Guatemala
has just ended a 36 year internal war (1960-1996), which caused
widespread death and destruction. Unofficial figures are: 150,000
deaths, including over 580 massacres (here defined as more than
five killings with an intention of community destruction). 440 villages
were destroyed and an extensive destruction of the social weave
in the communities has taken place. 50,000 persons were abducted
or missing.
Around 1 million
people were internally displaced: they either escaped to the mountains,
to the rain forest, (so called CPR or Communities of People in Resistance
that lived for 10 years in the forest), to the coastal areas or
moved to the misery belts in Guatemala city and there are thousands
of widows and orphans scattered around the country. Over l00,000
people became external refugees.
Besides the
statistics, there is a reality that goes much further in less quantifiable
terms, but not less painful and complex: Fear, uncertainty, pain,
guilt, grief and frustration. The rupture of individual and community
life projects, the destruction of cultural patterns and values.
The loss of trust and hope, the division, the confrontation, the
silence, the social apathy and a militarization of individual minds
and the society.
The most affected
areas are located in the northwestern region of the country. The
population of these districts are approximately 3.5 million. Most
of them are indigenous people, living in the countryside in disperse,
small villages with less than 1 000 inhabitants. 11 different Mayan
languages are spoken in these areas.
Should
we remember?
During the
mourning of Bishop Juan Gerardi, an indigenous woman approach me
while I was praying and told me:
"We have made some reflections about Monsignor's death: Every time
before we plant the seeds of corn, we offer a sacrifice, we pour
some chicken blood on the soil so the harvest will be good and healthy.
We know that
for those who planned the war it could have been easy to kill Monsignor
Gerardi in 1980, along with the tens of thousands of victims of
his beloved Dioceses of Quiche. But the road of his life took him
through a winding path with a mission: He should prepare the field
of truth, of dignity, the voice of those who had died without the
chance to defend themselves; a truth and dignity that would come
from the people itself We believe that he has accomplished his task,
he has planted the seed and moreover, he has offered his own blood
to be sure that the harvest of life will be bountiful Now he has
joined his people and is ready to enter in Eternity "
Maybe the
wisdom behind the above reflections, coming from simple people,
may entitle the importance of the work that the Catholic Church
Of Guatemala launched in April 1995 with The Recovery of the
Historic Memory Project (REMHI) that led to the Guatemala: Never
Again Report. This report describes the Human Rights Violations
perpetrated against the civilian population during the period of
war, the patterns of violence, its effects, the socio-political
context of the war and the list of victims. This initiative was
carried out to reinforce a weak "Truth Commission"-like the peace
agreement, signed by the army and the Revolutionary forces, as a
chance to give the victims a version of the truth.
The whole
process took three years. 800 voluntary people gathered 5,180 testimonies,
documenting 55,021 victims. This report was presented to the public
on 24th of April. On the 26, Monsignor Gerardi, the project general
co-ordinator was killed as a clear response to his own words in
the REMHI report presentation speech: "To construct the kingdom
of love requires to take risks..."
We in the
office think that Monsignor Gerardi's example gives us, not an option,
but a commitment to go and seek for the truth and to tell the people
that we believe their version of the truth.
SHOULD
WE REMEMBER?
First of all,
it is very important to ask: has any victim forgotten?. Could they
ever forget? Secondly we should ask: Who wants to forget?. Who benefits
when all the atrocities stay silent in the past? A third statement
would be: Is it a problem of remembering or is it a problem of speaking
out the victims truth? A problem of breaking down silence and getting
back the victim's dignity?.
I would like
to make a last set of questions: Is remembering an end point or
is it the beginning of a real reconciliation and peace construction
process?.
I should quote
Monsignor Gerardi's words:
"knowing the truth may be painful, but it is without any doubt,
highly healthy and liberating".
Repression
took away the people's right to speak and push them to withstand
their pain inside. Nobody was able to forget nor to speak. The prevailing
speech, "the official truth" that used the media and the rumours
as well, provoked a state of confusion at all levels. A testimony
gathered by the REMHI project illustrates it better: "During
the time (repression during 1982) we were so confused, we could
not differentiate day from night, even when the sun was shining
before our eyes"
It is a hard
to challenge a system that is capable of creating two virtual worlds
in the same geographic space: terror and misery in the countryside
and a wealthy, indifferent first world- like urban area.
The prevailing
speech labelled the victims: "everybody who died in the mountains
is a guerrilla, a terrorist, a criminal, an enemy of the country"
and the rest of the Guatemalan society accepted it, turned their
backs and closed their eyes.
Some of the
exhumations of the collective graves carried out by the Human Rights
Office of the Archdiocese of Guatemala Forensic Team of the massacres
performed by both sides in different places in Guatemala, have found
near to 20% of human bones belong to children and 15% to women,
many of the children found have not yet been born, too young to
become terrorist or an army collaborator. No relative was able to
cry for his or her dead parents, children, brothers or sisters.
Tens of thousands of bodies did not have the chance to have a grave,
a mourning, they were killed and left on the ground, just like animals
without dignity, without their cultural grieving rites, the grieving
processes kept frozen for years. It was even worse for those forced
disappeared victim's relatives.
Then crying
was not aloud, dignity was worthless. Guilt was forced into people's
lives and minds as a way of control. Suddenly the victims became
guilty. Guilty for being indigenous, for living in the wrong place
in the wrong time, or just because they once dreamt about a fair
world, a world of justice. Then dreaming became prohibited.
So, let me
go back to my previous set of questions: How can anybody remember
something that has not forgotten?. How can anybody remember something
that never knew? Most of the excuses not to remember say that it
must not re open the wounds of the past. I can certainly say, that
denying the past will never lead to the closing of wounds. They
are there, fresh and painful, unless the society as a whole do something
to heal them. "Forgive and forget" is always a tempting stand, often
called for by those who had a role to play in the war, but sooner
or later it will prove to be useless.
Remembering
an end or a starting point?:
- Just retrieving
the victims' memories is a worthless re-experience of pain.
- It should
be a social and political space, where society as a whole, dare
to construct a common history, dare to accept the responsibility
of what happened and will be willing to adopt the changes to secure
that such atrocities will never happen again.
- It should
be the chance for the victims to be subjects of their own action
of speaking out their truth. Defeat the fear, to get back their
dignity and pride and the dignity of those who have died.
- It should
be a starting point for deep social awareness processes on the
causes, effects and consequences of state terrorism. If we cannot
draw lessons to be learnt from such painful time we will be condemned
to repeat the history over and over again.
- It should
be the chance to ask for justice, Memorials without justice are
just monuments to remind the victims the perpetrators' power.
It should be also a starting point to assume everybody's victimhood.
The question: Who is a victim? should be seriously considered.
There is always the temptation to call for a victimhood contest
in order to be eligible for economic compensation or to get a
"status" of social recognition. It is very painful to find in
severely affected communities that had coped fairly well with
the effects of the war, torn apart when the victimhood issue arose.
Suddenly the opponent was someone of the group itself. There must
be the social awareness that in a war state everyone is a loser,
a victim, even those who never heard a gunshot or those that planned
and executed it. Indemnity measures should be the result of serious
reflections among victims, avoiding humiliating actions in order
to prove the victimhood status.
- At last,
remembering should lead to dream new life projects, There is no
point to look back if it does not help to dream a better future.
Dealing
with the Past
