Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
E-mail: cidai@cidai.uca.edu.sv

Central American University (UCA)
Apdo. Postal 01-168, Boulevard Los Próceres
San Salvador, El Salvador, Centro América
Tel: +(503) 210-6600 ext. 407
Fax: +(503) 210-6655
 

     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 01-168, San Salvador, El Salvador.

Proceso 968
September 19, 2001
ISSN 0259-9864
 
 

INDEX

Editorial:  Terror cannot be fought with more terror
Politics:  The attack to the United States: political considerations
Economy:  Terrorism in the United States: economic considerations
Social:  El Salvador reacts after the terrorist attacks
 
 
 
 
 
 

EDITORIAL

    From any perspective, terrorism has no justification. It is an aggression against humanity and, from a Christian point of view, it is a serious sin. It cannot be used, under any circumstance, to promote or defend political, religious or ethnic ideas. It does not have a justification not even when it is used as a weapon against presumed or declared enemies, even if they attack first. Terrorism always leaves innocent victims behind, however, it is such an inhuman task that it could not care less about it. In the end, it does not lead anywhere but to destruction and death. Its main objective is to be imposed by threats, fear, and in the end it destroys anything that refuses to be subjected. Because of all these aspects, the terrorist acts against the United States can be condemned. However, at the same time, it is necessary to condemn all the other terrorist acts that take place in different parts of the world nowadays. Therefore, the silence that the media keep about other terrorism acts is also reproachable.

    This, however, it is not enough. We also have to show more solidarity to the victims of terrorism, whoever they are, and demand justice. Not a barbarian revenge, but the reactions established by the international rights. We have to react, but not according to the logic of terrorism (whoever hits harder), regardless of the possible victims that such actions might cause. The responsible ones for all the terrorism acts, with no exception at all should be brought before an international court of justice. That is the idea behind the International Penal Tribunal project which, paradoxically, the United States refuses to accept. It is not the "big fish eats the small fish" law the one that should rule the international relations —even if is the first economic and military power—, but the international right's law.

    Regardless of how brutal the terrorist attack could have been, it should not be fought back with war. Its intrinsic evil means do not justify new terrorism acts, even if the number of victims is intolerable, and even if these are presented as the result of defensive actions. An indiscriminate war only produces more innocent victims. It might satisfy the revenge desires of the victims, or the ones of those who have seen their first world power pride destroyed. It cannot be forgotten that what makes the terrorism act repulsive is not that the victims are United States citizens, but that they are something more radical, defenseless civilian people.

    Revenge is not a human answer, and it does not repair the dignity of the victims; instead, it responds to a primitive instinct. The wrath and frustration reactions, because of an intolerable pain, should not be encouraged. More rational and human attitudes —and even Christian ones— should be reflected instead. A person cannot get carried away by anger or pain, it is necessary to make an effort and react with serenity and intelligence. In a long term, this attitude has more advantages than an uncontrollable and hasty reaction. Most of all if the bottom line here is to eradicate the source of those acts, and not only to have an spectacular reaction.

    That is what the intelligence services are indispensable for. Varied and sophisticated services that, in this case, have been absent. These services should have alerted the giant about the menace that was about to come upon it. The war drums that can be heard and the patriotic blowing winds have a lot of impotence when it comes to face the failure of a wide and complex intelligence and security service, which costs thousands of millions of dollars each year to the American tax payers.

    A considerable amount of that money has been used to acquire sophisticated technological equipment, but the facts show that the information that these devices can collect is not very useful if there is not an intelligence that analyzes and proves it. Whatever it might be, the truth is that the intelligence specialists have failed. Probably because they are looking at the wrong direction or because they are operating with the wrong categories. It is shocking that the one who is considered the main responsible for the attempt had formerly worked for the United States’ intelligence service, just like the regime that now protects him. Washington created them, trained them, armed them, finance them and, at a time they were called "freedom fighters". In its insistence for erasing communism from the face of the earth, an uncontrollable force was created.

    The cold blooded bet for a war that the occidental governments bet for, including the Salvadoran one, is a mistake. In the first place, because it is an obligation to distinguish between the Afghan population and the Taliban regime, a sect of ignorant psychotics, who took the power by force. Their first victim is the Afghan people, subjected to their rigorous civil and religious rules and to misery as well. Since a long time ago, the Afghan population, hungry and exhausted, runs away to neighbor countries, where millions have found a shelter. In the second place, because the war between the Soviet regime and the Taliban left the country devastated. There is nothing left to destroy, only the ruins of an old war can be removed. Then again, in the third place, the only way to end with the Taliban regime and its maximum leader is invading the territory.

    However, in order to do so the collaboration or the conquest of a neighbor country is necessary. It is predictable that an aggression of this nature unifies the Islamic world, and a war against Occident —also unified— can be unleashed. That is precisely what bin Laden intends, because he is convinced that the Occident is the materialization of Satan, just as he is also convinced of his victory against the forces of evil. A war that confronts the Islamic world against the Occidental one will be a very long and destructive one, and it will kill millions of people in both sides. In the end, the Occident might win, but only after paying a very high price.

    The most serious threat for the United States and the Occident does not come, therefore, from the old communists, but from the fundamentalists. A fundamentalist is prone to practice terrorism, because he is convinced that he has the one and only true, and he considers himself the carrier of a sort of divine mission to be imposed on others by force. He is a stranger to reason and insensitive to humanity. The fundamentalists do not disappear with wars. Even if the true responsible one for the last attempt was annihilated, while there are fundamentalists, and there is fundamentalism of many kinds, the possibility of new terrorist attacks will keep existing. In the end, it is humanity itself the one who has lost all its senses. The proliferation of all kinds of fundamentalists and their terrorist aggression is nothing but another sample of the lack of humanity sense in which we live, among so many technological advances and so much accumulated richness.

    To fall into fundamentalism is easier than it seems. Fundamentalism divides humanity in good and evil. They are the good ones and the rest are evil, and, therefore, they can annihilate them, in the name of their truth. However, frequently enough, those who react also do their part. They declare themselves the good ones. Therefore, they also find an identical justification to end with them. This does not mean that people has to remain indifferent to the terrorist act. What it means is that you cannot react against aggression using the same terrorist logic, but using reason and morals.

    Reason must prevail over primary and primitive reactions. International justice should be the rule for the conduct of the offended ones, and  the one that protects the rights of the victims. Morals are a third indispensable element in politics and in the international relations. The United States is one of the world’s most powerful nations in the history of humanity, whose external policies do not include morals whenever it has been convenient to their interests or ideas. There are plenty of examples, and they are well documented. Islamic fundamentalists also despise the life of the innocent. Then again, the immorality of Washington's policies does not justify, from any point of view, the attempt that it has suffered. As the world's first power, the United States should also be the first one to keep a line of faultless and transparent conduct. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

    In Washington's external policies, convenience, opportunism and force have prevailed. The military power is not a reason to practice an imperial power in the nations' community. The so called collateral or accidental victims of the war acts are also unacceptable. The United States has been the victim of an unscrupulous adversary, but it has also been unscrupulous at the same time when it comes to its exterior policies, along many decades. To base its own actions in the force or convenience or even opportunism leads to commit barbarian acts. Evil cannot be fought doing more wrong and with more destruction. The rational and moral reaction is not the one that occurs by force. If this was the final option, the United States would be committing a mistake that can have terrible consequences for humanity.

    On Tuesday, September 11th, New York, as in a Hollywood movie, offered to the world the scenery of a devastated town, full of panic and fear: two planes crashed against two of the highest buildings of the city. Differently from what usually happens in films, with special sound effects and simulated destruction, Manhattan's financial heart was not pretending. Some individuals took control of commercial airplanes, in order to crash them against strategic objectives at New York and Washington.

    Ever since that day, a lot has been said about the attack. There is no doubt that a terrorist conspiracy is against the highest world power. There is no doubt either about the physical and moral strength of this situation. The terrorist attack put the American defense system between a rock and a hard place; panic stroke the main occidental capitals of the world; the myth about a total safety inside the United States crumbled. On the other hand, destruction, along with the loss of thousands of lives, caused such panic inside the world's economy, which will take some time to react.

    The declaration of families who lost their relatives, the stolen innocence of the world's power, the war declaration to the people responsible for the attack and to those who protect them, are some of the issues that the main news media of the world manage.  In the mean time, so it seems, a very serious attack is prepared to respond to the authors of the attack. About this, the former unilateral actions of the United States, when it comes to international politics, intensified during George Bush' arrival to power, has led the way to an international solidarity.

    The compassion demonstrated over the death of many people is understandable. The horror to assist to a savage and premeditated execution of defenseless victims struck the deepest fibers of humanity. Solidarity and sympathy demonstrations with the victim's families in Washington and New York is the evident manifestation of a rejection against such inhuman acts. The entire world has given signs to be up to the circumstances, giving their testimonies without hesitation about the repulsion and the condemnation of such brutal assassinations. That is why it can be said that such solidarity is positive, and it is the one that has to be encouraged and supported during these difficult times for the human lives of the planet.

    However, on the other hand, the September 11th terrorist attacks have caused another manifestation of solidarity. An it is the solidarity shown by the countries with the highest armament capacities, specially the members of the NATO, in case that the United States authorities might want to go to war against the responsible ones for the terrorist acts. The United States authorities themselves talk about a new war, in which they are willing to fight regardless of the loss of their own lives or the collateral damages. The countries of the North Atlantic Alliance are willing to capture the people responsible for the attack. The objectives pointed out until now are Afghanistan and probably the Iraq regime.

    However, a human feature that distinguishes humans from animals is —once the commotion has gone away—  reflection and the search for an explanation about what is going on. Explaining, understanding what happened, it is all about providing answers and affecting reality, in order that the same tragedy does not happen again. This is the task that the United States authorities are presently working on, as well as the governments all over the planet that, in one way or another, have offered their support to the United States’ government to eliminate terrorism and its murder skills from the world.

    About the convenience or the inconvenience of starting a war to punish the people responsible for the attacks, it is evident that there is no need to discuss this subject any further. The United States has already decided that they want revenge. In addition, the international public opinion, in a good deal stirred up by the speeches and propaganda sustained in the media, demands the blood of the responsible ones (or the ones that Washington declares guilty) for the attack.

    However, it would be convenient to reflect about the world's hypocrisy, the lack of sense that has plagued these days' discourses, after the crisis unleashed by the terrorist attacks against the United States. In the first place, the world-wide opinion that condemns the suicidal attacks and that emphasizes on the inhumanity of the perpetrators of such barbaric acts, recalling values as democracy, civility or the respect for human dignity; this same opinion, incited, mostly by its most powerful leaders, is willing to calm its anger killing more victims, regardless of the collateral damages, just like a United States congresswoman sustained it recently. The thesis about eradicating the responsible ones as well as those who shelter them, consciously assumes that will cause as many or even more civilian deaths as possible.

    According to this logic, the rhetoric defense of human dignity, in which they support their rejection for the terrorist acts becomes ineffective. If it is said that terrorism is a coward crime against human life, solid arguments can hardly be found to defend the extra-judicial execution of thousands of people by the mere declaration of an occidental authority. Then again, human life would have meaning only in the case of the civilized countries. However, if anybody wants to be consequential, the so called civilized world must defend life and dignity wherever they are threatened.

    Based on these aspects, the thesis of a sincere and rational approach to terrorism should consider not only the need to eradicate the leaders of these groups and their members, but also the contribution to humanize the international relations among nations. Otherwise, everyone will doubt about the moral firmness of those who attempt to kill in order to revenge murder. Evidently, in these circumstances, we would have to question the moral firmness that the "civilized countries" have used to control the world. An attention call must be made about the danger of violence generating more violence, such attitude will not contribute to resolve the problem that has to be eradicated.

    However, it would be a contradiction against the logic of recuperating the tarnished dignity. No matter how much the leaders talk about dignity, civilization or the rational use of the media, one has to know the difference between speeches and real actions. What happens is that the international policy does not know about morals, ethics or compassion. The law of the strongest  is always imposed. It is this balance that the occidental leaders are willing to re-establish in these circumstances, at least according to their speeches.

    In any case, we have to remember that many of those who are willing to give their lives to call everyone's attention and to instill panic and fear in the world, do it repeating the same rhetoric of a fight between good and evil defending their civilization, which presently plagues the speeches of the civilized countries authorities. Therefore, the suicidal individuals of our present time shake hands with the civilized ones of tomorrow in the same unrestrained dance of dehumanization and violence.

    If before the recent terrorist attacks against the United States the impact of globalization was not very clear yet, now the process seems to be reflected with all its implications on the organically articulated economies (or in the shape of an appendix) to the United States economy. For instance, the impact over the Mexican and the Canadian economies, who are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement has been immediate: the exportation of automobile parts to the United States was abruptly interrupted by the closing of the borders, paralyzing the automobile production and questioning the organizations who are based on a "right on time" delivery motto and in the internationalization of the production process.

    During the first day of operations of the international stock market, a strong crash was reported in the average market price which, however, has not been as serious as most people expected. It can even be said that the effects of the "black October" crisis, in 1987 —considered until this day as the second worst crisis of the stock market, and only surmounted by the thirties crisis—, were deeper.

    The economic effects of the attacks against he United States are, in general terms, manageable for this country and its business partners. In fact, that is how it can be foreseen through measures patterns such as the purchase of shares by the same companies who were issuing them, the simultaneous reductions of the interest rates in the United States, the Canadian and the European banking. The same cannot be said about the impact of the following consequences of attacks and conventional and non conventional counterattacks of effects that are still unpredictable for the world's economy.

    The economic effects of the attacks have an international dimension as well as a national one, because even though the attack has been addressed directly to the United States’ citizens and institutions, it has caused human, material, monetary and psychological consequences influences practically all over the world, specially in the sectors that have access to information technologies (radio, television, internet, cellular phones, and written media). Without the intention to characterize the possible direct, side and secondary effects of the attack, throughout the following information a brief characterization of the impact and the lessons that interest the most to the society and the Salvadoran government will be described.

    Internationally, the impact of the attack has caused the closing of the New York stock market, the most important one in the world. Despite the negative early expectations, the truth is that the stock market reopened its operations on September 17th, without resenting the traumatic impact that some people predicted. The fall of the prices in the stock market was relatively "normal" for a crisis: 7.13% for the Dow Jones indicator and 6.83% for the Nasdaq (both indicators  represent an average of the value of the shares of the most important business companies that gather at the stock market).

    These percentage reductions are less than the ones of the "black October", back in 1987, when the Dow Jones average fell over 22%. However, this does not contradict the fact that there are specific business companies and activities who are suffering more than the average indicates, such as the airlines, whose actions have suffered an approximated loss of 40% to 50%, as in the case of United Airlines. It is very probable that this movement was also accompanied by an estimate of the shares of the train, sea, car rental and even safety companies.

    Other important international effects have to do with the dollar's and the petroleum prices. The dollar has lost its traditional firmness compared to other strong currencies such as the Euro and the Japanese yen, and it has been moderately devaluated. The petroleum price, instead, does not seem affected and, on the contrary, its price was reduced as an answer to the increase of the world production that was registered before the attack.

    At a national level, there are multiple implications that essentially affect the exportations' sector (specially the textile maquila), tourism, air transportation and its services. However, there are also more serious consequences that could be derived from the subsequent restrictions of the road migratory flows to the United States. Eventually, the impossibility to immigrate to the United States —something not very probable in the present context— would transform into the collapse of the Salvadoran economic model, based on the family remittances and in the textile maquila for the United States.

    As for the direct effects, clearly identified during the first week after the attack, it can be said that El Salvador would be facing a reduction of its maquila  importation, a reduction of employment in this sector as well, and a temporary reduction of the air transportation activity and tourism. This last effect as a result of the five day suspension experimented in the air traffic between the United States and the "rest of the world". The maquila is the sector with the highest levels of sensibility about the behavior of the United States economy, since its production depends on the demand of the United States consumers. In fact, during the last six months, and as a result of the low growth of the United States (02% during the second trimester of 2001), the product demand of the Salvadoran textile maquila had reduced its growth rhythm, having an impact on the activities and the employment possibilities of the sector.

    Whatever occurs to the United States consumption and demand will definitively have an influence on the maquila and, in a moderate way, in the tourism —specially in the regional one. In Central America, tourism generates close to $3,000 million per year as a product of the visit of 3.2 millions of people, most of them choosing Costa Rica as their destiny, Guatemala, and Honduras (in order of importance). El Salvador receives a share of those flows, but, fundamentally, it would not be significantly affected by its reduction.

    In the air transportation sector there was also and will be a negative impact, although it would be necessary to wait and see if it is only temporary. Once a relatively normal organization of the capital and merchandise activities (and personal ones as well) are achieved, the restrictions for the economic activities will be resolved and, with that, the possibilities that the economic effects can be more serious than they already were will be eliminated.

    In summary, it is worthwhile to reflect upon two aspects derived from the attack: the government's acknowledge about the importance of the monetary policy and our growing economic vulnerability. The first economic policy measures adopted by the United States and the industrialized countries have had a monetary character: restrictions have been eliminated to the cash flows, beginning with the interest rates. This fact has delivered an important lesson to the economic authorities of El Salvador: contrary to the belief that the monetary policy is not necessary (which is at the foundations of the dollarization process implemented in this country in the present year. The truth is that a monetary policy is enormously necessary to deal with the real economic crisis and with the monetary variables.

    However, the most important lesson has to do with rediscovering our deep (although not so easy to see) economic vulnerability. The economic stability of El Salvador depends on what the consumers and the United States government decide about their consumption and about the immigrants, respectively.

    Just like any other place in the planet, El Salvador was shocked by the terrorist attacks that shook the main symbols of military and financial power of the United States, on September 11th. The different political and economic actors along with the citizenry expressed their reactions and their expectations after the sudden tragedy. The shocking images of such a barbarian terrorist act  —surmounting the Hollywood style— awoke all kids of emotions in the Salvadoran people, specially when the information about the Latin American victims was made public, as well as the disappearance of over a hundred people.

    The first reaction was an entire rejection of the violent actions. In a press release published a few hours after the tragedy, the Presidency of the Republic expressed its solidarity with the people and the government of the United States, at the same time that it condemned any type of terrorism. "In the name of the government and the Salvadoran people, we express our condolences for the hundreds of families who have lost their loved ones... The United States is the home of thousands of Salvadorans and we are deeply touched", was written on the presidential press release. At the same time, the External Affairs Minister, Maria Eugenia Brizuela had given her condolences to the United States Secretary, Colin Powel, during the OAS’s XXVIII Extraordinary Reunion, in Lima, Peru. During the day, other national entities an personalities added themselves to the list of those who condemned the attack.

    In general terms, the Salvadoran economic actors seemed to be looking forward to the future of the national economy because of the possible collapse of its main commercial partner. The fear for the escape of investments in the United States, the freeze of the exportations and the speculation about the destiny of the world economy added to other adverse factors such as the never-ending deceleration of the United States' economy, petroleum's high prices and the low prices of coffee. On the other hand, the national politicians gave different opinions about the terrorist attacks.

    The president of the transitory commission of the FMLN, Fabio Castillo, predicted a possible —and almost inevitable— military retaliation of the United States against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and urged to "investigate in order to make some conclusions about who the material and intellectual authors are, so they can be judge; although it is important not to produce a reaction that might affect the civilian population and other innocent people". The position of some of the FMLN's sectors would have been to make the G. W. Bush administration indirectly responsible for the attacks, since these would have been an angry answer to the international policy of the United States.

    A little after this, El Diario de Hoy would assume the task of publishing contradictory declarations assertions between the emblematic figures of the FMLN. The FMLN's opinion contrasted with the one of the right-wing.  For the PCN's deputy, Hernan Contreras, "The United States has the right to practice a legitimate defense". Likewise, the ARENA legislator, Gerardo Suvillaga, considered that "the United States should act under its national security parameters", justifying like that any war action against the terrorists.

    La Prensa Grafica published the declarations of another well-known Salvadoran politician who was at Washington at the time of the attacks. The political leader and former deputy for the United Democratic Center (CDU, in Spanish), Ruben Zamora, made a historical analysis about the evolution of the international policy, and how an international justice system has been structured with the objective to stop the crimes against humanity. In that analysis, terrorism would justify itself for the "globalization that corrodes the foundations of the national sovereignty". However, Zamora's fundamental question is if the United States' government "will take justice on its own hands and go into an spiral of terrorist and counterattack acts whose victims, without a doubt, will be the political freedom that with so much sacrifices efforts the United States people has achieved along a number of centuries".

    During the following days, some political institutions such as the Supreme Court of Justice (CSJ, in Spanish), the Corporation of Municipalities of the Republic of El Salvador (COMURES, in Spanish), the FMLN and ARENA published press releases in which they condemned terrorism and showed their solidarity with the people and the government of the United States.

    On the other hand, the elite business companies, at the same time that condemned terrorism, showed its concern for the negative effects for the sector. The president of the Salvadoran Association of Industrials (ASI, in Spanish), Napoleon Guerrero, expressed his fear for the possible negative effects over the national economy. "We are worried about a possible escape of foreign investors in North America, which would affect the benefits that we share with the United States, mostly with the ICC".  In similar terms, the sectors directly involved with the exchange with the United States expressed themselves.

    That is the case of the Corporation of Exports (COEXPORT, in Spanish), who pointed out an interruption in the trades between El Salvador and that country, which would mainly affect the maquila. The airlines and the travel agencies added themselves to this list because of their inevitable loss caused by the interruption of operations throughout the United States' airports. For the Salvadoran Foundation for the Social and Economic Development (FUSADES, in Spanish) the greater risk could be an increase on the petroleum prices if the political crisis of the Middle East turns even worse.

    One of the decisions of the Legislative Assembly, as a sample of solidarity with the victims of the attack, was to cancel the September 15th celebrations (which commemorates the 180th anniversary of the Central American Independence). However, on that day took place an action that caused a more serious polarization related to the reactions to the New York and Washington attacks. President Francisco Flores, giving a brief speech at the Plaza Libertad about independence, made a direct reference to the terrorist attack. “Today, our freedom is attacked in any part of the world, by men whose only intention is to invent new wars”, declared the President.

    However, a few moments later, a group of about one thousand members of union and other labor organizations, together with some alleged university students created a demonstration that reached its highest point at the same Plaza. The demonstrators wrote on private property fences, and they burned the United States and Israel flags. The signs they wrote said “Osama bin Laden we are with you”. It was a situation that the press interpreted as a clear justification of the terrorist attempts against the United States. On another wall was written “Those who sow winds cultivate tempests”. The demonstration was accompanied by the director of the FMLN’s legislative fraction, Salvador Sánchez Cerén, and other four FMLN deputies. Afterwards, Sánchez Cerén assured that the demonstration responded to a rejection against the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice, which had approved the installation of a United States monitoring base at the Comalapa Airport. To his judgement, this constituted “a blow to the independence”.

       In summary, the adversity of the interpretations in El Salvador about the terrorist acts —and about the specific attacks— invite to reflect about important subjects such as the value of human life contrasted with dogmatic and fundamentalist positions. It has been made clear that the suicidal terrorists had no scruples to immolate themselves and take with them the lives of thousands of innocent people. In addition —even though not all Salvadorans will agree on this—, it has been made clear that the United States, despite being the victim, can no longer remain in this spiral of terrorism.