Showing posts with label civil war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil war. Show all posts

Thursday, December 8, 2016

E-IR: Pop Culture and Latin America’s Conflicts



"Pop Culture and Latin America's Conflicts"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
E-International Relations
Article
December 3, 2016
Originally published: http://www.e-ir.info/2016/12/03/pop-culture-and-latin-americas-conflicts/

Latin America has been plagued with internal conflicts for decades, be them against left-wing insurgencies or narco-cartels. Naturally, regional film and television industries have utilized them as sources of inspiration for the plots of films and soap operas (the famous Latin American telenovelas). How Latin American security forces are portrayed in these productions is controversial, as there seems to be a bias towards portraying them in a negative way. Whether this is done on purpose or not is debatable, however it appears that regional defense officers believe that entertainment industries deliberately critique them while glorifying criminals. This is an important issue to keep in mind as the entertainment industry has an important effect on how the civilian population views its government and security forces.
Which Wars to Portray?
Prior to beginning our discussion on how conflicts are portrayed by Latin American entertainment industries, we first need to clarify what types of conflicts are depicted. For example, Hollywood producers have the dubious luxury of being able to make a film inspired by one of the many military operations that the US has carried out throughout the world, as portrayed in films like American Sniper, Black Hawk Down, Lone Survivor, Platoon, Zero Dark Thirty, to name a few.
On the other hand, it is important to note that as violent as Latin America is perceived to be, inter-state conflict in the region is actually scarce. Case in point, the last inter-state war in the region occurred in 1995: a short-lived, non-declared war between Ecuador and Peru. The most recent conflict prior to that one was the Falklands/Malvinas War in 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Rather, Latin American militaries and police forces have been deployed internally to combat insurgencies in various countries, between the 1960s to mid-1990s, as well as drug trafficking entities nowadays, like Mexico’s war against narco-cartels, and transnational gangs like the Maras that operate in El Salvador and Honduras.
In other words, while Hollywood can produce a film that depicts a real U.S. military operation abroad, Latin American producers wishing to tell stories about recent real world Latin American military operations have to, by default, focus on internal conflicts.
How Are They Portrayed?
Due to space issues, we cannot discuss every Latin American production, whether a film or telenovela, that addresses some regional internal conflict, whether it be against left-leaning insurgents or a narco-cartel. The list below includes films that, in the author’s opinion, provide a particularly harsh portrayal of regional defense forces.
At a personal level, one of the earliest TV portrayals of the Peruvian military that the author watched was the Peruvian telenovela Los De Arriba y Los De Abajo (The Elite and Lower Ones) in the early-mid 1990s. One of the telenovela’s subplots revolved around an army commander who accidentally orders his troops to fire upon a group of civilians in an Andean town while they were searching for terrorists. The commander and the widow of one of the men killed meet again decades later after their children fall in love. The inspiration for this plot comes from the real-life conflict between the Peruvian military and two terrorist movements, the Shining Path (SenderoLuminoso, SL) and the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (Movimiento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru, MRTA). The military has been accused of carrying out massacres against civilians throughout the 1980s and early 1990s during the internal war against said movements (e.g. the 1985 Accomarca massacre). Another controversial soap opera is Brazil’s Amor e Revolução (Love and Revolution), which has been critiqued for focusing on human rights abuses committed by the Brazilian military government (1964-1985).
As for movies, most critique regional militaries. For example, the 2006 Colombian-Argentine film Soñar No Cuesta Nada (Dreaming Is Free) focuses on a group of Colombian soldiers who discover a cache of money belonging to the insurgent movement Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC); rather than reporting the find, they keep the money and spend it amongst themselves. The film was inspired by a similar real-life 2003 incident. Similarly, the 2003 Argentine drama Captive discusses the fate of children who were adopted by families connected to the military after their parents were disappeared by the Argentine military government (1976-1983). Decades later, these individuals have begun to find out their true identities. Like the aforementionedSoñar No Cuesta Nada, the film is inspired by real events. For instance, in 2015 the Argentine media reported that a man called Mario Bravo discovered his true identity: as a child he was taken away from his mother who was arrested by the military government in the 1970s.
Another example is the 2009 Peruvian film La Teta Asustada (The Milk of Sorrow)  which discusses the fate of Peruvians that were affected by the massacres committed by Peruvian insurgents and the security forces during the country’s internal war (early 1980s to mid-1990s). The movie’s IMDB webpagesummarizes the plot: “Fausta is suffering from a rare disease called the Milk of Sorrow, which is transmitted through the breast milk of pregnant women who were abused or raped during or soon after pregnancy.” A scene from the movie, in which the main character hyperventilates after seeing a photo of a military officer, implies that the Peruvian armed forces in some way abused her or her family.
A final example is the 2004 Mexican film Voces Inocentes (Innocent Voices) which focuses on El Salvador’s civil war (1980-1992).  The movie tells the story of children and teenagers that were forced to join the Salvadoran military to combat the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional, FMLN).  The role of child soldiers in this Central American nation’s civil war has also been well recorded.
It is the opinion of this author, which also appears to be the opinion of some Latin American defense officers, that the aforementioned movies address specific incidents or scandals, all of them unfortunately true, which give the viewer a negative opinion about armed forces. The problem may be that such productions lack a degree of balance, like for example some statement that not all military officers and troops behaved in such despicable manner during these periods of internal warfare or military rule.
Liberation Wars and Inter-State Conflict
To be fair, there have been films which portray Latin American militaries in a positive light, however they tend to focus on 19th century conflicts, namely the region’s independence wars. For example, the 2013 film The Liberator is a Venezuelan-Spanish historical movie which centers on the life of revered South American liberator Simón Bolívar. Similarly, there have been several movies about the Argentine José de San Martín, the region’s other liberator. Moreover, Gloria del Pacífico named the best Peruvian film in 2014, is about the 19th century War of the Pacific (between Peru and Bolivia against Chile, supported by the British Empire). The movie focuses on Peruvian Army hero Francisco Bolognesi.
It is worth noting that Argentina has produced movies about the 1982 Falklands/Malvinas War, which, as previously mentioned, was an inter-state conflict. Such films include 2005’s Iluminados Por El Fuego or1984’s Los Chicos de la Guerra (The Boys of War)
A Sensitive Issue
Cinematographic and television portrayals of militaries and real world security operations are a sensitive issue. For example the film Zero Dark Thirty was critiqued as it showcased US intelligence officers (repeatedly) torturing prisoners to gather intelligence during the hunt for Osama bin Laden. This is even more controversial in Latin America as the conflicts portrayed in most films address civil wars and other internal conflicts, rather than operations on the other side of the globe. Another problem is that these films are about recent conflicts, some of which are still ongoing (e.g. Colombia). In other words, they will be even more relatable to viewers.
As part of the research for this analysis, the author carried out off-the-record interviews with members of Latin American security and defense agencies. The overall consensus, albeit from a miniscule pool of interviewees, is that regional television and cinematographic industries portray a skewed version of reality when it comes to the activities carried out by these agencies to protect the homeland. Namely, security forces are portrayed as “los malos,” (the bad ones) meaning that they are consistently showcased carrying out human rights abuses whether they be disappearances, rape, summary execution of civilians, or other abuses of power.
On the other hand, as one Colombian security officer explained to the author, there is a reversal of values, as narco lords like the infamous Pablo Escobar appear as a charismatic individual with altruistic goals, for example in series like Narcos; Pablo Escobar: El Patron del Mal (Pablo Escobar: The Lord of Evil); La Reina del Sur (The Queen of the South); El Señor de Los Cielos (The Lord of Heaven), among others. The officer explained that this portrayal does not allow the viewer to properly understand the duties and sacrifices of the members of the security and defense forces to protect the homeland.
At this point, it is worth remembering that in the US, Hollywood (broadly speaking) is often critiqued by conservative media outlets of having a “liberal agenda” which aims at vilifying the U.S. military. We will not delve into conspiracy theories regarding whether there is some “agenda” behind Latin American cinematographic and television productions and the negative way they portray security forces. Nevertheless, the author would like to highlight a comment by a retired Peruvian army officer about the way the country’s military has been portrayed in the aforementioned films and telenovelas. The officer explained “these people [meaning the producers and directors] have disliked the military since the time when it was in control of the country, this [the movies and telenovelas] is their revenge.” Meanwhile, a retired Colombian military officer explained that the country’s narco-related telenovelas are “apologists of crime.”
The issue, thus, may be one of perception. Are Latin American producers and filmmakers purposely trying to make security forces look “bad,” because of personal biasness? Additionally, do narco-novelas aim at glorifying narco lords and the narco life, or is this for dramatic effect in order to attract viewers?  No Latin American filmmakers, producers or script writers were consulted by the author, but the perception from interviewed Latin American defense and security officers (again from a very small number, but the author will cautiously generalize it) is that regional films and telenovelas focus on humanizing and even praising insurgents and criminals, while critiquing militaries and police forces. As a retired Colombian defense officer explained, this issue is part of a wider problem of civil military relations at a time of internal conflict. The officer explained, “in Latin America, certain social organizations consider themselves the exclusive owners of issues like the protection of minorities and human rights in general … they maximize any error or criminal act, done purposely or by accident, committed by defense forces while minimizing the atrocities committed by terrorists.”
One example of a positive portrayal of modern Latin American forces could be the Colombian television series Comando Elite, produced by RCN, which focuses on a police unit that combats crime, taking down real-life Colombian narco-lords and insurgent leaders. However, the overall pattern appears to be that portraying defense forces by default requires a negative portrayal, rather than a positive one. It is certainly possible to make a film that positively showcases the bravery of specific units in the field of battle, like for example the Mexican military’s operations against narco-cartels, or the Peruvian Army’s successes against Shining Path and the MRTA, however they may be critiqued for appearing as government-propaganda and not showcasing abuses committed by security forces, which have been well-recorded.
Due to space limitations we have not discussed the relationship between governments and entertainment industries, and the possibility of state-censorship of films or series critical of security forces. This author would argue that fact that these projects continue to be produced and broadcasted is an example of the general success of freedom of speech in Latin America (at least in this specific industry and in most countries, with some exceptions). If anything, regional film producers desire more state support for their movies to reach wider masses. For example, the film industry and the local governments in Colombia and Peru have attempted to design legislation to support their domestic cinematographic industry, while there are programs in countries like Argentina and Mexico where the state provides financial support, like subsidies, towards domestic television and film industries.
Concluding Thoughts
The influence of films on the views of populations is an issue that has been researched by academics. For example, Michelle Pautz, Associate Professor at the University of Dayton, has published an essay analyzing the influence of Argo and Zero Dark Thirty on how U.S. citizens view their government. In a 2015 blog commentary about her research, Professor Pautz states “films that have a more distinctive characterization of characters and institutions might foster a greater influence on viewers.  Put differently, if the “good guys” and “bad guys” are easier to determine, films might be able to influence their audiences.” Meanwhile, in a 2014 interview for the Peruvian daily Diario Correo, Peruvian actor Reynaldo Arenas, who had a role in Gloria del Pacifico, declared that “cinema teaches the youth to not forget history. This art must entertain, educate and inform.” Both Professor Pautz and Mr. Arenas touch on the issue of effects of movies in viewers, with the Peruvian actor taking the stance that movies have a sort of social duty.
Latin America is a region that has experienced major civil unrest over the past decades, morphing in type, from ideological-oriented uprisings to high levels of street violence and the so-called “war on drugs.” Naturally, regional television and film producers have plenty of material that can inspire them to write telenovelas and movies that discuss particular incidents or the consequences of abuses carried out by defense forces in the aforementioned internal conflicts. Hence, the reason why there’s a significant amount of productions about these internal conflicts may be simply because they are topical and it is something that viewers can relate to. Nevertheless, at least one of the aforementioned interviewed defense officers seems to believe that there is a resentment behind these films and telenovelas given how defense forces are portrayed while narco-criminals tend to be glorified.
It would certainly be a welcome development to have major productions that portray the efforts of modern military forces in a positive light, like what has been done with movies relating to the 19th century independence wars, but the problem is that they may in turn be dimissed as government propaganda. Nevertheless, as Professor Pautz and Mr. Arenas highlight, movies do have an influence on the perceptions of moviegoers and it would be a good method of improving popular opinion about security forces in the region since, while it is true that (many) human rights abuses have been unfortunately committed during internal security operations, Latin America is ripe with stories of heroes and heroines who gave their lives to protect their homeland from various internal threats. Militaries and police forces can win wars, but the television and cinematographic industries are critical components that will determine whether or not they will be remembered as heroes.
*The views presented in this essay are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

VOXXI: El Salvador: Will General Jose Guillermo Garcia be deported?



"El Salvador: Will General Jose Guillermo Garcia be deported?"
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
April 15, 2014
Originally published: http://voxxi.com/2014/04/15/el-salvador-jose-garcia-be-deported/

The ruling of a Miami judge to deport Army General Jose Guillermo Garcia, a former defense minister of El Salvador, serves as a victory for human rights supporters, despite the difficulties to implement the rule anytime soon.
Judge Michael Horn ruled that Garcia had a direct role in the torture and extrajudicial killings of hundreds of individuals during that country’s civil war (1980-1992).

A brief background

A brief summary of El Salvador’s bloody conflict is required in order to properly understand the accusations against the retired army general.
Garcia served as defense minister of the Revolutionary Junta – a military government that ruled El Salvador from 1979 until 1982. It was during this period that a bloody civil war commenced between the government and the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (FMLN), a coalition of various insurgent movements. Some 75,000 thousand people are believed to have died in the conflict.
Three significant incidents that occurred at the onset of the civil war were: the 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the 1980 assassination of four U.S. church women, and the 1981 El Mozote Massacre.
Garcia was defense minister of the country when these crimes took place, as he served in that post from 1979 until 1983.
The School of the Americas Watch (SOAW) reports that Garcia “refused to investigate reports that hundreds of unarmed civilians were brutally murdered by the U.S.-trained Atlacatl battalion in 1981.” This incident is known as El Mozote Massacre: Salvadoran soldiers, as part of “Operacion Rescate,” killed over 800 civilians at El Mozote village, where FMLN fighters were believed to be hiding.
Likewise, the SOAW claims that “Garcia also failed to launch a serious investigation of the murder of four U.S. churchwomen by members of the Salvadoran National Guard.” A 1998 New York Times reportexplains that the women (Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford and Dorothy Kazel) were abducted, raped and shot to death on the night of December 2, 1980; their bodies were later found alongside an isolated road.
A 1993 United Nations Truth Commission report concluded that Garcia and Coronel Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova, who at the time was the director of the National Guard, organized an official cover-up of the nuns’ assassinations.
In 1990, Garcia travelled to the U.S. in 1989 and was granted political asylum the following year. He has reportedly lived in Florida ever since.
In February 2013, during his deportation trial, Garcia admitted that he knew of abuses committed by Salvadoran forces, but he argued that he tried to stop them. “I have never ordered, nor have I ever agreed with torture because my principles prohibit it,” he stated.

The deportation verdict

Given the atrocious human rights violations that Garcia is accused of having either ordered or covered up while he was El Salvador’s defense minister, it is no surprise that human rights organizations have praised the recent ruling.
The Center for Accountability & Justice issued a press release in which it praises the judge’s decision and the New York Time’s work to make the ruling be public knowledge. It also states that the “CJA and our clients will continue to work to obtain justice for the brutality of the Salvadoran military and security forces under Garcia’s command.” (The CJA has uploaded a PDF of the 66-page judge’s decision).
The CJA has been trying to hold Garcia accountable for his actions since 1999.
In the conclusions of his lengthy decision, Judge Horn states that “the Court finds that the Department of Homeland Security has established by clear and convincing evidence that all the allegations in the charging documents are true and correct.” These are listed as Garcia’s extrajudicial killing of Archbishop Romero, the four American women, and the El Mozote Massacre, among several others. (P. 60-61)
It is well known that the U.S. government supported the Salvadoran military during the country’s civil war, and to this day the American military has a base in Comalapa, El Salvador. Garcia himself received some military training by the U.S. as he attended a course on counterinsurgency at the School of the Americas in 1962.
As for the general’s fate, his lawyer has declared that they will fight the decision to extradite his client back to Central America. In other words, we will have months, if not years, of legal proceedings before a final verdict is reached and carried out.
Thirty years ago, the atrocities committed in El Salvador’s civil war were horrific, and the perpetrators should be brought to justice. By perpetrators I do not mean solely the military personnel who killed the peasants of El Mozote or four American nuns, but also the higher-ranking officers who either ordered these crimes or covered them up. Hopefully Garcia will not face the U.S. justice system but will eventually return to El Salvador to be trialed there as well for his actions.

Thursday, November 7, 2013

VOXXI: Guatemala: Rios Montt trial to begin (again) in 2015


Guatemala: Rios Montt Trial To Begin (Again) In 2015
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
November 7, 2013
Originally published: http://voxxi.com/2013/11/07/rios-montt-trial-begin-2015/


The new trial against former Guatemala strongman General Jose Efrain Rios Montt has been scheduled to restart on January 5, 2015. (That is not a typo; the trial will not restart in a couple of months, but rather over a year from now). The thousands of Guatemalans that suffered under his rule as well as the international media have cried foul over this decision, as General Rios Montt had originally been found guilty this past May.
Nevertheless, the original ruling was overturned and it may very well be that the former head of state will die a free man.

The situation

This past May, General Rios Montt was sentenced to 80 years in jail for human rights abuses committed while he was President and Commander-in-Chief of Guatemala’s army (1981-1982). Specifically, charges against him were brought by the country’s Mayan-Ixil indigenous people, who suffered throughout that country’s bloody civil war (1960-1996).
Nevertheless, the case against Ríos Montt quickly became a judicial mess, as a five-judge panel then argued that General Rios Montt had been left without legal defense on April 19, when his layer was briefly expelled from the court room.
A BBC article explains that the decision by the court is that, “statements delivered in court before 19 April would stand, but that closing arguments would have to be given again, and ordered the trial to restart from that point.”
As controversial as the aforementioned court’s decision was, it has become even more baffling that the court will wait over a year to handle the case of a former dictator charged with human rights abuses. After the decision was made known, a press release by Amnesty International declared, “This decision to further delay is a letdown for genocide victims and their families.” On their part, the Guatemalan judiciary argues that it does not have an earlier opening in its schedule of upcoming cases.
Parallel to the decision by the Guatemalan judiciary to postpone the trial until 2015, a Guatemalan indigenous group filed a complaint with the Inter-American Human Rights Commission in Washington, arguing that the annulment of a genocide conviction against Riots Montt represents a denial of the right to justice. It is unclear how much pressure the IAHRC could place on the Guatemalan legal system to reschedule the new trial to an earlier date.

Will Rios Montt be alive in 2015?

On March 21, before the first verdict on Rios Montt was passed, I wrote a commentary for VOXXI where I discussed presidential immunity among former Latin American heads of state. In the piece, I was optimistic about how the Guatemalan’s trial, as well as a trial concerning former Argentine President Carlos Menem, were examples of how “judicial immunity for presidents [were] slowly coming to an end.”
It would seem that I, along with numerous other human rights organizations that published optimistic press memoranda after Rios Montt was originally convicted, were too quick to be proud of the Guatemalan judiciary. Now the question is whether Rios Montt will make it to his next court appointment in the (distant) January 2015.
A major concern is that the general will pass away before his trial commences, and even if he is convicted again, he could use his frail health as an excuse to avoid jail time. These are legitimate concerns, as they have occurred in other trials of former heads of state. For example, the Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet died in December 2006 from a heart attack while he was in the military hospital in Santiago. He died a free man, seeing that a trial to convict him of human rights abuses while he was in power (1973-1990) had not reached a verdict yet.
A similar case is that of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, who died in March 2006 from a heart attack while in his jail cell. At the time, the former ruler was on trial for war crimes at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague. While Milosevic did die behind bars, he did so without ever having been convicted for his crimes, as his trial had yet to reach a verdict.
Finally, it is worth mentioning the case of Alberto Fujimori, Peru’s dictator from 1990 until 2000. Currently imprisoned, the family and supporters of the disgraced former head of state have been seeking to have Fujimori either pardoned or allowed to serve the remaining of his prison sentence under house arrest on account of his deteriorating health.
These aforementioned examples demonstrate that the advanced age of disgraced rulers has helped them escape from being tried, and can be used as a tool to attempt to get more advantageous living conditions in prison. Pinochet died at the age of 91, Milosevic was 64 when he passed away in his Dutch cell, while the sick Fujimori is currently 75.
At the advanced age of 87, General Rios Montt realistically may not have much time left. At this point, the most that his victims and human rights organizations can hope for is that he will be alive in 2015 to be trialed, providing some closure for those who suffered unspeakable atrocities and those who support them. Whether he will be alive to be convicted (again) and actually serve any time behind bars may just be wishful thinking.

Friday, September 13, 2013

VOXXI: Guatemala plays a key role on the Syria crisis

Guatemala plays a key role on the Syria Crisis
W. Alejandro Sanchez
VOXXI
September 13, 2013
Originally published: http://www.voxxi.com/guatemala-key-role-syria-crisis/

As the possibility of a military intervention by the U.S. against the Assad regime in Syria seems to have been put on hold, the Syrian civil war has entered a bizarre status quo.
The conflict within Syria continues, but the international community is generally opposed to a (U.S-led) military operation against Assad’s forces.
One of the few countries in the Western Hemisphere that has declared its support for this option is Guatemala, one of two rotating members representing Latin America and the Caribbean (the other being Argentina) at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The Eternal U.S. Ally?
So far, the Guatemalan Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Guatemalan delegation to the United Nations have made standard diplomatic statements, though they have come out in favor of sanctions and a possible military intervention spearheaded by Washington.
For example, back in July 2012, Guatemala voted in favor of a UNSC resolution that would have imposed sanctions on Syria. Moreover, an undated press release by the Guatemalan delegation to the United Nations highlights how it has voted in favor of resolutions in the UN’s General Assembly (A/66/253A, A/66/253B, A/66/176 and A/67/183) lamenting the loss of life and calling for negotiations.
The Guatemalan government took a stronger stance after August 21, following revelations that the Syrian government had utilized chemical weapons, namely sarin gas, against civilians. Some 1,500 individuals were killed in a Damascus suburb as a result of this attack.
After the alleged chemical attack took place, the Guatemalan Foreign Affairs Ministry released a statement calling for an investigation of the incident.

 Syria crisis

In traditional diplomatic parlance, the Ministry explained that: “Guatemala calls for all sides involved in the conflict in Syria to facilitate and guarantee the access of UN investigators to the area where events took place […]” More controversially, the Guatemalan government declared its support for a possible U.S. military intervention in the country.
A late August statement explains that “the government of Guatemala fully supports the call [by the U.S.] for the international community to not cross its arms in the face of these deplorable events.”
Shortly after, on September 1st, President Otto Pérez Molina expressed his support for President Obama’s intention to carry out a military operation in Syria.
According to media reports, the Guatemalan leader stated that “we [Guatemala] clearly and definitely support the decision that the U.S. President has taken so that chemical weapons will not be utilized again, which cause mass deaths. That is Guatemala’s position.”
A Brief Overview of U.S. – Guatemala Relations
Arguably, Guatemala’s stance supporting a U.S. military initiative in the UNSC stems from the country’s desire to remain on good terms with Washington.
Exemplifying this is a June 2013 meeting of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in which Guatemalan President Perez Molina met with Secretary John Kerry.
During the high-level assembly, the Guatemalan leader expressed to the senior U.S. official his aspiration to see his Central American nation join the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Moreover, a May 2013 report by the Congressional Research Service entitled Guatemala: Political, Security, and Socio-Economic Conditions and U.S. Relations discusses U.S. aid to Guatemala.
The report explains that the Central American state received $110 millionin the Fiscal Year 2011, which decreased to an estimated $95 million in the FY2012.
The report adds that, “The Perez Molina Administration, like previous Guatemalan administration, has been pressing the United States to drop those conditions and provide increased military aid to the army.”Current U.S. military aid is centered on counternarcotics programs.
It is important to explain how a diplomatic stance regarding a military intervention in Syria is perceived through geopolitical eyes. Does the fact that Guatemala’s President Perez Molina is in favor of a U.S. military strike signify that the country remains under Washington’s sphere of influence?
Furthermore, to what extent has the Guatemalan government considered the unforeseen effects of a military strike against the Syrian government before its declarations supporting intervention?
The call to arms against the Syrian government by the Guatemalan government should be placed in a historical context. Namely, the situation in Syria can be compared to that Central American country’s own bloody civil war (1960-1966), between the government and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URGN).
The Guatemalan internal conflict was particularly violent, claiming over 200,000 lives, and became known for crimes such as the 1978 Panzos massacre. Given this recent history, a pro-military stance in Syria goes along quite well with Guatemala’s tendency to resort to violence to solve security problems.
Representing Who?
Agreeing to a military intervention is not an easy thing for any government to do. And of course, there is a difference between a country having the right to declare that an intervention is necessary and actually voting in favor one of in a forum like the UNSC, as well as participating in it.
The Guatemalan government has a right to declare that a military intervention in Syria (against the Assad regime) is necessary.
Nevertheless, it should be stressed that Guatemala’s stance in the UNSC goes against the positions vis-à-vis Syria of most of the Western Hemisphere.
Recent declarations by the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) highlight that most Western Hemisphere governments are against a new U.S.-led military operation.
One can only hope that Guatemala’s diplomatic stances in the UNSC regarding Syria has been reached after a lengthy and rational debate regarding moral obligations and national interests in Guatemala City.


Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/guatemala-key-role-syria-crisis/#ixzz2eoGUm0PO

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Interview: CNN En Espanol - Choque de Opiniones - Colombia Proceso de Paz



Entrevista: Colombia Peace Process
Choque de Opiniones
CNN En Espanol
June 2, 2013 - 8pm

Esta semana en CNN Choque de Opiniones hablaremos sobre el proceso de paz entre las FARC y el gobierno de Colombia tras el primer acuerdo de la agenda. Platicamos con expertos en el tema y mostramos sus opiniones de las redes sociales. No se lo pierdan este domingo a las 8 pm. ET