Cutting Through the Fabric of Lies: On El Mozote
Interview with Mark Danner on "The Massacre at El Mozote" by John Nichols
There are few treasures so deeply revered and yet so often mangled as the truth.
There are few treasures so deeply revered and yet so often mangled as the truth.
The American people say they
want nothing more from their leaders. But for the most part they receive
the opposite. That is the underlying theme of ''The Massacre at El Mozote''
(Vintage; 304 pages; $ 12), one of the most powerful pieces of reporting
to be published in recent years.
Based on articles that Mark
Danner wrote for the New Yorker last year, the book tells the story of
an incident that took place in the remote mountain hamlet of El Mozote
in El Salvador on Dec. 11, 1981.
That day, the elite Atlacatl
battalion of the Salvadoran Army - which had been extensively trained
and outfitted by the United States - slaughtered 700 innocent men, women
and children in what Danner explains ''may well have been the largest
massacre in modern Latin American history.'' The story was reported in
the New York Times and other publications at the time. But an elaborate
disinformation campaign carried out by the Salvadoran government and its
allies in the Reagan administration cast doubts on the reports.
Twelve years later, Danner,
a staff writer for the New Yorker, used government documents and interviews
with soldiers and suvivors, U.S. Embassy aides and others to piece together
the truth not only of the massacre, but of the lies and deceptions that
allowed U.S. aid to the Salvadoran military to continue.
Hailed
as brilliant investigative journalism, ''The Massacre at El Mozote'' was
also recognized by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. as ''a powerful indictment
of our national capacity to betray our own noblest ideals when we claim
the right to decide the destiny of other countries.''
New York Times columnist Anthony
Lewis said, ''The truth can no longer be in doubt.'' Danner, who will
read from his book at 7 p.m. Tuesday at Border's Books, spoke with The
Capital Times about lessons that can be learned from a sad chapter in
American foreign policy.
THE CAPITAL TIMES: How do you
characterize your book? Journalism or history?
MARK DANNER: I guess I try
not to make the distinction. I think of myself as a writer. I'm trying
to tell a story and so I think of it as a narrative.
I guess I think of my job in
pieces like this one as trying to tell the truth of what happened and
why it happened - so far as that's possible.
That's what I tried to do in
this piece. To take an event, a fairly little-known event, and to try
to show the reader what it was, as vividly as possible. And also to show
what the things were that led not only to this fairly enormous killing
but also to the denial of the killing that came later.
CT: Is it easier to find the truth
after 10 years?
MD: That's a good question. In
this case the answer must be yes, simply because the release of heretofore
classified documents from the Central Intelligence Agency, from the State
Department, and from other institutions of the U.S. government has made
it possible to reconstruct in a much fuller way what exactly happened
within the government as it tried to respond to the reports of this massacre.
A lot of those documents are
included in the book. A lot of the CIA documents that had been secret
for a long time I included in the book so that people could judge for
themselves. But, on the other hand, it does bear repeating that the story
itself - the story of the massacre - was told within a few weeks of the
event by Raymond Bonner of the New York Times, by Alma Guillermoprieto
of the Washington Post. Pictures were published by Susan Meiselas, working
at the time for the Times.
That's what strikes many people
as being so troubling. The story was actually told and then covered up.
It's a sobering story for someone who deals with words and writing. People
who write and who report believe that the most important thing in the
world is getting out the information, telling the story.
CT: And that once the story is
told good things will inevitably follow from it, that wrongs will be righted.
MD: One of the things that so fascinated
me about this story is that the truth to some degree was told, but it
was denied.
It's very obvious from this
story that in many cases it's not information that matters but politics.
Information can get out but that, in the end, it's a political fight that
must be waged.
There were a lot of activists
during the 1980s who were making noise about these issues, but they felt
like they were coming up against roadblocks. This obviously suggests that
governments have an ability to win the political - or should we say disinformation
- war. What's striking about the recent release of documents is the degree
to which all of the claims that were made at the time are confirmed. There
was knowledge of the killings high up in the military, the U.S. did seek
to cover up what happened.
You can name one after another
of these charges and they're confirmed. I guess it bears a little bit
on the answer to the last question: It's politics, not information. This
stuff was out there, people were reporting it, but the government kept
offering denials.
The idea that anybody took
really seriously the denials is ridiculous. But making the denials gave
the government a position that others had to disprove.
CT: That's what so many reporters
found so frustrating, wasn't it?
MD: Yes. The government kept raising
the bar of the standard of truth higher and higher.
The standards of evidence are
very much brought into play in the story I tell in ''The Massacre at El
Mozote.'' For instance, the two U.S. Embassy officers who went to the
site of the massacre to investigate it, and who interviewed a lot of the
witnesses, told me quite unequivocally that they believed that a massacre
had happened.
Yet, in the cable that was
sent back to the State Department, the junior embassy official who wrote
it concluded that they ''really couldn't support charges that a massacre
had happened.''
It was playing with words actually.
CT: Do you see the potential for
your book to teach some long-term lessons about American foreign policy?
MD: My intent in writing the article
was not simply to write a book about a massacre that happened 12 years
ago, however horrible it was, however historic in its magnitude.
My intent was to say something
about the role of the United States in the Cold War, and what the Cold
War did to Americans. To say something about how Americans should think
about their role in the world, and how Americans behave in the world.
I hope the reader will learn
from the book something that he or she can take along when looking at
what's going on now as America tries to define its place in the post-Cold
War world with respect to Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda. This is really
an attempt to speak in moral terms about foreign policy and responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment