Espionage in El Salvador

The Salvadoran diplomacy in question

By the beginning of this week, specifically on July 8th, the President of the Spanish Government, Jose Maria Aznar visited El Salvador. The leader of the Popular Party, who has a right-wing tendency, reaffirmed the common ideas. He spoke about the friendship between the Spanish and the Salvadoran population. And he also referred to his expectations about a successful performance of Spain as the natural mediator of the relation between the Latin American countries and the European Union. He also spoke about the Central American integration, the free trade, and the privatization process, among other subjects. In addition, Aznar attended to the inauguration of sports facilities financed with funds of his administration.

However, there was nothing much to comment about the two days that the Spanish official spent in the city of San Salvador. It seems that the Salvadoran population did not have many expectations about this visit either. According to La Prensa Grafica, one of the individuals who was interviewed about this issue declared “I do not know who he is; however, he might bring something good, although I do not know what can happen. In the end, his visit does not make much of a difference to me”. And he was right. The visit of the Spanish official did not bring anything new to El Salvador. His presence was only favorable for Flores and his team from the chancellery. They all raved about their good relations with the foreign governments.

From the perspective of an evaluation of the Salvadoran diplomacy, it is convenient to present several comments about the visit of Aznar. In what seems to be an acknowledgement for the Salvadoran diplomacy, the Spanish governmental official will meet in this city with his Central American colleagues. Just like it happened with Bush’s visit, the Salvadoran President takes all the credit. El Salvador is considered –at least that is the message that can be inferred from this diplomatic gesture- as the leader of the Central American area. That is why the immediate question is what is the state of the Salvadoran diplomacy? This article will try to examine a series of elements connected with the performance of the Salvadoran diplomacy.

The arrival of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maria Eugenia Brizuela de Avila, to the chancellery seemed to promise a series of transformations in the development of the Salvadoran diplomacy. From the beginning, the mission that the chancellery accepted to undertake had the objective to defend the interests of the country. The web page of this institution presented both the mission and the vision of the Foreign Affairs’ office. The mission focuses, among other aspects, on “the formulation, direction, and the execution of the external policy of El Salvador in a coordinated and an efficient manner, that allows us to have an active presence in the international system...”, while the vision focuses on “the need of a chancellery willing to efficiently respond to a global and a changing system, which constantly increases its level of competitiveness, and to the challenges and the opportunities that this brings for the present and the future of El Salvador”. However, do both the mission and the vision of this institution intend to improve the professional skills of the external service and to separate it from its connections with certain political parties?

If this is the case of the Salvadoran diplomatic service, it is enough to refer to the recent interview of the Salvadoran ambassador in the United States, Rene Leon, to have an idea about the circumstances. In the context of the Anti-Communist dispute unleashed by the most important local news media, El Diario de Hoy asked Leon (06-30th-03) about his perception of the FMLN and its attitude towards the United States.

Rene Leon agrees with the perspective of the “analysts” who are worried about what could happen in El Salvador. The ambassador indicates the mistakes of the FMLN and why he considers that those mistakes are dangerous for this country. According to him, to say that the election that brought George W. Bush to the presidency of the United States was a fraud, or to speak about the responsibility of the United States in connection with the terrorism that stalks the world are unforgivable mistakes. The honorable ambassador wonders “How can the United States see a party that that two days after the terrorist attack of September 11th expressed its political support for that attack? How does the United States assimilate this when there is a fraction inside a political movement that celebrates the terrorist attacks? That will have an important influence in the Congress, in the government, in the people of the United States, and in the Salvadorans who live in that country”.

Without making a specific statement, the Salvadoran diplomatic would not hesitate to advice his fellow citizens not to vote for the left-wing party. According to him, the left wing has not been able to understand the best interests of the country. He thinks that the left wing has not been able to keep a good image, as other governments that follow the lines of Marx have, such as Lula Da Silva in Brazil and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. The worst, according to Rene Leon, is that “the FMLN did refer to the Bush administration as ‘a global terrorist’. That is a major mistake. The members of this party probably still have the same perspective they had in the seventies, with all that dependency theory and the Anti-imperialistic vision.”

After being aware about the declarations made by the Salvadoran ambassador, it would be convenient to take a look at the diplomatic aspects. Rene Leon accuses, between the lines, the leaders of the FMLN for being indiscreet with their critics against the United States. It is evident that such observations could generate a controversy. For instance, the people can also notice that the authorities of Washington do not bite their tongues when it comes to disapprove of the policies or the decisions made by other countries. Therefore, someone should ask the ambassador if the FMLN does not have the right to make critics as well. It would also be important to ask Rene Leon if his declarations about the political behavior of the FMLN do not go beyond his duties as a diplomatic, a person who represents the interests of all the Salvadorans who live in Washington. It is necessary to ask him if he expects, after his declarations, that a hypothetical administration of the FMLN would keep trusting him as a legitimate representative of all the Salvadorans who live abroad.

This last question leads us to the heart of the main problem that affects the Salvadoran diplomacy. The declarations made by Leon show that even certain diplomatic authorities behave as the spokespeople of ARENA, instead of defending the interests of the Salvadorans in general. There is no doubt that the ambassador has the right to disagree with a political vision that, according to him, would not be at the height of the country’s interests. However, to call a newspaper and make an allegation while he is in a diplomatic position, and to do this in the context of an Anti-Communist campaign that his bosses have launched to scare the Salvadoran population, is, without a doubt, a very questionable act, even if the owners of the newspaper print his intellectual and his professional background next to his declarations.

This attitude makes it difficult to talk about a professionally organized external service that works for the best interest of the Salvadorans. In this context, it is evident that the professional qualifications of the external service have not been discussed. It is necessary to tell these officials who work abroad that they are not representing ARENA or the business elite. This does not mean that a diplomatic cannot have his own political preferences, and his own vision about the administration of the national politics. However, before making a public announcement, he has to resign and wear, as his constitutional rights allow him to, the shirt of the present official party.

The business elite changes its mind?

During the last days, in the context of the election of the presidential candidate of ARENA, the well known businessman Antonio Saca and the present Vice President, Carlos Quintanilla Schmidt have presented the most important elements that characterize their possible governmental programs. Their discourses have been impregnated with an emphasis on the social aspects. They propose, in general terms, a more active role for the state in search of the welfare of all the Salvadorans. In addition, they admit that the deterioration of the official party, which was evident during the last elections, was originated because the Executive power has forgotten about the social aspects of this whole situation.

In this context, the Salvadoran Foundation of Development (FUSADES, in Spanish) has announced, through its president, the mistakes committed by this institution while encouraging the economic model implemented by ARENA during all of these years. It seems that the governmental party, as well as FUSADES, has realized the negative effects that Neoliberalism has brought to this country. It is necessary to remember that both of them are institutions that have generally represented the interests of the national business elite. During the eighties, both of them established a close connection, and they continually questioned the public policies implemented by the Christian Democracy, which held the Executive power at the time.

In 1989, when ARENA conquered the Presidency of the Republic, a stronger symbiosis took place between both institutions. Basically, the economic policy that ARENA implemented during the first five years of administration was the economic plan of FUSADES. According to this plan, what was necessary to achieve a sustained economic growth was to “adjust” the economy. In other words, it was necessary to achieve an economic equilibrium through the control of the inflation, the fiscal deficit, and the balance of payments. During this period, the government privatized the banking system, and concentrated all of its efforts in the establishment of an economy with the market at the center stage of the resources’ distribution.

Now, fourteen years later, the leaders of ARENA and FUSADES apologize themselves for having encouraged an economic program that generated a series of negative effects in the society. The social dimension of the reality has only played a secondary role in the governmental plans. The economic dimension has played the starring role. The government’s vehement search for the economic stability has ignored the most important social issues that affect the majority.

The administration of the economic policy was under an ideological influence. And that situation intensified poverty and brought little advances to the social field. It is important to notice that FUSADES, as well as ARENA, put the market at the center of the economic model, and that they were aware of its imperfections. They were blind enough to overlook the fact that the market tends to concentrate the dividends, and that it generates social exclusion and unequal relations. In this sense, it is not enough to apologize when the orthodox economic vision that has characterized them has brought an important amount of social consequences for the working class and the poorest sectors of the society.

Presently, FUSADES is moderating its discourse. However, it keeps a radical posture about several economic issues. The academic attitude that characterizes this institution has made it ignore the social reforms that should be encouraged in the country. In addition, this perspective has been an obstacle to propose an economic model that can be adjusted to the particularities of the Salvadoran reality. In this sense, the economic strategy of FUSADES, which is about encouraging the exportation activities to generate the development of the country, comes from an orthodox vision. According to this vision, a small economy cannot grow in a steady manner through the expansion of its internal market, since such measure generates inflation.

According to these criteria, it is not convenient to improve the salaries, but to have an economy based on the exportation activities. Given this situation, the establishment of commercial connections with other nations through the free trade agreements seems to be one of the most fertile options to generate an actual economic development.

On the other hand, FUSADES considers that, in order to reduce the unemployment rates, it would be necessary to implement a flexible labor. With this, even if in the short term the remuneration of the workers could not be at the height of their basic needs, in the mid and in the long term, the labor force would experiment the benefits of this measure through a couple of ways:
1. Their real salaries would increase.
2. The Economically Active Population level would increase.
However, given the economic difficulties that our country is going through since 1996, a measure of this kind would have devastating efforts for many workers.

These postures that FUSADES shares with the official party have led it to present a rigid approach of the economic administration. The emphasis on the economic stability is something positive. However, when this aspect attempts against the social reality of many Salvadorans it is necessary to make other considerations. In this sense, FUSADES has even criticized several economic measures implemented by Francisco Flores during this year. For this institution, the increase in the pensions and the salaries are economic measures that do not contribute to generate the stability that they boast about. These measures intend to mitigate the difficult situation that many families go through, which was precisely generated by the economic model proposed by FUSADES and launched by ARENA. In other words, these are the consequences of what they created. In this sense, it is not ethical to ignore them, calling them “populist consequences”.

It is obvious that FUSADES represents the interests of the country’s private sector. However, this does not mean that FUSADES is not able to propose viable measures to resolve the national problems. It is necessary to stop obeying the suggestions made by the foreign academicians, the people who do not entirely know the reality of the country.

In our way towards the 2004 Presidential Elections, it is probable that FUSADES hires a number of people with experience in both the economic and the social fields. The objective is to design an economic program for ARENA, in case that this party remains at the head of the Executive power.

ARENA and FUSADES admit the excessive attention that the market received and how they overlooked the social aspects; however, there is nothing new in that consideration. A long time ago, Keynes was aware that the market is a problematic mechanism, technically speaking. Unfortunately, they did not listen to these details. The situation of the country would be very different if they had paid attention to the risks. It is a challenge for FUSADES to propose a coherent set of alternatives for the national reality, to make a specific contribution to the discussion of the most crucial problems of country.