Controversy - School Of The Americas - Research Paper Example

CONTROVERSY: SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS Introduction: The United s is the only super power in the world and as such it can play a very important role in maintaining peace and sustainable growth not only in the region but also at the global level. On numerous occasions its efforts have been lauded but at the same time it faces criticism for either ignoring or not interfering in world affairs at the proper time. One such criticism is about the School of Americas which is a United States military school for the Latin Americans. It trains soldiers for counter insurgency. For the past two decades the school has been subject to severe criticism from different factions of society on the basis of human rights violation at the global level. For that matter attempts have been made to close the school for good. In this paper I intend to discuss in brief the background of the school. I shall begin with a brief discussion on the United States foreign relations with Latin America. I shall discuss some of the reasons on the basis of which the school has been declared notorious by most of its critics. I also intend to quote some of the incidents to prove the point whether the accusation is true or otherwise. For this purpose I intend to explore the relevant literature for my research. A few books and some authentic websites have been chosen to argue my point. Based on my research I intend to make a conclusion to comment on the controversy surrounding the School of Americas. UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS AMERICAS: Peter Hakim (2006), President of the Inter American Dialogue, has discussed the US foreign relations with Americas in his article “Is Washington Losing Latin America?” Hakim is not very optimistic about the current US- Latin American relations. Hakim observes that in the period after 2005 the US relations with the Americas have gone without any sense of direction and at the same time it has gone down to the lowest level. He further states that the US relations with Latin America were more cordial in the decade of 80s when most of the Latin American states had returned from dictatorship to democracy which also played an important role in strengthening the economic market of the region. Till 1995 most of the wars in Latin America had settled down. At that time the US support for the region was commendable. Several aid packages from the US had also helped Americas in reaching political and economic stability in the region. The prominent aid programs included the Brady debt Relief Proposal which helped the Americas in ending the long period of debt induced recession. Other aid proposals included NAFTA and a 1995 rescue package led by Washington that helped in restoring economic stability in Mexico (Hakim, 2006). However critics are of the view that despite all the efforts made by the US the foreign policy of the US towards Latin America is without any sense of direction. The relationship has further gone down after the 9/11 incident. Washington has lost its interest in the Latin American affairs and seems only to interfere when the trouble becomes unbearable. With this background it is obvious that the Washington policies would lose their support in the region. Only a few states of Latin Americans are of the view that the US is a dependable partner and can actually play a positive role in solving the Latin American affairs. Currently the critics are of the view that the US relations with Latin America are at the lowest stage and the failure of the US policies in Latin America, the stubborn attitude of the US over several issues and the reluctance of the Clinton and Bush administration to accept the strong domestic constituencies are indicative of the failure of the US in the region (Hakim, 2006). However it would be wrong to put the entire blame on the US government. Hakim observes that the Latin American governments are equally responsible for the deteriorating relations. The Latin American governments have not strictly followed the US policies and have done little to establish sound economic growth and strong democratic institutions. Some of the Latin American governments have also adopted a policy of anti US propaganda in order to win the support of the people in their respected countries. The cooperation of the Latin American governments with the US and with one another has been insufficient (Hakim, 2006). With this background it becomes easy for one to understand the US strategy towards the much controversial School of America. Lesley Gill (2004) has given a detailed account of the school in his book “The School of the Americas: Military Training and Violence in the Americas.” The author defines the institution as a military school run by the United States for the Spanish speaking Latin American officers and cadets. The school came into existence in 1946 in the Panama Central Zone and was named Latin American Ground Division. Since then the school has trained more than sixty thousand soldiers in combat skills and doctrine related to counterinsurgency. The school’s name was changed to The School of Americas in July 1973 with Spanish as its official language (Grimmett et al. 2000). The school has a history of some notorious graduates that include renowned names such as General Roberto Viola from Argentina who was convicted for various dirty crimes such as murder, kidnapping and torture during the period of Argentine’s “dirty war” in late 70s. Some other notorious names include Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega and Salvadorian Colonel Domingo Monterrosa. Monterrosa was the commander of the violent Atlacatl Battalion which was involved in the massacre of thousands of civilians in El Mozote. Few others include Guatemalan Colonel Julio Alpirez, a CIA agent, who tortured and murdered guerillas and a US citizen. Honduran General Luis Alonso Discua is another name who was the commander of an army death squad Battalion 3-16 (Gill, 2004). Jentzsch (1997) adds a few more individuals of School Of Americas. These include CIA officer Roberto D Aubuisson who gave orders for the murder of Arch bishop of El Salvador Oscar Romero. He was also appointed as the chief of the Salvadorian death squad. The graduates of the school were also involved in the rape and murder of the US church women in 1980. The critics of the school state that the school is teaching counter insurgency tactics to soldiers who use them not against enemies or drug dealers but against poor innocent people. These accusations have been rejected by the administration of the school who are of the view that the above mentioned names are just a “few bad apples” (Gill, 2004) and do not reflect the overall success of the school in establishing strong ties with the Latin American armed forces. Such claims have given a notorious reputation to the school and have forced it to open its doors for greater public evaluation. It also forced the US Defense Department to change its name to Western Hemisphere Institute of Security Cooperation in 2001 (Gill, 2004). However, according to the SOA Watch website, (n.d.) the school continues to operate without any changes or improvements. Teaching Course: The School Of America deals with a number of courses that are related to the US military doctrine. It offers courses ranging from basic patrolling techniques to the major ones such as the Command and General Staff Course (CGSE). The mission statement of the school includes developing instructions for the armed forces of Latin America using the most relevant, sound, cost effective doctrines and training programs. At the same time the school also aims to promote military professionalism, develop harmonious relations among the forces of different countries in Latin America. US customs and traditions are also taught to the students. Human right training is an important part of the school curriculum. The school gives training related to human rights both formally within the class room and informally through exposure to US institutions. Since 1989 the human rights course has been made a mandatory part of every course (Grimmett et al. 2000). However it is the human rights course that has given a notorious reputation to the school all over the region and has raised opponents from different factions of the society who demand for the closure of the school by the US government. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION: Several Congressional debates and legislatives have disclosed the fact that the graduates of the SOA have been involved in cases of severe human rights violation in their respected countries. Currently Congress has been dealing with issues such as screening of the school students and proper utility of human rights training at the school. The school is notorious for having a history of violation of human rights which has now become almost a part of the school’s training. It has been stated in the report by Grimmett et al (2000) that 48 out of 69 Salvadoran military members from SOA have been involved in human rights violation in El Salvador. This number also included 19 out of 25 military members who were involved in the murder of six Jesuit priests in 1989. At the same time several human rights commission reports have also stated that approximately more than 100 Columbian military officers have been involved in the human rights violation. Several Peruvian graduates from the same school have also been linked to the murder of nine students and a professor from La Cantuta University in 1992. Several Honduran graduates have been linked to the Battalion 36, a military group responsible for kidnappings in the early 1980s. Most critics are of the view that the students recruited in the school are not properly screened and because of lax admission policy several students and instructors carry a history of human rights violation (Grimmett et al. 2000). Here it would be pertinent to review some prominent cases of human rights violation by the graduates of the school. The cases have been mentioned below. In 1995, a leader from Guatemalan army, Colonel Julio Roberto Alpirez, was charged with human rights violation. Alpirez was a graduate of the School of Americas in 1989. He was further charged with the murder of a U.S national Michael Devine in 1990 and a guerilla leader of Guatemalan army Efrain BamarcaVelasquez (Grimmett et al., 2000). In 1996 the United States Department of Defense highlighted the excerpts from the training course manuals of the school which stated using brutal strategies against insurgents that included murder, execution, kidnapping, torture and blackmail. The manual were printed in Spanish and were used repeatedly between 1982 and 1991. In 1997 an Inspector General of the US Department of Defense stated that there was a mistake in the inclusion of objectionable literature in the manuals and that there was no need for individual inquiry (Grimmett et al., 2000). In 2000 the school once again gained criticism when one of its old students, Colonel Estarada, was arrested on charges of murdering Guatemalan Bishop Juan Jose Gerardi in 1998. The Bishop was murdered just after two days of the release of his report that accused the Guatemala military officer’s involvement in the human rights violation during the period of civil conflict in the country (Grimmett et al., 2000). SCHOOL FOR DICTATORS: Another criticism faced by the School of America is that it has been dubbed as the “School for Dictators”. The accusation has been based on the fact that a number of Latin American dictators have attended the school. Among the prominent leaders the names of Panamanian military rulers General Manuel Antonio Noriega and General Omer Torrijos are prominent. Both military rulers overthrew the civilian governments in their respected times and continued the dictatorial rule till either death or over thrown by the opponents. Some other military rulers belonging to the same school are Ecuadorian Major General Guillermo Rodriguez and Peruvian Major General Juan Velasco Alvarado who started a long period of direct military rule in their respected countries (Grimmett et al, 2000). In addition to the above list several other Latin American countries also had military dictators that were alumni of the same school. These include Lieutenant General Roberto Viola of Argentina whose military rule lasted for a few months after which Viola was convicted with human rights violation and was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment. Violas successor was Lieutenant General Leopoldo Galtieri who reigned for a few months but also led Argentine in the Falkland Islands war against Britain. In Bolivia the prominent SOA leaders include the military dictator General Hugo Banzer Suarez who is remembered for his bloody coup in 1971. His rule is further remembered as full of suppression along with exile, jail and execution of a number of labor and leftist leaders. On the other hand another graduate from the same school, Major General Guido Vildoso Calderon, was appointed by the army to return the country back to democracy. Calderon ruled from July till October 1982. Honduras is another country with two prominent alumni of SOA serving as military dictators. General Castro came into power in 1975. He overthrew the government of a military dictator and was himself ousted by Policarpo Paz Garcia who is another name in the list of military dictators from SOA (Grimmett et al., 2000). There are a few supporters of the School of America. According to the supporters military training is way to get political position in Latin American countries and to train students on the human rights courses based on American and international system is an excellent method. The supporters reject the accusations of violation of human rights by the school alumni and state that those convicted are a few names out the 60,000 graduates and do not represent the overall success of the school. The supporters agree on the point that students should be screened at the time of admission and that minimum representation should be from those countries that have been in headlines for violation of human rights by the schools graduates (Grimmett et al., 2000). The supporters of the school further state that the graduates of the school have played an important role in maintaining democracy in the region. They also state that Latin America has become more democratic as compared to the period of Second World War when the military dictators were prominent. They further state that military rulers of Latin America are less powerful today as compared to their predecessors. At the same time they have also played an important role in returning the countries back to democracy. Prominent examples in this case are those of Honduran General Policarpo Paz Garcia and Bolivian Major General Guido Vildoso Calderon who both played an important role in bringing the counties back to civilian rule (Grimmett et al., 2000). Testimony of an Instructor: Jentzsch (1997) has mentioned the comments of an instructor of the School of Americas in his article “School of the Americas Critic- retired US Army Major Joseph A Blair.” The article confirms the accusation that the school is actively involved in the teaching of human rights violation in Latin America. Not only that Blair also criticizes the role of US government in this regard and stated that the US played a major role in the matter. Blair was an instructor at the school while serving as a CIA officer. He also led the Operation Phoenix program in Vietnam which led to the death of 40,000 Vietnamese. In 1993 after his retirement Blair became vocal about his views on the manuals taught at the school and demanded of the US government to shut it down. Blair further disclosed the fact that the instruction manuals taught techniques of torture, murder, kidnapping, false imprisonment and massacre. These were the techniques that were used by the US led guerillas in the Vietnam War. During the Carter administration it was decided that the techniques would not be used but the school continued to teach those techniques which according to Blair were a clear violation of human rights (quoted by Jentzsch, 1997). Criticizing the instruction manuals Blair stated that the seven manuals taught at the school dealt with techniques of brutality. He criticized the US government which defended the manuals stating that the few objectionable paragraphs were printed by mistake. Blair stated that those objectionable paragraphs were actually the core of training at the school. During his time at the school as an instructor, a Chilean officer, from the dictatorship of General Pinochet, was appointed to teach human rights at the school for four hours. It was considered a joke to sit in his class and attend the course from a Chilean who should be more concerned about the human rights issues in his own country. The four hour instructions have now been expanded to twelve hours where issues like My Lai Massacre, Geneva Convention and the Hague Convention are discussed (Jentzsch,1997). Blair further accepted the fact that all the students who participate in various massacres were allowed to come back to school as instructors. In 1994 the US State Department had very clearly stated that no person with a history of human rights violation would be allowed to serve in the school. Blair criticized the US government by stating that it did not keep a check on the history of the students and no list of notorious students was given to the school. The school continued to claim that less than one percent of its students had been involved in human rights violation (Jentzsch, 1997). To conclude the Congressional concerns and the public outcry for the closure of the school has indeed forced the US to bring changes in the mission statement and curriculum of the school. However, critics are still of the view that the so called changes are cosmetic and that the new school continues with the same old techniques of training and human rights violation. The mission statement of the previous school aimed to protect human rights and the present school also aim to protect the human rights. However human rights have been violated in the past and they continue to do so even today (SOA Watch, n.d.). Critics are of the view that the changes have been mere eye wash and are a reflection of the non serious attitude of the US towards the Latin American issues. The US must play a positive role in the case to regain its lost popularity in the region. References Gill, L. (2004). “The Military, Political Violence and Impunity”. The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas.” Duke University Press. USA. Pg. 6. Grimmett, R. F., Sullivan, M.P. (2000). “US Army’s School of the Americas: Background and Congressional Concerns,” CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved on 2nd May, 2010 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/RL30532.pdf Hakim, P. (2006). “Is Washington Losing Latin America?” Foreign Affairs. Council on Foreign Affairs. Retrieved on 2nd May, 2010 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61372/peter-hakim/is-washington-losing-latin-america Jentzsch, B. (1997). “School of the Americas Critic- Retired US Army Major Joseph A Blair.” The Progressive. Retrieved on 2nd May, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n7_v61/ai_19554142/ SOA Watch, (n.d.). “Critique for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.” Retrieved on 2nd May, 2010 from http://soaw.org/article.php?id=110 Read More