Former Top-Secret U.S. Government Document Fueling Left-Wing Attacks and Misinformation on Brazilian Efforts against Communist Terror in the 1970s
By
Julio
Severo
O
Globo, one of the most prominent — in a usually left-wing prominence —
Brazilian newspapers, said last week:
“A
memo by former CIA director William Egan Colby on April 11, 1974, and addressed
to then US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger suggests how former President
[Brazilian] Ernesto Geisel learned about and authorized the execution of
hundreds of political opponents during the military dictatorship in Brazil.”
Folha
de S. Paulo, another Brazilian newspaper with a usually left-wing prominence,
said,
“A 1974 secret document released by
the United States Department of State states that former President Ernesto
Geisel (1974-1979) approved the continuation of a policy of ‘summary
executions’ of opponents of the military dictatorship.”
All
the Brazilian left is feasting on the declassified information made available
on the U.S. State Department website.
 |
| Brazilian President Ernesto Geisel |
So
what is the problem of the Brazilian military regime executing the most
dangerous subversives and terrorists?
All
of these terrorists were communists. They were not engaged in innocent
political activities. They were engaged in killings, bank-robbing and many
other violent crimes. Above all, they were killing to establish in Brazil a
communist dictatorship.
There
is a massive difference. While communist regimes around the world — including
in the Soviet Union, China and Cuba — were randomly killing anyone pacifically
opposing their dictatorship, the Brazilian military was not randomly killing
people not involved in terrorist activities.
What
did the State Department document say?
“[CIA director William] Colby
reported that [Brazilian] President [Ernesto] Geisel planned to continue
[former Brazilian President] Médici’s policy of using extra legal means against
subversives but would limit executions to the most dangerous subversives and
terrorists.”
This
was top secret. Why is it now freely available for left-wingers to trash an
unpleasant, but necessary event?
There
is no problem in limiting executions to the most dangerous subversives and
terrorists. If they had not been executed, these dangerous subversives and
terrorists would overthrow the Brazilian government and not limit any of their
executions: they would execute everyone and anyone, including the most innocent
citizens.
The
violence of these terrorists was not sparing even Americans in Brazil:
* “In October 1968 the VPR [Vanguarda
Popular Revolucionária, a Marxist group] raised the stakes when they
assassinated U.S. Army Captain Charles
[Rodney] Chandler as he stepped outside his house in São Paulo. Chandler
was taking university courses (at the highly conservative Mackenzie University)
as part of his training to teach Portuguese at West Point.” (Thomas E.
Skidmore, The Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964-1985 [Oxford University
Press, 1990], page 87.)
* Charles Burke Elbrick, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, was kidnapped and
held for four days in September 1969.
So there is no point in defending the
most dangerous subversives and terrorists, as the Brazilian press is doing. To
treat the most dangerous subversives and terrorists as mere political opponents
is to trample on the blood of their victims. As the old saying goes, he who
saves the wolves sacrifices the sheep.
What
else did the State Department say?
“The [State] Department informed the
[U.S.] Embassy [in Brazil] that, given the rapid economic development of Brazil
and congressional hostility to indefinitely continuing assistance programs,
bilateral assistance (with the exception of narcotics and family-planning assistance) would be phased out.”
Why was the U.S. government so intent
on not phasing out its “family-planning assistance” to Brazil?
Mentioned prominently in the
declassified document is Henry Kissinger, then State secretary, who was very
worried about the Brazilian affairs. Kissinger
was also, with the CIA, responsible for the NSSM 200 (National Security Study
Memorandum 200). It is also
called the Kissinger Report, and it was drafted during the Republican
administration of Richard Nixon.
NSSM
200’s subject was “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S.
Security and Overseas Interests” and treats the growth of the Brazilian
population as a threat to the U.S. access to the Brazilian natural resources.
NSSM 200 identifies Brazil as one of
the primary targets of the U.S. population control policies, which included the
integration of the health care services for family planning and indoctrination.
A
major victory of NSSM 200 was to integrate family planning in health care
services. Before NSSM 200, family planning (which is a euphemism for population
control) was not health care and was not integrated in health care services.
Its integration was a population control victory of the Nixon administration, a
Republican administration obsessed to reduce the world population and that, not
surprisingly, saw abortion being legalized under the Republican noses.
Other
powerful measures implemented directly from the NSSM 200 were indoctrination
that the ideal family size was 2 children and that women should be “encouraged”
or even pushed to work outside home, exactly to make it hard for them to have
babies.
While
the Brazilian government was working to execute the most dangerous subversives
and terrorists — a necessary measure that would not displease any decent man
and woman —, the U.S. government was working to “execute” new Brazilian
generations through stealth population control intended to reserve Brazilian
natural resources not to the next generation of Brazilians, but to the next
generation of Americans.
Meanwhile,
the same Brazilian left-wing media that has been careful not to call communists
actively engaged in violence and terrorist attacks as dangerous communist
subversives and terrorists has been equally careful not to expose and attack
population-control efforts from the U.S. government.
“Crimmins
informed the [State] Department that the Brazil-FRG [Federal Republic of
Germany] agreement on nuclear cooperation reflected Brazil’s desire for major
power status. The Ambassador concluded that if Brazil became a nuclear power,
it would strain its ties to the United States.”
If
Brazil wants a peaceful co-existence with the United States, it cannot achieve
a major power status. I know this because in 2008 U.S. prophet Chuck Pierce
prophetically said to me and a group of Brazilian Christian leaders that if
Brazil supported Israel, God would raise Brazil as a power and the result would
be jealously and opposition from the United States. You can read my full report here.
Currently, as a nation that does not respect Israel, Brazil does not deserve to
become a power.
The
State Department document said,
“The [U.S.] Embassy commented on the
election of Geisel as President, noting that the return to representative
government promised by the Médici regime had not taken place.”
I support, in the U.S. context,
representative government for the US, because its institutions are strong. But
in the Brazilian context of the 1970s, when the Brazilian institutions were
seriously under threat from subversive and armed actions from communists funded
by foreign communist dictatorships, a representative, peaceful and democratic
government to fight armed communist violence and guerrilla would be national
suicide. Communists themselves were demanding “representative government,” as
if they wanted democracy. In the Brazilian context, representative government would
be a springboard for communist chaos and revolution.
Even
so, the U.S. government was worried about a lack of such representative
government, even though it has never pressured in any way its great ally, the
Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia, to have a democratic government.
*
“[U.S. Ambassador to Brazil] Crimmins
discussed the prospects for political liberalization in Brazil. He concluded it
would be a continuing source of difficulty for the Geisel administration.”
* “Crimmins suggested possible topics
for Kissinger’s prospective trip to Brazil. Specifically, the Ambassador
requested that the Secretary raise with Geisel political liberalization, in
particular human rights abuses.”
* “Crimmins maintained that it was
unlikely that direct U.S. Government assistance programs could be used to
mitigate human rights abuses, but that regional assistance efforts could be
effective.”
* “Ambassador Crimmins reported on
steps taken by the Embassy to impress upon Brazilian officials the U.S.
Government’s concern regarding human rights abuses.”
* “The Department instructed the
Embassy to deliver a démarche to [Brazilian] Foreign Minister Silveira to
inform him of congressional concern over human rights abuses.”
* “In telegram 45319 to all
diplomatic posts, February 25, the Department requested information and
analysis regarding human rights abuses in countries receiving U.S. economic
development or military assistance.”
* “The Embassy recommended that an
invitation for the head of the Brazilian Army Intelligence Center to visit the
United States be deferred in light of concerns over human rights and Operation
Condor.”
What is striking in this
communication under a Republican, conservative administration is that the whole
document of the State Department contains no expression of worry about human right
abuses committed by communist terrorists against Brazilian citizens. There is
no such worry by Henry Kissinger, the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, the CIA and
the State Department.
How
could the Brazilian military government deal democratically with communist terrorists,
who were already committing all kinds of violence, without “abuses” on their
human rights?
While the Brazilian military
government was dealing with communists — who with Muslims are par excellence
human-right abusers —, the U.S. government was taking the Brazilian government
to task for human-right abuses against communists. Had the State Department doubts
that communists sought to establish in Brazil a human-right abuse dictatorship
against the Brazilian population?
I
want to make it very clear that, as an evangelical, between the anti-Israel
Brazilian military government and the pro-Israel U.S. government, I would
prefer the U.S. government. But between revolutionary communists intent on
overthrowing the Brazilian government and the Brazilian military government,
what were the innocent Brazilian citizens to choose?
I
can understand today the Obama administration worried about human right abuses
of the Brazilian military government in the 1970s, but I cannot understand how
the same Republican, conservative administration of Nixon that tolerated all
kinds of terrible human right abuses in Saudi Arabia complaining about the
Brazilian military government not respecting the human rights of communist
terrorists.
The
Republican Party and its Nixon administration were not kind and fair to Brazil
in the 1970s. I am not defending everything done by the military government
under General Ernesto Geisel, the Lutheran president. In fact, the was the
first Protestant president of Brazil.
“In
telegram 43532 to all diplomatic posts, February 26, the Department informed
posts in countries receiving U.S. security assistance that ‘human rights
factors must, under existing Department of State policy, be carefully
considered in planning and carrying out our Security Assistance Programs.’
(Ibid., D750069–0367) Crimmins raised the cases of Kucinski and Wright in a
meeting with Araujo Castro on April 25. (Telegram 7073 from Brasília, August
14; ibid., D750281–0294).”
Probably, Crimmins meant Paulo Stuart
Wright, born in Brazil to U.S. missionaries. Wright was a Brazilian politician
actively engaged in socialist activities. The Brazilian military government
made him “disappear.” His brother was Jaime Nelson Wright, a Presbyterian
minister actively engaged in socialist propaganda, especially in the Social
Gospel (known in Brazil as Theology of Integral Mission). Even though he was
not involved in armed violence, his propaganda supported communists involved in
such violence.
As
a conservative evangelical, I do not support Wright’s left-wing political
militancy and equally I do not support what the Brazilian military government
did to him. Even though armed violence is fought with armed answer, bad
propagandas are fought with better propagandas — especially the Gospel, which
is enough to counter atheistic or “Christian” socialism. If Wright was involved
only in socialist propaganda, not in armed violence, the government should have
found another way to deal with him. Jaime Wright, who became a human right advocate
for Brazilian socialists, was fundamental in pressuring the U.S. government to
make the Brazilian government accountable for the disappearance of his brother.
He was successful in such pressure only because his parents were Americans.
Both Wrights could have avoided much
personal suffering if, instead getting busy with socialist activism, they had
got busy only with the mission of preaching the Gospel, healing the sick and
expelling demons in the name of Jesus.
But,
again, if the U.S. government could tolerate Saudi Arabia, a champion of human
right abuses, why not tolerate the lesser abuses in Brazil?
In
the U.S. context, with many evangelical churches influencing the U.S.
government, it was possible to fight communism with democracy. But in the Brazilian
context, it was impossible to fight communism with democracy.
I
understand the Democratic Party and its socialist administrations of Carter,
Clinton and Obama not being kind and fair to the Brazilian fight against
communist terrorists. But why were the Republican Party and its Nixon
administration equally unfair?
Why
were the Republican Party and its Nixon administration worried about the human
right abuses of communist subversives and terrorists in Brazil?
Now,
the Brazilian left is using the complaints of the Nixon administration, as made
available in the State Department website, as a confirmation that the Brazilian
military government committed human right abuses against communists.
This
is by far one of the greatest disservices of the U.S. government to the
anticommunist fight in Brazil. The other great disservice was the U.S.
population control campaign, launched by a Republican administration, to target
the Brazilian population for reduction and indoctrination.
I
confess that I was myself a victim of this indoctrination, being taught that
birth control and family planning are a human right — just as NSSM 200 teaches.
But after contact with Mary Pride (especially her excellent book, “The Way
Home,” published by Crossway Books in 1985) and Dr. Paul Marx, the founder of
Human Life International, I understood that my pro-birth control mindset was a
result of the population control indoctrination initiated long ago in Brazil by
a U.S. Republican administration and its NSSM 200.
My
first contact with Paul Marx was through Last Days Ministries in 1986. I had
already contact with Last Days Ministries, of Keith Green, before, being much
blessed by its evangelistic, devotional, inspirational and pro-life literature.
By reading its pro-life literature, I became fully pro-life and I asked its
help to report an illegal abortion clinic in Brazil. Because Last Days
Ministries had no office in Brazil, they gave me the contact of Paul Marx,
whose Human Life International had Catholic contacts in Brazil. Even though ultimately
these contacts could not help me close the abortion clinic in São Paulo, my
mother and I were able to do it.
By
revelation of the Holy Spirit, we were divinely warned not to report to the
local police, which was in some way connected with the clinic. A police station
of another region was contacted.
I
thank God that there are Americans fighting hard to educate people around the
world about the evils that the U.S. government, under Republican and Democratic
administrations, do against other nations through its stealth population
control efforts.
Portuguese
version of this article: Documento do governo dos EUA que era extremamente
secreto vem alimentando ataques e desinformação da esquerda sobre esforços
brasileiros contra o terrorismo comunista na década de 1970
Recommended Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment