Proceso is published weekly in Spanish by the Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI) of the Central American University (UCA) of El Salvador. Portions are sent in English to the *reg.elsalvador* conference of PeaceNet in the USA and may be forwarded or copied to other networks and electronic mailing lists. Please make sure to mention Proceso when quoting from this publication.
     Subscriptions to Proceso in Spanish can be obtained by sending a check for US$50.00 (Americas) or $75.00 (Europe) made out to 'Universidad Centroamericana' and sent to the above address. Or read it partially on the UCA’s Web Page: http://www.uca.edu.sv
     For the ones who are interested in sending donations, these would be welcome at Proceso. Apdo. Postal (01) 575, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Proceso 922
October 22, 2000
ISSN 0259-9864

INDEX

Editorial Justice for the victims
Politics Concerning consensus-building
Economy The battle for international loans
Society The environment under threat
 
 
 

EDITORIAL

    Even before the Spanish justice system began judicial proceedings against him, Augusto Pinochet was considered by many as one of the untouchables. Even Pinochet himself did not hesitate to make fun of those who, in the name of the victims of repression which Chile experienced during his mandate, called for justice.

    After the proceedings against him began, the Chilean ex dictator had no peace of mind. Slowly but inexorably it became clear that for those who applauded the terrorism which he administered with a free hand during his regime, the ex dictator was not untouchable, that the cry for justice for the crimes of those who were responsible pursued him to the ends of the earth. To put Pinochet in the seat of the accused became one of the biggest successes of international justice, in that, in doing so a judicial proceeding was not only begun against one of the most infamous of Latin American criminals, but also meant that an important step had been taken in returning their dignity to the Chilean people, above all to the victims of the barbarities which followed the coup d’état en 1973.

    Nevertheless, in addition to the foregoing, what happened to Pinochet has gone beyond his own individual case because it has opened the doors so that other criminals can be brought to trial outside of their home countries. Of course, those who, after having committed crimes of lese humanité in their own countries, have been protected by cleverly constructed amnesty laws, now feel less safe, above all if they commit the error of travelling abroad. Hose who live abroad in what, up until now, were paradise situations in which they could forget their past, are those who are now less safe from international justice.

    Justice, although late in the game, has begun to restore dignity to the victims of crimes committed against them by those who wielded state power: tortures, disappearances and murders. Those responsible are no longer safe. Moreover, contrary to what they believed, their crimes have not been forgotten. They continue alive in the collective memory and paid of those who survived as debts that must be paid sooner or later.

    Their “retirement” into private life, their “conversion” to democracy or their success as political analysts has served them very little. Those who have helped them not at all by using the pretext that it is not good for democracy to open up old wounds, cry out for “a clean slate”, a tabula rasa. Beyond time passed, from personal conversions or fears which have risen from a review of the past, the responsibility of those who ordered or committed criminal acts while they enjoyed a position of state power continue their, immovable, waiting to be sanctioned by the full weight of the law. Those who committed the acts and those who helped them know this as well. Those who survived the terror also know it, as well as the families and friends of all of those who were murdered, tortured and disappeared—and were never heard from again.

    El Salvador had its murderers and torturers: civilians and military personnel who, from their position within the state apparatus, ordered and carried out the most atrocious crimes against defenseless persons. Many of those criminals are running loose today, having declared themselves converted to democracy, living private lives, hoping that as time passes all will be covered up in oblivion. But the wounds they caused are still not healed, nor will they be healed until the dignity of the victims is duly restored. All in all, up until a short time ago, indications that this might come to pass were not very encouraging. An amnesty, motivated more by political convenience than by a search for justice, exonerated those responsible for serious crimes from being brought to justice. Such criminals at such high levels could feel relaxed and sure of themselves. At least in El Salvador, no one was going to ask them to explain what they did. It is true that what happened with Pinochet was an advisory warning. But it was a warning that did not have to be experienced with much drama. They were safe within the borders of their country...and in Miami.

    At least that is what two Salvadoran retired military people thought. José Guillermo García y Eugenio Vides Casanova thought so until a civil suit against them was initiated charging them with responsibility in the murder of four North American religious women which occurred in December of 1980 in El Salvador. As the days passed, the Salvadoran generals—the first had been the Minister of Defense and the second the Director of the National Guard when these acts were committed—were made to respond before the justice system of that country for tolerating and covering up the crime perpetrated by members of the now extinct National Guard. Who knows how García y Vides Casanova will come out of the maelstrom in which they currently find themselves: all may go well for them; but then, just as likely, it may not. At any rate, what cannot be denied is that this trial establishes an important precedent not only for going deeply into an examination of the responsibility of both retired generals and into other criminal acts committed during the exercise of their respective tours of duty, but will also serve to open up judicial files on other civilians and military personnel who have rearranged their past lives using the most specious forms of sophistry so that, although they are stained with blood, their past acts will not be made public.

    The foregoing must be insisted upon again and again because, on the one hand, if it is true that the murder of the four North American religious women calls out for quick and efficient justice, it is also true that their deaths were not isolated cases. Their murders were preceded by and followed by other murders, tortures and disappearances in which the security forces and the army were involved during the period of time when García and Vides Casanova headed the National Guard and the Ministry of Defense, but also after their tours of duty ended. On the other hand, García and Vides Casanova were not the only ones who had positions of responsibility in the military apparatus when atrocious crimes were committed. The Directors of the Treasury Police and the National Police should be remembered as well, together with the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces—which is to say, the President of the Republic—who is, finally, the person responsible for the crimes carried out from positions in the echelons of the state.

    It is clear, then, that the disorderly confusion of state terrorism which took place in El Salvador during the last two decades will not be easy to untangle. The judicial proceedings against these two, apprentices of Pinochet as García and Vides Casanova were, is just the beginning of a long period of work: that of restoring to the victims of state terrorism—and to the society as a whole—something of the dignity that was wrested from them.

POLITICS

    Apparently, the meeting of last Tuesday, October 5, between the President of the Republic and the legislative whips of the political parties represented in the Legislative Assembly served to lessen tensions in the crisis of governability which the country was facing. The meeting happened after the president made public a national and international complaint against the opposition for blocking loans from international organisms, which would serve to deal with diverse national problems.

    There are several interpretations which might be offered for the unusual governmental offensive against the opposition. In the first place, it is noteworthy that it takes place in a context of heavily strained tensions and discussions inside the government party. For this reason, many look suspiciously upon the president’s complaints and attribute his motives more to a diversionary strategy for keeping what is happening in his party out of the public eye, emphasizing the internal divergences in the principal opposition party. In this context, the fact that the president took advantage of the well-known differences inside the FMLN between revisionist and orthodox lines is quite revealing in that his attacks on them accused the orthodox line of being the principal instigators of the obstruction.

    On the other hand, the ostensible obstruction to which the president alludes is the subject of a complaint at the moment in time when economic stagnation and the crisis in the health system, among other problems, leave much to be desired concerning the role played by the three successive administrations during which ARENA has filled the executive office. And then, an effort was made to unload upon the opposition, in this conjuncture of events, the responsibility for not providing adequate responses to the demands of the population. According to this line of argument, the hard line tendency within the FMLN would be the real entity responsible for the vulnerable situation of the Salvadoran population in terms of social, economic and health care matters.

    Nevertheless, the governmental offensive has been cause for commentaries in public opinion arenas indicating that the strategy did not bear the hoped-for fruit and that a lesson ought to be learned for the future. Generalized public opinion does not appear to support the thesis of obstruction and stubborn attitudes refusing to engage in consensus-building which the government is using against the political opposition. In fact, approaches by the political parties towards coming more closely together, announced after the results of last March’s elections, have still not begun. On the contrary: since the distasteful election of the board of directors of the Legislative Assembly, confrontation has been the most outstanding element in the relationship between the opposition and government parties. On the other hand, the “excessive” monitoring of projects implemented by the different ministries—questioned by the government—ought to be considered, to the contrary, a very healthy breath of fresh air for the nation.

    In this sense, the strategy of public complaints has failed. And by the same token, such a strategy does not appear to be the best way to deal with an opposition whose votes will be needed in the short run in order to approve the national budget. At this stage in the game, the different political actors ought to have taken up the challenge of negotiation, given the arithmetical configuration of the legislature. This is what the representatives of the different parties appear to have understood in manifesting their support for and allegiance to the president’s initiative for dialogue after the first meeting attempting to forge a process of coming together on some of the thorny topics plaguing national life.

    For this reason, the failure of the government’s strategy gives rise to a state of affairs in which the discussions begun last week might be more profitable for the interests of the country. The process of consensus-building which the president apparently inaugurated and the political opposition began announcing since the moment in which the results of the past elections were known. Francisco Flores recognizes, then, that the message of the voters was a call for understanding among the political forces. Nevertheless, to date, a scenario in which the president could not do away with the opposition vote has not come to the fore publicly. As such a situation has not come to pass, neither have the diverse activities of the president and the principal actors of the government party on the topic of consensus-building been much in evidence; nor have they opened up any pathways toward understanding what mechanism could facilitate discussions with the leaders of the opposition on the principle problems of the country, at this time and place.

    Now that the political necessities characteristic of the arithmetical problems of the legislative body oblige them to undertake a real and true coming together between the government party and the opposition parties, the declarations of last March ought to become concrete in and of themselves. The desideratum that this scenario ought to be taken advantage of in order to pose topics which all Salvadorans ought to take up prevails in the minds of the majority of the population. Propositions of this nature require that a serious dialogue be undertaken and that short-range party interest be laid aside during that dialogue.

    All of this notwithstanding, everything appears to indicate that the current process of consensus-building will not go beyond discussions on the topic of the approval of the national budget and other pending urgent matters. From there on out, more transcendental measures which cause any real impact on the reactivation of economic life or which could conceivably lead to attempts at reform of the health care system or security systems for the protection of the population do not appear to be contemplated on the president’s agenda for the moment.

    If the discussions between the executive and legislative branches of government do not open up the possibilities for any basic or fundamental propositions on a strategy for confronting the crucial problems of El Salvador, the call for consensus-building will not have served for much. At best, it might lead to the approval of the legislative bill for the budget and the international loans, but the necessity for taking up a discussion at a national level on how an efficient governmental intervention into the economy might contribute to economic reactivation and improve living conditions for the great majority of the Salvadoran people will continue to hang in the balance. One continues, as well, to await the necessary debate on the role of the municipalities in national development, citizen participation, etc. So it is that, should these topics not be taken up, the processes of coming together will occur only for the purpose of dealing with conjunctural problems.

    If, in the executive office, a greater response in favor of any real consensus-building process is not found for dealing with topics relevant to national life as a whole, the opposition, in turn, ought to unfurl this banner in its next discussions. This appears to be the only alternative not only for finding a solution to the big national problems, but also for avoiding the constant and sterile confrontations on the question of national reality. And in order to succeed in including other points on the agenda for discussion, the opposition ought to prepare itself with the appropriate mechanisms which might permit the assurance of respect for commitments arrived at through agreements or pacts. There are sufficient indications which might lead one to lack confidence in the good will of the president on this topic. One proof of how difficult consensus building will be is the very short period of time agreed upon for the discussion and approval of problems. In this context, topics which go beyond the moment during which the budget must be approved, in the sense of posing possible responses and fundamental strategies for the country’s problems. As things go, the opposition will have approved the budget but will continue to denounce incompliance with the pacts agreed upon with the government. And the government will continue using the services of the news media every time it needs any kind of coming together where the votes of the other deputies are necessary. But this will not produce any real coming together, nor even an overall strategy for dealing with the challenges which this country faces.

ECONOMY

    The loans to El Salvador which represent negotiable bonds constitute one of the most important sources of revenue available to the government for the financing of the national budget. Or so one might infer from the public declarations made by the President of the Republic, Francisco Flores on September 22 of this year in which he presents a vision in which his government proposes to invest 2,525 million Salvadoran colones in social programs and infrastructure based on having received disbursements of these funds in the form of international loans. This is, in reality, nothing new. But what draws our attention to his proposal on this occasion is that, according to President Flores, these loans still have not actually arrived as disbursements owing to the refusal by some of the legislative deputies belonging to the political opposition—specifically the FMLN—to ratify them in the Legislative Assembly.

    According to President Flores, “we must build schools, health clinics, highways and bridges, not only for social benefit but because it will make the economy dynamic”, but the government has had its hands tied on this score because of the stubborn opposition of some sectors of the FMLN. Flores’ pronouncements are open to rebuttal because, instead of depending on loans, it would be much more advisable for the government to have the capacity for financing its own spending on social and infrastructure issues and even for the spending necessary for compensating for the damage to the ecosystems, or that it might at least be working towards accomplishing this. But the reality is that, after a decade of tax reforms, this is still not sufficient to generate income to cover financing of growing state spending, with the additional result that the greater part of the tax burden will fall upon the shoulders of the consumers.

    We should not be surprised, then, if President Flores is complaining about the hold-up in the ratification of the international loans, given that a good part of his social policies and policies for public investment of his administration depend upon them. With these loans in the form of negotiable bonds, he plans to invest in the construction of 1,400 schools, infrastructure for healthcare, popular housing structures, the rehabilitation of the port of Cutuco and the construction of rural highways and roads. Flores has given us to understand, as well, that a good part of the resources have been disbursed by the InterAmerican Development Bank (BID), which is the equivalent of saying that the hopes of those sectors of the population in most need of social assistance and the possibilities for facilitating investment through the construction of infrastructure depends hugely on external players outside of El Salvador.

    Stagnation on the question of the disbursement of these international loans not only because of the refusal by FMLN deputies to vote for their ratification, but also shows that in the measure in which the ARENA party has lost the majority of seats and votes in the Legislative Assembly, in that same measure is room opened up to verify the final destination and use of those loans which have been received by the present and former ARENA administrations. Currently, according to sources in the Ministry of the Treasury, the foreign debt is close to 17,500 million colones, an amount equivalent to the whole National Budget for fiscal year 1999. This level of debt implies annual interest payments of more than 10% on the principal of the loans. In other words, each Salvadoran citizen owes, on the average, close to 2,916 colones to international institutions. Each citizen owes this amount because, in theory, the monies have been used to finance social programs and programs for the construction of infrastructure. Nevertheless, in practice, only high-level government functionaries actually know what the real use of these loans in the form of negotiable bonds.

    This is what explains, in part, the FMLN’s resistance to supporting the petition for the international loans, to which might be added the discovery of a case of misuse of funds deriving from international cooperation for political ends. This, specifically involves the case of the ex Civil Patrol Agents which drew such public attention to this topic, especially because it placed in evidence undue activity by the government which used the funds disbursed by international cooperative agencies earmarked for the homeless population after the tropical storm Mitch, for the purpose of negotiating the votes and sympathies of the ex Civil Patrol Agents who threatened to boycott last March’s elections.

    As was to be expected, this case raised reasonable doubts about the manner in which the government is using these international resources and justifies beyond any doubt any initiative oriented to what the citizenry knows to be the fate of these loans in the form of negotiable bonds and of tax income which derives from funds paid by taxpayers.

    The current level of indebtedness is, according to the criterion of President Flores, relatively low in comparison with international standards, but is, in any case, sufficient to justify a situation in which any citizen might question the actual use of these funds. This is, precisely, one of the FMLN’s proposals: that accounts must be rendered as to the uses to which the funds obtained as international loans in the form of negotiable bonds before new loans can be ratified which have already been earmarked and which, it would seem, are depriving government functionaries of their sleep.

    For more than a year, this push and pull was maintained owing to the fact that it appears as if the government has not complied with these reporting requirements. So it is that some loans have been approved by the BID for more than 15 months now, but are still not ratified by the Legislative Assembly and cannot, therefore, be disbursed. In fact, after the declarations by President Flores, the Minister of Education held a meeting with the deputies of the FMLN in order to explain the use of the future loan in the amount of 73 million U.S. dollars and no one was satisfied with the explanation. Given this impasse, the BID announced that it would not approve new loans as long as the problem of the ratification of the already approved loans had not been resolved.

    Such a stance could, however, have serious implications for the government and for the country because new long-term programs cannot be implemented (such as, for example, the modernization of the educational system) for which reason the BID is projecting a loan in the amount of 73 million U.S. dollars (or, 636 million Salvadoran colones) mentioned in the paragraph above for increased infrastructure for health and education and investment in rural highways and roads.

    Without intending to justify the position of the FMLN, it is totally reasonable to stop and think about some of the following aspects: first, the government did not present detailed reports on the use of the loans; second, evidence exists that some of the money was used for political ends; and third, the loans and public spending, in general, are financed by taxes principally paid by the low in medium-income levels of the population, who therefore have the right to call upon the government to render accounts of its spending of these monies. For this reason, although the necessity to ratify new loans may be justifiable, the requirements in terms of clarifying the use of the funds which have already been disbursed are also legitimate. In this context, the government ought to provide accounts specifying in detail the use of the funds so that the process can proceed rapidly and any doubt as to possible misuse might be dispelled.

    In the near future, a growing tendency towards the solicitation and acceptance of loans in the form of negotiable bonds is projected, especially in the context of the aid programs arising from the impact of the sequel of the tropical storm Mitch, which, if the aspects just outlined are added, clearly exhibits the necessity to create mechanisms which would facilitate social monitoring of the programs implemented by the government. So it is that President Flores’ warning about the necessity to ratify the loans, ought to be accompanied by a major opening up of governmental processes in such a way as to inform not only the FMLN deputies but also the taxpayers who, in the end, are those who carry the burden of the costs of public investment programs which the government implements.

SOCIETY

    Cities grow and change, among other reasons, as a result of the direct effect of the population dynamics which characterize them. At this point in the history of humanity, it is not possible to imagine a situation in which the expansion and modification of urban life is owing exclusively to the growth of the physical infrastructure, to the prolongation of the traffic routes and patterns of vehicles or to the simple fact of territorial demarcation. It is the people who live in a specific city who define the rhythms by which it develops and the way in which the opportunities and problems being experienced are assimilated. From the point of view of the dynamics of work and labor situations, to the consumption of opportunities for recreation, all is found to be criss-crossed by the aspirations, options and lacks experienced by the citizens. In the case of Latin American cities, this determination—impossible to elude in the analysis of urban processes—takes on a special importance because of the elevated index of population concentration which distinguishes them.

    In fact, according to data supported by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), it is expected that, in the future, some 90% of the population growth of a country will be produced in the cities. As a consequence, in order to take up the topic of urban development today, especially given the particular situation of Latin American countries, one must first overcome the supposition which is prevalent in the mentality of many persons and sectors: That there exists a certain tendency to think that the growth of urban zones automatically implies an improvement in the quality of life of the population. From this point of view, the simple fact that more persons live in the capital cities of the countries in question implies that they will have more availability to essential services for enjoying a decent life. But in countries such as ours, in which development rarely shows itself to be sustainable or egalitarian, the promising level of the quality of living which life in the cities symbolizes is almost never manifest in real opportunities for its citizens.

    The city of San Salvador also suffers the effects of population dynamics which develop within and without its limits and one of the most worrisome consequences has to do with public transportation and its effects upon the environment. Nevertheless, in the lengthy and tiresome debate on this problem it seems that only some elements having to do with participation and benefits accruing to the busline owners and the government might be pertinent. Reflections of the harmful effects implied in the existence of a poorly organized system of public transportation are hardly ever taken into consideration, not only for the capital but also for the country as a whole. Evidently, this system which daily exhibits more and more of its defects will not only have to be re-thought in terms of massive transportation of passengers, but also in terms of the handling and administration of commercial distribution and private vehicle transit. The necessity for regulating the unwieldy growth of the metropolitan area of San Salvador where vehicles transit is also an important component if we wish to offer to the new generations a safer and healthier environment for their development (see Proceso 910).

    Obviously vehicles which consume petroleum derivative products such as gasoline or diesel are responsible for producing the major part of contaminants in the form of particles in suspension, carbon monoxide and lead in the environment which affects the health of human beings. From this one might easily come to the conclusion that those who buy and use private vehicles tend to be those principally responsible for the contamination of the city. But in the majority of cases, the desire to buy an automobile goes hand in hand with other kinds of aspirations which, in turn, are motivated by the social context in which they live. And it is just on this point that doubts about supposed development provoked by the expansion of cities arise. So it is that, in the attempt to understand that the increase in the number of vehicles implies a consideration of all of those factors which motivate a person to give up one or the other modes of transportation which are harmful to health and the environment.

    The case of San Salvador—a city of small dimensions in comparison with other Latin American cities—is a clear example of the fact that the physical expansion of cities is only one of many reasons which contribute to the increase in the level of contamination resulting from the emission of gases. Crime growing up in the streets is more and more organized and capable of escaping the police forces and creates a situation in which many citizens stop using public transportation system. Moreover, the busroutes are, in many cases, excessively long and almost never run on time in their movement from one point to another within the capital. The most heavily transited streets also seem to be the preferred target for busdrivers and line owners and this, in itself, causes greater levels of deterioration in the highway infrastructure. The disorder which has overtaken San Salvador—the anarchical structuring of streets and avenues is a palpable example—has created a situation in which the city may be the perfect scenario for spontaneous gridlock and traffic jams. All of this has a direct effect on the options concerning transportation available to the population.

    In this way, the struggle against the growing levels of contamination in the cities must be specific and present concrete ways of sensibly modifying those patterns of consumption. In order for local or national administrators to initiate massive passenger transportation projects with a minimal level of certainty that they will be effective and profitable, the population must first be convinced that these new options will signify greater safety together with rapid and comfortable transportation. Evidently these projects will need to use advanced technology which is very difficult to consider in a country with such limited resources as ours. For this reason, in some countries major emphasis is placed on strengthening computerized networks for industrial enterprises and services. The citizen who, from his or her home uses Internet can perform the same tasks as in his or her job at the office would significantly reduce the use of transportation, for example.

    To this must be added that the education of the inhabitants of the cities can only on rare occasions contribute to diminishing the levels of contamination. The PRB, in a comparative study of some cities in Mexico, the U.S. and Thailand, argues that the urban population of medium and high level social strata with higher levels of education, are those who most contaminate the cities through their excessive use of private vehicles. This shows that the task of reducing the high levels of contamination in the cities will require a serious commitment by each and every one of its inhabitants. It is hoped that the citizens might react positively to the possibilities of safer transportation. A serious commitment towards combating excesses and vices inherent in massive transportation systems might be expected from the authorities. Definitively speaking it is a question of opening the eyes to the direction in which the cities are going and to the risks to which they are progressively submitting present and future generations. It is a question of taking notice that if urban life continues to be administered in the same way it has during recent decades, underdevelopment and vulnerability will occur to the exclusion of development and better opportunities for the population.