WHINSEC: Keeping A Hundred Year Old Policy Of US Imperialism Going Strong!

For the past fifty years, the U.S. has been a formidable force in South America. Enshrouding our maneuvers within calming rhetoric of democracy and human rights, our true motives throughout the last half century have always been ensuring that capitalist, pro-American governments remain in power in Latin America. Democracy and the will of the people hold no sway. One continual facet of this policy of U.S. imperialism that has remained blatantly obvious has been the School of Americas, recently renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation. By providing free military training to anyone that appeals to the United States’ imperialistic policies, the pretense of instilling peaceful democracy and fair elections is simply dripping with hypocrisy.

The School of Americas was originally established in Panama in 1946, quickly becoming a military complex for training ‘counter-insurgency.’ (Nathan Perz, “Paved with Good Intentions”) It can only be assumed that the original intent in training these tactics was to fight Marxist guerillas that threatened some of the Latin American governments at this time. The last thing that the United States wanted to see was a flourishing communist system in the western hemisphere. Thus, by favoring military aid over humanitarian aid, the U.S. went straight to the source of the problems plaguing many Latin American countries. With a strong, well-taught and well-armed military presence, uprisings could be quickly quelled.

In 1984, the School of Americas was moved to the United States, to Fort Benning, Georgia (As an interesting side note, if Fort Benning seems familiar for some reason, it’s also the same military base that Timothy McVeigh received his boot camp training, and met up with Terry Nichols, fellow white supremacist). (Morris Dees, Gather Storm, pg. 151-152) Then in the early nineties, more than $30 million was spent revamping the military base: spent on new buildings and general renovations. (Nathan Perz) One such important addition to the base was the Hall of Liberators, an annex dedicated solely to propagandizing great men from America’s past.

Then in 1990, an organization called School of the Americas Watch was formed by Catholic priest Father Roy Bourgeois. SOA Watch was founded to educate the public and work toward the eventual closure of the military compound. The organization holds a yearly rally every year in Georgia.

It should probably be noted that I took place in the protest that was held just this past November. Thousands travel to the base gates in Georgia each year; People correctly guessed our destination at several gas stations on the way down. It was an interesting experience for a variety of reasons. The protestors themselves were an eclectic mixture of old and young, radical and conservative, religious and secular. There was an equal amount of environmentally-conscious shaggy youth as there were of elderly Quakers and Protestants. Large numbers of students from more liberal campuses were in attendance, but also there was a strong influx from Jesuit colleges and high schools from across the nation.

The general sentiment among the people who live in Columbus is a mixed one. On the one hand, being a military town, they depend on the base for jobs – it propping up the already frail economic conditions. But then again, it’s somewhat of a carnival atmosphere: as thousands of protestors come, the neighborhood surrounding the base explodes with food and drink stands – people sit out on their lawn chairs, watching the antics.

Every year, a certain amount of protestors ‘cross the line’ onto the base. In past years, there were so many who crossed the line that most were simply bussed out of town. But in 2000, a large gate was erected, causing only the most dedicated to continue to cross. Thus, with smaller amounts of people committing civil disobedience, nearly all are now convicted, sentenced to lengthy jail times, and fined several thousand dollars. Since its inception, SOA Watch has been committed to closing the School of Americas.

On January 17, 2001, the School of Americas was shut down. (“WHINSEC Fort Benning, Georgia”)

Coincidentally, that same day, another institution was created. This all-new program, named the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation, moved into Fort Benning. By some strange twist of fate many of the instructors and infrastructure from the School of Americas was carried over to this new program, WHINSEC for short (not to be confused with WHISC, which sounds like a cleaning agent).

While the School of Americas was focused on furthering the United States’ agenda during the Cold War, the new organization, WHINSEC, is dedicated to providing “professional education and training to eligible personnel … within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States.” (“WHINSEC Fort Benning, Georgia”) One new rule to combat similarities between the SOA and the new WHINSEC is a mandatory requirement that each student receive at least eight hours of instruction in ‘human rights’ training. Indeed, each course taught at WHINSEC has a certain amount of time set aside for ‘human rights’ instruction.

The professional education and training that graduates of WHINSEC receive varies somewhat in subject matter. Many of the most touted subjects are “leadership development, counter-drug operations, peace support operations, disaster relief.” (“WHINSEC Fort Benning, Georgia”) But according to our guide at the base, the most popular course continues to be small-unit tactics, which deals with military action in small squad-based maneuvers.

Under the new name, WHINSEC’s stated purpose is to train “within the context of democratic principles as put forward by the Charter of the Organization of American States.” (“WHINSEC Fort Benning, Georgia”) But what does this foggy objective mean in real terms? Many proponents of WHINSEC – wholly compromised of those intimately involved in the institution, such as commandant Richard Downie – state that its purpose is to instill democracy in Latin America, To aid the people of Latin America.

Thus by teaching small-unit tactics, the U.S. is helping Latin American countries become stable democracies. So goes the logic behind the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation.

What the proponents of this institution fail to bring up, is that not all graduates of the SOA/WHINSEC seem to be very enthralled with the idea of fairly elected democracies in their home countries. Nine Latin American governments – including Guatemala and Honduras – were overthrown by military coups between 1961 and 1966. Coincidently, SOA graduates were involved in all of these coups. Meanwhile in six other Latin American countries, ten different SOA graduates have become heads of state, through non-democratic means, since 1968. (Nathan Perz)

Now I’m by no means an expert on ‘democratic principles,’ But I don’t usually associate them very closely with bloody military coups. But, then again, maybe it’s just me. Indeed, although the title of ‘dictator’ doesn’t quite smack of democracy, that’s the exact title some lucky SOA/WHINSEC graduates have assumed, most notably Manual Noriega. Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet surrounded himself with SOA/WHINSEC graduates, perhaps to give himself that warm, fuzzy feeling that several hours of human rights courses will instill in a person. And while death squads might be a faux pas in the U.S., they are just another aspect of ‘Latin Democracy,’ as evidenced by Roberto D’Aubuisson, a leader of several such squads in El Salvador. Also a proud, democracy-loving SOA/WHINSEC graduate. (“U.S. Protesters Call for Closing School of Americas”)

But those are only the more famous alumni of the SOA/WHINSEC. There are many more who, in the name of a more just, democratic country, went on massive killing, raping and pillaging sprees.

Yes, it sounds somewhat disheartening at first. But then people like Niclas Dahlvang put it all into perspective. Dahlvang, a law student at Gonzaga, shows us that the number of SOA/WHINSEC graduates who have been caught committing human rights abuses is only a small amount of the over 60,000 graduates of the aforementioned institution. Less then 1 percent even, largely within “humanity’s margin of error.” (Niclas Dahlvang, “Stigma of Violence Unfair for Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation Graduates”)

According to Dahlvang, the opponents of the SOA/WHINSEC – a riff-raff consortium of “anarchists, anti-Americans, pacifists, and ‘social justice’ protesters” – are simply attacking the SOA/WHINSEC to achieve their ultimate goal: vilifying America. Those bastards – Err, us bastards. (Niclas Dahlvang)

So Dhlvang reasons that since less than 1 percent of graduates continue on to create gross atrocities, it must not be the school’s fault. The reasoning behind this oft-stated argument is somewhat flawed though, unfortunately enough for my good friend Niclas Dahlvang. One of the stated objectives of training Latin American troops at the SOA/WHINSEC is so they can then go back to their home countries, and teach everything they’ve learned to their fellow comrades: human rights, democratic principles, and counter-drug trafficking. So why doesn’t it stand that some of the shadier graduates could go back and share their newly-realized ‘counter-insurgency’ tactics? When only a handful of SOA/WHINSEC graduates are to be found in your everyday death squad, who exactly trained the other members of the group in small-squad tactics? And, as an afterthought, I wonder what would happen if 1% of graduates from Gonzaga went on to create roving death squads – I wonder if it would still just be a coincidence. I have no idea, maybe 1% is a practical amount, of any population, to go on and commit gross atrocities.

But even with the somewhat questionable democratic principles that graduates might take back with them to Latin America, they are learning some important lessons, such as correct techniques in fighting the ‘War on Drugs.’ We train massive amounts of paramilitary troops in anti-drug trafficking techniques. We supply tons of poisons for the Latin American governments to spray on suspected coco fields. We provide tons of other aid, namely in the form of money and weaponry.

Yet certain drug cartels continue to prosper. Massive amounts of illegal drugs continue to find their way into the United States. While the Latin American governments, notably Columbia, spray certain coco fields (and villages), other fields seem to go unattended. Money from drug cartels continues to pour into government coffers. (Anthony Faiola, “U.S. Allies in Drug War in Disgrace”) And millions of dollars of the very aid we’re supplying is diverted into mysterious accounts. (“Columbia Anti-drugs Chief Hit by Scandal”) What exactly is the value of teaching soldiers who will then go back to use their new anti-drug trafficking techniques sparingly? Very little in my mind.

Another area that WHINSEC is determined to praise frequently is the new human rights requirements. Every student taught at the compound is required to take a certain amount of human rights training. Indeed, they have an entire block of classes dedicated solely to human rights.

Of course, one has to question how many countries send military personnel to the human rights courses. And the majority of all other courses only carry the minimum of human rights training – including, according to our guide at the base, the most popular course: small-unit tactics. It is debatable whether several hours of instruction is adequate to teach anything.

So, consider this for a moment: if the democratic principles that the SOA/WHINSEC harps upon is falling on deaf ears, if the anti-drug trafficking techniques might not be used uniformly, if the human rights training is really just a farce, what is the exact purpose of the military institution? If we assume that the stated purpose of the school is encompassed within these three broad categories, and these lessons aren’t being taught or used effectively, how useful is the school? And if the school is indeed not effective in teaching these topics, who wishes the base to remain open?

Maybe we should look at who is so impassioned about the topic, on both sides of the issue. For closing the school, you have your Father Roy Bourgeois and his organization SOA Watch, outraged at the human rights violations, presumably the murder of six nuns, which occurred in 1989, a year before SOA Watch was formed. (Nathan Perz) You have many religious and faith-based organizations, also airing their grievances on massacres, rapes and pillaging. Then you have, as Niclas Dahlvang so eloquently put it, your “anarchists, anti-Americans, pacifists, and ‘social justice’ protesters.” (Niclas Dahlvang) They are, naturally, just along for the ride to vilify America. I’m included in this group, I suppose.

The proponents of the school seem to be a much more uniform group. They are almost wholly military men. Against an aspect of the large military industrial-complex in America. This does not seem very surprising. But it is hard to find a proponent of the base that has not spent some time in the military.

So even if, as I propose, the base does not in fact achieve any of its stated goals, there are still reasons for some in the government to wish it remain open. When the School of Americas closed, they were able to say that its mission was over – communism a vanquished foe. And it is not as if the base did sincerely close, with the opening of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation at the same instant. The name change was simply an attempt to brush off some of the baggage that was associated with the old School of Americas, while still providing the same fundamental services. But by closing the institution now, the military would be conceding some guilt or wrongdoing. At the very least, they would be admitting that it was a failed policy that wasn’t netting the results they wanted. At the more extreme end, they would be acknowledging accountability of some of the worst human rights violations and atrocities of the 20th century in Latin America.

Thus, you have a military base that trains troops for governments in Latin America. Oftentimes these very governments are vicious military dictatorships, propped up simultaneously by the U.S. and various drug cartels. We supposedly teach these troops democratic principles, anti-drug trafficking and counter-insurgency techniques, and then ship them back. School officials state that there is no feasible way to track them after they’ve been sent home. Thus the school is relieved of any responsibility for its students. This seems grossly irresponsible of the institution. It’s akin to selling handguns without background checks or not tracking repeat child offenders. The military base takes in troops, gives them advanced military training, lets them loose, then turns a blind eye. I don’t believe this is the best solution by far.

The only thing that the school is effective in is ensuring that pro-American governments remain in power in the Latin American countries. And no, this does not ensure democracy in any way, shape or form. The SOA/WHINSEC graduates who’ve attained power through military coups prove this fact. The U.S. has had no qualms supporting military dictatorships, as long as they’ve been capitalists. Consider the fact that more than a third of the crude oil imported into the U.S. each year comes from Mexico and numerous South American countries. That we import three times as much oil from Venezuela as we do from Iraq. (“Imports of Crude Oil into the United States”) Then the true reason for U.S. dominance in Latin America becomes abundantly clear. It seems like the general welfare of the people in Latin America doesn’t even enter into consideration.

The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Co-operation is just another example of U.S. imperialism in Latin America – we are protecting our interests, with no real regard for the general populace. Under the cloak of ‘democratic principles’ we’re training the militaries that provide us with pro-American, capitalist governments. Saying that it’s an institution for ‘democratic principles,’ human rights training, and an integral part in the war on drugs is one of the more asinine statements I’ve heard recently.