Behind the Headlines Timerman is Not the Issue

Jacobo Timerman has rendered a great service to all concerned with the protection of human rights in Argentina and around the world. Robert Cox, former editor of the Buenos Aires Herald, claims that Timerman did what many had thought impossible, “he made the people of the United States care about Argentina.”

By stimulating widespread interest in human rights and making it an issue for political debate, Timerman has earned both lavish praise and scathing personal criticism. One prominent conservative questioned his stability and judgement and another challenged his honesty. Criticism of Timerman has resonated within the Jewish communities of the United States and Argentina, where it was suggested that Timerman was endangering the Jews of Argentina by exaggerating the gravity of the problem.

Subtly, the criticism focused public attention on the person of Timerman and diverted it from the real issues. Timerman is not the issue; he is a messenger who has dramatically brought to the attention of the world problems that should concern us all. Primary among them are the massive and consistent violations of human rights in Argentina and anti-Semitism, especially the special treatment meted out to Jews while under detention in Argentina.

PERSISTENT VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS

There is little room for debate on these issues and no reason to doubt Timerman’s first-hand report. Gross and persistent violations of human rights in Argentina during the past five years have been reported by our State Department and many respected international and national organizations. The most thorough document, a 266-page “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Argentina,” was published last year by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), an agency of the Organization of American States.

After exhaustive investigations, which included a two-week on-site visit to Argentina, the commision concluded that “numerous serious violations of human rights … were committed in the Republic of Argentina” from 1975 to 1979.

Its investigation of the disappearance of thousands of Argentines led to the finding that many men and women were killed after they were detained by “persons belonging to or connected with government security agencies” and that the “systematic use of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment … has taken on alarming characteristics.” The report also cited limitations on personal freedom and the right to a fair trial and due process.

JEWS RECEIVE MORE SEVERE TREATMENT

The IACHR report is dispassionate and technical. In the section on Jews it states that “Jews arrested by the authorities receive more severe treatment than do others” and that the DAIA, the Jewish community’s representative body, “has denounced that fact to the authorities.” Timerman and others who survived the ordeal describe the reality in fuller dimension.

One Jew who was at the receiving end of this “more severe treatment” described it: “When they asked me my religion and I told them that I was Jewish, they took out swastikas and hit me hard, very excited while insulting me for being Jewish.” He requested anonymity, to protect family members still living in Argentina. Non-Jews who were in the detention camps have also described the suffering of Jews. “The treatment of Jews was incredible,” says Ana Maria de Carreaga.”At times when they took us out to be beaten they selected the Jews, just because they were Jews.”

Nazism and anti-Semitism in Argentina prisons and manifestations of anti-Semitism in the larger society are well documented as are the massive violations of the human rights of Argentina citizens of every religious and ethnic orientation. Timerman, more than any other individual or organization, has forced us to acknowledge that these horrors exist.

REASONS FOR ATTACKS ON TIMERMAN

How then explain the attack on Timerman which began at the time he reached the pinnacle of public recognition and acclaim with the publication of his book, “Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number?” Jean Kirkpatrick, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, gave the answer to a reporter for the Washington Post. She said that the attacks occurred because “Timerman has linked his experience to recommendations about American foreign policy … Jacobo Timerman attacks me, and that is all right. So Irving Kristol attacks Jacobo Timerman … because we are involved in a debate on public policy …”

Timerman had, in fact, repeatedly challenged the Reagan Administration’s stress on quiet diplomacy and its distinction between “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” states. He also spoke very critically of key Administration personalities, such as Secretary of State Alexander Haig and Kirkpatrick, claiming that they were destroying the noble human rights policy of the United States that had saved so many lives, including his own.

A high level, issue-oriented and factually based debate on issues of public policy concerning human rights can be useful and is, indeed, necessary. The public interest is not served by resort to smear and innuendo.

COMMITMENT TO HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY

The Reagan Administration has publicly committed itself to a strong human rights policy. The recent testimony on human rights policy by a key State Department official could have been written by a representative of the Carter Administration. Walter Stoessel Jr., Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, told the House Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Organizations that the Administration’s commitment to human rights is an integral element of foreign policy.

“Under this Administration, the protection and enhancement of human rights … shapes the fundamental purposes and helps define the context of our international relationships. This commitment to human rights, like our entire foreign policy, is an expression of values deeply held by the American people themselves.”

The ill-fated nomination of Dr. Ernest Lefever sparked controversy over the nature and extent of America’s commitment to human rights. The Administration could quell this controversy by promptly filling the long vacant post of Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs with an individual who, with strong White House support, can persuade the citizens of the United States as well as the rulers of both “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” regimes that our foreign policy is and will be true to those values so deeply held by the American people.