Armed Conflicts Ending In Genocides

Armed conflicts ending in genocides

During the second half of the twentieth century, Guatemala suffered one of the most disastrous events in its history, an event that brought great political crises, as well as social and economic. This crisis, called as internal armed conflict. This period of great crises began at the beginning of the 1960s and culmino in the mid -1980s. As participated had the Army of Guatemala and different guerrilla groups, causing a period of great fear, thousands of deceased people as well as missing. The last rulers of this period were two military, ambitious by power and fearful in terms of their decisions and act. These two were Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia and Efraín Ríos Montt, high -ranking military. Both were people who caused social fear and that in one way or another they would be able to perpetuate themselves and achieve the maximum power of the country. It must be remembered that, in this period, most governments were military and with several coups, this because of the circumstances in which the country was. It is important to mention that these two characters in Guatemalan history, without knowing it, would end the era of the armed conflict, so that, in 1985 the time called as democratic began, with the promulgation of a new political constitution and new laws thatSomehow they would achieve the political and social stability of the country. With all the above mentioned, there will be a comparison with thoughts and ideas of a great thinker for the history of the world, such as Nicolas Machiavelo, who was the author of "El Príncipe", and other works that relate the best way to achieve how to achievePower and perpetuate yourself in it.

Also how to know how to handle it to keep it and in some way or another not be overthrown and defeated. This thinker was chosen, to make the comparison, since the control of power and military forces at this time in Guatemala was a means or form to be able to perpetuate and stabilize in power, as well as control society and the facts and circumstances ofThe time. An analysis about the government of both will also be performed, but emphasis will be placed on the second of the aforementioned characters, since it has been one of the most controversial in Guatemalan history, why there was or not genocide in Guatemala, and if the motifswho presented themselves are causes of having accused him of such a crime or they are not. This is because currently in Guatemala it is still the subject of discussion and controversy.

During the second part of the 1970s, Guatemala was suffering from one of its most terrible moments of the internal armed conflict, since high -impact social crimes and social crimes were taking place. In 1978, General Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia came to power, which received the country in a terrible crisis. Lucas did not have any political experience, and therefore was not accepted and criticized by society, which at that time did not have much freedom of expression. However, from the moment I take command, the army of Guatemala hardened in terms of the little acceptance and the crisis of the moment against the guerrillas, to the point that it was the beginning of the most bloody time and with greater crimesof all the internal armed conflict, where the country was in a constant state of site and great social fear for the situation that was being lived. The attitude of General Lucas Garcia and the army of that moment was a clear example of Machiavelli in that the thinker considered that it is good to be liberal or together with being feared, since, for any reason, everyone would abandon him. However, it is better feared that loved, since "men can despise what they love, but not what they fear". Machiavelli mentions this, because the one who is loved is not in the hands of whom government, but if it is in the hands of which society is. He also said that man loves to his liking, but they fear as the governor, or in the case of Machiavelli, that he puts it as the prince wants. This is the case of Lucas Garcia, where his decisions managed to be socially feared, without forgetting that at the beginning of his government he was not accepted, for not having a political experience. It is also important to mention Machiavelli, because the thinker said that the use of force is necessary, because if a nation has the strength to attack another, in the case of Guatemala to attack the guerrillas, it must do so, otherwise,This same should not even try to divide it. In the circumstance that Guatemala was, this fits in terms of the use of force, as Machiavelli mentions, since the end was to culminate with the guerrillas. As for this, and what Machiavelli mentions of the use of force, the author Jorge Lujan mentions that at the beginning of the government of Lucas Garcia, “before the new insurgent offensive the army hardened his positions, and although at first he suffered setbacks andThe various guerrilla groups showed progress, the counterinsurgent radical strategies that were applied in order to end the rural support they received were evident. It was a period where, both the government, which was the one who gave orders, for being a military, and the army of greater use of force in order to eradicate the problems and threats of the time. This also caused great controversy because at that time, great politicians of the world, such as Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter, accused him of great abuses and human rights violations, facts that occurred, but in the same way, by thesituation were not respected and did not take into account for the government of Lucas Garcia. This leads to mention that both the use of the force mentioned by Machiavelli, and the form that was used in this government that “the 1879-1982 years were the most terrible and destructive in the modern history of the country”.

Another interesting fact and to compare is the way Romeo Lucas reached power, since many of the criticism and little acceptance that he had was because he was accused of reaching the maximum political position through an alleged electoral fraud, a fact that causedgreat protests at the time. Once more events comparable to what Machiavelli said that "it is better to be feared than loved", since in the same way the achievement control the situation and, despite the controversy, I manage to handle it. But this goes more to the way in which he achieves power, because if he is accused of electoral fraud, I still get it, this goes to what Machiavelli in his works implies us, of the fact that “the end does notJustify the media ”, because it doesn’t matter how it has achieved, the important thing is that I get and perpetuate itself for a period of time in power. What Machiavelli gives to understand is that it does not matter what is done to achieve the end, the important thing is to achieve it and achieve it. This is interesting in both governments, since first one was the successor of the other. Efraín Ríos Montt comes to reach the power of the country in 1982, after having made a coup d’etat, precisely against the government of Lucas Garcia. The interesting thing also of this event is how Ríos Montt also achieves, because it does so through a military movement against the government of that moment. Ríos Montt, regardless of what means were used, managed to achieve power, since the important thing, as Machiavelli says, was the end and not the means that were used to achieve this end.

To the facts of how rivers Montt reaches power through the coup d’etat of March 1982, it is interesting because that day, the writer Carlos Sabino says that civilians did not want to incorporate, since it was said that it was a purely issuemilitary, and therefore did not allow the passage to those who wanted to have a voice at the decisive moment. This obviously because they were governments and military movements, where the population did not have much voice and free expression power, that decisions were made regardless of what the population said. Well, it is interesting to establish as Italian thought, Machiavelli, said that the one who achieves his government for his weapons, is easier to keep it, although the problem of adversity between the new institutions and the old ones is presented, to the old ones,the one that many citizens are clinging. Machiavelli said that this leads to an inevitable conflict to have strong coercion instruments, so that it is forced by force. In this event that the thinker put, he said that applying and coming to power by force, it was easier. This is what Montt and other military do, in order to keep the government and take out the previous government once and for all. Among the assumptions put Machiavelli to achieve power is, through force or weapons and the one that the government achieves through fortune. In the case of Ríos Montt, the first of the options is used, in order to perpetuate and govern. However, in a fact that fails and does not fit the fact that Montt Rivers had reached the government through weapons, was that it did not manage to perpetuate and stabilize it, since it only ruled from 1982 to 1983, being overthrownand defeated by Oscar Humberto Mejía Victores.

The Montt rivers period is especially as a ruler is full of many comments, uncertainties and variety of opinions. Many accuse him of having committed crimes of genocide and humanity. Others consider that it was the period that led to the democratization, stabilization and culmination of the internal armed conflict. "The most disparate and divergent opinions are expressed about their person, almost always loaded with admiration or hate, contrasting and strong". There are those who accused him that he wanted to perpetuate in power, others who remember him as a statesman and others who consider that he was psychopath and that he did genocide, as well as others who say he was sincere and capable, that he led to use more rational means to theconfrontation against guerrillas. There are several opinions whether or not he committed genocide. Machiavelli says that the fact that men are liars causes to take precautions to be able to fulfill or not their promises. He said that he must be human and animal at the same time. Human to fulfill promises, but animal to break them. Ríos Montt promised to end with the armed conflict, that I achieve it, you cannot know if it was thanks to the fact that such an event ended or not, but that it manages to stabilize and minimize it yes. This brought with him the accusation of committing crimes of genocide and humanity. Acts for which, according to the Guatemalan Courts, in 2013 he was accused of such crimes and convicted, but that the sentence was annulled for failures in the trial procedure and that did not conclude since he died before he has completed.

Now, the question is whether or not there was genocide in Guatemala. Well, the answer for this is that no. This for the facts that were given and which is accused. He was accused of having committed him against the Ixil community, however, this could not have happened, since, although it is true that thousands of people died, such events arose in the middle of a civil war, or in the case ofGuatemala in the internal armed conflict. Where they were supposedly indigenous and the aforementioned community. To analyze the definition established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a treaty that was accepted and ratified by Guatemala. Article 6 of said treaty states that “any of the acts mentioned below, perpetrated with the intention of totally or partially destroying a national, ethnic, rational or religious group as such: a) Matanzaof group members;serious injury to the physical or mental integrity of the group members;c) intentional submission of the group to conditions of existence that must lead to their physical, total or partial destruction;d) Measures aimed at preventing births within the group;e) Transfer by the group’s force to another group ”. To have accused of genocide or such a crime had occurred, the facts had to have fit the definition that such a statute establishes, since, if there was a killing of groups of groups, not only of ixiles, but of all kinds of types ofGuatemalan ethnic groups, including Ladin people. Then, being a war or armed conflict there were also serious injuries against people from the country, also of several Guatemalan groups. Being civil war, circumstances of death and physical destruction of thousands of people were given, but however such events committed it, both military and guerrillas, so it is not compatible to accuse one of them of such crime, if they were in conflictAnd both made the death of people. Birth was not prevented within the group, since the ends were not exterminated to a certain group. The circumstances and facts of the time must be taken into account, because it is not possibleimport to which ethnic group they belonged. Nor was the transfer of the group’s force to another group, because again, the deaths that were given were not in order to exterminate and end the group totally or partially, it was given by the circumstances of war, which, whichBoth the army and the guerrillas were subjected at the time. Therefore, it is not possible to accuse that genocide has been committed in Guatemala, or crimes against humanity, if the facts do not fit the definition established by the Rome Statute, a human rights treaty, which is applicable in Guatemala and thatOnce again, like any other human rights treaty, it is found in the same normative hierarchy as the same political constitution of the Republic of Guatemala. It is important to mention that, although it is true the treaty was ratified in 2012 and the supposed facts of genocide were committed from 1980 to 1983, criminal law is retroactive and applies the most favorable to the inmate. The trial process was given in 2013, so the treaty if applicable and used in the case.

Currently the only accused act and which has declared guilty of genocide in the world was in RwandIt was the end, exterminate the population of that place. This happened in 1994 and has been the only genocide declared and recognized crime as such in the world, after World War II. Prior to this, the criminals of genocide and les a humanity against the Jews in Europe during the time of 1930 and 1940, which was during World War II, headed by the Nazis and whose purpose was to exterminate the entire Jewish population, andpeople who were not the Aryan race.

Machiavelli has been one of the greatest exponents and thinkers about politics, the way in which the power to govern and how to keep it and know how to handle it must be achieved and know how to handle it. The time of the internal armed conflict in Guatemala has been one of the hardest times in the history of the country, as well as it was a time of military governments, whose greatest expression was to achieve power and manage it authoritatively. Such was the example of Lucas Garcia and Ríos Montt, both military who in different ways achieved power and used different methods mentioned by Machiavelli, both to achieve it and to perpetuate themselves in it. In both cases, Machiavelli’s thought can be used about that "the end does not justify the media", because regardless of how both managed to govern, the important thing about their case is that, for being governmentsde facto and military, the important thing was to reach and remain ruling, regardless of whether it was by electoral fraud or by means of a coup d’etat. Also, as Machiavelli says, that it is necessary to use force to be feared, as well as means of coercion for the same. It is important to remember that it does not matter if the population agrees or not, the important thing is to be feared because in this way what the prince is done, or in the case of Guatemala, the ruler wants. As Machiavelli says, that the ideal is being loved and feared at the same time, but if only one of the two can be better feared before loved, because, as mentioned before, what the ruler wants and they are taken is done beforeThe decisions of the ruler, and, therefore, the means of coercion are necessary. As mentioned, Ríos Montt was accused of committing criminals of genocide and lesa humanity, however it can be concluded that in Guatemala, genocide was not committed because of the fact that an internal conflict was occurring against the guerrillas, where both sides committed the death ofThousands of person, so you cannot accuse of this crime, since they were not people of the only ethnicity or group who died during the time of the armed conflict, but of every group of people in the country. In addition, such facts were not committed in order to exterminate totally or partially to a certain group of people.

Bibliographic references

• Lujan, j. (1998) Brief contemporary history of Guatemala. 3rd ed. Mexico: Economic Culture Fund.
• Amurrio, j. (2009). Classics of political thought. 3rd ed. Guatemala: Francisco Marroquín University. 
• United Nations. (2002). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Recovered from https: // www.a.Org/Spanish/Law/ICC/statute/spanish/rome_statute (s).PDF 
• The UN Agency for Refugees. (2017). Rwanda Genocide: The Histor of the Hutus and the Tutsis. Recovered from https: // eacnur.org/es/news/news/events/genocide-of-Ruanda-la-Historia-de-Los-Hutus-and-Los-Tutsis 
• FIDH. (2013) Genocide in Guatemala: Ríos Montt guilty. Recovered from https: // www.FIDH.org/img/pdf/report_guatemala613esp2013.PDF 
• Nicolas Machiavelli. (1532). Prince. Luarna Editions. Recovered from http: // www.Ataun.NET/LIBRARY GRATUITA/CLASSICS%20EN%20 SPANISH/NICOLÁS%20MAQUIAVELO/THE%20PRIN.PDF
• Sabino, c. (2008). Guatemala, the silenced story. Volume II. 2nd ed. Guatemala: Grafiaetc.