Download PDF of this full issue: v17n2.pdf (14.2 MB)

Snake Oil Democracy: The Selling of Reagan's War

By Jack Elder

"Americans love the idea of a thing more than the thing itself" (quoted in Harpers, Dec, 1986).

Strategic misinformation, "lies with a purpose" if you will, has become an important tactic in this Administration's campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of Americans as regards our foreign policy in Central America. These lies are more than common deception. They are lies calculated to confound liberals, shift the center point of the debate on Central America, create phantom enemies, and bolster the isolation and ignorance with which most Americans view developments to the south.

In October 1985, I spoke at a conference on Sanctuary in Hanover, New Hampshire, sponsored by Dartmouth College. The sole Administration spokesperson was Maurice Inman, general consul for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the course of his address, Mr. Inman attacked the sanctuary movement with many charges which by now have become standard right-wing ammunition against sanctuary. One of his charges, however, retains special interest today because of the continuing revelations of illegal arms transfers to the contras while the Boland Amendment was in effect. Specifically, Mr. Inman accused those involved in providing Sanctuary for Central Americans of engaging in "particularized morality", that is, being selective about which laws they would or would not obey. We know now that even as Mr. Inman spoke, the sale of weapons to Iran and the transfer of funds to the contras had been going on for at least three months. The charge of "particularized morality" against Sanctuary activists was not merely inappropriate but in fact perfectly descriptive of the convert foreign policy operations being carried out by the CIA and by that basement contra himself, LTC Oliver North.

The episode in Hanover may of itself be of small importance but it means, as I tried to point out tin my remarks following Mr. Inman's speech, that we are faced with two very different languages that seek to describe the reality of Ventral America. Those who seek to inform themselves about Central America need to be aware of the Administration's intense efforts to manipulate public perception of the crisis that grips Central America.

Between December 1985 and June 1986, 20 speeches on U.S.-Central American relations were pronounced by the President, the Secretary of State, and various under-secretaries and deputy secretaries of the State Department. This barrage of policy statements, coinciding with the debate in Congress over aid to the contras, has had the effect of thoroughly muddying any responsible debate on Central America. The effect of Elliot Abrams' speech, "And End to Tyranny in Central America," (12-9-85) followed the next day by President Reagan's speech "Safeguarding Human Rights" (12-10-85) was to suggest that 1) democracy is actually taking root in Central America and 2) that human rights not only exist but that they are being safeguarded. Both conclusions clash head on. With what the Church, human rights organizations and the people of Central America tell us is happening in the region.

What they do share is the concern that U.S. interest (national security, access to raw materials, debt repayment) be protected at any cost. To a great degree the American public accepts the idea, refuted by all the evidence, that economic, social, and political progress is setting the stage for a lasting peace in the region. If we accept this crafty notion then the Administration is free to accuse Nicaragua of threatening the well-being of fledgling Central American "democracies" thus justifying a major escalation of hostilities against Nicaragua. On a related front, the Administration can claim that all Central Americans who come to the U.S. must be economic migrants since the onset of the "Paz Americana" has eliminated any need for rebellion. The corollary of this claim is that anyone who assists Central Americans is acting in an overtly political and illegal fashion.

The problem with these claims is that they are based on a distorted set of these which have been intentionally created to reinforce the fear and the ignorance with which most of us have tended to view developments in Central America. Even when proven false, the claims that the Administration makes for our client states ("fair elections," "human rights improvements," and "effective agrarian reform") have the unfortunate effect of having some credibility in the current national discussion on Central America. That shred of credibility is often enough to immobilize people who would otherwise clearly recognize the need to be in solidarity with the people of Central America who have vowed to settle for nothing less than liberation from imposed economic, political and social structures.

Well-educated, well-meaning people constantly lament in the inability of our country to absorb large numbers of refugees from Central America. These same people, however, refuse to acknowledge the violence that pervades the region and that is a major cause of the exodus in the first place. Others, equally well intentioned, suggest that more economic, not military, aid only serves to reinforce structures that created the social tensions leading to rebellion. Rather than prop up these structures we ought to be pleased to see them come crashing down.

As long as we let the strategic misinformation of our government and our own fears color our thinking and our actions we will be unable to respond to the challenge presented to us by our events unfolding in Central America. And as we stand immobilized, afraid to question, to speak out, or to act, we shouldn't be surprised by the ridicule other nations view us with nor by the incessant and needless toll of orphans, widows, prisoners, desaparecidos, and refugees that are generated by our capitulation to this campaign of strategic misinformation.

—Jack Elder
San Antonio VVAW