Why Didn't You Bring Pinochet?

T o honor the second anniversary of the occupation of Iraq, the Daily Princetonian on March 3, 2005 ran a David Horowitz column warning against Princeton University’s appearance as “a redoubt of antiAmerican radicalism” and “a promoter of sympathies for our terrorist enemies.” 

In its October 5 edition, the university’s wealthiest student publication, the Tory, cried out against pro-liberal “selective tolerance” among undergraduates, echoing their regular monthly objections to the vast anticonservative” bias in Princeton’s intellectual posture in the country. Increasingly, these conservative critics say, “radicals” like Edward Said and Ralph Nader are evoked as the truly exemplary Princetonians while Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and other right-wing products of Princeton’s neocon factory are dismissed as (in Perle’s words) “exceptions.”  

Sadly, “radicalism” and Edward Said could not be further from reality. By briefly reviewing the latest “guest lists”—especially its Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs—we learn some alarming things about academic integrity in one of the U.S.’s most influential colleges.  

To begin, there was the March 2004 presentation of the prestigious Crystal Tiger Award to former Secretary of State Colin Powell for his “transformative impact” on millions of lives. Powell was presented the award “on behalf of the entire undergraduate student body,” a decision unknown at the time to the entire undergraduate student body (with the exception of a few students on the award committee). Nevertheless, we were reminded by a committee official, “Princeton University’s motto is: ‘In the nation’s service and in the service of all nations.’ I cannot think of an individual who embodies this ideal more than you [Powell]. Thank you for setting a course of lifelong service that we can only hope to emulate.” 

The “course of lifelong service” worthy of emulation included, presumably, his promotion of the occupation of Iraq with the following known results (at the time): an occupied, destroyed country with over 15,000 dead Iraqis, over 500 dead Americans, over 50,000 injured or maimed, countless refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP), a near-civil war state of chaos and instability, a scorn of global public opinion and the UN, and an assurance that the oil of the region will go to corporate interests. 

Princeton University President Shirley Tilghman—a “liberal” figure in U.S. academia—took the opportunity to add how “delighted” Princetonians are “that Secretary Powell has agreed to honor…indeed, all Princetonians who have served with distinction in the diplomatic corps.” Tilghman’s praise would probably have been questioned, for instance, by the thousands of Panamanians who have spent ten years petitioning for compensation for death or injury to themselves or family members as a result of the U.S.’s deadly invasion of Panama in 1989, which General Powell, then chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, planned and advocated. It could also have been questioned by the victims of Powell’s first attacks on Iraq, which set a precedent in illegally targeting biological and chemical agents plants (a precedent that was condemned by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations). It might have been questioned by the surviving parents of the 500,000 children killed by U.S. sanctions in Iraq, a policy Powell energetically and vocally championed. At Princeton, however, rather than challenging him on any of these issues, Powell was thanked for his efforts to “provide us with a richer humanity and inspire us to pursue it.” Thunderous applause greeted Powell’s sermon, as the four-star general told a packed Richardson Auditorium that, “…democracy and ending of a regional conflict doesn’t mean anything to people if they got no more food on their table, they’re still dying from disease, still don’t have access to clean water, healthcare, a better life for their children. If we don’t do that, then people will lose faith in all the wonderful things I talked about.”

Those in attendance with the most credentials were without a doubt two keynote speakers, Giora Eiland and Anthony Zinni. Israeli Defense Forces superstar Giora Eiland earned his rightful place in a report to the UN Commission of Inquiry on “Grave Breaches and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.” Namely, he was condemned by the Commission for a plethora of war crimes and terrorist acts committed by the IDF under his leadership. Throughout his career Eiland advocated the use of F-16 fighter jets to bomb Palestinian targets, civilian and otherwise. He also championed regular IDF use of U.S. military helicopters to kill dozens of civilians. From September 2000 to May 2001, under Eiland’s leadership, the IDF killed over 450 Palestinians, more than half of whom were later confirmed as civilians. Eiland also supported the construction of the Israeli wall against the ruling of the International Criminal Court (ICJ, July 2004). 

The anniversary included a playful “mock National Security Council meeting” with an impressive array of corporate executives (including RAND Corporation senior analyst Steven Simon) and prominent U.S. militarists (including Colonel Robert Gordon III). They spent the hour role-playing an NSC meeting hypothetically dealing with an imminent nuclear disaster. Princeton’s Dean Slaughter made sure that issues worthy of discussion about the actual disasters in the real world were left outside, as were most students. A speech by “one of our most distinguished alumni,” as Slaughter called Petraeus, followed. In front of former Defense Department elites and several senators, he delivered a sophisticated block of propaganda about the occupation of Iraq and beyond. Petraeus’s years of war management from Bosnia to Haiti recently reached a peak with his central role in destroying Fallujah and driving out 250,000 people. Dean Slaughter made sure that only selected members of the audience directed questions to the general, none of which dealt with his fresh military accomplishment. She found it appropriate, nevertheless, to crack a joke about how amazing it was that Petraeus responded so quickly to her email during the battle of Fallujah. Petraeus returned the compliment by calling Slaughter “the jewel of the crown” of Princeton University and thanking her for her close ties to Washington. 

The pinnacle of the imperialist festivities came with Condoleezza Rice. “I cannot imagine a better person to launch our 75th anniversary celebrations,” said Slaughter, explaining that Rice “exemplifies those values” of Princetonians “serving the nation and the world.” Her values had been explicit since her involvement in the first Bush administration, the root of her allegiance to the Reaganite clique (Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell). At that time she was promoting George I’s friendship with Saddam Hussein, as well as the invasions of Iraq and Panama. Her values were also made clear when she assisted the execution of an illegal coup in Haiti and the abduction of the popularly elected president, JeanBertrand Aristide. In March 2004, as she was persistently refusing to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission, she threatened that Jamaica would face consequences if it did not expel Aristide from the western hemisphere. A year later, Rice traveled to Pakistan and India to promote sales of F-16 fighter jets to both countries, a gesture of endorsement for the existence of nuclear weapons in the two states. Soon thereafter, she dismissed Amnesty International reports calling for an end to U.S. torture practices and upheld her government’s violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture. She also served “the nation and the world” in her consistent diplomatic support for Israel, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other repressive regimes that compete with North Korea for the most brutal record of suppressing dissidents and democratic movements. 

Finally, Rice’s values crystallized most in her advocacy of the occupation of Iraq. As is now well-understood (even in Princeton), lying for the sake of loyalty has become a job prerequisite for Rice. Highlights of her deceit include: 

• backing Bush’s State of the Union speech claim that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger 
• connecting Hussein’s regime to the 9/11 atrocities 
• connecting Hussein’s regime to Al Qaeda 
• denying that she had knowledge of the possibility of a terrorist attack on the U.S. prior to 9/11 
• rejecting the proven claim that the White House knew of the U.S. intelligence community’s uncertainty and skepticism about Iraq WMD claims 
• guaranteeing the existence of Iraq’s WMD program, as well as Hussein’s intent to abuse it 

    In all of the reviewed cases, not a single speaker represented the majority of world opinion on issues of recent U.S. wars. In all of the reviewed cases, there was not a single independent analyst, academic, journalist, historian, or activist included. In all of the reviewed cases, the speeches and speakers were left largely unchallenged and unquestioned by students and faculty alike. 

Some complaints did surface. For instance, on the second day of the “Rethinking the War on Terror” colloquium, around a dozen students gathered to protest in front of the Woodrow Wilson School. The group’s signs included: “The university should be preventing war, not supporting it”; “You put three war criminals in a room, what do you get? A Princeton conference”; and “Why didn’t you bring Pinochet?” The students were quickly herded to the other side of the street for being “disruptive,” i.e., strolling silently around the WWS building, holding signs, and denoting “No War” with duct tape letters on their clothing. Their offense, Princeton’s Public Safety officer explained, was being on private property without permission. After much criticism for their failure to get required university authorization for a demonstration, the protest was ignored by all Princeton publications.  

After the fact, the Rice-Chertoff-Petraeus propaganda blitz was also challenged. Although Dean Slaughter could not “imagine a better person” than Rice to grace the campus, some Princetonians could. Over 100 undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty members signed a public letter that “question[ed] the university’s motives in inviting Rice” and condemned the “institutional endorsement of a position that is elsewhere being questioned for its disregard of international codes of conduct, treaties and laws.” Slaughter and Tilghman responsed without addressing the substance of the letter, the Daily Princetonian dismissed it for failing to see the “great value in inviting the people who run our country,” and the Tory suggested that the letter’s authors (“liberals”) should quit whining and focus on getting elected for a change.  

Sadly, other major U.S. academic institutions are increasingly refusing to allow independent voices to be heard, preferring instead to support government spokespeople who use universities like speaker phones. If students do not stand up to this, the so-called “military-industrial-academic complex” will become painfully real.