• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 2653 0

what the facts of recent history tell us.39 But still, the question might have been raised whether the environment that the United States was helping to create in El Salvador, training and aiding a murderous army whose violence had driven Romero to passionate opposition, made the United States indirectly guilty of the murder? The press never discussed this point either. The Times quotes Secretary of State Cyrus Vance on the murder: “Two weeks ago I wrote the Archbishop and said: ‘We share a repugnance for the violence provoked by both extremes that is taking the lives of innocent people. We deplore the efforts of those seeking to silence the voices of reason and moderation with explosives, intimidation and murder.’”40 The paper points out that the letter from Vance was in reply to Romero’s appeal to cease supplying arms. The article failed to include the gist of Romero’s argument, and it did not quote that part of Vance’s letter that rejected the archbishop’s appeal. The report also did not take note of Vance’s serious misrepresentation of the archbishop’s position when he says that “We share a repugnance [for] . . . both extremes”; Romero attributed the killings to the army and the right, not “both extremes.” We may note also that while Romero was victimized by the very forces that Vance supported, and Romero’s forecasts seem to be vindicated by his own murder, there is no hint in the account of any irony or criticism of Vance and his associates. Here the press cannot plead lack of knowledge. As later conceded, the media knew very well that the security forces were the source of the violence.

2.3.5. MURDER UNAVENGED—OR TRIUMPHANT

The assassins of Archbishop Romero were never “officially” discovered or prosecuted, and he joined the ranks of the tens of thousands of other Salvadorans murdered without justice being done. But in contrast with Popieluszko, the U.S. mass media seemed quite uninterested in who committed the act or in demanding just retribution.

Subsequently, a great deal of evidence became available showing that Roberto D’Aubuisson was at the center of a conspiracy to murder Romero. On the basis of numerous interviews with Arena party activists and U.S. officials, and examination of State Department cables, investigative reporters Craig Pyes and Laurie Becklund claimed in 1983 that D’Aubuisson had planned the assassination with a group of active-duty military officers, who drew straws for the honor of carrying out the murder.41 Former ambassador Robert White, who had access to State Department cables and other inside information during his tenure in office, also stated before a congressional committee in February 1984 that “beyond any reasonable doubt” D’Aubuisson had “planned and ordered the assassination” of Archbishop Romero, and White gave details on the planning meeting and the subsequent execution of the trigger man to keep him quiet.42 Further evidence of D’Aubuisson’s involvement in the murder came to light with the confession of Roberto Santivánez, a former high official in Salvadoran intelligence. According to Santivánez, the murder of Romero was planned and carried out by D’Aubuisson with the aid of former national guardsmen of Somoza, but “under the protection of General García and Colonel Carranza.”43 Pyes’s and Becklund’s informants also indicated that D’Aubuisson was a subordinate and political ally of Carranza, who was the number two man in the Salvadoran military until his ouster under U.S. pressure in December 1980. Carranza then moved over to head the Treasury Police. D’Aubuisson also worked with the National Guard’s G-2 central intelligence office while the guard was headed by General Eugenio Vides Casanova. Pyes and Becklund write that “During the time Vides commanded the Guard, active-duty military officers working with the G-2 were linked in State Department cables to the March 1980 assassination of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero . . .”44 Note that Vides Casanova became minister of defense, the post he still holds, under the Duarte government.

In short, there was substantial evidence