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.

INDEX

EDITORIAL

    The tenth anniversary of the Peace Agreements was commemorated on January 16th. During the celebration,  a series of aspects related to the historic documents came out and it is convenient to examine them, mostly because its meaning must be understood, even if some people are reluctant to discuss it. In fact, this celebration showed a negative balance as far as the correct interpretation of the Peace Agreements is concerned, specially because of the official interpretation's predominance, but also  because of the growing importance of the interpretation that the country's most conservative right-wing has made about the agreements.

    The official interpretation of the Peace Agreements consists, basically, in considering them a mechanism to put an end to the war, and the source of political reforms in order to favor the insertion of the FMLN into the legal political system. Armando Calderon Sol's administration had announced the accomplishment of the Peace Agreements, and because of that the celebration, the agreements' tenth anniversary would be more of a symbolical act than an objective or a critical evaluation of the achievements reached with its implementation. Flores did not want to encourage the idea that the tenth anniversary of the Peace Agreements could be useful to discuss the issue of its actual achievements. Officially, there was nothing to discuss; it was only about celebrating the accomplishments achieved, and about looking forward for an optimistic future.

    The official interpretation had many followers who did not doubt to take advantage of the space in the communication media to speak about the governmental topics. Many of those who played Flores' game, insisted that the purpose of the Peace Agreements was, fundamentally, a political one -to end with the war and to convert the armed left-wing into a political party-, that is why they considered that it was not logical to ask for a solution for the economic problems. Obviously, those who have that perspective either have never read the agreements or do not remember its basic contents.

    In fact, the agreements include the elemental compromises to start an economic reform that would allow a reunification and the development of the Salvadoran society. One of the most important engagements of the economy was the establishment of the Social and Economic Settlement Forum, in which the governmental, the working, and the business sectors would participate, "with the perspective of reaching a wide group of agreements to influence the country's economic and social development, in order to benefit all of its inhabitants".  Because of the state's and the private sectors negligence, the Forum was never established and, consequentially, it did not have an affect on the economic reform. An evident failure of the Peace Agreements was not to detail -with the same precision that it did in the political area- the components of the economic reform; however that does not mean that this is not mentioned as an important element in the documents.

    Ten years later -and when the political discussion has taken everyone's attention: citizens, communication media, businessmen, politicians, the international community- it is easy to say that the economic aspect was not a relevant feature of the Peace Agreements, and that the main objective was to end with the war. The next step was to forget about them, considering them a part of the past. That way the most critical social and economic demands stop existing.

    The official interpretation of the Peace Agreements shakes hands with the right-wing's conservative interpretation, for which the New York and the Chapultepec Agreements were an improper concession –an unconstitutional one- granted to the communist left-wing. That is to say that the Peace Agreements are an annoying parenthesis that should be closed for once and for all in order to go back to the "normality" that we had before them. Seen from this point of view, the Peace Agreements have not done anything positive for the country; instead, they meant a constitutional rupture that must be reestablished as soon as possible. To delay the total closure of the agreements - a right-wing's spokesperson said- is to accept that we live in a "post-war" society, which justifies the violent behavior that the left-wing sectors miss.

    For those who support perspectives such as the ones formerly mentioned in this article, there are no valid reasons. They will never understand that the Peace Agreements are a part of the Salvadoran history, and not something against it. Despite of all the misinterpretations that it has suffered, the political changes that they made (the Peace Agreements) have left a trace in the country's institutional field. Despite the insistence on the contrary, they are not a parenthesis, but a departure point to a new model of this country, a democratic and equitable one.

    The deceitful interpretations of the Peace Agreements want to convince the Salvadorans that it is best to forget about them. That what could have been achieved is already a part of the past. The dangerous aspect of these interpretations is that they do not only throw away important unfulfilled compromises-or only partially fulfilled ones-, but they also want to dissociate the country's future from the demands of democratization and justice included in the agreements.

    For now, just as it was evident during the celebrations, it is the distorted meaning of the Peace Agreements what has been imposed in the communication media and at the debates and forums prepared for their commemoration. The Flores Administration and the conservative right-wing can consider themselves satisfied, since they have been able to promote their interpretation. In the meantime, there are plenty of those who repeat the governmental chorus and those who do not doubt to serve the groups and the individuals who still fight against the ghost of communism.
 

    Ever since Francisco Flores took the responsibility of conducting to country, on June 1st of 1999, one of the main concerns of his advisors has been how to advertise his achievements. Because of that, the Presidency’s Communications Office has elaborated a “wise” strategy which consists on saturating the press –television, radio, and newspapers- with the “wonders” that the President achieves. The idea sold to the public is the one of an efficient government, who is definitively involved in his responsibilities with the country.

    Because of the results of the communication policy used, there is no doubt that the strategy has worked. If someone examines, through the information provided by the public opinion polls, how the Salvadorans rate the governmental performance or President Flores’ image, everything seems to be positive. Most of the times, Flores has counted with the population’s approval. And, when the contrary has occurred, he has diluted his responsibility in the bad performance of any political system. In this sense, if the image is the issue here the Presidential House has won the bet.

    There is no need to remember, in this occasion, the tactics and the strategies employed to promote the alleged achievements of the government. The case is that an important part of the National Budget has been granted to this “new” perspective of a governmental “communication policy”. Thanks to it, some expressions such as “a new way to do politics”, “new opportunities”, “optimism”, “efficiency”, “future”, and “commercial patriotism” have been incorporated to the national political dictionary. Others, such as privatization and Free Trade Agreement (TLC, in Spanish) are sold as the magic recipe, capable to resolve the country’s problems.

    Every week, the government’s strategy team reveals new reasons to be optimistic and walk confidently towards the future. The enchantment is so powerful that the weaknesses of the country’s productive system are barely remembered. The globalization traps for the weaker countries such as this one, the stagnation of the national economy, or the prevailing commercial mentality are also forgotten.

    The latest moment of joy for the Francisco Flores’ government has been the last declaration of  President George W. Bush, in which he revealed his intentions to negotiate a  TLC with Central America, during his visit to the American States’ Organization. According to this statement, the future of the region’s countries is connected to the free commerce that could be established between them, and especially with the great neighbor of the North. Bush repeated his proposal about signing the agreement in the near future. Central America and Chile had a special mention when they were declared the first objectives of the agreement.

    The reactions were immediate. The right-wing has speculated with the amount of jobs that might be generated, and how much the exportations could increase. During a whole week, in a sort of cathartic ceremony, the government’s spokesmen have parade before the press, speaking about the wonders that will come out of the TLC’s with the United States.

    With this, a new issue has been found to keep the Salvadorans occupied, thinking of the better days to come. This is how they feed the optimism of the population, and how they keep alive the image of a responsible and concerned government with the future of the poor. In the meantime, any sort of critic should be avoided. The Salvadorans are told that this is not the best time to have social protests that could drive the investors away, who are allergic to any kind of organization or any sort of  rights for the workers. In addition, according to the same logic, the right-wing has to receive support, since according to this vision it is the only institution that the world-wide business companies would trust.

    A particularity that is convenient to mention, after the overwhelming benefits that will come from the TLC with the United States, is the lack of political agreement in this North American country about this issue. While the local leaders rave about Bush’s declarations, he does not even count yet with the approval of the Congress to talk about this project. Once again, the speech is not compatible with reality.

    The Flores government has “distinguished” itself for its economic myopia along the three years of its administration. The official speech has been moving among the optimism of the TLC that has been already signed or that will be signed, and the promises of thousands of jobs that are supposed to be created with it. The Presidency’s communication strategy team has not missed a chance to renovate the propaganda about the happy future that awaits for El Salvador. However, since it is all about unfulfilled promises and dreams that have not  come true yet, they have to avoid desperation. In this sense, every minute is consider important to renovate the same speech. That is why so much importance has been given to President Bush’s declaration of intentions.

    In this context, the insistence on the TLC’s advantages, and the commercial openness seem as a fun strategy aimed to the population, and have as an objective to end with the social demands. The authorities do not get tired of announcing more and better jobs, while, in reality, this bet does not go beyond favoring the establishment of maquilas –permanently denounced for its unfair retribution and its abuse against the workers’ dignity.

    The announcement of the United States’ President is being used to keep alive Flores’ most important economic and political bet. In addition, it has become an opportunity to revive the speech about the advantages of the free trade agreement and the market.

    We do not only have to wait for the North American President to have the tools to actually perform his intentions, but we also have to wait for the terms of that possible commercial agreement. That is why it is necessary to unmask the superficiality of the new governmental “communication policy”. We have to watch also for the contents of the agreements when it comes to sign them. Just as the civil society’s organizations present at the Quebec Summit mentioned, a commercial treaty that does not consider the cultural and the economic rights, and the dignity of the different countries of America will not contribute to resolve the regions problems.
 

    In recent declarations at the General Assembly of the American States’ Organization, the United States’ President, George W. Bush, announced that his country  “would look for a free trade agreement with Central America (and) will work together with the Congress with that objective”. He added that “our purpose is to strengthen the economic bonds…, to strengthen its way into the economic, political, and social reform, and take another step ahead towards the Free Trade Area in the Americas”. These declarations were enough to almost immediately cause euphoric reactions in the Central American governmental officials.

    From Guatemala to Panama, the officials dedicated themselves to speculate about the alleged effects (assumed as positive ones) that would be generated with a measure such as the one announced by Bush. In El Salvador, the Minister of Economy, Miguel Lacayo, said that “we are going to completely dedicate ourselves to negotiate the free trade agreement with the United States”; on the other hand El Salvador’s Ambassador in the United States said that “we will be in the big leagues because we will get a free trade agreement, and we are already achieving it”. Equally optimistic perspectives were expressed by the sectors related with the most important business unions.

    Although momentarily the possibilities of that agreement are not established (the first of four technical meetings was programmed by the end of November), the present moment shows the Central American public officials’ dogmatic posture –which also afflicts the rest of the Latin American population-, for whom the free trade is an objective in itself, which comes first, even before more transcendental goals for a sustainable development, such as, for instance, the elimination of the growing social deficits, the viability of the informal economy or the productive conversion for the environmental sustainability.

    As a mistake, and even against the evidence, it is believed that the free trade is the infallible formula to overcome the Central American countries’ underdevelopment. A proof of that is the optimism avalanche generated by President Bush’s plain declarations. However, the reality is different, just like the Mexican case’s examination suggests, and the impact of the Caribbean Basin’s (ICC, in Spanish) initiative.

    In the Mexican case, seven years after the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), some paradoxical results have been experimented, which reveal that the free trade is not “magical”. Certainly,  a strong growth in the manufactured exportations and in the foreign investment has been experimented. However, that has not taken the Mexican economy out of the slow growth cycle of the production and employment, since its effect has been limited. The growth is centered in very few business companies that work as “enclaves”, and the foreign investment has also involved a growth of speculative capitals (for some people, this generated the 1994-1997 crisis).

    In the same way, the transnational business companies have achieved power shares through the intellectual protection laws, even if that means to sacrifice the people’s right for their health and the natural patrimony of the native communities. The environmental deterioration has become worse ever since the NAFTA; the farm laborer’s economy is in ruins, and the alimentary dependency has proliferated; the employment has not grown, and the increase in the actual salaries has not been a relevant one; immigration has been multiplied due to the impoverishment of the peasant sectors.

    The ICC is another process that helps to make hypothesis about the economic tendencies that would be generated by a free trade agreement. Through the ICC, the Caribbean and Central American countries receive a preferential access to the United States Market, however the main effect is derived from the textile maquila products which are established in the beneficiary countries. Technically, this partial liberation of commerce has originated an important source of employment for the region’s countries. In El Salvador, close to a 3% of the economically active population (PEA, in Spanish) is presently  employed in this sector.

    However, at the same time, the textile maquila has demanded a gradual dismantling of the states’ capacity to regulate the economy and orient it towards a sustainable development. In the rush to attract external investments and fulfill the compromise obtained with the Intention Letters presented at the International Monetary Fund, the ICC signing countries had to eliminate their tariff barriers, exempt the taxes from the investments and the economic flows generated by them, spend money for the creation of infrastructure and the necessary services, adopt a frozen salary policy, reduce employment and build maquila zones at agricultural areas.

    Investments such as this one lead us to believe that the region will not be able to develop itself by trying to attract investments that look for “tax vacations” –to quote the words of Michael Porter, one of the apologists of neoliberalism- and that do not generate a high “multiplying” effect towards the rest of the domestic economy sectors (they practically work as enclaves).

    The experiences that are already going on at the ICC and with the NAFTA approach us to four key aspects of discussion: the sustainability of the public finances in a “incentives” creation scenery and the race to attract foreign investments; the effects over the growth and the employment; the existing capacity to be inserted in an imminent process of commercial liberalization; and, finally, the implications in terms of control loss over the economic policies.

    These issues come out as the basic necessary references that must guide the negotiation process of not only the free trade agreements with the United States, but also for the ALCA, which is trying to establish itself over the NAFTA’s foundations. The evidence of the NAFTA and the ICC show that the free trade process do not exclusively generate positive effects, since there also is a counterpart that should be an alert sign to worry about a detailed examination. A challenge that emerges from the former idea is the redefinition of the international negotiation’s main objective: these must look for sustainable development agreements, and avoid reducing the negotiation with the developed countries to a simple liberation of the commerce and investments.

    The “economic, political, and social reform” that President Bush mentioned could mean -without the intention to-  for the governments of the countries that sign free trade agreements to give away an important amount of decision power. Just like it has happened with the Mexican case and in Central America, the attraction of the foreign investments could lead to the end of the measures related with the tariff barriers, the fiscal policy, or the salary’s policy, which in the end debilitate the national governments’ decision capability.

    Although a free trade agreement with the United States could generate an important increase in the external investment area and open new markets, the Central American governments should pay attention to the fact that the free trade is not a synonymous of development, and does not necessarily lead to it.
 
 

Please, send us your comments and suggestions