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 government forced the situation so much, that he spoiled the party he prepared to celebrate the verification of the Peace Agreements’ accomplishment. The big celebration would have taken place on March 16th , and was supposed to count with the presence of the General Secretary of the United Nations. However he postponed his visit to El Salvador, putting a premature end to a celebration that the government considered as a promising one. The reason given for this was the change of the national context. The celebration had been already postponed once, so therefore the commemoration of  January 16th was more of an inauguration of the school year than a celebration for the agreements. The government was keeping it for March. The way things are right now, it will remain postponed, and the government will have to be happy with the path on the back that, without a doubt, President Bush will give to Flores, during his five-hour visit to the Salvadoran capital, on March 24.

    The response of the General Secretary is a diplomatic “no” to the Salvadoran government, and even if he does not give any details about the changes that took place in the national environment that make it impossible for him to visit San Salvador, it is not difficult to guess what is going on. The diplomatic failure is well known, mostly since he will visit another three Central American countries, in what practically is a regional tour, and El Salvador has been excluded from it. The only one that can be blamed for this is the ARENA government.

    It is normal that it refuses to acknowledge its international failure and seeks for excuses to blame others for its own ineptitude. That was how the Chancellor surrounded herself of the ambassadors from the country-friends and the United States to tag the United Nations’ response as a boycott planned by the FMLN, and to accuse its leaders by name and last name. According to her, the United Nations would have been manipulated by the FMLN. The FMLN has a lot of power if it has been able to turn the General Secretary of the United Nations into an instrument for its purposes. If the visit was not that important, and if the agreements are a thing of the past, as the victims of the war are as well, how does the government explain then such pointed remarks as the ones made by President Flores himself, who said that the FMLN was a shame for this country?

    The Salvadoran government, forgetting that it represents the citizenry and not only a specific political party, attempted to turn the celebration into a political celebration for one party only. The government forgot that the agreements were negotiated and signed by two parts. It was also forgotten that it had to be a national celebration and not the celebration of one political party, and it intended to prepare a stage for its new left-wing allies, without accepting that the FMLN has changed a lot during the last ten years. In just one act, the government intended to get over with the verification of the Peace Agreements, announcing its full accomplishment, and discredit the present FMLN, its most important political adversary.

    A key piece of this situation was the General Secretary of the United Nations. Therefore, it was not the FMLN the one who manipulated the situation, but the ARENA government. It is clear that El Salvador has changed in a radical way. The police’s direction made a fatal mistake by disrespecting the official privileges of a congressman, with their raid at the Legislative Assembly with armed and masked men, and by assailing the press. The authoritarian character that the government has built is too difficult to digest for the United nations, precisely when its representative was coming to celebrate the democratization of El Salvador.

    If the FMLN is a shame for El Salvador, the same can be said about the United States Government, and more specifically, about its embassy at the Salvadoran capital, since the United States was not encouraging in its annual report about the human rights’ practice. The President of the Supreme Court of Justice, feeling himself personally affected by the report and definitively upset, said that the report was disrespectful.

    The two most criticized areas of the Department of State are the judicial system and the     police. The report keeps the diplomatic reforms. It acknowledges certain advances or quotes the Constitution or the law to point out what is established, but later it mentions the violations against the human rights that were observed during 2001. The critic is specific at times and, therefore, it can be connected with that dependency on the State; however, in other occasions it quotes sources which, without a doubt, give it a lot of credibility, on the contrary it would not use them to point out the violations.

    The Department of State considers that the Salvadoran judicial system is weak and corrupt. This judgment is superior to any other positive observation. It not always respects the rights of the accused ones, but, most importantly, accuses it about favoring the impunity of the people who have politic, economic or institutional relations. In another paragraph it says it even more clearly: the wealthy and the powerful remain unpunished in El Salvador (in case they commit a crime). The corruption includes the Attorney General’s Office.

    In addition, it complains about the Supreme Court of Justice because it does not sanction the judges, and because it also tolerates those who do not have an academic diploma. Each one of these affirmations is sustained with various cases, among those, the one of the Jesuit priests. As for the National Civilian Police, besides acknowledging its improvement in the fight against crime and the efforts to depurate the institution, it describes it as the responsible one for abuses, murder, torture, extortion, kidnapping, an excessive use of force, disrespect against the arrested ones and the violation of the personal integrity. In some of these observations, Washington does not see any improvements between 2000 and 2001. This chapter includes the unfortunate conditions in which the prison facilities are. With more intelligence than the President of the Supreme Court, the director of the National Civilian Police received the critical review with a smile, and he outlined the positive aspects and forgot about the negative ones.

    In the problematic areas, the Department of State highlights a long list of discriminations. A list of violence and abuse acts against women and children follows, who are forced to work and to prostitute themselves, and are sexually exploited. It highlights the domestic violence and prostitution, the common one and the forced one, the open one and the clandestine one. This is a subject that should call the attention of the public morals’ defenders. Another problematic area is employment, the government does very little to protect the rights of the workers, especially the rights of the maquila workers.

    Therefore, El Salvador and its government do not seem to receive a positive review in this report of the United States  Government. With a very little frequent accuracy, the Department of State observes that the ARENA government is more concentrated on reducing poverty and promoting the family stability through the economic growth, than on programs to favor the children. Consequentially, the ones responsible for this approach should be treated with the same epithets that the FMLN is treated with.

    Almost everybody is already thinking about the official considerations connected with the visit of George W. Bush to El Salvador, on March 24. The North American President, in the context of what he calls a “sample of sympathy and pleasant relations with his neighbors”, he is also preparing himself to visit Mexico and Peru. His arrival intends to reunite the leaders of the region in order to face a common agenda. However, before the different considerations about his visit, it is necessary to stop and analyze its importance for the Latin American countries, specially for the ones of Central America.

Bush’s project for Latin America
    Ever since George Bush arrived to the presidency of the United States, on January the 20th of 2001, one of the concerns of the Latin American politic analysts has been the growing importance of the region for the United States President. Differently from what happens now, for example, with Robert Mugabe –the self-proclaimed winner of the presidential elections at Zimbabwe, whose fraudulent election is denounced by the whole world-, none of the governments in the world took the time to denounce the electoral frauds of the Republicans at Miami. The tendency has been to render the honors to Bush and demand his favors.

    But that anguish for being included was going to confront itself with a certain skepticism, even at the beginning, given the first nominations of the North American President. The whole world had to witness, in the first place, that the person assigned as a security issues’ advisor, Condoleeza Rice, is an expert on Russia, a person with knowledge about the problems of other latitudes. This turned into a presage –and it made a lot of sense- about an European orientation of the United States’ politics.

    The worst came with the September 11th attacks against the United States. This defined the orientation of the United States’ policy –which until then made a certain effort to include Latin America in its agenda, mostly after the Summit of the Americas at Quebec- toward other courses. The September 11th attacks ended up acknowledging those who thought that the new North American administration was not really interested in the region, at least not beyond assuring its comfortable position to sell the surplus of its products.

    However, six months after the attacks, in the moment that Bush was preparing to launch new attacks against the “forces of evil”, Latin America receives the visit of the United States President. It is precisely here where a question comes up about how his visit to the region should be interpreted, and its sudden importance in the plans of the United States government.

    In the first place, it is necessary to point out that this situation is given in a very important     context: it is about a possible free trade agreement area. Not too long ago, the Bush administration declared its intention to sign an agreement of this sort with Chile and later with Central America. This represents the first step to achieve the objectives established for 2005 of a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (ALCA, in Spanish). That is why the most immediate issue for Bush’s visit to the region is the free trade agreements that might be signed.

    However, on the other hand, the visit of the North American President will inspire people to touch important issues such as the traffic with drugs and immigration. There is no doubt that these are very important subjects in the foreign affairs’ agenda of the United States. Therefore, Bush’s visit will demand from the governments of the region a better control of the narcotics and the illegal immigration traffic. In addition, the recent designation of the hemispheric issues’ secretary has identified subjects such as democracy, development, the governments’ decency, and the fight against corruption, as the main issues of his program for Latin America.

The real problems of the region
    With the formerly described situations, and the declarations of the ones responsible for the United States’ policy at Washington, one of the most important questions is up to what point the agenda of the world’s most powerful country matches with the most important needs of Latin America. It is not about reducing the importance of the drug dealing issue, and the corruption that it generates because of the great amounts of money that this illicit business involves. It is more than that. It is well known that a calamity such as this one contributes to aggravate the problems of the already feeble institutional performance of the region. It is not about ignoring the importance of  discussing for once and for all the immigration issue for the Latin American countries. The permanent traveling of the Latin American citizens  is presented as an urgent problem that needs an immediate solution.

    On the other hand, there is no doubt that a higher economic growth can be crucial to discuss and resolve the formerly described problems. In fact, there is no doubt that misery can be fought by creating more resources and employment for the region. In the end, it is about asking ourselves if the way these problems will be discussed is the best option to resolve the main concerns that trouble Latin America. In this sense, it is necessary to examine the most urgent problems that the majority of the region’s countries face.

    In the case of Central America, for example, it is interesting to mention that besides the large foreign investments, the citizens need a solution that includes the distribution of the wealth. It is well known that the main motivation of the investors that arrive to this region is to increase their wealth, without considering the life standards of the inhabitants and their capability to afford their basic expenses with the salary that they receive. In summary, the region needs a different kind of leadership, in order to be able to handle their most crucial problems, which will not be resolved with a larger opening process of the North American markets.

    In the same way, it is well known that a country such as Colombia does not necessarily need  that the United States involves itself with any more military presence in the internal war, just like Washington’s most severe lines  cry out loud for. On the contrary, the Colombians would wish for a more decisive international action that could pressure the war lords, so that the peace dialogue can be discussed more seriously by both sides.

The United States’ hypocrisy
    In any case, Washington’s declarations cannot be taken too seriously when they publicly  affirm that they want to help the region to overcome the serious problems such as development or corruption. History invites people to put the feet on the ground when it comes to this issue, and to wait and see Washington’s actual compromise with these matters. It is not the first time that pompous declarations are made about it and, however, in reality, it is known that the most corrupt countries, those who violate the human rights in the region, have counted with Washington’s approval, especially from the most conservative people.

    At the moment, it is clear that Washington is not worried because its most controversial formulas –which are given out to the political leaders of the region- receive very little popular support. This situation, in summary, questions the bottom of the repeated calls to encourage democracy in that zone. Nothing could be more contradictory. If a basic step of democracy consist on governing for the people, what are the most powerful country’s leaders thinking about when they show an interest to sign free trade agreements that do not include the most important aspirations of most of the region’s citizens, excluding any kind of social dialogue about the free trade issue?

    In addition, it is necessary to question the political and commercial liberalism concept that the North American leaders follow. For example, the recent protectionist decision of the Bush administration to keep away the so called “invasion” of the European and Brazilian steel from their market contradicts the invitations to the free trade and the opening process of the markets. About this issue, the president of this last country has criticized Washington’s decisions, denouncing the hypocrisy and the double sense of its political leaders.

    Finally, it is also necessary to notice that the agreements with Central America and Chile (their discussion are pompously announced) do not even include the official declarations made at the Quebec Summit, in which people spoke about the need to “encourage the social justice and develop human potential” in Latin America. The region’s educational deficit is not discussed either, and this is a key issue ever since the 1994 Miami Summit, and it has been also discussed at the rest of the presidential reunions.

    All of the formerly exposed situations invite to question the benefits announced by the new relationship of the Bush administration with the region. Even if the agreements to come can benefit the businessmen and the common Latin American citizen, people should not expect too much from them. It is very probable that it contributes to increase the enormous social differences that already exist.

    However, on the other hand, it is necessary to acknowledge that all of these situations will strengthen a very important political sector of the region: the conservative one. There are plenty of examples, as the Salvadoran case shows, whose government is constantly complimented by the Bush administration, despite his clear authoritarian signs.

    In summary, there is no reason to think that with the so called “privileged” relationship between Latin America and Bush all the unilateral patterns, so typical of the United States’ foreign policies, will end. In case that was not enough, in this region the big brother of the North counts with, in most of the cases, with servile governments, willing to defend the interests of the business’ minorities, without even caring if these actions contribute to worsen the poverty situation in which many of their citizens live.

    Ever since the mid seventies it was made clear that the low productivity of the developed countries’ large business companies was a considerable limitation to keep the privileges that, along the last century, had been conquered by the working class: labor legislation, unions, and collective agreements that now appear as “luxury” benefits. While the economic problems, such as the chronic unemployment and inflation became evident, a discussion was opened about the need to deregulate the economic relations, contrary to the to the prevalent fashion during Keynes’ times, when the regulation was encouraged.

    This  deregulation also included the working relations environment, where different ways to “externalize” certain business activities were created, hiring people from outside the company to design them. This process was clearly favored by the substitution of the large organization’s paradigm for the fragmentation of the productive organizations. If in the past the choice was to concentrate the different kinds of process in only one productive company, now the option is to transfer the activities to other specialized producers. This externalization is intimately connected with a growing process of the unions’ disarticulation.

    The labor forces’ flexibility has been equally favored by the development of electronics, telecommunications, and transportation, since they have reduced the amounts of time, as well as the transportation and the communications’ cost, making the productive process’ internationalization easier.

    The impact of these visions over the company-workers relation about the underdeveloped countries has been immediate. With the privatization process and in general with the investments of the first world countries the demands tend to point out  the transference or the externalization of those process which are not directly related with the privatized companies’ economic transformation –generally in the hands of foreign investors- and the transformation of the ones created by foreign investors. Even the domestic companies are rapidly adopting this new organizational business’ paradigm through hiring cleaning, vigilance, data processing, staff training, maintenance, and consultation services from other companies.

    In El Salvador, the labor forces’ flexibility, in terms of a deregulation of the labor market and the flexibility of the legal disposition, is frequently requested by the business unions. The most recent proposal came from the Salvadoran Association of the Tailoring Industry (ASIC, in Spanish). It proposes to reduce the minimum wage at a maquila which is located outside the city. The most systematic and formal proposal has been, however, the one presented by the National Association of the Private Business Companies (ANEP, in Spanish) after the first semester of 2000. This article will present the main characteristics of the companies’ proposal, as well as a reflection of the flexibility’s impact over the union’s sector.

    The Salvadoran businessmen know the limits to reach a full employment situation and share the thought that productivity can be increased by the amount of workers. In the document “Proposal for a Reactivation of the National Economy: everybody’s compromise”, the ANEP includes a discussion about a labor policy that proposes a more flexible labor situation through certain reforms to the legal frames.

    The document acknowledges the unemployment reality when it mentions that “the deterioration of the economic activity has come together with the economic system’s debilitation to absorb the growing labor offer, and with the increase of unemployment”. That is why, among the objectives of the proposal there are “the generation of new jobs”, the “labor flexibility”. This last objective conducts to three of the five specific labor proposals: to define the working hours per week and not per day, in order to increase the daily eight hour limit; to allow the part time remunerations when the working hours are less than eight; allow the contracts by tasks and by an indefinite period of time for those companies that present “unstable characteristics in its demand or its productive process”. In other words, the proposal includes measures that point out to a labor market reduction, which are a true challenge for syndicalism.

    Syndicates were created with the objective to improve the workers’ life standards, and they reached important conquests at a time, especially during the golden years (from the mid forties to the mid seventies). However, in a context of slow economic growth and unemployment, it is very little what can be expected from the syndicates, since they have grown weaker, implicitly accepting that the economic model cannot offer more things to the workers. They practically have to take the available jobs, whether they like it or not. The search for the labor vindications is not contemplated in their agenda, the business companies are not interested to take care of the labor vindications either (those that could come from the labor sector).

    In a precarious situation of the labor market, the conditions that are not accepted by the Work Code have to be practically accepted. Without going too far, to establish the minimum wage at the present levels is illegal. It does not meet the necessary levels to guarantee the satisfaction of the worker’s material and spiritual needs. But what is also true is that the legislation is not necessarily realistic, economically speaking: the profitable organizations are not that productive as to establish a minimum wage according to the legal command (in El Salvador, the minimum wage has been frozen for four years already).

    The arrival of considerable investments for the textile maquila and for the privatized companies (the telephone, the distribution of electricity, the pension’s system) are two important elements that explain the tendencies towards the labor flexibility and the wear and tear of the syndicates. The textile maquila is a way to externalize the clothing items’ assembly to a country where the process is less expensive due, mainly, to the low wages. In fact, a basic condition for these kinds of investment is to pay the minimum wage, and if possible, even less than that (just as the ASIC intends to do). This is the kind of investment that strongly depends on the labor flexibility process in order to exist, and it turns into an element that motivates the government and the business groups to promote measures such as the ones formerly mentioned. It should not sound strange that the syndicates’ formation process at the textile maquila is seen by the foreign investors as a “sin”, which can even cause the closing of an employment source.

    The labor flexibility is a reflection of the growing unemployment rates and the precarious conditions of many of the available jobs. Even at the developed countries, it became evident that the capitalist economy cannot work if it does not demand more from its workers, and without them asking for less. Just as globalization, this is a contagious process –and the countries similar to El Salvador are also exposed to it-, however, it demands to realize the need to know the limits of the economic model and its impact over the labor market. This market urgently needs to go through a diagnosis and through the identification of  an alternative strategic process, in order to generate higher rates of qualified and stable employment.
 
 
 

Please, send us your comments and suggestions