From: Witness For Peace Date: 20 Dec 91 09:01 PST Subject: WFP: Nov. 91 Myth of the Month Message-ID: <1563600105@igc.org> Lines: 223 Status: RO Witness for Peace 1492-1992 Expose the Myths: Calling for a Just World Order Myth of the Month--December 1991 Myth: The militarily imposed form of colonial government was superior to the form of government that existed in the "Americas" and improved the lot of Indians; in the same way, the U.S.-supported military fosters democracy and freedom. Response: After the arrival of the European explorers, the indigenous people of the Americas experienced poverty, slavery, and disease. When they struggled to maintain their own form of government and culture, they were subjected to genocide and ethnocide at the hands of the conquistadors. Today, indigenous populations continue to struggle against military oppression and domination which is often funded and sponsored by the U.S. Militarization in the New World Prior to the arrival of Columbus and his followers, the indigenous peoples maintained their own systems of government. According to historian Howard Zinn, the systems employed by Indians were "complex, where human relations were more egalitarian than in Europe, and where the relations among men, women, children, and nature were more beautifully worked out than perhaps any place in the world." (Zinn, 1980) On the mainland there were larger groups of what the Spaniards called Indians. Such tribes as the Mayas of Mexico and the Incas of Peru had a remarkably advanced political and economic organization. Instead of making the task of conquest harder, their civilization simplified it, for the Spanish, by controlling the leaders, easily subjugated the others. (Athearn, 1963) The Indians had a well-planned justice system and preferred their ways to the methods which the European colonists imposed upon them. For instance, English settlers in North America tried to force laws regarding punishment onto the Iroquois people, to which the Iroquois are reported as replying: It is the manner amongst us Indians, that if any such accident happen, wee doe redeeme the life of a man that is so slaine, with 100 armes length of Beades and since that you are heere strangers, and come into our Countrey, you should rather conform yourselves to the Customes of our Countrey, than impose yours upon us.... The Iroquois did not see a reason to adapt to a foreign and seemingly barbaric new order. Unlike the systems employed by the Indians_systems which emphasized equality, respect for justice and the environment, and social welfare_the European systems were militaristic, intolerant, and often brutal. Yet by force of arms the Indians were made to follow European conventions. The conquistadors relied upon their superior weapons (the Indians had never seen guns or steel swords) and military might to force the European political and economic systems onto the original inhabitants of the "New World." Hernando Corts disembarked in Mexico in 1519, and by 1521 he had conquered the great Aztec Empire. Over the next several years, conquistadors conquered for the Spanish crown the lands of what is now Central America. In the early 1500s Spain established the system of encomienda in Latin America, which granted colonists large tracts of land as well as the Indians on that land to serve as laborers. Millions of Indians were literally worked to death by their colonial slave-owners. The militarily imposed European system of governance had a high human cost for indigenous peoples. Eduardo Galeano writes in Open Veins of Latin America: "The Indians of the Americas totaled no less than 70 million when the foreign conquerors appeared on the horizon; a century and a half later they had been reduced to 3.5 million." Although many of the deaths were caused by diseases brought from Europe and to harsh living conditions, military assaults and subsequent military domination accounted for a significant percentage of these deaths. Galeano quotes Archbishop Li n y Cisneros, who in the 1600s denied the annihilation of Indians between Lima and Paita (in what is now Peru): "The truth is that they are hiding out to avoid paying tribute, abusing the liberty which they enjoy and which they never had under the Incas." In this way he explained why only 4,000 families lived where over 4 million families had once been. The archbishop's belief in the myth of European superiority enabled him to dismiss the tremendous cruelty occurring around him. He claimed that life for the Indians in this new European order was better than it had been under the Incas; and that now they could experience the liberty and the civility of Europe, even if by constraint. Militarization and the New World Order No one has articulated the myths of the "new world order" more clearly than President Bush. He speaks of a world "where brutality will go unrewarded and aggression will meet collective resistance," a world in which "the principles of justice and fair play... protect the weak against the strong...," and a world in which "freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations." President Bush portrays the U.S. as the enforcer of that world order: "We are Americans; we have a unique responsibility to do the hard work of freedom." "Our cause is just, our cause is moral, our cause is right." These claims of moral "rightness" and "fair play" are not too different from the claims of Columbus, Corts, Archbishop Li n y Cisneros, and many others. The myth states that the United States is an agent of justice and freedom, and that U.S. military power helps secure this order. From 1980 to 1989, the United States has sent approximately $1.46 billion to Central American governments in the form of military aid. This does not include the more than $320 million spent in the contra war in Nicaragua. The United States currently has numerous military bases in Central America, an area that has been considered "our own backyard" since the days of President Teddy Roosevelt. The following points illustrate the real relationship between U.S. militarization and freedom in Central America: * Since 1950, U.S. forces have militarily invaded Central America 5 times, and intervened an additional four times, in order to "establish democracies." n The U.S. spent $321.7 million to support the contras in Nicaragua, and $10 million to support the UNO (National Opposition Union) in the 1990 election in order to remove the Sandinistas from power. However, after sponsoring the destruction of the country through the contra war and an economic embargo, the U.S. government is extremely slow to provide aid for reconstruction. (Nicaragua estimates the damages at $17 billion.) * From 1980-89 in El Salvador alone, the United States has spent $933 million in military aid and $3.59 billion in total aid to support the government. Meanwhile, in that same time period, 40,000-50,000 civilians were killed or disappeared by the country's security forces (Barry, 1990) and more than 70,000 people were killed in the nations civil war. n From 1986-90 the U.S. gave $38.5 million in military aid and $844.8 million in total aid to Guatemala (Barry, 1990). During the same years there were 2,429 extrajudicial executions, 559 disappearances, and 209 people massacred_and no one has been prosecuted for any of them (Guatemala Human Rights Commission/USA). n In 1989 the U.S. invaded Panama, killing 1,000 civilians and leaving 14,000 homeless in an effort to oust dictator Manual Noriega and secure U.S. dominance in the canal zone. Roughly $2 billion in damage was done during the invasion, but Congress approved an aid package of only $420 million to assist reconstruction. A year after the invasion only $120 million of that money has been received. U.S. military practices in Central America have also threatened local populations due to ecological exploitation. (See the August, 1992 Myth of the Month for more information.) Looking at the picture of U.S. military and total aid to countries in Central America, it is clear that U.S. aid does not contribute greatly to either the welfare of the poor or to the formation of democratic societies. In fact, countries which receive large amounts of U.S. aid also experience extremely high rates of poverty, with the wealthy elite (often the military elite) controlling most of the country's resources. A just world order would not justify the use of military might to extend a country's hegemony. Domination in any form_military, economic, religious, etc._would be unacceptable. Rather than spend enormous amounts of money on weapons and forces of violence, resources would be spent on promoting peace and justice. Examples: Santiago Atitl n, Guatemala After a December 2, 1990 military assault on their village left 13 people dead, the people of Santiago Atitl n, Guatemala, joined forces in a demonstration against the army's presence in their village. They demanded that the army leave the base and allow the people to live free from aggression and intimidation. The army left, and today, where a military fort once stood, corn and flowers bloom. Santiago now experiences a popular government, with townspeople participating in decisions that effect their lives. Block of military aid to El Salvador In 1990, many U.S. citizens and activists joined together to call for an end to military aid to El Salvador. They demanded that military aid be withheld until the human rights situation in that country is acceptable. After months of grassroots lobbying and educational work, Congress defeated a military aid package to El Salvador. Calling for a Just World Order: To expose the destructive nature of the U.S. military presence in Central America: * Become a Witness for Peace Media/Legislative Contact (see enclosed flyer). Ask your congresspersons to say "NO!" to U.S. military aid to Central America and to make all aid contingent upon human rights and participatory democracy. * Expose to the local media the destination and result of ammunition and troops from your local military establishment. * See for yourself the impact of U.S. militarization by joining a Witness for Peace delegation to Central America (see enclosed delegation schedule). Discussion Questions: 1. What are some reasons which you have heard to justify the U.S. military presence in Central America? Do those reasons seem right to you? 2. During the contra war, President Reagan often spoke of the threat posed to the United States (population = 270 million) of an invasion from Nicaragua (population = 3 million). A 1985 Oxfam report referred to Nicaragua as the "threat of a good example"_that is, that a successful Nicaraguan revolution might lead other countries to do the same. Which threat seems to underlie U.S. policy today? Why? 3. What are alternatives to the present U.S. policy of militarization in Central America? Resources: El Salvador: A Country Guide, Tom Barry, Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center (IHERC): 1990. Nicaragua: A Country Guide, Kent Norsworthy, (IHERC): 1989. Panama: A Country Guide, Tom Barry, (IHERC): 1990.