The gaping discrepancy between the stated goals of American foreign policy and its practice is best exemplified by the apogee of war crimes: genocide. In its pursuit of these lofty goals, the United States has committed no less than eight genocides. Interventions resulting in genocide at the very minimum prove that American government's professed motives for foreign policy decisions are altogether specious. I will discuss three cases in this paper: Iraq, Guatemala and East Timor.
Iraq is an example of a new doctrine rationalizing the application of military based on euphemistic doctrines which have no basis in American or international law. George W. Bush's doctrine of preemptive war was not new to foreign and defence policy strategists but can be traced back to Dean Acheson's doctrine dismissing the applicability of international law to the United States as outlined in a speech to the American Society of International Law in 1963 in which he argued that:
The power, position and prestige of the US had been challenged [Cuban Missile Crisis] by another state and the law does not deal with such questions of ultimate power - power that comes close to the source of sovereignty. [1]
In other words, national interests including meretricious threats to the sovereignty of the American State supersede international law despite the fact the United Nations Charter makes provisions for these exigencies.
The growing appetite for the unilateral application of force resulted in the "humanitarian intervention" or "illegal but legitimate" doctrine during the Clinton and Bush presidencies. This doctrine validated acts of preemption that justified the use of force whenever a threat was neither imminent nor substantial but necessary to defend the security interests of the United States against a perceived threatened easily manufactured through the propaganda of fear.
Invading and occupying Iraq under the pretext of a preemptive war, a country already decimated by Dessert Storm, sanctions and no-fly-zones, represents the quintessential tragedy and hypocrisy of American foreign policy. To verify that the American Government has been complicit in genocides since 1945, I will establish a set of criteria and apply them to Iraq and East Timor.
The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide sets out a number of criteria to evaluate whether or not a war crime attains the magnitude of genocide. These criteria are not without controversy but by examining the scholarly literature on the subject and the judgments of the International Criminal Court, I have established conservative standards to assess each case.
According to the Convention:
"Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, such as:
a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm;
c) Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Although the phrase "in whole or in part" sounds ambiguous, its ambit has been restricted by judgments of the International Criminal Court. According to the Rapporteur for the Preparatory Commission of the International Criminal Court, "The accused aimed to destroy a large part of the group in a particular area." The International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia concluded that "The killing of all members of a group within a small geographical area" was tantamount to genocide. Notwithstanding the imprecision of these definitions of "part", the area in Bosnia referred to in the ruling sets a baseline for future cases. The architect of the Convention, Raphael Lemkin, intended to define "in part" as a level of destruction sufficiently substantial to imperil the existence of the group. Shedding even further light on this problem, the Convention itself considers attempted genocide to be punishable under the Convention implying that intent alone is sufficient to establish guilt.
"Intent" is another term in need of clarification. Apart from direct evidence through orders, statements, or coordinated acts, intention can be shown if "Acts of destruction that are not the specific goal but are predictable outcomes or by-products of a policy, which may have been avoided by a change in that policy." [2]
The Genocide Convention defines two basic levels of guilt: the direct commission of genocide and complicity to commit genocide. Complicity in genocide must embody:
"a)Intentional participation;
b)Knowledge of the genocidal intent of the perpetrators;
c)Organizing, planning, supplying arms, training intelligence, or direct military support."
One example of direct American genocide, Iraq, has suffered massive destruction to infrastructure, economy and human life, particularly since the imposition of American sanctions in 1990 and the bombing in 1991. UN Resolution 661 mandated sanctions against Iraq ostensibly to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait. The resolution was worded in such a way as to grant the United States a veto over which products could be traded with Iraq and the U.S. exploited that veto to severely punish the people of Iraq in the hope that they would overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves.
According to a 1993 UNICEF study, "What has become increasingly clear is that no significant movement toward food security can be achieved so long as the embargo remains in place." [3] Declassified documents divulge the fact that the Americans were aware of and responsible for a humanitarian crisis caused by the sanctions. A Defense Intelligence Agency report on January 18, 1991 concludes that:
"Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences; if not epidemics of disease...Current public health problems are attributable to the reduction of normal preventative medicine, waste disposal, water purification and distribution electricity, and the decreased ability to control disease outbreaks." [4]
On January 15, 1991, B-52s were flying towards their targets in Iraq and cruise missiles were fired from ships in the Indian Ocean. Iraqi defences were incapable of offering any resistance.
Restricting the bombing to only military targets was not part of the U.S. war plan whereas targets included hospitals, electric utilities, schools, factories, water treatment plants, irrigation systems, food storage facilities and community health centres. Over 200,000 people died the majority of whom were civilians.
In 2003, George Bush Junior inflicted further atrocities on the devastated people of Iraq and on a country virtually bombed back into pre-industrial times by another so-called war. As of today, Iraq has suffered a further one million casualties and four million refugees.
Whether or not the administrations of Bush Senior, Clinton, and Bush Junior intended to commit genocide is irrelevant because the consequences of the bombings and sanctions could have been predicted by any reasonable person. The actions of these administrations clearly resulted in mass killing, serious bodily or mental harm, and the infliction of conditions calculated to bring about Iraq's physical destruction in whole or in part. Therefore the U.S. is guilty of genocide in Iraq.
An indisputable case of complicity in genocide occurred in East Timor, a small island 400 kilometers north of Australia, inhabited by people who in 1975 were still practicing many of their ancient customs which had survived for many centuries.
Indonesia coveted the small island to its south for its land and resources but more importantly, both Australia and the United States were determined to gain access to the oil off the southern coast of East Timor by using Indonesia as a surrogate. On December 7, 1975 Indonesian ships began to bombard the capital, Deli, while 10,000 paratroopers marched from town to town and indiscriminately massacred every man, women and child. Indonesia occupied East Timor until the results of a referendum, forced on them by human rights groups and the United Nations, were released on August 30, 1999 which revealed that 78% of East Timorese favoured independence.
The Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation in East Timor revealed that the Indonesian forces:
"Failed to discriminate between civilian and military targets in conducting repeated large-scale bombing...Destroyed food sources by burning or poisoning crops and food stores...Refused to allow access to international aid organizations...The Commission finds that the only logical conclusion...is that the Indonesian Security forces consciously decided to use starvation of East Timorese civilians as a weapon of war." [5]
Indonesian security forces systematically raped the women of East Timor, sterilized all women, and murdered 200,000 citizens.
The Commission also reported that:
"The United States of America failed to support the right of the East Timorese to self-determination, and that its political and military support was fundamental to the Indonesian invasion and occupation." [6]
In addition to the Commission's report, there is a mountain of declassified documents which prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the U.S. was fully aware of Indonesian's intentions and that the U.S. supplied military equipment to Indonesia with the full knowledge that it would be used to kill East Timorese.
In a telegram from the American Embassy in Jakarta to the American Secretary of State, President Ford is quoted as saying, "We understand the problems you have [with East Timor] and the intentions you have." [7] Additionally, in a memorandum from Clinton E. Granger, member of the National Security Council, to Brent Scowcroft, Ford's National Security Advisor, the issue of Military Assistance Program equipment used by the Indonesians in East Timor, listed all the American military equipment used by the Indonesians including ships, aircraft, helicopters, rifles and munitions. [8]
The Administrations of Ford and Carter, in particular, were aware of the intentions of the Indonesians and provided the military and political support that was tantamount to complicity in genocide.
In Guatemala, the United States economically and militarily supported a series of brutal dictators for 34 years who were determined to eliminate the Mayan population for supporting and joining the insurgency against their brutal and corrupt governments.
In the 100 years preceding 1944, Guatemala was led by autocratic rulers. Following the 1944 revolution, Guatemalans were finally living under a democratically elected leader and a new constitution. Deepening poverty, distribution of landownership where 70% of the land was owned by 2.2% of the landowners and landlessness among the Mayans who constituted 70% of the population called for major reforms by the newly elected government. The largest landowner in Guatemala was the United Fruit Company (UFCO) who had close ties to the Eisenhower regime.
Jos+¬ Ar+¬valo, the new president, pursued economic, social and agrarian reform. In 1951, Jacobo Arbenz won the election and immediately expanded land reform to improve conditions for the Mayans.
As part of his land reform package, he decided to buy back some of the land sold to the UFCO at the value they declared when they bought it. UFCO had understated the value of their land to avoid paying too much in taxes. Notwithstanding the fact that 85% of UFCO lay fallow every year, top members of the company complained to their friend in Washington about the Guatemalan government stealing their land.
Unfortunately, the Cold War zeitgeist was evoking fear and paranoia in the Eisenhower administration and they interpreted Arbenz's policies and the small number of communists in the Arbenz regime as a symptom of the fabled International Communist Conspiracy infiltrating Arbenz's government to form a base for taking over all of South and Central America.
Eisenhower hatched a secret plan involving the CIA to overthrow the Arbenz government without the direct use of American forces. The CIA relied exclusively on chicanery and trickery to fool the Guatemalan government into believing that they were under siege by a huge invading force. Castillo Armas was chosen to lead a contingent of 100 soldiers as part of the strategy to create this illusion. To strengthen the illusion, the CIA flew four unidentified planes which dropped bombs on Guatemala City to enhance the deception that Arbenz was under attack by a large invading force.
Ultimately, Arbenz resigned and Armas became the first in a long series of American-supported dictators who embarked on a campaign to eliminate the Mayan population whom they believed were either guerrillas themselves or supporting the guerrillas.
Armas began targeting all opposition to his regime and focused, in particular, against any person suspected of communist affiliations. He formed death squads and depended on U.S. military aid, military training, and training in torture and counter-insurgency techniques.
In 1966, a sweep of guerrilla strongholds and massive army bombing, in the regions inhabited by the Mayans, resulted in the massacre of thousands of Mayans. The counter-insurgency campaign expanded into search and destroy missions, similar to the ones in Vietnam, in which the army or death squads would move into a village, kill all the Mayan villagers, and burn down their huts.
In 1982, in another example of genocidal actions against the Mayans, Rios Montt, the current dictator, unleashed a scorched earth policy in the villages serving as the insurgents' base of support resulting in the destruction of 600 villages and the death of more than 20,000 people. In total, over 200,000 Mayans were killed by this succession of American-supported dictators.
By targeting a national group, namely the Mayans, with the intention of eliminating as many as possible and destroying their villages, the Guatemalan dictators' actions meet the criteria of the Genocide Convention.
American leaders were well aware of the intentions of these dictators as revealed in a number of declassified documents. For example, a top secret CIA document states that "The Guatemalan military's plans to begin sweeps through the Ixil Triangle area which has the largest concentration of guerrillas and sympathizers..." [9]
American support for these dictators included over $190 million in direct military aid, training, advisors, economic aid, and CIA operatives.
Whether or not successive U.S. administrations harbored genocidal intent in the elimination of the Mayan population is irrelevant because it is only necessary to prove that they had knowledge of the genocidal intent of the dictators whom they supported.
The U.S. is complicit in this genocide because of their support of the Guatemalan governments and their knowledge of their intentions.
There is copious evidence that the United States was also either directly responsible for or complicit in genocide in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Indonesia. The carnage resulting from these genocides clearly exposes the disparity between the professed principles of American foreign policy and its manifest praxis. On the other hand, the esoteric doctrines defined by the framers of American foreign policy are completely consistent with its outcomes. This hypocrisy betrays the indifference of American leaders to basic democratic principles and to respect for both domestic and international law.
[1]Acheson, D. (1968). Dean Acheson's remark is quoted in Louis Henkin: "How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy." Columbia University Press. P. 265-266.
[2]Gellately, R., and Kiernan, B. (Eds.). (2003). The Specter of Genocide: Mass Murder in Historical Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. P. 15.
3]UNICEF Report. (1993). Children, War, and Sanctions. Cited in Ullrich, G(1998)"The effects of Sanctions on the Civilian Community of Iraq." Retrieved from[4 Defense Intelligence Agency. (1991, January 8). Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities. Retrieved from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/de...
7] Department of State. (1975, December). "Telegram from American Embassy in Jakarta to the Secretary of State". Retrieved from the Gerald Ford Library's Website[8 National Security Council. (December 12, 1975). Memo from Clinton Granger to Brent Scowcroft. Indonesian use of MAP equipment in East Timor. Retrieved from http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/N...
[9] CIA Top Secret Report, February 5, 1982.
http://www.stateofdarkness.com