Ford, Reagan – Sponsors of State Terrorism
At the request of one reader, I am providing some online material with information on U.S. presidents Gerald Ford’s and Ronald Reagan’s records of sponsoring state terrorism in Latin America. What one can find online, especially in terms of archived documents and solid history, is profoundly limited. I encourage those who want to learn more about Ford’s and Reagan’s support of state terrorism to work themselves into a library or two where the truest substance is. What I provide here is only the tip of the iceberg, but nevertheless sketches an accurate picture of the betrayal of U.S. faith. I’ve written on U.S. involvement in supporting terrorist regimes here and here.
The United States covertly supported the “Dirty War” of Argentina, which lasted from 1976-1983, under the Ford and Reagan administrations. It was nearly a decade of violence carried out against Argentine citizens by presidents Jorge Rafael Videla, Roberto Eduardo Violaand, Leopoldo Galtieri and their successive military government. The government sought to obliterate all “leftist” resistance and influence within Argentine society. It is widely believed that up to 30,000 Argentine citizens and refugees from Chile and Uruguay disappeared during the Dirty War. They were arrested, tortured and killed, most of them being trade unionists and students. Then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wished to remain friendly and supportive of Argentina in the late 1970’s on account of Videla’s anti-communist leanings. Kissenger apparently felt that having a Cold War ally was more important than objecting to the wide-spread human rights violations being committed in Argentina by far-right organizations (read: death squads) such as the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance.
A press release from the National Security Archive reveals that in 1976 the Argentine regime worked around the U.S. Embassy in Argentine and directly with Kissinger, who downplayed the embassy’s clarion on human rights abuse. The Argentine government believed it had the full backing of Kissinger and, by extension, the Ford administration. Along with the press release, one can find a number of documents revealing the relationship between Ford, Kissinger and Videla. Here is a snippet from the press release:
Washington, D.C., 21 August 2002 – State Department documents released yesterday on Argentina’s dirty war (1976-83) show that the Argentine military believed it had U.S. approval for its all-out assault on the left in the name of fighting terrorism. The U.S. Embassy in Buenos Aires complained to Washington that the Argentine officers were “euphoric” over signals from high-ranking U.S. officials including then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
On 20 September 1976, Ambassador Robert Hill reported that Guzzetti said “When he had seen SECY of State Kissinger in Santiago, the latter had said he ‘hoped the Argentine Govt could get the terrorist problem under control as quickly as possible.’ Guzzetti said that he had reported this to President Videla and to the cabinet, and that their impression had been that the USG’s overriding concern was not human rights but rather that GOA ‘get it over quickly’.”
After a second meeting between Kissinger and Guzzetti in Washington, on 19 October 1976, Ambassador Robert Hill wrote “a sour note” from Buenos Aires complaining that he could hardly carry human rights demarches if the Argentine Foreign Minister did not hear the same message from the Secretary of State. “Guzzetti went to U.S. fully expecting to hear some strong, firm, direct warnings on his government’s human rights practices, rather than that, he has returned in a state of jubilation, convinced that there is no real problem with the USG over that issue,” wrote Hill.
The Embassy reported to Washington that after Mr. Kissinger’s 10 June 1976 meeting with Argentine Foreign Minister Admiral Guzzetti, the Argentine government dismissed the Embassy’s human rights approaches and referred to Kissinger’s “understanding” of the situation. The current State Department collection does not include a minute of Kissinger’s and Guzetti’s conversation in Santiago, Chile.
The United States’ long-standing support of Augusto Pinochet’s diabolically brutal regime is well documented since 1973. The oldest such record comes from recently declassified documents held at the National Security Archive. In September 1973, the U.S. indicated its support for Pinochet’s regime:
The USG [United States government] wishes make clear [sic] its desire to cooperate the military junta and to assist in any appropriate way. We agree that it is best initially to avoid too much public identification between us. In the meantime, we will be pleased to maintain private unofficial contacts as the junta may desire. We will have responses to other points raised by General Pinochet at an early date.
The National Security Archives likewise has records of Kissinger’s multiple covert trips to and conversations with Pinochet.
Regan’s moral and economic support for the violent and bloody Argentine regimes is well known to journalists and historians, but less known among his most avid supporters. Marta Gurvich writes:
Videla’s anything-goes anti-communism struck a responsive chord with the Reagan administration which came to power in 1981. President Reagan quickly reversed President Carter’s condemnation of the Argentine junta’s record on human rights. Reagan’s U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick even hosted the urbane Argentine generals at an elegant state dinner.
More substantively, Reagan authorized CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service for training and arming the Nicaraguan contras. The contras were soon implicated in human rights atrocities and drug smuggling of their own. But the contras benefitted from the Reagan administration’s “perception management” operation which portrayed them as “the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers.”
In 1982, however, the Argentine military went a step too far. Possibly deluded by its new coziness with Washington, the army invaded the British-controlled Falkland Islands. Given the even-closer Washington-London alliance, the Reagan administration sided with Margaret Thatcher’s government, which crushed the Argentine invaders in a brief war.
It is known that Jimmy Carter cut off military aid to the Argentine regime during his term in office and that Reagan continued this embargo for a brief time. However, having reversed Carter’s policy against human rights violations in Argentine, Reagan worked to provide military aid through American allies until 1983. Here’s James Doa of the New York Times:
In 1981, the Reagan administration toned down criticism of Argentina and moved to restore military aid, arguing that rights abuses had declined. This March 1981 cable from the embassy in Buenos Aires described a visit by Roberto E. Viola, the regime’s newly appointed president, to Washington:
The visit is generally recognized as the opening of a new chapter in U.S.-Argentine relations. This development, it appears, is welcomed not only by the government but by the large majority of public opinion. There has been no open criticism of the visit and its results by any major figure or newspaper to date.
There have, however, been pronouncements by Argentine human rights advocates outside Argentina taking issue with administration statements that Argentina’s human rights situation has improved.
In late 1981, the Reagan administration persuaded Congress to restore military aid to Argentina. In 1983, civilian government was restored in elections.
Doa’s story is verified by Frederick H. Gareau in his book State Terrorism and the United States:
In 1976, backing the Humphrey-Kennedy amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1976, the Carter administration placed an embargo on the sale of arms and spare parts to Argentina and on the training of its military personnel. This resulted in the absence of military aid contracted by Washington in the period of the dirty war, including the Reagan years. Upon assuming office, the Reagan administration did not think the political climate was such that it could resume military aid. It did reverse the negative voting policy in multinational development banks of the Carter administration. And it continued with the “symbolic gestures” that helped to lessen the junta’s diplomatic isolation
Before too much is made of Washington’s cutting off military aid and maintaining nonmilitary aid at modest levels during the dirty war, aid replacement by its allies must be considered. The absence of aid from Washington was compensated for by its allies, no doubt at least in the Reagan years with encouragement from that administration. From 1978 to the early eighties these allies sold an estimated two billion in arms to Argentina. Notable among the suppliers was Israel. Argentina became Israel’s largest South American customer, accounting for over 30 percent of Israeli weapons.
For those who can read Spanish, a substantial article by María Seoane can be found at Clarín.com.
Reagan’s support for bloody regimes in Latin America was one of the reasons that Nicaragua was elected to the UN Security Council in 1982. Reagan’s administration had been pushing for the election of the Dominican Republic in order to block Nicaragua’s entry, but his record of aiding the regimes of Chile and Argentine and of sanctioning the training of terrorist soldiers throughout South America swung the vote in favor of Nicaragua. In an editorial on recent U.S. involvement in Nicaraguan politics, Toni Solo writes:
Perhaps the most embarrassing diplomatic debacle of Kirkpatrick’s career was the bungled attempt by US diplomacy to prevent the election of Nicaragua to the UN Security Council in 1982. Kirkpatrick and her colleagues desperately struggled to promote the candidacy of the Dominican Republic in order to prevent Nicaragua’s election. She and her team failed dismally. Nicaragua’s Chancellor at the time, Padre Miguel D’Escoto remembers,
“I spoke with all the foreign ministers of the world gathered there in the context of bilateral exchanges of about half an hour with each. But I was not alone. I could count on a marvellous support team from our foreign ministry and on Nora Astorga. But it was our heroic people under arms and Daniel (Ortega) who most accompanied us and made possible our victory thanks to the admiration and respect the world feels towards people of consequence.”
The vote was a personal triumph for D’Escoto and an almost unprecedented blow to US prestige. By rejecting the Reagan administration supported candidate, the vote indicated the contempt most of the world felt for the Reagan government’s advocacy of vicious terror regimes and groups around the world at that time.
But Reagan’s support for bloody regimes should not surprise anyone. The “Reagan Doctrine” of rollback in Latin America meant the establishment of liberal democracy at all costs in places potentially falling under Soviet influence. Reagan systematically ignored human rights issues, genocide and torture in favor of the prospects of gaining Cold War allies and confining local conflict to non-American soil. I think a 2004 editorial in The Nation sums up well the contradiction and confusion that was the Reagan administration:
It is also worth noting that this man who yearned so much for freedom and democracy in Soviet-bloc nations showed limited concern for democracy and human rights in other parts of the globe. After Democrats and Republicans in Congress passed sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure. His Administration cuddled up with the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina and backed militaries in El Salvador and Guatemala that massacred civilians. It moved to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the tyrant of Chile. Reagan sent George Bush the First to the Philippines, where the Vice President toasted dictator Ferdinand Marcos for fostering “democracy.” Pursuing a quasi-secret war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Reagan Administration violated international law and circumvented Congress to support contra rebels engaged in human rights abuses and, according to the CIA’s own Inspector General, worked with suspected drug traffickers.
This is not about viewing Ford or Reagan from a partisan vantage. It’s about acknowledging the facts and events of administrations that did many great things, but committed horrible crimes against humanity. I submit here, without a degree of hesitancy, that no Catholic can in good conscience defend Reagan’s actions or support his legacy. And despite what some Catholics may say, Pope John Paul II’s faith in Reagan began at and terminated in the denunciation of abortion and the opposition to Soviet communism in Europe. When one considers John Paul II’s non-violent resistance to communism and Reagan’s violent and egregious disregard for human rights, the comparisons between the Great Pope and the Great Communicator quickly break down. Reagan was a supporter of death and terrorism, and so while his partisan fan base continues to check its brain at the door, at least informed Catholics–appalled at the murder and torture of thier own Catholic brothers and sisters in Chile, Argentina, El Salvador and Nicaragua–can once more transcend the mindless masses and renounce any support for a president who was, indeed, the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Comments are closed.
FANTASTIC post!
Reagan’s view of the world–like that of most Americans of his time and generation–was Eurocentric. Aside from “stopping Communism,” I don’t think that he or his cohorts gave a “rat’s ass” what happened in Latin America.
He had a right to protect America’s few vital interests in the region, but, through his carelessness and proverbial laziness and insouciancy, he just let “business interests” dictate policy.
Reagan was not a bad man, and, in some limited ways, he was a great President. You cannot expect an American President to be of the same calibre a human being as John Paul the Great.
Politics is often about difficult choices, picking the least bad option out of some pretty shitty alternatives. Is it defensible to back a horrible regime that is no threat to anyone outside its own country, when the alternative is an equally horrible regime that hates you and is allied with a huge evil empire in spreading mayhem around the world? I’d say it is. Of course, each Latin American country had its own complex situation with different trade-offs to be made and I am sure that some overly ideological decisions were made. And, yes, some of the claims about these regimes improving their human rights record are preposterous. But you should have no illusions about the left in Latin America. They were just as bad about domestic human rights abuses, considerably worse about economic development, and liked to spread the joy around to other countries for good measure. As Anthony Daniels wrote: “[I]t was always perfectly obvious to anyone with the faintest knowledge of either history or human nature that inside every Central American rebel there was a dictator trying to get out.” We cannot save the world. Do-gooder foreign policy, whether of the Carter type or the Bush type, rarely works out for the good, and usually just makes things worse.
Once again Michael Joseph, you fail to give any evidence that the Reagan administration gave military or economic aid to either the Argentina regime which fell in 1983 or in regard to Pinochet in Chile. I once again assume you have no evidence to support your contention. To help your understanding that no military aid was given to Argentina you might wish to look at this source below:
http://books.google.com/books?id=TLvKIib3LcAC&pg=PA321&lpg=PA321&dq=reagan+administration+argentina+military+aid&source=web&ots=vzfmdODOK7&sig=yuExuD4LeJnOxDzVZKtv6rcC52I
The Reagan administration prior to the Falklands War wished to resume military aid to Argentina, but no military aid was in fact given.
As to Pope John Paul II, he along with Reagan were the two principal grave diggers of Communism. However, without American military might he would have lived and died in a continent controlled by the Soviet Union. As to Solidarity you might be interested to know that the Reagan administration through diplomatic back channels advised the Soviets and the Polish government that they risked war with the US if they used military means to crush Solidarity.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/4/171626.shtml
Small wonder that Lech Walesa gave this handsome tribute to President Reagan after his death.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005204
As to the larger question, of Reagan and Central American. when Reagan came into office the forces of the far left, were on the march in Central America, and were being hotly resisted by non-Communist forces The atrocities committed by both sides in Central America were sickening, and Reagan had to decide what to do. Before Reagan came into office there were several dramatic demonstrations of what could happen through US inaction or passivity. The mullahs coming to power in Iran, the Sandanista revolution in Nicaragua, Carter’s dream of the US losing its “inordinate fear of communism” smashed by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Leaders of countries are often in difficult positions where they have to choose among a range of unpleasant options, and sometimes the worst choice is to do nothing at all. Reagan chose to act. After much bloody fighting Central America is a much more peaceful and democratic place than it was before Reagan acted. Heck , Daniel Ortega, former Sandanista President and accused, by his step-daughter, child rapist, is president again in Nicaragua, but can do little harm as the Sandanista party only has 38 seats out of 92 in the legislature, and the legislature has real power and is not a rubber stamp for one political party, as it was during Senor Ortega’s last tenure as presidente. El Salvador is at peace and has a functioning democracy. Honduras is a functioning democracy. Even Guatemala, the true pit of despair in Central America, is at peace and democratic. Does Reagan deserve all the credit? No. Does he deserve a good share? Yes. Will leftists onVox Nova ever admit this? When Lucifer begins to host the National Hockey League.
El Salvador is at peace and has a functioning democracy.
Good Lord.
Michael,
Exactly. Donald resolutely refuses to read the information I give, which tells him exactly what he doesn’t want to see, and favors instead a resistance based upon on shoddy conceptual framework constructed by himself and, evidently, for himself. Such gnosis I have little time for, as the documents, articles and book excerpts all explicitly point to Reagan’s contribution to evil acts of Latin America’s worst regimes. Denial in the face of facts is a terrible ontological malady, one that is very difficult to cure. When we retreat from reality and lock ourselves in towers of fable, we cease to uphold the Catholic dictum of faith seeking understanding by means of robust reason.
Donald,
The only relevant comment you made was:
The Reagan administration prior to the Falklands War wished to resume military aid to Argentina, but no military aid was in fact given.
This is based upon one page of one book that covers the public actions of Reagan to repeal the embargo set by Carter. The book is correct. Your paraphrase is not. Military aid was, in fact, given. If you had my post thoughtfully along with the several quotations, you would have noticed that the documents and journalism reveal that Reagan set up military support covertly by means of allies such as Israel. American allies were the middle man between Reagan and Argentina, which served as the perfect front since Reagan’s hands were tied politically and publicly at home. This is not to mention the diplomatic support Reagan gave to Chile and Argentina, defending their human rights records internationally. The fact that Reagan even desired to bolster bloody regimes whether or not that desire materialized should make a real Catholic shudder. The fact that Reagan went to the limits of persuading U.S. allies to supply military and economic aid to these regimes is even more depraved. What a crooked and cunning move!
I always find this type of debate interesting and frustrating. The morality of actions or foreign policy is what is in dispute, but there seldom seems to be much charity afforded to one another or to those leaders who found themselves in a situation where tough decisions that have grave consequences must be made. We have very limited factual information and an enormous amount of personal takes each characterized by the individuals predisposition. As Catholics and citizens we examine and weigh the information the best we can and draw conclusions about the morality or prudence of various actions and policies; often times coming to varied conclusions and insisting that the other side supports evil. It seems to me that as we look at the various subjects that these posts deal with, and assuming that each individual is one of good will, what seems to be clear that fundamental distinction of what side someone is going to fall on is how they perceive Communism (as a system and its historical nature).
If one considers Communism a horrible and immoral institution with an unequivocal record of oppression and human rights abuse, and a threat to peoples around the globe, they are more likely to accept the notion of having political ties with a dictatorial thug who opposes Communism because a.) Soviet/Cuban influence is stopped at that particular region; b.) Most likely the amount of human rights abuses are less than they would be under a Communist regime; c.) at least these thug regimes can be influenced toward democracy and recognizing human rights.
If one considers Communism a good thing, or even just a tolerable thing, they come away with quite a contrary notion. They are rightfully going to lament the human rights abuses of the thug dictatorship and condemn anyone who they perceive have enabled it. They would rather our hands ‘be clean’ in such matters, even if it that means allowing a worse regime to reign. Some unfortunately even excuse it and consider it Christian.
I admit these are moral concerns I’m not very comfortable with. I admit that I have great reservations about a number of our nation’s activities and policies, but I also try to keep in mind that many of the things I’m uncomfortable with (like various CIA activities) were driven by a situation we found ourselves in, namely an enemy that was bent on expanding its sphere of influence around the globe, clandestinely and overtly fomenting revolution and oppression. There is a line of thought that may or may not be right, that we should not have anything to do at all with regimes that violate human rights. I can appreciate that and am tempted to buy into it, however if we carry it to it’s logical conclusion then we will not have relations with any state at all because they all (including ourselves, but excepting the Vatican) are at fault to one degree or another.
With that said, I’d like to make a few observations about the argumentation thus far. Michael Joseph, it is true that our allies supplied military aid during the Reagan administration, and I don’t think there is any doubt that he thought it was a desirable thing. However, I think you should be a little more forthcoming and acknowledge that those very allies were already supplying aid to Argentina during the Carter administration. Michael Iafrate, El Salvador (and Latin America) is still a very unfortunate place with much poverty, suffering and abuse, however, in comparison to the 1970’s and 1980’s it is now markedly better. I realize you’re younger than I but if you think it’s bad now (which it is) you can’t imagine how much worse it was then. To call it horrific would be an understatement. The poverty was worse, every regime in power, whether it be right or left was horrid and their opponents were equally or more horrid. Latin America is indeed far more stable than it was prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
I’d also like to note what I consider to be a degree of hypocrisy here. Reagan is condemned for giving aid to thug dictatorships in Latin America – his choosing to support what he deemed the “lesser of two evils” in order to thwart the “greater evil” is roundly rejected as immoral (and maybe it is, I can’t say for sure). Carter is commended for having cut off aid to Argentina, even though other nations were there to keep it flowing (fortunately it was our allies, how much worse would it have been had he turned to the Soviet Union and Cuba?). It may very well be a just and principled stand, though it should be noted that such actions removed our potential influence over Argentina in regards to getting them to shape up (one of the documents MJ cited even discusses that). Is a hands-off, “I’m not my brother’s keeper” approach right when we know our brother does evil? Does it really mean our hands are free from blood? I can argue that both ways. Nevertheless, when Carter, in assistance to the Clinton administration, arranges monetary and technical aid to what is possibly the worst regime in operation today and one of the worst in history, North Korea, he is hailed by some here as a great statesman and a peacemaker. I guess what I’m wondering is where is the moral outrage for Carter’s aiding Kim Jong-il, Yassir Arafat, having precipitated the Islamic fundamentalist revolution in Iran (which theoretically could have gone the way of the Soviets as well), etc.? Again, the point is that there are moral questions involved and we all try to apply them the best we can and that how we view the greater evil dictates how we’re going to view particular actions and decide whether or not we consider them successful or not. I think we do each other a disservice when we fail to recognize that. I don’t think it’s charitable to consider Reagan as someone who thought murderous right-wing regimes were good because they were murderous right-wing regimes, but that given the options at the time it was more desirable than a more murderous left-wing regime that could further expand the carnage. I also don’t believe it’s charitable to consider Carter as someone who thinks the oppression and mass-starvation of millions is a good thing just because he arranged aid to someone who is guilty of it. I may think his actions were unwise, maybe they reach the level that I would consider immoral because I see no good coming from it in the future for the people of North Korea or for stability in the world, but I don’t think it means Carter “supports” mass-starvation and oppression. But clearly, the sorts of evil that Carter (and by extension some of us) is willing to tolerate in the name of establishing peace and freedom are contrary to those that Reagan (and by extension some of us) was willing to tolerate.
Rick, thank you for your thoughtful comment. I think it is precisely the sort of thing that is needed when discussing these sorts of issues. Blind condemnation of Reagan and blind support of Reagan forward nothing constructive and informative.
I don’t really have much to add to your thoughts other than to say that while my post notes Carter’s actions against supplying aid to Argentina, I nevertheless do not and will not hold Carter up as a champion of human rights or peace making. I addressed Ford and Reagan only because they were the topic of a previous combox discussion.
Michael Iafrate, El Salvador (and Latin America) is still a very unfortunate place with much poverty, suffering and abuse, however, in comparison to the 1970’s and 1980’s it is now markedly better. I realize you’re younger than I but if you think it’s bad now (which it is) you can’t imagine how much worse it was then. To call it horrific would be an understatement. The poverty was worse, every regime in power, whether it be right or left was horrid and their opponents were equally or more horrid. Latin America is indeed far more stable than it was prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
What do our ages have to do with this? I’m quite aware of the realities in El Salvador both now and then, and have been for most of my life as I have an uncle who is a priest and has served in El Salvador for over twenty years now. I remember very vividly when the Salvadoran Jesuits were murdered, for example.
Certainly there are ways in which the situation is “better” and “more stable,” but what do these terms really mean? They mean “better” and “more stable” from the perspective of American interests. The killing of peasants and church workers continues, as anyone who follows current events in Latin America knows full well. We can pat ourselves on the back and say things are “better,” but in many ways we deny the reality that is before our eyes. We can try to be “charitable” to Reagan because he’s a “limited human being” who “did what he had to do as an individual in his particular circumstances” blah blah blah, but largely deny the systemic evil of which Reagan took part. Please. Let’s be “charitable” to the systematic promotion of torture and assassination? Let’s be “charitable” toward the administration that attempted to cover up the El Mozote massacre? Please. No thanks. Why not be “charitable” to Hitler? No. As Christians, we need to look at concrete history square in the face, more specifically, we need to look the victims of our violence square in the face and allow them to judge our actions in history. Reagan will be judged by his victims who, as Christians, we see are the face of Christ, i.e. Matthew 25. Many American Catholics are more concerned about saving Reagan’s bloodstained reputation than they are about the victims of his legacy. And that is a scandal.
As Catholics and citizens we examine and weigh the information the best we can and draw conclusions about the morality or prudence of various actions and policies;
This is a HUGE assumption, Rick, and a naively optimistic and dangerous one at that. We cannot assume that “citizens” or even “Catholic” citizens seriously discern the best course of action from the perspective of faith. Even if they do, from WHAT KIND of faith is that discernment done? In Latin America, like elsewhere in the world, Catholics encouraged the murder of other Catholics. We cannot and must not be “charitable” to the kind of perverse Christian faith that energized Reagan’s “prudential” judgments. The term “prudential” implies relation to a real virtue, not simply a political judgment in favor of perceived American interests.
Policraticus,
I have not looked into the matter, but all the quote you adduce says is that Argentina bought arms from a number of countries, including Israel (the quote does not indicate whether the arms were bought from the Israeli government or from private companies; I assume it is the later). There is also the suggestion that Reagan had something to do with this, though no proof is offered, and given that the numbers presented start in 1978 (three years before Reagan became president), I suspect things may be a little more complicated than Mr. Gareau suggests. There’s quite a difference between saying that Reagan gave military aid to the junta and saying that Israeli companies sold arms to the junta. A failure to make distinctions such as this seems to be a serious defect in your post here.
Michael,
The idea that things in El Salvador now are no better than they were at the height of the civil war, or that they are “better” only in the sense of being more in tune with American interests, strikes me as being fairly implausible. I can understand how emotions might run high when discussing a subject such as this, but making claims like this serves only to undermine the credibility of anything else you say on the matter.
Bladckadder,
Reagan provided direct diplomatic and economic aid to Argentina. He arranged military aid through allies in order to get around the embargo set by Carter. All the “distinctions” are accounted for in the sources I provide. I would suggest you read through them once more.
The idea that things in El Salvador now are no better than they were at the height of the civil war, or that they are “better” only in the sense of being more in tune with American interests, strikes me as being fairly implausible.
This is pure armchair politics. Many of us here have actially spent time spent time in Latin American (e.g., Honduras, Venezuela, Panama, El Salvador) countries that are now “democratic” after civil wars or economic collapse, and we can assure you that your claim is seriously defective. Whatever may seem “implausible” to the commonplace thinking of American’s, we can testify that things are not much better at all.
Blackadder – My question is simply this: Does the killing continue, for largely the same reasons? For anyone paying attention, the answer is a resounding “yes.”
Michael,
During the civil war around 75,000 civilians were killed, with many thousands more missing. Something like a third of the country had fled their homes. Marxist guerrillas controlled significant portions of the country. Around 900 civilians were killed in a single day at El Mozote. Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass.
If it is your position that things aren’t any better now than they were during the civil war, you must think that there are a comparable number of civilians being killed in El Salvador today; that massacres equivalent to El Mozote are still going on, etc. As I say, this doesn’t strike me as being plausible. That’s not to say, of course, that conditions in El Salvador aren’t still bad, or that there aren’t still abuses. No one would deny *that*. But if you can’t see the difference between El Salvador during the civil war and El Salvador today, then you aren’t seeing things as they are.
Policraticus,
I did read the quote again, and it doesn’t account for the distinctions I mentioned. It says that the junta bought 2 billion in military supplies after 1978 from foreign markets. The quote offers no evidence for the claim that Reagan was somehow responsible for these sales (again, I do not say that he was not somehow responsible, only that no proof has been provided on the point), and it seems to equate sales of arms by private companies with military aid by a government. The statistic cited would also appear to be of uncertain value, as it dates from 1978, three years before Reagan took office.
More substantively, Reagan authorized CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service for training and arming the Nicaraguan contras. The contras were soon implicated in human rights atrocities and drug smuggling of their own.
Read carefully and ask yourself, besides the Nicaraguan contras, who else would have benefited from access to military training and arms?
The absence of aid from Washington was compensated for by its allies, no doubt at least in the Reagan years with encouragement from that administration. From 1978 to the early eighties these allies sold an estimated two billion in arms to Argentina. Notable among the suppliers was Israel. Argentina became Israel’s largest South American customer, accounting for over 30 percent of Israeli weapons.
Gereau, who has documented these actions in his book (I suggest you read it), notes that 1) from 1978 to the early 1980′s American allies provided military aid to Argentina; 2) Reagan moved to encourage the continuance of these sales early in his presidency, partially accounting for the huge sales.
So we have Reagan supplying Argentine intelligence with military tactics and entrusting Argentine intelligence with military arms for the training of Nicaraguan contras. We have Reagan attempting to overturn the arms embargo against Argentina. Also, we have Reagan promoting the sale of military arms among American allies to Argentina while the embargo policy is pending. We have Reagan working to improve diplomatic relations between Argentina and other nations. What more do you need, Blackadder? Reagan was a financial, military and diplomatic supporter of bloody regimes. As I mentioned with regard to Donald, denial is a costly disease.
Indeed MJ. No economic or military aid to Argentina or Chile during the Reagan administration. Your left wing sources do not come close to making your case.
OK, Donald. If you cannot even read history without a partisan bent, then there is nothing more I can do raise your consciousness.
Come on Michael Joseph. I was the one who initially mentioned that the Reagan administration had Argentine officers training the contras. I took exception to your statement that the Reagan administration gave economic and military aid to Argentina and Chile because that simply was factually incorrect.
I regard to Nicaragua post Reagan, here is one fellow who seemed to appreciate the change.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E4D61439F93BA35751C0A960958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Organizations/R/Roman%20Catholic%20Church
Blackadder – Of course things are “better” in some sense. Less people are slaughtered by the state and by paramilitary groups (though the latter still exist). Instead they die the slow death of poverty, which has not improved one wink.
Michael,
Why do you put the word “better” in quotes when talking about fewer people being slaughtered by the state and paramilitary groups? Surely you think that it is better, not only in the sense of being better for American interests, but better simpliciter, that fewer people are slaughtered? I would think that, even absent an improvement in the economic situation, the end of the civil war would be considered an improvement. Even in economic terms, however, things have improved in El Salvador since the 1970s and 1980s, though they are still quite bad. Between 1990 and 2002:
* Poverty in El Salvador fell from 63 percent to 48 percent.
* The infant mortality rate reduced by 40 percent.
* Illiteracy decreased from 23 to 14 percent.
http://www.aworldconnected.org/research/pubid.2848/research_detail.asp
Life expectancy in El Salvador is now 71 years, as compared to 65 in 1990 and 57 in 1970.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/elsalvador_statistics.html
Blackadder, I put the word “better” in quotes because your blanket statement that things are “better” is ambiguous. There is a sense in which things are better, and a sense in which they are not.
Further, what’s your point? That Ronald Reagan had something to do with whatever improvements there are?
Michael Iafrate–
I think your rhetoric is somewhat frustrating. In discussing state terrorism and war, and how things are not “better”, I was really waiting for a discussion of how state terrorism persists in latin america largely unacknowledged. Instead, you seem upset that poverty persists.
You might as well say “Well, they are still dying of poverty so their governments might as well go out and terrorize them. Maybe a civil war would really be no better”.
Michael Enright – I’m not sure what your concern is. If you would like some resources for following state terrorism in Latin America, I recommend http://www.soaw.org and http://www.crispaz.org. The latter is particular to El Salvador. If you’d like more, I can send you some.
I just can’t make sense of some of the above posts. I am actually very interested in things like incidents of terrorism and torture. I do not think that grinding poverty is as serious as mass slaughter. They are both serious, but not to the same degree. I think that reading your post above equivocates between the two. You are extremely reluctant to say things are better now than when mass slaughter is occurring. Most people I know would prefer to live in El Salvador now than durring the war, so therefore it has to now be better–even though there may still be grave problems.