Paraguayan participation in the American independence movement

Beatriz González de Bosio. Teacher.
Asunción del Paraguay. Paraguay.  

Initially the American independence movement was just an effort to restore the Spanish throne invaded by Napoleon Bonaparte as an ironic experience to extend the ideas of the French Revolution, liberty, equality and fraternity brought by an imperial army.

From the beginning the contradictions were appropriated by the independence movements that arose from nothing less than swearing allegiance to the monarch. The typically reactionary idea that was advocated was to leave things as they were before the outbreak of the crisis.

The Province and General Captain of Paraguay was an integral part of the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata, splintering from the Viceroyalty of Peru in 1776 as a result of the Bourbon reforms in an attempt to organise the colonies to improve taxation and the organisation of military defence against the Portuguese neighbour, Brazil.

The regional universities at that time were those of Cordoba of Tucumán, that of Charcas - Chuquisaca - the San Felipe de Santiago, the San Marcos de Lima and the Javeriana University of New Granada. In all these houses of study, original versions of the work of the Enlightenment were circulating freely particularly Rousseau's Social Contract, the work that had made an impact on the Paraguayan José Gaspar de Francia who graduated from Cordoba.

In the University of Charcas, due to proximity to the tragic Indigenous uprising of Jose Gabriel Condorcarqui and Tupac Amaru, it was particularly influential among students and teachers and the news was brought to Paraguay by our hero Fernando de la Mora.

The supreme test of the accession of the colony to the Spanish monarchy gave protection against the British invasions at Rio de La Plata, where the entire region contributed troops and supplies to expel the occupying invaders.

The feat took place in Buenos Aires on May 25th 1810, in an open council, where an idea arose spontaneously that was at the same time both conservative and revolutionary and provided for the expulsion of Spanish rule but replaced it immediately with the hegemony of the Port of Buenos Aires as legitimate heir of the recently deceased Viceroyalty.

From this came the forces to maintain unity and the name of Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata (United Provinces of Río de la Plata) that included military support with the “auxiliary expedition" of Manuel Belgrano, in the Paraguayan case.

Subsequent diplomatic negotiations at the Province of Paraguay, requested the election of delegates to the constituent congress of the new political entity.

On May 14th 1811 in Paraguay they met with the last Spanish governor, Don Bernardo de Velasco who did not resist but instead became part of the first Junta board, evidence of the ideological confusion in the first moments of independence. And so a triumvirate composed of Juan Valeriano Zeballos, José Gaspar de Francia and the governor was created.

To be "revolutionary" these first steps were somewhat conservative and did not damage the oath of allegiance to Fernando VII. Our patriots began the expulsion of the Spanish sceptre and with it the creation of a Confederation of Equals in the region. They reflected this in the note of July 20th 1811. It explained to Buenos Aires the new reality of the province, that "it does not move from one set of chains to another nor move from love" and that it refused to deliver to a foreign arbitration the fruit of its civil-military effort.

In this note we do not see any mention of the monarchy and a desire to communicate to the provisional board of Buenos Aires the idea of a union of equals, promptly appropriated by José Gervasio Artigas of the Banda Oriental of Uruguay, who also proposed the union of the outlying provinces for mutual reinforcement.

This brings us to a tipping point. From the beginning, the province of Paraguay had refused to accept being part of a viceroyalty under any name. The Paraguayan separatist process that for almost half a century gave it the nickname "renegade province" culminated with the declaration of the Republic of Paraguay in Congress in 1813, in the Church Iglesia de la Merced.

Paraguay was at the absolute cutting edge of emancipatory ideas because it left established the principle of regional sovereignty, which left the Spanish empire dismembered in sovereign nation-states.

What more did Paraguay contribute?

Thus Paraguay became the first Republic of Hispanic America and only the third in the continent and the world. In 1776 thirteen British colonies ceded to Paraguay and in 1804 Haiti followed. By 1840, the year of the death of Dr. Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia, political leader of the revolution in Paraguay, all former Spanish colonies were republics.

As a republic, the authorities would be elected by the people and write a 'constitution' as a covenant of unity and restraint, a kind of 'social contract' setting limits on the rulers and enshrining the rights of the governed.

Paraguay also provided an example that was not echoed in the continent and that did not encourage the emergence of warlordism generating internal instability. Examples of this occurred repeatedly throughout the other parts of the continent, which shattered the PATRIA GRANDE project of Simón Bolívar.

Paraguay has been known from the beginning for the unusual aspects of its evolution, for the "confinement" of its first 30 years of independent republicanism and the emergence of paternalistic leadership with lifelong absolute governments.

The fact that Paraguay was the pioneer of political ideas in replacing the monarchical system was completely ignored but at the same time it was subject to a particular historical process, with an imponderable geographical framework and being landlocked signed its destiny as a nation.

The American independence movements took place with military juntas such as that of 1810 in Buenos Aires, 1811 in Asuncion and the liberating campaigns in 1815 with Simón Bolívar to the north and San Martín, to the south. The Cabildo Abierto (Open Council) of Buenos Aires in 1810 triggered processes that culminated in Ayacucho in 1824. Under the command of San Martín´s Southern Army, he led a contingent of battle-hardened and undefeated Mapuches, Guaranis, Aimaras, freed slaves and Maroons, using the strategies of guerillas, freedom fighters and formal war.

It is worth recalling the great and largely ignored Paraguayan contribution both in terms of ideas and soldiers to the great emancipation and we must necessarily conclude that the independence process was the result of a combination of ideas and arms.  In this sense, the documents originated in Paraguay are enormously important to consolidate the freedom of the peoples and the separation of the colonial metropolis.

Paraguay has always made huge contributions but is remembered more for the deviations of the republican system, originating in the ongoing crisis of being considered the rebellious province until 1852.

The process of implementation of the ideas of the Enlightenment was shattered in Paraguay for short-term political needs, whether justified or not, that wiped out the thinking class.

Paraguay has not only been a land of dictators but also brilliant thinkers and brave soldiers. This stands as a challenge that forces us to strengthen motivation for a great task that is not yet concluded.

Article published in the Journal Re, No. 66, April 2011 edition.

The peace accords

Alfredo Fernández. Journalist.
Letter of Peace addressed to the UN.

On 5th November 1811 a process began in the province of San Salvador that would include several chapters before it reached a climax on September 15th 1821 with the Central American country’s declaration of independence. It was an inevitable reaction the other American uprisings rebelling against the Spanish Crown; movements in Chuquisaca, La Paz and Quito in 1809, "the Scream" in the town of Dolores, Mexico in 1810, the establishment of the Governing Board of Buenos Aires in 1810 and the independence of Venezuela in 1811. These movements of participation included Creoles from all social positions as well as those with long established relationships to the earth, some Mestizos and a few Indigenous people. The foremost movement "Grito de La Merced" rose in climax of first stage of Latin American colonial independence, although custom in the isthmus has relegated its commemoration only to Salvadoran jurisdictions.

By 1811 the Province of San Salvador was an administrative division of the General Captaincy of Guatemala, territorial entity of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. This region included the present Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica as well as the Mexican state of Chiapas. For this reason it is important to recognise the impact of this first attempt at independence since it resonated in the countries that now form part of Central America.

According to José Matías Delgado, known as the "Distinguished Central American Founding Father" it is impossible to say who in San Salvador conceived this early and original subversive titanic challenge to the Royal Hispanic Order. However, almost all the old writers and contemporary commentators, as well as reliable historical sources, designate him, a Priest and Doctor José Matías Delgado as chief intellect of the insurrection.

Different accumulated acts have created the history of this country. However in recent years the peace agreements reached between the government and the guerrillas have been the final link in a chain of events that allow this country to live in peace today.

On January 16, 1992 the Government of the Republic and the Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberacion Nacional (Marabundo Marti Front for National Liberation, or the FMLN) signed peace accords in Chapultepec, Mexico, thereby putting an end to the most painful chapters of the history of El Salvador. The 12-year armed conflict resulted in more than 75,000 dead.

The first efforts to initiate a peace dialogue were made by President Duarte in the mid-eighties. In 1989, the government of President Cristiani began the peace negotiations that culminated in the signing of the Chapultepec Accords. The objectives of the Government of President Cristiani were:
* To achieve peace
* To establish a market economy
* To create the necessary conditions to improve the living standards of the population, especially those living in extreme poverty.

In order to achieve these goals, the Government initiated a dialogue with the FMLN. In this dialogue several issues were discussed including constitutional reforms, respect for human rights, international monitoring, the restructure and reduction of the armed forces and the reforms of the electoral and judiciary systems.

The negotiation process that laid the foundations for the new El Salvador, was supported by the United Nations and the Group of Friends for Peace in El Salvador.

Following the signing of the Peace Accords, the UN established an operation to monitor the implementation of the agreements. This operation was placed under the control of the Security Council of the United Nations. Given the success of this mission in El Salvador, the United Nations used this as a model for other countries such as Guatemala, Haiti, Mozambique and Cambodia.

The implementation of the Peace Accords required the political will of the parties involved and the political incorporation of all actors involved in this process. One of the most important achievements was national reconciliation. Without doubt, this process encountered many challenges. One of the most significant was the amount of material resources required to implement the process.

President Francisco Flores, in his message delivered on January 16, 2002 during the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the peace accords said, "in the ten years of the Peace Accords, El Salvador is a different country, determined by a new reality. The transition from war to peace is over and it is now time to face a new historical era, with new challenges and new perspectives. No victory is complete and more crucial to man than that which has been won in the name of peace because peace is the first condition for development.”

To remember this recent history is another good way to celebrate the bicentenary of the country.

Bicentennial celebration in El Salvador

Ryna Avila. Architect and teacher of local development
San Salvador


El Salvador is the smallest country in Central America, situated at a point where the Pacific just washes the shores. It consists of barely 21,000 km 2 of land but is one of the most densely populated countries in the Americas; in 2011 there were almost 6 million inhabitants. The story of who we are today began 200 years ago on 5th November 1811, when we became an independent country and thus began the creation of a new identity.

To delve into the history of those beginnings of identity through the act of independence helps us to understand what we are today as Salvadoran society, both the positives and negatives. We have 200 years of socially constructed history and it has affected in various ways that which is El Salvador in 2011. It is an inherited history that has consequences for the present.

In the opening ceremony of the bicentennial year, held on February 25, 2011, President of the Republic of El Salvador, Mauricio Funes, began his public address with two key questions: What are we? And what do we want for our children?  In his answer he gave an explanation of some of the effects that these questions have had since 1811. He spoke about the impediments that the development of our nation has experienced, "the exclusion of the majority and a deep political and social division."

El Salvador has a long history of conflict and power struggles during which the population (the vast majority) have not historically been the priority. This has been reflected over the last 200 years during which there have been several processes of conflict; from the almost total extermination of the indigenous population (in the massacre of 1932) to the processes of social exclusion perpetuated by the system that don’t give the population access to the basic necessities to which they are entitled. These are issues that have caused damage but at the same time have constructed the nation as it is today.

Amongst the many actors who have influenced the process of the construction of El Salvador and have tried to intervene to reverse these logics of inequality there is one person who deserves to be named, whilst recognising that in doing so we are omitting many other distinguished men and women who have been involved in this process. The figure is Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero who was assassinated on March 24th 1980 with the aim of silencing the "voice of the voiceless". No one knew that his death would provoke an uprising of the Salvadorian people. His words continue to be relevant today and are part of the Salvadorian history that inspires continuation by those who participate to transform reality to the dream of well being for all.

In 1992, following several years of armed conflict, there was a peaceful respite, a pause of breath, symbolised in the signing of the Peace Accords. The signing represented an act of desire to change the course of history. That act was a highlight that is remembered with great enthusiasm, despite the subsequent domestic problems of crime that are partly due to the neglect of the basic needs of the majority of the population.

The country has had successes in between these changes. The establishment of a democracy continuously working towards more transparency, where one can begin to see the alternation of powers and the peoples respect for the vote in choosing their leaders. These are outstanding political forces when one compares them to the preceding history. It is a history that cannot be changed but if we know it and understand it, we are capable of transforming it with the inspiration of having a context of quality of life for all the citizens of the nation.

"What country do we want? And what can each person do to achieve it? For me it is clear, to work for unity of the people," says Mauricio Funes at the end of his speech, encouraging people to have a dream, not to speak of lost opportunities but to use the bicentennial celebration as a reason to live a present that builds a better future through national unity and the inclusion of the majority in the search for universal well-being.

There is a responsibility for this tiny country. To learn from the past to understand its weaknesses and to fight for a future that allows citizens to have a better life whilst at the same time strengthening national identity. It is worth reinforcing this on this anniversary of 200 years of the cry for independence.

Building Bicentenaries

Fernando Carrión Mena.
Quito. Ecuador


The New School of New York Latin American Observatory promoted the international conference “Building Bicentenaries in Latin America in the era of globalization” in order to debate and discuss the challenges of how and why we commemorate two hundred years of independence in Latin America.

The historical context of this commemoration has been marked by the impact of the financial crisis, which has led to three substantial changes: A return to state controlled banking, the motor industry, pension schemes, the closing of certain markets raising the issue of substitution importation; and the redefinition of territories in line with sovereignty and integration.

In this framework the celebrations clearly have a subsidiary meaning. There is no social mobility or emblematic projects because the process is not taking off, meanwhile the names of activities that were already under way have been changed or the role of institutions involved has been changed.

In plural societies such as the ones we live in, it is very difficult to fail to notice the existence of multiple bicentenaries being commemorated at the same time. Mainly because everyone is trying to be the first to complete a time and space based freedom itinerary.

It was Chuquisaca (Sucre) or La Paz, or both, because they both form part of the same freedom movement; the debate is not over who was first, but rather which is henceforth historically justified to claim the status of capital city of Bolivia.

Ecuador is in a similar situation: The freedom cry of 10th August 1809 is questioned because it is said that it was an elitist, monarchic movement in Quito which had little success. This interpretation comes from social groups who are based in certain cities, who are politically confronted by the very meaning of what “national” means in their territory. Ecuador is the only Latin American country that does not have a national day, and yet each different area within the country does have one. Whilst in Latin America emancipation is celebrated on a national level, in Ecuador each region commemorated the foundational acts; i.e. acts of subjugation…

Despite all this, Bicentenaries should be works in progress that should not fall under the inexorable determinism of time. The sense of future is at stake! Mass popular movements trivialize the content and turn it into yet another urban spectacle of commemoration.

We must also be mindful of past events, where, for example, public space, was used to expel autochthonous communities through landscaping policies, the working classes under the banner of urban development and young people in aid of situational prevention. These events took place in three key moments in our history: colonization, 100 years of independence and the bicentenary of emancipation.

Bicentenarians

Fernando Carrión Mena.
Quito. Ecuador

It is hard to understand a freedom process as a watershed that took place on a particular day in a particular place.

Between 2009 and 2011 a series of commemorative celebrations have been and continue to be held to mark the bicentenary of the region at a time when the state has entered in to crisis due to the double interrelated movement of globalization and localization and the urban environment has transformed its industrial revolution born concept of border city, to a network city, also related to globalization.

Today the city is the general driving territory of the state, and the national governments have driven forwards the process of bicentenary commemoration. The bicentenaries themselves manifest at a time in which local governments have become a lot stronger thanks to decentralization policies, and a substantial group of countries with nationalist and integrationist positions has been formed who view this event as a way of rethinking the relationships amongst the countries themselves and other regions. The freedom process itself also follows a path of localization and internationalization: a sequence of multiple dates and places, sometimes clashing, which form part of a continental movement.

In reality this is a time and space itinerary of the freedom process, but also an expression of the dispute between multiple commemorations that today results in the existence of a plurality of bicentenaries. Much of this is related to the way that social groups process things, the way in which they modify attachments to territorial power and the way in which they conceive the cause of the disputes. It is hard to understand a freedom process as a watershed that took place on a particular day in a particular place. It is even harder to define this as the first date because these processes take many years to incubate and manifest.

Today it seems as though every country and city is in a sports competition attempting to discover who was the first to produce the flame of freedom rather than looking at the historical background to the process; in this way the content of history is emptied. However, the impression held up to now is that of a commemorative process which is void of all content, as long as this projection platform is not present; this means that spectacle and contingent elements start to gain precedence over transcendental elements. It seems that the proposal is not taking off, perhaps because the project itself does not exist, because it looks more to the past than to the future, or, to its detriment, more to the present, where spectacle and leisure activities are more important in terms of influencing the masses towards legitimizing the authorities.

We can say that the logic of mass spectacle was of greater importance than the monument, which was part of the centenary commemoration. History built the architectural monuments as oracles through which the state legitimated its discourse, its identity and symbols that came out of nationalism, and yet these now have a policy of conservation that is used for self reinvention. Today we move from monument to an innocuous meta-narrative where the Bicentenary is cast aside, encased in non-transcendental debates located in reduced spaces or in the construction of anniversary projects that carry the Bicentenary slogan.

The Bicentenary of Paraguay

py'a guapy oikovéva (Peace to Paraguay)

Alfredo Fernández. Periodista.
Carta de la Paz dirigida a la ONU

A new country, a new culture, a new society is celebrating the bicentenary of its independence. The Republic of Paraguay prepares itself for some well-deserved festivities.

Two centuries ago a group of soldiers and patriots opposed foreign domination. And, as Argentina had done a year before, Paraguay also fought for freedom, taking advantage of Spain’s fragility after the Napoleonic invasion.

Asunción in Paraguay, capital of South American colonization, was home to Creoles who were prepared to govern themselves. Today historians remember the people who made up the handful of brave men and women who were determined to be free and who freed Paraguay on the night of 14th and 15th May 1811.

Today by remembering the bicentenary of the Republic of Paraguay we also share a space with indigenous people, the legitimate ancestors and the driving force behind the colonization of the territory and of establishing official status for the Guarani language, thereby making this a bilingual state.

Over these 200 years of history Paraguay has been through moments of tension and war, especially with neighbouring countries Argentina, Bolivia and Brazil. However, today we can affirm that this section of the American continent experiences moments of peace that their patriots surely dreamed of. A true and fertile dialogue between nations has also been established.

MERCOSUR is an example of an integration project that goes way beyond economical objectives, and is a path that merits continued support. I recall a speech made by President of Brazil, Lula da Silva at a MERCOSUR summit: “We do not want war, if anyone wants to experience a peaceful place then tell them to come to South America”. He added, “South America and Mercosur are an example of how the world could live in peace, without nuclear arms, without war and much more harmoniously.