By Fabiana Frayssinet
GUATEMALA CITY, Oct 10 1995 (IPS)

The resignation of Guatemalan Defence Minister Mario Enriquez following a recent massacre in which 11 former refugees were killed does little to clear up who was responsible for the tragedy.

Some observers suggest that the massacre was an attempt to bring about shifts in military leadership or to block peace talks between the government and rebel forces.

Specifying that with his resignation he assumes “institutional, not direct” responsibility for last week’s massacre, the former minister continued to insist that the military patrol squad involved was provoked by the repatriated refugees.

The massacre, in which 11 former refugees were killed and dozens wounded, took place on Oct. 5 in the village of ‘Aurora 8 de octubre’, some 140 kilometres from the capital.

Meanwhile, the latest versions put out by Enriquez and President Ramiro De Leon Carpio differ from their original statements.

While the former minister initially claimed that the community of refugees who had returned from Mexico a year ago invited the patrol squad to their village in friendly terms, the latest version is that they were “intimidated” and pressured to enter the village.

According to agreements signed by the government and refugees who had fled the over three decades-old armed conflict in Guatemala, the armed forces are not allowed to enter resettlement areas.

Those who believe the massacre was premeditated are demanding explanations to questions such as “How is it that a second lieutenant violated orders from his superiors and entered a resettlement area?” and “Did the patrol squad act on its own or was it simply following orders?”

Human rights groups that recall the massacres of entire rural villages in the early 1980s by the armed forces argue that the patrol squad did not act in self-defence as claimed.

They point out that it coldly finished off several injured people, and killed a boy who was 400 metres from the site of the incident.

Human rights groups believe the massacre was a maneuvre designed by hardline factions in the army and civil society to block the signing of a peace accord.

“I don’t believe in ‘soft’ or hardline factions in the army, but I believe in a constitutional army,” said the former minister, who is considered a moderate, and who emphatically denied such speculations.

Human rights organisations such as the Mutual Support Group (GAM) reacted cautiously to the minister’s resignation and to the sacking of Colonel Sami Vasquez, in charge of supervising the area where the massacre occurred.

GAM leader Nineth Montenegro said both moves are part of “a strategy designed to offset the bad image the army has earned both nationally and internationally.”

And Hellen Mack, director of the Mirna Mack Foundation, said that what is important is not the minister’s resignation, but investigations into who gave the order to shoot.

According to witnesses, the second lieutenant in charge of the patrol squad communicated with his superiors by radio before opening fire.

Mack called the minister’s resignation “merely a political measure, which will not contribute to changing the old structures of impunity that prevail in the country.”

Excerpt: