The authoritarian threat

The Right-Wing Against the Procurator

Ever since she was elected, on July 6th, 2001 –thanks to 83 out of the 84 possible votes at the Legislative Assembly-, the Procurator for the Defense of the Human Rights, Beatrice Alamani de Carrillo, has not faced an easy task. A little while after her designation, she has had to confront all sorts of political problems that contradicted the massive parliamentary support that she received during her election. Why did the legislators, who originally supported her, suddenly changed their attitude? To respond to this question, and to others related to the accusations that Carrillo is facing at the moment, it is necessary to examine her performance.

From the support to the rupture
When Carrillo was elected, the Office for the Defense of the Human Rights (PDDH, in Spanish) had been involved in a critical situation. It had been almost a year and a half since the Congress had removed the former Procurator, Eduardo Peñate Polanco, from his position. Several influential organizations of the civil society had been pressuring the congressmen so that they could put an end to the mistake they had made by electing Peñate. They demanded the election of a new person to conduct the institution. The main task of the new public official would be to rescue the PDDH from discredit.

That pressure –from the non-governmental organizations, both local and international ones- is the most acceptable explanation for the massive support that Carrillo counted with for her election. The citizenry was tired of waiting for the new election. And, somehow, many right-wing congressmen were sure that the damage had such dimensions that the PDDH would not be able to regain the positive image that it had with Victoria de Aviles (the official that was there before Peñate was elected).

During that long transition, not only the PDDH had lost much of its national and its international prestige, but it had also been technically replaced by non-governmental organizations that defended the human rights in a successful way. These organizations denounced the violations of the human rights. They had promoted these rights, and they had also closely followed the different cases. The massive support that Carrillo counted with did not mean that the right-wing sector had left behind its need to control the institution. What it really meant was that, because of the circumstances, the election had to be made. The fact that Carrillo was supported by the PDC (the Party of the National Conciliation) –a traditional ally of ARENA- did help to elect her.

However, a while later, the right-wing sector had to understand the magnitude of their “mistake”. Carrillo demonstrated that she would take the independence of the institution seriously, and that she was actually willing to look after the rights of the Salvadorans, especially after those sectors that were not considered for the construction of the democratic process. In addition, the human rights’ organizations that had replaced the PDDH during the Peñate administration did collaborate with Carrillo by giving her the necessary space to operate.

That massive support led to a series of attacks against the performance of Carrillo, which came from the right-wing media. Soon, the media was joined by those who permanently criticized the role of the PDDH and its alleged partiality. They also questioned the qualification of Carrillo, and her knowledge about the national reality. From this moment, a rupture is conceived and Carrillo becomes the target of all kinds of insults.

December 16th was the last straw. The National Civilian Police (PNC, in Spanish), through the Anti-Narcotics Division, planned an operation to search for drugs at the cells of the penal facilities of La Esperanza. The search turned into a tragedy, the prisoners killed three policemen, and the reason why this happened is not clear yet. The Director of the PNC, Mauricio Sandoval, the Attorney General, ARENA, and the right-wing news media blamed the death of the policemen on Carrillo.

According to the accusers, Carrillo put an obstacle to rescue the policemen. Carrillo did not allow the Unity of Order to go inside the facilities of La Esperanza, and she promised to take care of the lives of both the policemen who were kept as hostages by the prisoners. According to an official press-release made by the PNC, the lives of the officers “could have been saved with medical assistance, but the official of the PDDH became an obstacle because she did not act in favor of the policemen during that critical moment; she became an obstacle to follow the necessary procedures”.

Using the former statement of the facts, the right-wing sectors that criticized the performance of Carrillo found enough reasons to intensify their discredit campaign. For the Attorney General, this is all about Carrillo’s need to have a “starring role” in this situation. For several right-wing news media, without making any kind of investigations, there is no doubt that the tragic death of the policemen was due to “the unspeakable show that Carrillo gave, a professional with enough training to act efficiently; however she was affected by her uncontrolled emotions”. They think that there are enough reasons to open a penal case, and the congressmen from ARENA are already speaking about the imminent destitution of Carrillo.

The actual problem with the PDDH
Even if the facts that the right-wing sector presents seems convincing, it does not say how the events took place or what is the actual reason why they are disappointed with Carrillo. In the first place, they have overlooked the fact that the forensic report established that there was no way that the policemen could have been saved. The lesions that they suffered caused their instant death, and they did not go through the long agony that the press speaks about. They did not mention either that before deciding if the intervention of Carrillo was adequate or not, it would be necessary to examine under what circumstances did the police officers get trapped inside La Esperanza. Her opponents do not talk about these subjects in order to intensify their disapproval with the performance of the PDDH.

The actual source of discontent of the right-wing sector about the performance of the PDDH is the fact that Carrillo has criticized the way that the elite is conducting the country. Carrillo confronted once a congressman who belonged to ARENA when they discussed the construction of a station to transfer the solid waste of the City Hall of San Salvador. After that, Carrillo said that she was against the layoffs at the Public Administration. In the same way, Carrillo has shown her disagreement with the reaction of ARENA about the strike at the Salvadoran Institute of Social Security (ISSS, in Spanish).

On the other hand, the right-wing sector does not like the idea of defending the Human Rights of those in prison. The press usually presents those who have fallen in the hands of justice, most of these people are charged with kidnapping or rape, as a plague of individuals who must stay away from the civilized society. They cannot understand why Carrillo would interfere to defend the rights of the prisoners and avoid a slaughter. All of these issues become the reasons to understand the violent attack against Carrillo.

The former considerations do not intend to cover up the fact that Carrillo might have committed certain mistakes. For example, Carrillo declared that it was not her duty to defend the rights of the policemen. That is a phrase that can be understood in the context of the police’s intervention in the penal facility, but it is definitively easy to take it out of context and use it in the wrong sense. It is not true that she does not care about the political parties as she declared it during an interview with a legislative commission, after the incidents of December 16th. The way the political parties work, the lack of vision of the political leaders, and their reduced democratic sense is a reality that cannot be denied when it comes to take the pulse of the country’s political life. Those who do not understand that fact, and those who do not take any precautions against the challenges that such reality represents become more vulnerable and unqualified.

That is how the right-wing parties took advantage of those declarations and used them against PDDH. They do not care if the forensic examinations and the fiscal investigations free Carrillo from any responsibility. ARENA keeps talking about the need to remove her and make a political trial. This is evidently related with their anger, and not necessarily connected with the events that took place on December 16th. Otherwise, if the actual concern was the death of the policemen, they would also question the performance of the PNC’s director or the police chief who had prepared the operation at La Esperanza.

In any case, it is also necessary to say that not even the alleged mistakes of Carrillo should lead to such attacks. Carrillo is a moral individual, and the leaders of the political parties, the state’s officials, and the citizenry in general should show more respect. The present discredit campaign that the right-wing sectors have prepared against the PDDH is nothing but a sign of their small compromise with the state of rights, and especially with the defense, the promotion, and the study of the human rights in the country.

The Free Trade Agreements with the USA begin: a formal discussion is necessary

The expected signing of a Free Trade Agreement between Central America and the United States (CAFTA) is getting to the point where its defenders wanted it. On January 8th, a series of long negotiations took place in the United States’ Capital, which are programmed to establish the subscription of the agreement for the next year.

The Ministers of Economy from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica will get together with the person responsible for the Foreign Commerce Affair, Robert Zoellic. According to the press, the negotiations will be made by six groups, which include issues such as the access to the markets, services and investments, solutions, cooperation, labor tasks, and the environment, just to mention a few examples.

The negotiations were accompanied by protests of certain organizations in El Salvador. That morning, the members of the unions and the civilian organizations blocked the most important roads of the Salvadoran capital. In addition, we witnessed a scene that we had not seen since the early years of the war: the Metropolitan Cathedral was taken by those organizations that are against to the Free Trade Agreements and the privatization of the health sector.

Those contrasting scenes –one the one hand, the Central American Delegates in Washington, “with their luggage full of dreams”, according to the ironic expression of the Costa Rican newspaper La Nación; on the other hand, a social movement that questions the Free Trade Agreement – show an agreement signed by the controversy and the vertical attitude of the governments that will implement it.

The next steps of the CAFTA
Against all odds, the Ministries of Economy of Central America will follow the agenda of activities proposed by the American negotiation team, which considers the possibility to have a monthly meeting in each one of the participant countries.

The appointment for January 8th is the formal beginning. After that, the first round of negotiations will take place in San José, Costa Rica, between the 27th and the 31st of that month. From February 24th through the 28th, San Salvador will receive the delegations to continue with the process.

The fourth date will take place in Washington, from March 31st through April 4th, where they will discuss the elimination of the levy from the sensitive merchandise. After that, the negotiations will have a recess, which will be extended until May 12th, in Guatemala, where a four-day meeting will take place.

The deliberations will continue in Honduras, from June 16th through the 20th, and they will take place again in the United States, between July 28th and August the 1st. The final track will be defined during the last three reunions: Nicaragua (from September 8th through the 12th), Costa Rica (from October 20th through the 24th), and again in the United States between the 8th and the 12th of December. During the first quarter of 2004, the CAFTA will be a consummated fact.

The impossibility of having a formal discussion
It can be said that the CAFTA expresses the virtual impossibility of having a formal discussion between those governments that are extremely interested to sign the agreements by all means, and the organizations of the civil society, which have contested projects such as this one or the Puebla-Panamá plan.

It has been said that such dialogue needs a consensus as a starting point about the terms of the discussion. Those in favor as well as those against the CAFTA say that their position brings certain benefits to their respective societies. Those in favor of the CAFTA understand the increasingly profitable business they manage as a social benefit. With this perspective, they automatically assume that more jobs will be created and that the poverty and unemployment levels will be reduced. On the other hand, those against the CAFTA say that the welfare of the societies begins when the subsistence of the population is guaranteed. Certainly, the small importance that the issues about the human development have in those initiatives is very suspicious.

Therefore, there are two positions about the CAFTA, those in favor of the agreement assure that this is the privileged path to reach a maximum benefit for the societies –in terms of an economic development-. Those who do not agree with the CAFTA believe that it will harm the rights of the laborers, and both the economic and the cultural rights of the population (as well as the environmental sustainability). Those in favor of the CAFTA believe that it will resolve for once and for all the historic problem of the regional integration.

This is not about a game of perceptions. There are facts that prove the suspicions about the CAFTA. The most evident one is the disparity of the conditions that the farmers of the region find between them and the American farmers. While the CAFTA will eliminate the duty-related restrictions of Central America, the United States’ agricultural system enjoys a considerable amount of subsidies.

This affects the local farmers in a negative way, and the viability of the Central American economies is in danger. The priority of those economies –the production of the basic grains and the cultivations of the basic products- would be confronting a competitor who is much more advanced technological knowledge, and who would enjoy all of the advantages and no restrictions. The danger of a generalized crisis is not small, especially if we remember the famine that the inhabitants of the rural areas of Nicaragua went through, something that had never been seen before.

The agricultural production issue was precisely the dark aspect of the reunion that took place in Washington. In this euphoric atmosphere, created by those responsible for the Central American economy, it was the farmers who seemed more skeptical about the alleged benefits of the agreement with the United States.

All of these excuses intend to explain why there is no possibility to have a formal discussion about free trade: the participants have different perspectives about it. If those perspectives have nothing in common, any sort of debate can take place, but they cannot have a dialogue. This allows us to see what caused the failure of the alleged mechanisms of participation that belong to the projects such as the CAFTA or the PPP. Therefore, what could be expected is that the CAFTA negotiations will go on as planned, without considering the opinions of the civil society.

On the other hand, the official discourse of those who support the CAFTA –and the rest of projects related with the construction of the Free Trade Agreement Area of the Americas, (ALCA, in Spanish) –has been about how to open a dialogue with the civil society. Because of the suspicions about the lack of debates, those who support the CAFTA say that this project has a series of sectors designed to examine the needs of the civil society.

As a formal aspect, this could be true, but it is also true that the civilian organizations have complained about not having enough information. It could be said that there is information about it. Not too long ago, the government of Nicaragua, through the Ministry for the Encouragement of the Industry and Commerce –MIFIC, in Spanish- opened a web page to respond to the most common questions about the CAFTA, for example. However such information does not touch the bottom line of the subject. The available information explains what are the possible advantages of the CAFTA, but it does not say much about the social, the political or the economic costs that it will bring.

As a marketing strategy, it is impeccable: it is about selling a product by making it look attractive, and by controlling the information in a way that nobody ever really wonders how much it will cost to live in a paradise of the free trade.

The negotiators do not have access to the same amount of information, that is why they cannot hold a horizontal conversation. Only one of the parts knows what the future will bring. The other part can do nothing but suspect. This fact was admitted during a meeting of the ALCA, celebrated in Quito, on last November. We are talking about the president of the Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (the Inter-American Bank of Development, BID, in Spanish), Enrique Iglesias.

For example, one of the aspects that was brought into discussion was the direct economic costs that each country will have to face in order to participate in the preliminary negotiation of the CAFTA. One of the most indebted countries of Central America, with a serious problem of poverty and unemployment such as Nicaragua recently got a loan of $5 million from the BID. It also got another $500,000 from the funds of the Central American Bank for the Economic Integration (BCIE, in Spanish), in order to make the necessary expenses for the negotiation. How will the contributors pay for this considerable debt? A debt that seems like the bet of someone who is financially broke and decides to mortgage everything in order to buy a lottery ticket. What if there are loses? –which is highly probable-, it will be very difficult to recover from the risky bet.

It is necessary to remember that the beginning of the conversations about the CAFTA is taking place at the same time that President Bush is announcing a plan of economic reforms. The controversial plan, which intends to increase the economic growth of the United States, will reduce several taxes. This measure will benefit some of the country’s wealthiest people. On the other hand, the United States is about to fight a war against Iraq.

Both of these elements make Central America seem as the counterpart of the deal. The disadvantages of an economic crisis are combined with the aggressiveness of its foreign affairs policy. The question that no one is discussing is what role will the CAFTA play in that critical context? It is not reasonable to expect that a country that faces a critical moment (this week, the dollar dropped drastically in the international market before the perspectives of a war against Baghdad) takes a chance of such dimensions. The United States in a fully developed economy, how will our economies pay for the crisis at Washington? This is an important question, because both the CAFTA and the ALCA will leave Central America even more compromised with Washington.

In summary, the absence of a formal discussion between the governments and the civil society before an inexorable CAFTA leads the way to a skeptical level. From this stage to the immediate violent reactions there is nothing but one step. It is necessary that our societies have a formal discussion. We cannot leave the door open and suffer the effects of a set of new social convulsions, which will only turn into all kinds of loses.