inside the glass house

Dirty work to preserve ‘model’ democracy
NEW YORK-- The Bush administration is facing a rising firestorm of criticism for running secret detention centers for terror suspects in several East European countries, including Poland and Romania, which are also coincidentally receiving American assistance to transit from authoritarian regimes to multi party democracies.

But these detention centres were possibly used to intimidate, humiliate and torture terror suspects: something that could not be done legally or morally within the confines of the US, one of the world's "model" democracies.
Perhaps the best comment came from an unnamed senior European diplomat who told the London Financial Times last week: "You don't talk about torture in the morning, and then say in the afternoon: Democratise yourself." When the Washington Post broke the story last month about the detention centers, run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the first reaction was not to set the record straight but to institute a probe as to how the story leaked to the press. It was a tried and tested tactic: Kill the messenger, not the message.

The 25-nation European Union (EU) has warned that if any of its member states had collaborated with the US in these illegal operations, these countries will face "serious consequences", including losing EU voting rights.
The Post apparently was asked not to publish the names of any of the countries used as detention centres because it would disrupt US counter-terrorism efforts.

But some of the names were released by human rights organisations in the US who had no obligation to hold back the information because they were not the source of the original story.

The covert CIA prisons were also located in at least two Asian countries, Thailand and Afghanistan. But Thailand has denied the charges. The story has also put a damper on an impending five-day trip to Eastern Europe by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who has declared that the US has not violated either its own laws or international treaties. But she did not say whether this exercise violated European laws. Rice has also defended US anti-terrorism laws by saying it has the right to take into custody any possible terrorist suspect before he commits a crime.

If this law is applied liberally, one TV comedian joked last week, then the Bush administration should take all or most US politicians into custody judging by recent scandals of bribe-taking, corruption and ethics violations by Congressmen. Perhaps that would help to stop the crime before it is committed.

Meanwhile, as the Iraqi insurgency continues to take a toll on US soldiers, a newspaper cartoon depicts an American prosecutor asking former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein at his trial: 'Tell us about your death squads and secret police, and torture and executions." And then the prosecutor adds: "We need some tips on getting this country under control." And if you cooperate, we may even let you have your presidency once again.

That's perhaps the biggest American dilemma in Iraq: How to bring the country under control. Is Saddam Hussein the only one with the right but ruthless answer?

With nation-wide polls in the US increasingly showing strong opposition to the continued American presence in Iraq, the Bush administration is on the defensive day in and day out. But it has never given up the job of putting a positive political spin on the military and political disaster that is Iraq.

Last week there were also reports of a secret military campaign in Iraq to plant stories favorable to the US in Iraqi newspapers. But the catch was that the propaganda exercise was paid for by the US Department of Defence. Additionally, it was reported that "friendly Iraqi journalists" were also being paid monthly stipends for dishing out US propaganda.
As the New York Times put it: "At a time when the State Department is paying contractors millions of dollars to promote professional and independent media (in Iraq), the military campaign appeared to defy the basic tenets of Western journalism."

The White House response, whether genuine or not, was to be critical of the paid propaganda. "We are very much concerned about the reports," a White House spokesman said. "We have asked the Department of Defence for more information".

Whether it has to be taken with pinch or a lump of salt is left to be seen. If torture and multi party democracy (as in Eastern Europe) can be strange political bedfellows, what of an unfree press and the democratisation of Iraq?

The first reaction to the story came from General George W. Casey, one of the top US commanders in Iraq, who was quoted as saying privately that the story about the paid press propaganda should not be discussed publicly because it was classified. This tie, you don't kill the message, but just sweep it right under the carpet.

If the US has succeeded in buying up the Iraqi news media, how will its credibility be tainted while it is simultaneously promoting "a free and independent news media" in countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia which keep a tight rein on newspapers?

Back to Columns