SHARE- Reflections

Today is the tenth anniversary of the historic signing of the Peace Accords in Chapultepec, Mexico. On February 1, 1992, the cease fire officially began, and the year of 1992 became the year of peace making. The FMLN maintained their weapons until December 15th of that year, but throughout the year their combatants began turning their arms over to UN verification teams. The Treasury Police, National Police and several Special Batallions of the Armed Forces were dismantled and the new National Civilian Police was created.

The Truth Commission spent the year verfiying grave human rights abuses, and their report “From Insanity to Hope” concluded that over 90% of the human rights abuses from 1980-1992 had been committed by the Armed Forces or paramilitary forces in conjunction with the military, while 5% belonged to the FMLN and another 5% could not be determined. The most notable cases studied were those of Archbishop Oscar Romero, the massacres at El Mozote and the Sumpul River (all atrocities committed by the government forces) and the Zona Rosa murders (committed by the FMLN). Shortly after the Truth Commission report was published, the ARENA lead Legislative Assembly declared a general amnesty, in clear violation of the spirit of the Commission’s recommendations. Another important piece of the Accords was the creation of the Human Rights Ombudsperson´s Office, which has since been gutted by ARENA legislators, to such a degree that key donors including Sweden withdrew their support. (Recently Beatrice de Carrillo was appointed Ombudsperson and is doing a fine job at trying to re-establish the Office as a voice for human rights in the country).

In this same period, work began to convert the FMLN into a legal political party, which was accomplished, and the first relatively free and fair elections were held in 1994. For the first time, all spectrums of political thought were able to present candidates, although several members of the FMLN were assassinated in the months leading up to the elections. Other electoral reforms mandated or suggested by the Accords have been stalled over time, but the general improvements in electoral participation of parties and voters continue.

The Peace Accords Land Transfer Program (PTT), through which many of the communities SHARE accompanied throughout the war won pieces of land, was implemented after years of international and domestic pressure. The strong and consistency advocacy of SHARE and our partners was pivotal to completion of this Accord. The distribution of land titles dragged on in bureaucratic practices until very recently. The small and parcels were not free, but came with a thirty year mortage to pay off the land. In 1998, in a struggle unrelated to the Peace Accords themselves, peasant farmers (again with strong advocacy from SHARE) won cancellation of the debt that was transferred to them with their land. Since that time, in the face of an anti-agrarian macro-economic policy, an untold number of PTT beneficiaries as well as Land Reform beneficiaries have been forced to sell their land because they lack the necessary financing, tecnical support, infrastructure and more to produce on the land and bring the dreams of the Peace Accords to fruition. The current advocacy of CIDAR, the broad-based coalition of peasant farmers and cooperatives pushing for comprehensive national policies for rural development, is building on this dream.

The Economic Social Forum, a key round table to be established after the Peace Accords never got off the ground, and hence the extent of the Accords has been limited to structural reform in the areas of the military, police, judiciary and electoral elements of Salvadoran society; with the exception of the PTT, the root causes of the war itself have not been addressed in a profound manner. In fact, the economic policy of three successive ARENA governments has deepened rural poverty and taken the economy of El Salvador away from production and distribution into speculative capital and service.
Summary of Forum, hosted by FUNDE (notes by Sara)

Last night, the FUNDE research institute hosted a panel of speakers to analyze the impact and challenges of the Peace Accords on the eve of the anniversary. Speaking on behalf of the government negotiation team were Oscar Santamaria and David Escobar Galindo, and for the FMLN negotiating team Shafik Handal and Roberto Roca. Hector Dada Hirezi, a former Christian Democrat, member of the 1979 Junta de Gobierno and currently well respected sociologist and economist, gave the closing summary in response to the others remarks.

Below are some reflections from the aforementioned speakers:

1. Oscar Santamaria feels that the Peace Accords were a success because they returned the nation to peace, and did so by the unprecedented means of negotiations. He stated that the causes of war were political, and the Accords were a political solution to the war. He disagrees with the idea that the Peace Accords could or should have been the answer to the “ancestral problems of El Salvador dating from the time of conquest.” Rather the key objectives were the pacification and democratization of El Salvador and social reconciliation, which were acceptable challenges. For Santamaria, the Accords are also unprecedented in the world, and for this reason the United Nations and the European Economic community lift them up as the key example of a negotiated solution to conflict. “In reflecting on the events in Columbia, in which the key challenge is simply to keep the negotiations alive, the Salvadoran Accords are truly remarkable,” he stated. Santamaria also feels that the participation of the international community (friendly countries, UN, OAS, European Union) was key to resolving the armed conflict. Santamaria feels that the spirit of consensus building that was necessary to negotiate the Peace Accords has been key in the country and still exists today as the largest fruit of the agreements.

2. Shafik Handal chose to read the FMLN´s official statement on the Peace Accords. He listed the radical changes and commitments from the Accords that have been honored, including: FMLN gave up their arms and became a political party, a reconstruction plan for the country was designed, the military and police were purged and the new civilian police was created, as well as the Human Rights Ombudsperson´s Office. Most importantly, the Peace Accords put an end to State sponsored terrorism that lead to over 80,000 deaths and disappearances. These are all positive aspects of the Accords. However, according to Handal, the imposition of a neo-liberal economic model has been a huge leap backward. The most grave issue of the neo-liberal economic policy has been the complete abandonment of the agricultural sector. The government also waited until December 19th, 2001, ten years after the Accords, to finally open up the Fund for War Wounded to those who were not verified previously, although ironically, this fund is underfunded. Handal feels that ARENA has done everything in their power to put the Peace Accords behind them and in doing so has left the majority of Salvadoran society in the margins once again. He noted that the FMLN had commited an error in abandoning the social movement, and reiterated their current commitment to the social struggle, to grassroots organizing and to leading the popular movement to challenge the policies that are deepening poverty.

3. David Galindo Escobar spoke of the atmosphere of peace that was created by the Accords and that this created the minimum condition in which all actors in the society could participate. For him, ending the war was easier than constructing “normality.” He feels that after twenty years of war (if we count from the 1970s when the conflict really began), arriving at an end to war in such a short time was a victory, and that the beauty of the Peace Accords is that unlike a military solution to the conflict in which someone would have had to win and lose, the Accords allowed peace without victors or losers. While the Accords proposed limited solutions such as creating a peaceful environment, the effect of this has been transcendental, he argued, and allows for the possibility that El Salvador can be transformed socially, economically and culturally.

4. Francisco Jovel (Roberto Roca) was especially critical of the government and private sector for closing down the Economic and Social Forum which made it impossible to deeply discuss the social movements’ proposals for long term change. He mentioned several articles that have not been implemented, including the land reform (expropriation) of lands held in excess of 245 hectares, because the wealthy and government have lacked the political will to do so. Roca feels that a key obstacle to advancing further on the needed changes is that certain sectors on the Right and the Left do not have the political will to do so - and political will was of course a key element to arriving at the Peace Accords. He called on El Salvador to renew political thought and attitudes and to introduce new ways in with civil society can participate in the formation of a new society.

CLOSING COMMENTS, CHALLENGES

5. Hector Dada closed the forum with a series of comments based on the others´ speeches. He began by recognizing the transcendental nature of the Accords and the end to armed conflict. However, he questioned why the method of negotiation and consensus building was used uniquely in that context, and has since not been the chosen method for resolving conflicts. He critized President Flores´s speech on Sunday the 13th in which he said that the closing of the Peace Accords ends the need for him to discuss or negotiate anything at all with the FMLN. (In March the UN is scheduled to come to officially close out the Peace Accords).

He recognized the nature of the transformation of several actors in El Salvador - the FMLN became a political party and the army left behind its political role and became an army subject to civilian rule. He said that the social force that has been least transformed is ARENA, which continues to be an authoritarian party and an authoritarian ruler. He challenged ARENA to examine their own statutes which are authoritarian and based on “democratic centralism” rather than participatory democracy, as the FMLN´s internal structure now is.

He reminded the group that the most important document in the country is the Constitution, and that several Accords are simply repetitions of Constitutional mandates. For example, the land reform pertaining to lands held in excess of 245 hectares is in the Constitution, which was voted for by ARENA and the PCN. He noted that the Constitution calls on the Salvadoran economy to be one of production and distribution, but since 1989 the neo-liberal economic model imposed by ARENA has based the country´s economy on speculation.

Dada noted that while the war ended without winners and losers, the economic model chosen by ARENA has clear winners and losers - the poor lose, and even within the powerful economic sectors there are those who win more than others. He reminded the group that even the architect of neo-liberal economics, Milton Friedman, warned against confusing economic power with political power as it could lead to tyranny. Dada warned that ARENA´s utilization of their political power to further only the economic interests of the ARENA wealthy elite could well lead this country in that direction (tyranny). He noted that the internal crisis within ARENA was resolved by displacing the middle class “political class” within the party with the economic elite in positions of power.

With regards to the ability to participate in Salvadoran society, Dada noted that there is space for all social actors to make their voices heard. However, he questioned the optimism expressed by Santamaria and Escobar Galindo, reminding them that indeed it is possible to “go backwards.” Dada reminded them that Chile was democratized in the late 1960s only to fall victim to a US sponsored coup on September 11th, 1973, that returned that country to a military dictatorship. Given that ARENA was not even willing to allow the FMLN to assume the Presidency of the Legislative Assembly in 2000, despite their majority position within the Assembly, Dada questioned whether anyone can assert without doubt that ARENA would allow for an FMLN government to assume power.

Dada concluded by expressing concerns for the future of the country. He agreed with Escobar Galindo that there is no turning back, but he asked, “just where is it that we are going to?” He remarked that while the Truth Commission called its report “From Insanity to Hope,” it seems to be a “lack of hope” that rules society today. He mentioned the overwhelming number of Salvadorans who day by day leave the country, and reflected that the crisis is clearly hitting the middle class. (He referred to the recent case of nearly 700 Salvadorans who went to Sweden with the hopes that they could get asylum. All of them were middle class professionals). The government constantly tells us that family remittances are holding up the Salvadoran economy, and makes it sound as though this is precisely the right course of their political and economic policy. “But,” asked Dada, “What kind of economic policy is based on the exodus of the population, rather than creating a country in which the Salvadoran people will want to stay and build their future.”

Finally he challenged all elements of Salvadoran society from politicians to academics, to workers and professionals, to seriously put themselves to the task of redefining and rebuilding a just El Salvador in which the majority feels welcome.