AMERICA VOL. 162 NO. 11

Archbishop Romero,the United States and El Salvador

In 1980Archbishop Romero

became alarmedthat a foreign nation

should nowintervene in order

to further a policy ofmilitary repression.On March 24,1980,

exactly 10 years ago,he was murdered.

I By JAMES R. BROCKMAN

.N FEBRUARY 1980, the Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar A.Romero, wrote a letter to the President of the United States, JimmyCarter. A few days before, he said, he had read in the Salvadoran presssome news that worried him very much: The U. S. Government wasstudying the possibility of providing economic and military assistanceto the junta that constituted the Government of El Salvador. Indeed,according to the report, the United States had already sent $200,000worth of gas masks and bulletproof vests for crowd control to El Sal-vador's security forces the preceding November, along with six expertsin their use.

The civil war that now afflicts El Salvador was still almost a yearaway, but the political scene was violent. Beginning in the 196O's andthrough the 197O's, many peasants, urban poor, laborers and others hadformed organizations to press for better living and working conditions.In particular, the peasantry, the largest sector of society, needed accessto the land monopolized by the wealthy few. The landowning oligarchyhad long controlled the Government and the armed forces and bitterlyopposed any movement toward land reform or anything else that wouldweaken its power. A coup led by a few progressive military officers inOctober 1979 began an attempt at a reform government with reform-minded civilians; but the oligarchy soon regained control of the mili-tary, and the frustrated reformers resigned at the beginning of 1980.The Christian Democratic Party then agreed to serve in the Govern-ment with the military in an effort to continue the reforms. But by Feb-ruary it was obvious tíiat the unspoken pact between the Christian Dem-ocrats and the military called for a free hand for the latter to repress thepopular organizations by killing, beating or torturing anyone theywished. On Jan. 22, the security forces fired upon a march of over100,000 people, killing at least 20 and injuring hundreds.

JAMES R, BROCKMAN, S.J., a former associate editor ofAMERICA, is the author of Romero: A Life (Orbis Books) and theeditor-translator of The Violence of Love: The Pastoral Wisdom of Arch-bishop Oscar Romero (Harper & Row).

AMERICA MARCH 24, 1990 287

Archbishop Romero had encouraged his people forthree years to put their Christian faith into practice byparticipating in political life, whether in the popular or-ganizations or in some other way. He saw the growth ofthe organizations as the best hope for a more democraticcountry, even though he never hesitated to criticize theirparticular actions when he thought they acted contrary toChristian ethics. It was becoming increasingly obviousthat the Government's program was to impose some re-forms from above in order to appease the demands forsocial justice, while letting the military repress and even-tually destroy the organizations that the people them-selves had built up to represent their interests. The policymeant a bloodbath for the people and the frustration oftheir deepest hopes, as well as a denial of their right totake part in determining the course of their lives as citi-zens. Archbishop Romero was alarmed that a foreignnation should now intervene in order to further the policythat he saw being carried out.

Since President Carter openly called himself a Chris-tian and said that his Government would defend humanrights in its foreign relations. Archbishop Romero wrotehim to offer his own "pastoral viewpoint." If the news re-ports were correct, he wrote, "Your Government's con-tribution will not favor greater justice and peace in ElSalvador, but will rather undoubtedly sharpen injusticeand repression against the people's organizations, whosestruggle has often been for respect for their most basichuman rights."

The present Government junta, and especially thearmed florees and the military-style security forces, hewent on, "have unfortunately not shown themselves ableto bring about political and structural resolutions to thenation's serious problems. For the most part, they havemerely resorted to repressive violence, producing a totalof deaths and injuries much greater than during the recentmilitary regimes, whose systematic violations of humanrights were reported by the Inter-American Commissionon Human Rights."

LE T H E N M E N T I O N E D how a few days previ-ously the security forces had stormed the headquarters ofthe Christian Democratic Party itself in order to evict agroup staging a sit-in, killing several ofthe demonstrators,even though apparently neither the junta nor the Chris-tian Democrats had authorized the use of force. The ac-tion, he said, was "evidence that the junta and the Chris-tian Democrats do not govern the country, but that politi-cal power is in the hands of unscrupulous military offi-cers who know only how to repress the people and favorthe interests of the Salvadoran oligarchy."

If it was true, he went on, that in November a groupof six Americans was in El Salvador delivering the$200,000 worth of gas masks and protective vests andinstructing the Salvadorans how to use them againstdemonstrators, "you yourself must be informed that it is

evident that since then the security forces with increasedpersonal protection and effectiveness have repressed thepeople even more violently with deadly weapons." He

There was no just reason to denypopular organizations the chance

to participate in the country'ipolitical life; they were the bes

representatives of the great majority

told President Carter, "if you truly want to defend humanrights," forbid that military aid be given to the Salva-doran Government.

His petition went beyond that, however; he was con-cerned not only with the particular question ofthe militaryand economic aid that the news media had discussed, butwith the deeper and wider question of U. S. policy towardEl Salvador and its bearing on the Salvadoran people.With the aid it offered, the United States was backing thepolicy of reforms-with-repression, as events through the198O's would amply reveal. Archbishop Romero coulddiscern the beginning of the role that the United Stateswould play in his country, and he tried to do what hecould to stop it before it went any further. He thereforeasked President Carter also "to guarantee that your Gov-ernment will not intervene directly or indirectly, withmilitary, economic, diplomatic or other pressure, in de-termining the destiny ofthe Salvadoran people."

The country was in a grave crisis, he said, but "it isbeyond doubt that the people themselves have been grow-ing in awareness and in organizing and have thus begunto prepare themselves to manage and be responsible forthe future of El Salvador, as the only ones capable of sur-mounting the crisis."

The popular organizations had shown great skill andmaturity in growing from small, disparate organizationsinto at last one giant coalition that had formed in Januaryof that year and had skillfully managed not only the polit-ical organizing and logistics necessary for the Jan. 22march, but also the extremely difficult task of movingthe mass ofthe marchers out of harm's way to the distantcampus of the national university after the column wasfired upon by the military. There was no just reason todeny them the chance to participate in the country's polit-ical life; they had arisen from the people, and they werethe best representatives of the great majority of the peo-ple, who had always been denied their just share of polit-ical power and their most basic rights.

"It would be unjust and deplorable," said ArchbishopRomero, "for the intrusion of foreign powers to frustratethe Salvadoran people, to repress them and keep themfrom deciding autonomously the economic and politicalcourse that our nation should follow. It would be to vio-

288' AMERICA MARCH 24, 1990

late a right that we Latin American bishops gathered atPuebla [in January 1979] recognized publicly: 'our peo-ples' legitimate self-determination, which allows them toorganize themselves according to their own spirit and thecourse of their history and to coofjerate in a new interna-tional order' (Puebla, 505)."

Each Sunday Archbishop Romero offered the cathe-dral Mass at 8:00 A.M. and preached to the people, andthe archdiocesan radio station broadcast the Mass and hishomily to the nation. It had become the most listened-toprogram in the country. On Feb. 17, he had to celebratethe Mass in the Sacred Heart Basilica, several blocksfrom the cathedral, which was occupied by a protest sit-in by one of the popular organizations. His homilies hadbecome long, because he included a commentary on localand national affairs in his preaching of the word of Godand he found the people eager to listen.

It was thus natural that he would mention his letter toPresident Carter in the homily. The people had longgrown accustomed to applauding what they liked in thehomily, and before leaving for the Puebla conference ayear earlier he had symbolically asked them for theirpermission to absent himself, and they had respondedwith their applause. Now he said he would send the letterafter they had given him their opinion of it. The crowd inthe basilica interrupted his reading six times with ap-plause and applauded again at the end. He clearly hadtheir approval.

This was not the first time he had mentioned the sub-ject of possible military aid in his homily. On the firstSunday after the October coup, he had noted a news-paper report that the United States was to consider givingEl Salvador military aid "if the new junta improves thehuman-rights situation." By way of commentary, he readwith approval from a letter he had received from some-one: "We have had enough of weapons and bullets. Ourdesire is for justice, for food, medicine, education andeffective programs for equitable development. If humanrights come to be respected, what we will least need isweapons or methods of death ."The people had applaudedthose words.

The day after reading to the people his letter to Presi-dent Carter, he noted in his diary that the president of theJesuit university. Father Ignacio Ellacuría, and anotherJesuit had come to see him in the evening. They wantedto tell him that his homily had caused a stir in Rome andthat the Jesuit superior general, Pedro Arrupe, had in-formed the Central American provincial of what wasbeing said in the Vatican Secretariat of State. That verynight, said Archbishop Romero, the Jesuits told him theywould speak with the provincial, who was in Panama,"so that if it is necessary he may go to Rome to explainthe situation and show that the words of the homily cor-respond to the very difficult situation in El Salvador."

The principal concern, he said, seemed to be the letterfor the President of the United States that he had read inthe homily. The letter, he went on, "is prompted by the

proximate danger that military aid represents for El Sal-vador and especially by the new concept of special war-fare, which consists in murderously eliminating everyendeavor of the popular organizations under the allega-tion of Communism or terrorism. This type of warfaremeans to do away not only with the men directly respon-sible but also with their entire families, who in this vieware completely poisoned with such terrorist ideas andmust be eliminated. The danger is serious, and the letteris directed to asking the President of the United Statesnot to provide military aid, which would mean greatharm to our people, since it would be for the purpose ofwiping out many lives."

.HE JESUIT PROVINCIAL, who had intended tofly to Brazil, went to Rome instead and visited the Sec-retariat of State to explain the situation in El Salvador.Meanwhile, the chargé d'affaires of the U.S. embassy inSan Salvador visited Archbishop Romero on Feb. 21 toexplain the State Department's position, and the Arch-bishop explained he still feared that military aid wouldresult in greater repression of the people. He added thatany aid to the Government, which lacked popular sup-port, would seem to the people like a foreign imposition."What we would be most grateful for," he observed in hisdiary, "would be for them to encourage the process thatthe people already have underway, not impede it by im-

from ̂ ••

Latin AmericaJames R. BrockmanR O M E R OA LifeThe definitive biography of Oscar Romero, Archbishop of SanSalvador, assassinated as he celebrated mass March 24,1980. Anengrossing look at one of this century's most controversial church-men. Paper $9.95Jon SobrinoARCHBISHOP ROMEROMemories and Reflections"Scholarly biographies and hagiographies will follow but few willbe as moving, intimate or as revelatory.. .Sobrino's book is anepiphany..."—RENNY GOLDEN Paper $12.95

Bishop Pedro CasaldáligaPURSUING THE KINGDOMWritings 1968-1988' 'The vast lens through which to see the turbulent and hopeful situa-tion arnong Christians in Latin America is the one provided in thiscollection of writings by Bishop Pedro Casaldäliga.. .The courageand inventiveness of this modest man are evident throughout."—HARVEY COX Paper $10.95Maria López VigilDON LITO OF Eh SALVADORAnother step along the way of listening to and learning from thepoor, told in the earthy voice of a lay catechist from El Salvador." . . . makes an important contribution to our understanding of lifeand faith in El Salvador."—PHILLIP BERRYMAN Illustrations.Paper $8.95

Orbis BooksMaryknoll, NY 105451-800-258-5838 In NYS Collect 914-941-7687

AMERICA MARCH 24, 1990 289

San SalvadorFebruary 17, 1980

His ExcellencyThe President ofthe United StatesMr. Jimmy Carter

Dear Mr. President:

In the last few days, news has appearedin the national press that worries megreatly. According to the reports, yourGovernment is studying the possibility ofeconomic and military support and assist-ance to the present Government junta.

Because you are a Christian and be-cause you have declared that you want todefend human rights, I venture to setforth for you my pastoral viewpoint inregard to this news and to make a specificrequest of you.

I am very concerned by the news thatthe Government of the United States isplanning to further El Salvador's armsrace by sending military equipment andadvisers to "train three Salvadoran bat-talions in logistics, communications andintelligence." If this information fromthe newspapers is correct, your Govern-ment's contribution will not favorgreater justice and peace in El Salvador,but will undoubtedly sharpen injusticeand repression against the people's organi-zations, whose struggle has often beenfor respect for their most basic humanrights.

The present Government junta and,especially, the armed forces and securityforces have unfortunately not shownthemselves able to bring about politicaland structural resolutions to the nation's •serious problems. For the most part, theyhave merely resorted to repressive vio-lence, producing a total of deaths and

injuries much greater than during therecent military regimes, whose system-atic violations of human rights werereported by the Inter-AmericanCommission on Human Rights.

The brutal form in which the securityforces recently evicted and murdered theoccupiers ofthe headquarters oftheChristian Democratic Party even thoughthe junta and the party apparently did notauthorize the operation is evidence thatthe junta and the Christian Democrats donot govern the country, but that politicalpower is in the hands of unscrupulousmilitary officers who know only how torepress the people and favor the interestsof the Salvadoran oligarchy.

If it is true that last November "a groupof six Americans was in El Sal-vador. .. providing $200,000 in gas masksand flak jackets and teaching how to usethem against demonstrators," you your-self must be informed that it is evidentthat since then the security forces, withincreased personal protection andeffectiveness, have even moreviolently repressed the people withdeadly weapons.

For this reason, given that as aSalvadoran and archbishop oftheArchdiocese of San Salvador I have anobligation to watch that faith and justicereign in my country, I ask you, if youtruly want to defend human rights:

—to forbid that military aid be given

to the Salvadoran Government;—to guarantee that your Government

will not intervene directly or indirectly,with military, economic, diplomatic orother pressure, in determining the destinyofthe Salvadoran people.

In these moments, we are goingthrough a grave economic and politicalcrisis in our country, but it is beyonddoubt that increasingly the people aregrowing in awareness and in organi-zation and have thus begun to preparethemselves to manage and be responsiblefor the future of El Salvador, as theonly ones capable of surmounting thecrisis.

It would be unjust and deplorable forthe intrusion of foreign powers to frus-trate the Salvadoran people, to repressthem and keep them from deciding au-tonomously the economic and politicalcourse that our nation should follow. Itwould be to violate a right that we LatinAmerican bishops, gathered at Puebla,recognized publicly: "our peoples' legiti-mate self-determination, which allowsthem to organize themselves according totheir own spirit and the course of theirhistory and to cooperate in a new interna-tional order" (Puebla, 505).

1 hope that your religious sentimentsand your sensitivity to the defense ofhuman rights will move you to accept mypetition, thus avoiding greater bloodshedin this suffering country.

Sincerely,Oscar A. Romero

Archbishop

Translated by James R. Brockman. An earlierversion was published in Archbishop OscarRomero, Voice of the Voiceless (Orbis Books),pp. 188-90.

290 AMERICA MARCH 24, 1990

posing another system that is not wlîat the people arefashioning as the author of their own destiny." The Arch-bishop felt that the chargé at least left with the idea thatthe aid should be conditioned on getting social reformsstarted and eliminating the repressive policies of theGovernment. On March 1, he noted that he had receiveda visit from a group of "specialists in land reform sup-ported here in El Salvador by the United States. In a situ-ation like this, one must have great caution in regard tosuch assistance, which intends to impose a particularscheme over the people's own wishes." He expressed hismisgivings to the experts, saying that the plans they weremaking needed the people's approval and not just thebacking of a repressive Government.

On March 14, Robert E. White, the new U.S. Ambas-sador to El Salvador, called on the Archbishop and deliv-ered a reply to his letter to President Carter signed by

The U.S. replied: "We will use ourinfiuence to avert any misuse of ourassistance in ways that injure humanrights of the people of El Salvador andwill promptly reassess our assistanceshould evidence of such misuse develop."

Cyrus Vance, the Secretary of State. "We understandyour concerns about the dangers of providing military as-sistance," said the reply, "given the unfortunate rolewhich some elements of the security forces occasionallyhave played in the past." Whatever aid was sent would bedirected at helping the Government "defend and carryforth" its program of reform and development, so thatthe armed forces could "fulfill their essential role ofmaintaining order with a minimum of lethal force"—words that reinforced the impression that the equipmentand training would be used to impose the Government'sprogram on the people whether they wanted it or not.

"We will use our influence to avert any misuse of ourassistance in ways that injure the human rights of the peo-ple of El Salvador and will promptly reassess our assist-ance should evidence of such misuse develop," con-tinued the letter.

The Archbishop commented briefly on the State De-partment reply in his homily of March 16. The letter saidthe Carter human rights policy was still in effect. "Natur-ally, we believe so," said Archbishop Romero, "but wehave always said that since it is a human rights 'policy' itmay not be in agreement with the church, which defendshuman rights not as policy but out of religious convic-tion." The letter also reasserted the U S. support for thegoverning junta, whose program, it said, "offers the bestprospect for peaceful change toward a more just society."That, said the Archbishop tersely, was a political judg-

ment that was open to discussion. To the admission thatthe security forces had "occasionally" exceeded them-selves "in the past," he remarked: "It's at least somethingthat they acknowledge it and feel concern about provid-ing aid indiscriminately. 'We are as concerned as you,'says the letter, 'that any assistance we provide not beused in a repressive manner.'"

"The United States will not interfere in the internalaffairs of El Salvador," said Secretary Vance's letter.Archbishop Romero had often observed in regard to Sal-vadoran Government promises, which almost unfailinglyproved empty, that it was best to await the results. Thistime he said tíie same: "We hope, as we have always said,that the event will speak better than the words." He addeda final observation on the letter's implication that thejunta's policies were the only alternatives " . . . I believethat there are still reasonable solutions that we must sin-cerely look for."

During the final eight days of his life. ArchbishopRomero continued to look for reasonable solutions, as hehad been doing. His diary shows that members of allgroups and opinions consulted him during his final weeks.An assassin's bullet felled him on March 24, 1980.

Does Archbishop Romero's letter to Carter still havevalidity? I believe it does. While the present political or-ganizations in El Salvador are different from those inArchbishop Romero's time, the basic conflict of richagainst poor remains. Those who side with the poor—who shelter refugees, who try to help the wounded, whosupport negotiations for peace—are regarded as subver-sive and are persecuted by the military and the Govern-ment. Their activity and the ideas they profess lead toevents like last November's, in which six Jesuits and twowomen coworkers were murdered by the Army, churchworkers were arrested, foreign social workers expelledfrom the country, refugee work disrupted, churches andoffices sacked and the Blessed Sacrament desecrated.The present Government, like that of 1980, has shown it-self unable or unwilling to control the military.

US. intervention for 10 years has produced disasterfor El Salvador, frustrating and repressing the Salvado-ran people's right to decide autonomously the course thattheir nation should follow. Archbishop Romero's worstfears have been realized. Seventy thousand Salvadoranshave died violently, mostly from the repression he triedto stop. One-fiftij of the population have fled theirhomes. The poor remain hungry, oppressed and deniedhuman dignity; U.S. aid intensifies and prolongs theirsuffering. I believe that only withdrawing all aid destinedto prolong the war will bring the armed forces tonegotiate an end to the slaughter of combat and to stopthe slaughter of repression. With a peace negotiated bythemselves, the Salvadorans can begin to rebuild the spiri-tual and material fabric of their country and to enjoy their"legitimate self-determination, which allows them to or-ganize according to their own spirit and the course of theirhistory arid to cooperate in a new international order." D

AMERICA MARCH 24,1990 291