Interview with Interview with Lila Pastoriza and Eduardo Jozami
"History repeats itself in many ways: today there are manifestations of the dictatorship that still remain"
June , 2007 / By Àngels Doñate (UOC)
Lila Pastoriza and Eduardo Jozami
Historical memory, search for the truth, oblivion or justice are expressions that are
spoken and heard in many places, from Spain to Rwanda, from Vietnam to Chile. The journalists and
human rights activists Lila Pastoriza and Eduardo Jozami, involved in the task of the recovery of
memory in Argentina, spoke in Barcelona on their careers and experience in this field, at the
invitation of the UOC and Casa América. Likewise, they presented the book
Rodolfo Walsh. La palabra y la acción, of which Jozami is the author, on the thirtieth
anniversary of the disappearance of the journalist and writer.
To fight for the historical memory, yes. Why?
LILA PASTORIZA. I got into a taxi, here in Barcelona, and the driver was listening to a program on the radio in which they were discussing historical memory. Someone said that they did not understand why Spanish political parties were debating on this subject when we have the problem of climatic change. For him, it was an absurd debate between old people, in which the general population had no interest. Precisely, the matter of memory is important for current needs: we are working in order to see how we arrive at certain situations that we do not wish to repeat, from the vantage point of the present. This type of memory is different from the nostalgia that any previous era was better or worse. Indeed, it is a very subjective activity because there are many memories.
Recover the memory of the past to understand the present...
PASTORIZA. But not only for that. It is also important because the idea that history never repeats itself is not true. It repeats often but in different ways. The task of memory permits lights to be turned on in our heads in the face of certain signs, things that already took place and that may occur again. Many forms of behavior from the time of the dictatorship still exist today in Argentina. The indifference that existed when the missing were taken away is not very different from the way of reacting to the brutal rise of poverty and the thousands of millions of marginalized individuals. People said the same things then as now: there must be some reason; they must have done something to deserve this.
When something like this happens, almost all of us have done or stood by while...
PASTORIZA. We also ask ourselves what were the different responsibilities. We have worked in the condemnation of state terrorism, in the need for justice and truth. Now, we are trying to understand how it was possible to have killed thirty thousand people. Above all, how could a society exist that had tolerated this?
Spain and Argentina experienced dictatorships. Both find themselves in debate on this subject. Are the situations comparable?
EDUARDO JOZAMI. Spain lived through thirty-six years of Franco’s regime. In Argentina, the dictatorship was shorter and, moreover, he had to flee after the defeat of the Malvinas without being able to prepare a departure, a negotiated transition. The fact that there was not an internal defeat of the military meant that there was no express agreement not to investigate things. The first democratic government understood that it was not prudent to go beyond certain limits. There was an important moment, which came with the trial of the military juntas. There are not many international precedents in which the principal heads of a dictatorship have been tried, but from that point on there was a backing down related to what is known as the La Ley de Punto Final (law marking February 22, 1987 as the cut-off date for any new charges to be brought against military officers for crimes committed during the Dirty War), so that the trial would not continue, or what they called "due obedience" to exonerate the large majority of participants and only incriminate the leaders.
PASTORIZA. Looking back is an urgent necessity in a case such as that of Argentina because the period to be remembered is much more recent. The consequences are present. There are certain points of contact with Spain and Catalonia, although more distant. In Spain, the transition avoided many important aspects of what had occurred. This weighs on the conscience of the people and impunity has a price, I believe. In Argentina, we attempted not to allow impunity. It is not vengeance. It is a way of doing justice.
As active journalists during those years, what role do you think the media played in the struggle against the system?
JOZAMI. In the dictatorship of ’76 it was enough to show sympathy or collaborate with groups considered as subversive for a person to lose their life. In this context, it was very difficult for journalists to keep on working as they had before the coup. Many went into exile, many were imprisoned and almost one hundred journalists disappeared. There were also many people who accepted this situation: it cannot be expected that everyone be a hero in complicated circumstances.
PASTORIZA. Journalism was completely controlled. The very day of the coup, or the following day, a law was introduced that punished with imprisonment, any news that criticized or bothered the armed forces –in these exact terms–. Apart from the censorship imposed by the military, there was self-censorship in the media because of fear. The matter of the disappearances was omnipresent. However, inside the editorial departments there still were journalists who knew about the information that was circulating but could not publish it. These journalists passed information to the clandestine news agency (ANCLA), in which I worked. There were journalists who maintained an honorable attitude and others who did not.
Journalists who kept quiet, journalists who passed information and others, who lost their lives in the struggle, such as Rodolfo Walsh, who founded ANCLA and about who Eduardo published a book.
JOZAMI. Correct, four years ago I began a rigorous study of this important figure that was published with the title Rodolfo Walsh. La palabra y la acción. I had to make a great effort and be very rigorous, since in some way I was involved given that we had a connection. I had to research all the circumstances and contrast all of my memories. Walsh was a journalist who set the course in community journalism initiatives and is certainly one of the finest Argentinean writers of the 20th century. He is the author of several texts that will endure for their political significance in Argentinean history, such as Carta a la Junta Militar (Letter to the Military Junta), in which he denounces the systematic repression carried out against thousands of Argentineans and the regressive program of the government in social and economic areas. Lastly, he was a committed figure who stood out because his demonstrated moral integrity and independent judgment.
This process is not something that can be done in one day. How is the current situation in Argentina?
JOZAMI. An important consensus has been arrived at regarding the need to advance in the condemnation of those responsible for the genocides. Regarding other things, tied to the in-depth examination of memory, there does not seem to be consensus. Nor is it clear what the role of the state should be. However, this is an international debate. The state should promote justice, the punishment of those responsible and, our country has even sought reparations for the victims. The discussion presently under consideration in areas related to memory shows that there is not any single history to explain and not everyone thinks the same way about the role of the state in terms of this multiplicity of views.
PASTORIZA. In the case of Argentina, the proceedings that were undertaken outside the country –similar to that brought forward by judge Garzon in the Supreme Court against Pinochet– represented an important step forward in the matter of justice. In response to the demands of human rights organizations, some judges who had lawsuits on hold began to put them in motion. For example, for the theft of babies, one of the causes that was not included in the Law of impunity. However, these foreign trials had great impact even in the broadest sectors of the population, who were half asleep as much in Chile as in Argentina. Many of these first proceedings were based on international criteria of justice that affirm that crimes of lesa humanity do not prescribe. Later, the adoption of these international treaties as part of the constitution in Argentina have made possible many of the sentences and petitions that are being considered in the proceedings resumed against the oppressors and those guilty of acts of genocide.
Can all of the memories we are speaking of coexist?
PASTORIZA. It depends. In Argentina, there is a clearly defined factor: state terrorism. There is debate between memories that condemn state terrorism. On the other hand, there is the memory of the state terrorists. Dialogue is impossible with those who approve of what had occurred. Among the latter there has not been the least bit of remorse, they have not asked to be pardoned, except for isolated exceptions. Self-criticism has been nonexistent. The armed forces have not done so and there are even sectors that still defend what they did.
JOZAMI. Not only has there not been self-criticism on the part of the military as the principal perpetrators, but also there has not been a critical vision, a more in depth investigation on the part of other sectors of Argentinean society regarding what their role was. Earlier, we spoke of how the media behaved during the dictatorship... Today, they have changed the language and they talk about dictatorship and genocide, but they do not talk about the role that they played. The same thing occurs with the large companies and business centers that were tied to the economic policies of the dictatorship; or the Church, which, although it had a large sector of priests and even bishops that were victims of repression –one of them was even assassinated–, in general terms they endorsed the policies of the dictatorship.
The dictatorship swept away good years and good friends. Furthermore, the struggle not to forget takes up your time today. A whole lifetime revolving around this subject. Do you remember how you wanted things to be before, how things were seen?
JOZAMI. Our lives and country changed, and I would dare to say the world as well. We were what are often referred to as political activists of the sixties. We lived with the idea that political change was imminent; the revolution was an objective so important that it justified any sacrifice and together with these noble aspirations, I am sure that we had some not so healthy practices that defended political activism in those years. The experiences we went through, prison in my case and the almost two years that Lila was missing, brought us to look at things afterward from a different point of view in a country that had become another. I believe that my life is a different one because today I have returned to the practice of politics and politics today has nothing to do with what it was in those years: I have been able to devote myself to the university, which in past years I could not do. However, I feel the need to recover the positive from before: confidence in one’s self, in the possibility of changing the world, solidarity with other people. At the same time, it is important to understand that not everything was done wisely; if not, what happened would not have occurred.
PASTORIZA. In personal terms, I believe that our life in the sixties had to do with an activism that believed that the world was moving toward a social system that would surpass capitalism. We saw everything in this framework. In the seventies, it was becoming clear that defeat was inevitable. Then our perspective changed and the fact of having survived this experience was something that was not foreseen at all. The most probable was not to survive. There are very deep scars with which I think one becomes accustomed to living with. I am not interested in doing things that do not serve to help young people that live with the weight of what happened to be able to understand how, why and in what way they can avoid a repetition. It involves a tremendous amount of daily actions to attain this without horror prevailing above all.
LILA PASTORIZA. I got into a taxi, here in Barcelona, and the driver was listening to a program on the radio in which they were discussing historical memory. Someone said that they did not understand why Spanish political parties were debating on this subject when we have the problem of climatic change. For him, it was an absurd debate between old people, in which the general population had no interest. Precisely, the matter of memory is important for current needs: we are working in order to see how we arrive at certain situations that we do not wish to repeat, from the vantage point of the present. This type of memory is different from the nostalgia that any previous era was better or worse. Indeed, it is a very subjective activity because there are many memories.
Recover the memory of the past to understand the present...
PASTORIZA. But not only for that. It is also important because the idea that history never repeats itself is not true. It repeats often but in different ways. The task of memory permits lights to be turned on in our heads in the face of certain signs, things that already took place and that may occur again. Many forms of behavior from the time of the dictatorship still exist today in Argentina. The indifference that existed when the missing were taken away is not very different from the way of reacting to the brutal rise of poverty and the thousands of millions of marginalized individuals. People said the same things then as now: there must be some reason; they must have done something to deserve this.
When something like this happens, almost all of us have done or stood by while...
PASTORIZA. We also ask ourselves what were the different responsibilities. We have worked in the condemnation of state terrorism, in the need for justice and truth. Now, we are trying to understand how it was possible to have killed thirty thousand people. Above all, how could a society exist that had tolerated this?
Spain and Argentina experienced dictatorships. Both find themselves in debate on this subject. Are the situations comparable?
EDUARDO JOZAMI. Spain lived through thirty-six years of Franco’s regime. In Argentina, the dictatorship was shorter and, moreover, he had to flee after the defeat of the Malvinas without being able to prepare a departure, a negotiated transition. The fact that there was not an internal defeat of the military meant that there was no express agreement not to investigate things. The first democratic government understood that it was not prudent to go beyond certain limits. There was an important moment, which came with the trial of the military juntas. There are not many international precedents in which the principal heads of a dictatorship have been tried, but from that point on there was a backing down related to what is known as the La Ley de Punto Final (law marking February 22, 1987 as the cut-off date for any new charges to be brought against military officers for crimes committed during the Dirty War), so that the trial would not continue, or what they called "due obedience" to exonerate the large majority of participants and only incriminate the leaders.
PASTORIZA. Looking back is an urgent necessity in a case such as that of Argentina because the period to be remembered is much more recent. The consequences are present. There are certain points of contact with Spain and Catalonia, although more distant. In Spain, the transition avoided many important aspects of what had occurred. This weighs on the conscience of the people and impunity has a price, I believe. In Argentina, we attempted not to allow impunity. It is not vengeance. It is a way of doing justice.
As active journalists during those years, what role do you think the media played in the struggle against the system?
JOZAMI. In the dictatorship of ’76 it was enough to show sympathy or collaborate with groups considered as subversive for a person to lose their life. In this context, it was very difficult for journalists to keep on working as they had before the coup. Many went into exile, many were imprisoned and almost one hundred journalists disappeared. There were also many people who accepted this situation: it cannot be expected that everyone be a hero in complicated circumstances.
PASTORIZA. Journalism was completely controlled. The very day of the coup, or the following day, a law was introduced that punished with imprisonment, any news that criticized or bothered the armed forces –in these exact terms–. Apart from the censorship imposed by the military, there was self-censorship in the media because of fear. The matter of the disappearances was omnipresent. However, inside the editorial departments there still were journalists who knew about the information that was circulating but could not publish it. These journalists passed information to the clandestine news agency (ANCLA), in which I worked. There were journalists who maintained an honorable attitude and others who did not.
Journalists who kept quiet, journalists who passed information and others, who lost their lives in the struggle, such as Rodolfo Walsh, who founded ANCLA and about who Eduardo published a book.
JOZAMI. Correct, four years ago I began a rigorous study of this important figure that was published with the title Rodolfo Walsh. La palabra y la acción. I had to make a great effort and be very rigorous, since in some way I was involved given that we had a connection. I had to research all the circumstances and contrast all of my memories. Walsh was a journalist who set the course in community journalism initiatives and is certainly one of the finest Argentinean writers of the 20th century. He is the author of several texts that will endure for their political significance in Argentinean history, such as Carta a la Junta Militar (Letter to the Military Junta), in which he denounces the systematic repression carried out against thousands of Argentineans and the regressive program of the government in social and economic areas. Lastly, he was a committed figure who stood out because his demonstrated moral integrity and independent judgment.
This process is not something that can be done in one day. How is the current situation in Argentina?
JOZAMI. An important consensus has been arrived at regarding the need to advance in the condemnation of those responsible for the genocides. Regarding other things, tied to the in-depth examination of memory, there does not seem to be consensus. Nor is it clear what the role of the state should be. However, this is an international debate. The state should promote justice, the punishment of those responsible and, our country has even sought reparations for the victims. The discussion presently under consideration in areas related to memory shows that there is not any single history to explain and not everyone thinks the same way about the role of the state in terms of this multiplicity of views.
PASTORIZA. In the case of Argentina, the proceedings that were undertaken outside the country –similar to that brought forward by judge Garzon in the Supreme Court against Pinochet– represented an important step forward in the matter of justice. In response to the demands of human rights organizations, some judges who had lawsuits on hold began to put them in motion. For example, for the theft of babies, one of the causes that was not included in the Law of impunity. However, these foreign trials had great impact even in the broadest sectors of the population, who were half asleep as much in Chile as in Argentina. Many of these first proceedings were based on international criteria of justice that affirm that crimes of lesa humanity do not prescribe. Later, the adoption of these international treaties as part of the constitution in Argentina have made possible many of the sentences and petitions that are being considered in the proceedings resumed against the oppressors and those guilty of acts of genocide.
Can all of the memories we are speaking of coexist?
PASTORIZA. It depends. In Argentina, there is a clearly defined factor: state terrorism. There is debate between memories that condemn state terrorism. On the other hand, there is the memory of the state terrorists. Dialogue is impossible with those who approve of what had occurred. Among the latter there has not been the least bit of remorse, they have not asked to be pardoned, except for isolated exceptions. Self-criticism has been nonexistent. The armed forces have not done so and there are even sectors that still defend what they did.
JOZAMI. Not only has there not been self-criticism on the part of the military as the principal perpetrators, but also there has not been a critical vision, a more in depth investigation on the part of other sectors of Argentinean society regarding what their role was. Earlier, we spoke of how the media behaved during the dictatorship... Today, they have changed the language and they talk about dictatorship and genocide, but they do not talk about the role that they played. The same thing occurs with the large companies and business centers that were tied to the economic policies of the dictatorship; or the Church, which, although it had a large sector of priests and even bishops that were victims of repression –one of them was even assassinated–, in general terms they endorsed the policies of the dictatorship.
The dictatorship swept away good years and good friends. Furthermore, the struggle not to forget takes up your time today. A whole lifetime revolving around this subject. Do you remember how you wanted things to be before, how things were seen?
JOZAMI. Our lives and country changed, and I would dare to say the world as well. We were what are often referred to as political activists of the sixties. We lived with the idea that political change was imminent; the revolution was an objective so important that it justified any sacrifice and together with these noble aspirations, I am sure that we had some not so healthy practices that defended political activism in those years. The experiences we went through, prison in my case and the almost two years that Lila was missing, brought us to look at things afterward from a different point of view in a country that had become another. I believe that my life is a different one because today I have returned to the practice of politics and politics today has nothing to do with what it was in those years: I have been able to devote myself to the university, which in past years I could not do. However, I feel the need to recover the positive from before: confidence in one’s self, in the possibility of changing the world, solidarity with other people. At the same time, it is important to understand that not everything was done wisely; if not, what happened would not have occurred.
PASTORIZA. In personal terms, I believe that our life in the sixties had to do with an activism that believed that the world was moving toward a social system that would surpass capitalism. We saw everything in this framework. In the seventies, it was becoming clear that defeat was inevitable. Then our perspective changed and the fact of having survived this experience was something that was not foreseen at all. The most probable was not to survive. There are very deep scars with which I think one becomes accustomed to living with. I am not interested in doing things that do not serve to help young people that live with the weight of what happened to be able to understand how, why and in what way they can avoid a repetition. It involves a tremendous amount of daily actions to attain this without horror prevailing above all.