Brazil to Establish a Truth Commission for Its Dictatorship Period (1964-1985)

Well, this is interesting news:

Twenty four years after the military left power in Brazil, the government is to create a Truth Commission to investigate crimes committed by the security forces between 1964 and 1985.

Brazil is the only country in Latin America which has not investigated deaths, disappearances and torture which took place during its dictatorship, or put alleged perpetrators on trial.

Anytime a Truth Commission is established, it's good news for multiple reasons: it forces governments and societies to recognize the horrible crimes some sectors have committed (and many more supported, tacitly or explicitly); it frequently allows closure for victims' families who still don't know the fate of their loved ones; and the sheer act of a truth commission hopefully deters such actions from future governments (though it's in no way guaranteed).

I'd like to say what all can emerge from this, but I really have no idea right now. It's not like the country, human rights organizers, or historians are going to be incredibly shocked by the techniques of torture and of murder by state agents - those accounts have been well-known and well-detailed both through non-state-sponsored commissions like the "Nunca Mais" ("Never Again") project, as well as testimonials of many others who were tortured. As for the disappearances and murders, it's true that sometimes details are missing, as in the case of the Araguaia guerrilla war in the early-1970s, when the military killed and buried dozens-to-hundreds of guerrillas challenging the dictatorship.

Additionally, I really do hope the military archives are opened up. The military's line that the archives were burnt and destroyed years ago and don't even exist rings hollow for a number of reasons. First, the military's stance on this has shifted throughout time; first, it said the archives didn't exist anymore, then that they never existed at all, then that they were did, but were closed, and then that they were destroyed. I suppose this is possible, but I find it unlikely. Additionally, I fail to see how some central components of the military security apparatus remain in archives like the Department of Public Order and Security (DOPS) archives in places like Rio and Sao Paulo, as well as the Division of Security and Information (DSI) archive at the National Archive, both of which I've had experience with. While the security apparati in Brazil were varying and multiple, they all ran through at least some branch of the military, so I fail to see how the DSI and DOPS collections could survive and make it into archives, yet the "military archives" have been destroyed. Plus, if my research experience showed anything in general terms, its that the "banality of evil" and the desire to document everything, no matter how incriminating, is a frequent feature (not a bug) of authoritarian regimes.

That said, I also suspect this can only illuminate so much. Even if the commission reveals the general whereabouts of the bodies of the victims of the Araguaian war, for example, it was in one of the most forbidding and rapidly shifting environmental areas in Brazil, and tracking down the bodies' remains could be difficult (though the fact that some remains have been found is somewhat encouraging).

I hate to end on a pessimistic note, so I'll make it the penultimate point. One of the people quoted in the article points out that state agents still actively practice torture in prisons and against the poor, and he's absolutely right. However, I don't have much hope that a Truth Commission into the dictatorship period in Brazil will lead to an end to current practices of torture. Torture and "alternate" rights for the poor and marginalized in Brazil have existed since slavery; the poor and the rich/darker and lighter have always had alternate sources of justice, prisons, etc. Torturing the poor and marginalized has been a part of the landscape of Brazilian "law" since the late-1800s, and I just don't see why a commission studying just 21 years would suddenly lead everybody to support an end to torture today. Again, it's not like the practice and methods of torture in the dictatorship are some secret - most people in Brazil (and those studying the dictatorship) are familiar with the "parrot's perch," the "dragon chair," and other torture mechanisms. If society has known about these for more than 30 years, I really don't see how a truth commission will suddenly lead to an "awakening." I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.

That said, the fact that the government and state apparatuses themselves are finally forcing themselves to deal with this dark period in Brazil's history is nothing but good news. Again, scholars and others have known much of this for decades, but new details are always valuable to historians and human rights activists, and especially to the victims' families, and the fact that the government is finally willing to confront its past is an important step, even if it is symbolic. If nothing else, Brazil's governments and state owe this to the families who lost loved ones in their struggles against a repressive, authoritarian regime.

Ché Guevara and South American Dictatorships

As leftists throughout Latin America and the world prepare to mark the 40th anniversary of the murder of Ché Guevara, fresh news comes out that shows Latin American dictators were at least somewhat coordinated in tracing and tracking down Guevara, revealing a collaboration that well pre-dates the official institution of Operation Condor. While this is certainly newsworthy, it should come as no surprise to anybody that the military governments of South America were in collaboration with each other before the institutionalization of such cooperation via Operation Condor. We tend to forget, in the post-Cold War era, how polarized everything was, and how threatening governments and societies (those dictatorships didn't happen without significant societal support) viewed "Communism". They did all they could to mobilize against perceived threats (real or imagined), and so, as I said, the fact that Brazil was informing Bolivia that Guevara was trying to slip across their shared border, while new, should not be surprising in the least.

The Most Incongruous Latin American History Lesson of the Year

While cruising around on the internets today, I checked out what's been going on recently in professional wrestling. Apparently, in what is unquestionably a new storyline (were it real news, you could find it on websites that host, well, real news), owner/CEO/heel Vince McMahon was killed last night in a car bomb. This is, as I said, obviously not true, and is being used to push some new storyline in the near future.

However, what's particularly odd about this story is the history they actually include. Towards the bottom of the story, there is the following paragraph: "This incident [the "carbombing"] is the first of its kind in the U.S. since the assassination of political figure Orlando Letelier in Washington, D.C. in 1976. Sources say that given the nature of the apparent car bombing, under law federal authorities will be called in for a more thorough investigation that would supersede local Pennsylvania authorities."

To my knowledge, that's actually completely true (if we accept the silliness of the McMahon carbombing). Orlando Letelier died in Washington, D.C. in 1976 when Augusto Pinochet's government had Letelier (who was a vocal critic of Pinochet) blown up, along with his assistant, Ronni Moffitt (her husband was severely wounded but survived).

I could chastise WWE for being offensive in tying together a political victim of an authoritarian state and Vince McMahon, but offensiveness is nothing new for WWE. So instead, I'll actually begrudgingly congratulate them. While McMahon will pop up again soon, the WWE actually not only brought in an actual history lesson to their wrestling audience (that of Letelier); they even got the basic fact of the car-bombing right.

Notes on Argentina (I): The Madres de Plaza de Mayo

"Until Victory, Always dear children!"

Some of the surviving Madres on stage.

Just a handful of photos of the 30,000 disappeared

By pure chance, I happened to time my honeymoon so that I was in Buenos Airs on April 30, 2007, which happened to mark the official 30th anniversary of the first march of the Madres de Plaza de Mayo. As I've mentioned in previous posts, the Madres are one of the more important groups not just in helping Argentina overthrow its own military dictatorship (1976-1983), but also in serving as a model for protest in other parts of Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Since the Plaza de Mayo was just 4 blocks from my hotel, I took advantage of the opportunity and attended the official rally, where many of the surviving madres were present.

The rally itself was remarkable. First and foremost, there's just the impact of what these women have done. The images of the disappeared placed on either side of the stage, the signs reminding us of the loss of 30,000 Argentines in the 7-year "dirty war", the youth who rallied around these small, elderly women who changed so much, the chants, the music (everything from tango to hymns to Che Guevar), was almost too much emotionally. There was a political solidarity and activism there that I've never seen anywhere else in my life. It's cliché, probably, but the emotion was actual palpable - some people hugging and crying, others cheering, others just standing in silence and respect to the madres.

Adding to the emotion, for me, was the simple fact that I, as an American citizen, was present. The Argentine dictatorship is one of the most awful, vulgar, horrific things the United States ever supported, with Henry Kissinger verbally giving acting president Jorge Videla a carte blanche to kill whomever he wanted until the "threat" of "subversives" was gone. Being presnt and knowing that government of my country, like in so many countries in the 20th century, had a direct hand in the propping up of one of the most repressive apparati of state terrorism in the history of the Western hemisphere, gave the rally a particularly upsetting and emotional dynamic to me personally.

Between musicians, various political activists would talk. Additionally, between each "set", they often played taped recordings of what the Madres had said in the past, often taking devastating, emotional soundbites from the dictatorship period itself. This was certainly a celebration of what the Madres have done (not just in terms of the dictatorship but in terms of protests against global oppression since the dicatotrship's end, the founding of their cultural center, and most recently, the establishment of their own college to continue the study of human rights and law), but through it all, the sheer emotion and loss (and emotional depression that creates) were palpable throughout. It may have been 30 years, but the disappeared were as present as they were in the height of the dictatorship.

In a sign of how much has changed in 30 years, while the police were present just outside the plaza, there was no violence this time. Some student ralliers who were about to parade made a clear demonstration against the police in front of their faces, but there was no violence, in itself a sign of hope for the country that saw some of its best minds killed by the state.

Overall, the experience, with all the emotion, the people, the music, the message, the banners, everything, it was just so overwhelming and amazing. Without a doubt this was the best part of being in Buenos Aires when I was.

The Loss of Another Important Human Rights Voice in Latin America

Like Argentina in December, El Salvador has lost one of its most important voices in the human rights struggle - María Julia Hernández has died at 68 years of age. Hernández had been one of the more important voices for human rights in El Salvador. She was one of the more important chroniclers of the murderous atrocities of death squads throughout the country. In addition, her quest for human rights did not stop with the peace accords in 1992, as she continued to advocate against the continued threat of (very real) police violence in El Salvador, well into this decade. As this generation of human rights activists dies off, we are losing some very important voices in this world. Let's hope the younger generations have paid attention, and continue in the footsteps that these amazing women and men have already set.

On This Date in Latin America...The Malvinas War

Today, April 2, 2007, marks the 25th Anniversary of the Malvinas war (which England, America, and Canada in tradition with their imperialist/colonialist history, have continuously referred to as the Falklands War, while the rest of the hemisphere south of the Rio Grande continues to call it the Malvinas), in which Argentina and England went to war over a small chain of islands 300 miles East of the Argentine coast and 7871 miles from London, the seat of Margaret Thatcher's conservative government.

The war marked one of the least promising wars ever in terms of outcome - either Margaret Thatcher's conservatives would come out on top, or victory would go to an Argentine military dictatorship that had killed upwards of 20,000 of its own citizens (some estimate 30,000 people) in the previous 6 years.

Argentina, which had claimed ownership of the islands since 1820, felt that England's possession of the Malvinas since 1833 denied Argentina what was rightfully theirs. In an effort to continue the nationalistic state-building campaigns it had launched since the 1970s (including the 1978 Argentine World Cup victory), Argentina's military junta decided to invade the Malvinas, imagining the British would not respond or contest the issue.

However, facing challenges at home due to economic troubles, Thatcher seized upon the potential nationalistic support such an occupation could provide, and sent the British navy to defend the Malvinas. The British population quickly forgot about their economic woes, celebrating the ridiculous defense of the islands with a jingoistic air not seen since the loss of the British colonies in the mid-20th century. Thatcher's popularity immediately skyrocketed, aiding her and the Conservatives in 1983 elections (as well as gaining much moral and material support from Ronald Reagan in one of the few instances in which he broke with murderous Latin American military states).

The only good outcome of the war was what happend in Argentina in its wake. The military dictatorship, already in trouble due to growing economic problems and increasing pressure on human rights from groups like the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, had begun losing support and control in Argentina, but the undeniable failure of Argentina's military, both in its calculations that England would not seriously resist Argentina's maneuvers and then the military's great mishandling of the war when it arrived led to the almost total collapse of the military junta. The failed effort at nation-building blew up in their faces so severely, they suddenly found themselves completely removed from the executive branch as Raul Alfonsin became the first elected president since the 1970s. While removed from the executive branch, however, the military continued to exercise significant political sway over politicians, a fact which has explained the difficulty in gaining prosecution of those involved in torture and disappearances difficult up to today (thanks in no small part to Carlos Menem's absurd amnesty declaration shortly after his 1990 election).

In comparison to the havoc the Argentine military wreaked against its own population, the casualties of the Malvinas War were releatively small. After just under three months of fighting, 649 Argentines, 255 British troops, and three islanders had left this terrestrial coil between April 2 and the end to hostilities on June 14, 1982, when one of the more useless and stupid wars of the twentieth century finally came to a close.

Portugal's dimmed memories of repression

Randy says it best: good God. Having studied military dictatorships and military state-society relations for awhile, I'm not unfamiliar with the dulling of memories over time and even the perverse reminiscence (during good times and bad) for the "good old days" of torture, repression, and lack of democracy. Still....what the heck is wrong with the Portuguese on this?

Human Rights in Brazil

I'm a little late in getting to this story on the quest for human rights in Brazil, but it's extremely important. Human Rights groups here in Brazil, trying to find a way around the 1979 amnesty that pardoned leftist groups and military torturers equally, have seized upon a new method. A family has filed a civil case against Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra. The civil case means Ustra cannot go to jail, but what it also means is that his name can officially be marked now as an individual in charge of torture and illegal kidnappings and imprisonments during the Brazilian military dictatorship (1964-1985).

This is hugely important for two reason. Firstly, it does find a way to circumvent that 1979 amnesty, adn while it will not lead to any jail time for anybody, it will permanently record, for once and for all, the widespread practice of torture in Brazil during the dictatorship, and it will name names. Secondly, it has put the issue of torture and human rights back in the public arena again. People here have generally let the question of torture fall into the background of Brazilian history with the passing of time, and the sheer horror of the practice of torture in Brazil (outlined in the article, but including beatings, electroshock on the genitals, and dunking heads in water to the point of near-drowning) has been greatly dulled in the public eye with the passing of time. My fincée heard a girl say just two weeks ago that the military didn't even use that much torture, and even when it did, it must have been because the tortured did something illegal and awful, though what exactly might merit torture she didn't say. By bringing forward such cases and outlining the particular acts, people will hopefully be reminded that torture in any form, including that practiced during the dictatorship, is beyond awful.

Once again, the story (and Larry Rohter) reveal a general misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the workings of the Brazilian government (something Rohter has failed to grasp before). Lula comes off as a president who isn't interested in trying to undo the 1979 amnesty and prosecuting torturers. There are two factors that have really impeded this. One is, as José Miguel Vivanco says, is the lack of widespread demand on the part of the Brazilian constituency to address the issue. Many people supported the dictatorship while it was in power, and many who didn't necessarily like it have had their opinions softened with the passing of time. The fact that "only" several hundred people were killed (in comparison to 3000 in Chile from 1973-1990 and perhaps as many as 30,000 in Argentina from 1976-1983) has meant that fewer lives were directly affected by the regime in the area of human rights (though the numbers of tortured were rather high in Brazil, but again, not as high in terms of per capita as in Chile and Argentina).

Secondly, the article clearly has no understanding of the role the military still plays in politics in Brazil. As I've mentioned before, it didn't just go away and say, "OK, civil government, do whatever you want - we'll just hang out in the barracks." The military has continued to influence (to put it lightly) events in the government, ranging from military pay hikes to pressure not to charge military police in the killing of the poor in favelas, always with the vague cloud of needing to "intervene" again hanging over civil politicians. Thus, it isn't necessarily that Lula lacks "political will", as the article (and Vivanco) say - it's that the military would openly threaten and bully Lula were he to try to use his office to seek actual prosecutions of those members of the military who were involved in torture. In this regard, Brazil actually isn't that dissimilar from Chile in the mid-1990s, when Pinochet was still there. The main difference is, the military is still present in Brazilian politics, despite being 22 years removed from the executive branch now. The article even unintentionally (and unacknowledgingly) indicates this, given Ustra's sabre-rattling among his colleagues, trying to frighten them by claiming that soon, such groups and civil suits will be coming after them as well. If this is the rhetorical effect of a civil suit, a state-led prosecution would be far worse for the administration.

Could Lula do more? Absolutely, particularly given the rise of this civil-suit approach to naming torturers. He could come out in favor of this civil suit while not fully alienating the military leadership itself. And is dealing with torturers at the top of Lula's agenda? Probably not, and it wouldn't hurt to put it near the top. But at the same time, Vivanco is correct when he points out that "politicians are rational actors." It's just that I don't think Lula's rationality doesn't come from flakiness or disinterest - it's embedded in a democratic system itself that never fully saw the civilian-led executive branch of the government regaining control over the military (see this for a scholarly argument on the role of the military in politics since 1990).

UPDATE: Randy has more.