No, America was not Complicit in Human Rights Abuses in Guatemala
U.S. military aid to Guatemala was cut off in 1977 because of human rights abuses, as the military carried out an aggressive campaign against Communist-led insurgents.
Doyle McManus of the L.A. Times, said in 1986 “Since 1977, there’s been no U.S. military aid to Guatemala. In fact, one of the distinguishing things about the situation in Guatemala was that this pre-American, conservative military government was essentially waging its guerrilla war with no direct help from the U.S., and its leaders actually felt sometimes it was being impeded by the U.S.”
The Reagan Administration did not lift the Embargo until the Administration thought there were were ‘’significant steps’’ taken by the Government to end human rights abuses. Guatemala was been accused by the United States and many human rights groups of repressive tactics and rights violations. But Administration officials have reported an improvement in recent months before the Embargo was lifted.
‘’While we want to see further progress in Guatemala in promoting respect for human rights, President Rios Montt has taken significant steps in this area,’’ John Hughes, the State Department spokesman, said. ‘’Progress has been made.’’
Because of Guatemala’s human rights record, the Carter Administration in 1978 banned the further sale of items by the Pentagon to that country through the foreign military sales program. Guatemala, angered over the Administration’s human rights report of 1977, had already declined any further aid. In 1980, the Carter Administration banned the sale of military equipment even through commercial channels, although items previously approved could be delivered.
The Embargo ended because it was said that since General Rios Montt took power in 1982, ‘’political violence in the cities has declined dramatically; recently there are indications that the level of violence in the countryside has declined as well; villagers have been provided food and medical supplies along with the means to defend themselves; plans are under way for the election of a constituent assembly; the Indian population is increasingly participating in the country’s political process, and President Rios Montt has been attacking corruption within the Government.’’
‘’The Government has declared its desire to cooperate with independent human rights groups and United Nations agencies and has permitted a number of private groups to visit the country,’’ Mr. Hughes said. ‘’These are steps which we feel should be recognized and encouraged.’’
Rios Montt met President Reagan in Honduras in December 1982 and pledged to resume the electoral process in Guatemala by March. He said his regime was improving political and economic conditions in Guatemala but required the support of the United States.
President Reagan wanted to resume military aid as early as February of 1982. Reagan asked for funds to resume military assistance to Guatemala but did not propose to spend the money unless political conditions in that country improve, State Department sources said.
State Department spokesman Dean Fischer told reporters that “we want to assist Guatemala in the face of growing insurgency while being mindful of the important element human rights plays in our foreign policy formulation.” He said the question of military sales to Guatemala “continues to be under review.”“A savage war is going on between the Guatemalan military and externally supported insurgents,” Fischer said.
An outright Military ban continued however until 2014, until the United States lifted it with 2014 Appropriations Act. The act links any future resumption of military aid to the fulfillment of several specific conditions that the State Department must certify. These conditions include ensuring that the military is cooperating with prosecutions of human rights cases involving current and retired military officers and confirming that the government is taking “credible steps” to compensate communities affected by the government massacre of a Mayan community in the 1980s.
Military aid to Guatemala was renewed in 1985 for the first time in eight years, that aid has been limited to what is termed nonlethal assistance.Lethal aid was not approved until 1989.The thought was that increased U.S.- Guatemalan military cooperation would yield increased accountability on the part of the Guatemalan military.
Why was US Support for Guatemala Necessary During the Cold War?
Jeanne Kirkpatrick gives a good argument in favor of so in her Classic “Dictatorships and Double Standards”
In a manner uncharacteristic of the Carter administration, which generally seems willing to negotiate anything with anyone anywhere, the U.S. government adopted an oddly uncompromising posture in dealing with Somoza. “No end to the crisis is possible,” said Vaky, “that does not start with the departure of Somoza from power and the end of his regime. No negotiation, mediation, or compromise can be achieved any longer with a Somoza government. The solution can only begin with a sharp break from the past.” Trying hard, we not only banned all American arms sales to the government of Nicaragua but pressured Israel, Guatemala, and others to do likewise–all in the name of insuring a “democratic” outcome. Finally, as the Sandinista leaders consolidated control over weapons and communications, banned opposition, and took off for Cuba, President Carter warned us against attributing this “evolutionary change” to “Cuban machinations” and assured the world that the U.S. desired only to “let the people of Nicaragua choose their own form of government.”
Yet despite all the variations, the Carter administration brought to the crises in Iran and Nicaragua several common assumptions each of which played a major role in hastening the victory of even more repressive dictatorships than had been in place before. These were, first, the belief that there existed at the moment of crisis a democratic alternative to the incumbent government: second, the belief that the continuation of the status quo was not possible; third, the belief that any change, including the establishment of a government headed by self-styled Marxist revolutionaries, was preferable to the present government. Each of these beliefs was (and is) widely shared in the liberal community generally. Not one of them can withstand close scrutiny.
It is at least possible that the SALT debate may stimulate new scrutiny of the nation’s strategic position and defense policy, but there are no signs that anyone is giving serious attention to this nation’s role in Iranian and Nicaraguan developments–despite clear warnings that the U.S. is confronted with similar situations and options in El Salvador, Guatemala, Morocco, Zaire, and elsewhere. Yet no problem of American foreign policy is more urgent than that of formulating a morally and strategically acceptable, and politically realistic, program for dealing with non-democratic governments who are threatened by Soviet-sponsored subversion. In the absence of such a policy, we can expect that the same reflexes that guided Washington in Iran and Nicaragua will be permitted to determine American actions from Korea to Mexico–with the same disastrous effects on the U.S. strategic position. (That the administration has not called its policies in Iran and Nicaragua a failure–and probably does not consider them such–complicates the problem without changing its nature.)
So what can we conclude?
The United States did not diplomatically nor militarily support Mass Murder/Genocide. American administration officials issued strong statements deploring political violence in Guatemala. Lethal US Military Assistance did not continue until the George H.W Bush Administration in 1989. Non Lethal Military Assistance did not occur until 1985 when the Human Rights Situation Drastically improved and Guatemala held a democratic election. The Mayan Genocide occurred from the years 1981–1983. US military aid came after.The Bush Administration also in 1990 suspended military aid and commercial arms sales to Guatemala on human rights grounds. The notion the United States Government did not care about Human Rights in Guatemala at all is false, anyone paying attention to the situation in the 80s can tell you that.
