defending the  indefensible on
national television. But he faced some pointed questions  during a recent
interview with the PBS "NewsHour" about the U.S. role in  bringing a
military dictatorship to Chile. When his comments aired on Feb.  20, the
famous American diplomat made a chilling spectacle of himself.

Nearly three years after the U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the  elected
socialist president Salvador Allende in September 1973 and brought  Augusto
Pinochet to power, Kissinger huddled with the general in Chile. A
declassified memo says that Kissinger told Pinochet: "We are sympathetic
with what you are trying to do here."

While interviewing Kissinger, "NewsHour" correspondent Elizabeth  Farnsworth
asked him point-blank about the discussion with Pinochet. "Why  did you not
say to him, 'You're violating human rights. You're killing  people. Stop
it.'?"

Kissinger replied: "First of all, human rights were not an  international
issue at the time, the way they have become since. That was  not what
diplomats and secretaries of states and presidents were saying to  anybody
in those days."

Right. Back then, we didn't know that it was wrong to kidnap  people; to
hold them as political prisoners; to torture them; to murder them.

Kissinger added that at the June 1976 meeting with Pinochet, "I  spent half
my time telling him that he should improve his human rights  performance in
any number of ways." But the American envoy's concern was  tactical. As
Farnsworth noted in her reporting: "Kissinger did bring up  human rights
violations, saying they were making it difficult for him to  get aid for
Chile from Congress."

In Chile, the victims of Kissinger's great skills numbered into  the
thousands; in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, into the hundreds of  thousands
and more. Seymour Hersh's 1983 book "The Price of Power:  Kissinger in the
Nixon White House" documented his remarkable record as a  prodigious liar
and prolific killer. But the most influential news outlets  continued to
treat Kissinger with near-reverence. In 1989, he was elected  to the board
of directors of CBS. The autobiography of Katharine Graham,  the owner of
the Washington Post Co., praises Kissinger as a dear friend  and all-around
wonderful person.

Kissinger is still commonly touted by news media as Dr. Statesman  Emeritus.
On Feb. 16 of this year, CNN interviewed him live a few hours  after the
United States and Britain fired missiles at sites near Baghdad.  Anchor
Bernard Shaw asked about the sanctions against Iraq, but neither man  said
anything about the human toll -- although an estimated half-million  Iraqi
children have died as a result of sanctions since the early 1990s.
Kissinger offered his wisdom: "The United States has absolutely nothing to
gain abandoning sanctions."

Today, as in the early 1970s, tactical concerns loom large in  Washington's
corridors of power -- and in much of the news media. On the  networks,
routine assumptions confine the discourse to exploring how the  U.S.
government can effectively get its way in the world -- not whether it  has a
right to do so. For the present, moral dimensions are pushed to the
margins.

Napoleon observed that it's not necessary to censor the news, it's
sufficient to delay the news until it no longer matters. That might be a
bit of an overstatement; truthful information about the past is valuable
even if it comes late. But when lives are in the balance, truth is vital
sooner rather than later.

In the present tense, with foreign-policy stakes high, media  professionals
routinely defer to official sources. Most U.S. journalists  are inclined to
swallow the deceptions fed from high levels in Washington.  Months or years
or decades later, big news outlets may report more  difficult truths. But by
then, the blood has been shed.

No wonder so many high-ranking foreign policy officials are eager  to visit
network TV studios, especially in times of U.S. military actions.  If the
questions get prickly, they're apt to be of a tactical nature: Will  this
missile attack be effective? Will it hurt relations with allies or  backfire
in world opinion? Did the targets get hit?

We don't hear much fundamental questioning of top officials from  the White
House or State Department or Pentagon about intervention abroad.  Nor do we
get much assertive journalism that challenges ongoing support for
repressive American allies such as Indonesia, Turkey, Israel, Egypt and
Saudi Arabia. On the "NewsHour" and other major network programs, when the
subject is current policies, I don't recall questions along the lines of:
"You're violating human rights. You're killing people. Why don't you stop
it?"

The recent superb "NewsHour" report on U.S. policies toward Chile  was
titled "Pursuing the Past." In truth, that's a very tough endeavor for
mainstream journalists. And pursuing the present is even more difficult.

  Norman Solomon is a syndicated columnist. His latest book is "The Habits of
Highly Deceptive Media."

Commentaries are a premium sent to Sustainer Donors of Z/ZNet; to 
learn more about the project folks can consult ZNet at
http://www.zmag.org or the ZNet Sustainer Pages at
http://www.zmag.org/Commentaries/donorform.htm

-- 
d  o  u  g    m  i  l  l  i  s  o  n  <http://www.online-journalist.com>