|
Pulse of the Twin Cities Login |
|
If you do not have an account yet
Create One.
|
|
|
Twin Town High (vol. 8) |
|
|
|
|
Minnesota “Nice” Meets Georgia “Nice”
Wednesday 09 May @ 15:09:38 |
 Reflections on our visit to WHINSEC
by MARY ELLEN HALVERSON
Meet it as I set it down
That one may smile and smile and be a villain.
–Shakespeare, “Hamlet”
The four of us set out to learn and observe from within the gates of the Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Two of us had been there before—booked, banned and barred. This time we walked in and signed the visitors’ book under “Reason for Visit”: “Learn and listen!” We expected no monsters, no uncivil creatures. We were cordially received and treated. We attended three classes, visited the library, and spoke with the Commander and several instructors but very few students. There we were, in the Heart of the Beast, where minions carry out U.S. foreign policy. We were assured that there was a thorough vetting process for candidates to WHINSEC.
 After all, the State Department (since the 1997 enactment of the Leahy Amendment) has scrupulously vetted tens of thousands of training participants, and there is a Board of Visitors, the federal watchdog advisory committee mandated by the Defense Authorization Bill for 2001. At WHINSEC, there is a conscious effort to distance themselves from the old SOA. Even SOA archives are kept elsewhere.
We had criticisms of the SOA/WHINSEC—they were referred to policy makers at the federal level. So is it the truth that all staff members and administration at WHINSEC are simply doing their best, as many in our “civilized” society do? Large corporations are efficiently humming along—corporate headquarters with very pretty landscapes, manicured lawns and fountains, obscenely compensated CEOs, whose employees are just commodities to be fired when they get too expensive, and to be replaced with younger and cheaper ones.
The annual November vigil/protest at SOA/WHINSEC is not unlike the weekly Wednesday 7 a.m. vigil/protest at Alliant Tech here in the Twin Cities. We’re told they merely take the contracts offered them, large ones for deadly products. We are told that we should be speaking to policy makers at the federal level ... so how do perfectly good people get entangled in institutions that are not good for society, that contribute to fighting wars to defend “U.S. interests” abroad?
In the case of WHINSEC, in spite of the Board of Visitors (a federal advisory committee to WHINSEC), “grads” are pretty much on their own, and able to act with impunity, since WHINSEC says it does not track its grads. Clarification: “grad” means one that completes a course that lasts from one to 49 weeks. The length of human rights instruction is somewhat proportionate to the length of the course, anywhere from four to 43 hours. It was interesting to note that one of the case studies used in the “curriculum” was the 1981 El Mozote massacre in El Salvador in which 10 of 12 officers cited as responsible for the massacre of over 900 civilians were grads of the SOA. As you read this, in Colombia, the enmeshment of hundreds of public servants with right-wing paramilitaries with ties to the Colombian Army, linked to regional and national institutions, is coming to light. Very few are condemned; others have been detained, have surrendered, resigned after being accused, or are fugitives. The beautiful country of Colombia is clutched in fear. Is it any wonder when U.S. aid to Colombia is $700 million a year and 80 percent goes to Army and police? Any wonder when, in 2005, the largest number of WHINSEC students (27 percent) were Colombian?! We’ve connected the dots.
One would only hope that the beefed-up human rights component of the Institute, since its name change, would yield better results in the future. We were told that students value the human rights courses and take them seriously. We can only hope that students assimilate and integrate human rights material, and that the proverb “ ’Twixt the cup and the lip there’s many a slip” does not apply.
An atmosphere of openness seemed to prevail—“transparency” as the buzz word goes. We were free to go where we wanted as most of our visit was loosely structured, for practical reasons. Still, I wonder what wasn’t told us. Two past incidents linger and two questions leave me with some suspicions.
The first incident was the 1996 exposure of the infamous torture manuals whose existence was denied for years. The second was the denial of the SOA Watch request, through the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), for names of WHINSEC grads of 2005. Despite the 20-day reporting requirements, it took the Pentagon nine months to deny the request, with 18 pages of blacked-out names. The first question I have is: Where are the smaller satellite U.S. military training schools here and abroad that deal with the nefarious details of military/police training that we hasten to absolve ourselves of, as long as they are out of sight?
The second question is: Will the Board of Visitors, the newcomer committee, be truly helpful and honestly review, observe and give recommendations regarding operations of WHINSEC. These committee members include members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, business people, academics, human rights representatives, attorneys, military and men of the cloth. Can we expect open communication with them or their designees? We don’t do well with lies and denials, or with FOIA non-information, with obfuscation, with smokescreens.
We’ll be watching Latin America—Colombia and all the other countries with ties to SOA/WHINSEC, looking for human rights violations; we’ll also be straining our necks for any glimmer of good news. Meanwhile, be alert and—
Meet it as I set it down
That one may smile and smile and be a villain.
–Shakespeare, “Hamlet”
|
|
 |
|
|
Comments -
Post Comment |
|
The comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for its content.
NO comments yet! Be the first!
|
|
|
