Demilitarization in the Contemporary World

9 Demilitarization after Central American Civil Wars

9 Demilitarization after Central American Civil Wars philip j. williams and j. mark ruhl Prior to the 1980s, El Salvador and Guatemala experienced little in the way of democratic development. The political dominance of the armed forces was more complete in these nations than almost anywhere else in Latin America. Military-dominated authoritarian regimes supported by conservative agro-export elites employed electoral fraud and repression to maintain power. During the 1960s and ’70s, growing political opposition, the emergence of armed guerrilla movements, and brutal repression carried out by the military and paramilitary organizations contributed to a cycle of violence in each country. Even during the 1980s, when military leaders in El Salvador and Guatemala were pressured by the US administration to move toward civilian-elected governments, the military continued to be the dominant political actor in society. Not surprisingly, scholars in the 1980s and early ’90s were skeptical that the militaries would subject themselves to civilian control in the two countries. However, a combination of domestic and external pressures contributed to processes of demilitarization beginning in the early 1990s. The armed forces declined in power throughout Latin America in this period, but the processes of demilitarization in El Salvador and Guatemala were unique. As discussed in Kirk Bowman’s chapter, Costa Rica’s elimination of its army in 1948 followed a civil war, whereas Panama’s military was abolished in the wake of the US invasion in 1989. While demilitarization followed civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala, these are the only two cases in Latin America in which the United Nations played a major role in brokering negotiated settlements to end the armed conflicts and in monitoring peace agreements that set in motion processes of demilitarization. In addition to demilitarization after civil wars · 217 external actors who supported demilitarization efforts, domestic pressures were also important. In both countries political opposition to continued military domination, including armed insurgencies, was a constant feature from the 1960s onward. In some cases civilian leaders took up the banner of demilitarization, as did President Álvaro Arzú in Guatemala after 1996. Moreover, during the 1990s, economic elites who traditionally looked to the military to protect their business interests increasingly expressed concern about “the liability of supporting a large, well-equipped military without a mission.”1 Finally, some of the impetus for change came from within the military itself as high-ranking officers became more comfortable with the democratic “rules of the game.” As pointed out in chapter 1 of this book, the concept of demilitarization has several dimensions. Although we agree that demilitarization is a process that takes place both at the level of the state and society,2 in this chapter we limit our discussion of demilitarization primarily to the reduction in the force levels and budget (as a percentage of gross domestic product [GDP] and government spending) of the military and in terms of its subordination to civilian institutions. We are particularly interested in the military’s political prerogatives and political influence vis-à-vis civilian leaders, its institutional autonomy, and its subjection to the rule of law.3 For each case, we describe briefly the evolution and scope of militarism and of the political opposition that emerged during the 1970s and ’80s to challenge the military’s political domination. We then discuss the UN-brokered peace accords in each country and assess the progress that has been made since the accords went into effect in the 1990s, particularly the reduction in the military’s defense budget and overall troop levels and its involvement in politics. Despite these achievements, we address challenges that remain in the areas of public security, regional drug interdiction, and the military’s continuing role in intelligence gathering. Finally, we provide a comparative conclusion that explains why the demilitarization process, thus far, has advanced further in El Salvador than in Guatemala. The Salvadoran Case history of militarism in el salvador From the 1931 coup that brought General Maximiliano Hernández Martínez to power until the signing of the peace accords in 1992, the Salvadoran military dominated the country’s political sphere. Throughout most of this period (1931–1979) the military ruled directly, and after the 1979 coup the country was 218 . central america ruled through a series of military-civilian juntas or weak civilian governments. One constant feature during this period was the military’s unwillingness to subject itself to civilian control. Although the military’s political...