Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Dear Common Dreams Readers:
Corporations and billionaires have their own media. Shouldn't we? When you “follow the money” that funds our independent journalism, it all leads back to this: people like you. Our supporters are what allows us to produce journalism in the public interest that is beholden only to people, our planet, and the common good. Please support our Mid-Year Campaign so that we always have a newsroom for the people that is funded by the people. Thank you for your support. --Jon Queally, managing editor

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams. (Photo: Jose Luis Magana / AP)

U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela Elliott Abrams. (Photo: Jose Luis Magana / AP)

Elliott Abrams’ Bloody Lies

The duplicity of Trump’s Venezuela envoy

Jefferson Morley

Elliott Abrams, President Trump’s special envoy to Venezuela, first became notorious in 1982 after he was named assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Reagan administration. As a junior point man for the Reagan administration’s wars in Central America, Abrams was an aggressive defender of pro-U.S. forces that committed human rights atrocities and fierce critics of those who reported accurately on their war crimes.

With Abrams set to testify this week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, his early days as a U.S. policymaker can serve as a guide to what we can expect from the Trump administration’s policy of “regime change” in Venezuela.

In an exchange that made national news at a House Foreign Affairs Committee last month, Rep. Ilhan Omar confronted Abrams about his conviction for lying to Congress and false statements he made about the infamous El Mozote massacre.

But the exchange only hinted at the scope of Abrams’ mendacious style. While in the Reagan administration, Abrams wove such particular lies into a tapestry of propaganda that prefigured Trumpism in its contempt for facts, gaslighting of critics, evasion of evidence, and tolerance of brutality.

Three Representative Lies

When Abrams began his career in the U.S. national security policymaking community in the early 1980s, Central America was convulsed by popular rebellions. Dictatorships in El Salvador and Guatemala had suppressed and exploited the poor majority for decades. By the late 1970s, these feudalistic governments, led by military officers and landholding elites, faced their most serious challenge ever.

In El Salvador, a once-conservative cleric Archbishop Oscar Romero gave voice to a popular rebellion that enjoyed support from the public and some factions in the military.

In Guatemala, the repression that began with the CIA coup in 1954 was driving most opponents of the government to sympathize with or join a growing guerilla movement in the countryside.

President Reagan, dedicated to “turning the tide” against communism worldwide, viewed anyone who did not pledge fealty to U.S. policy as a “communist,” “terrorist,” or “communist dupe.” As such, these forces were targets of violent suppression.

In El Salvador, the Reagan administration backed an ultra-right faction of the military led by intelligence officer Roberto d’Aubuisson who was trained at the CIA-run International Police Academy in Washington. D’Aubuisson masterminded the assassination of Monsignor Romero in March 1980 and commanded the death squads that liquidated civilians in favor of peaceful change.

In Guatemala, the ultra-right celebrated Reagan’s elections and stepped up its campaign of kidnapping opponents in the capital and massacring peasants in the countryside.

In the State Department’s annual country reports on human rights for which he was responsible, Abrams justified this bloody policy with creative cunning.

Gaslighting Critics

“The allocation of responsibility for specific crimes done by certain rightist elements or by the members of the security forces associated with them has been difficult,” the 1983 human rights report on El Salvador asserted.

This was a euphemistic allusion to a string of high-profile assassinations, including the murder of Monsignor Romero.

“Anybody who thinks you’re going to find a cable that says that Roberto d’Aubuisson murdered the archbishop is a fool,” Abrams said at the time.

In fact, there were at least two State Department cables from the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador which stated exactly that. One was sent to Washington in November 1980, a second in December 1981. The gunman worked as a bodyguard for d’Aubuisson.

(Years later, when d’Aubuisson’s role could no longer be denied, Abrams would demand the gunman’s extradition to the United States.)

Abrams’ willingness to impugn critics as “fools” for citing evidence to which he himself had access epitomized his brazen style.

False Equivalence

“Extremists of the right and left are guilty of politically motivated civilian deaths as are some members of the Armed Forces,” the 1983 State Department report on El Salvador stated.

This glib formulation suggested both that there was parity of political violence between left and right and that the armed forces were not part of the right.

The statement was pernicious nonsense. In 1993, the UN Truth Commission found that 85 percent of the deaths of civilian non-combatants were attributable to government forces. Only 5 percent could be attributed to the left.

In other words, the security forces armed and trained by the United States were 17 times more likely to be responsible for political murders than the anti-U.S. forces.

Abrams whitewashed this reality with the hoariest of Washington clichés: “extremists of the right and left.”

‘Horrible Realities’ as Progress

In February 1984, U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala Frederic Chapin sent a confidential cable to Washington reporting on what he called “the horrible human rights realities” in the country. Two recent kidnappings in broad daylight showed that government “security forces will strike whenever there is a target of importance.”

Abrams found a silver lining in the carnage. The State Department’s 1983 report on Guatemala declared, “Serious human rights problems continued... but there were improvements in some important areas.”

Abrams then signed off on a secret report to Congress citing the alleged improvement of human rights as justification for a resumption in U.S. security assistance to the Guatemalan government.

The government, Abrams claimed, “has taken a number of positive steps to restore a constitutional, electoral process and to address the practice of extra-legal detentions.”

In fact, a 1986 State Department study of Guatemala’s disappeared found “the practice of kidnappings became institutionalized…. [M]ost of the disappeared have in fact been kidnapped by the security forces…. To our knowledge, no member of the military, policy, security forces, or paramilitary groups has ever been prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced for participation in politically-related abductions.”

The study stated that “under the last three military governments the rate of reported kidnappings has increased [emphasis added], according to our statistics.”

In 1984, when Abrams made U.S. policy on the claim that the government was taking “positive steps” resulting in “important areas [of improvement],” more than three people were kidnapped, tortured, and killed in Guatemala every single day.

This is the man whom Trump apostate Max Boot described as “a leading advocate of human rights and democracy.”

What It Means

Abrams told Rep. Omar that U.S. policy in El Salvador was an “outstanding achievement” because it resulted in free elections. What he didn’t say was that the reign of terror in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s generated a stream of refugees to the United States that has never ceased.

Thanks to Reagan policy, El Salvador and Guatemala are now essentially failed states, examples of “sh*t hole” countries whose agonies or unfulfilled aspirations for democracy hold no interest for the president or his policymaking team.

This is the record to keep in mind as Abrams testifies about the “democratic transition” in Venezuela. If Venezuela’s future is anything like the “democratic transition” in Central America, the process will be enabled by lies and soaked in blood.

This article was produced by the Deep State, a project of the Independent Media Institute.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Jefferson Morley

Jefferson Morley

Jefferson Morley is a senior writing fellow and the editor and chief correspondent of the Deep State. He has been a reporter and editor in Washington, D.C., since 1980. He spent 15 years as an editor and reporter at the Washington Post. He was a staff writer at Arms Control Today and Washington editor of Salon. He is the editor and co-founder of JFK Facts, a blog about the assassination of JFK. His latest book is "The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster, James Jesus Angleton." Other books include: "Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA" (2008) and "Snow-Storm in August: The Struggle for American Freedom and Washington's Race Riot of 1835" (2013).

"I'm sure this will be all over the corporate media, right?"
That’s what one longtime Common Dreams reader said yesterday after the newsroom reported on new research showing how corporate price gouging surged to a nearly 70-year high in 2021. While major broadcasters, newspapers, and other outlets continue to carry water for their corporate advertisers when they report on issues like inflation, economic inequality, and the climate emergency, our independence empowers us to provide you stories and perspectives that powerful interests don’t want you to have. But this independence is only possible because of support from readers like you. You make the difference. If our support dries up, so will we. Our crucial Mid-Year Campaign is now underway and we are in emergency mode to make sure we raise the necessary funds so that every day we can bring you the stories that corporate, for-profit outlets ignore and neglect. Please, if you can, support Common Dreams today.

 

Pointing to 'Recently Obtained Evidence,' Jan. 6 Panel Calls Surprise Tuesday Hearing

The announcement came less than a week after the House panel delayed new hearings until next month, citing a "deluge" of fresh evidence.

Common Dreams staff ·


Looming US Supreme Court Climate Decision Could 'Doom' Hope for Livable Future

"The immediate issue is the limits of the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases," said one scientist. "The broader issue is the ability of federal agencies to regulate anything at all."

Jessica Corbett ·


Abortion Rights Groups Sue to Block Post-Roe Trigger Laws in Louisiana

"We will be fighting to restore access in Louisiana and other states for as long as we can," said one reproductive rights campaigner.

Jake Johnson ·


Progressives Launch 'Four More' Campaign to Demand Supreme Court Expansion

"In a true democracy, power rests with the people," one campaigner asserted. "And the only way to take our power back is to take back the court."

Brett Wilkins ·


Poll Shows Majority Oppose Supreme Court's Attack on Fundamental Rights

Fifty-six percent of respondents said they're now concerned the court will attack marriage equality and the right to obtain contraception.

Julia Conley ·

Common Dreams Logo