« | Home | »

Reagan’s Favourite Genocidaire


In 1954, the elected, mildly progressive president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, was deposed in a coup orchestrated by the CIA. Arbenz planned modest land reforms that threatened the interests of the United Fruit Company. His successor reversed the reforms and put to the firing squad an estimated 8000 opponents. The coup launched 42 years of dictatorship and violent repression. By the time peace accords were signed between the government and leftist guerillas in 1996, at least 200,000 people had died violently, more than 90 per cent at the hands of government agents; 100,000 women and girls had been raped and one million people displaced. Even after the peace accords, political assassinations continued.

One president in the 1970s said that to eliminate the guerrillas he would ‘turn the country into a cemetery’. His prescription came closest to fulfilment during the short but bloody dictatorship of General Efraín Ríos Montt, who on Friday was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to 80 years in prison.
When Ríos Montt seized power in March 1982, the guerrillas were having some success. He believed they were drawing much of their strength from Mayan villages in the north-west of the country. About 400 villages were destroyed before Ríos Montt was toppled from power in August 1983.
Allan Nairn, a reporter who was due to have given evidence at the trial until the Guatemalan government stepped in to prevent him, has documented some of these massacres. There was nothing clandestine about them; they were designed to shock. Whole populations were marched into village squares and shot or strangled. Women and girls testified to being systematically raped by soldiers.

About 70 witnesses gave personal accounts to the trial. Pedro Chávez Brito, 41, told of the attack on his village on 4 November 1982. They killed his mother. He hid with his pregnant sister and two children, including a newborn baby, among the chickens, but the soldiers found them. His sister begged for their lives, but the military tied her up and set the house on the fire, killing about ten family members. Chávez survived only by hiding under some wood, ‘like an animal’, naked and without food, for eight days.
At the time, Ríos Montt defended what was going on in a way reminiscent of US justifications for attacks on Vietnamese villages: ‘Look, the problem of the war is not just a question of who is shooting. For each one who is shooting there are ten who are working behind him.’ Ríos Montt had the active support of President Reagan, whom he met in December 1982. Reagan saw Guatemala as a proxy battleground in the cold war. He said that Ríos Montt was ‘totally dedicated to democracy’ and had been given a ‘bum rap’ on human rights issues. Perhaps he’d been persuaded by the US ambassador, who earlier in the year said that the ‘killings have stopped’.
While the trial’s verdict means that the 86 year-old ex-dictator should spend the rest of his life in jail, it also has wider implications. It’s the first domestic conviction of a former head of state on genocide charges, and a milestone in Guatemala’s faltering progress towards cleaner politics. It provides a degree of justice to Mayan villagers, who nevertheless remain deeply impoverished and marginalised. 

More broadly, it was a trial of Guatemala’s political establishment. The current president, Otto Pérez Molina, at one point denied there had been genocide and tried to stop the trial, allowing it to continue only as long as he wouldn’t be drawn into it. Yet it was inevitable that he would, as he had been the commander in charge of army units who carried out some of the massacres. Will he face prosecution when his presidential immunity ends in 2016?

Comments on “Reagan’s Favourite Genocidaire”

  1. Much of the tragedy of this story of course happened on the ground in Guatemala itself. But to consider also is that like most countries opened up for the “Shock Doctrine” of American foreign policy, the immediate result was an exodus of children via adoption to the United States among other receiving countries. Some mothers of such children, such as Loyda Rodriguez, have successfully won cases for repatriation in the Guatemala court system, but the U.S. of course will not comply. The tragedy of this imposed dictator is also to be found in the thousands of displaced and dispossessed children declared “orphans” and sold abroad.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • name on Who is the enemy?: Simply stating it is correct doesn't make it so, I just wish you would apply the same epistemic vigilance to "Muslim crimes" as you do to their Hebrew...
    • Glen Newey on Unwinnable War: The legal issue admits of far less clarity than the simple terms in which you – I imagine quite sincerely – frame them. For the benefit of readers...
    • Geoff Roberts on The New Normal: The causes go back a long way into the colonial past, but the more immediate causes stem from the activities of the US forces in the name of freedom a...
    • sol_adelman on The New Normal: There's also the fact that the French state denied the mass drownings of '61 even happened for forty-odd years. No episode in post-war W European hist...
    • funky gibbon on At Wembley: If England get France in the quarter finals of Euro 16 I expect that a good deal of the fraternity will go out the window

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Edward Said: The Iraq War
    17 April 2003

    ‘This is the most reckless war in modern times. It is all about imperial arrogance unschooled in worldliness, unfettered either by competence or experience, undeterred by history or human complexity, unrepentant in its violence and the cruelty of its technology.’

    David Runciman:
    The Politics of Good Intentions
    8 May 2003

    ‘One of the things that unites all critics of Blair’s war in Iraq, whether from the Left or the Right, is that they are sick of the sound of Blair trumpeting the purity of his purpose, when what matters is the consequences of his actions.’

    Simon Wren-Lewis: The Austerity Con
    19 February 2015

    ‘How did a policy that makes so little sense to economists come to be seen by so many people as inevitable?’

    Hugh Roberts: The Hijackers
    16 July 2015

    ‘American intelligence saw Islamic State coming and was not only relaxed about the prospect but, it appears, positively interested in it.’

Advertisement Advertisement