Latin-American Studies

The Central American nations originally comprised by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, as one can observe seem to constitute quite a homogeneous entity as the people speak a common language and profess a common religion. These republics as Anthony James Joes noted, All experienced centuries of Spanish administration, and they began their career as independent states at the same time (Joes, 131). These countries including Venezuela, Columbia, and Bolivia according to Ernesto Guevara, Brian Loveman, and Thomas Davies, were the scene of revolutionary guerrilla movements that either were rural-based or counted upon significant rural component (178).
While in most cases the guerrilla movements had failed to achieve their political objectives, it had left a significant effect on the basic economic issues that the revolutionaries were so concerned about and were fighting for. These issues include poverty, corruption, and inequality which had gripped these nations since they gained independence from the Spanish rule.

The existence of guerrilla warfare groups in Central and South America
The role that guerrilla warfare groups had taken on Central and South American nations had indeed greatly affected the development of each nation. However, two interesting questions that seemed needed to be answered first before further discussion was how this guerilla warfare was formed and what were their intensions. The importance of these questions lies on the fact that according to Walter Lacqueur, in the entire history of Latin America there were countless external and internal guerrilla wars (Lacqueur, 52). Although he did not categorically identified the reason for the existence of such groups, he cited that one potential reason for the existence of such warfare groups was the government inability to afford sizable regular armies because of financial constrains. Lacqueur noted that in Central and South America, the military disposition in any event is to incline more to the convention of small flexible fighting units than to large, rigidly disciplined armies. In other words, ever since, guerilla movements had been the customary in the military affairs of Latin America. This suggests that the guerrilla warfare were not formed specifically for a particular revolutionary purpose. According to Lacqueur, army and politics have been traditionally linked closer in Latin America, than in other parts of the world and that the armies were on the whole more politically oriented, and political life more militarized than elsewhere (Lacqueur, 53).
Given the above reason for the existence of guerrilla warfare groups, one can easily form an opinion about what was the color of these guerrilla warfare groups. Were they for the masses or were they for the politicians whose aim was to enthrone themselves in the government Given their inclination to politics, these guerrilla warfare groups were unlikely for the side of the masses as it appeared that they were the tools of those in power for whatever they wanted to accomplish in their political ambitions.

Various guerrilla bands in Latin America
Among the most prominent guerrilla bands in Latin America according to Lacqueur were the montoneros of the La Plata region, the Almeydas of New Granada, the guerrilla bands of central Peru and the units of Jose Antonio Paez in Venezuela. All these guerrilla bands however, have different social backgrounds and have different concerns. The guerrillas of Central Peru for example were the middle-class Creoles and Mestizos whose property and families had suffered at the hands of royalists and who sought revenge (Lacqueur, 55). Paezs guerrilla group on the other hand, was a savage bands held together with no ardent idealism or ideology but simply by a prospect of plunder (Lacqueur, 55).
With these kinds of convictions, there seemed to have enough reason to believe that guerrilla warfare in Central and South America had no positive effect on the problem of poverty of the Latin American countries rather they had further contributed to this problem. The role they have taken on the issue of poverty was to give the people a false hope of reforms and land distribution when they succeeded in their guerrilla efforts. In Venezuela for example, Leslie Bethell pointed out that despite of the success of the Venezuelan reform, still the problem rural poverty continued. Bethell cited the massive rural-urban exodus, (Bethell, 352) as well as the visible proliferation of shanty-towns on the outskirts of the cities.

The breeding ground for guerrilla warfare beginning from the 1930s
    The atmosphere in Latin America during the early decade of the twentieth century were obviously prone to the re-establishment of guerrilla warfare as Latin America had managed to establish what Bethell calls oligarchical democracies (3) in which the president was elected by limited representative. From the 1930s Latin American countries experienced a period of democratization. However, this democratization were swept away in the late 1940s, and during the 1960s and 1970s Bethell contends that numerous countries returned to military rule, often for periods (Bethell, 4). This condition created the atmosphere for military dictatorship. Thus, the second half of the twentieth century once again saw the proliferation of social unrest, and the failure to solve the problems of rural unemployment, food scarcity, and poverty. This economic debacle suffered by the Latin American countries and the militarization of the government, triggered the reestablishment of Guerrilla warfare that was anchored on the fight against injustice, poverty, corruption and inequality through the help of radical peasants organization.
Among the most notable guerrilla warfare groups during the second half of the twentieth century were that of Fidel Castro of Cuba and Ernesto Che Guevara. According to Daniel Castro, Fidel Castro and Guevara were instrumental in the overthrow of one of the most repressive dictator of Latin America. Castros victory were seen by the masses as heroism, a sign that the people were tired of dictatorship but had not been doing their duties to uphold the welfare of the people. The Cuban revolution headed by Fidel Castro and Che Guevara was an example that Latin American people were tired of these unmet social and economic issues as they were seen as savior of the people against the tyrannical rule of Batista.
While most of the guerrilla warfare groups were unsuccessful in their mission during the second half of the twentieth century against military dictators, it could not be denied that they had an effect on the issues of poverty, and inequality in each region as people weary of these issues tend to turn on them for help. One obvious role these guerrilla had played for these peoples expectation was to show them their part towards overcoming the clouds of oppression, injustice, poverty, social inequality, and other issues affecting them through creating an atmosphere of popular discontent expressed in a more active form (Castro, 66). Apparently, the ideology and principles of these guerrilla warfare centered on the very issues of poverty, corruption, and inequality. Its aim is the liberation of the masses from this social misfortune. Castro puts it, Guerrilla warfare, the basis of the struggle of people to redeem it self, has diverse characteristics, different facets, even though the essential will for liberation remains the same (Castro, 67).
    The nature of the guerrilla warfare in South and Central America were apparently a struggle for national liberations not only from the clout of tyrannical rule but most importantly from the social inequality demonstrated by the gap between the rich and the poor, and the landless peasants and small farmers and the land owners and capitalist who controls them. The case of guerrilla warfare in Guatemala was obviously a struggle for liberation against military control that utilized paramilitary violence to maintain power and exercise control. According to Tom Barry, this military sanctioned paramilitary violence was responsible for much of the repression inflicted on those who dare to challenge the dictatorial government.
    Because of the firm control of those in power through military dictatorship, corruption simply emerges as part of the package. This was the case in the Peruvian struggle for independence not only from corrupt, tyrannical rule of President Fujimori but also from poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy. Ilan Stavans noted that during Fujimoris first few months in office as president, the national situation swiftly worsened (Stavans, 27) as despite of the worsening poverty level and the epidemic that left thousands dead, Fujimore was more concern on its intensified attacks on the provinces against his rival Presidente Gonzalo rather than addressing the problems besetting the entire country. Fujimores dictatorship made Peru plagued with corruption for decades.
Over the century, guerrilla warfare was lodge against corrupt dictatorial government by the guerrilla groups fighting these mostly pro military governments to liberate them from the grueling poverty, oppression and injustice. Indeed, since the World War II, poverty in Central and South America had always been severe but during the 1970s this situation became severe as corruption became rampant.

The situation in Central America in general
    Hugh Graham stated that the situation in Central America was worse as according to Graham, this part of the world has always been considered even by South Americans to be woeful and impoverished (Graham, x). Apparently, the Central American countries share the same problem of military dictatorship with the exception of Costa Rica which according to Graham was stable and has developed democracy. As discussed earlier, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama and all the other remaining nations in the part of the Americas had faced or had been facing insurgencies either orchestrated by the guerilla warfare group or the paramilitary employed by the government to harass those resistance to their rule.   
The political situation in Central America was quite complex because while most of the countries were ultra rightist in the since that most of the guerrilla warfare groups were under the banner of communism trying to overthrow the militaristic government, guerrilla movement in Honduras was aided by the U.S. government to overthrow the communist rule. Here, it is clear that the intention behind the guerrilla warfare was simply to overthrow the existing government. It was a political motivation rather than the social and economic motivation. In effect, the concern for such economic issues as poverty, inequality, and corruption were secondary objectives. However, it was this issues that the guerrillas had utilized in order to gain the support of the masses particularly the peasants. The impact of guerrilla warfare therefore on the Central American development lies on their ability to convince the peasants of their promises once they are in power. But as it is, the impact of the guerilla warfare was the involvement of peasants towards the struggle to overthrow the existing government by increasing social tensions and unrests. The poor, the peasants, the oppressed, and the victims of injustices were undoubtedly the immediate beneficiaries of the guerrilla warfare effort in so far as fairness and injustice is concerned.

The effect of guerrilla warfare groups in South America
      The situation in South America was no different from Central America as the guerilla warfare groups were geared towards the overthrow of a tyrannical military rule. It was a conflict between democracy and communism and communism against military dictatorship responsible for the emergence of such groups. In Uruguay for example, Joes pointed out that the Tupamaros blamed most of Uruguays problems on foreigners, especially the British and Americans (Joes, 82). In this case, guerrilla warfare groups were seen as being triggered by the foreign exploitations namely by the United States of America and the British. This view on the role of the foreigners in Uruguay was in connection to the profit in trade and investment made by these two powerful countries in Uruguay. Thus, according to Joes, these guerrilla groups believed that the solution to their problems is the adoption of Marxism-Leninism on the Soviet model. 
    This reflects a political concern rather social or economic. That is, the fight is geared towards the overthrow not only of the existing regime but the ouster of the foreign powers in Uruguay. Given this undertaking, the social and economic issues were secondary. That is, peasants and the multitudes of marginal people should look beyond the present social and economic problems and unite towards the solution of the bigger problem which were the overthrowing of the present regime, and the ouster of the foreign powers controlling the business climate of the country
    The guerilla warfare in South America although very similar in nature with Central America, was however, focused more on the involvement of the foreign powers such as the United States rather than on the current regime of power. Citing the statement of Che Guevara, Paul Dosal stated, The type of struggle we are calling for goes beyond national framework (Dosal, 248). Dosal explained Guevaras strategy to establish hardcore combatants hoping to spark confrontation with the United States by developing a guerrilla front in the heart of South America (248).
    From this guerrilla tactic employed in South America, there was clearly a distinct emphasis on the nature of struggle which the guerrilla movement had between the two Americas. Apparently, there was much concern on the social and economic aspect in their struggle for liberation in Central America than in South America. This seemed to reflect the economic condition of the two Americas with the Central America receiving particular treatment in view of its woeful economic condition. That is, guerrilla leaders recognized the immediate situation of the people of Central America and the need to liberate them from the bondage of oppression, corruption, inequality, and injustice in the hands of the military dictators. While in South America, the economic and political situation was comparatively better and they were seeing as the immediate concern was not the condition of the people in general but the profits extracted by the foreign business at the expense of South Americans. What they were seeing was the imperialism swallowing the region. Thus, the strategy employed by the guerrillas was to lure the United States into arm confrontation hoping to generate opposition from progressive and nationalistic forces. 
    Looking at the big picture then, guerrilla warfare in South and Central America provides us a clear image of what was going on in both regions during the centuries of protracted arm struggles between the government and the guerrillas. The leaders of these bands of revolutionary and counter revolutionary struggles envisioned their roles as either savior of those affected by the ruling dictator or defender of the democratic institution. Either way, the degree of struggles they paid for such a cause was admirable and that they deserved their place in the history books of South and Central America.

The effect of guerrilla warfare in the development of Latin America 
    There is no doubt that terror and fear had reign in both the South and Central America during its years of guerilla activities. As Timothy Wickham-Crowley pointed out, extraordinary waves of terror have swept many Latin American societies since 1970s, most occurring in guerrilla-based insurgencies or even civil wars Wickham-Crowley p. 61). While the situation in Latin America had improved today, the wound of the past had not yet fully healed. However, it could not be denied that somehow it helped towards the triumph of political democracy and for the integration process of Latin American nations. Just as Germany and Japan realized the futility of armed struggle towards the progress of a nation so the Latin American nation is now transforming from an authoritarian rule towards democratic governance. Regarding this shift to democratic process, Joseph S. Tulchin and Allison M. Garland stated, Political democracy, although limited and constrained in several countries, appeared triumphant on the continent as never before in the history of the region as the late decade of the century began. This current shift in the region ran parallel to a broader international trend toward democracy (Tulchin  Garland, 89)
    However, this development taking place in todays Latin America never had existed before as the guerrilla leaders saw foreign business in Latin America as evil bent on extracting profits from its people. But with the advent perhaps of globalization and the coming of the GATTWTO it helps them to realize that integration in these nearly homogenous peoples of various countries, were possible through economic cooperation. I believed that the struggles they have experienced that claimed thousands of lives through guerrilla activity were a lesson from experience. Therefore what is Latin America today and in the future, is shaped by its past, and guided by the lesson they have learned from the bitter struggle to gain their sovereignty and freedom.