Response to Monday's Class
After Monday's class and our short final discussion about punishment and responsibility, I felt the need to voice my opinion. As Jon pointed out, there was a lot of disagreement in the class, we couldn't easily reach a point of consensus about the issue. However, numerous times throughout the discussion people commented on the infeasibility of punishing certain actors in human rights abuses - in the case of our example, the U.S government, President Eisenhower, and/or the CIA. I found this trend both interesting and frustrating. My understanding of the questions was "Who's to blame for the Guatemala coup? Who should take responsibilty?" I didn't hear Jon ask us, who will take responsibility, but that was the questions many people were more inclined to answer. While I agree that it would be extremely difficult to hold the U.S. government responsible for the Guatemalan coup and the ensuing 30 years of conflict and genocide that resulted, I do not feel as reluctant as the rest of the class to express my belief that they are responsible, and in the context of the question, the "right" thing to do would be for the international community to hold them responsible.
In our small group I suggested that a reasonable punishment would be for the U.S. to pay reparations to Guatemala - perhaps allowing the Guatemalan people to decide how they would like to receive these reparations (as some people suggested, using the idea of community-based justice). My group thought that money doesn't necessarily help anything, but I think that many people in Guatemala scratching out a subsistence living would disagree. The money could be put directly into the communities most devasted by violence and poverty. The U.S. could build hospitals and provide infrastructure for health. They could set up food programs to aid malnourished children. I think these reparations could work well and feasibly, if the U.S. and international community recognized the responsiblity the U.S. government holds in Guatemala's current condition. Additionally, it would symbolically show that the U.S. understands its responsibility in Guatemala's situation and suffering, and feels like it (the U.S. government) needs to make amends for its actions.
Hopefully, demanding this type of accountability would make governments prioritize human rights because it would establish a reasonable punishment to deter future initiatives similar to the Guatemala coup. The demand that the U.S. take responsibility for the long-term affects of its actions would have repercussions throughout the whole field of human rights. Even if they weren't successful, the very fact that people demanded justice and accountability in this case would change the perception of what the human rights discourse can legitimately demand. The first time people suggest that the U.S. should take responsibility for its actions, people think they're crazy - "Yeah, like that'll ever happen" - the next time, a little less crazy, and a little less, until finally things change.
People thought it was crazy to let women vote. People thought it was crazy to let black people go to the same universities as white people. People thought it was crazy to let two men marry each other. The majority doesn't think so any more.
Maybe we can't force the U.S. to take responsibility for the Guatemalan coup and the ensuing damage it caused, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to say that they should.
tag: last301
In our small group I suggested that a reasonable punishment would be for the U.S. to pay reparations to Guatemala - perhaps allowing the Guatemalan people to decide how they would like to receive these reparations (as some people suggested, using the idea of community-based justice). My group thought that money doesn't necessarily help anything, but I think that many people in Guatemala scratching out a subsistence living would disagree. The money could be put directly into the communities most devasted by violence and poverty. The U.S. could build hospitals and provide infrastructure for health. They could set up food programs to aid malnourished children. I think these reparations could work well and feasibly, if the U.S. and international community recognized the responsiblity the U.S. government holds in Guatemala's current condition. Additionally, it would symbolically show that the U.S. understands its responsibility in Guatemala's situation and suffering, and feels like it (the U.S. government) needs to make amends for its actions.
Hopefully, demanding this type of accountability would make governments prioritize human rights because it would establish a reasonable punishment to deter future initiatives similar to the Guatemala coup. The demand that the U.S. take responsibility for the long-term affects of its actions would have repercussions throughout the whole field of human rights. Even if they weren't successful, the very fact that people demanded justice and accountability in this case would change the perception of what the human rights discourse can legitimately demand. The first time people suggest that the U.S. should take responsibility for its actions, people think they're crazy - "Yeah, like that'll ever happen" - the next time, a little less crazy, and a little less, until finally things change.
People thought it was crazy to let women vote. People thought it was crazy to let black people go to the same universities as white people. People thought it was crazy to let two men marry each other. The majority doesn't think so any more.
Maybe we can't force the U.S. to take responsibility for the Guatemalan coup and the ensuing damage it caused, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to say that they should.
tag: last301
posted by Peggy | 5:00 PM
5 Comments:
Peggy,
I could feel the passion rising off the page! Eloquently stated. I agree with what you are saying, that there should be responsibility taken, and it should come in a tangible form. I agree. However, I get worried when it comes to the details.
We all agreed the U.S. government would probably not take the responsibility on itself to make these reparations or take the blame. I mean I look at the US reaction to the Abu Ghraib abuses, and how even in the face of international condemnation and attention, the U.S. government officially stands behind its actions and keeps the standard line that it has committed no human rights abuses or torture. Obviously, the rest of us know better than to believe a word of it, but they still deny the whole thing. How ridiculous, that even with pictures, personal accounts, NGO fact-finding and pressure, the U.S. remains unscathed (except perhaps in its international image and legitimacy).
Even in this more clear case, I am trying to figure out in my head the details. who will make the U.S. accountable, how will they do this. Will it be the international community, a civil society law suit? Or will the pressure wane and redirect attention onto the next issue? I dont have the answers, Im just raising some questions.
But like I said, I agree.
LISA
Okay I agree that at some point someone should be forced to take responsibility for their actions and in this case it should be the US. During Monday's discussion I was just a little weary of where the money would actually go and from whose pocket the money would come from. The rich in the US are hard pressed to give up a few bucks when it will not benefit them. So I'm afraid that those already in poverty in the USA will have to pay with even more cuts to their social welfare programs in order to give money to Guatemala for something a previous government did. Im also a little weary that the money wouldn't be put back into the field and hands of those that need it the most. They might gain some advantage through the trickle down effect but thats only after many people have siphoned off a little for themselves. Sadly I speak of all this corruption that goes on in our world today - but it is something we must work around in order to actually get some reparations back to Guatemala.
i agree with the need for reparations to be paid to guatemala's poor that have been most impacted by the long history of US interference.
my hope would be that if this were to happen that it wouldnt include a lot of US propaganda -do-gooder bullshit. there is a huge problem when setting up situations of relief, it takes on a charity-like frame work that usually includes a strong power-relationship, one community with the ability to "take care of" the other. so if it reparations were to be paid, i would like to see it done in a way that acknowledges why there is the need in the first place along with the right for Guatemalans to choose where that money is spent.
There is the danger of a sick ironic twist whereby the oppressor causes terror, repairs that terror, and then is made out to be a hero of the situation. For instance the military's strategy of "winning the hearts and minds" of the guatemalan people by setting up model villages after causing their complete destruction and the murder of much of their original populace in the Ixil triangle.
A hearfelt and passionate blog Peggy I agree with all of the comments .Yes, the US is responsible and yes probably if reparations were made it would be as Christine said steeped in corruption and as Ella said unforunately it would likely incorporate a lot of "US propaganda do-gooder bullshit" . I am a believer in restorative justice and i made my commnets in class re: this issue . i don't have anything brilliant to add to this.I just continue to stay hopeful despite the ugliness.
Hi Peggy,
I do agree with you that the CIA and State Department are responsible for the coup, and should be held accountable, either by Guatemalans or by the "international community." I think that really we all do agree on that. However, the more interesting questions come when we think about how to give reparations.
I think that Christine made a good point that aid often does not go to those who need it, and in this case may not go to those who suffered as a result of the coup. Corruption is a problem when giving reparations. I found an example of this when reading "The Holocaust Industry" by Norman Finkelstein. He writes that close to 60 million in reparations from Germany were earmarked for "Jewish victims of the Holocaust". However, the money was paid directly to a Claims Conferece that used the funds to facilitate Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe and the Middle East and to build museums, rathar than give it directly to victims, as was stipualted in the agreement with Germany. Many victims never saw the money at all (Finkelstein, 86) This is just one example of how funds can be misused. In the case of Guatemala I would worry that if given to government, those affected would never see it, or it would be spent in ways which did not directly benefit them. If given to local NGOs the same could happen. This is not a reason to deny reparations, just something to be cautious about.
Finkelstein shows how the fight to get reparations and later the fight to get compensation from Swiss banks tunred into a money grab by powerful organizations. I worry that this could happen in Guatemala's case. Who would lobby the US for the funds, and what would they expect in the end? Is lobbying the US the best use of energy for Guatemalan organizations? Peggy you said that it should be the international community that holds them responsible, and that seems like a better route to take. I wonder if the UN can be used as a paltform from which to demand reparations?
I also agree with Lisa about the reality that the US is not willing to fork out reparations. I mean they aren't doing it for thier own citizens, and President Carter once denied reparations for destruction in Vietnam by saying that "the destruction was mutual." (Finkelstein, 84). The attitude that US citizens and property suffered as much as Vietnamese continued into the Clinton era. Can you imagine that it has changed now?
Another question to ask is how good of a deterrant have reparations been to states? The Treaty of Versailles in which Germany was forced to pay reapartions for WWI is agreed on as one of the main reasons the Nazis came to power. Not that some reparations to Guatemala would bankrupt the US, but throw in reparations to Nicaragua and Vietnam, to start the list, and the whole world could be on the payroll of the US.
The US will never acknowledge their guilt, because it would open the door to so many other cases. However, this could be a useful tool for the lobbyists. If Vietnamese, Guatemalan, Etc, victims got together, maybe they could affect change.
Peggy, thanks for writing. Considering the historical examples, reparations don't seem quite as unrealistic. But if its something to look into, the questions become who lobbies, who distributes and how to get the US to admit guilt.
Erika
Post a Comment
<< Home