International Journal on Criminology Volume 7, Number 2, Spring 2020 | Page 71

International Journal on Criminology
5. 1992–2000. Most SP combatants are captured or surrender, and the remainder
of the movement fractures. The SP withdraws to the coca/cocaine-producing
areas of the Upper Huallaga Valley and the VRAEM (Valle de los Ríos
Apurímac, Ene y Mantaro). In 2000, the Fujimori presidency comes to an
end.
6. 2000–present day. Armed groups, derived to varying degrees from the
SP, maintain a presence in areas heavily involved in drug trafficking. The
MOVADEF (Movimiento por la Amnistía y los Derechos Fundamentales;
Movement for Amnesty and Fundamental Rights) is created in 2009, with
the intent to integrate the SP project into the Peruvian political system—
unsuccessfully, for the moment.
This periodization allows us to better identify the contributions of the recent
literature, which we evaluate primarily in relation to the groundbreaking
works of McCormick (1987), Harmon (1992), and Palmer (1995), all of which
laid the foundation for research into the role and functions of terrorism in the SP’s
practices. Ríos and Sánchez (2018) offer useful insights into the SP’s origins, which
will be particularly appreciated by non-specialists, but they neglect any deeper
examination of the Maoist movement in Peru at the time—which was skillfully
studied by Navarro (2010). Furthermore, they do not take sufficient account
of the importance of revolutionary voluntarism of the SP’s leadership, something
well described by Palmer (2017). But it is clearly on the two most recent periods
(roughly from 1992 onward) that the book sheds timely new light. It is particularly
illuminating regarding MOVADEF, information about which is also available in
Santillán (2017) and Salazar and Tamara (2011). All of these works reveal the SP’s
tactical flexibility, which enabled it to assume discourses and institutional forms
adapted to the changing circumstances, while keeping intact the initial project,
which was based on Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Gonzalo thought. An article by
Holmes (2015) also offers a useful factual approach to the period 2001–10. (Incidentally,
Holmes’ article displays the typical conceptual confusion between terrorism,
guerrilla warfare, subversive violence, and/or civil war.)
In the background to this research, Strong’s investigative reporting (1992)
remains useful for understanding the political and social circumstances of the time.
Similarly, the illuminating but theoretically flimsy monograph by Kirk (1993) offers
an insight into the (considerable) role that women played in the SP. The article
by Ron (2001) is far from a scientific study, but it helps somewhat to formulate the
question of how the SP selected the targets of its violence—a topic that deserves
closer study, looking at the places and moments of the insurgency.
The geographical dimension of the SP, which is crucial for understanding the
organization, its actions, and the distinctive features of the insurgency it launched,
has received little attention. This is in spite of a number of important contributions
62