ITEM: DECEMBER 4, 1980. SANTIAGO NON- ualco, El Salvador. Four U.S. churchwomen are ab- ducted from their Toyota van, raped and murdered by a group of Salvadorean National Guardsmen. What was the response of the Reagan Administration, which came to of- fice the following month? First, on the issue of culpabil- ity, U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick: “I think it’s meaningful to ask: Do you think the government [of El Salvador] was responsible or brought about the murders? The answer is unequivocal. No, I don’t think the govern- ment was responsible.” In case the point was too subtle, we had this from Secretary of State Alexander Haig: “Some of the investigations would lead one to believe that perhaps the vehicle the nuns were riding in may have tried to run a roadblock . and there may have been an ex- change of gunfire.” And what of the character of the U.S. citizens who died? Kirkpatrick again: “The nuns were not just nuns. The nuns were also political activists. We ought to be a lit- tle more clear about this than we actually are . . . They were political activists on behalf of the Frente.” Then there is the question of bringing the guilty to jus- tice. In the case of the churchwomen, we witnessed a tor- tuous four-year battle to bring a prosecution. The Admin- istration eventually complied only because Congress made it impossible for it to duck the issue. Even then, convic- tions had to wait until Reagan had vetoed legislation mak- ing U.S. military assistance to El Salvador conditional on bringing the killers to trial. Item: June 20, 1985. Zona Rosa, San Salvador. Four U.S. Marines are shot and killed at a sidewalk restaurant by members of El Salvador’s Central American Revolu- tionary Workers Party (PRTC). What was the Administra- tion’s response this time on the question of responsibility? “We have learned that the Nicaraguan government is sup- porting the persons participating in these terrorist ac- tions.” That was from a diplomatic note sent to Managua on July 17. The hyperbole from House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel was even worse. He declared that, “The trigger was pulled by the Sandinista leadership in Managua.” And what of the character of the Americans who died in the Zona Rosa? President Reagan, in his funeral oration, said, “When a serviceman dies, we feel a special an- guish. . . . And we’re never good enough to them . .. No one can treat such men and women as they deserve, be- cause what they give us is beyond our powers to repay. . . . And if we reach, or when we reach, Heaven’s scenes, we truly will find it guarded by United States Marines.” And what awaited those responsible for the attack? Reagan again: “We and the Salvadorean leaders will move any mountain and ford any river to find the jackals and bring them and their colleagues in terror to justice.” The message of retribution was clear. On the grounds of the PRTC’s supposed connection with Managua, the Na- tional Security Council seriously considered the option of punitive airstrikes on Nicaraguan targets. MIDST THE DIN OF DEMOCRATS AUDITION- ing for parts in the Congressional production of Rambo, it was refreshing to see Rep. Peter Kostmayer of Pennsylvania savage the Administration’s hypocrisy on the four nuns and the four marines—doubly satisfying be- cause Kostmayer’s adversary was the contemptible Elliot Abrams, Reagan’s new Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs. The exchange came on PBS’ MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour–on the evening of July 19, appropriately enough, sixth anniversary of the Sandinista victory. We were lucky enough on the same day to pick up an advance copy of the new Americas Watch report on human rights in Nicaragua, entitled Reagan, Rhetoric and Reality. One particularly striking section contrasts the Ad- ministration’s inflammatory treatment of the refugee issue with some sober new facts. At a fundraising luncheon for Sen. Jeremiah Denton in Birmingham, Alabama, on June 6, Reagan declared with passion that, “As the refugees come flooding out of Nicaragua, it becomes harder and harder not to hear their cries of anguish, not to see the suf- fering of their shattered lives.” But the problem for Reagan is that the refugees have not been flooding out of Nicaragua. The Americas Watch re- port has uncovered congressional testimony from the U.S. Bureau of the Census on June 27, which shows that, “On balance, since the Sandinistas came to power, despite the military conflict and the hardships resulting from it- deaths, forced relocations, economic shortages and an unpopular draft-Nicaragua has absorbed more former refugees than it has created new ones.” The complete text of this admirable report is available from Americas Watch, 36 West 44th Street, New York, NY 10036. ON AUGUST 2, WE CAME ACROSS WHAT some members of the intelligence community color- fully call a “Grandmother-on-the-roof” story. The reasons for the name are too arcane to explore here, but the phrase has something in common with glimpsing the tip of the iceberg, or perhaps waiting for the other shoe to drop. CIA lore has it that when the attentive agent spots a small story and knows there is a lot more to come, he will allegedly mutter, “Ah-hah, grandmother is on the roof.” We spotted grandmother on the roof in a brief UPI wire story about Peru. It concerned a State Department deci- sion to invoke the obscure Brooke-Alexander Amendment against the new government of Alan Garcia. Under this amendment, which is rarely invoked, any country that falls more than a year behind on debts to the U.S. govern- ment may find U.S. aid suspended. This may be a techni- cality, but in the case of Peru it looks more like a first warning shot across the bows. We recommend readers to watch for further signs that grandmother is on the roof in Peru. Report on the Americas will be keeping a careful eye on developments, and publishing a special issue on conditions in Peru early in 1986.
Menu
