Shane Quinn
Global Research
1 April 2018
It
may be no exaggeration to say that, in the post-World War II period,
Iran has been persecuted largely without a break. The threats continue
to the present day, with the United States, Saudi Arabia and Israel
pondering how to curtail Iranian influence.
In
mainstream dialogue, Iran is routinely portrayed as the bad guy on the
world stage, along with Russia and North Korea. This despite the fact,
since the 1950s, the US has been the world’s leading purveyor of terror –
toppling democratic regimes at will and imposing military
dictatorships.
Israel’s
murderous policies in the last half century rank them as among the
cruellest regimes on earth. Over the past generation, Israel have become
increasingly feared and disliked, not just in the Middle East, but
even in Europe.
Saudi
Arabia themselves constitute the most extreme fundamentalist regime on
earth. At home, Saudi governments have indoctrinated their extreme
Wahhabi messages in schools and workplaces, while spreading it elsewhere
by supporting terrorist groups like ISIS. By comparison, Iran looks
like a democratic haven.
Currently
the Saudis, bolstered by support from the US, France, Germany and
Britain, are implementing a devastating war against neighbouring Yemen.
UN humanitarian groups have repeatedly lamented the slow response by
“the international community” (meaning the West). Indeed, their long
record when it comes to human rights is hardly encouraging.
In the mid-1960s, the US paved the way for General Haji Suharto
to take power in resource-laden Indonesia. Suharto ranks as one of the
most notorious mass murderers of the post-World War II period. Up to a
million people, mostly displaced Indonesian peasants, were killed by his
regime during purges against Communists and Nationalists.
Suharto
was praised to the hilt for years by Western leaders, newspapers,
liberal commentators, and so on. In 1967, US President Lyndon B. Johnson said he felt the Suharto regime “has great potential”.
Such
comments came after the bloodletting of 1965-1966, in which hundreds of
thousands of Indonesians were killed by Suharto’s death squads.
President
Johnson assured that Suharto’s Indonesia was “one of the few places in
the world that has moved in our direction”. The American leader praised
Suharto for displaying “resolute leadership”, thanking him for the
“solid achievements of your stabilisation efforts in the past year”.
Johnson
further guaranteed Suharto the “respect and support of free peoples”,
while promising continued American aid to his murderous regime. In
response, Suharto was grateful for Johnson’s “effective assistance” in
putting “our house in order”.
Johnson’s
Vice-President, Hubert Humphrey, visited Indonesia in early November
1967, and was also impressed by Suharto. Humphrey reported to the US
National Security Council that Suharto was “an honest, hard-working man
who benefited from his training at Fort Leavenworth [in Kansas]”.
The
US Vice-President noted that other “Indonesian military leaders are now
showing the great benefit of their military training in the United
States”.
According
to the US State Department, the genocidal dictator “proved to be a
leader of sound instincts and one truly dedicated to improving the
position of his people”. In 1969, US President Richard Nixon visited
Indonesia, leading to further “excellent” relations between the two
countries according to Henry Kissinger, National Security Adviser. The
purpose of Nixon’s Indonesian trip was “to thank us [the US] for the aid
we have provided”.
Kissinger
lauded Suharto and his government’s commitment to the “concept of Asian
responsibilities under the Nixon doctrine” – of “peace, stability and
economic development” in south-east Asia.
Long
gone were the pacifist doctrines of Suharto’s predecessor, Ahmed
Sukarno, who had sadly been implementing “politics of emotion and
policies of adventure”. Instead, Suharto brought “a pragmatic approach
to Indonesia’s problems”.
With
the American public’s attention almost entirely on Vietnam, the
astonishing genocide in Indonesia was overlooked. Instead, fantasies
were conjured by mainstream commentators to ensure no protests were
forthcoming.
For
over two decades, Suharto continually had the description “moderate”
pinned beside his name. Oxford English Dictionary describes the word
moderate as “(of a political position) not extreme, make or become less
extreme or intense” – while Collins English Dictionary outlines moderate
as “not extreme or excessive, a person who holds moderate views, esp.
in politics”.
For
someone with so much blood on his hands, it was clear denial of
genocide and a grotesque mutation of a word. The Washington-based media
company, US News & World Report, hailed Suharto’s vicious takeover
with the headline, “Hope Where There Once Was None”.
Philip Shenon of the New York Times absolved Suharto of any blame for the massacres, outlining that he “came to power in the midst of the bloodshed in the 1960s”. A clear reversal of the reality.
In the Wall Street Journal, Barry Wain described how
Suharto “moved boldly… in consolidating his power”, while using
“strength and finesse… by most standards, he has done well”. A Wall
Street Journal headline ensured its unsuspecting readers that Suharto
was, “A Figure of Stability”.
The
well-regarded Economist magazine, headquartered in London, explained
that Suharto was “at heart benign”, at least to multinational
exploitation. The famous New York-based weekly, Time, assured its
millions of readers the dictator’s arrival was “the West’s best news in
Asia”. The disgrace of the Free Press could hardly be more dramatic.
In
an era before alternative news, and with few dissenting voices, such
scandalous falsehoods were allowed to continue largely unchallenged.
The
Indonesian genocide continues to be glossed over, even decades later.
Upon Suharto’s death in January 2008, the Netherlands’ then foreign
minister Maxime Verhagen said: “Under
Suharto’s rule, Indonesia experienced a period of relative stability.
The economy grew strongly, notably in the 1980s. After he stepped down,
Indonesia democratically chose a new leader. That confirms that
Indonesia is a democratic country where the people have the last word”.
The Dutch were colonial masters of Indonesia from 1800 up to the end of World War II. The same 2008 report by
Reuters Staff commended Suharto for “allowing rapid development and
holding together the diverse nation”. Australia’s then Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd said the deceased autocrat was “an influential figure in
Australia’s region and beyond”.
Reacting to Suharto’s death, Marilyn Berger of the New York Times wrote under the sub-heading ‘Enigmatic and Magical’, that the mass murderer “spoke in gentle tones, smiled sweetly to friend and foe”.
While
acknowledging some of the atrocities, Berger added that “his rule was
not without accomplishment. He led Indonesia to stability and economic
growth… President Suharto restored order to the country”.
Suharto
never stood trial for his vast crimes, nor was he even charged, dying
of natural causes aged 86. After leaving power in 1998, he resided
lavishly in a mansion in the capital Jakarta, protected by soldiers and
politicians. His personal fortune was estimated to be at least $15
billion, much of it through embezzlement as he enriched his family and
close allies.
There
were no calls from democratic leaders to bring Suharto to justice.
Saddam Hussein’s crimes cannot even begin to compare with his Indonesian
counterpart. The Iraqi despot was “a moderating force” as long as he
was a useful ally to the West.
When
Hussein became an unwanted nuisance, the “brutal dictator” tag was
quietly applied to him. He was unceremoniously removed, caught, and
hanged. A similar story with Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi – once a trusted
ally of the West, but ousted and killed when he was no longer needed.
Gaddafi’s crimes are a mere footnote in comparison to Suharto.
A
few days ago the former Bosnian Serb leader, Ratko Mladic, was found
guilty by “an international tribunal” and sentenced to life in prison.
Mladic himself was never recorded relaying a direct order for genocide.
Unlike
the powerful Kissinger, for example. In 1969, Kissinger declared an
open call for genocide in Cambodia: “Anything that flies on anything
that moves”. He was relaying President Nixon’s call for a “massive”
bombing campaign against Cambodia, which killed up to a million people.
Had
Mladic been heard declaring something similar, the trial would have
been over in no time. Yet in Kissinger’s case, there was hardly a
murmur. Indeed, his advice has been sought by successive US presidents.
In 2016, the Obama administration awarded Kissinger the “Distinguished
Public Service Award”. Kissinger even received the Nobel Peace Prize in
1973, four years after his genocidal order on Cambodia, a defenceless
country.
In the mainstream, Kissinger is called
a “realist” foreign policy thinker to present times. Three years ago
Time magazine ran a story headed, “Henry Kissinger Reminds Us Why
Realism Matters”. It seems crimes are crimes when designated only to
official enemies.
An earlier version of this article was published The Duran in November 2017:
Comments
Post a Comment