Teaching World History through Current Events

WHAP/Napp Name: ______

The Article:Do as I say (The Economist Magazine)

Prior to Reading, Consider These Facts:

  1. The “Dirty War” was a campaign waged by Argentina’s military dictatorship against suspected left-wing political opponents between 1976 and 1983.
  2. It is estimated that between 10,000 and 30,000 citizens were killed; many of them were “disappeared”—seized by the authorities and never heard from again.
  3. On March 29, 1976, five days after Argentine President Isabel Perón was deposed, a three-man military junta filled the presidency with Lieut. Gen. Jorge Rafaél Videla.
  4. The junta closed the National Congress, imposed censorship, banned trade unions, and brought state and municipal government under military control.
  5. Videla initiated a campaign against suspected dissidents.
  6. Throughout the country the regime set up hundreds of clandestine detention camps, where thousands of people were jailed and persecuted.
  7. The Argentine government, which maintained that it was fighting a civil war, initially faced little public opposition, but this began to change in the late 1970s, with growing evidence of civil rights violations.
  8. The Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, an association of women who had lost children and grandchildren to the Dirty War, began calling international attention to the plight of the desaparecidos (“disappeared persons”) through weekly Thursday afternoon vigils in the Plaza de Mayo, fronting the presidential palace.
  9. Augusto Pinochet, leader of the military junta that overthrew the socialist government of President Salvador Allendeof Chile on Sept. 11, 1973, and head of Chile’s military government (1974–90).
  10. Pinochet was named head of the victorious junta’s governing council, and he moved to crush Chile’s liberal opposition; in its first three years, the regime arrested approximately 130,000, many of whom were tortured.

The Article:

Argentina’s ruling couple have made prosecuting the political violence of the past their signature issue. Néstor Kirchner, the president from 2003 to 2007, and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, his wife and successor, regularly call for “memory” and “justice” for the victims of the country’s 1976-83 military dictatorship. During their time in office, hundreds of ex-soldiers accused of kidnapping, torture and murder have been taken into custody.

No such justice has been extended to the (fewer) victims of Argentina’s leftist guerrillas—in fact, many former supporters of such groups have served in the Kirchners’ cabinet. But the first couple has deflected charges of a double standard by noting that the 2005 Supreme Court decision allowing “dirty war” cases to be reopened applied exclusively to crimes against humanity, which under Argentine law can only be committed by representatives of the state. On September 30th, however, Ms. Fernández sabotaged her claim to support an apolitical reckoning with the past, when her underlings recommended that she grant asylum to a Chilean guerrilla leader.

In June 2004 Chile issued an international arrest warrant for Galvarino Apablaza, who wasa leader of the Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front (FPMR), an urban guerrilla group set up by the country's Communist Party to fight the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. But the crimes Mr. Apablaza is accused of refer to events that took place after Chile had returned to democracy: planning the murder of Jaime Guzmán Errázuriz, a conservative senator and Pinochet ideologue, and the kidnapping of Cristián Edwards, the son of a newspaper owner, in 1991. Five months after the warrant was filed, Argentine authorities detained Mr. Apablaza in a Buenos Aires suburb, where he had been living under a pseudonym with his Argentine wife, Paula Chaín. Chile requested his extradition and Mr. Apablaza applied for asylum. After seven months, a federal judge denied the extradition request and he was released. But the Chilean government appealed to Argentina’s Supreme Court, which said it would not rule until the asylum question had been settled. Mr. Apablaza remained free in the meantime.

Last month, in a televised interview, another former FPMR leader said that Mr. Apablaza was a ringleader in Mr. Guzmán’s murder. The ensuing pressure from Chile led Argentina’s Supreme Court to reverse its decision. Since Mr. Apablaza’s alleged crimes were not political and occurred after Chile's dictatorship had ended, the court said on September 14th that it would approve the extradition unless Ms. Fernández granted him asylum.

This put the president in a bind. Among her staunchest supporters are the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a group that protested the kidnappings of their children during the dictatorship but later became an extreme leftist organization. Its leader, Hebe de Bonafini, claims Mr. Apablaza cannot get a fair trial in Chile because a harsh Pinochet-era anti-terrorism law remains on the books. Ms. Fernández has her own ties to Mr. Apablaza: Ms Chaín works in her press office.

But denying the request looks like a bigger risk. It would severely strain relations with Chile, and weaken Argentina’s moral authority to request extraditions itself—like those of eight Iranians accused of masterminding the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires. It would also support the suspicion that the Kirchners’ supposed commitment to justice was merely an excuse to settle old scores.

Ms. Fernández quickly made up her mind. On September 30th, Argentina’s National Commission for Refugees recommended that Mr. Apablaza be granted asylum. One reason, it said, was that since Mr. Apablaza was “a political militant” and “a fighter against the dictatorship” he was “not a common citizen”—an implicit argument that former guerrillas should be above the law forever. Ms. Fernández said she would follow the guidance of the commission’s theoretically independent technocrats. But its voting members are all representatives of ministries controlled by the executive branch.

Chile is predictably outraged. Mr. Piñera, who happened to be in Buenos Aires when the recommendation was announced, called it a “step backwards for justice and human rights in my country.” The foreign ministry has summoned Argentina’s ambassador in Santiago to explain the decision. But former guerrillas across Latin America are surely breathing easier now that it seems they can take shelter in a country whose “inalienable principles”, in Mr. Kirchner’s words, include “the permanent fight against impunity”.

Reflections:

  1. Discuss Argentina’s ruling couple’s actions regarding “crimes against humanity” during Argentina’s “Dirty War.”
  1. Why are the ruling couple accused of a “double standard”?
  1. How have the ruling couple defended themselves against this accusation of a “double standard”?
  1. Discuss how Ms. Fernández has sabotaged herself.
  1. Discuss the case of Mr. Apablaza.
  1. Describe the history of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo.
  1. What could Argentina risk as a result of its decision?
  1. How does this article inform a conversation on human rights violations?

Mothers of the Disappeared in Chile & Argentina

In Latin America, the 1970s were a difficult period during which military regimes ruled many countries. As democratically elected governments faced increasing economic problems (e.g., falling prices for primary exports, growing unemployment) and intensifying social unrest, the military stepped in to take control. In Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay, the military’s efforts to keep control of their countries led to “dirty wars,” in which they violently repressed those who opposed them. Elections were cancelled, free speech was suppressed, and citizens lived in fear of government reprisals. Perceived enemies of the regimes were taken from their homes, often in the middle of the night, for questioning; after being tortured, some were released to spread the word, but many were never seen again. Within these states of fear, mothers rose up: in Chile and Argentina, mothers of the “disappeared” (desaparecidos) pressured their governments to find out what happened to their children.

In Chile, socialist president Salvador Allende was elected in 1970 and implemented policies (price freezes, wage increases) that were popular with the masses, but caused high inflation and unrest among the elite. People took to the streets, both to protest and to support Allende’s government. In 1973, in the midst of the Cold War, the military staged a coup to oust Allende and save their nation from Communism. General Augusto Pinochet assumed power, which he held until 1989, and began a repressive regime that attempted to silence all opposition.

During Pinochet’s rule, at a time when challenging him was not only dangerous but almost suicidal, groups of women organized to oppose his dictatorship. They were mothers of the disappeared who wanted answers about their missing sons; nearly 10,000 people—mostly men—were taken and never seen again during the Pinochet dictatorship. These women used their traditional roles as mothers to protest the government. The government encouraged women to be domestic and passive, and they supported socially-accepted gender roles for women; mothers could mourn their children, protect their families, and even protest the regime without facing the punishment that their children faced.

In Argentina, Juan Perón returned to the presidency in 1973 after almost two decades in exile following his expulsion from office. When he died in 1974, his wife Isabel, who has been vice president, assumed the presidency with disastrous results. Isabel, a former nightclub dancer, was out of her element: the economy was a mess and inflation was rampant, guerrillas attacked the police and military, and the middle class was afraid. In 1976, the military stepped in to take control of the situation. Thus began what came to be known as the “Dirty War” in Argentina: the military’s “war against subversion” included arrest, detention, torture, murder, and the disappearance of 10,000–30,000 Argentineans between 1976 and 1983.

In 1977, mothers, who had met in government offices where they begged for answers as to the whereabouts of their children, formed a support group and began to organize weekly marches in Buenos Aires’s Plaza de Mayo, in front of government buildings. These women were mostly housewives, with no political experience. They marched in silence, carrying photos of their missing children and wearing white kerchiefs on their heads. As with Chile, these women were still functioning in accepted gender roles as guardians of their families. The government could do little to stop them without calling further attention to their abuses. However, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, as they became known, still faced persecution: some were harassed, and three mothers were disappeared.