THE DIRTY WAR AND ARGENTINA:
Culture of Impunity and Femicide
jessica long
Argentina’s “Dirty War” began in 1975 and lasted until mid-1978. The Argentinean military government launched a coup and implemented a Process of National Reorganization under the validation of a Doctrine of National Security. Tactics under the Doctrine of National Security were in resistance to revolutionary insurrection waged by “subversive terrorists.” In addition, The Argentina Government’s justification for spreading terror was that the Doctrine of National Security “would make it impossible for the guerrilla groups to gain support.” Operation Independence, led by General Acdel Vilas, was a campaign against the ERP (Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo or the People’s Revolutionary Army) in the Argentinian province of Tucumán beginning in December 1974. The People’s Revolutionary Army was a Trotskyist guerrilla group and by 1974 occupied a third of the mountains in the northwestern province of Tucumán “in an attempt to copy the Cuban Revolution.” Operation Independence was the first attempt in Argentina to implant genocidal social practices. Under Vilas’ authority, the first Argentine concentration camp was established – the Escelita de Famaillá. The building was an education center before being “transformed into a clandestine detention center.” Concentration Camps were set up in the Escuelita and in dozens of other locations in Tucumán in the years that followed.
Operation Independence in the province of Tucumán was essentially a “testing ground” for the development of genocidal practices that would be spread throughout Argentina after the military uprising on March 24th, 1976 against the government of Isabel Perón. An estimated 30 000 young Argentinians disappeared between 1976 and 1983. Some historians have compared the Argentine military dictatorship to the Third Reich. However, unlike the Nazi genocide, the Dirty War was a “politically motivated genocide that made no attempt to hide its goals behind the nineteenth-century concept of race so did not need to waste time and resources persecuting ethnic minorities.” The disappeared were arrested, taken to prison camps, tortured and killed. The “Dirty War” and the Doctrine of National Security was essentially a war the government declared on its own people and to “obliterate the Marxist ‘menace.’” With the government imbedding policies of militarized, systematic violence, it is inevitable that violence will also be imbedded in Argentina’s social context. The following essay will argue that The Dirty War created a culture of impunity that is still present in Argentina today. Within this culture of impunity, the marginalization of women and femicide are ongoing issues that have been rooted into the Argentinian society’s context because of The Dirty War.
“Under the banner of ‘pacification’ and ‘reconciliation,’ a culture of impunity has flourished in Argentina.” The military dictatorship’s unpunished crimes have created a country where police violence, lack of an independent judicial system, and endemic governmental corruption are “normal, everyday aspects of life.” The violence that took place during the Dirty War has damaged three generations of Argentinians: parents of the individuals that have disappeared, the individuals that have disappeared, and the children of the disappeared. Furthermore, “the long-term effects of growing up in an atmosphere that legitimizes crime and denies reality are likely to harm the mental and spiritual well-being of future Argentinians.” For Argentina to allow the nation’s biggest crimes to go unpunished is an example of Argentina’s failure of being a functioning state. The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo are a group of women in Argentina that for twenty years have worked to find their disappeared grandchildren and “to achieve a measure of justice in their country for more than twenty years.” This group meets every Thursday at 3:30 and march in protest of the lack of moral leadership during and after the Dirty War.
One outcome of the culture of impunity in Argentina is gender violence. The definition of femicide outlines: “the killing of women, girls, babies and those unborn who have been picked out for death only because of their female gender.” Argentina is not alone in Latin America in femicide or gender related crimes, ranking fourth behind Mexico, Guatemala and Costa Rica. Little protection and support is given to victims and their families as the issue of femicide continues to increase. “La Casa del Encuentro,” a women’s advocacy association is one of the few organizations currently working on the issue and collecting information from and through media sources. Unfortunately, it is suspected that many cases remain unreported with a death toll that may be much higher. According to data provided by “La Casa del Encuentro”, based out of Argentina’s capital city of Buenos Aires, during 2011, a total of 282 deaths have occurred relating to femicide. The report was written based on information from regional news agencies, Télam and DyN, as well as efforts to monitor 120 cases through national newspapers and local reports,” Between January 1st, 2011 and June 30th, 2011, a total of 151 females were victims to crimes of femicide. Among the 151 during this time period of half a year, “58 were killed by their spouse, partner or boyfriend. 27 were killed by an ex-partner. Parent or step-parents were responsible for 7 of the crimes out of the 58, while other family members were responsible in 13 cases. The document records 32 femicide in which the murderer had no apparent link to the victim but showed a clear motive to kill based on the victim’s female gender.” Early studies have shown that women’s deaths at the hands of their partners was after many years of violence. However, more recent studies show women being murdered by boyfriends and lovers that they have only been in a relationship with for a few months or years. “International studies have confirmed that women aged 15 – 34 years old are the ones in the greatest danger.” Argentina has been unable to carry an “official” register of victims in order to develop protective laws and policies. Numbers of femicide continue to rise with 231 deaths in 2009, 260 in 2010, and 282 in 2011. The latest survey revealed that 119 women died during the first semester of 2012 as a result of femicide in the country. It is important to note that this does not include the victims linked to femicide such as the 346 children who were left motherless in 2011. Approximately 30% of the disappeared population during the “Dirty War” were women. The pregnant prisoners were typically kept alive until they gave birth. “Sometimes the mothers were able to nurse their newborns, at least sporadically, for a few days, or even weeks, before the babies were taken from them and the mothers were “transferred”—sent to their deaths, in the Dirty War’s notorious nomenclature.” Many pregnant women were subjected to torture. A system was invented that a spoon was submerged into a women’s vagina and given a shock to the fetus. Often this would result in a miscarriage and at times when a miscarriage did not occur, doctors would perform cesarean sections to speed up the births. The women were killed following their child’s birth. In addition, many newborn babies were given away to families who were part of the repressive regime, and hundreds of children have grown up with false identities and histories.
Argentina signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on July 17th, 1980 and the convention was ratified July 15th, 1985. CEDAW is the only human rights treaty “which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations.” Parties that agree to the legally binding convention also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of women. The Convention “affirms women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children. States also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of women.” Although Argentina did sign CEDAW, human rights violations in regards to reproductive rights have continued to occur. Human Rights Watch published a 53-page report in 2010 titled "Illusions of Care: Lack of Accountability for Reproductive Rights in Argentina". The report states that there are many obstacles facing women in getting reproductive health care in which they are entitled to “such as contraception, voluntary sterilization procedures, and abortion after rape.”
Barriers women face include long delays in providing services, unnecessary referrals to other clinics, demands for spousal permission contrary to law, financial barriers, and in some cases women receive denial of care. Jose Miguel Vivanco, Latin America’s director at Human Rights Watch states that “women need dependable care throughout their productive lives”. In addition, he states "…but in Argentina, it's more like a lottery: you might be lucky enough to get decent care but you are more likely to be stuck with deficient - or even abusive – services." In Argentina, 40% of pregnancies end in abortions which are performed in unsafe conditions which has been the leading cause of maternal mortality in the country for decades. Argentina’s reproductive health polices also ignore key constituencies such as the rights of women and girls with disabilities. Argentina ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on September 2nd, 2010, but has failed to uphold specific international obligations. With Argentina having a primarily Catholic population, “orthodox Catholic discourse on “family values” have historically underpinned some of the most anti-contraception and pro-population growth policies in the region.” In addition, the lack of effectiveness from the Argentinean judicial system has created a lack of trust in the Argentinean government. As political scientist Atilio H. Borón states: “The judicial system is in shambles. Only those with money and resources can make some use of it.” Argentina is not the only place where a prior war has created a country where violence against women is a current issue. Since the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) achieved independence from Belgium in 1960, the country has been plagued with violence and is acknowledged as “the rape capital of the world.” Much of the violence that takes place in the Congo today is a result of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. When the Rwandan genocide ended, and the Tutsis took control of the government, Rwandan Hutu militias known as the Interahamwe fled into the Congo and continued their attacks against Rwanda. The Rwandan Patriotic Army two years later entered the Congo in an attempt to eliminate the Hutu militias. At the same time, the Alliance des Forces Democratiques pour la Liberation du Congo-Zaire supported by Uganda and Rwanda and under the leadership of Laurent Kabila entered the country to attempt to remove Dictator Mobutu Sese Seko from power. Mobutu fled the country in 1997 after years of conflict and failed peace talks. Laurent Kabila then became president of the DRC. One year later Kabila cut ties with Rwandan supporters which began the country’s second civil war. When Kabilia was assassinated in 2001, his son Joseph rose to power and revised a number of his father’s policies and ratified some of his own, which have been considered “thoughtless and ineffective.” In that year, the United Nations launched a peacekeeping mission into the country – The United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). Negotiations began, which were known as the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. As a result of these talks, nations that were involved militarily in the conflict, Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe left the DRC. However, many armed forces associated with the Rwandan genocide remained in the Congo. As Human Rights Watch reported, the Rassemblement congolaispour la démocratie, a group many consider to be a proxy of the Rwandan government, and the Rwandan army still occupy large parts of eastern Congo. Despite an effort to establish peace in the Congo, fighting still wages on especially from rebel group led by General Nukunda, who claims his goal is to protect the Tutsi ethnic group in the Congo from Hutu extremists. As war in the DRC wages on, resources in the Congo such as diamonds, gold, coltan, and cassiterite, enables the militias to continue fighting. In “The Trouble With Congo,” an article published in Foreign Affairs, Autesserre writes about how resources in the DRC has fueled the involvement of the many different ethnic militias in the conflict, and how the conflict has been able to persist. There are many other factors identified that have established rape culture in the DRC such as poverty and a patriarchy society, but the underlining similarity between the Congo and Argentina is the establishment of gender violence stemming from war within the country.
In conclusion, it is important to consider the history of a country when discussing human rights violations, as evident in Argentina and the case study of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A historic analysis addresses the root of the violations occurring today. During the “Dirty War,” the government embedded policies of militarized systematic violence making it inevitable that violence would also be embedded in Argentina’s social context. The crimes that occurred during the “Dirty War” can certainly be traced to modern day issues in correlation to reproductive rights and the judicial system, impunity and of course, femicide.
Operation Independence in the province of Tucumán was essentially a “testing ground” for the development of genocidal practices that would be spread throughout Argentina after the military uprising on March 24th, 1976 against the government of Isabel Perón. An estimated 30 000 young Argentinians disappeared between 1976 and 1983. Some historians have compared the Argentine military dictatorship to the Third Reich. However, unlike the Nazi genocide, the Dirty War was a “politically motivated genocide that made no attempt to hide its goals behind the nineteenth-century concept of race so did not need to waste time and resources persecuting ethnic minorities.” The disappeared were arrested, taken to prison camps, tortured and killed. The “Dirty War” and the Doctrine of National Security was essentially a war the government declared on its own people and to “obliterate the Marxist ‘menace.’” With the government imbedding policies of militarized, systematic violence, it is inevitable that violence will also be imbedded in Argentina’s social context. The following essay will argue that The Dirty War created a culture of impunity that is still present in Argentina today. Within this culture of impunity, the marginalization of women and femicide are ongoing issues that have been rooted into the Argentinian society’s context because of The Dirty War.
“Under the banner of ‘pacification’ and ‘reconciliation,’ a culture of impunity has flourished in Argentina.” The military dictatorship’s unpunished crimes have created a country where police violence, lack of an independent judicial system, and endemic governmental corruption are “normal, everyday aspects of life.” The violence that took place during the Dirty War has damaged three generations of Argentinians: parents of the individuals that have disappeared, the individuals that have disappeared, and the children of the disappeared. Furthermore, “the long-term effects of growing up in an atmosphere that legitimizes crime and denies reality are likely to harm the mental and spiritual well-being of future Argentinians.” For Argentina to allow the nation’s biggest crimes to go unpunished is an example of Argentina’s failure of being a functioning state. The Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo are a group of women in Argentina that for twenty years have worked to find their disappeared grandchildren and “to achieve a measure of justice in their country for more than twenty years.” This group meets every Thursday at 3:30 and march in protest of the lack of moral leadership during and after the Dirty War.
One outcome of the culture of impunity in Argentina is gender violence. The definition of femicide outlines: “the killing of women, girls, babies and those unborn who have been picked out for death only because of their female gender.” Argentina is not alone in Latin America in femicide or gender related crimes, ranking fourth behind Mexico, Guatemala and Costa Rica. Little protection and support is given to victims and their families as the issue of femicide continues to increase. “La Casa del Encuentro,” a women’s advocacy association is one of the few organizations currently working on the issue and collecting information from and through media sources. Unfortunately, it is suspected that many cases remain unreported with a death toll that may be much higher. According to data provided by “La Casa del Encuentro”, based out of Argentina’s capital city of Buenos Aires, during 2011, a total of 282 deaths have occurred relating to femicide. The report was written based on information from regional news agencies, Télam and DyN, as well as efforts to monitor 120 cases through national newspapers and local reports,” Between January 1st, 2011 and June 30th, 2011, a total of 151 females were victims to crimes of femicide. Among the 151 during this time period of half a year, “58 were killed by their spouse, partner or boyfriend. 27 were killed by an ex-partner. Parent or step-parents were responsible for 7 of the crimes out of the 58, while other family members were responsible in 13 cases. The document records 32 femicide in which the murderer had no apparent link to the victim but showed a clear motive to kill based on the victim’s female gender.” Early studies have shown that women’s deaths at the hands of their partners was after many years of violence. However, more recent studies show women being murdered by boyfriends and lovers that they have only been in a relationship with for a few months or years. “International studies have confirmed that women aged 15 – 34 years old are the ones in the greatest danger.” Argentina has been unable to carry an “official” register of victims in order to develop protective laws and policies. Numbers of femicide continue to rise with 231 deaths in 2009, 260 in 2010, and 282 in 2011. The latest survey revealed that 119 women died during the first semester of 2012 as a result of femicide in the country. It is important to note that this does not include the victims linked to femicide such as the 346 children who were left motherless in 2011. Approximately 30% of the disappeared population during the “Dirty War” were women. The pregnant prisoners were typically kept alive until they gave birth. “Sometimes the mothers were able to nurse their newborns, at least sporadically, for a few days, or even weeks, before the babies were taken from them and the mothers were “transferred”—sent to their deaths, in the Dirty War’s notorious nomenclature.” Many pregnant women were subjected to torture. A system was invented that a spoon was submerged into a women’s vagina and given a shock to the fetus. Often this would result in a miscarriage and at times when a miscarriage did not occur, doctors would perform cesarean sections to speed up the births. The women were killed following their child’s birth. In addition, many newborn babies were given away to families who were part of the repressive regime, and hundreds of children have grown up with false identities and histories.
Argentina signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on July 17th, 1980 and the convention was ratified July 15th, 1985. CEDAW is the only human rights treaty “which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations.” Parties that agree to the legally binding convention also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of women. The Convention “affirms women's rights to acquire, change or retain their nationality and the nationality of their children. States also agree to take appropriate measures against all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of women.” Although Argentina did sign CEDAW, human rights violations in regards to reproductive rights have continued to occur. Human Rights Watch published a 53-page report in 2010 titled "Illusions of Care: Lack of Accountability for Reproductive Rights in Argentina". The report states that there are many obstacles facing women in getting reproductive health care in which they are entitled to “such as contraception, voluntary sterilization procedures, and abortion after rape.”
Barriers women face include long delays in providing services, unnecessary referrals to other clinics, demands for spousal permission contrary to law, financial barriers, and in some cases women receive denial of care. Jose Miguel Vivanco, Latin America’s director at Human Rights Watch states that “women need dependable care throughout their productive lives”. In addition, he states "…but in Argentina, it's more like a lottery: you might be lucky enough to get decent care but you are more likely to be stuck with deficient - or even abusive – services." In Argentina, 40% of pregnancies end in abortions which are performed in unsafe conditions which has been the leading cause of maternal mortality in the country for decades. Argentina’s reproductive health polices also ignore key constituencies such as the rights of women and girls with disabilities. Argentina ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on September 2nd, 2010, but has failed to uphold specific international obligations. With Argentina having a primarily Catholic population, “orthodox Catholic discourse on “family values” have historically underpinned some of the most anti-contraception and pro-population growth policies in the region.” In addition, the lack of effectiveness from the Argentinean judicial system has created a lack of trust in the Argentinean government. As political scientist Atilio H. Borón states: “The judicial system is in shambles. Only those with money and resources can make some use of it.” Argentina is not the only place where a prior war has created a country where violence against women is a current issue. Since the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) achieved independence from Belgium in 1960, the country has been plagued with violence and is acknowledged as “the rape capital of the world.” Much of the violence that takes place in the Congo today is a result of the Rwandan genocide in 1994. When the Rwandan genocide ended, and the Tutsis took control of the government, Rwandan Hutu militias known as the Interahamwe fled into the Congo and continued their attacks against Rwanda. The Rwandan Patriotic Army two years later entered the Congo in an attempt to eliminate the Hutu militias. At the same time, the Alliance des Forces Democratiques pour la Liberation du Congo-Zaire supported by Uganda and Rwanda and under the leadership of Laurent Kabila entered the country to attempt to remove Dictator Mobutu Sese Seko from power. Mobutu fled the country in 1997 after years of conflict and failed peace talks. Laurent Kabila then became president of the DRC. One year later Kabila cut ties with Rwandan supporters which began the country’s second civil war. When Kabilia was assassinated in 2001, his son Joseph rose to power and revised a number of his father’s policies and ratified some of his own, which have been considered “thoughtless and ineffective.” In that year, the United Nations launched a peacekeeping mission into the country – The United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). Negotiations began, which were known as the Inter-Congolese Dialogue. As a result of these talks, nations that were involved militarily in the conflict, Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe left the DRC. However, many armed forces associated with the Rwandan genocide remained in the Congo. As Human Rights Watch reported, the Rassemblement congolaispour la démocratie, a group many consider to be a proxy of the Rwandan government, and the Rwandan army still occupy large parts of eastern Congo. Despite an effort to establish peace in the Congo, fighting still wages on especially from rebel group led by General Nukunda, who claims his goal is to protect the Tutsi ethnic group in the Congo from Hutu extremists. As war in the DRC wages on, resources in the Congo such as diamonds, gold, coltan, and cassiterite, enables the militias to continue fighting. In “The Trouble With Congo,” an article published in Foreign Affairs, Autesserre writes about how resources in the DRC has fueled the involvement of the many different ethnic militias in the conflict, and how the conflict has been able to persist. There are many other factors identified that have established rape culture in the DRC such as poverty and a patriarchy society, but the underlining similarity between the Congo and Argentina is the establishment of gender violence stemming from war within the country.
In conclusion, it is important to consider the history of a country when discussing human rights violations, as evident in Argentina and the case study of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A historic analysis addresses the root of the violations occurring today. During the “Dirty War,” the government embedded policies of militarized systematic violence making it inevitable that violence would also be embedded in Argentina’s social context. The crimes that occurred during the “Dirty War” can certainly be traced to modern day issues in correlation to reproductive rights and the judicial system, impunity and of course, femicide.