Uncivil Strife in El Salvador

"Serve your country, kill a priest” was the advice given recently in leaflets distributed in wealthy residential areas of San Salvador. This hostile attitude toward the Church closely parallels the view of President-elect Carlos Humberto Romero.

General Romero, the declared winner of the February 20 presidential elections despite allegations of fraud, reportedly intends to expel from the country every Jesuit by July 1, the date of his inauguration. Government actions since the election strongly suggest that President-elect Romero may not only live up to that promise, but that he and the current president, Arturo Armando Molina, may also end up violating the human rights of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Salvadoran citizens.

The Roman Catholic Bishops of El Salvador, formerly noted for their conservatism, have done a dramatic about-face in their view of the military government. Led by Archbishop Oscar Romero, their Conference made a strong statement on violations of human rights in their March 5 “Pastoral Message.” The church leadership denounced all forms of violence by both private paramilitary groups and government forces, torture, arbitrary deportation of priests and violations of human rights in general.

In a May 22 statement, the Catholic Bishops formally accused the military government of “persecution of the church … in the name of the struggle against atheistic communism.” This confrontation by the Church is the strongest challenge which the military government has had to face since the February 20 Presidential elections.

What is at stake in this tiny, densely populated and extremely poor Central American republic is control of the land. As the Agency for International Development states in its Fiscal Year 1978, Congressional Presentation, “Ownership of agricultural land (in El Salvador) is concentrated in the hands of a few.” The crux of the bitter struggle between the Church and the present military government is the polarization in the country effected by the recent undermining of the government’s land reform program.

In 1976, put under pressure by the landless peasantry, the Molina government announced the creation of an Agrarian Reform Institute and of a land reform program. Tremendous hopes were raised among peasants, the socially conscious clergy, and in many other sectors. However, the landowners, staunchly opposed to any sort of land reform, organized themselves and launched a tremendous campaign against the government’s agrarian reform program.

Finally, a government decree in August 1976 announced the modification of several measures of the land reform, in effect debilitating the entire effort. General Romero, President Molina’s Defense Minister at the time, had never supported the land reform and had actually been a key figure in the government’s efforts to weaken the project.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, had become more socially conscious, largely in response to the conclusions of the 1968 Bishops Conference in Medellin, Colombia. As 61% of the population in El Salvador lives in rural areas where the oppressive land tenure system continues, pastoral work became more responsive to the needs of the rural poor. Since 1969, the Church has worked to help peasants in particular to become aware of their social situation in rural parishes.

As the Bishops’ statements attest, persecution of the Church, peasants, political leaders of the opposition, and others has intensified, particularly since the February elections. General Romero, a hard-line conservative, “won” these elections soon after the substantial “modification” of President Molina’s land reform program. In light of the sharp rise in government repression since the elections, effective control of the executive branch appears to be firmly in the hands of President-elect Romero rather than President Molina, even though Romero will not be formally inaugurated till July 1, 1977.

Persecution of the Church by government security forces and right wing paramilitary groups have resulted in the deportation of twelve priests and the killing of two others, according to the May 22 declaration of the Catholic bishops. The brutal assassination of Father Rutilio Grande and his two assistants on March 12, while on their way to Mass, was the catalyst in the confrontation between the Church and the military government. The murder was blatantly political. Rutilio Grande, a Jesuit priest, was well known for his pastoral work in Aguilares, a rural area noted for its poverty and its socially conscious peasantry.

In response to Father Grande’s death, the religious community took an unprecedented step by calling for a national Mass in recognition of Father Grande’s life. Over the opposition of government, the Bishops decided to celebrate one single Mass, closing all other churches. Over 100,000 Christians gathered with 200 priests in the central cathedral. Thousands more were turned back by National Guard troops. Massive participation by the landless peasantry signaled the birth of a new alliance, the beginning of a prophetic witness by the Church in the struggle against repression in El Salvador.

The second clergy killed, Alfonso Navarro Oviedo, was a diocesan priest serving a parish north of San Salvador. He was murdered on May 11, by an extreme right wing group, calling itself the Unión Guerrera Blanca. Father Oviedo’s assassination was essentially a revenge by the extreme right for the death of Foreign Minister Mauricio Borgonovo Pohl, at the hands of his kidnappers, the Fuerzas Populares del Pueblo, a left-wing guerrilla group.

A June 7 report by Salvadoran Church sources states that the Catholic Church presently has 15 parishes without priests and that approximately 25 priests, both nationals and foreigners, have been compelled to leave the country. Recently the military government threatened to close down the Church media, the only news source not controlled by the government. Soon afterwards, a bomb destroyed the Church’s newspaper press.

Repression has by no means been limited to the Church alone. On February 28, after a week of peaceful demonstration in the central plaza of the capital city protesting the fraudulent elections, soldiers opened fire on demonstrators and nearby observers, killing close to 100 people, according the U.S. diplomatic sources. Estimates by eye witnesses place the number of persons killed during the military occupation of the central plaza from 120 to 700. A state of siege was imposed and continues in effect.

Even well after the election, opposition political party leaders were still being persecuted. For example, on April 22, Christian Democrat leader Ruben Zamora, his wife, and a colleague were arrested at the Catholic University where Zamora worked. Many opposition leaders, believers in democratic processes, have been driven underground or forced into exile. Ernesto Claramont, candidate in the February elections, is now in Costa Rica, and the 1972 presidential candidate, Napoleon Duarte, lives in Venezuela.

Violations of human rights of all citizens by the Army and especially by the National Guard, headed by the ruthless Col. Alvarenga, continue daily. Houses are searched without warrant, and often looted. Persons frequently just “disappear”; as the government generally has not responded to petitions of habeus corpus, concerned parents or spouses place the picture of their “disappeared” loved one in the newspaper in the hope that someone had seen them. Torture has become much more common and disfigured corpses are often spotted floating the rivers that run through the countryside.

The most dramatic incident of repression in recent weeks was the siege of Aguilares, the small rural province approximately 40 miles north of San Salvador. On May 18th, troops entering the area by truck forcibly removed approximately 150 families from the San Francisco farm in the village of Paisnal. These peasant families had occupied the land for close to a month, and intended to defend the land which the government had promised them. More than 300 soldiers with armored cars, helicopters, and a contingent of parachutists confronted the peasants, who fled. On the 19th, new troop contingents arrived with tanks and armored cars surrounding the Aguilares area. Eyewitnesses—four priests and two nuns—estimate that literally hundreds were killed in the occupation of the town.

For two days, the area was surrounded and the highway was sealed off by troops. Homes were searched and often looted; several were allegedly burned; women were raped. Several foreign correspondents had gone to the Aguilares area to witness the army’s maneuvers. However, the Sergeant at the entry point, after a thorough body search, threatened them by saying, “You have two minutes to get out of here or I’ll handcuff you and take you with me.” The report of this seizure of Aguilares came from high Church sources and from newspapers in Guatemala.

The brutality of the Aguilares attack was no accident, nor was it the result of overzealous National Guardsmen. The maneuver was calculated to create a climate of terror. The peasantry, which in recent weeks has demonstrated great courage, was warned that this kind of official military intervention might be repeated. This policy of humiliation and intimidation will be ruthlessly implemented until all hopes by the people for reform are abandoned.

President Carter, in his address to the United Nations on March 17, said that concern for human rights transcends national boundaries. Protection of human rights has become a rhetorical cornerstone of overall U.S. foreign policy. Historically, the U.S. has been deeply involved in the affairs of the republics in Central America, intervening militarily many times. Furthermore, U.S. economic, political, and cultural penetration in the area is massive.

How then has the Carter administration responded to the flagrant human rights abuses in El Salvador? Has the new administration seized on the opportunities to exercise its commitment to human rights? While the jury is still out, and definitive judgments are premature, some initial evaluations are still appropriate.

The first occasion came on February 20, 1977, when the Republic of El Salvador held elections for a new president. El Salvador is one of the few countries in Latin America which even bothers to hold elections. Elections have traditionally been used solely for effect, designed to pay only lip service to democratic processes. Given the sensitivity of the political arrangements in El Salvador to U.S. attitude, it was anticipated that the U.S. would strongly endorse the electoral process and adopt a posture of strict neutrality. The new administration did neither.

More than a month prior to the election, it was clear that the military government would mount a fraud using intimidation and harassment, similar to the tactics employed in the 1972 presidential election. Weeks before, ballot boxes were found full of votes already marked in favor of the government party. The voting lists were rewritten. The military was called out and authorized to carry on a house search for “concealed weapons,” indirectly warning the people to vote “correctly.”

Congressman Don Fraser (D, Minn.) even wrote to Secretary of State Vance on February 3, 1977, urging him “to indicate to the Government of El Salvador the interest which many U.S. friends of the people of El Salvador have in the conduct of fair elections.” In light of the serious allegations of electoral fraud and the government repression following the election, Congressman Fraser felt compelled to hold a series of hearings on U.S. foreign policy and the presidential elections in El Salvador.

The Subcommittee on International Organizations and the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs held these hearings in light of Article 21 of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, guaranteeing the right to vote, which the United States and El Salvador have signed. The testimony and documentation provided in that series of hearings clearly demonstrated the validity of the allegations of electoral fraud by government officials and subsequent repression. President Carter, on the other hand, took no apparent precautionary measures with regard to the elections in El Salvador.

The second opportunity which the administration had to test its human rights policy in El Salvador was when Manwin, Inc., an arms contractor, requested State Department approval for export licenses for “crowd control materials.” A State Department desk officer initially approved the sale, only to have the decision overturned and the request ultimately denied, fundamentally on human rights grounds.

Human rights as a consideration in U.S. policy toward El Salvador also entered into the vote of the United States in a $90 million Inter-American Development Bank loan to the government of El Salvador for the construction of a hydroelectric plant. Numerous Congresspersons and Senators had called the U.S. representative to the Inter-American Development Bank demanding an explanation of the loan in light of the Harkin Amendment which requires a “no” vote from the U.S. if violations of human rights is in question in the recipient country, and if such aid does not go to “needy” people.

The case of El Salvador appeared to fit those criteria: first, violations of human rights were severe and apparently getting worse. Second, this loan would not be reaching “needy” people. According to one administration official, pandemonium broke loose in the Treasury Department. The administration was being forced to take human rights into serious consideration in the evaluation of loans from a multilateral bank. Feeling the heat, El Salvador reluctantly agreed to withdraw the loan application.

More importantly, however, this incident apparently prompted the administration to form an “Inter-Agency Committee on Human Rights.” This newly formed group within the executive branch is intended to meet regularly and make decisions on multilateral lending policy when human rights are a consideration.

El Salvador has been a test case for President Carter’s human rights policy. The fraudulent elections and the subsequent escalation of human rights violations demanded a response. The administration was tardy in expressing its concern: now it appears to be taking the flagrant human rights violations in El Salvador a little more seriously. The vast majority of Salvadorans are hoping that U.S. rhetoric on human rights will match its actions.

Joe Eldridge, a former Methodist missionary to Chile, was director of the Washington Office on Latin America when this article appeared. Cressida MeKean was a Ford Foundation human rights intern with the same office.