From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Subject: El Salvador: Proceso 523
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:46:39 GMT

/** reg.elsalvador: 87.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 523: Peace Process **
** Written  7:58 pm  Jul 19, 1992 by cidai@huracan.cr in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: cidai@huracan.cr (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 523: Peace Process

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador
 
PROCESO 523
July 15, 1992
 
PEACE PROCESS:
A time for human rights
 
     Now that the problems relating to the separation of military
forces, the dissolution of the former security corps, and the
beginning of demobilization of the insurgent forces have been
overcome, the main focus of the peace process is now on two
important commissions created to find out the truth about the
black years of systematic State repression, and make that truth
available to the national conscience. These are the Ad Hoc
Commission and the Truth Commission which, each from its own
perspective, have been assigned the mission of clarifying who was
responsible for the massive and cruel acts of abuse of authority
and human rights violations. The Ad Hoc Commission will strictly
evaluate the record of each member of the Salvadoran officer
corps, while the Truth Commission will investigate the principal
acts of violence and repression which so profoundly disturbed
Salvadoran society over the course of 12 years of war.
     Both commissions, therefore, will inexorably place the Armed
Forces in the defendant's seat. However, discounting the
pressures they will have to resist, the effectiveness of their
work will depend upon the quality and proven veracity of the
sources of information used to shape their diagnosis and
evaluation of the record of human rights violations committed in
El Salvador.
     On July 11, the members of the Ad Hoc Commission returned
from the United States after spending 12 days exchanging
impressions and viewpoints with a number of government and
private agencies within U.S. power circles. According to
Commission members, the U.S. government, represented by Assistant
Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Bernard Aronson,
offered them "all necessary information" to carry out their job
of purging [depurar] the Armed Forces. A number of U.S.
organizations which monitor democracy and respect for human
rights also promised their unconditional aid to this end. In sum,
the Commission members termed their trip "quite fruitful,"
although they declined to offer any more information to the press
given the confidential nature of their work at the present stage.
     A recent New York Times editorial, however, was less
sanguine in its evaluation of the foreseeable achievements of the
Ad Hoc Commission. Specifically, the newspaper criticized the
Washington bureaucracy for being slow to provide information or
evidence on abuses of authority and serious human rights
violations committed by Salvadoran army officers. According to
the prestigious and influential daily, the Ad Hoc Commission
members "found that the bureaucratic wheels have turned slowly."
In fact, the Times took a strong stand in favor of "weeding out"
the Salvadoran army, an effort which "deserves the full support
of the U.S. government... A full response, drawing on files of
other agencies, would honor the cause of justice, and would
strengthen civilian scrutiny of a rough Latin American army whose
officers have had extensive U.S. training." The newspaper
stressed that a "new era" will have begun in El Salvador if the
Ad Hoc Commission manages to identify those responsible for human
rights violations, and if President Cristiani "removes them as
officers." The editorial concludes with the assertion that
"fuller cooperation on the part of Washington can hasten that
salubrious day."
     While the Ad Hoc Commission continued struggling with its
own difficulties, the Truth Commission also began to tackle its
mission. This commission was officially sworn in on July 13 in
New York. The following day, it traveled to El Salvador to begin
working immediately. The Commission is headed up by former
Colombian president Belisario Betancur, former Venezuelan foreign
minister Reinaldo Figueredo, and Professor Thomas Buergenthal,
former president of the Inter-American Human Rights Court and
currently honorary president of the Inter-American Human Rights
Institute.
     Upon his arrival in El Salvador, the head of the mission
declared: "we have no specifically delimited cases, because our
mandate does not establish specific cases, but rather a
constellation with a single background, which is that our report
must be part of national reconciliation, part of peace among
Salvadorans." The former Colombian president stated
categorically: "if X, Y or Z expects to pressure us, basically
those pressures will fall into the void, because we are not open
to pressure, and I would even say that neither are we
impressionable."
     It is worth noting that the arrival of the Truth Commission
came at a time of not only increased trade union protests, but
also during a heightened propagandistic campaign on the part of
the government. Both the government and the Armed Forces are once
again vigorously immersed in a tendentious and biased campaign
against the FMLN, accusing it of failing to comply with its
commitments made under the peace accords. On July 8, the
government and the Armed Forces expressed "total dissatisfaction"
with the arms turned over by the first demobilized contingents of
FMLN ex-combatants. Both President Cristiani and Defense Minister
Rene Emilio Ponce felt that the weapons handed over to ONUSAL
were not those used over the last years of the war. Gen. Mauricio
Vargas, second in command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, claimed
that the FMLN's arms inventory turned over to ONUSAL is
fraudulent. The charges have been vigorously denied by FMLN
leaders. On July 9, Salvador Samayoa denied that the weapons
turned over by the first demobilized ex-combatants were useless.
"If [government officials] think that weapons don't deteriorate,
I can tell them that the weapons were new in the 1989 offensive,
but now it's 1992," he said.
     There is no doubt that the peace process has made historical
gains, and that its consolidation and further progress still
promise profound structural reforms in Salvadoran society, in the
context of efforts made toward national reconciliation. But these
scheduled reforms will obviously not take place without
overcoming the inevitable resistance of powerful sectors who feel
threatened by them. And we all know that these sectors are best
found in the heart of the Armed Forces and big business circles.
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **

/** reg.elsalvador: 88.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 523: Labor **
** Written  7:58 pm  Jul 19, 1992 by cidai@huracan.cr in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: cidai@huracan.cr (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 523: Labor

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador
 
PROCESO 523
July 15, 1992
 
LABOR:
Public sector strikes
 
     On July 13 and 14, the Intergremial labor coalition carried
out a "general work stoppage." The event took place peacefully
and without incident, despite government and Intergremial
predictions.
     The days preceding the strike were marked by a general
climate of nervous tension. On July 8, President Cristiani
announced that the government would respond firmly to the strike
call, docking the pay of those who refused to work on those days
and imposing any of the sanctions contained in the applicable
laws. He warned against takeovers of streets or buildings,
claiming that the strike was purely political in nature, and
constituted nothing more than a "destabilizing strategy." The
same day, the president also announced that the government was
working on a plan for an overall wage hike using the savings
available in each Ministry's budget, as well as a way to
institutionalize year-end bonuses; therefore, he said, there was
no reason for the Intergremial to demand a blanket raise of 500
colones ($60) per month.
     The new Communications Secretary, Ernesto Altschul, held a
press conference on July 10 to announce that the FMLN was behind
the Intergremial's organizing work, and that the former rebels
were planning to provoke clashes with the riot police. He also
claimed that the strikers were preparing to block all access
routes to and from San Salvador, and even to block aerial
traffic. Later, in a press release, the Communications
Secretariat (SENCO) offered employees who wanted to work that day
"all necessary guarantees for their safety," probably referring
to the ostentatious display of police force around all public
buildings during the two days of the strike. The communique also
urged the Intergremial to refrain from using confrontation
tactics, and to abandon its strategy to polarize society.
     On July 10, the Ministry of Education declared that it would
not tolerate one more teachers' strike, and that the strike days
would be docked from teachers' pay. A number of ARENA legislative
deputies demanded that the measure be made effective. The
Minister of the Presidency, Oscar Santamaria, visited COPAZ to
complain that the work stoppage violated promises made by the
FMLN, implying that the former rebels were behind the measure.
COPAZ, in response, published a communique on July 12 stating
that, in meetings between the government and the Intergremial,
the latter had promised to avoid incidents.
     When July 13 finally arrived, many of the dire predictions
surrounding the work stoppage failed to come true. The only
actions which fulfilled government predictions were the public
employees' work stoppage itself, and a brief period during which
striking workers occupied part of a major thoroughfare.
     The Intergremial's expectations were also not entirely
fulfilled. Some leaders claimed that the military would try to
provoke strikers in order to repress them with riot police,
warning them to refrain from doing so since the workers had the
strength to respond in kind (statements made by the CTD and
FENASTRAS on July 13); nothing of the sort occurred. On the other
hand, the strike was not as successful as expected either. In the
first place, the private sector failed to join the work stoppage
even though a wage demand covering that sector was included in
the strike platform. In fact, the cement workers who had been on
strike for over a week went back to work on the 10th, apparently
without any of their demands met, according to a communique by
one of the two cement companies.
     In the second place, public sector participation in the work
stoppage was not universal. The strike involved government
ministries as well as some semi-autonomous agencies such as the
postal service, the public employees' pension fund and the
telephone company; employees at the Hospital Rosales also
participated. According to the Intergremial, some 85% of public
employees participated in all (and this figure could be
inflated), which indicates less than the hoped-for total success.
     The government, for its part, claimed that 99% of public
employees showed up at work on the 13th; insufficient information
is available to report on the 14th, the second day of the work
stoppage. But an unusual aspect is that the press awarded top
coverage to the work stoppage on the 13th, while almost nothing
was said about it on the 14th.
     In the third place, ANEP still shows no sign of joining the
Forum for Economic and Social Consensus-Building. This is
unfortunate given that one of the chief objectives of the work
stoppage was to pressure the private sector to join the Forum.
The private sector was not hit by the work stoppage, and the only
reaction by ANEP so far has been a press release published on
July 10, before the action took place. In the statement, ANEP
claimed the work stoppage would only serve to "maintain the
climate of agitation, disorder and insecurity," and that the
private sector was willing to join consensus-building efforts but
only within the framework of the law. ANEP also claimed that the
strike would only manage to distance the two sides from points of
agreement.
     Finally, the government also appears little convinced of the
need to make the Forum work. On the contrary, it continues to
discuss measures such as salary increases and the value-added tax
outside the framework of consensus-building. It insists on
docking pay for the two strike days, and refuses to acknowledge
that the measure was at all effective. In addition, the
government continues to accuse the FMLN of involvement in worker
protests, and has done nothing to help the Forum get underway for
once and for all.
     On July 14, the president of the Legislative Assembly,
Roberto Angulo, called the work stoppage a "failure" and an
inappropriate way to get ANEP to join the Forum. No one, he said,
can force the private sector to join the Forum, not even the
government.
     The direction to be taken by the Forum for Economic and
Social Consensus-Building is still unknown. However, the
government and the private sector would be doing a service to the
majority of Salvadorans, and to themselves, if they acknowledged
the importance of decisions reached by consensus with workers.
Just as they negotiated with the FMLN, they can negotiate with
the popular organizations. And on the other hand, the leadership
of the popular organizations should remember that the FMLN was
forced to change its strategies and tactics, its proposals and
language, in order to get the government to sit down at the
negotiating table. The FMLN showed great ability and creativity
in that effort, and this gave rise to the new postwar period in
Salvadoran history. It is time for the popular organizations to
reformulate their role for this new period.
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **

/** reg.elsalvador: 89.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 523: Central America **
** Written  7:58 pm  Jul 19, 1992 by cidai@huracan.cr in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: cidai@huracan.cr (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 523: Central America

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador
 
PROCESO 523
July 15, 1992
 
CENTRAL AMERICA
Private enterprise and economic integration
 
     The Central American private sector is today one of the
driving forces in the process of economic integration, a fact
which became manifest during the Second Central American Congress
of Free Enterprise held in San Salvador on July 2 and 3.
     The event, organized by the Federation of Private Entities
of Central America and Panama (FEDEPRICAP) and the National
Association of Private Enterprise of El Salvador (ANEP), can be
considered as one of the most important regional private sector
meetings this year. Over 600 representatives of the business
community were present, including delegates from Mexico. Special
guests included Enrique Iglesias, president of the Inter-American
Development Bank (BID) and Gert Rosenthal, General Secretary of
the Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean
(CEPAL).
     The objective of the Congress was to share viewpoints on
Central American integration and the role of the private sector
in this new phase of changes in the international economic order.
The central theme of the discussions was "Globalization: A
challenge for Central America."
     World tendencies toward economic globalization are of the
highest importance for the private sector. One of the fundamental
reasons for this is that the concept is linked to new types of
relationships among nations and business, arising from growing
transnationalization based largely upon the rapid growth of
information technology. This has created a highly competitive
world in which economic relations among countries based on border
regulations are rapidly losing relevance. Therefore, national
macroeconomic policies, quality controls and norms, and business
efficiency could have a greater effect on the structure and
volume of international trade than the establishment of trade
barriers or the lifting of those barriers on imports.
     Furthermore, Central America has begun a process in which
the influence of globalization has begun to be felt. Since the
beginning of the decade, much has been said about promoting
regional integration as a defense against changes in the
international economy. On the other hand, the Central American
Parliament has already been established, waiting only for the
addition of Costa Rica and Nicaragua to the free trade treaty
signed among El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. A number of
sectors agree that development will require the creation of a
Central American Economic Community. The challenge, then, is to
meet the responsibilities inherent in the phenomenon of
globalization, and this is largely up to the business community.
This means speeding up the process of modernizing industry, which
must be made compatible with the defense of natural resources and
the environment.
     In this context, the Central American business sector
represented by FEDEPRICAP, in its "Declaration of San Salvador,"
expressed that, from the viewpoint of achieving regional
development, globalization establishes at least five challenges:
insertion into the international economy, competitiveness,
equity, political and institutional stability, and the financial
challenge. The statement also mentioned the importance of
increasing coordination among national economic policies and the
concerns of the private sector, by strengthening mechanisms of
joint national and regional decision-making between government
and business, and stressed that the State must help maintain a
climate favorable to investment, as well as continue to strive
toward harmonizing policies among the region's countries in order
to standardize the process of integration. BID president Enrique
Iglesias declared that his bank would take business opinions more
into account, and even speculated about the possibility of
including the private sector in consultive groups which decide
who will get BID loans.
     The process of Central American integration within the
neoliberal framework cannot be understood without considering a
leading role for Central American business. It remains to be seen
whether this role will generate real benefits for the broad
majority of the region's population, or whether it will only
produce macroeconomic indicators which look good on paper.
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **

/** reg.elsalvador: 90.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 523: Editorial **
** Written  7:58 pm  Jul 19, 1992 by cidai@huracan.cr in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: cidai@huracan.cr (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 523: Editorial

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador
 
PROCESO 523
July 15, 1992
 
EDITORIAL:
In search of the truth
 
     The challenge facing the Truth Commission [Comision de la
Verdad] is to resolve "those acts of violence of singular
transcendence, whose characteristics and repercussions, as well
as the social anguish they produced, most urgently demand the
full discovery of the truth." According to the Commission's
mandate, "acts of violence" are to be understood as human rights
violations committed by the State, and violations of
international humanitarian law committed both by the State and
the FMLN, since 1980.
     Consequently, the Truth Commission must clarify those
incidents in which the responsibility of the State is involved
due to acts committed by its agents or persons at its service.
Also to be clarified are violations of the third article common
to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and of its Second Protocol
of 1977, relating to serious violations of the norms of
international humanitarian law, which may have been committed by
either side. However, government officials seem to think that the
"acts of violence" to be clarified by the Commission include only
the assassinations of prominent right-wing politicians and
intellectuals.
     What has caused the most anguish to society are the tens of
thousands of summary executions. Due to the magnitude, impact and
incredible scope of this act, the Commission must clear up this
systematic and generalized practice of the State of the past
decade. This is the correct perspective for confronting the past
truthfully.
     The tragic reality of what has occurred provides the
criteria for orienting the Commission's activity with regard to
the four most serious violations which can be attributed to the
State by action or omission: a) deliberate and arbitrary
homicide, where indications of State responsibility exist,
whether through the actions, tolerance or acquiescence of its
agents, or due to inaction on the part of state agencies charged
with preventing and investigating the charges, including
massacres allegedly committed during massive military operations;
b) the whereabouts of persons who have been victims of forced
disappearance following their capture by agents of the State or
by individuals linked with the State; c) torture of the detained,
especially when proof or evidence exists which uphold the
charges, or when the detainee died in police or military custody;
and d) judicial proceedings against all detainees condemned for
politically related crimes.
     In order to clarify all these truths, the Commission must
draw up the broadest possible chart of these violations,
determining the different periods in which they were committed,
including their systematic nature, as well as related antecedents
and circumstances. Only in this way can patterns of conduct be
established, patterns which will undoubtedly point to the
identity of those responsible.
     The creation of the Truth Commission represents tacit
recognition of the existence of tens of thousands of victims who
are awaiting justice. The immense majority of their cases were
never investigated; this only shored up the impunity which, in
turn, served to uphold further systematic violations of human
rights. This means that the State has not guaranteed either the
life nor the dignity of these victims. Instead, the State has
permitted impunity and corruption to pervade its institutions.
     More specifically, the Truth Commission was made necessary
by the passive and ineffectual behavior of the judicial branch,
which has also done nothing to see that justice is done in the
cases of the victims -to such an extreme that massacres like the
one committed at El Mozote were officially ignored. The latest
ONUSAL report on human rights analyzes the serious weaknesses
which characterize the judicial branch.
     All the victims and their families have the right to
register their cases and to see that the full truth becomes
known. The Commission, for its part, must report on the factors
which contributed to the persistence of human rights violations,
establishing levels of responsibility all along the chain of
command in each case, and examining the institutional structures
which made these abuses possible. The results of the Commission's
work should be taken up by the courts. All the victims, as well
as their families, must receive the due compensation and
reparations prescribed by international norms.
     National reconciliation must be founded upon full knowledge
of the truth. The first step toward solid reconciliation consists
of recording and knowing what occurred throughout the 1980's.
Forgetting does nothing to resolve the past, rather it painfully
postpones a solution. The past must be illuminated, and the
official lies, which the current government is straining to
uphold and nourish, must be officially and publicly disavowed by
the Truth Commission. Once the past is known, it will be possible
to forgive and try to forget.
     The Salvadoran people have the right to know everything that
happened. The truth is not the truth if it is boiled down to a
few incidents, selected through political rather than ethical
criteria. If the Truth Commission's activities are limited to a
list, as the government would like, only partial truth will
emerge, and the most serious acts of violence will remain buried
beneath an official lie. The only possible way to end impunity is
to record everything that happened, acknowledge it officially,
and make it public.
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **

/** reg.elsalvador: 91.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 523: Human Rights **
** Written  7:58 pm  Jul 19, 1992 by cidai@huracan.cr in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: cidai@huracan.cr (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 523: Human Rights

PROCESO 523
July 15, 1992
 
HUMAN RIGHTS:
The necessary truth in El Salvador
 
     There has always been much to be said about human rights in
El Salvador, ever since spiraling abuses grabbed national and
international headlines starting in the mid-1970s. Today, we will
comment on three aspects of the human rights situation which
arose during the peace negotiations: the work of the Ad Hoc
Commission, the latest controversies surrounding ONUSAL, and the
establishment of the Truth Commission.
 
The Ad Hoc Commission
 
     The Ad Hoc Commission, whose job it is to evaluate the
Salvadoran officer corps, recently traveled to the United States
to investigate the role of active-duty officers in unlawful
activities, especially with regard to human rights. They also
needed to collect information about the officers' professionalism
and ability to function within the country's new framework of
peace, a process still being consolidated. During the week of
June 6-10, Reynaldo Galindo Pohl, Abraham Rodriguez and Eduardo
Molina Olivares worked to this end with the State Department,
Congress and the Central Intelligence Agency, among others.
     It is worth reprinting here the remarks made by the second-
in-command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mauricio Ernesto
Vargas, who claimed, "now is the time for the truth to shine
through... Lies cannot overshadow the truth. During twelve years,
black was called white and white, black; good was called evil and
evil, good" (El Mundo, 7/14/92). To be quite truthful, we must
consider that the Ad Hoc Commission's urgent need to call on
foreign agencies, as a step toward fulfilling its mandate by
collecting enough reliable information necessary to pass
objective judgment on active-duty military officers, was not a
casual whim or an irresistible desire to visit foreign lands. It
is obvious that the Commission's members have run up against
serious and countless limitations, similar to those confronted by
victims of human rights violations and their families in trying
to establish individual responsibility for the crimes they
suffered.
     The methods utilized to commit crimes against human dignity
over the past twelve (and more) years in El Salvador also
included measures to prevent the accumulation of evidence against
the immediate perpetrators and higher-ups. Let us be clear: the
criminals always left visible signs of criminal intent; they
always meant to show how cruelly they hoped to treat their
victims. But, in the majority of cases, care was taken to leave
no traces which could reveal the identity of the criminal. For
this reason, the many testimonies found in the files of human
rights organizations, inside and outside El Salvador, as well as
the documentation collected by specialized organs of the United
Nations and the Inter-American system, include mention of
"heavily armed unidentified men in civilian clothing." These are
the ones who kidnapped, tortured and assassinated the leaders of
the Democratic Revolutionary Front in November, 1980. These are
also the ones who, eleven years later, might have been
responsible for the murder of the six Jesuit priests and their
two co-workers, except that international pressure forced the
Armed Forces to tell at least part of the truth.
     So General Vargas is right. During all there years, efforts
have been made to turn much of the black into white and vice-
versa. The non-combatant civilian population living in conflict
zones during the war was considered "subversive" and was treated
as such, with no regard for the norms of international
humanitarian law. Let us recall the statement made by Col. Jorge
Alberto Cruz Reyes, former officer in charge of the barracks at
San Francisco Gotera, Morazan, when he tried to justify the
attacks on civilians by claiming that "those who do not want to
cooperate [with the insurgents] leave the area, while those who
stay are collaborators." There is also Col. Sigifredo Ochoa
Perez, who once declared he could "massively bomb the red zones
because only subversives live there" (ECA 510, April 1991).
Monsenor Romero was also accused of being an "agitator", a
"Communist", and for that he was assassinated. Ignacio Ellacuria,
Segundo Montes and Ignacio Martin-Baro were constantly inundated
with unfounded and slanderous charges during the years before
they were martyred. And so, tens of thousands of Salvadorans were
killed, disappeared or forced to seek refuge in other lands,
after having been labeled "enemies of the fatherland."
 
The ONUSAL controversy
 
     In the search for the truth, which is the most solid
foundation for peace and national reconciliation, all possible
inquiries must be made to establish the truth or falsehood of the
statements made by Dr. Reinhard Jung-Hecker, a member of the
ONUSAL Human Rights Division until June 30 of this year. The
German doctor wrote a letter to the U.N. Secretary General in
which he expressed his "concern" about the role of the Mission
chief who, according to Jung-Hecker, has imposed "internal limits
and even self-censorship on the work of the Human Rights Division
in a country which so dearly needs a force capable of ending the
culture of impunity."
     A number of reactions ensued. President Alfredo Cristiani,
without having read the letter, declared that "the work of ONUSAL
in El Salvador shows no favoritism toward any sector in
particular" (El Mundo, 7/10/92). Mario Aguinada, head of the
Democratic Nationalist Union (UDN), stated that "the letter is
certainly cause for concern... If things are as they are painted,
many sectors will demand a more authentic role for ONUSAL"
(Diario Latino, 7/10/92). Mario Valiente, legislative deputy for
the ruling party ARENA, had a much less measured response than
the president, claiming that if anyone was favored by ONUSAL, it
was the FMLN. Jorge Villacorta, a deputy for the Democratic
Convergence, remarked that the letter constituted "a serious
denunciation which should not be overlooked" (Diario Latino,
7/10/92). Christian Democratic legislative deputy Gerardo
LeChevalier came out in defense of the work of the Mission and
its chief, Dr. Iqbal Riza. General Vargas, who was mentioned in
the letter, told a television news program that the statements
were "visceral." ONUSAL's laconic Communique No. 79 considered
the letter "an expression of [Jung-Hecker's] personal opinions,
which do not require comment."
     There must be a serious investigation to clear up the
incidents listed in the controversial letter. It is inconceivable
that the official response was to dismiss it as the product of
personal opinions and, therefore, subjective. The latest reports
of the ONUSAL Human Rights Division have made clear reference to
acts against individual rights and safety, committed with the
support of impunity which remains present in our society, and
which were not followed by effective actions to investigate the
crimes and impose just punishment on those responsible. The cases
mentioned by the former ONUSAL official could become an
unparalleled opportunity to reaffirm the Mission's transparency;
if all its faculties were made use of, this could turn into one
of the factors which help rebuild citizens' confidence in their
institutions.
 
The Truth Commission
 
     And in the middle of these polemics, another of the
organisms key to the current process made its appearance on the
stage: the Truth Commission. On July 14, one day after its
official swearing-in ceremony in New York, the Commission's
members -Belisario Betancour, Thomas Buergenthal and Reinaldo
Figueredo- arrived in El Salvador. From that very moment, they
began initiating contacts with all different social sectors in
order to fulfill their very important task, a task which merits
some reflection.
     Today we have the unique opportunity to salve wounds by
applying the truth. This cannot be done without looking back at
the past. We must look backward in order to discover the designs
of an institutional plan aimed at mercilessly exterminating broad
sectors of the population considered "enemies" because they were
part of the political opposition. We need to identify the
systematic practices employed to that end. We need to locate the
persons and institutions who made violence the only type of
relationship allowed between State and society, riding roughshod
over all civil and political rights. We also need to clarify the
truth in those cases of human rights violations committed on the
insurgent side.
     In the words of Jon Sobrino, "we live in a world with an
enormous deficit of truth and an enormously inflated degree of
untruth. The truth is a good thing, and seeking and affirming the
truth humanizes us; a lie is a bad thing, and building and
propagating lies dehumanizes us." In the current stage, we must
aim our sights toward one single goal: fighting the lie. In this
country, lies have been propagated with impunity, within a
dehumanized and dehumanizing context, in order to conceal a truth
known by all. Sobrino goes on to say: "Here in El Salvador, the
modern process of evil, which has determined the life and death
of the majority, began a century ago to rob the campesinos of
communal lands. In and of itself, that was already the beginning
of the violation of the Fifth Commandment, since it drove many
campesinos to the slow death of poverty and to rapid death as
well, as a product of repression and the war of the last several
years. And all that has been disguised by the ideological and
informational apparatus of the oligarchy, the Armed Forces, and
the governments of both El Salvador and United States..."
     The Truth Commission, whose job as laid out in the peace
accords is to investigate "serious acts of violence committed
since 1980," can contribute to revealing a truth which has been
suppressed by injustice in our country, in order to triumph over
a lie whose dimensions correspond to the magnitude of the
violation of human dignity perpetrated during these years. In the
future, then, white will no longer become black, nor will good be
confused with evil.
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **

/** reg.elsalvador: 92.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 523: Economy **
** Written  7:58 pm  Jul 19, 1992 by cidai@huracan.cr in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: cidai@huracan.cr (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 523: Economy

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador
 
PROCESO 523
July 15, 1992
 
ECONOMY:
The president amends the Consumer Protection Bill
 
     The amendments proposed by President Cristiani to the
Consumer Protection Bill constitute a response to requests made
by organized business sectors to modify the law that was recently
passed by the Legislative Assembly. It appears that the
government's relationship with big business continues to be a
strong one. However, it is not strong enough to get the private
sector to join the Forum for Economic and Social Consensus-
Building.
     Ever since the Assembly passed the Consumer Protection Bill,
there has been sharp public debate about the need to amend it.
The chief proponent of the debate has been the private sector,
which sees in the bill a threat to convert the Ministry of the
Economy into an intervening force in the economy.
     Before the bill was passed, business sectors such as the
Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCIES) and the National
Publicity Council questioned some of its articles which they felt
curtailed freedom of expression, free business activities, and
free market forces.
     Nevertheless, the Assembly unanimously passed the bill on
June 18 without taking the observations into account. From that
moment on, a campaign took shape to amend the bill, spearheaded
by the nation's largest business association, ANEP. The lobbying
efforts had much to do with the president's proposed amendments,
which would weaken the effect of the bill.
 
Private sector criticisms
 
     In the context of the protests unleashed by business sectors
following the passing of the Consumer Protection Bill, the
Chamber of Commerce published a seven-point list of criticisms,
expressing most notably its concern for the broader mandate of
the Ministry of the Economy, the obligation of importers and
producers alike to print prices on products, and the definition
of 'monopoly' set forth in the bill. Instead of a government
Consumer Protection Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce feels it
would be more appropriate to create an ad hoc watchdog commission
made up by government and private sector representatives, to
ensure compliance with the bill.
     ANEP published a list of criticisms which, like the Chamber,
also questioned excessive State involvement in the economy.
Aspects of the bill which ANEP opposes include: price setting,
regulation of imports and exports, control over interest paid in
purchase-sale arrangements, the obligation of importers and
producers alike to print prices on products, auditing of
independent professionals, and excessive sanctions for
infractions.
     The National Publicity Council opposes the Consumer
Protection Bill because, in its view, the law would set
unnecessary limits on the publicity created by its members, who
regulate themselves internally through their own code of ethics.
Both ANEP and the Chamber of Commerce expressed support for the
NPC's position.
 
The official position
 
     In response to these criticisms, the Ministry of the Economy
published a communique reiterating its decision to press for
ratification of the Consumer Protection Bill. The Ministry
admitted that, although the bill to protect consumers needed some
reforms, enacting it was a necessity. Soon afterwards, President
Cristiani released a list of proposed amendments to the bill,
which entail changes which weaken the impact of the law on
business activities, and which closely follow the observations
made by ANEP and the Chamber of Commerce.
     On July 2, the Ministry of the Economy published another
communique in response to the private sector criticisms,
expressing that State intervention in the marketplace is
justified in such cases in which "...market forces alone are
incapable of achieving certain economic and social goals."
     This posture is in marked contrast to that of ANEP, for
example, which "...questions any type of government
administrative intervention in the free play of market forces."
However, the president's observations show that the government is
willing to cede some ground, at least in terms of the proposed
scope of the Consumer Protection Bill.
     The president's proposed amendments include precise limits
on the cases in which the Ministry of the Economy may set prices
and regulate imports and exports; he also proposes changes in the
definition of what constitutes a monopoly, and proposes the
elimination of the obligation to print import, distribution and
production prices on merchandise. He also suggested that no
changes be made in the way interest is normally calculated on
credit transactions, and that the bill exclude professional
services. He also suggested reducing the sanctions imposed by the
bill in cases of abuse. There is no doubt that the amendments to
the Consumer Protection Bill proposed by President Cristiani are
chiefly inspired by the requests made by the private sector.
 
Conclusion
 
     Economic development with social stability requires
consensus-building around economic policy measures. ANEP's
position regarding the Forum shows its unwillingness to promote
national consensus-building, since it is clearly attempting to
discuss economic policies through unofficial channels, a tactic
which appears to have borne fruit.
     Private sector participation in the Forum for Economic and
Social Consensus-Building will be further compromised if the
government insists on unconditionally satisfying private sector
demands. Worker participation in national decision-making is a
prerequisite for social stability, which is currently deeply
affected by trade union mobilizing.
     Discussion of economic and social policies should take place
within the Forum. However, ANEP continues to refuse to
participate, even though these policies must be arrived at
through consensus not only with the government but also with
workers.
     Executive branch intervention in discussions around the
Consumer Protection Bill has been characterized by attempts to
mute the conflicts sparked by its wording. Although the State has
not entirely abandoned the marketplace, the ratification of the
Consumer Protection Bill would imply that the market is not
always the best way to distribute resources, and so the
president's amendments would seriously limit the effectiveness of
the bill.
     The possibility of perfect competition is just as utopian as
the concept of ideal socialism. Therefore, the nation's economic
programs must involve a great deal of consensus-building which
orient economic policies not only toward the free play of market
forces, but also toward attention to the needs of the majority.
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive