From East Timor to Guatemala: How Washington Looked Away

Since World War II, the United States has repeatedly supported governments that have been committing mass atrocities, which are defined by genocide scholar Scott Straus as “large-scale, systematic violence against civilian populations.”

This includes U.S. support for Israel, which has remained consistent despite President Donald Trump’s recent disagreement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over whether Palestinians are being starved in Gaza.

We are scholars of genocide and other mass atrocities, as well as international security. In our research for a forthcoming article in the Journal of Genocide Research, we analyzed official statements, declassified documents and media reports across four cases that involve U.S. support for governments as they were committing atrocities: Indonesia in East Timor from 1975 to 1999, Guatemala from 1981 to 1983, the Saudi-led coalition – known as the “Coalition” – in Yemen since 2015, and Israel in Gaza since October 2023.

We identified six rhetorical strategies, which are ways of talking about something, used by U.S. officials to publicly distance the U.S. from atrocities committed by those who receive its support.

This is significant because when Americans, as well as others around the world, accept such rhetoric at face value, the U.S. can maintain impunity for its role in global violence.

FEIGNED IGNORANCE

When U.S. officials deny any knowledge of atrocities perpetrated by parties receiving U.S. support, we call that feigned ignorance. For example, after the Coalition bombed a school bus in Yemen, killing dozens of children, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren asked Gen. Joseph Votel whether the U.S. Central Command tracks the purpose of the missions it is refueling. His response: “Senator, we do not.” This proclaimed ignorance stands in stark contrast with well-documented Coalition war crimes since 2015. As Yemen expert Scott Paul put it, “No one can feign surprise when lots of civilians are killed anymore.”

OBFUSCATION

When evidence of atrocities can no longer be ignored, obfuscation is used by U.S. officials, who muddle the facts. When Indonesian forces carried out massacres in 1983, killing hundreds of civilians, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta sent a telegram to the secretary of state and multiple U.S. embassies, consulates and missions questioning the reports because they had “not received substantiation from other sources.” Similarly, during the genocide in Guatemala, following Efraín Ríos Montt’s successful coup, U.S. officials skewed reports of violence perpetrated by the government, instead blaming the guerrillas. In its 1982 report on human rights in Guatemala, for example, the State Department claimed, “Where it has been possible to assign responsibility [for killings in Guatemala] it appears more likely that in the majority of cases the insurgents … have been guilty.” Reports of state atrocities and abuses in Guatemala can be found in U.S. intelligence documents from the 1960s onward. One 1992 CIA cable explicitly noted that “several villages have been burned to the ground” and that the “army can be expected to give no quarter to combatants and noncombatants alike.”

NEGATION

As evidence of atrocities and culpability grows, U.S. officials often shift to technical denials—acknowledging support but distancing it from direct involvement. During Indonesia’s 1991 Dili massacre in East Timor, where around 100 were killed, the George H.W. Bush administration claimed none of the Indonesian officers present had received U.S. training, despite the U.S. actively training Indonesia’s officer corps at the time.

DIVERSION

When public scrutiny of U.S. support grows too intense to ignore, officials often resort to diversion— highly publicized gestures that signal change but lack substance. These actions, often bait-and-switch tactics, aim to placate critics without altering the behavior of aid recipients. In 1996, the Clinton administration suspended small arms sales to Indonesia under activist pressure but still approved $470 million in advanced weapons, including F-16s. In May 2024, the Biden administration briefly paused bomb deliveries to Israel amid criticism, while broader arms transfers continued. Diversion also includes hollow investigations or support for selfinvestigations that predictably absolve allies of wrongdoing.

AGGRANDIZEMENT

When atrocities by U.S.- backed regimes become too visible, officials turn to aggrandizement—praising those leaders as responsible and worthy of support. In 1982, Reagan hailed Suharto, responsible for over 700,000 deaths, for his “responsible” leadership; Clinton officials called him “our kind of guy.” Reagan similarly praised Guatemala’s Ríos Montt as a man of “integrity,” blaming violence on guerrillas. In Israel’s case, the Biden administration described the country as facing an “existential battle.” Such aggrandizement elevates abusive leaders and frames their violence as justified or defensive.

DISTANCING AND MINIMIZING

U.S. officials have long used a variety of rhetorical strategies to distance the country from, and minimize its contributions to, atrocities committed by others with U.S. support. With these strategies in mind, Trump’s acknowledgment of “real starvation” in Gaza can be viewed as a diversion from unchanged U.S. support for Israel as famine conditions in Gaza worsen and Palestinians are killed while waiting for food. From feigning ignorance to minimizing violence and praising its perpetrators, U.S. governments and presidents have long used deceptive rhetoric to legitimize the violence of leaders and countries the U.S. supports. But there are two necessary elements that allow this framing to continue to work: One is the language of the U.S. government; the other is the credulity and apathy of the public.

THE CONVERSATION