In February, allegations surfaced that the U.S. embassy in La Paz, located in western Bolivia, has been asking Peace Corps volunteers and Fulbright scholars to provide intelligence information to the U.S. embassy about foreign nationals in Bolivia. “It flies in the face of what the Fulbright program is all about,” says John Alexander van Schaick, 23, a Fulbright scholar from… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (12)Page 1 of 1 pages““But the part that made my ears perk up was when he casually said, ‘Alex, if, when you are out in the field, should you encounter any Venezuelans or Cubans like field workers or doctors,’ that I should report to the U.S. embassy with their names and where they live,” van Schaick explains.”
This is unreasonable, as a *request*? Really?
“The affair’s legal gravity is indubitable. According to the Bolivian penal code, Cooper could be given up to 30 years in prison without the possibility of parole for espionage—Bolivia’s most severe sentence.”
This is unreasonable! To sentence someone to 30 years (!!!) for simply providing a foreign doctors name to an embassy? Does Bolivia consider such information to be a national security issue or what?
In general, gathering intelligence about other nations is to everyones benefit. The more we know (and the more they know) the better. This is like the most common form of “spying” - reading the open literature (newspapers, magazines, tv). To make it somehow nefarious boggles the mind.
Posted by wolf on Mar 12, 2008 at 9:41 AM Hats off to the young Fulbright Scholar from New Jersey’s state university for demonstrating that those honored by this distinction can be expected to stand up to such outlandishly inept turnings as that evidenced by the assistant regional security adviser seeking identification of comparable Cuban and Venezuelan deployments in Bolivia. It is a comfort to those of us grayed and bowed by aging that a 23-year-old possesses sufficiently informed skepticism to resist becoming another of those lionized by the United Fruit Company (today’s Chiquita) legacy. The resurgence of socialism in South America is less a threat to us than an example that we would do well to follow.
Posted by Bud Wizer on Mar 12, 2008 at 10:48 AM Excellent article and hats off indeed to the young Fulbright scholar who raised the alarm. I don’t agree at all with ‘Wolf’s’ ascertion that this is unreasonable. If Cuban or Venezuelan students were spying on US citizens, there would be an outcry, declarations of terrorism and George Bush would no doubt claim that this was proof of Chavez’s ‘evil’ socialism.
Posted by FranLast on Mar 13, 2008 at 4:07 PM FranLast seems to make the assertion that if a foreign national were to provide *open* and freely available information back to their country of origin, the US would charge them with terrorism (or there were be an “:outcry”, whatever that means). I wonder, are there any facts (or even anecdotal stories) to back up this odd assertion? Say a foreign national provided a US municipal phone book back to their embassy with a few names circled - would that really upset anyone? If so, why?
Usually “spying”, when used in a negative sense, involves the collection of some sort of sensitive, propriety or classified data, not the gathering of open information.
Posted by wolf on Mar 14, 2008 at 8:24 AM NACLA is involved in more ways than one in this story. Not only did Reed Lindsay break the story of U.S. democracy promotion activities in Bolivia in the NACLA Report - which lead the USAID to take down the web pages to which the article referred - but Alex van Schaick is a former NACLA intern. To learn more about NACLA, visit http://www.nacla.org.
Posted by cthornton on Mar 17, 2008 at 10:38 AM Wolf, it’s evident your mind is boggled. You have my sympathy.
Perhaps, once it becomes unboggled, you’ll understand that subverting students, healthcare workers, intellectuals, and other non-political people who are in a foreign country at the courtesy of that country’s government not only destroys any trust between the respective governments and destroys the subverted person’s reasonable expectation that his/her host government will view them as apolitical, non-threatening, and in a protective light, but it also places those subverted at risk of hostile action by those whom they’ve been told to spy upon. Risks they’ve neither been trained for nor volunteered to take.
The logical extension of such policies is exemplified by the Bush administration’s round-up and imprisonment of innocent Asians under the assumption that they must be hostile spies & saboteurs rather than just the innocent people they were.
If the issue is “reading the open literature” then the CIA shouldn’t need to subvert Fulbright scholars to do it.
Not everyone wants to be an American jihadi in the Bushevik’s endless “War On Terra”.
Posted by Marshalldoc on Mar 18, 2008 at 5:39 PM Marshalldoc - thanks for the sympathy, very thoughtful of you. Still, i wonder if you read the same article as i did. What actions were the students asked to do that you find objectionable, in particular? If we found that other nations did the same sorts of things with their students, would you be equally appalled (its not like they are being asked to fly planes into populated buildings, now that would be crazy!). And it is not like they even have to comply with the requests. If you are able, please explain what the problem is, from your pov. Perhaps you can provide more than mere sympathy, you might be able to provide a discussion of why you feel the way you do. . .
Posted by wolf on Mar 19, 2008 at 8:31 AM Wolf,
It’s evident you are still boggled.
Yes, we read the same article but you evidently failed to comprehend the arguments I made about why suborning espionage from those who are not government agents is wrong - i.e.; you are still boggled.
Please re-read my statement (reproduced again here):
Subverting students, healthcare workers, intellectuals, and other non-political people who are in a foreign country at the courtesy of that country’s government not only destroys any trust between the respective governments and destroys the subverted person’s reasonable expectation that his/her host government will view them as apolitical, non-threatening, and in a protective light, but it also places those subverted at risk of hostile action by those whom they’ve been told to spy upon. Risks they’ve neither been trained for nor volunteered to take.
The logical extension of such policies is exemplified by the Bush administration’s round-up and imprisonment of innocent Asians under the assumption that they must be hostile spies & saboteurs rather than just the innocent people they were.
If the issue is “reading the open literature” then the CIA shouldn’t need to subvert Fulbright scholars to do it.
Not everyone wants to be an American jihadi in the Bushevik’s endless “War On Terra”.
Posted by Marshalldoc on Mar 19, 2008 at 12:42 PM I completely agree with your statement Marshalldoc. It seems to me that Wolf has very little understanding of the history of espionage or the CIA. The current deceitful dealings of the Bush administration, whether in the Middle East or in Latin America would make anyone with any intelligence or knowledge of current US foreign policy, suspicious of being asked to take on subversive activities whilst being a guest in another country. Such actions would not only add to the global distaste for US imperialism, but help serve the current administration’s passion for torture, renditions, and illegal incarceration without due process.
Posted by FranLast on Mar 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM Hi FranLast, thanks for the support.
I’m afraid that some people (‘Wolf’ may just be an example), particularly those who’ve been in the forefront of our nation’s foreign & domestic policies (in all our administrations - probably since the colonies declared independence from Great Britain), frequently abandon the moral compass by which the ends are not always justified by the means.
This moral confusion (of which they actually accuse their critics in an unusually clear example of textbook psychology in action - see: Projective Identification) also allows them to rewrite history and dismiss inconvenient facts (again, another psychology textbook behavior - Denial). Further, when at a loss for cogent argument there’s a reflexive knee-jerk for some justification for otherwise intolerable behavior (not infrequently an oblique reference to the 9/11 atrocity) that usually is unrelated to the issue at hand but, nonetheless, is of such a compelling nature as to divert the discussion’s focus away from the indefensible initial issue (see: Gambling - The Shell Game).
Thus, the U.S. drove the Native Americans off their land (or killed them) to neutralize their “threat” to “innocent” settlers.
Fomented war with Mexico to obtain Texas, the southwest, & California on the basis of a trumped-up “invasion” of “U.S. territory” by Mexican troops.
Conquered the Philippines, Puerto Rico, & Cuba to “free” them from Spain but kept them as subjugated colonies because they were too “immature” to be independent and brutally suppressed “terrorist” independence movements.
Utilized the military to suppress labor movements, independence movements, and democratically elected (but unfortunately populist) governments throughout Latin America for 75 years on behalf of U.S. corporate interests (including failed attempts in Venezuela & Bolivia within the 21st century).
Overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953.
And, most recently, invaded an independent nation on conflated “evidence” as a cover to obtain and co-opt its natural resources.
Naturally, all these had/have “perfectly reasonable” explanations when those who support/supported such actions are queried because of those defense mechanisms I listed above.
Happily, more and more people are regaining their moral compass and do not need to have immoral activities such as suborning espionage from guests in a foreign country explained to them.
Posted by Marshalldoc on Mar 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM Marshalldoc - Good second post. Seems you are truly an American, if not understood just repeat louder. I am surprised you did not change your original post to all caps.
PS - “Further, when at a loss for cogent argument there’s a reflexive knee-jerk for some justification for otherwise intolerable behavior (not infrequently an oblique reference to the 9/11 atrocity) that usually is unrelated to the issue at hand”.
Such as:
“U.S. drove the Native Americans off their land (or killed them)”
or perhaps
“Fomented war with Mexico to obtain Texas”
or even
“Conquered the Philippines, Puerto Rico, & Cuba to “free” them”
etc.
If nothing else, you are a very funny person! I appreciate your attempt at exchanging “thoughts”. :)
Posted by wolf on Mar 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM In commenting, we offer a personal perspective, no? We do not do so with the ulterior motive of debating, yes? It appears that Wolf and Marshalldoc would have very different takes on Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States 1492-Present,” which is not to say Professor Zinn’s book is not to be taken seriously. It can be assumed that readers of ITT are sufficiently intelligent to have their personal perspectives digested as commentary without animus. Let’s keep it intellectual, shall we. It’s not who’s red, blue or purple that matters, it’s whether ITT’s content prompts comments worthy of consideration as thoughtful rumination. We’re the readers here, not the writers. I come to the table for nourishment, not regurgitation. Fulbright Scholars should not be agents of espionage when they undertake their unofficially diplomatic travels. They need not be “ugly Americans.” There’s more than enough of those to go around. I use this reference to denote a level of literacy and historical congnizance, not to argue the merits of my or others’ opinions. Anyone who posits that a Fulbright Scholar providing Embassy intelligence liaisons with desirable information is not “ugly” is someone with whom I chose not to debate the matter. Doing so would, I’m sure, prove as degrading as masochism.
Posted by Bud Wizer on Mar 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Jean Friedman-Rudovsky
- Recruiting Spies in the Peace Corps
Washington's blunder in Bolivia strains relations with the Morales government
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
