Peru and the U.S. left - insuring that the U.S. government does not interfere with the activities of the leftist group Shining Path - includes comment on March 1993 letter to Monthly Review from Gary Leupp

What's with this Sendero Luminoso outfit, anyway? Here in the United States it seems to arouse the most broad and committed opposition of anything I've come across in a long time, except for maybe Koresh and his Waco wackos. I don't claim expert knowledge on Sendero, but I would like to speculate a bit on some issues I've seen raised by its opponents, and some by its supporters.

The letter from Gary Leupp in the March 1993 issue of MRwas the first thing I've seen in any publication I read that had anything good to say about the Peruvian revolutionary group. I was very glad to see MR print that piece and think Monthly Review deserves credit for being willing to risk a certain amount of disapproval from many in the U.S. left, who would probably rather there wasn't an open debate on this topic. Good show, guys!

One thing that is missing from both the Leupp letter and the Hobart Spalding articles that I think should be a constant theme whenever U.S. socialists discuss revolutionary movements in other countries, is a commitment to opposing the efforts our own government is almost sure to make in favor of the status quo in those countries. If Vietnam taught us anything, it was that anti-interventionism has to be at the very heart of our activities, and on the tips of our tongues.

I think Gary Leupp gets too wrapped up in defending Sendero and forgets that it's not nearly as important to people in Peru that we support them as it is that we make sure our government doesn't interfere with what they're trying to do. It should be left to people in Peru to decide whether or not to support Sendero. I have noticed over the years that when support for revolutionary groups such as the FMLN in El Salvador or Sendero becomes a primary concern in the United States, groups working to oppose U.S. intervention in those countries seem to become more and more isolated from average people here. I do think the revolutionary process is fascinating, and that studying it can lead to a deep sympathy for people living and struggling far away under circumstances very different from our own. Our main goal, however, should be to appeal to the genuine sentiments among our own people against interference in revolutionary movements outside our country. Never forget the "Vietnam Syndrome!"

What about Sendero's killings, the lack of democratic practices, the apparent cult of personality around Guzman, and the refusal to work with the rest of the left in Peru?

As I understand it, Sendero believes that a state of war exists in Peru. During any war, there's going to be killing. Sendero makes it clear to everybody that representatives of the Peruvian state are considered enemies, and will be treated as such. A big difference between Sendero and the government seems to be that Sendero makes every attempt to warn people to cease the activities that have put them on a "hit list."

Sendero's policy on civilian defense patrols, or rondas, as they are called in Peru, is pretty straightforward. I have been told by supporters of Sendero that the recent history of Guatemala has made a very strong impression on the military strategists in the Peruvian revolutionary group. As Sendero reads it, the civilian defense patrols played a key role in the murderous defeat of the peasant revolution in that unhappy land. The rules are really clear in Peru; you join the rondas, you're dead. I can't blame anybody for doing what they consider is necessary to avoid the kind of wholesale emptying of parts of the countryside that appears to have gone on in Guatemala.

If anyone has doubts of the justice or necessity of this policy, I suggest they check out the May-June issue of Mother Jones. There's a photograph of a Sendero fighter, probably about to be killed, being paraded through a peasant village with a rope around his neck. The rondistas in the photograph are brandishing what look like twelvegauge shotguns to me. As we used to say in the army, this is not the kind of situation you want to find yourself in!

One aspect of Sendero's killing has probably gained them a tremendous amount of grass roots support in Peru. They apparently make a major effort to track down and kill people guilty of torture.

The same thing applies, I'm told, to particularly brutal officers in the military. My feeling is that this policy is a great idea and probably cuts down on the number of soldiers and police officials willing to behave that way. It seems to me that anybody would be glad to know that the guy who's about to "interrogate" them is just a bit scared that he could face summary justice if he gets too carried away!

Why is Sendero so reluctant to work with groups associated with the parliamentary left? As I understand it, they believe that there's been enough talk, that it's time to act. Like its policies on killing, this refusal to work with parties in Peru, doesn't appear to have cost them very much support among the peasants or the urban poor. Can anybody point to any compelling evidence that the electoral left was offering a legitimate alternative way out of the mushrooming social crisis that Peru, along with the rest of the Third World, faced in 1980, when Sendero embarked on its current path of armed struggle? People in Sendero were convinced that endless campaign promises and gentlemanly cooperation with the bourgeoisie were just demoralizing the masses and prolonging the very difficult conditions under which people in Peru have to live.

It doesn't appear to me that it would be accurate to characterize Sendero as democratic in its methods of party organization. As a veteran of Students for a Democratic Society, I doubt that I would function very well in the group. While some might view this as a legitimate point of criticism, I don't really think so. It's hard to figure how you could fight a revolutionary war unless you were willing to have a military command type structure for your group. The "cult of personality" around Guzman, while certainly anti-democratic, should be understood in this context as well. During a war, when you might be killed at any time, I believe there is a very strong tendency for people to want to believe that their leader possesses qualities that would make it possible for him or her to steer things toward victory, even if that might seem a too difficult task for a "mere mortal like me."

As victory nears, I believe the military command structure of Sendero will become more and more of a liability. New recruits to the organization will no longer be coming in with a high likelihood of being killed soon in the war. More and more eager young opportunists will see Sendero as a route to a government career, diluting the group's commitment to the masses. Under these circumstances, the need for democracy really comes to the fore. Without democracy, ultra-left adherence to a party line leads to Stalinism, it seems to me.

The switch over will be tough. But it will be up to Peruvians to solve these and many other very difficult problems. What we in the United States need to keep in mind is that it's not really up to us. Does this mean we have to fawn over every ultra-left terrorist group that comes along claiming to be a revolutionary leader? Certainly not! How do we tell the difference? Well, ira guerrilla organization appears to be winning the support of large portions of the masses in a country, I think it deserves our respect. If it depended only on fear and terror for that support, Sendero would never get it. The government, with its U.S.-backed army, police,jails, etc., will always be able to out-terror any insurgent group. Peasants are no dummies. When faced with a choice between two bad guys, they're like you and me, they'll pick the big one. If they're picking the little one, there must be something more going on.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Monthly Review Foundation, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group