Guatemalan Genocide.

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?)