|
WSWS : Obituary
Jeane Kirkpatrick: from social democrat to champion
of death squads
By Bill Van Auken
12 December 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Jeane Kirkpatrick, the acerbic right-wing former US ambassador
to the United Nations, died December 7 at the age of 80.
Having begun her politically conscious life as a self-described
socialist, Kirkpatrick ended up an advocate and apologist for
military dictators, right-wing death squads and CIA-backed terrorists.
She gained national prominence as both UN ambassador and a
prominent foreign policy advisor and spokesperson for the Republican
administration of Ronald Reagan, on whose National Security Council
she served as the only woman and the only Democratic Party member.
Her deliberately cultivated image at the UN was that of an
American chauvinist bully, unashamedly threatening smaller nations
with the cutoff of American aid and even military aggression if
they failed to toe Washingtons line. She was equally unabashed
about defending the crimes of Americas anticommunist allies,
from the mass killings and torture carried out by Latin American
military regimes, to Israels 1982 invasion of Lebanon and
the South African apartheid regimes use of force against
both neighboring African states as well as its own oppressed black
majority.
Kirkpatricks entree into the inner circle of the Reagan
administration came as a result of her scathing criticism of the
Democratic administration of President Jimmy Carter, whose election
she had supported in 1976.
Then a political science professor at Georgetown University
and member of the American Enterprise Institute, the right-wing
think tank from which some 50 members of the incoming Reagan administration
were drawn, Kirkpatrick blamed the Carter administrations
rather tepid advocacy of human rightsa foreign policy ploy
aimed at forestalling revolutionfor the 1979 overthrow of
the US-backed Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua and that of the
Shah in Iran.
In an essay written that year for the neoconservative magazine
Commentary entitled Dictatorships and double standards,
she denounced Carter for failing to prop up Somoza and the Shah,
both of whom were responsible for massacring thousands in their
efforts to remain in power:
The rise of violent opposition in Iran and Nicaragua
set in motion a succession of events which bore a suggestive resemblance
to one another and a suggestive similarity to our behavior in
China before the fall of Chiang Kai-shek, in Cuba before the triumph
of Castro, in certain crucial periods of the Vietnam War, and
more recently in Angola. In each of these periods, the American
effort to impose liberalization and democratization on a government
confronted with violent internal opposition not only failed, but
actually assisted the coming to power of new regimes in which
ordinary people enjoy fewer freedoms and less personal security
than under the previous autocracyregimes, moreover, hostile
to American interests and policies.
The policy implications of Kirkpatricks thesis were unmistakable.
Washington should seek to keep in power right-wing dictatorships,
so long as they suppressed the threat of revolution and supported
American interests and policies. Moreover, the limits
placed by the Carter administration on relations with regimes
that had carried out wholesale political killings and torture,
as in Chile and Argentina, for example, should be cast aside.
Reagan and his advisors were reportedly impressed with this
line of argument and recruited Kirkpatricks support in the
1980 election. She subsequently became part of the incoming administrations
foreign policy advisory team, where she developed the argument
that the US was confronting a domino effect in Central
America that threatened it with being surrounded by Soviet
bases on our southeastern and southern flanks.
Once the administration took office, Kirkpatrick became a leading
advocate and architect of a policy of intervention in Central
America that embraced robust US backing for dictatorships that
massacred hundreds of thousands in an attempt to suppress revolutionary
movements in El Salvador and Guatemala as well as an illegal CIA-funded
war of terror against the Sandinista government of Nicaragua.
Likewise, she backed the 1983 US invasion of Grenada, the bombing
of Libya and the multimillion-dollar support for Islamist guerrillasOsama
bin Laden among thembattling the Soviet-backed regime in
Afghanistan.
This policy became more generally known as the Reagan
doctrine, which represented a shift from the containment
policy adopted by the Truman administration toward the roll-back
strategy advocated within right-wing Republican circles since
the 1950s. A National Security Directive issue in 1983 declared
that Washington would contain and over time reverse Soviet
expansionism, and that it would back Third World states
that are willing to resist Soviet pressures or oppose Soviet initiatives
hostile to the United States.
This explosive development of American militarism represented
a conscious attempt by the most ruthless sections of the US ruling
establishment to reverse the defeat suffered in Vietnam and reassert
imperialist interests in the oppressed countries through naked
force. It coincided, however, with the economic decline of American
capitalism, with the US being turned for the first time into a
debtor nation, rather than the worlds principal creditor,
in 1985.
Kirkpatrick participated in the discussions that gave rise
to the so-called Iran-contra scandal, a covert operation that
funneled millions of dollars in aidin defiance of a Congressional
resolution barring such fundingto the CIA-trained mercenary
army attacking Nicaragua.
Though she left the administration before Congressional investigations
led to resignations and criminal indictments against leading officials,
she was clearly implicated as well.
In its obituary on the former UN ambassador, the New York
Times cited her statement in favor of the covert funding,
We should make the maximum effort to find the money.
During the same meeting, the Times noted, Secretary
of State George Shultz commented that the contra-funding scheme
constituted an impeachable offense, while Reagan himself
warned that if news of their decisions leaked to the press, well
all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the White House.
This exchange is itself a measure of how much further to the
right the government has moved in the intervening two decades,
with the Bush administration openly launching illegal wars and
flouting laws passed by Congress.
Falling out over the Malvinas War
The limits of Kirkpatricks influence within the administrationas
well as of her own geopolitical conceptionsmade themselves
clear during the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina over the
Malvinas (Falkland) Islands.
Based on her close relationship with the military dictatorship
in Buenos Aires, Kirkpatrick attempted to shift Washingtons
policy in favor of Argentina, maintaining that the country had
a right to claim sovereignty over the islands.
Both Secretary of State Alexander Haig and Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger, however, opposed her views and demanded that
Washington stand with the government of Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher, a position more consistent with the global drive to
reassert the unfettered domination of imperialism in the oppressed
countries. US aid, including arms and satellite intelligence,
proved crucial to the subsequent British victory.
Haig, whose position prevailed, subsequently commented that
Kirkpatrick was mentally and emotionally incapable of thinking
clearly on this issue because of her close links with the Latins.
Having completed her four-year term as ambassador to the UN,
Kirkpatrick was proposed for both secretary of state and National
Security Advisor, but was rejected for both posts and left the
administration. She formally changed her party affiliation to
Republican in 1985 and was briefly touted as a possible presidential
candidate for the 1988 election. She remained over the course
of the past 20 years a propagandist for the Republican right.
Kirkpatricks political development followed a path worn
by a generation of intellectuals who, while initially attracted
to the ideals of socialism, had no genuine association with the
working class or confidence in its revolutionary capacities and
bowed before the anticommunist onslaught of the American political
establishment.
In 2002, Kirkpatrick explained her own early attraction to
socialism while participating in a forum with other former members
of the Young Peoples Socialist League (YPSL) and the Social
Democrats USA, including figures ranging from Sandra Feldman,
president of the American Federation of Teachers to Marshall Wittman,
the former spokesman for the Christian Coalition.
She recounted that her introduction to the ideas of socialism
came from her grandfather in Oklahoma: My grandfather explained
socialism to me as a very small child as a system that was more
fair than other systems, and more fair than the system we had
in Oklahoma at that time. I hadnt the slightest notion what
system we had in Oklahoma, I might say. But my grandfather did,
and I was prepared to take his word for it. The distribution of
everything, he said, was more fair. It sounded good to me.
She explained that years later, as a college student in Missouri
in the mid-1940s, she joined the YPSL and, as a graduate student,
studied under the German social democratic émigré
and member of the Frankfurt School, Franz Neumann.
Kirkpatrick said that her own subsequent evolution away from
socialism was grounded on the conviction that it is impossible
to change human nature, the most commonplace bourgeois
cliché utilized to justify everything from sweatshop exploitation
to wars of aggression.
Nonetheless, she adds, I was an active Democrat.
She continued: At the same time I was studying German social
democracy, I formed the view that the New Deal and its various
forms, the Fair Deal and Hubert Humphreys style of democratic
politics, was of the same sort of species as German social democracy.
I still believe that, somewhat.
Prominent among the figures within this layer of right-wing
American social democrats was Max Shachtman, who was to have an
influence on Kirkpatrick and others who became identified with
the neo-conservative movement.
A founder of the American Trotskyist movement, Shachtman broke
with Trotsky in 1940. Under the pressure of public opinion generated
by approaching war and in particular the Stalin-Hitler pact, he
and a petty-bourgeois layer within the movement, then the Socialist
Workers Party, rejected the defense of the Soviet Union against
imperialism and developed the position that a new form of exploitative
class society had arisen in the USSR.
From an opponent of Stalinism from the leftfrom the standpoint
of socialist internationalismShachtman became an opponent
from the rightfrom the standpoint of US imperialisma
position that he consummated 10 years later with his public support
for US imperialisms war against Korea. Over the course of
the next two decades, Shachtman moved steadily to the right, adopting
positions of extreme anti-communism and acting as an advisor to
the AFL-CIO labor bureaucracy. Meanwhile, he dissolved his organizationas
well his politicsinto the right-wing remnants of social
democracy, ultimately ending up in the Social Democrats USA, with
which Kirkpatrick was herself once affiliated.
This organization and its supporters were oriented toward a
bitter factional struggle within the Democratic Party that was
directed against the influence of the movement against the Vietnam
War, expressed in the 1972 presidential candidacy of George McGovern.
Kirkpatrick participatedtogether with a number of ex-Shachtmanitesin
the Committee for a Democratic Majority (CDM), a right-wing coalition
founded by Democratic Senator Henry Scoop Jackson
of Washington, who was a leading Democratic advocate of an aggressive
US military buildup against the Soviet Union.
The AFL-CIO bureaucracy was also an active supporter of this
organization. Included on the CDMs board of directors was
American Federation of Teachers President Albert Shanker, who
was also a vice president of the AFL-CIO, along with several other
national union leaders.
The ideological affinity between the likes of Kirkpatrick and
the union bureaucracy was to find concrete expression in the bureaucracys
collaboration with the Reagan administrations bloody repression
in Central America through the American Institute for Free Labor
Development (AIFLD), a CIA labor front.
Moreover, the virulent anti-communism that the AFL-CIO hierarchy
shared with Kirkpatrick made it a willing accomplice in the drive
by the Reagan administration to suppress the militancy of the
American working class and begin a vast transfer of wealth upward
to the corporate and financial elite. This was inaugurated in
the 1981 government breaking of the air traffic controllers
strikeunopposed by the bureaucracyand a subsequent
wave of union busting that swept the country, decimating the ranks
of the unions and driving down the wages and conditions of American
workers.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |