Instead of posting yet another depressing article about the woes of the world, I found a more uplifting story this week. In the Andean highlands of Peru, women have found a new way to join as a collective and have a voice: Football. Organized by one indigenous Peruvian woman, the post-match meetings have become political and women are especially concerned with the impacts of climate change on their livlihoods. For a short summary or to watch a web-cast go to

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2011/08/201181762344708494.html

It is really hard to attempt to do these readings without a Eurocentric/ Western frame of mind. History, as we learn it, happens in epochs. People are primitive, and then they become civilized. Rights are written and then they are enforced. Doing the readings this week made me realize yet again how different history must look from another’s eyes. In Guatemala, history never seemed to change that much. The Spanish ranchers were replaced with powerful families who acted basically the same way as the encomenderos did, inflicting pair and their own law unto the indigenous people. The Spanish army that came to the aid of the encomenderos was replaced by a similarly brutal and ruthless Guatemalan army. One of the tragedies of this story is the fact that so many Mayans could not even accept the choice of not affiliating with one side or the other. They were forced to choose or to flee, forced to choose between physical death or social death. As we can see with the plight of many Latin American immigrants to the USA, often social death is similar to physical death except slower and more drawn out.

The author himself deploys a very fluid and dynamic sense of history, maybe to emphasize the interconnectedness of the indigenous history of that time to the shared history from the last few centuries. Also his use of different narratives, while sometimes confusing, creates a more “realistic” picture than a linear history would have told. It reminds me of a book I read in my Latin American history class, the name of which I don’t remember, but the author had made the attempt to write a book from an “indigenous” perspective, defying a western literary tradition and ending up with a book that again was confusing but somehow created a completely different atmosphere. It is also interesting to read through the story how the indigenous people in the Ixil triangle in the Guatemalan highlands conducted themselves. People often mistakenly group together indigenous people “as one” without looking at ethnic or classist divides. This very much influenced their commitment to the EPG, for example, or their resistance to joining or collaborating with the military. Either was one looks at it, the massacring of 30,000 people within such a short time span in my opinion can only be seen as a genocide. The US involvement then brings about a tough ethical dilemma. While they were not the ones actively fighting the guerrillas, they were funding the military that, without the money and knowhow, may have had a different, less brutal outcome. Subsequently when talking about human rights I think it is fair to say that the USA was indicated in violating human rights in Guatemala and measures ideally should be taken to ensure that it does not have those abilities in the future.

From reading Perera’s work on the Ixil triangle and Nebaj, one can see the profound intersectionality of land issues, race and religion being at the forefront of the ideological polarization in the region, which ultimately defined Guatemala in the global context as a cold-war proxy.   So while there are indeed realities and suspicions about the extent that the hands of American evangelicals, Latin American liberation theologists, the USA, and the USSR/Latin American satellite nations played in the decades of civil war, Perera’s reading makes it clear that the blood ran much deeper than ideological fervor.

Let’s look at land issues.  In the Maya Quiché areas of the Western Highlands, there had been some periods of rivalry and facionalism between groups pre-conquest, but post conquest land issues became increasingly racialized. Encomenderos and hacendados increasingly appropriated lands and with their economic manipulations were able to indebt locals to working to pay off debts. Instantly, the economic reality of the post-conquest colonialism fostered a climate of Ladino ownership and indigneous indentured, indebbted, and enslaved labour, instead of an ethnic or territorial dispute between groups.   In other words, classism became entrenched into the colonial and Guatemalan nation state.  In the civil war era of the 20th Century, land issues became a catalyst in the bloodshed between roaming guerrillas and the Guatemalan military.  With so much displacement, many Camps were set up by International organizations like….the UN!  Here’s the LAST 301 segway…

International organizations such as the UN, religious groups, and NGOs are mobilized as the “soft power” of the American Empire (look today to Haiti, Columbia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Cambodia, etc).  In the cold War Central American context, a World superpower like America had been propping up the Guatemalan miltary state, with all its genocidal and human Rights-abusing baggage, and mobilized not only USAID, but many others to come fight the rhetorical fight against widespread poverty deemed inherently characteristic of a place like Guatemala.  But the reality is so clear…Latin America is so rich and bountiful in resources, and its only the methods of ownership that has entrenched certain groups and nations into a colonial and neocolonial history of dependance and violence.   This is where human rights become tragically compromised: many International do-gooders and organizations with humanitarian intentions end up working under human rights abusers and with capital earned through economic practices that involve the tremendous exploitation of entire nations and labour forces, often at the direct expense of the autonomy and sovereignty of those same people they so badly have good intentions of ‘helping’.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/world/americas/peru-sterilizations/index.html

A few weeks ago I posted a news article about the  forced sterilizations that occurred in the mid-90s under the Fujimori government in Peru (and then wrote my research paper on it). This CNN news article reports that further investigation has been conducted regarding forced sterilization, that included tying the fallopian tubes of unwitting women, and has found that over 2000 cases of forced sterilization have been confirmed, although this number is very likely much higher, in the hundred of thousands. This campaign was aimed largely at indigenous women as a way to curb Peru's expanding population.

What is particularly troubling about this article is that the health minister in charge at the time these sterilizations were taking place continues to deny that any state supported sterilizations occurred. Regardless of the countless testimonies of women who experienced forced sterilizations, and the doctors and nurses who were coerced by the government, through a quota system, to perform these procedures, the minister and many other government officials that were in charge continue to deny any governmental involvement.

While a modicum of justice is being served, for example the article states that one women was awarded (only!) $2,500 for having her tubes tied against her will, the doctor who performed the operation received no jail time. Devastatingly, most of the women who did experience forced sterilization will unlikely ever be compensated for the harm done to their bodies, against their will.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/17/world/americas/peru-sterilizations/index.html

A few weeks ago I posted a news article about the  forced sterilizations that occurred in the mid-90s under the Fujimori government in Peru (and then wrote my research paper on it). This CNN news article reports that further investigation has been conducted regarding forced sterilization, that included tying the fallopian tubes of unwitting women, and has found that over 2000 cases of forced sterilization have been confirmed, although this number is very likely much higher, in the hundred of thousands. This campaign was aimed largely at indigenous women as a way to curb Peru's expanding population.

What is particularly troubling about this article is that the health minister in charge at the time these sterilizations were taking place continues to deny that any state supported sterilizations occurred. Regardless of the countless testimonies of women who experienced forced sterilizations, and the doctors and nurses who were coerced by the government, through a quota system, to perform these procedures, the minister and many other government officials that were in charge continue to deny any governmental involvement.

While a modicum of justice is being served, for example the article states that one women was awarded (only!) $2,500 for having her tubes tied against her will, the doctor who performed the operation received no jail time. Devastatingly, most of the women who did experience forced sterilization will unlikely ever be compensated for the harm done to their bodies, against their will.

This week's readings delineates the genocide or civil war (depending from what side one chooses to examine it) in Guatemala, largely between the military and the indigenous Mayans in the Ixil triangle region (I'm calling them Mayans for simplicity's sake even though they are technically only of Mayan descent). The two main forces at play appeared to be the Guatemalan military, that seemed to act as its own sovereign body, without really submitting to governmental rule, and the Guerilla Army of the Poor (EGP)--the rest of the Mayan population was caught in the middle, or between a rock and a hard place. The reason I say this is because no matter what side a Mayan person chose to support, the costs of supporting that side far outweighed the benefits, and neither side promised safety. If, for example, a Mayan "chose" (or more accurately, was forced) to be on the side of the military and join the so-called "Civil Defense Patrol" that person was ordered to give up, torture and even kill their neighbours and people they knew. On the other hand, if a person decided to join the EGP, this meant putting the lives of everyone you knew (not to mention your own) in danger, as the military killed anyone and everyone (children!) who could be connected to a subversive or delinquent terrorist. Both of these "choices" meant death, whether you were the killer or the killed. The only other option for most Mayans was to flee;  to flee their homes that had been passed down from generation to generation and leave the only community they had ever known, as a desperate and risky attempt to escape ending up another statistic of the heinous war. This was however an option many decided to take. As Mayor Sanchez said, at the height of the terror in 1981, only 40-45 people remained in Cortzal, a village with a typically permanent population in the hundreds. This genocide, that killed or displaced roughly a third of the Mayan population in the Ixil triangle, was an atrocity it seems that few people escaped unscathed. While it is obvious to place blame on the military for conducting such a blatantly racial campaign against the poor indigenous Guatemalans, it is also important to consider the role the EGP had in, fuelling the flames, so to speak. As the author points out, the EGP, "must bear responsibility for jeopardizing the lives of thousands of native Guatemalans, who believed their impossible promises of a swift victory over their oppressors, and re-dress of their centuries-old grievances." The EGP should hold some accountability for endangering the lives of thousands of its own people (regardless of their reason for rebellion). The military's massive, vastly over-exaggerated and unnecessary use of force however, for me, appears to be the culprit most responsible for the murder of 30,000 people. 


What surprised me while reading this (somewhat jumbled and confused) narration of events was the number of times "human rights" and human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were mentioned. As this was occurring in the 70s-80s, human rights were really coming into their own and garnering global recognition as an intangible 'something' that required universal protection and promotion. Therefore, the presence of a considerable number of human rights advisors and helpers in Guatemala while this genocide was occurring should not be too surprising. What is surprising is that, even though human rights organizations, whose sole purpose for existence is to protect humans from the worst kinds of abuses (e.g. murder), had people on the ground, witnessing the terror that was occurring, and yet this apparently did little to deter the military's vendetta against the Ixil triangle. As Father Tomas remarks to the author, after being asked if he had reported any of the atrocities to the Human Rights Attorney, "If I make direct denunciations, I will be endangering my parishioners, as well as myself....Guatemala City and the Human Rights Attorney might as well be on another planet." From this quote, I think it is fair to surmise that Father Tomas, and undoubtedly most of the other people living through the genocide, lost all (if they had any to begin with) faith in the ability of "human rights" to legally and physically protect them from the determined campaign of the military. This then begs the question, what use ARE human rights. It's all well and good to sit around and talk about them in the Western industrialized world, but when human rights organizations are active in a country that is experiencing the worst kinds of atrocities and are powerless to enact any change or deter aggression, I'm beginning to see their uselessness (although the optimist in me is not completely and wholeheartedly convinced). 


The final thought I had with regards to this week's readings has to do with the American CIA involvement, surprise surprise. The last half of the third section of readings discusses the CIA's rather blatant financial involvement in supporting the military against the "communist" (really guys?) guerilla army. The author goes as far as to state that the CIA funded and directed the counterinsurgency against the guerillas for 35 years (pg. 364).  I think I speak for everyone when I say, what the heck America. Why. Why were you involved. Contrary to this (and previous blogs), I am not anti-American, half my family is American. I do believe however that America has just a dark and corrupt political history as many other nations and that shouldn't be ignored or down-played simply because it is *in whispered tones* "the US." While countries like Russia and China are still carrying around the negative reputation for once having corrupt and malicious dictators, America seems to largely still be venerated as the greatest and most just nation in the world. While America does have some remarkable qualities as a prosperous and successful nation, more attention should be focused on some of the more negative and despicable choices America has made in the past (dare I say so history does not repeat itself?) 

This week's readings delineates the genocide or civil war (depending from what side one chooses to examine it) in Guatemala, largely between the military and the indigenous Mayans in the Ixil triangle region (I'm calling them Mayans for simplicity's sake even though they are technically only of Mayan descent). The two main forces at play appeared to be the Guatemalan military, that seemed to act as its own sovereign body, without really submitting to governmental rule, and the Guerilla Army of the Poor (EGP)--the rest of the Mayan population was caught in the middle, or between a rock and a hard place. The reason I say this is because no matter what side a Mayan person chose to support, the costs of supporting that side far outweighed the benefits, and neither side promised safety. If, for example, a Mayan "chose" (or more accurately, was forced) to be on the side of the military and join the so-called "Civil Defense Patrol" that person was ordered to give up, torture and even kill their neighbours and people they knew. On the other hand, if a person decided to join the EGP, this meant putting the lives of everyone you knew (not to mention your own) in danger, as the military killed anyone and everyone (children!) who could be connected to a subversive or delinquent terrorist. Both of these "choices" meant death, whether you were the killer or the killed. The only other option for most Mayans was to flee;  to flee their homes that had been passed down from generation to generation and leave the only community they had ever known, as a desperate and risky attempt to escape ending up another statistic of the heinous war. This was however an option many decided to take. As Mayor Sanchez said, at the height of the terror in 1981, only 40-45 people remained in Cortzal, a village with a typically permanent population in the hundreds. This genocide, that killed or displaced roughly a third of the Mayan population in the Ixil triangle, was an atrocity it seems that few people escaped unscathed. While it is obvious to place blame on the military for conducting such a blatantly racial campaign against the poor indigenous Guatemalans, it is also important to consider the role the EGP had in, fuelling the flames, so to speak. As the author points out, the EGP, "must bear responsibility for jeopardizing the lives of thousands of native Guatemalans, who believed their impossible promises of a swift victory over their oppressors, and re-dress of their centuries-old grievances." The EGP should hold some accountability for endangering the lives of thousands of its own people (regardless of their reason for rebellion). The military's massive, vastly over-exaggerated and unnecessary use of force however, for me, appears to be the culprit most responsible for the murder of 30,000 people. 


What surprised me while reading this (somewhat jumbled and confused) narration of events was the number of times "human rights" and human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were mentioned. As this was occurring in the 70s-80s, human rights were really coming into their own and garnering global recognition as an intangible 'something' that required universal protection and promotion. Therefore, the presence of a considerable number of human rights advisors and helpers in Guatemala while this genocide was occurring should not be too surprising. What is surprising is that, even though human rights organizations, whose sole purpose for existence is to protect humans from the worst kinds of abuses (e.g. murder), had people on the ground, witnessing the terror that was occurring, and yet this apparently did little to deter the military's vendetta against the Ixil triangle. As Father Tomas remarks to the author, after being asked if he had reported any of the atrocities to the Human Rights Attorney, "If I make direct denunciations, I will be endangering my parishioners, as well as myself....Guatemala City and the Human Rights Attorney might as well be on another planet." From this quote, I think it is fair to surmise that Father Tomas, and undoubtedly most of the other people living through the genocide, lost all (if they had any to begin with) faith in the ability of "human rights" to legally and physically protect them from the determined campaign of the military. This then begs the question, what use ARE human rights. It's all well and good to sit around and talk about them in the Western industrialized world, but when human rights organizations are active in a country that is experiencing the worst kinds of atrocities and are powerless to enact any change or deter aggression, I'm beginning to see their uselessness (although the optimist in me is not completely and wholeheartedly convinced). 


The final thought I had with regards to this week's readings has to do with the American CIA involvement, surprise surprise. The last half of the third section of readings discusses the CIA's rather blatant financial involvement in supporting the military against the "communist" (really guys?) guerilla army. The author goes as far as to state that the CIA funded and directed the counterinsurgency against the guerillas for 35 years (pg. 364).  I think I speak for everyone when I say, what the heck America. Why. Why were you involved. Contrary to this (and previous blogs), I am not anti-American, half my family is American. I do believe however that America has just a dark and corrupt political history as many other nations and that shouldn't be ignored or down-played simply because it is *in whispered tones* "the US." While countries like Russia and China are still carrying around the negative reputation for once having corrupt and malicious dictators, America seems to largely still be venerated as the greatest and most just nation in the world. While America does have some remarkable qualities as a prosperous and successful nation, more attention should be focused on some of the more negative and despicable choices America has made in the past (dare I say so history does not repeat itself?) 

The more one reads about Latin American history the more common are the patterns, the structures, and the ways in which dissent, rebellions and resistance are smacked down in order to instill an oppressive perspective that benefits a handful few.

Of course there are also some peculiarities that differentiate one place from the other. The intense resistance of the Ixil and their abuse through history, the presence of ladinos and almost medieval practices through which a “Mayan worker’s wife or a daughter may be taken as a loan collateral.”[1] But there is also the perhaps obvious recourse to violence when they have been extremely exploited and abused by landowners, religious leaders, military personnel and the all too pervasive presence and assistance of the U.S. government trying to do away with those focus of resistance. Moreover, it is perhaps through that U.S. engagement in the Guatemalan conflict that the lawyer and Jennifer Harbury was able to cast a light on the abuses of the U.S. citizens by the Guatemalan government with the aid of CIA agents. Although it is curious how the life of a few U.S. citizens counts more than the life of countless Guatemalans who have died in the hands of the same pernicious coalition of Guatemalan security forces and U.S. government involvement in the region, it is through Harbury’s tenacity that an inquiry is launched and the issue moves beyond the demand of a few human rights activist, peasants and a crazy ‘gringo’ who sympathize with communism.

Another peculiarity that also caught my attention was the story of the Comandante in page 79.   The sheer self-sufficiency of the one who feels that might is on his side, the deliberate or misunderstood use of his real rank within the army as well as his take on Marxism and how the fact that his perspectives on the futility of ideas until they are tested through reality, which happens to be a Marxist concept is only so because Marxism has stolen their language. There is also the extremely conservative language of family, protection, reeducation and the Mayor who according to the Comandante does not speak Spanish is simply someone who may speak Spanish but simply does not understand it.

The other aspect that also caught my attention was the turn to Israel as a source of weapons and instructions, which happends to coincide a few years later with a recent approach of the Colombian army to Israeli forces who are said to provide training and instruction in anti-terrorist practices.

In reading these accounts of the intervention in Guatemala what strikes me the most is the US's total disregard of the right to self determination of the Guatemala peoples. They assume throughout the reign of the United Fruit Company and what follows that the Guatemalan people don't know what's good for them and therefore should have their decisions made for them. The level of deceit that the US builds up is outrageous. I didn't really trust them before but this horrific. What comes to mind is the many times since this invasion of Guatemala that the United States have acted in their own interest and invaded a non-hostile country under suspicious circumstances. Whether it is weapons of mass destruction or the threat of 'communism' There seems to be a trend in US foreign policy.

The way that information is manipulated in the attack on Guatemala makes me think of the ways the media distorts what is going on in the Occupy movement. The Occupy movement is not the only place that this occurs. It happened during the Olympic protests when many protestors were characterized as belonging to Black Bloc and therefor many peaceful protestors were denounced as violent. The power of the media is illustrated well in this article as the propagandistic broadcasts changed the tone of things in Guatemala. I think that now we like to think that our media is not spreading propaganda because it is not intentional. The bias in the media does not have to be intentional to exist.

One of the things that I noticed in this article is that there is very little reference to 'race.' Populations that are probably largely indigenous are referred to as 'peasants' without reference to how their race reflects on their actions. The article takes on a very political tone describing the political motivations for the actions of different people and groups but doesn't explore the racial or regional divisions that may have motivated people.

Brazil indigenous Guarani leader Nisio Gomes killed

BBC News

An indigenous leader in southern Brazil has been shot dead in front of his community, officials say.

Nisio Gomes, 59, was part of a Guarani Kaiowa group that returned to their ancestral land at the start of this month after being evicted by ranchers.

He was killed by a group of around 40 masked gunmen who burst into the camp.

Brazil’s Human Rights Secretary condemned the murder as “part of systematic violence against indigenous people in the region”.

In a statement, Human Rights Minister Maria do Rosario Nunes said the region in Mato Grosso do Sul state was “one of the worst scenes of conflict between indigenous people and ranchers in the country”.

She said those responsible must not be allowed to escape with impunity.

Mr Gomes was shot in the head, chest, arms and legs and his body was then driven away by the gunmen, community members said.

His son was reportedly beaten and shot with a rubber bullet when he tried to intervene.

Unconfirmed reports say two other Guaranis were abducted by the gunmen and may also have been killed.

Many of the community’s 60 residents fled the camp to hide in the surrounding forest

Tribe defiant

The incident happened near the town of Amambai near the border with Paraguay.

Federal Police and representatives of Brazil’s main indigenous organisations have travelled to the area to investigate the killing.

“The people will stay in the camp, we will all die here together. We are not going to leave our ancestral land,” one of the Guaranis told the Roman Catholic Indigenous Missionary Council (CIMI) .

CIMI said the community wanted to recover Mr Gomes’s body so he could be buried in the land he tried to defend throughout his life.

The group had been camping on a roadside following their eviction until they decided to return to their land at the beginning of November.

The killing has been condemned by the campaign group Survival International, which campaigns for indigenous rights.

“It seems the ranchers won’t be happy until they’ve eradicated the Guarani,” Survival’s director Stephen Corry said.

“This level of violence was commonplace in the past and it resulted in the extinction of thousands of tribes,” he added.

The Guarani are Brazil’s largest indigenous minority, with around 46,000 members living in seven states.

Many others live in neighbouring Paraguay, Bolivia and Argentina.

The group suffers from a severe shortage of land in Brazil, which has worsened as a boom in agriculture has led farmers and ranchers to extend their holdings.

Indigenous activists say farmers in Mato Grosso do Sul frequently use violence and threats to force them off their ancestral territory, and that the local authorities do little to protect them.

After reading the case of Guatemala (part I and II) at once, I can certainly use a drink of rum or maybe a valium. I was recently in Venezuela and reading about chaos, impunity, violence and corruption hit me hard.

I had a vague idea of Guatemala civil war history, but I have to thank our professor for picking this great material, which opened my eyes to what our neighbors in Central America have experienced these past 62 years or so. I found the readings to be thought-provoking, titling and enraging.

These are my appreciations of the entire case.

The “Operation Success” was everything but a “success.” It was the product of extremely secretive CIA arrangement. This invasion, and later civil war, is funded on a basic need that can continue to be attributed to current international issues: land grabbing and national interests.

It saddened me to read in detail how U.S. officials used propaganda to spread rumors and caused so much despair amongst citizens– an unnecessary psychological war.  They unfairly accused President Arbenz of leading a communist regime in Guatemala, creating numerous white papers accusing Arbenz of being a communist dictator with complete impunity. I have researched for hours Americans tried for their actions in Guatemala with no results. Why do we have the U.N. and other human rights organizations for? But, if a troubled teenager is found consuming marijuana, he faces jail and a life with a pending criminal record in the U.S.

There was an active communist party in Guatemala by that time (1954), and they held minor positions in the government, but Arbenz never had diplomatic relations with communist powers. The Soviet Union had minimal involvement with Guatemala. There was no communist threat, but Eisenhower believed the opposite in the most obsessive way possible. I will never fully understand what sort of insanity the U.S. experienced during the Cold War era. Their current diplomatic situation around the world is widely tied to this red fear madness.

As a journalist, I was disgusted with the role media played during the U.S invasion of Guatemala and the consequent civil war. In my opinion, U.S. journalists and reporters were key players in overthrowing Arbenz. They wrote very compelling stories that described Castillo Armas as the “Liberator” (without really knowing who this guy was—basic journalism rules broken over and over).

The New York Times and Life Magazine (among others) mimicked Eisenhower’s false claims and featured them constantly in mainstream media. I found an article from the NYT titiled: “How Communists Won Control of Guatemala,” (NYT, March 1, 1953). So, while the U.S. was actively planning aggression against Guatemala, journalists were likely just paraphrasing press releases and doing NO real investigative journalism.

The internal conflict in Guatemala greatly affected the rural areas, which continue to be neglected and marginalized after so many years. Now after so many years, have we learned from genocides and invasions as an international community? Not really. I find the invasion to Iraq to be very similar to the case of Guatemala. I see no progress since 1954.

A note on human rights, Eisenhower’ tried to press the OAS in Caracas, Venezuela in April 1954 with an agenda of “Intervention of International Communism in the American Republics.” Let’s revisit history. By that time, most members were reluctant to participate because Venezuela was hosting the event. Venezuelan leader by that time was Perez Jiminez, likely the most brutal dictator Latin America have seen (along Trujillo who really was the devil). The meeting was held among U.S.-beloved dictators from the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela with Costa Rica absent, for example.

 

A personal note: Perez Jimenez packed jails with political prisoners, including my grandfather who was tortured in prison for supporting the opposition (later, my uncle Wolfang Larrazabal ousted Perez Jimenez, restored democracy and became the president). So, where is justice when a brutal dictator like Perez Jiminez is highly regarded by the U.S and hosts such an important meeting which sort of sealed Guatemala’s destiny?

 

The UN was disregarded (as usual) before the invasion. According to preamble and article 1, 1 of the UN Charter, the UN was created to prevent “the scourge of war” by “effective collaborative measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace.”  The UN Charter condemns unilateral attacks across borders not justified by self-defense. Have Americans been tried for their actions in Guatemala? Nope. So, what is the point of having a Charter that can never be implemented or followed? (I need some rum now).

 

I identified so many violations of human rights in this case study that I can write a book and develop a drinking problem. The fact that villages were militarized by a system of civil defense patrols, recruiting around 900,000 patrollers, including men over sixteen years of age, has to be penalized. Not only these actions polarized society (neighbors against neighbors), but also relied on illegal child soldiers!! The army had excessive control over the land. Refugees in neighboring nations, when trying to return home, were subject to brutal interrogation and detention. The rights of refugees to free association, to life and to personal integrity were greatly violated.

 

The genocide against the indigenous Mayan population between 1960 and 1996 reached The Hague and this year (after so long) finally some justice has been palpable with the conviction of the first former soldiers for human-rights abuses.

In the case of the village Dos Erres, four former Guatemalan soldiers (or Kaibiles) were sentenced to life in prison for the massacre of more than 200 people during the country’s civil conflict in 1982 (Daniel Martinez, Manuel Pop Sun, Reyes Collin Gualip and Carlos Carias). Also this year, general Hector Mario Lopez Fuentes was convicted for of participating in genocide and crimes against humanity during the military government of Efrain Rios Montt. Thus, Col Sanchez was found guilty this year of being responsible for the forced disappearance of eight farm workers.

At least some Guatemalan criminals are paying for their crimes, but I think Is time to try American soldiers for their human rights violations in Guatemala.  I am curious about any settlements between Guatemala and Spain for the atrocities committed at the embassy during the tense times.

PS: the three sisters did look like witches! Ha-ha