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 927
November 15, 2000
ISNN 0259-9864
 
 

EDITORIAL

    President Flores must feel satisfied that his weekly conversations with the political parties have begun to bear fruit—although late-breaking press reports announce that the continuity of the conversations are being placed in doubt by the FMLN. For the moment, the president has obtained something more than an advance in the approval of international loans. The objections raised by the FMLN began to disappear and the authorizations for the negotiation of the loans in question appear to be a given; but, in addition, President Flores has managed to get the opposition parties to sign on to his policy of optimism towards the future. The Christian Democratic Party and the FMLN have made a small declaration concerning the petition made by the UCA and the Attorney General to investigate the intellectual authors of the massacre of November, 1989. They are small because of the small size of the amount of space bought to publish them in the newspapers with small letters, but, above all, because of the small-mindedness of their content.

    The heart of the two declarations is the public announcement of the commitment which both parties make for not soliciting the opening of judicial proceedings against those who were assassinated, disappeared or tortured by their militants. But one takes special note that the commitment of the Christian Democrats might be considered to be more concrete than that of the FMLN because they identify by name those they would accuse: the death squads and the guerrilleros. So it is that the two parties locate themselves in opposition to those aligned to ARENA and the Flores Administration and they do so without there being any need to do so because for neither of them is it possible to present a judicial complaint against anyone who has not been a functionary of the Cristiani administration, unless the amnesty law and international legislation, which consider that these crimes are crimes of lèse humanité and therefore imprescriptible, is not abrogated beforehand. And to neither of the two political leaderships has it occurred to take such a step, and least of all the FMLN, anxious as it is to present itself as one just more party in the traditional Salvadoran political spectrum. For the same reasons, the disposition of the so-called “demobilized officers of the Armed Forces in compliance with the peace accords” in order to be investigated also does not make any sense. Without taking the steps indicated above, no investigation of what they did during the war could be initiated. So now, given the growing interest in investigating, it would be worthwhile to study the Truth Commission Report carefully and the documentation published by the government in Washington, D.C. as well as recognize the legitimacy of international legislation on the question of war crimes and crimes against humanity and the abrogation of the amnesty, with which justice could carry out its tasks.

    Given the position of the UCA and of the Society of Jesus, the Christian Democrats recognize the right of both the call for justice, but they consider that the circumstances obtaining are not the most propitious. While the FMLN, which also recognizes the very same right, adds that the petition puts the institutions to the test and hopes that in addition to pardoning those guilty of the crime, the two call for a pardon “of those who turn out to be innocent, in case they might have been pointed out”. Following this curious logic of the FMLN, the mother of Katya Miranda ought to ask pardon of her ex husband and all of her family because the judge did not find them guilty. The family members of the four U.S. religious women raped and assassinated in 1980 ought to do the same, as well, with the two Salvadoran ex generals whom the Florida judge also found not guilty. And the same must be done with those who accuse Grimaldi of leading a band of thieves and the former board of directors of FEDEFUT of the disappearance of several dozens of millions of colones and the falsification of documents to cover up the missing money, given that none were found guilty by the judges. The FMLN went beyond what the ARENA and the Flores Administration could have hoped for and all because they let themselves be swept away by an immoderate desire to present themselves as the only ones who have called for a pardon for those who have committed offenses as well as being the only ones who have pardoned those who have offended them.

    The Christian Democrats and the FMLN have assumed a representation which they in fact do not possess. It is understandable that, for political reasons, or for reasons of another order, the two parties abjure their right to have recourse to justice, but they have no political or moral authority to ask the rest to imitate them. In the first place because their motivations are not upright and transparent. Their posture is a result of a certain will to power and in order to achieve such power, they are willing to run roughshod over the dignity of the victims and their family members by paying no attention to their rights and to justice itself. Secondly, because their reasons for doing so lack a sound basis. In El Salvador it has never been the right moment for investigating crime and the Christian Democrats themselves, when they were in power, contributed, in large measure, to the consolidation of the structure of impunity from which the country suffers today. The millions of dollars, which the U.S. contributed towards the investigation of crime and the prosecution of narcotics trafficking, did not yield a single solid case. After entering into a pact with the Armed forces conceding them the leadership and direction of the civil war in exchange for their tenure in power, the Christian democrats had no scruples in tolerating repression of the cruelest sort in exchange for reforms. In not having found the right time for allowing criminal justice to do its task, El Salvador has been turned over to organized crime and delinquency.

    The pardons offered by the FMLN with “humility” have not been received by society and much less by those who do feel themselves to have been offended by what the party calls “errors”, but which in reality were crimes and terrorist acts. It is curious to observe that the left party has adopted the same vocabulary as the ex officers of the Armed Forces on this point, who also call their crimes “errors”. The victims do not enjoy the support of the politicians who have abandoned them. During the war they praised their sacrifice and heroism and they promised them a revolutionary utopia. But now, when the guerrilleros have transformed themselves into politicians, they have necessarily forgotten about the victims who are now a thorn in the side of those who are currently engaged in a struggle for power, even when they continue speaking of utopia. But this time it is a question of a democratic utopia. Power and having forgotten about the victims are indispensable, according to them, in order to reach this new democratic utopia. The declarations of political parties—ARENA, Christian Democrats and the FMLN—place in evidence the fact that those who are most desirous of participating in politics and those who can be accused of war crimes or crimes of lèse humanité are those most willing to forget the past.

    Those of us who are calling for justice are not the ones who have continued stagnating in the past, it is, rather, those who oppose justice who, with their attitude refuse to transform power relations, including the structures of impunity and they refuse, as well, to limit the arbitrary actions of the state.
 
 
 

POLITICAL

    The most influential sectors of the Salvadoran right wing who are opposed to judicial investigations concerning the responsibility of former high state officials in the massacre which occurred on November 16, 1989 on the UCA campus use the argument that they are defending the peace accords. The media has served as an echo of the discontent of the right concerning an eventual investigation in this direction. News and expressed opinions leave no doubt about those who believe themselves to be the owners of the country. The principal arguments against the investigation of the intellectual authors of the crime committed at the UCA underline the idea that this would open old wounds. Those presenting the complaints are accused of fomenting hatred and seeking the destabilization of Salvadoran society. They end up opposing justice and peace when they accuse those who seek help in the courts of attempting to destabilize the country.

    This line of argument, in which justice appears to be at odds with peace, lacks a reasonable basis and is as incongruous as it is iniquitous for the efforts to establish a truly democratic society. Reactions, during recent weeks, to the reopening of the case of the assassinations at the UCA are a palpable demonstration of this. These arguments make peace depend upon a certain sector of national life and show the very slight willingness of the current leaders of the country to make national institutions cohesive upon solid bases which give privileged place to reconciliation with justice.

    The irony of history has it that those who in 1988, as a motive for celebrating the National debate for Peace, did not waste any effort in scorning and casting aspersions upon Ellacuría—and the UCA—because they considered him to be the principal instigator of the initiative, present themselves now, during this space and time as those who hold high the banner of peace. But this farce is not convincing to anyone because its objective is to lay low the legitimate rights of the victims. Moreover, when the real reasons are known for their opposition to justice and peace, reality could not be more disconcerting. The conclusion is clear: in our country justice is not to be applied when it threatens the tranquillity of the powerful.

    The press campaign waged by the sectors who wield power these days recalls that of the year 1989 on the eve of the massacre at the UCA. Monsignor Rivera y Damas, in his November 19, 1989 Sunday homily, held the campaign of calumny and accusations previous to the assassination responsible for poisoning minds against the Jesuits; the current visceral reaction of certain national sectors appears to seek the same results. Now, eleven years after their deaths, the martyrs of the UCA continue to be misunderstood and misinterpreted by the right on a national level. The memory of the martyrs must, nevertheless, transcend the lack of comprehension and interests of the powerful in office. The fact that they are no longer physically present brings to mind the atrocities of the past and invites society to struggle against the context of injustice which cost their lives.

    It is generally accepted that the death of the Jesuits of the UCA constitutes one of the factors which contributed towards dialogue and peace; this cannot be denied. And so it is that international opinion became sensitive to the dimension and enormity of the atrocities which were being committed in these lands and exerted pressure on the forces in conflict to undertake the road to negotiation.

    On the other hand, the intellectual contribution of Ellacuría to peace in El Salvador is undeniable. He was one of the first defenders of a negotiated solution to the conflict. At the moment of the cruelest struggles of the war, he called upon those in conflict to lay down their arms and begin a dialogue concerning national problems. He was always in favor of a national solution and sincere dialogue which would take into account the suffering of the population in order to achieve a just and lasting peace.

    In an editorial concerning the significance of the National Debate for Peace (see ECA, 478-479, 1998), Ellacuría defended the conclusions of the debate and analyzed their possible positive repercussions, as much for the church, which had promoted it, as for the social forces which participated in it. He noted that with the promotion of the debate “the church recovered its leadership not only as a generic national force, but as one which favored and supported a politically negotiated solution”. At the same time, he held that “the idea of peace in general has been advanced and the need for negotiation as a means for achieving peace as well”. Moreover, he underlined the fact that “the national debate has responded to the necessity for dealing with the big problems of the country, not only by the political forces but also by the social forces and, more to the point, by the whole population”.

    But a reading of the main opinion articles of El Diario de Hoy for the years 1988 and 1989 give an idea of how the right-wing analysts perceived the topic of national dialogue. Not only did they boycott the initiative to promote national dialogue, they accused its organizers of being at the service of the interest of the left. Nevertheless, in spite of all of the criticisms and misunderstandings, Ellacuría always defended the idea of a negotiated peace achieved by consensus with the participation of civil society. He saw in the participation of the social sectors in the debate for peace the possibility for giving impetus to “civil society at the head of the state”, and of an “impetus towards democracy by means of society’s control of the state”.

    As a result, the pharisaical attitude of certain sectors which cast aspersions upon those who called for justice for the victims of atrocities of the war does not hold water. The defense of democracy obliges civil society to struggle against impunity which has, in the past, killed and which continues killing today. The road to democracy is not built behind the backs of the legitimate demands of society for justice and participation. A peace without justice is an apology for impunity.

    Finally, peace does not run amok simply because justice for the victims of the past is called for. This argument is very weak because instead of defending peace, it defends those who abused the victims. Peace runs amok because the institutions of today do not succeed in redressing the abuses and arbitrary actions of the powerful. In order to build peace, all must feel that the system defends them. One of the reasons that society bled in the past and continues suffering in the present has been the preeminence of impunity and weakness or the lack of institutions charged with defending the citizens. In this way, the current campaign to attack those who call for justice causes more harm to the cause of democracy and confuses the population at large. It is imperative that society turn back the effects of this unjust peace in which we are living and move towards the imperative of struggling for democracy.
 
 
 

SOCIETY

    Beyond the question of whether it is the province of the Attorney General’s Office or the Judicial Branch of government to undertake the proceedings on the question of the intellectual authorship of the massacre of the Jesuits and their two collaborators at the UCA, the complaint presented by the Society of Jesus has opened up a new polemic surrounding the question of the participation of the high command of the army and ex President Alfredo Cristiani in this monstrous deed. The Attorney General’s Office itself has asked that Cristiani and the ex Minister of Defense, Rafael Humberto Larios be investigated as “authors (of the crime) of murder by omission”, along with the retired Generals René Emilio Ponce, Juan Orlando Zepeda, Francisco Elena Fuentes, Inocente Montano y Juan Rafael Bustillo as “immediate authors of the crime of murder”.

    This resolution suggests that there exist sufficient merits in the case for opening a new proceeding against the ex functionaries mentioned above, which, however, does not mean that sufficient proof exists in order to condemn them. This is owing, in large measure, to the fact that since the beginning there has existed a deliberate attitude on the part of the government and the army to cover up the intellectual authorship of the massacre. The Moakley Report, written by a commission of the U.S. Congress, established that the proof gathered by the governmental entity, the Investigative Commission for Criminal Acts were insufficient to accuse those implicated owing to the fact that all due and sufficient investigation of the case had not been accomplished.

    From the first moment of the first procedures for investigation, details were uncovered which gave rise to a series of suspicions concerning the criminal participation of those mentioned above: how they met the same day as the massacre in the Military College, how the action was carried out within a few hours after that meeting, how high-ranking military officers of the Military College participated, of how incredible it was that Colonel Benavides (the only high-ranking military officer found guilty) had decided by himself the carry out the massacre, how the books documenting the entries and exits of personnel from the Military College was mysteriously lost and how the cadets on guard at the Military College contradicted each other in their respective declarations (see Proceso 426, 427 and 428).

    Even so, the right wing continues attempting to make us believe that the factors involved in the UCA massacre really had nothing to do with the assassination and that the effort to reopen the case was equivalent to destabilizing the peace process in the country. Along this line of thinking, leads have been found in several press communiqués issued by the National Association for Private enterprise (ANEP) and the ARENA party as well as several editorials published by El Diario de Hoy, the news daily which, at critical junctures in the life of the country does not hide its anti-democratic leanings. It is not surprising that these three actors coincide with the line of thinking that it is inconvenient and even “wild delirium” to call for a new investigation into the Jesuit case because, doubtless, this would affect persons and sectors who have served the business sector (into which category the El Diario de Hoy falls) as well as for the ARENA party in the implementation of their public policies, given that, when all is said and done, ARENA is, essentially, the expression of big business interests in El Salvador.

    Moreover, the complaint presented by the Society of Jesus involves the already mentioned Alfredo Cristiani, who was, up until recently, the President of ARENA (now honorary president) and prominent businessman who—along with other colleagues—has seen his personal fortune grow thanks to the policies of re-privatization of the bank and others encouraged by his very own party and all with the approval and complaisance of ANEP.

    According to the deliberations of the right wing, the Jesuit Fathers represented, at one point in time, a threat to the ARENA and ANEP projects, in the measure that they were considered, erroneously, to be the “intellectual allies of the FMLN”. Along this line of thinking they were supported by the contributions of a decidedly vicious campaign of calumny and defamation published by El Diario de Hoy on the eve of the massacre, in which their editorial writers aimed to make their public believe—and this, perhaps, in some cases, they succeeded—that the Jesuits were key elements (even fundamental elements) for the FMLN.

    So it is, then, that El Diario de Hoy can be catalogued—one can assume, with much pride—as partially responsible for the vision assumed by the material and intellectual authors of the massacre on the questions relating to the Jesuits and how to combat their ideas. For this reason, one ought not to be too surprised that ARENA and ANEP have closed ranks when it comes to dealing with the new complaint presented by the Society of Jesus.

    ARENA published inserts in the press in which it attempted to discredit the new complaint presented by the Society of Jesus, arguing that “Salvadoran justice judged and condemned, at an earlier point in time, one of the most horrendous crimes committed in the country”, for which “the threat, in the opinion of, some groups that it would reopen wounds and nurture hatred, reviving memories of bitter events which all of us wish to overcome, constitutes, in our opinion, a serious step backwards and places at risk the social stability and the democratic climate which we are constructing day by day” (La Prensa Gráfica, October 22, 2000, p. 44). This same press insert also reiterates that in ARENA “we are convinced that our Honorary President (Alfredo Cristiani) as well as the military officers, generals and colones who made up the high command of our Armed Forces, merit our respect and support”.

    ANEP has reacted n similar terms, stating that “to open the doors for the investigation of the cases from the war means to open the doors so that every Salvadoran who feels that he or she is a victim...can denounce those responsible” and adds that “it is not possible that the resentment of some few might constitute the loss and fall of the whole country”. It continues with the following: “we will not permit a situation in which hatred, resentment and wild passions for revenge, to destabilize the process of national reconciliation which has been an example for the whole world” (El Diario de Hoy, November 1, 2000, p. 25).

    In reality, this gratuitous attack would not be so strange and surprising given that, as was indicated above, El Diario de Hoy, and especially its anointed editorial writer, have a long history of attacks against the UCA, the Society of Jesus and, at one point, against the Jesuits who were assassinated by elements of the Army.

    The arguments presented by the ultra-right wing are the equivalent of saying that large-scale war crimes such as those committed by the Nazis, some Bosnian military personnel and the guerrilleros of Sierra Leone, for example, ought not to be prosecuted because that would be “an attack against the peace processes”. There is nothing farther from reality. Peace is constructed on the basis of justice and in El Salvador, justice has not yet been achieved because many of the factors which caused the armed conflict during the decade of the 1980’s still persist: a strong incidence of poverty, unequal distribution of the benefits of production, economic concentration, the low level of representation on the part of the political parties and governmental administrations and impunity. There is no civil war in the country but neither is there social peace.

    It is precisely in the search for justice that is the context of the effort by the Society of Jesus and the family members of the Maryknoll nuns assassinated in 1980—that recently brought to trial the retired Salvadoran Generals Vides Casanova and García. All of these efforts tend in the direction towards the eradication of impunity in Salvadoran society and, in this measure, provide a greater viability for the construction of a lasting peace. Nevertheless, without being too pessimistic, one ought to recognize that the possibilities for arriving at a verdict which condemns the intellectual authors of the UCA massacre are remote, because of the difficulty of establishing what the truth is in terms which could satisfy the criteria of judicial inquiry.

    Unfortunately, reality is this way. Although elements exist which indicate who the intellectual authors are in an unequivocal way—and some in some cases even the material authorship—of the crime, in practice it is difficult and even impossible to establish truth acceptable in terms of legal criteria in such a way that it might become possible to think in terms of a judicial judgement which would condemn those responsible. Without going too much farther, the fact that Generals Vides Casanova and García were absolved of the accusations of the assassination by omission in a U.S. Federal Court is a demonstration of this situation. All in all, this should not hinder or impede those who feel themselves to be offended by any kind of crime might make use of their legitimate right and present their demands before the Judicial Branch of government or the Public Ministry, even when this might weigh heavily against ex generals, ex presidents and businessmen or ex guerrilleros.