Since the founding of our republic, the U.S. military has intervened almost 100 times in Latin America and in some nations, numerous times. Our forces occupied five of them for more than a decade. Since the Vietnam War, our government has employed tactics of “low intensity warfare” – low for us, high for the recipients of our means. We have instigated coups in Chile, Haiti, Panama, Venezuela, Grenada and Guatemala.
We have created surrogates to do the fighting and dying for our ‘interests’ (e.g., the “Contras” in Nicaragua). We have supported numerous dictators for years (e.g., the Somozas, Batista, Noriega, Hernandez, the juntas of Uruguay and Argentina). Ignoring UN decisions, and in violation of international law, we have employed almost total embargoes (in countries such as Nicaragua and Cuba).
We manipulate Latin American media. We seek to influence their elections with money (e.g., El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela), yet it is illegal under U.S. law for those in other nations to so influence our elections. Through institutions that we dominate, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, we maintain leverage over them via ‘perpetual debt’. We impose “structural adjustments” on their economies via NAFTA (1994) and CAFTA (2005), trade agreements that benefit our corporations but hurt their poor. U.S. corporations exploit their lack of environmental controls and regulations regarding labor. Clearly the ‘American empire’ is not about fostering democracy or ensuring peace and prosperity. Empire is about controlling peoples and gaining access to their resources.
Training the militaries of the nations of Latin America at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly the School of the Americas, is one of the instruments used by our government to support powerful elites in Latin America in resisting efforts by their majority poor to secure more just societies.
In April 2007, following the annual November SOA Watch protest vigil at Ft. Benning, GA, I was part of a small delegation that was given the opportunity to visit WHINSEC, interview the commanding officer, Col. Gilberto Perez, visit classes, and meet other staff. Let me share some observations and reflections from that visit.
We first noticed aspects of ‘military culture.’ A warrior culture has its own values and basic assumptions about life. We observed that both the U.S. and Latino soldiers wore distinctive uniforms with varied insignia; we sensed a strong ethos of pride and mutual respect for their inter-related roles.
In examining the program of the Institute, we noted the lack of student exposure to an ‘unvarnished’ history of U.S. – Latin American relations. We were uneasy that Commandant Gilberto Perez seemed unable or unwilling to recognize the possibility that WHINSEC and its personnel might in any way be complicit in the assassinations, massacres, and brutalities that Latin Americans have experienced. His repeated response was, “We don’t make policy; we implement policies. Those who disagree should contact the President and Congress!”
I departed WHINSEC confirmed in my belief that since 1991, the thousands who have demonstrated at SOA/WHINSEC have had an impact. Changing the name of the institution presumably was done by Congress to separate SOA from mounting criticism. The creation of a “Board of Visitors,” with Congressional representation, has provided some independent oversight of the program and greater “transparency.” Also there have supposedly been changes in the curriculum, but it remains substantially the same as before. We appreciated learning that some of the students had been taken to Washington, DC where they met with staff of Human Rights Watch, Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and even SOA Watch.
The SOA began in Panama in 1946, then was forced to leave in 1984, coming to Ft. Benning, Georgia. Since 1991, demonstrations of opposition to the presence and continuance of the School of the Americas have been held. In recent years, more than 20,000 persons have been present. SOA Watch staff and volunteers have visited with Congresspersons regularly. In the summer of 2007 the Congressional vote to terminate the SOA funding came within half a dozen votes of passing! Now, with the new Congresspersons from the 2008 elections, staff are visiting them with our facts and views.
Parallel action is being taken by the SOA Watch staff to "turn off the faucet" for the recruitment of Latin American soldiers to come to WHINSEC for training and then return home to utilize their learned techniques on their own populations. Thus far, Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia have indicated their intention to cease sending their military and police personnel to WHINSEC. Chile, one of those sending more of their military, intends to cut back 2/3 of the way, thus far. With new leadership by virtue of recent elections, Paraguay and El Salvador might also be persuaded to cease participating in WHINSEC. It is unlikely, given present relationships, that Colombia would alter their participation.
The USA military has been authorized to establish seven more such training schools for foreign militaries, by our military. One will be in El Salvador, another in eastern Europe, the others to be determined. Costa Rica declined to accept one.
I value the opportunity to have visited WHINSEC. I appreciate the graciousness with which we were received by Commandant Perez and other staff persons, especially Lee Rials, Public Affairs Officer. Nevertheless, my view remains that the U.S. should not be training military personnel of other countries. By doing so we become even more complicit with their problems/solutions. Militaries are not instruments of peacemaking - in their purpose, organizational structures, values or training. Peacemaking is not their area of expertise. Peacemaking is the domain of those trained in the theories, principles and practices of active nonviolence. A ‘Global Peace Force’ would make far better peacemakers than the U.S. military.
Contact SOA Watch, PO Box 4566, Washington, DC 20017 for further information.
This post is an updated version of an article that first appeared in the June 2008 issue of the North Country Peace Builder, the quarterly newsletter of the Minnesota Fellowship of Reconciliation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, Professor Irish, I have to admit some surprise in seeing your article dusted off and posted once again on the internet! I also find it amazing that a scholar of your depth and breadth of experience would express conclusions so devoid of evidence.
ReplyDeleteI'll start by challenging your description of our 'training the militaries of Latin America...' and ask which of the courses we offer 'support the elites?' Is it perhaps the Medical Assistance Course, which trains medics to be EMTs, and often the only medical expertise in remote areas of nations? Or maybe the Peace Operations Course, which teaches people how to operate in UN Peacekeeping Operations? And speaking of UN Peacekeeping Operations, why do you suppose they are manned by military and police personnel and not a 'Global Peace Force?'
Of course, I'd like to know exactly what you mean by the comment that, "A warrior culture has its own values and basic assumptions about life." That seems to be a rather presumptuous assumption by you.
How did you determine that our students were not exposed to an 'unvarnished history of Latin American relations?' By that do you mean we did not present your view that seems to indicate all problems in Latin America are due to US interference? And how would you assign complicity to a school that has never had one single criminal act attributed to its teachings? Simply claiming that someone attended at some time and later committed a crime, then trying to assign blame to the school for that crime is a gross libel of the people who worked there.
I'll also point out that of the countries you name as claiming they won't send students, only Venezuela has actually stopped, and of course not only at WHINSEC but at all US schools. Several of them still have guest instructors here as well. When asked by a SOAW rep if he would stop sending students to WHINSEC, President Lugo of Paraguay said, in essence, we will send students wherever we see fit. I guess it would be unkind to point out that these and all other countries that send students to WHINSEC are led by elected civilian leaders. Do you suppose they would send students to any place they considered detrimental to them?
Now I'll wander off the reservation and observe that SOAWatch is a moribund organization. The last two years have seen diminishing numbers coming to protest, and absolutely zero national press coverage. The real crime that occurs in Columbus each November is the persuasion of people by SOAW to get a federal conviction by trespassing onto Fort Benning for the very cynical purpose of getting SOAW some publicity. That's it. In recent years the trespassers have had no effect on Congress, on the public, on anyone but themselves and their families--and that's a very bad effect.
I had hoped that you and your friends had come down with some intellectual curiosity to see what we do. Too bad your preconceptions prevented your seeing the truth.
Still, I must admit I enjoyed having you here and showing you around, and you are welcome back any time you like.
Sincerely,
Lee A. Rials
While the former Commandant’s insistence that WHINSEC merely implements policy may have been frustrating or unsatisfying, his point is significant. The precedent set by George Washington at Newburg, NY emphasizing the subordination of the US military to the elected civil authority continues to the present day. In the course of my own inquiries into WHINSEC and its founding legislative documents, I was pleased to discover that the ethos of complete and total subordination to a democratic government is alive and well. The institute, staffed by US State Department representatives, provides mandatory instruction on the structure and function of the US government. More importantly, the US military staff during contact with students and international military faculty members continually reinforces the deference to the elected civil administration.
ReplyDeleteMilitary and paramilitary organizations in Latin America will continue to seek training opportunities in order to enhance their inherent capabilities. Contrary to Dr. Irish’s suggestion, WHINSEC is not a self-proclaimed instrument of peacekeeping. It is a military academy, regulated and legislated, staffed by American service members who imbue the students with a fundamental respect for democratic principles. If WHINSEC forever closes its doors, will the alternative sources of military and police training possess similar characteristics?
Lee A. Rials writes above that SOA Watch is a "moribund organization" that has had "no effect." If Mr. Rials really believes that, he has a funny way of showing it.
ReplyDeleteIn 2003, an SOA Watch activist received a copy of the Army's Strategic communications Campaign Plan for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). With a total budget of $246,000, including $9,000 for "media monitoring software" and $50,000 for Internet work, the plan calls for flooding the media with letters to the editor in an effort to balance the negative press the school has received with a "desired 'end state'" that the "congressional audience will not support legislation to close the WHINSEC" because "the number of letters from constituents to Congress criticizing the WHINSEC is decreased."
It's now apparent that WHINSEC is using some of that $50,000 to moniter the blogosphere. Only one day after Prof. Irish posted his article, the army already had its response.
That the army feels the need to spend vast amounts of money responding to blog posts from our grass roots supporters shows that SOA Watch is making a difference and is far from being "moribund." It is those who work for WHINSEC that are worried about being shut down, not the other way around.