From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: Proceso 533: Peace Process
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:12:53 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: PACH
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

/** reg.elsalvador: 129.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 533: Peace Process **
** Written 11:46 am  Oct 15, 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 533: Peace Process

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador
 
PROCESO 533
October 7, 1992
 
PEACE PROCESS:
The roles of Goulding and Aronson
 
     The peace process is going through its most decisive stage, in
which we can begin to see the true depth and scope of compliance
with the accords to date -especially those related to the creation
of effective structures of authentic democratic coexistence. As we
approach October 31, the government and the FMLN are locking horns
around the need to extend the deadline set for ending the cease-
fire period. On this point, the government stubbornly insists that
the date must be left unchanged; the FMLN demands full government
compliance with all unfulfilled accords before proceeding to full
demobilization.
     This critical stage has sparked intervention on the part of
international agents in charge of supervising progress and
consolidation of the peace process. Top U.N. and U.S. officials
have mediated between the two sides to find solutions to the most
severely bogged-down points. To date, however, the results of their
respective interventions have yet to materialize.
 
The sticking points
 
     September 30 did not see the third demobilization of rebel
combatants, as stipulated in the second rescheduling of the peace
calendar. This made it clear how absolutely critical was the state
of the peace process. The rebels' refusal to demobilize any further
clashed openly with the government's pretension of concluding the
principal phase of the peace process on October 31.
     According to the FMLN, although the peace process has made
important gains, there are still 64 commitments scheduled for
execution before October 31 which the government has not fulfilled.
Some of them include measures to ensure the purging of the Armed
Forces, substantive reforms to the Electoral Law, and everything
related to solving the complex agrarian problem. This last point,
above all, has occupied the attention of the two sides and that of
the current mediators.
     The FMLN's position has been to demand compliance with all the
accords, which would require a prudent extension of the October 31
cease-fire deadline. According to rebel leader Joaquin Villalobos,
"the October 31 date is not realistic, and would have serious
consequences because the schedule turned out to be inadequate;
today it is definitely out of synch." With regard to the land
issue, Villalobos asserted, "not a single plot of land has been
transferred, nor have any agreements been reached about the
conditions governing land transfers; the government has not
verified the FMLN's inventory;... all this cannot be accomplished
in 30 days." Therefore, according to Villalobos, "no one will
disarm the peasants if they do not receive any land, no one will
agree to give ARENA an advantage in the polls and the media for the
1994 elections."
 
The visits of Goulding and Aronson
 
     The impasse in the peace process and the proximity of the
October 31 deadline sparked a virtual wave of visits by important
international officials interested in evaluating the state of the
peace process. The most outstanding visits came from the U.N.
Secretary General Adjunct for Peacekeeping Operations, Marrack
Goulding (for the third time) and, for the U.S. government, the
Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, Bernard
Aronson. Goulding stayed for five days (9/28-10/2), while Aronson
stayed for four (9/30-10/3). Each held a number of intense working
meetings with representatives of the government, the FMLN, COPAZ,
social forces and other national figures involved in the peace
process. However, the two came with different points of view and
different purposes.
     Marrack Goulding came with the mission of resolving the
intricate agrarian problem. He was accompanied by expert advisers
from the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the World
Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. This time, however,
despite making enormous and well-directed efforts, Goulding was
unable to find the right combination of solutions to resolve the
current problem. "It is a complicated problem from a technical
standpoint," he said upon leaving the country, adding, "the United
Nations will shortly present a proposal to both the government and
the FMLN, which will include and contemplate a just and reasonable
solution to this problem."
     On the other hand, the fundamental mission of Bernard Aronson
was to shore up the Cristiani government vis-a-vis the Armed
Forces, given the imminent need to carry out a purge of the
military; and vis-a-vis the FMLN, given the government's inflexible
posture around the agrarian conflict. In the first case, the
support was furnished in a confidential and diplomatic fashion,
while in the second case, Aronson pressured openly for FMLN
demobilization. "It is absolutely essential that the FMLN continue
to demonstrate good faith, and continue to build confidence by
demobilizing its forces and handing over its weapons," said
Aronson. The U.S. diplomat also said he hoped the FMLN would
"recognize that there is indeed a problem of funds with regard to
the purchase of lands, and will help find a reasonable and just
solution." All in all, Aronson has acknowledged the seriousness of
the agrarian problem and said his government has awarded the Land
Bank $25 million to purchase lands for transfer.
 
Outlook
 
     Despite the different -and sometimes diametrically opposed-
interests pursued by the two officials, if we are to evaluate the
objective state of the peace process, we must conclude that both
showed clear agreement around key aspects.
     In effect, both Goulding and Aronson coincide in considering
that compliance with the peace accords and building democracy in El
Salvador are going well. For Goulding, the process has followed a
"spectacular and dramatic" course, and for Aronson, the process is
"irreversible." Secondly, the two officials feel there are
significant efforts in the international community to get the two
sides to comply with their respective commitments by October 31,
and enough support to maintain that date. In consequence, both do
not dismiss the objective need to carry out a third rescheduling of
the accords. According to Goulding, if maintaining October 31 as
the deadline for the cease-fire process is for any reason not
viable, "neither does it mean disaster." Aronson, for his part,
held that "if the calendar must be changed, that is a decision for
the United Nations, the Salvadoran government and the FMLN to
make."
 

** End of text from cdp:reg.elsalvador **
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive