Fighting the enemy within: Terrorism, the school of the Americas, and the military in Latin America

Human Rights Review

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 12-27

  Weeks, Gregory ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33751080632     PISSN: 15248879     EISSN: 18746306     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s12142-003-1001-1     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. The catalogs for the school years between 1948-1949 and 1958-1959 are missing from the archives. From an analytic standpoint, this does not a pose a problem since--as will be argued--the major transformations in the school occurred only after the Cuban Revolution in 1959. All quotes come from the year's corresponding catalog.
2. John T. Fishel and Kimbra L. Fishel, "The Impact of the U.S. Army School of the Americas on Host Nation Militaries: An Effective Instrument of Policy or Merely a Scapegoat?" Low Intensity Conflict and Law Enforcement 7, I (Summer 1998): 67.
3. Edwin Lieuwen, Arms and Politics in Latin America (New York: Praeger, 1961), 137-140.
4. John L. Johnson, The Military and Society in Latin America (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964), 262-266.
5. Willard E Barber and C. Neaie Ronning, Internal Security and Milita. Power: Counterinsurgency and Civic Action in Latin America (Columbus: Ohio State Press, 1966), 3.
6. David Pion-Berlin and Craig Arceneaux, "Decision-Makers or Decision-Takers? Military Missions and Civilian Control in Democratic South America, " Armed Forces & Society 26, 3 (Spring 2000): 413-436. The authors note that the terms "mission" and "operation" are often conflated. Fighting terrorism, even if not explicitly included in constitutions or military organic law, is easily interpreted as defending the nation from destruction which, in turn, is a mission deemed critical to the armed forces.
7. For an analysis of the U.S. and the Posse Comitatus Act, see Noah Feldman, "Choices of Law, Choices of War, " Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 25, 2 (Spring 2002): 457-485.
8. Rut Diamint, "The Military. " In Jorge I. Dom/nguez and Michael Shifter (eds.). Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America, 2nd edition (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003): 44.
9. Pion-Berlin and Arceneaux, "Decision-Makers, " 421.
10. Dirk Kruijt, "Low Intensity Democracies: Latin American in the Post-Dictatorial Era, " Bulletin of Latin American Research 20, 4 (October 200l): 409-430. I I. Deborah L. Norden, "Redefining Political-Military Relations in Latin America: Issues of the New Democratic Era, " Armed Forces & Society 22, 3 (1996): 435-436.
11. Michael Desch, Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999): 6.
12. For example, the negotiations to end civil wars in Central America had as a central goal the redefinition the military's role to make it focus on external defense. Economic crises, rampant crime, and easy availability of weapons is sparking more support for the military to be brought back in (see George Vickers, "Renegotiating Internal Security: The Lessons of Central America" in Cynthia J. Arnson, ed., Comparative Peace Processes in Latin America (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999). In that context, pushing for a re-expansion of the military's role would be counterproductive to the democratization process.
13. E.g. see Wendy Hunter, State and Soldier in Latin America: Redefining the Militau's Role in Argentina, Brazil and Chile (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, Peaceworks I0, 1996): 4-7.
14. For example, see Fitch's analysis of U.S. military influence over Latin America, in which he argues for "treating Latin American military officers as neither puppets of U.S. imperialism nor eager students of U.S. democracy, but also rejecting the thesis that U.S.-Latin American military relations are inconsequential or political neutral. " J. Samuel Fitch, "The Decline of U.S. Military Influence in Latin America" in Lars Schoultz, William C. Smith and Augusto Varas, eds., Security, Democracy, and Development in U.S.-Latin American Relations (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1994), 78. 16, "Confidential Modified Handling" is a term used tbr material that will be seen by citizens of a foreign government (or in some cases is information provided by foreign governments). It is generally less restrictive than "Confidential, " which in turn is tess restrictive than "Secret" and "Top Secret. "
15. "'El segundo seminario Latinoamericano sobre acci6n militar en el desarrollo de la comunidad. " United States Army School of the Americas internal document, 22-26 May 1967.
16. As the Fort Benning newspaper noted, in 1986 Salvadoran Chief of Staff General Adolto Blandon spoke the cadet course, arguing, "With our firm arm, we will always be free. " "Salvadoran Chief of Staff Guest Speaker for Cadets, " The Bayonet 27 June 1986. The brutal effects of that firm arm in the Salvadoran civil war would become a bone of contention for SOA critics.
17. To view those documents, see the website of the National Security Archive: http://www.gwu.edu/-nsarchiv/nsa/archive/news/dodmans.htm. Accessed on 27 May 2003.
18. Sharon Erickson Nepstad, "School of the Americas Watch, " Peace Review 12, I (2000): 69.
19. School of the Americas Watch is an organization created in 1990 for the purpose of exposing human rights abuses of SOA graduates and closing the school. Its website maintains a "Graduates in the News" section that catalogues the activities of military personnel who took courses at the SOA. It also provides a list of every graduate from 1944 to 1996. See http://www.soaw.org. Accessed on 27 May 2003. Over the years, the growth of this and other organizations turned opposition to the SOA into an industry in itself, with organized protests, letter-writing campaigns, and other public relations efforts aimed at closing the school.
20. For example, one argument points to the rise of military-led violence in Central America after the U.S. government cut off military-military ties. Interview with WHINSEC Officials, January 2002. Conversely, an increase in those ties would have the opposite effect. Ramsey argues that in El Salvador during the 1980s, "as U.S. influence increased longitudinally and numerically, human rights violations decreased dramatically. " Russell W. Ramsey, Guardians of the OtherAmericas: Essays on the Military Forces in Latin America (Lanham, MD: University Press of America)
21. It should be noted that the same author argued that human rights violations were "not verified" in Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras, and Mexico (249).
22. Quoted in Lars Schoultz, Human Rights and United States Policy Toward Latin America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981): 234.
23. Russell W. Ramsey, "Strategic Reading on Latin America, Parameters Summer 1994, " in Russell W. Ramsey, ed., Strategic Reading on Latin America 3rd Edition (Bloomington, IN: First Books, 2001): 4.
24. Geoffrey Demarest B., "Redefining the School oftheAmericas, " Military Review (October 1994): 44.
25. Russell W. Ramsey and Antonio Raimondo, "Human Rights Instruction at the U.S. Army School of the Americas, " Human Rights Review 2, 3 (April-June 2001): 112-114.
26. Congressional debate over the School of the Americas and its successor almost always runs along partisan lines, with Democrats criticizing and Republicans defending. Beginning in 1993, Representative Joseph Kennedy (D-MA) introduced the first bill to dismantle the SOA. Between 1993 and 1998, Kennedy introduced five bills or amendments to achieve that end.
27. U.S. General Accounting Office, School of the Americas: U.S. Military Training for Latin American Countries (Letter Report, 22 August 1996, GAO/NSIAD-96-178).
28. Donna Cassata, "A Few Bad Apples?" Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 55, 35 (1997): 2090.
29. Congressional Record-Extension of Remarks, v. 144, 7 May 1998, 795. Representative Collins' district includes Columbus, Georgia, where Fort Benning is located. 31. Congressional Record-Extension of Remarks, v. 144, 10 June 1998, 1086.
30. "Congress Approves Funding for U.S. Army School of the Americas. " United States Department of Defense News Release, 2 February 1998.
31. H. R 732, 106th Congress, 1st Session, 11 February 1999.
32. S. 873, 106th Congress, 1st Session, 22 April 1999.
33. H.R. 3798, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, 1 March 2000.
34. H.R. 4205, 106th Congress, 1st Session, 6 April 2000. The stated purpose was as follows: "The purpose of the Institute is to provide professional education and training to eligible personnel of the Western Hemisphere within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States and supporting agreements, while fostering mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of United States customs and traditions. "
35. H.R. 1810, 107th Congress, 1st Session, 10 May 2001.
36. WHINSEC Official, Interview with the Author, May 2002.
37. "Remarks following discussions with President Andres Pastrana of Colombia and an exchange with reporters, " Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 38, 16 (22 April 2002).
38. "The Western Hemisphere's Response to the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on the United States. " Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, Committee on International Relations, 107th Congress, 1st Session, Serial No. 107-43: 2.
39. e.g. see "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2002, " United States Department of State, Office of Counterterrorism (30 April 2003).
40. William W. Mendel, "Paraguay's Ciudad del Este and the New Centers of Gravity, " Military Review (March-April 2002): 5 I.
41. Congressional Record-Senate, v. 148, 27 February 2002, 1242.
42. Lars Schoultz, Beneath the United States: A Histo of U.S. Policy Toward Latin America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).
43. The reaction of the U.S. government to the coup and counter-coup in Venezuela in April 2002 is instructive in this regard. Given U.S. opposition to the government of President Hugo Chivez, his ouster by dissident members of the armed forces was regarded as a positive development by the Bush administration. An administration official admitted that prior to the coup, when meeting with the opposition coalition that attempted to overthrow Chvez, "We were sending informal, subtle signals that we don't like this guy. We didn't say, 'No, don't you dare.'" Christopher Marquis, "Bush Officials Met with Venezuelans Who Ousted Leader, " New York Times, 16 April 2002.