Outline of the Problem and Key Concepts
The Argentine Republic, formed in 1816 on the territory of the Spanish Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata , is a country that stands out against the Latin American region. When speaking of the uniqueness of Argentina, the words of José Ingenieros (1957, p. 53), a philosopher and physician who lived at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, may be found significant; he claimed that “Argentina will become a power (…) because it has a great state area, favorable climate and natural resources (…)”. Such convictions played an important role in the policy of successive governments, regardless of the represented policy option. Argentine’s desire to play the role of a leader of Latin America and the Caribbean region has been present since the state’s independence. It appeared both at sub-regional level—in relations with neighbors, and within the Inter-American system .
The second element that marked the history of independent Argentina is the strong and independent position of the Armed Forces . The military played a significant role in the process of shaping Argentine statehood, performing tasks aimed not only at ensuring external but also internal security. Since the 1870s, they were involved in military campaigns in the north and south, aimed at joining Indian-inhabited areas of Chaco and Patagonia to state territory. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Argentine army was a fully professionalized and centralized institution, enjoying the above-average social trust and legitimacy to perform tasks which were the keys from the national point of view (Forte 1999; Salvi 2013). The process of elitization of Argentine Armed Forces that followed in subsequent years led to the assimilation of military attitudes which were the embodiment of imaginations, both theirs about themselves and of the rest of society about them. The perception of Armed Forces as the “saviors of the fatherland”, as well as their growing conviction about the truthfulness of these words, resulted in an increasingly deeper interest of the military in political issues, and a deepening sense of responsibility for the fate of the nation (Nunn 1975).
The attitudes presented above were not alien to generals who came to power in 1976. They completed a well-established tradition of military rule—the coup that they had carried over had been the sixth in Argentina in half-a-century. The reason that prompted the Argentine military to reach for full power in 1976 was the deepening chaos spreading throughout the state, related to the ineffective rule of the Peronists and activity of left-wing military groups focused on paramilitary and sometimes even subversive activity. In response to increasing attacks and deepening state chaos, on 24 March 1976, a three-man military junta informed the public about the seizure of power and initiation of the National Reorganization Process (Proceso de Reorganización Nacional). This event gave rise to the military dictatorship that lasted until 1983. It was one of the most oppressive Latin American non-democratic regimes, responsible for the death and disappearance of thousands of people (Bayer et al. 2010; Comisión Nacional Sobre la Desaparición de Personas [CONADEP] 2010; Lorenz and Adamoli 2010).
When speaking of the Argentine military dictatorship of 1976–1983, it is necessary to take into account the nature of changes that were occurring in the state at the time. It was a regime based on two basic pillars—political and ideological.
At a political level, this dictatorship was characterized by total domination of armed forces at all levels. According to Oscar Troncoso (1984, p. 13), the generals who came to power in 1976 did not set out to rectify the existing regime—they wanted to build a new state under the leadership of armed forces, based on authoritarian order and traditional values. Marcelo Cavarozzi (2002, p. 60) correctly observed that in 1976, for the first time in the history of the state, the military took control of all areas of social activity, creating a “government of the armed forces” in a full and complete sense of the word.
Doubtlessly, the most important role in the Argentine regime was played by the armed forces, especially however, the aforementioned military junta . Despite an equal division of competencies and influence among the land forces , the navy , and the air force in the functioning of the state, the first ones frequently came to the forefront. The land forces were the most numerous formation and their representative, as a rule, served as president who was subordinate to the junta (Canelo 2012). The armed forces essentially possessed unrestricted national power responsible for the execution of the vast majority of functions of the political system . The role of civilian structures was marginalized. This dominance was manifested in both external and internal policies. As pointed out by Carlos Moneta (1982, pp. 366–367), Argentina’s foreign policy of 1976–1983 was conducted based on three decision-making centers, most important of which was the military command headed by the junta. It is salient to note that absence of any control over the armed forces on part of the other structures of the political system granted them very broad capacity for action, significantly exceeding the competencies included in the Basic Documents (Documentos Básicos) of the National Reorganization Process . The military made the most important decisions regarding issues of strategy and directions of foreign policy, but also determined the scope of action of the two remaining decision-making centers—the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy .
Regarding the second pillar of dictatorship, the characteristic feature of this regime was ideologization of state policy. The generals who took power in 1976, like the entire Argentine ruling elite of the period, were people of unusually strong nationalist orientation. The reasons for this state of affairs are to be found in both historical factors, including decades of the military being an elite social group (de Ímaz 1964), as well as in the experiences of the generation of generals who came to power in 1976. The military’s ideological identification was being shaped in opposition to the mass movements present in Argentina: socialism and Peronism , simultaneously drawing inspiration from the experiences of the Argentine Revolution of 1966–1973. The French and Americans , training the Argentine military in fighting subversives and instilling in them a specific viewpoint, also had a profound influence on the development of their views.
The military perceived themselves as the only force capable of securing the fate of the nation in the situations of chaos. They treated the nation as a reference point in all political activities, thus fitting the assumptions of nationalism understood as an ideology. Nationalism puts the nation on a pedestal, assigning its followers the duty to act for the benefit of the nation (Gellner 1983; Hobswam 1992; Holliday 2001; Meadwell 2004). It refers, to a greater extent than other ideologies, to emotions expressed both by language and symbolism, which plays a significant role in strengthening the national community (Smith 2010). Nationalism as an ideological formation, as a rule, occurs in the form of a particular phenomenon—it arises on the basis of a specific nation. What is more, it always has a pragmatic content, reflecting in political practice. “The National Reorganization Process is manifested in actions, not words”, said General Jorge Videla (1976, p. 18), one of the leaders of the dictatorship. The Argentine military’s ideological formation combined nationalism with the pragmatic pursuit of effectiveness to the postulates of autonomy, unity, and national identity.
The military’s ideological beliefs helped to justify any changes they had made in response to political, social, and economic problems resulting from the weakness of previous governments. Such an approach has had a huge impact not only on domestic politics but also on foreign policy. The generals decidedly separated themselves from the heritage of Peronism , wishing to once again redefine the Argentine position on the international arena. They opposed the perception of Argentina as a “third world” country, dependent on the rich Europe and the United States , treating their state as part of the developed West, based on Christian values . This “return to roots”, as ...