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

    To focus the events that took place when a congressman was arrested, and at the time of the police raid at the Legislative Assembly (from the perspective of whether he violated the law or not), or to concentrate the attention on how the press was assailed by the police, is to adopt a very partial vision of the facts. It is not enough either to feel satisfied with the removal of the sub-commissioner that was in charge of the operation, which is the least that they could do. Not even the explanations and the excuses that the police’s director gave to the journalists’ association were enough, because what happened has larger proportions. To remove the sub-commissioner and to give explanations and excuses is all right, but that does not touch the bottom issue, because the police will continue acting in the same way, with the same arrogance, and the same violence whenever it might be convenient for them, since they do not know another law but force.

    In the explanations that the agents gave to the Legislative Assembly’s special commission, which investigates the facts, the orientation of the police appears with a meridian clarity. The agents repeated, with contradictions and inconsistency, that they had acted according to the training that they received, and that they carried the standard weapons –war weaponry, grenades, helmets, staffs, etc. For these agents, and also for the institution’s direction, they acted according to the established procedure. We are, therefore, before an authoritarian police force, that has taken its mask off. First, it subjugates with humiliation and force, and later it gives explanations and excuses, which should not be immediately accepted.

    The problem is more serious than it seems. The situation of the national economy shows that the Neoliberal model used by the ARENA governments has  reached the top, since it cannot keep expanding itself without generating  a growing discontent, which is getting harder to contain. Therefore, the only way to continue encouraging that economic and social policy is counting with an authoritarian police force, whose mission is to contain the discontent and severely repress it, if they insist on their protest. First, there were the ex- patrol members; later, the owners and the drivers of the bus units.

    Others will be affected also by the beltway, if they do not agree with the governmental proposal; besides the market vendors from the informal sector, who are a permanent challenge for the urban order. For the same reason, the opposition also finds itself under the strict vigilance of the police, since they are considered dangerous adversaries for a weak government, who encourages an economic and social project against reason. Actually, besides being authoritarian, it is a politicized police at the service of the regime. It is still not clear how the police listened to the conversations of the arrested congressman. In this point, the explanations of the police officers are vague.

    The most dangerous challenges against the order established by the ARENA governments do not come from their natural adversary, the FMLN’s left-wing, but from their old friends and allies. First, the demobilized ex-patrol members, who unconditionally obeyed ARENA’s orders during the war; later, the bus owners came, also the party’s long time strategic allies. The leaders of all of these movements have been members of the ARENA party at some point. The weak protests about the layout of the beltway come from a town in whose name the government attempts to build that infrastructure.

    The corruption everyone knows about, such as the ones at the Social Security’s direction, FINSEPRO-INSEPRO, the Agricultural Encouragement Bank (Banco de Fomento Agropecuario), the sports sector, the donations, etc., have happened, and they happen at the governmental sector and at the ARENA sector. The absence of a national policy for the electric energy is causing its high prices at the present time. The bad administration and the corruption, caused by the ARENA government itself, explain the crisis at that sector, for which there does not seem to be another solution but to keep expanding the privatization. The crisis at the superior (post-secondary) education level sector was directly caused by the government itself to undermine the social power of The National University of El Salvador (la Universidad de El Salvador).

    Therefore, the private universities are not the first responsible ones for what happened with the superior education sector’s decadence, it was the government, and now it evades its responsibility. And the list can go on and on. It is a government that characterizes itself for adopting short term measures to get out of the crisis, setting the foundations of a larger crisis at a mid term. A government of that nature cannot remain in the same position of power if it is not supported by a police force such as the one that it presently has. A police force custom made for its needs, and at its service.

    As it usually happens at any authoritarian institution when they feel questioned, there is an old thesis that sustains that the responsible ones for the law and the right violations are the subordinated ones, never the institution where they work at and receive orders from, in which they have been trained and educated. Out of the three successive incidents in a row –arrest, raid and aggression-, the only ones that have been made responsible for their acts are the ones that assailed the press members, who, in the best of the cases, will be slightly sanctioned to satisfy the demands of those who ask for the head of the direction. We cannot let them fool us. The ones with less responsibility for what happened are the agents. In fact, they could defend themselves saying that they were following orders that they could not disobey, because if they did they would have been punished or fired, even if such orders were against the law, the rights, and the freedom of people.

    Those agents acted in the name of an institution, they were under the orders of the officers who, at the same time, had received orders from their superiors, and all of them had been trained to act the way they did, according to their own declarations. The arrogance and the violence of their conduct are not factors that happened by chance, nor the product of a sudden loss of control, nor an excessive conduct of the officers and agents who understood their mission in a wrong way.

    On the contrary, they have been trained to react that way. They have been trained to treat civilians as if they were inferior human beings, delinquents or suspects, and, therefore, with a license to humiliate them and mistreat them. It would not take much to attach the name of “delinquent” to “terrorist  -fashionable since September 11th- and then the circle would be closed. In the recent past, the strength of repression fell over those who were considered as delinquents and terrorists. The largest portion of responsibility for what happened, therefore, falls on the direction of that police.
 

    A few weeks ago, the foreign affairs’ French minister, Hubert Vèdrine, said that The United States’ external policy –after the North American President’s speech, in which he considered Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the incarnation of evil- is simplistic, unilateral, and too utilitarian, with no other objective but its own interests. Before the United States Government had time to react  to the French Chancellor’s opinion, many other European ministers agreed with Vèdrine’s point of view. Joshka Fischer, Germany’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, went even further, asking Washington to make a distinction between allies and boot-lickers.

    Because of such incisive declarations, Collin Powell, the Foreign Affairs’ Secretary of the United States, said that the French and that the other European reactions were hysterical. For the United States diplomatic member, those critics have no reason to exist. His opinion is based on the fact that the United States has been the main victim of the terrorist actions, which grants to this country the right to define the extent of its answer against such serious offense. In response to its European collaborators, the authorities from Washington requested a consultation with the second person responsible for its embassy in Paris.

    It is almost certain that part of the explanation to the European reaction against Bush’s anti-terrorist policy must be found inside the internal dynamics of each country. France finds itself in an electoral period. Two months away from the first round of the presidential elections, and considering the sensibility and the public opinion of the French politicians, which is opposite to the one of The United States, it is not strange that their Foreign Affairs Minister had been the one to ring the alarm against The United States’ external policy. The European public opinion is very concerned about the treatment that the North American armed forces give to the Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo. In addition, the Europeans live with the presence of an Arabian community that is more numerous than the one at The United States. Also, the petroleum from Iraq and Iran are strong factors for the European analysis of the situation in that part of the world.

    Bush’s last Asian tour was made with a background of international dissatisfaction because of his external policy. That can explain why, for instance, during his stay in China and South Korea, Bush’s speech was less aggressive. However, everything seems to indicate that The United States is not willing to make that many concessions to its allies. The United States seems more likely to walk alone to punish “the forces of evil”, without paying much attention to the international complaints. The strategy that might be used shows that the inflexible sectors of Washington are the ones that determine the present governmental external policy, which would not hesitate on playing the war drums when it comes to keep (or increase) the electoral sympathy that it enjoys at the present time.

    That is why, if some people see a very far away war against any member of the so declared “forces of evil”, considering the relation between the international forces, we cannot discard the possibility that Bush’s administration advances alone in his violent campaign. It would not be risky to predict more condescension from the French diplomacy with Bush’s plans, once the presidential elections are over in this country. The hypocrisy of the international potencies can find, in the future, a way to silence today’s critics, adducing a new interpretation of reality. That is why it is very probable that, in the end, the logic of a new war –maybe against Iraq- will be imposed.

    The former situations evidently confirm Washington’s unilateral perspective. It does not only disregard the opinion of its NATO allies, but it has also decided to impose its vision of the world’s reality, or to discard them in case that they turn into obstacles for its war plans. The characteristic features of Bush’s external policy are imposition and  arrogance. What is the importance of all of this aspects for Latin America?

    It is clear that this scheme of international policies will have an influence on the Latin American social life. It will contribute, without a doubt, to confront the positions of the most radical and anti-democratic right-wing of the continent. In this way, it is not very probable that he civil society’s organisms, which demand for more participation at the decisions that the governments make, receive more attention from the governmental circles. For instance, the Central American organizations who claim for social closures in the free trade agreement announced with The United States will have less echo in the region’s governments. The governments, at the same time, will not hesitate on using repression to silence its adversaries.

    On the other hand, the imposition of this inflexible line in the United States will have serious political consequences for the Latin American region. It will be very little probable that in Colombia the logic of the war opens the way to a logic of peace. The war proclaimed by Bush’s administration, and its initiatives for an exterior policy for Latin America contribute to push away any possibility that the most hostile sectors reach a negotiated solution for the Colombian problem –inside the government as well as inside the guerrilla. The recent decision of the Colombian President, Andres Pastrana, about suspending a dialogue with the FARC due to the kidnappings that this forces performed, gives strength to the former affirmation. There is no doubt that the Colombian President is taking advantage of an international situation in which very influential voices from the United States are claiming for a more energetic official intervention from Washington in the Colombian conflict.

    For governments as the one of Julio Chavez, that means more fragility in front of its detractors. Some people are already talking about the consultations at Washington of some members of the army who are unhappy with Chavez’s administration. The possibility of a coup d’état is openly discussed by the most powerful sectors of Venezuela, who feel strong and supported, somehow, by the presence of some of the Latin American politicians in the United States’ government, known for their conservatism and their extreme right-wing tendencies.

    In summary, for Latin America the war logic and the imposition of the most inflexible line of the United States’ policy will mean that there are less possibilities for the region’s weakest groups to have an influence on their governments’ policies, already known, in addition, by its little disposition to listen to the citizenry when it comes to make the decisions. That is why a very difficult period can be predicted for the Latin American social organizations. Neither the repression nor the human rights’ violations are discarded from this perspective, just like it is evident in the Salvadoran case.

    The electric energy sector’s privatization is still being negotiated. Although the electric energy distribution companies were already privatized, the state still owns the transmission, the hydroelectric generation, and the geothermic companies. At this point, it is clear that privatization is not necessarily a synonym of efficiency and reduction of the prices, just like the ARENA administrations  wanted the population to think.

    From time to time, the situation reveals itself in a shape of mutual accusations between the Hydroelectric Executive Commission of the Lempa River (CEL, in Spanish), the companies that generate the energy, and, most recently, the distributors. The situation goes all the way back to 1994, when the government signs a contract with the Nejapa Power generator, which established extremely high prices for the megawatt-hour. These prices were two times higher than the ones available in Guatemala. Five years later, the General Superintendence of Electricity and Telecommunications (SIGET, in Spanish) started a process to revert that contract, which has been extended to the present, and threatens to get even longer. In the mean time, an unnecessarily high price is paid for the electricity supplied by the thermal private companies.

    Most recently, new and stronger polemics have been developed between the main actors of the electricity market: representatives of the foreign company that owns the distributors complain about the state’s policies towards the sector, while some of the CEL officials attack the thermal generators because they consider them the cause of their capital loss and the relative high cost of the electric energy in El Salvador.

    Away from the details of the public dispute, three aspects deserve to be considered: first, the contracts to purchase energy from the generators were negotiated in totally unfavorable conditions for the consumers –something that is well-known since 1999 and that it has not been corrected yet. In second place,  although the costs of the kilowatt per hour have been reduced during the last two years, the gradual elimination of the subsidy and the introduction of additional charges by the distributors have reduced the impact and have increased the total amount of the bills. The privatization of the electric sector could continue with the geothermic companies and, eventually, with the hydroelectric dams.

    According to the recent information revealed by the sources related to the CEL, the CEL might have lost $140 and $23 million dollars because of the mercantile operations with the Nejapa Power and Duke generating companies, respectively. Both companies generate electricity through thermal means (by burning fuel oil), the main way of generation that has been encouraged by the privatization and the “liberalization” of the electric market. Both companies also count with equal contracts subscribed by the administration of Armando Calderon Sol, in 1994, and Francisco Flores, in 2000, which, implicitly, authorize them to charge artificially high prices, in the style of monopolies or the oligopolies, but with the approval of the state.

    The problem would not exclusively be about the imperfections of the market, but also about questionable and deliberate activities of the state that compromise not only the pocket of the consumers, but also the financial stability of the CEL. Unless some people think that the state is (or at least was) in a perverse agreement with the investors of the thermal  companies, it is difficult to explain the attitude of the governments that consented to pay up to the double for each megawatt/hour, or that they subscribed contracts of such importance without thoroughly examining them.

    On the other hand, a good part of the possible benefits of privatization has been lost because the companies have introduced their own fees:  attention to the clients, and the net use. Even if it could be accepted that the kilowatt/hour cost for the consumers has been reduced ever since the privatization of the sector, the truth is that the recently established prices and the variables reduce or even revert the positive effects.

    The distribution companies apply three additional charges to the electricity consumption bill: the basic service account (18.5 colones), the basic service for the net  (9.8 colones), and a variable charge for using the net (0.37 colones per kilowatt/hour). The basic charges come to a total of 28.3 colones, which definitively increase the electricity bill, specially for those who consume less energy. For example, for a consumer who uses an average of 100 kilowatts/hour, the basic charges increase the cost of each kilowatt/hour in 0.28 colones (almost 20%), which increases his payment with 28.3 colones.

    To notice how the reductions in the price of the kilowatt/hour can be neutralized, it has to be considered that, between April 2000 and December 2001, the price charged by one of the main distribution companies was reduced from 1.47 to 1.06 colones. However, during the same period of time, the charge for the “attention to the clients” was increased from 15.5 to 18.5 colones, a situation that implicates an increase of 3 colones, equivalent to the discount of 7 kilowatts/hour. In addition, the kilowatt/hour would be even more inexpensive if the “variable charge for using the net” would not be added (0.37 colones per unit), which presently represents an additional charge of 35% to the price.

    With these elements all together, it is clear that privatizations will continue happening, and that is how the governmental representatives have announced it will be. They believe that the next step will be the privatization of the generating geothermic facilities, which CEL still owns. The privatization of the hydroelectric facilities and, generally, the privatization of  the CEL is what would be submitted to discussion, and this is in fact one of the demands and one of the recommendations that the business sector made to the present government. CEL still owns, exploits and administrates five hydroelectric centrals (Guajoyo, Cerron Grande, 5 de Noviembre y 15 de Septiembre), and two geothermic plants (Ahuachapan and Berlin).

    The seven plants exploit the country’s natural potential and generate close to a 23.3% of the country’s total consumption in the case of the geothermic energy, and a 24.9% in the case of the hydroelectric energy. The least expensive generation costs of these plants softens the inflationary impact from the participation of the expensive generating thermal mediums’ increase, the unfavorable terms in the contracts between the CEL and the thermal companies, and the introduction of the distributors’ new steady and variable prices.

    For the moment, the formerly mentioned facilities provide CEL with the necessary generating capacity to obtain the income that it needs to cover the subsidies for the consumers, and to cover the excessively expensive amount s that are paid to the private thermal generators. If the institution is privatized, a few things could be expected: the appearance of  new basic and variable charges, but also an increase in the price of the kilowatt/hour, since there will be new private investments that must be recuperated. In fact, the legal regulations made to the basic services allow a certain increase in the tariffs to cover any investment related expense that the new privatized companies’ owners might run into.

    Without a doubt, privatization represents a profitable business for the transnational companies; otherwise, there would not be any reason to invest, unless they dedicated themselves exclusively to philanthropy, something completely unbelievable. For the civil governments and societies it represents a loss of economic independence and the submission to the policies that are common at the imperfect markets, where the prices can be established in  a dark and capricious way.

    The privatization of the energy generating plants also suggests the privatization of the vital natural resources; the elimination of an income source for the state; and the reduction of potential financing sources for the social politics, the nation’s budget and the reduction of the fiscal budget. All of these aspects, added to the negative experiences accumulated to this day, suggest that the privatization process should be reconsidered and thoroughly analyzed without any ideological caprices, facing reality and with the knowledge that it can only be justified if it turns into a sustainable development process.
 
 

Please, send us your comments and suggestions