As the increasingly independent judicial branch in Argentina has taken important steps to address the legacy of military human rights abuses, disquiet has grown within the military officer corps. A handful of judges have opened up a number of investigations into the fate of the disappeared. Some cases, based on the “right to truth,” aim at establishing what happened to the victims of state terror, even if the previous amnesty laws and pardons effectively preclude sanctions for the guilty. Other courts are investigating the military’s illegal appropriation of children of the disappeared, a crime exempted from the amnesty laws.
In 1996, Judge Adolfo Bagnasco began investigating a major case of baby theft, including the question of whether the practice was systematic and organized from the top. He has since ordered the arrests of some 12 former commanders, including junta members Jorge Videla and Emilio Massera.
In March, this case led to an outburst of military animosity, when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces suddenly demanded jurisdiction. The military court called the case an example of “persecution of the armed forces by the judicial branch, constituting a confrontation between two ideologies.”[1] This move seemed to turn back the clock to the 1980s, when the question of military accountability stirred dangerous tensions after the transition from military rule. In 1984 the same Council resigned en masse rather than condemn the “dirty war” or sanction accused officers, and between 1987 and 1990 seditious officers staged four major uprisings. The Council’s new posture may signal a hardening of military attitudes and renewed politicization now that General Martín Balza—the army chief known for his mea culpa regarding the dirty war—has stepped down.
The government of Fernando de la Rúa reacted to the Supreme Council’s demand by ordering the removal of its president. Judge Bagnasco complained that Defense Minister Ricardo López Murphy should have issued “instructions” to the military prosecutor, as his civilian superior, clarifying that the case legally belonged in the constitutional court, and should have strongly defended the authority of the judicial branch.[2]López Murphy insisted that he should not intervene. The final decision regarding jurisdiction may go to the Supreme Court.
Another sign of military hostility was a series of public statements by the new army chief, Gen. Ricardo Brinzoni, this year. In April he denied that there had ever been a systematic campaign to illegally abduct children of the disappeared, and he criticized the arrests of officers who refused to testify or who gave false testimony in a “right to truth” case underway in Córdoba. There, Judge Cristina Garzón de Lascano is investigating the 1976 killings of 30 political prisoners by the military. Among those temporarily detained this year were several active-duty officers as well as the feared ex-commander of the province’s Third Army Corps, General Luciano B. Menéndez, for refusing to testify. Before Menem pardoned him in 1989, Menéndez was accused of 77 cases of torture, 47 homicides and four baby thefts.
In April, Brinzoni sent an official delegation headed by the Secretary General of the Army to Córdoba to visit the detained officer, the first of several such visits. This show of force gave an institutional cast to military defiance of the civilian justice system. More worrisome were Defense Minister López Murphy’s comments that he supported the visit and was unconcerned about renewed military political protagonism. The Human Rights Undersecretary also justified army behavior and questioned the seriousness of the Córdoba trial, though she later withdrew her comment.[3]
Despite Gen. Brinzoni’s denial, there is considerable evidence that baby theft was systematic during the dictatorship. One judge discovered an army document from the 1970s entitled “Operations Against Subversive Elements,” which included instructions on what to do with children of the disappeared. In February, during a search of the Campo de Mayo army base, Judge Bagnasco found partially destroyed birth registries dating from the period 1974 to 1978 that contained information about transfers of babies born to prisoners. Following these discoveries, documents, photographs and instruction manuals from the dirty war were destroyed by army intelligence.[4]
In other ominous incidents, María Servini de Cubría, a judge who is investigating suspected baby-trafficking by the navy, was forced off the road while driving last December, and in May, her assistant’s house was broken into. His computer hard drive was stolen and a large knife was left on a table, a message reminiscent of past death squads. Servini demanded that the government intervene to stop the intimidation and, privately, directly implicated the navy in the threats against her. Other threats and break-ins of human rights groups’ offices have occurred as well.
The resurgence of politicized military behavior in Argentina—and the government’s passive response—is disturbing, particularly since the De la Rúa government also seems to be moving toward broadening the military mission. Defense Minister López Murphy has advocated the expansive “new threats” paradigm being promoted by the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) that declares as issues of concern to the military problems as diverse as extreme poverty, social unrest, international terrorism, drug-trafficking, environmental destruction, migration and religious fundamentalism. In this context, López Murphy has called for the military to “assume new roles.” And earlier this year the administration, in a quasi-clandestine manner, gave a newly retired army general, Ernesto Bossi, a leadership position in the state intelligence secretariat (SIDE) and the recently reactivated National Intelligence Center (CNI), a body that brings together all military and civilian intelligence agencies. Bossi is a vigorous proponent of military internal security and intelligence operations to combat “narcoterrorism.” His expansive concept of “integral security” erases the distinction between internal security and defense, recalling the national security doctrine and calling into question the arduous struggle to remove the military from internal security and intelligence operations, codified in laws passed years ago.
Also disturbing is the administration’s apparent retreat from human rights concerns. Early this year, for example, the administration supported the promotion of officers accused of human rights violations from the dirty war era, despite pressure from human rights groups. The administration has also declined to cooperate with Spanish judge Baltasar Garzón in his case against military commanders from the last dictatorship, moving away from campaign pledges made in 1999. These are troubling trends for Argentine democracy.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
J. Patrice McSherry is Associate Professor of Political Science at Long Island University-Brooklyn and author of Incomplete Transition: Military Power and Democracy in Argentina(St. Martin’s Press, 1997). She is also a member of NACLA’s Editorial Board.
NOTES
1. Daniel Gallo, “Un tribunal castrense rechaza la justicia civil,” La Nación (Buenos Aires), March 31, 2000.
2. The military tribunal reports to the Executive and is an administrative body responsible only for sanctioning narrow military infractions. It is not part of the judicial branch of government.
3. The Human Rights secretariat is within the Justice Ministry.
4. See “Argentina: Army Intentionally Destroys Documentation Regarding Human Rights Abuses,” Latin America Data Base, Vol. 10, No. 11 (March 24, 2000).
