Haili Lewis
October 14, 2011
Liberalism and the School of the Americas
When discussing Liberalism in class, I felt that Liberal Worldview had some loopholes that could be most clearly exemplified in the case of The School of the Americas. Interestingly, when searching for the history of the SOA, there was absolutely no information on the school and its history. The only websites that I found was Wikipedia and another entitled the SOA Watch, an organization that focuses on closing the SOA and preventing anymore atrocities from occurring at the hand of graduates from the school. I felt that the lack of any information surrounding the SOA was a clear indicator that there is much to hid and little information to disclose on US intervention in Latin America through the school.
The liberal worldview says that when a country trains foreign officials, pacifism between these people are produced and forces the institutions of two states to cooperate. Following this point of view, it can be said that that School of the Americas was implemented as an effort to produce peace between the United States and countries in Central and South America. Preventative war is probably the best way to describe US actions surrounding the SOA and actions in Latin America. Essentially, our institutions and pacifism with other countries were being threatened so the U.S. launched a mass effort to prevent any type of communist takeover, no matter how costly the consequences.
Created in Panama in 1946, The School of the Americas was created to train over 60,000 Latin Americans soldiers in counterinsurgency skills including “sniper training, commando and psychological warfare, military intelligence and interrogation tactics” (SOA). However, it is widely believed that “the SOA's graduates have been the shock troops of political repression, propping up a string of dictatorial and repressive regimes favored by the Pentagon” (Weekly). “In 1996, it came to light that, in the 1980s and early 1990s, the School of the Americas had used manuals that advocated practices such as torture, extortion, kidnapping and execution” (Quigley). These “torture techniques have been field-tested by SOA graduates – seven of the U.S. Army interrogation manuals that were translated into Spanish, used at the SOA's trainings and distributed to our allies, offered instruction on torture, beatings and assassination” (Weekly).
Pledged as an effort to fight communism, these torturous acts were implemented in many Latin American countries including Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Paraguay, led to the death of tens of thousands of people. “Graduates of the SOA have been implicated in many of the worst human rights atrocities in the Western Hemisphere, including the assassination of Catholic bishops, labor leaders, women and children, priests, nuns, and community workers and the massacres of entire communities” (Quigley).
After disputes between Panama and the US concerning the SOA, “the school was moved to Fort Benning, Georgia, in 2001; where pressure group School of the Americas Watch claim it continues to offer its grim curriculum to the employees of select foreign powers” (Davies). According to the U.S. Army, he goal of the new school, named The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, or WHINSEC for short, is to “provide professional education and training to eligible military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States” (The United). There were minor changes made when the school transitioned to Fort Benning in an effort to rid the corruption from the school. However, the SOA Watch website points out that there is very little change For example, “The Secretary of the Army still runs the school and is responsible to the Secretary of Defense. The name change is an attempt to distract and confuse; to distance the SOA from its history without acknowledging or addressing it”(SOA). There was also no change in the purpose, mission, or curriculum proving that the schools are still very similar. Furthermore, according to their Mission Statement, “The WHINSEC shall foster mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promote democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of U.S. customs and traditions” (The United). This statement is noteworthy, as it is very similar to that of the SOA, yet the SOA produced countless military officers that graduated with standards completely opposite of the mission of WHINSEC. WHINSEC also has a focus on human rights, however just as many actions of the SOA were hidden from U.S. citizens in the past, what is to say that WHINSEC does not do the same today?
On September 11, 1973, the US supported a coup d’état against Chilean President Salvador Allende, replacing him with the ruthless dictator Augusto Pinochet. “More than 3300 Chilean military and paramilitary troops and leaders have graduated from the SOA since 1946” (Quigley). Although Pinochet did not graduate from the SOA, a majority of his advisors and militants did, spreading repression and terror across Chile. “One of every seven of the commanding staff of the DINA, the Chilean intelligence agency responsible for many of the worst human rights atrocities during the Pinochet years, was a graduate of the SOA” (Quigley). Furthermore, “ten of thirty Chilean officers against whom a Spanish judge sought indictments for crimes of terror, torture, and disappearance were graduates of the SOA” (Quigley). An effort to prevent Communism resulted in a reported “1,200–3,200 deaths, up to 80,000 interned, and over 30,000 tortured by Pinochet’s regime, including women and children” (Quigley).
El Salvador was another of many victims of the SOA. It’s civil war in 1980, once again funded and supported by the U.S., was largely influenced by SOA graduates. “The war found the citizens of El Salvador threatened by unrestrained death squads that killed up to fifty people a night” (Dickinson). Furthermore, influential figures such as Archbishop Romero, who called for peace during the war, were commonly assassinated, occasionally due to the influence of the U.S. Years later, it was discovered that the U.S. helped to plan the assassination of Romero and selected the killers through a lottery, all of whom were SOA graduates (Dickinson). Furthermore, “on November 16, 1989, six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her fifteen-year old daughter were murdered in San Salvador…because they were considered intellectual leaders of Communist aggression” (Dickinson). The killers were also trained by the U.S. in the SOA. This type of violence spread across El Salvador until the war finally ended, but many question what the difference would have been if the SOA di not exist and if the U.S. never involved themselves in an effort to prevent Communism.
Chile is one of numerous countries that suffered from the repression of SOA graduates. Why, then, did the U.S. support these militant and continue to train more and more SOA students? As a way to prevent war, they created it. Although the U.S. was never in direct war with countries such as Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador, they funded and supported them, pointing out a flaw in the liberal worldview. While trying to promote peace, they caused disruption, death and repression. A liberal may argue that the U.S. was able to create bonds between SOA graduates and U.S. officials, but they also created many enemies. Fidel Castro, for example, became a leading figure in rebellions against U.S. intervention through the SOA and other means, not only in Cuba but in other Latin American countries. The resulting relationship between the U.S. and Cuba exemplifies another negative aspect in the liberal view. While trying to build up institutions, the United States severed others. To this day, there lays a presiding animosity between the U.S. and the victims of SOA graduates.
Works Cited
Davies, George. "‘I’ll Take the CIA Torture Suite’ | News & Politics | News & Comment | The First Post." The First Post | News, Comment, Opinion, People, Arts, Sport & Life. Web. 04 Oct. 2011.
Quigley, Bill. The Case for Closing the School of the Americas. Brigham Young University, 2005. Web. 3 Oct. 2011.
SOA Watch: Close the School of the Americas. Web. 01 Oct. 2011.
Weekly, La. "Teaching Torture | Civil Liberties | AlterNet." Home | AlterNet. Web. 1 Oct. 2011.
The United States Army | Fort Benning. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.
Dickinson, J. "Torture 101: The Case Against the United States for Atrocities Committed by the School of the Americas." Journal of International Law. Web.
The paper was very informative and contained quite a few salient points on the School of the Americas and what its graduates were trained to become. It is really tragic that the United States was a major backer of so many violent rebellions and dictatorships in Latin and South America. I would argue that the United States' actions in promoting the SOA were more realist approaches to dealing with the communist threat, rather than liberal in nature. It was America's power, both economic to fund the SOA and the wealth of military knowledge it contributed to the school that helped to fuel the anti-communist efforts in South America. I can't see much of a liberal objective in the way that the U.S. acted here.
ReplyDeleteHaili: I thought your paper was very interesting! I've never even heard of SOA, much less the devastating effects of the effort.
ReplyDelete1--Reading Adam's comment, I agree with both of you. I understand what you were saying, Haili, when you stated that the SOA aimed to promote cooperation through skills development. On the other hand, I think Adam is also valid when he says that the US was responding, indirectly, to a threat to its power. I wonder what other options were on the table, and how exactly the policy came about? Yes, it was an anti-communist sentiment, but who developed the rationale behind it? A few deals here may give us a better idea of motivations?
2-What is your opinion on the future and lasting impact of the SOA? Do you think the animosity that you referenced at the end of your paper has potential to develop into more serious conflict?
Sorry this took me so long.
ReplyDeleteAdam, I agree with you. If you notice in my introduction, I used the example of the SOA as a loophole for the liberal worldview. When discussing Liberalism in class, someone had brought up Latin America and the SOA. I disagreed with them for the reasons that I wrote about above. I feel like the U.S. did little to promote peace through the SOA but instead created destruction and corruption.
Caroline, thanks for your comment. Basically, the government was threatened by happenings in Latin America. Henry Kissinger was a huge figure in the decisions made surrounding the SOA and other events. As for your second comment, to be honest, I'm not sure. When the U.S. was involved in the corruption of the SOA and other events in Latin America, their actions were noot really made publicized. Even today there are still new things that are just being publicized about past events. For that reason, I question if WHINSEC is hiding their actions as well. Although they were greatly affected, I don't think past actions and animosity will create new conflict. However, I do believe that this animosity will continue to exist.
Haili, I found this very interesting because when I was in El Salvador researching the Salvadoran Civil War, I heard a lot about the corruption in the right-wing military government during the civil war by the US and the SOA. When I got home, I actually subscribed to the SOA Watch, and now I get a lot of mail about protests they're holding (so if you're interested I'll keep you updated). But anyways, though I find the SOA teachings extremely inexcusable, Central America really was perceived as a threat by the US. Central America was permeated by guerrillas, who were believed to be Marxists (a.k.a. not democratic) who were trying to overthrow the right-wing governments. The SOA's goal was to promote democracy - liberalism, though I totally agree with you that the teachings were horrific and the school produced death squad leaders and torturers.
ReplyDelete