SOA graduate Geoffrey Demarest’s time as Military Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala was 1988 to 1991! This covers the time of heavy U.S. backed military repression against indigenous communitis in Guatemala and several high-profile cases of murder and torture (e.g. the Myrna Mack assassination in 1990. In 1989, Sister Diana Ortiz, the founder of the Torture Abolition Survivor Support Coalition here in DC was raped and tortured in Guatemala. During her torture, a man called Allejandro appeared to be in charge. He spoke colloquial English and spoke of contacts with the US Embassy. It also covers the time of the murder of Michael Devine. Allegations have been made that Guatemalan colonel, Julio Roberto Alpirez on CIA payroll, was involved. A review in 1996 showed that Alpirez was on the CIA payroll from 1988-1992 and that he was involved in the cover-up of the murder of Devine and had participated in the interrogation and likely torture of Efraim Bamaca, a captured Guatemalan guerrilla married to an American lawyer (Jennifer Harbury).

U.S. Military Funded Mapping Project in Oaxaca
Geographers used to gather intelligence?

April 2009

By Cyril Mychalejko
and Ramor Ryan

http://www.zcommunications.org/zmag/viewArticle/21044

Proyecto de Mapeo Financiado por el Ejército de los EE.UU. en Oaxaca
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/1808/1/

Broadly painting these academics as part of a North American conspiracy is easy, alarmist, and attracts readers; it is also irresponsible. Additionally, the claim that this project was timed to coincide with APPO activities is a bit of a stretch. Sedillo fails to mention that the research was being done in Oaxaca state, but not in Oaxaca de Juarez. In any case, Sedillo states that they intentionally moved their operations in order to be closer to APPO activities. So, what were they doing with APPO? Sabotaging the movement? Funneling US funds to anti-APPO paramilitary? Sedillo should not just make an ominous implication without providing a little bit of evidence. These academics are simply conducting fieldwork, not seeking to emulate Kermit Roosevelt.

Fundamentally, whose responsibility is it to inform and be informed of the source of funding? The researchers or the researched? Herlihy personally told me how the village leaders were aware of Department of Defense funding. Why did they wait until the end of the mapping to be offended by it? Why didn’t they ask more questions sooner (or decline permission) if it was so offensive? If the DOD funding was so secretive, why was the information simply made available on the Lawrence Journal World’s website and the Bowman Expedition’s website? A simple Google search would have revealed any suspicious relationship.

I conducted research on business development in Oaxaca in the summer of 2008. Was it my responsibility to inform all of my research participants of every facet of my funding, such as who funded my grant and who donates money to the University of Kansas? Should my research be suspect because I was studying commercial business development at the exact time that the Guelaguetza was being commercialized? (Actually I eschewed the commercial Guelaguetza and went to the Guelaguetza Popular).

Yes, it is true that the US government has historically been irresponsible, unethical, and immoral in achieving its goals (which have frequently been based on arrogance, greed, and racism). Should we be skeptical of US military activities in foreign countries? Yes. Is it possible that sometimes in connecting certain clues and evidence together to uncover a grand conspiracy we are simply wrong, no matter how much we would love to believe in the conspiracy? Yes. Is it appropriate to broadly stroke all those involved as “culeros”? No.

By the way, many people at the University of Kansas (including some associated with the Bowman Expedition), KU’s Center of Latin American Studies (of which Peter Herlihy is a faculty member), and KU’s Latin American Solidarity have sincerely enjoyed Simon Sedillo’s presentations and “Un poquito de tanta verdad.” I am sure that the University will continue to invite him to present his ideas and work, as they have frequently done in the past.

GROSSMAN: Yeah, I have a question of Dr. Dobson, as you know, there’s been alot of ah back and forth over whether particular communities in Oaxaca were informed of the Army funding and participation in your research team by the Foreign Military Studies Office, and in the Indigenous People’s Specialty Group, we’ve gathered documents and posted documents from both sides of the debate, including many of yours, and um we received a letter from the um Municipal Authority of San Miguel Tiltepec on March 17th in which they say, this is the police chief, the commissioner of communal goods that say that they weren’t adequately informed and are asking for cease and desist and return of the data, just wondering if you want to comment on that specific..

DOBSON: I was, in some of the villages, I was not in Tiltapec, there’s no question in my mind that people knew where the funding was coming from, now, that was clearly communicated to key people do they want to say that now, apparently not. Uh, my reading of what happened is this: some very courageous people in those villages took a step forward, they used this opportunity to advance their villages, to improve their technical skill, to get the data they wanted and then when it became a controversy, that put pressure on them to deny that they knew where the money came from. And, I I know Peter Herlihey is one of the finest people in our discipline. I know he did what he was supposed to do when I was there I saw him, a-and here, I saw him bend over backward to do what was right and to inform people. We had conferences there, we carried people with us from all from DOD and from the department of state with us when we were in the field there was no attempt to hide and I think there was an active attempt to tell them who we were and what we were there for. Uh, I know that in Colombia for example, I went there and presented the case why we were there, what we were interes– what the Bowman expeditions were all about, and both sides accepted that there. So I’m I’m just befuddled by why this has reached this point, Uh I know that the initial charges by Aldo (SP) Gonzales were false, I know that , uh but the uh later subsequent events are, yes

GROSSMAN: Have you seen this particular letter, and there was a press conference on Youtube, I have copies of it for people

DOBSON: I’ve seen the video of the press conference

GROSSMAN: OK

DOBSON: of the presence of the discussion by the commissario oh uh you know, ah Tultepec, ah, but I also know what was happening when we were there and Peter was there, not not in that village, but I saw what happened in other villages I know Peter is to be trusted, so if he said it, I believe it.