The empire of the world

The crisis at the United Nations: Will the reason of the strongest prevail?

Very few people can deny that Sadam Hussein is a bloodthirsty dictator willing to do anything to keep his power. The world has been the witness of the repression the Iraqi people have been submitted to. Some of those who have been able to escape from the claws of the regime have told the world, with plenty of details, the savagery committed by the figureheads of the almost authoritarian regimen of this country. Some people have mentioned the use of poisonous gases against the opposition, a “strategy” employed by those who are at the service of the people who hold the power.

Ever since the end of the Gulf war, the Organization of the United Nations keeps a hard pulse with the Iraqi leader. Presently, the successive commissions created to disarm Iraq have not achieved a convincing result to the eyes of the members of the Security Council. The disarmament process has become a deceiving situation inside the delegations of inspectors because of the Baghdad regime. That is why the work of this last commission has been severely approached. The decree 1441, promoted by the United States and adopted by unanimity by all of the members of the Security Council, obliges Sadam Hussein to be disarmed immediately under the threat of a set of severe consequences in case he refuses to do so.

However, three months after the adoption of the last resolution of the Security Council, the international community is divided in relation to the question about what to do with Iraq. Some people think that this is not the time to think about war. It would be necessary to intensify the inspections and grant the inspectors with the necessary means to do their jobs. Others, instead, with the United States leading the way, vindicate their right to start with the bombing and occupy the Iraqi territory to accomplish the objective of the UN. The followers of either choice are expressing –instead of using the diplomatic channels, as it is expected in these cases- their disagreements about the strategy that should lead the way to the effective disarmament of Iraq.

When it comes to talk about the Iraqi problem, the European Union has been one of the first victims of the lack of understanding at the UN. In an intervention that many have called “inappropriate”, a group of countries that belong to the European Union spoke about their support to the war. Such declaration not only shows the lack of coordination of Europe in the matters of international politics, but it seriously compromises the idea of a strong regional organization, capable to face the North American hegemony. The leaders that signed the so called “letter of support” to the United States chose the protection of the big American brother instead of choosing the leadership of the Paris-Berlin axis. They chose to trust the transatlantic force instead of choosing the solidarity between the brothers that the community claims form.

On the other hand, the NATO is going through a difficult period. France, Belgium, and Germany do not agree to activate the military mechanisms for the automatic protection of Turkey. If it is assumed that the UN has not said the last word about the best option to disarm Iraq, it will not be easy to demonstrate that Turkey is facing a threat or an external attack. Before the obstinate attitude of the United States –to impose their vision to resolve the Iraqi problem-, these three countries imposed their veto against the approval of a demand that could be technically considered as a declaration of war. It is evident that the United States shows very little respect for its allies. The desire to impose an option to them is, without a doubt, not a very diplomatic strategy and a very disrespectful one.

The discussion about the Iraqi problem would not be so important of it did not involve the redefinition of the international relations after the cold war. That is why the differences between France and the United States –the pacifist and the war options, respectively- must be treated with care. This is the first time that, since the end of the cold war, the allies are in such a flagrant disagreement about a matter of such importance. The pacifist claim to defend the supremacy of the international right from the imperialistic will of a powerful nation. They claim to promote the multilateral option before the unilateral temptation.

The doctrine of the preventive intervention and the unilateral imposition of the American interests that the Bush administration vindicates go against the international efforts for the construction of a world where the law is respected. It is the aspiration of an international society what is at stake. The Bush administration is obviously not willing to tolerate any dissidence. It will undertake its old tradition of political realism. The presence of the United States in Latin America is an eloquent example of this tradition, which was always decanted by the preventive intervention instead of a discouraging containment. The military intervention in Panama was, without a doubt, an example of that will. Perhaps, the habit to treat the Latin Americans as vassals might be influenced by the relation with the presently vilified allies of the NATO.

This is how the almost unanimous adhesion (or the silence) of Latin America about the behavior of Bush towards Iraq should be interpreted. However, this is the wrong strategy. The construction of an international society that defends the multilateral procedures, where the empire of the law is guaranteed, should be precisely the bet of Latin America. With that –from the perspective of the international relations-, the less powerful countries such as El Salvador, for example, would have more possibilities to defend and vindicate the interests of the population. But the fear or the comfort of being protected by the most powerful nation is an obstacle for the governments of the region to foresee such perspectives.

Nevertheless, from other areas, the multilateral strategy is still a valid option. Even the United States, with a small amount of disposition to reflect, should seek for the protection of this principle in the present context of the antiterrorist war and the disarmament of Iraq. It can be predicted, for instance, that an unilateral American attack would unleash more turbulence in the Middle East. That would also increase the credibility of the arguments that are given to the Muslims, who criticize the way some have dealt with the problem of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. Practically no one has considered how challenging it would be to make the State of Israel respect the resolutions of the United Nations.

Nowadays, there is a clear disdain for the principles of a worldwide multilateral government. With that, the credibility and the idea of the existence of the United Nations is at stake. There is no doubt that the response to the present challenges will determine the dynamic of the international relations. It is important to consider that, according to the present state of consciousness of the world, people demand that the law should be a driving force and not the contrary, as those who think they have the necessary power to control the planet would like the people to believe.

The effectiveness of the FOVIAL: the invisible roads

When the budget for the Fund for the Conservation of the Roads (FOVIAL, in Spanish) was approved and made official by the Legislative Assembly, in February 22nd of 2002, the national maintenance program of the net of urban roads was released. Today, a year after the program’s reactivation, the civilian control becomes an imperative for the effective regulation of the resources that come from these funds. Theoretically, these funds will be used in the benefit of those who have contributed with its creation.

The nature of this tax created a controversy. On October 29th of 2001, ARENA, the PCN, and a couple of independent candidates added 45 votes to approve an increase on the price of the combustibles to finance the FOVIAL. The extra charge was $0.20 cents for each purchased gallon of fuel. This tax counted with the support of an enormous advertising machine, and it also showed the intentions of the government.

The government did not care very much for the potentially negative impact that this would cause over the lives of the middle class, the sector that was most affected by this measure. This tax is applied following the same criterion used with the Value Added Tax: to charge the same amount of taxes to everyone, without making the necessary considerations to understand the vulnerabilities of those who pay for it. The systematic increase of the cost of life for the present economic situation is negatively affected as well because it is a regressive tax. It is assumed that everyone has the same purchasing power and that, therefore, the impact will be “fair”. Nothing could be further from the reality.

The questions about this issue are separated from the everyday traveler of the main arteries of the metropolitan area of San Salvador. Despite that the logic of that tax indicates that the consumers who own a vehicle are those who pay for the proper maintenance of the main areas of circulation, they do not receive the benefits of that tax. It is important to wonder about the perverse logic of paying a tax that will affect the contributors who move around the precarious conditions of the main roads of the city, which evidently are the place where the “Gordian knot” of the heavy traffic concentrates. This can be understood as a structural incongruity of the objective of the tax, because this one does not keep a direct connection with the results.

It is necessary to consider that the propaganda for the FOVIAL highlights the positive character of this tax for the country. This fact could be a fallacy because of three factors:

- Since it is a regressive tax, it shows that the ARENA administration has the tendency to deteriorate the purchasing power of the middle class (those who earn a monthly amount of 5,000 to 25,000 colones). The existence of the middle class is a challenging achievement, since it is the thermometer of the quality of the economic policies. If the middle class keeps a positive position, or if the number of people who become part of it increases in the long-term, this will put away the obstacles that encourage the radical polarity of the Salvadoran society’s income: the extreme poverty versus the incalculable amount of wealth concentrated in a few hands.

- It is still not clear if the toll system (a direct tax and, therefore, a progressive one), which is also used in those nations with a higher level of development, is not an suitable tax. This tax is paid by those who need to travel through certain roads, since it is supposed to be a fair instrument for the citizens who drive their own vehicles.

- The risk using the collected taxes in an illegal way is a latent loophole, and the citizenry should be relentless for an audit. In fact, to prevent the possible “leaks” and an inefficient use of the millions of money that come from the FOVIAL and other taxes is a key factor to promote a transparent administration of the public resources.

The positive influence of the program in question is potentially stimulant, since it belongs to the logic of Keynes (the attraction of public and private investments, the creation of jobs, and positive external options for the population). In reference to this aspect, the Directive Council of the FOVIAL explains that “with the renovation of 172.60 kilometers, in five projects that belong to the Periodical and Ordinary Maintenance Program of 4,442.24 kilometers at a national level, between the paved roads (2,344.28 kilometers) and the non paved roads (2,077.96 kilometers), El Salvador received, for the first time, a permanent maintenance of its roads”. This is a positive change, but if the situation is closely examined, there are doubts about what roads will become the priority.

It would be dangerous not to question the implementation of the project to obtain the best possible results from the expensive projects such as the FOVIAL (The Ordinary Maintenance Program alone, after nine months, has absorbed an investment of over $60 million dollars). President Flores stated in one of his introductory discourses about this program that “the development of our country goes as far as our boundaries go”. The question that follows is: What are the priorities? Will there be any technical studies to quantify the number of vehicles that circulate through the main roads of El Salvador? Is this program part of a defined strategy of development that represents the interests of the contributors?

It seems as if all that matters is the FOVIAL and not how it really works.What is its impact?, and who receives most of its benefits, according to a long-term strategy and a coherent development plan for the middle and the less fortunate sectors of the country?

The FOVIAL is very practical and that is why it is important as a transversal axis of a national sustainable plan. That is why it is necessary to consider what could be the actual achievements of the FOVIAL, as well as the negative examples of the abandoned main roads, where the potholes are so numerous even during the summer. The vehicle owners that travel through the España Avenue, the old road to Huizucar and many others that have a massive affluence of vehicles pay the price of this situation. This situation must be analyzed in order that the citizenry does not resent the poor administration of the funds. “When the resources are abundant, there are plenty of people willing to waste them”, says a popular proverb, and it seems to be the opinion of those who circulate everyday through the neglected roads.

The FOVIAL program is an opportunity to change the chronic misappropriation of funds. The problem is not about the lack of resources; this is an administrative problem. To use the public expense efficiently could be a positive choice to improve the productivity, the efficiency, and most of all, the performance of the actions aimed to preserve and improve the roads. That is why it is important when we hear questions such as “why do people who do not circulate through the roads should pay for those who do it everyday?” This logic leads us to believe that the FOVIAL is not a positive measure for the majority, but that it will only be beneficial for those vehicles that transport a heavy load. The maintenance expenses for this kind of vehicles will probably be reduced; however, this will not strengthen the rest of the citizenry.