Uruguay’s Expiry Law Silences Democracy

Is Uruguay finally ushering in the rule of law? Uruguay has faced continued criticism since 1986 when it passed the Ley de Cudacidad, Expiry Law, granting amnesty to military and police officers involved in human rights abuses during the 1973-1985 military dictatorship. Recently though, Uruguayan President Jose Mujica decided to allow the Supreme Court to investigate about 80 cases of human rights abuses.¹  While on the surface it appears to be progressive, this decision exemplifies the problematic nature of the Expiry Law.

Uruguay’s Expiry Law gives the Executive the power to decide which cases should be put under investigation.² The government argues that the Expiry Law ushered in democracy because it allowed democracy to return after the dictatorship.³  Most democracies though allow different viewpoints to be expressed, except for hate speech. Since the Expiry Law gives amnesty to military and police officers and exceptions have only lead to some cases being filed (and not all cases being put under investigation), the full expression of free speech has been undermined. Thus, one may conclude that the Expiry law is in fact undemocratic.

Expiry Law

Uruguayan President Julio Maria Sanguinetti

 According to the Organization of American States, Uruguayan President Julio Maria Sanguinetti intentionally created the Expiry Law in 1986 to prevent the State from prosecuting and punishing members of the military and police responsible for human rights violations during the period of the military dictatorship.⁴  Sanguinetti was determined to cover up the abuses of his party, the Colorado Party, which has been silencing the opposition since the 1950s.⁵
 
Uruguay’s Expiry Law has 16 articles. Article 1 grants blanket amnesty to all officers involved in dictatorship crimes. This prevented investigations from being carried out.⁶  Articles 3 and 4 were added later as a compromise with left-wing political parties, who wanted investigations of certain officers.⁷

Article 3 requires the Judiciary to obtain the president’s approval to try cases associated with the military dictatorship. Article 4 grants the president the authority to investigate cases. Mujica’s recent decision to allow 80 cases to be investigated reinforces the Expiry Law since his decision is based on Articles 3 and 4.

Despite articles 3 and 4, very few cases have been actually tried because the military and the Colorado party have collaborated to cover up the crimes they committed during the dictatorship.⁸ 

The 1973-1985 Military Dictatorship

In the 1950s, the government had poor fiscal policies, which lead to protests over inadequate living conditions. The Colorado party feared that these protests would lead to a revolution, similar to the Cuba Revolution. Poor Uruguayans used the Cuban Revolution as their model and started a nonviolent guerrilla group called the Tupamaros. The Colorados viewed this movement as a threat and worried about the loss of their own power and wealth if the Tupamaros succeeded in overthrowing them.

To prevent this from happening, the Uruguayan police, who were aligned with the Colorados, used torture to instill fear in civilian opponents. The Colorados joined an underground police alliance, lead by the U.S, with the participation of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia. This underground taskforce was designed to counter all movements deemed subversive. Police and military officers involved used human rights violations to crush all opposition.

The military dictatorship was launched in 1972 when Uruguayan dictator Juan Maria Bordaberry instituted an auto-coup as punishment for the Tupamaros killing of the undersecretary of the Interior Ministry and three other officers involved with the underground police movement. Bordaberry gave the military power to make all decisions pertaining to the prevention of subversive movements.⁹ 

The raison d’être behind the military-dictatorship though was a desire by the Colorado party landowners to prevent the masses from redistributing their wealth and taking their power.

During the dictatorship, the military and police persecuted “thought crimes” and crime that attempted to “damage the honor of the armed forces.” Prisons “were geared toward psychological torture and systematic destruction of the personality.” The police tortured prisons, forced civilians to disappear, raped women, and forced parents to put their children up for adoption.¹⁰

This civilian-military dictatorship lasted until 1985 when Uruguay could no longer resist American pressure to end the dictatorship. Despite the crimes carried out, the government never punished officers involved.

1980 Referendum, Naval Club Pact, and the Expiry Law

The precursor to the 1986 expiry law was the 1980 Referendum and Naval Club Pact. In 1980, U.S. President Jimmy Carter was able to convince Uruguay to reinstate its democracy.¹¹   The military retained its power through ties with the Colorados. Both refused

In order to get democracy back, Uruguayans had to leave negotiations in the hands of the military and Colorados. The Colorados refused to negotiate with the center-left Blancos and Tupamaros.¹²  The Tupamaros remained in prison and later formed the political party Frente Amplio.

In 1984, the military signed an agreement, known as the Naval Club Pact, with the Colorados. The military and Colorados agreed “that the Executive branch of the future elected government would not itself prosecute members of the security forces for human rights violations, although it could not interfere with the adjudication of such cases by civilian courts.” In addition, they agreed to hold election in 1985, with a new presidential term to begin in 1986.¹³

Julio Maria Sanguinetti of the Colorado party won the presidency in 1985, with the backing of the military.¹⁴  When the president tried to allow trials against the military, the military threatened to expose the involvement of the Colorados and withdraw support for the Coloradan president.¹⁵  He implemented reforms allowing citizens to file charges against the military for human rights abuses committed during the military dictatorship, which lead to the filing of hundreds of cases.

Sanguinetti underestimated the military’s threat. When the Supreme Court upheld Sanguinetti’s policy, the military threatened to withdraw support for Sanguinetti by publically boycotting court orders to try officers.¹⁶  Anxious to cover up Colorado party involvement and receive continued military support for his presidency, Sanguinetti passed the Expiry law.¹⁷ 

1989 and 2009 Referendum

Despite opposition attempts to repeal the Expiry Law, the Colorados and the military prevented the opposition from making successful repeals. In 1989, opponents of the Expiry Law finally gathered enough signatures to hold a referendum on whether to repeal the law. The military and the Colorados were able to prevent the repeal by scaring the public into believing there would be another coup.  Since the opponents consisted of people who were abused or who were related to people that were abused, the general public did not want to get involved in anything that might bring harm to them.¹⁸

Uruguayan President Jose Mujica

 
There were high hopes that Mujica would repeal the law. He won the Presidency in 2009 because he was from the Frente Amplio party and said he supported a repeal to the Expiry Law.¹⁹

In April 2011, the military successfully won a vote by congress to not repeal the law.²⁰  Mujica withdrew his support for repealing the Expiry Law.²¹  This change of heart persuaded congress to reject a bill from Frente Amplio to repeal amnesty.²²

Conclusion

So, unfortunately, the Expiry law is still on the books and is still being followed. Uruguay clearly retains its culture of silencing the opposition and oppressing non-elitists. In order for the rule of law to succeed in Uruguay, Uruguay needs to usher in a culture of tolerance.

---

1  “Uruguay: President Mujica backs military rule inquiries.” BBC. June 27, 2011.
2  Mejia, Luz Patricia and Canton, Santiago A. . “Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Juan Gelman, María Claudia García Iruretagoyena de Gelman y María Macarena Gelman García Iruretagoyena (Case 12.607) against the Oriental Republic of Uruguay.” Organization of American States. June 21, 2010.
3  “Uruguay re-opens human rights violations from the 1973/1985 military regime.” MercoPress. July 5, 2011.
4  Mejia, Luz Patricia  and Canton, Santiago A.
5  Higley, John and Günther, Richard. Elites and Democratic consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, p. 194, 1995.
6  Lessa, Francesca. “The Many Faces of Impunity: a Brief History of Uruguay’s Expiry Law,” International Affairs at LSE, September 2010.
7  Mejia, Luz Patricia and Canton, Santiago A.
8  “Uruguay re-opens human rights violations from the 1973/1985 military regime.”
9  McSherry, J. Patrice. “Death Squads as Parallel Forces: Uruguay, Operation Condor, and the United States.” Journal of Third World Studies. Sping 2007.
10  Sannerstedt, Anders. “Producing Human Rights Accountability: The Impact of Transnational Advocacy Networks in Uruguay.” Statsvetenskapliga Institutionen. 2009.
11  Frens-String, Joshua. “Truth and Justice in Uruguay, Two Decades Delayed.” Upside Down World. June 11, 2008.
12  Jermyn, Leslie and Wong, Winnie. Cultures of the World: Uruguay. Times Publishing Limited, p. 27, 2010.
13  Mejia, Luz Patricia  and Canton, Santiago A.
14  Jermyn, Leslie and Wong, Winnie. Cultures of the World: Uruguay.
15  Ibid.
16  Mejia, Luz Patricia  and Canton, Santiago A.
17  Higley, John and Günther, Richard. Elites and Democratic consolidation in Latin America and Southern Europe.
18  Ibid.
19  Frens-String, Joshua. “Between Law and Politics: The Continuing Struggle Against Impunity in Uruguay.” Upside Down World. January 7, 2009.
20  “Uruguay amnesty law survives vote.” CNN World. May 20, 2011.
21  “Uruguay Congress upholds amnesty law.” PressTV. May 21, 2011.
22  “Uruguay amnesty law survives vote."

Bin Laden’s Killing and the Rule of Law

On May 2nd, the United States Navy SEALs stormed the compound of Osama bin Laden killing the world’s most wanted terrorist. A month later, this killing continues to affect the international community.

This article shows how an idea developed by the ancient Italian political philosopher Machiavelli --states are selfish entities out to protect their national security with little regard for human rights--- has come to the forefront of policymaking.  Human rights have been relegated to the backburner of policymaking.
 
Bin Laden’s killing reinforces the de facto rule that national security trumps human rights observances. Bin Laden’s killing underscores the notion that humans live in a world where realpolitik is a stark reality, and liberalism is only dream.  As Machiavelli points out, countries are selfish, and only ruthless means keep them alive.

This article looks at three aspects of how Washington’s drive for national security has trumped international law and human rights in Pakistan.  First, Washington’s desire to protect itself against bin Laden drove U.S. officials to disregard Pakistan’s sovereignty. Second, the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty enabled the Taliban to rise. With the Taliban in operation of western Pakistan, civilians are subject to human rights abuses. Third, Washington’s policy to kill bin Laden instead of capture him can be viewed as undermining the meaning of justice.

The disregard for human rights and disruption of justice, all in the name of national security, highlights how little the world has changed in terms of prioritizing national security over human rights.

 Read more.

Threats to the US-China Relationship

China released a “white paper” on March 31st accusing the United States of making the region more “volatile.” China claims that Washington’s web of alliances and military forces across Asia pose security challenges.  If China decides to act on them, these accusations could create potential economic problems for the U.S.

One way that China could react is by discontinuing the purchase of US treasury bonds, an action that would threaten the US economy and the ability of the U.S. government to function, as it relies on the sale of treasury bonds as a source of income. If that occurred, the U.S. government would likely raise interest rates to offset the loss of debt funding. Higher interest rates would slow the US economy, pushing the recession even farther “under the water.”

This economic scenario would only happen though if China viewed American actions as threatening. China has promised only to retaliate if the US threatens them – giving the US the opportunity to back down. According to University of Kansas International Relations Professor Anna M. Cienciala, China only sees states as threatening if they threaten China’s sovereignty by trying to intervene in China’s right to govern via communism or to claim Chinese territory.

China lists Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, and Arunachal Pradesh as three of the major problem areas. In Taiwan and the Korean Peninsula, China fears the U.S. will threaten China’s communism by replacing communism in North Korea with democracy, which China sees as imperialism.  China sees American values of civil and political rights as corroding communist emphasis on economic and social rights. The U.S. remains adamant about not provoking conflict in Taiwan or the Korean Peninsula.

Arunachal Pradesh, a territory that borders Tibet, is viewed as problematic as well because China believes that India originally stole this territory from China. China claims that India will want to sovereignty over Tibet as well. Because the U.S. has been supplying weapons to India, China fears a potential invasion from India.  India though is reluctant to start a war with China, so this potential threat will likely not materialize.

Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, and Arunachal Pradesh represent three potential obstacles to a strong US-China relationship. This analysis will further examine each of these threats to China’s sovereignty.

 Read more.

Colombia’s Struggle to Secure a Democratic State

The realization of democracy in Columbia has been hampered since the 1960’s due to drug trafficking and institutionalized racism.  Newly elected Colombian president, Jaun Manuel Santos has an ambitious plan to stop the vicious cycle of drug trafficking to focus on eliminating racism and ushering in a new era of democracy,  but can he succeed?

In order to succeed, President Santos will need to address the gross human rights violations that plague the country and lead the government to face the painful truth that it has committed human rights violations – a fact that it still refuses to admit. 

Read more. 

Encouraging South Sudan to Take the Reins of Development

South Sudan has waited more than 50 years to gain its independence from the North. In 2005, following two civil wars, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed, giving South Sudan six years of autonomy. In January 2011, a referendum on secession was held and an overwhelming majority voted in favor of independence. The referendum will usher in statehood for Southern Sudan, even though formal independence will be declared on July 9, 2011.

South Sudan faces a long road ahead before a sustainable independence can be achieved. The legacy of the CPA is a litany of unsolved problems, including the lack of an agreed-upon border between South and North and the lack of a dispute mechanism to solve long-standing disagreements over oil and grazing rights.

South Sudan must overcome many historical problems before it can move forward with development initiatives, which are so crucial to the success of both countries. 

Read more. 

Haiti's Government-Imposed, Cholera Epidemic?

As the first anniversary of Haiti’s horrific earthquake approaches, this nation remains in devastation. Reconstruction is barely noticeable, and a severe cholera epidemic rages on. It is clear that reconstruction efforts have not been implemented in a manner that would allow this island nation to move forward.

In response to the destruction of the earthquake and cholera epidemic, the Haitian government wrote a plan for reconstruction. Nonetheless, this plan falls short of addressing the challenges that Haitians face when trying to access healthcare, especially in light of the cholera epidemic. In other words, the “right to health,” a human right, is being violated by the failure to address health care needs in the reconstruction plan. As a panel of human rights representatives notes, “The reconstruction plan came under particular scrutiny as lacking any measures to protect the rights of Haitian citizens or adequately manage reconstruction projects.”¹ 

As defined by the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the government violates the right to health by not implementing legislation to provide for the right to health. Yet, this problem did not develop with the earthquake. It has been ongoing since the founding of Haiti by the French.

Read more. 

Serbia’s Non-recognition of Kosovo’s Independence Sets New Precedence in International Law

On November 2, 2010, interim Kosovar President Jakub Krasniqi of the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) dissolved the government through a vote of no confidence.¹  Immediate elections were required to be held within 45 days of the vote – on December 12, 2010 – two months earlier than expected.²  Krasniqi announced that negotiations with Serbia will now be held after election.

Serbia and Kosovo were set to begin negotiations in the fall of this year on technical issues surrounding Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February 2008. Kosovo fought for independence from Serbia in 1997 after years of suffering grave human rights abuses, alien subjugation, domination, and exploitation, only to acquire an interim government run by the United Nations (UN) in 1999.

When Kosovo declared independence in 2008, Serbia took the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) . In July, the ICJ ruled Kosovo’s independence in accordance with international law. Yet, Serbia refuses to recognize Kosovo’s “unilateral declaration of independence.”

With these recent snap elections, opposition to compromises is removed. Without opposition, uncompromising issues fall on Serbia’s shoulders revealing Serbia’s attitude to humiliate and snub Kosovo by preventing independence. Kosovo’s reliance on Serbia’s mercy to allow independence sets new precedence in international law. This need for recognition redefines state sovereignty to require recognition from a mother country in cases of secession. 

Read more. 

The Crusade of Salafiyya

On October 2, 2010 the United States announced plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, a decision that will have harsh consequences for Afghanis, who may very well come under the Taliban rule once again.  After nine years of fighting to destroy al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, the US has little to show for the war. 

Nonetheless, the U.S. has improved the human rights situation for many Afghan citizens.  The US essentially contained the Taliban’s oppressive practices to a limited sphere. However an American troop withdrawal would give the Taliban the ability to regain not only Afghanistan, but the Fergana Valley and Pakistan as well.  If the Taliban regains control over these areas, their oppressive practices will create an even more dismal situation for human dignity to flourish. The chances are high that they will violate international human rights law once again.

The US invaded Afghanistan to destroy the terrorist group al-Qaeda, who was based in Afghanistan.  Yet, the ruling government at the time – the Taliban – would not give up al-Qaeda.  Therefore, the US attacked the Taliban to get to al-Qaeda.  In the midst of the war, the US added another mission – to bring democracy to Afghanistan – but now that the US intends to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, this secondary goal has been sidelined. 

The US has considered negotiating with the Taliban, who will inevitably take control over the country.  However, an alternate solution exists – collaborating with Russia and Pakistan.

Read more. 

Did Goldman Sachs’s Alleged Fraud Cause Greece’s Debt?

Two major, seemingly unrelated, financial predicaments are taking place on two continents.  The first is the fraud case being brought against Goldman Sachs – a former investment bank.  The second is Greece’s excessive debt, which has resulted in the bailout by the European Union (EU) and International Monetary Fund (IMF).  

 These two problems seem unrelated on the surface.  Nonetheless, they are connected.  The current financial crisis has been caused in part by investment banks, like Goldman Sachs, encouraging lenders to sell bad mortgages that they knew would default.  Goldman Sachs is now under investigation for a more complex version of this problem (explained below). 

In a globalized world, finance move swiftly across borders, and countries can be brought down by the policies of an investment bank.  Greece’s problems though are rather complex; their debt has escalated in part because of hedge funds betting against the country and in part because of irresponsible spending.

This news analysis will address the factors affecting Greece’s economic collapse and the charges against Goldman Sachs.

Read more.