The term “terrorism” has been defined in a number of ways by a variety of scholars. For the most part, each definition has yielded a limited understanding of the actual phenomenon. This is especially true when analyzing the wave of situations that occurred in El Salvador leading up to and during the Salvadoran Civil War of 1980-1992.
Terrorism is usually viewed as the illegitimate and violent actions of specific groups that violate the authority of rightfully established political entities. However, an understanding of terrorism hinges on accepting definitions of social and political reality expressed by groups that differ in their public support and power. In nations undergoing turbulent movements – such as civil wars or internal revolutions – it is necessary to decide which group represents the sovereign interests of the people.
In this paper I will explore the various actors and motives that operated in El Salvador during the Civil War to clarify the real meaning of terrorism in this situation. My argument is that in this case, and perhaps in other dynamic revolutions, the state of El Salvador, represented by the right-wing militant government ARENA, acted more like a terrorist organization than the guerrillas and revolutionaries that fought to overthrow the regime.
From the United States’ perspective during this time period, the guerrillas, known as the Farabundo Marti Liberation Front (FMLN), were the terrorists. The Reagan administration was convinced that FMLN was just a puppet of the Soviet Union, working through Cuban and Nicaraguan proxies. In virtually every Latin American nation the local left was permeated by Cuban influence. Fidel Castro and the Cubans did not invent the armed struggle of the region, however. There was a long tradition of taking up arms in the region, dating back to the nineteenth century. Those who did so were nationalists, radical liberals, and in El Salvador, Marxists (Castaneda 212). As the Cuban Revolution began to mellow, there was an emergence of new organizations throughout Latin America, shifting north. A “second wave” of guerrilla movements developed, particularly in El Salvador (Castaneda 215).
In the early 1980s, the right-wing forces of El Salvador, led by Roberto D’Aubuisson, organized a number of “death squads” to murder suspected guerrilla sympathizers and innocent peasants alike. Individuals, even entire families, were slaughtered in their homes or disappeared. When Archbishop Oscar Romero decided to protest these outrages, D’Aubuisson had him shot at the altar. In deference to American sensibilities – and at the command of American authorities – the D’Aubuisson death squads were abandoned. D’Aubuisson disappeared, temporarily, into the shadows (Central America 100). The extreme right, organized as the ARENA party, selected a nominal leader more congenial to U.S. sensibilities – Alfredo Cristiani, a wealthy businessman educated at Georgetown, well-versed in the phrases that would please the stream of American support into his country. The United States planned to place Cristiani in power once Duarte’s term came to a close (Castaneda 64). However, as noted by Richard Goodwin, the crowd attending the inauguration of Cristiani “reserved its loudest cheers for the entrance of Roberto D’Aubuisson” (Central America 99). Lacking any official position, D’Aubuisson was clearly the leader. His advisors occupied key security positions in the government. The new government of El Salvador, led by Cristiani, was merely the old gang with a new front man. So occupied with finding a new democratic leader in El Salvador, the Reagan Administration did not take the time to weed out the corrupt and violent leaders of El Salvador’s past regimes. The vice-president to Cristiani, hand-picked by D’Aubuisson, reinstated the death squads.
In 1980, there was a series of attacks on the civilian population, as well as executions, particularly against the rural population. Massacres also occurred, such as one at the Sumpul River, the Lempa River, and El Mozote, all of which occurred in 1980 and 1981. Organized terrorism, in the form of the death squads, escalated the violence. Military groups engaged in a systematic murder campaign with total impunity, while government institutions, as well as the foreign supporters of the government turned a blind eye. The murder of Archbishop Romero exemplified the limitless power of these groups (UN Security Council).
The opposition forces under the military control of the FMLN had a better record of respecting the civilian population. Their targets tended to be military (security forces, police stations, army barracks) and strategic (bridges and lines of communication). However, the preponderance of violence – particularly directed against innocent civilians – originates from government action, ARENA. In a letter to former US Secretary of State Hair, Amnesty International observed that the “analysis of all available data suggests that the majority of the reported violations, including torture, ‘disappearance,’ and deliberate cold-blooded killings, have been carried out by the security forces and have been directed against people not involved in guerrilla activities” (Taylor 112). If this isn’t terrorism, then what is?
According to the Reagan administration’s definition of terrorism, the term is used to describe all the activities of the opposition forces, while the documented terrorism of the security forces if ignored or rationalized since it may be necessary to keep the Salvadoran regime in power (Taylor 117). In the administration’s eyes, FMLN was the terrorist group, because it was fighting against authority, despite the fact that it was backed my a majority of the civilian population.
El Salvador is an illustrative case involving a variety of issues that play heavily on the perception and definition of terrorism. Terrorism lends itself to political and strategic expressions that arouse public concern and moral judgment – the situation that existed in El Salvador. In El Salvador, the issues center on the sovereign rights of the people and the actions of the government. Terrorism is not limited to “leftist” or revolutionary groups. Terrorism is also an activity of “rightists” or reactionary organizations. Terrorism is not the sole province of the “out-groups”. Quite often it is the mode of operation of a regime, as proven in El Salvador, where a kind of official terrorism seems to be practiced. This use of the term terrorism would be consistent with the general definition, being the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a specific set of objectives or goals, but contradicts many definitions of terrorism that link terrorism to those who challenge existing regimes with which the United States is allied.
Works Cited
Castaneda, Jorge. Utopia Unarmed: The Latin American Left After the Cold War. New York: Random House, 1993. Print.
Central America: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1990.
Taylor, Harry. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science: “La Matanza”. 1982.
UN Security Council, Annex, “From Madness to Hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador:
Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador.” United States Institute of Peace, 1993. Print.
Mollie,
ReplyDeleteI thought your paper was really interesting! I didn't know anything about the war in El Salvador, and I liked your analysis about the definition and application of the idea of terrorism.
Do you think that if a group has public support or civilian backing, the group is somewhat legitimized in its illegal activity? It sounds like FMLN was wrongfully targeted as a terrorist organization under the Reagan administration's definition, but more generally, does the fact that it had public support excuse it from its attacks on military barracks and other targets, even if these targets weren't civilian?
Because terrorism is so ill-defined, I think terrorism definitely has to do with perspective. The civilians of El Salvador were being terrorized by their government and FMLN was formed to attempt to rid that. Hamas and Hezbollah both have public support in Gaza and Lebanon respectively, yet the US and most nations label them as terrorist groups running their areas. So basically perspective has a lot to do with terrorism, I believe.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Caroline, I thought you explained the situation really well, and I feel like I have a better understanding of the war in El Salvador because I didn't know much about it before!
ReplyDeleteI really like your analysis that terrorism has to do with perspective. From the U.S.'s perspective, FMLN appeared to be terrorist group, but civilians did not consider them to be such, while the reverse seems to be true of ARENA. It seems like both of these groups could be considered terrorist, since the facts illustrate that they both used violence and scare tactics against others. Do you think the U.S. was too quick to judge ARENA as not being a terrorist organization?
The US completely judged ARENA too quickly, but this was a common theme of the time - Reagan implemented his doctrine which looked to rollback Communism in countries like El Salvador, and since ARENA seemed to be democratic and FMLN was known as Marxist, ARENA seemed like the best bet. Reagan drew American support to any country that had armed resistance to Communism on the basis of justice, necessity, and democracy. Reagan made it clear he would never accept a Soviet-inspired takeover of Latin America. The former president did not fully take into account the political climate in El Salvador, but rather poured huge sums of money into the pockets of the right-wing government. Though Reagan claimed that U.S. involvement in El Salvador was for the benefit of the people, the Reagan Doctrine’s policy of promoting democracy in Latin America and supporting the Salvadoran government through military and economic aid contributed to increased violence in El Salvador during the civil war, because of the US support of a terrorist regime.
ReplyDeleteMollie, I find it interesting that in order to conduct its war of terror, the Salvadorean government had to create a kind of pet non-state actor - paramilitaries who could do the state's work without the state getting its hands dirty. This is a feature of many repressive states across the world; and what it represents is an attempt by these states to 'have their cake and eat it' by ostensibly following international law, while still getting the nasty work of repression done. Does this tell us anything interesting about the relationship between some kinds of violence (e.g. terror), and the actors that employ them?
ReplyDeleteMollie- I am wondering how much responsibility you think the US has for the kind of terrorism perpetuated by El Salvador and ARENA. It was US funding that allowed the El Salvadorian government to maintain such levels of repression; this is a common theme throughout many US supported dictatorships during the Cold War. TO what extent do we bear a responsibility for the terroristic acts carried out by such governments since, at least with ARENA, it was our money that funded it?
ReplyDeleteSean, I actually wrote my 25 page senior thesis paper examining to what extent the Reagan Doctrine lead to increased violence in El Salvador during the civil war. And to sum it up in a sentence: it lead to a lot of the violence.The United States should have known that they can supply guns and money, but cannot control their use. Over one million dollars a day of economic and military aid were provided to the government of President Jose Napoleon Duarte, who attempted to diminish right-wing death squads. However, United States support for his successor, Alfredo Cristiani, led to the ultimate return of the death squads. By aligning with the Salvadoran right-wing, Reagan chose his allies by convenience. Reagan went by the principle “he who is not for me is against me”; they were allies because of who they opposed rather than the values they advocated. These allies, armed with military aid by the United States, conducted death squads, not only murdering insurgents, but civilians and religious leaders as well. Regardless of Reagan’s aims with his Doctrine, to rollback Communism in El Salvador, the Salvadoran people heeded the violence carried out by their government. The US cannot intervene in a country simply by convenience - we must fully understand the climate of the state and all the actors within it.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Craig: It seems that the actors that employ violence usually have outside influence and backing - and perhaps aren't even wanted in the state in which they perpetuate civilians. There's Hamas, who receives funding from Iran, ARENA, by the US, and many more that I don't know about. This outside influence is there to provide funding in order to (violently) instill certain believes or simply terrorize civilians.