Resistance to Mass Atrocities in the Americas
Mass atrocities in the Americas have been resisted through transitional justice mechanisms, self-defence groups and non-violent mobilization. Examples of civilian resistance to atrocities can be found in Chile, Peru, Colombia and Mexico.
Motorcade with President Augusto Pinochet along La Moneda on the 9th anniversary of his coup d'etat. License: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported
On 7 November 2022, the Mass Atrocity Responses project hosted a workshop examples of resistance to mass atrocities in the Americas region, focusing on precedents from Chile, Peru, Mexico and Colombia. The featured speakers were Dr Oriana Bernasconi (Alberto Hurtado University), Dr Jemima García-Godos (University of Oslo), Dr Cécile Mouly (Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences) and Dr Mónica Serrano (Colegio de México).
A previous entry on this blog discussed the key points and lessons learned from a workshop in the Southeast Asia region. By shifting its focus to the Americas region, the second workshop in the series provided valuable contributions to our understanding of atrocity resistance and allowed the project group to identify topics and case studies for further analysis. This post offers a summary of the presentations, and the main insights gained from the discussion:
Oriana Bernasconi’s presentation, Documenting Atrocities: Human Rights Archives, Denunciation & Accountability, focused on documentation as a form of nonviolent resistance to atrocities, drawing insights from the empirical data produced in the context of Chile’s military dictatorship period (1973-1990). She argued that documentary evidence, ‘atrocity artefacts’, shape nonviolent ways of resisting political violence by preventing repression from becoming untraceable and prone to impunity. Such artefacts may mobilize civil society, drive the processes with which communities deal with turbulent historical episodes, and enable human rights protection. During the dictatorship, evidence was systematically collected since the beginning, with churches, religious, inter-religious and civil society organizations playing key roles in documentation and victim support, often under great threat. Their effort made accountability possible after the downfall of the regime. The presentation demonstrates that atrocity artefacts offer an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the dynamics of state-led violence and of victims’ reactions to impunity.
Jemima García-Godos’ presentation, Peasant Self-Defence in Peru (1980s–1990s): Lessons Learned from a Comparative Perspective, concerned a case of peasant resistance to violence in the context of the armed conflict between the government of Peru and the Maoist guerrilla group Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso) during the 1980s and early 1990s. Armed resistance initially took place in the form of spontaneous, reactive movements (1980s), but later with state recognition and support (1990s). The case of Peruvian self-defence groups (or CADs) is paradigmatic, since they developed autonomously and established alliances with government forces to help combat common enemies. CADs served a dual purpose during the conflict: safeguarding their communities from Shining Path raids and reducing the risk of becoming subject to military suspicion or repression. The Peruvian Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report (2003) identified them not only as victims of the conflict, but also as one of its main actors and, as such, also responsible for human rights violations. This shows that resistance actors can also engage in the violent use of force. The presentation argued that the history of CADs demonstrate that civilian self-defence can fill the vacuum left by the inability of states to protect their populations, but their legitimacy is often contingent upon official recognition, and their motives can have more to do with self-preservation than with actual affinity.
Cécile Mouly’s presentation, Experiences of Civilian Resistance to Armed Violence in Colombia, drew on insights from her study of peace communities in Colombia, especially those of Samaniego, Las Mercedes and La India. Peace communities are war-affected groups that decide to use nonviolent methods to maintain their autonomy from (state or non-state) armed groups. These communities use the ‘power of numbers’ to exert leverage on armed actors and hence reduce their victimization. The presentation argued that these strategies offer better protection than ‘violent resistance’ or ‘collaboration’ with armed groups. Communities were able to remain in their territories and resist violence, largely due to their cohesion, social organization, collective leadership and impartiality. The latter is key, since it allows civilians to maintain their autonomy and opt out of confrontation voluntarily to avoid victimization. Strategies used by peace communities include combining nonviolent resistance with dialogue, calling for scrutiny from international or non-governmental organizations, and engaging in learning and capacity-building activities. Further, as shown by the contributions to peace, justice, and reconciliation by Colombians in exile, ‘flight’ or ‘displacement’ may also constitute forms of nonviolent resistance to armed violence and are increasingly valued as such. The presentation on Colombia’s peace communities provided solid grounds to advocate in favour of nonviolent means over more hostile forms of resistance, and helped identify common features of successful strategies.
Mónica Serrano’s presentation, Prohibition, Drug Control and Mass Atrocities: Experiences from Mexico and Colombia, addressed the increasing vulnerability of civilians to drug-related violence and atrocities in Mexico, drawing on the precedent of Colombia. Latin America is a paradoxical region, where historical endorsement of human rights standards contrasts with deplorable records of impunity and increasingly brutal forms of violence in certain territories. While the type of risks that were commonly associated with authoritarianism have significantly decreased in recent decades, the transnational drug trade has taken its place as a primary source of violence. The ‘war on drugs’ that the Mexican government initiated in 2006 resemble those of the Colombian conflict to a large extent, with widespread repression and increased the risk of atrocities. The case of Mexico shows that when local economies benefit from the illicit drug trade (in the form of profits or protection), collective silence can perpetuate impunity. In such contexts, the cost of opposing the agents of drug trade can often imply remaining at the expense of violent actors with military-grade equipment. The presentation argued that human rights mechanisms offer one of the most promising avenues in terms of preventing atrocities, but doubts remain about their effects on the non-repetition of violations. Successful self-defence would depend on the ability to prevent both the penetration of illicit economies and armed threats. Resistance strategies would also need to be accompanied by more humane drug policy reforms that remove the incentives for joining or cooperating with organized crime.
Resistance in the Americas: Conclusions
In some instances, transitional justice mechanisms can constitute forms of resistance, for example through ‘atrocity artefacts’ which have the potential to mobilize civil society, enable reconciliation and drive accountability processes.
Nonviolent resistance may offer a greater prospect of protection than more aggressive or passive forms. However, there is increasing recognition of the active role that populations in exile can play in resisting atrocities.
The effectiveness of nonviolent means of resistance relies on the presence of cohesion, social organization, collective leadership and impartiality in related efforts.
The illicit drug trade has become a primary source of violence in Latin America, empowering criminals and facilitating atrocities across the region. While human rights standards have gained widespread recognition in Latin America, the effectiveness of traditional mechanisms is compromised by the complicity of both state and non-state actors.
In many cases, self-defence groups have come to fill the vacuum left by the inability of states to protect their populations, but the legitimacy of their actions is contingent upon state recognition and endorsement.
For self-defence groups to be able to resist the atrocities linked to the illegal drug trade, they must be able to assert moral authority and to dissuade and prevent young males from being drawn into these illicit economies.
Civilians’ motives for cooperating with or joining a specific group can have more to do with self-preservation than actual affinity, but they always involve a balance of interests. As long as the perceived benefits of violence continue to surpass those of resisting it, mass atrocities and impunity are likely to prevail.