Is Tony Saca another Flores?

The United Nations in question

Lately, the expression “save the United Nations” has turned fashionable. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, used it to justify his war against Iraq and Sadam Hussein. For Bush, the credibility of the UN was at stake if it did not intervene with the Army in that conflict in order to implement his resolutions. Now that the war is over, and the American troops find an (unexpected?) resistance over that ground, Bush knocks at the door of the UN again. He insists that this multinational organization cannot get away from its responsibilities, if it intends to keep an important position in the international debate table.


There are also other voices that claim for the rescue of the prestige and the legitimacy of the UN. The General Secretary of this organization, Kofi Annan, invites the General Assembly to have a serious reflection in order to reach an internal restructuring and save the institution. Many other actors of the international politics think the same. Despite the multiple interests that might encourage the different analysts about the role of the international organization, everyone talks about the need to “save” it.

The UN, the state of the question
On last Monday, September 8th, Kofi Annan presented his annual report –a practice acquired in 2000, after the celebration of the Summit of the Millenium, in New York- about the situation of humanity and the system of the United Nations. The general secretary wanted to get some attention about the situation of the organization in the contemporary world’s context. That is why he makes an emphasis on the idea that “we can no longer take for granted that our institutions has enough capacity to face all of the challenges” of the present world.

In addition, for Annan there is a very serious matter that must get the attention of everyone. He notices that the reaction of the international community about the many problems that the world faces is still very unequal. “Most of all, we still do not have all the necessary political will, or a common idea about what are our duties before the massive violations of the human rights, and the catastrophes caused by the conflicts”. He also referred to the divergent concerns that encourage the different actors of the international system. While many think that the absolute priority is to fight against terrorism, for others the main challenge is to overcome poverty, the lack of freedom, and to end with the civil wars.

Annan explained that “the war in Iraq showed us a series of aspects that are a challenge for the UN and for all of the international community. The newest and the potentially virulent manifestations of terrorism, the proliferation of the non conventional weapons, the expansion of the transnational nets of delinquency, and how all of this can be mixed to become stronger, are considered in several parts of the world as the main threats against peace and security. Some people are questioning the suitability and the effectiveness of the regulations and the instruments that are available for the International Community in order to face all of these new challenges. The importance itself of the regulations and the present multilateral institutions is being questioned”.

That is why it is necessary to start a radical reform of the United Nations. In the first place, Annan explained that we have to make sure “that the international community does not allow the persistence of the differences emerged in the last month, in order to unify purposes based on a regular program of security. This can only be achieved if the states, in the consecution of its national interests, show that they understand and respect the global reality and the needs of others. The regular program of security should reflect a global consensus over the main threats against peace and security, whether they are old or new, and our common answer”.

On the other hand, the secretary general reminds to us the importance of the international legitimacy that the system of the UN provides. “In the international scene, there is nothing that can replace such legitimacy. Therefore, it is fundamental that, technically, the international affairs are guided according to such principles. The United Nations are in a critical stage: unless the Security Council recovers the trust of both the States and the world’s public opinion, the present states will act according to their own ideas about the up- coming threats, and their own criteria about the best way to face them”.

It is urgent to reform the organization in order to avoid the deterioration of its legitimacy in the world. “The International Community should also have the adequate regulations ad the instruments to efficiently face the threats against peace and security”. It is clear for the Secretary General that the present regulations are not enough and might even be inefficient when it comes to face the threats that trouble the world. The combat against the international terrorism goes beyond the boundaries established by the international regulations since the end of World War II.

In reference to this particular issue, the Security Council has to be enlarged: particularly, the capacity of the Security Council, in order to count with more support for its decisions and its actions, will be strengthened if it perceives that it widely represents the International Community as a whole, as well as the geographical and the political reality of the contemporary world. Therefore, I hope that the states that are part of this increase their efforts to reach an agreement about the growth of the Security Council”.

The dimensions of the report prepared by Annan
The advice of the Secretary General about the performance of the UN points at the heart of several dysfunctional behaviors of this organization. It is no secret that the United Nations are in a difficult moment of its history that questions the prestige and the legitimacy of its work. Annan is right when he talks about a set of radical reforms according to our times. The last discussions in the Security Council about the alleged weapons of massive destruction of Saddam Hussein crudely reflect the manipulations that this organization is subjected to. The five countries that have the power of veto in the Council usually absorb all the attention of the debates about the destiny of humankind. The agreements and the disagreements between its members about what is going on in the world work as a revealed truth. That is the origin of all sorts of ideas, in order to satisfy the interests of the wealthiest and the most powerful countries. The result is a perverse game that sanctifies the strategic decisions of the powerful ones, regardless of the consequences or the opinions of the rest of the countries about the issues that are discussed. In diplomatic terms, Kofi Annan seems angry because of this attitude, especially in the case of the proliferation of the massive destruction weapons. “We must realize –said the Secretary General- that the application of a double strategy has adverse consequences. There is not a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ proliferation, since any act of proliferation can create an increasing level of instability in the future”.

It is necessary to wonder if it is possible to radically reform the UN and the Security Council, in order to consider the critics and prepare this organization to overcome the present problems. When changes of this nature take place, it is necessary to consider the role of the five permanent members of the Council and their relation with the desired multilateral group of effects. The Secretary of the United Nations himself indicated that the Security Council does not respond any more to the geographical and the political reality of the present world.

However, it is evident that there is an enormous gap that separates the different followers of a renovation in the UN. George W. Bush, the predicator of the preventive guerrillas, will hardly accept a reform of the rules of the game in the UN that might affect the amount of power that the United States have over the rest of the world. The divergences and the position of the Bush administration over Iraq confirm this idea. In addition, when Bush speaks about the need to save the international organization, he refers to how necessary it is that its members agree with the American authorities about the dangers that threaten the United States. The ultimate test for this organization, according to the formerly described perspective, is connected with the organization’s capacity to be at the height of the demands of the world’s leading military force.

Other leaders of the world think that the solution for the legitimacy problems of the United Nations goes through a much more complex interpretation, and that it is necessary to consider the opinions of the different actors about the national reality. Kofi Annan and many other leaders of the world seem to agree with this idea. And that is precisely the challenge for the United Nations, to find a way out the boundless power that the wealthiest countries have over the world, and to combine that reality with the growing demand of the multilateral effects. This is the only way to give a credible answer to the new menaces over the international system. This is also the only way to end with the apathy and the sensation of partiality that affects the UN and its Security Council.

A first test for this renovated UN should be the solution of the conflict between the Israeli and the Palestinians. The international organization has been an impassible spectator for over six decades of the human drama that devours this region of the world. The persistence of this conflict shows the failure of the UN, especially the failure of the Security Council. A fast and a fair solution of this conflict could be the first step towards a new performance model for this organization. However, there is an important signal that must be considered, in the report of the Secretary General about the situation of both the world and the United Nations the Arabian and the Israeli conflict is not mentioned at all.

The free trade agreement with the United States and Canada: the cost and the benefits

Presently, there are 520,000 micro and small business companies in El Salvador waiting for the free trade agreement with the United States and Canada. The expectations are enormous, since the immediate future of those companies is not in their own hands, but in the hands of the government.

As in other occasions, appearances can be deceiving. The purpose behind the free trade agreements is not a humanitarian or a participative objective. It is in fact a restrictive and an excluding objective. Only those who have the necessary means will receive the benefits, and this includes a qualified group of laborers and top of the line technology in order to compete in a successful manner in the markets. This is how they will make sure to get profitable business deals.

The fallacious aspect of the free trade agreements is that its promoters intend to make the people of the less developed countries believe that with the free trade of merchandise the benefits will automatically come to all of the productive circles of the participating regions. These promoters speak about a number of positive effects that will turn into a higher economic growth, a faster development, and welfare for all. The same promise was made by the Programs of Structural Adjustment in Latin America, and by the Consensus of Washington. That is why it can be said that the free trade agreements are the vice of that promise.

However, contrary to the fashionable Neoliberal vision, according to which the commercial openness is always positive, these promoters are conscious about the limitations of the free trade. In the case of the United States, the high subsidies for its agricultural sector have become untouchable, and, in the case of Canada, the textile maquilas remain as the “paragraph” of the negotiations. In other words, the free trade is not always recommendable, and this reveals its double-sided face even in the wealthiest countries of the world.

In this sense, the negotiators have forgotten that the bottom line objective of their “mission” is to look for a sustainable development model, and that the free trade agreements lose this objective precisely when they are signed. When a country is just part of these projects, without carefully measuring its impact on the most vulnerable sectors, it overlooks the human relations and the unfair social situations that are the result of its implementation. The logic of this boundless voraciousness, and, therefore, its results, are neither equitable nor human.

The logic of the negotiations
According to the parts involved in these negotiations, the governmental representatives of all the countries authentically “represent” the interests of their respective productive areas. They also intend to rationally maximize the benefits that could be obtained. However, this is not possible because there is not enough information about the terms in which the negotiations are made, or about the impact that these negotiations can have in the mid and the long term. There are no formal studies available that could support the opinions about a positive set of repercussions on the employment market, for example.

None of the sectors that have been directly affected by the treaty know up to what point their own negotiators will agree to open the markets in question, and what are the costs and the benefits that will come along with that decision, since not all of them win or lose in the same way. To make this situation even worse, not even the negotiators themselves know exactly what are the margins that they need to establish in order to protect the key elements of their economies, in order to promote the necessary degree of development. What is the position that they must occupy if the differences are not respected, and how far can they actually go?

This situation has been evident throughout the negotiation process. The final product of the free trade agreements is so uncertain that the expectations about the generation of new jobs is directly related with the disappearance of several positions that already existed. The exportation level will surely increase; however, no one should forget that the importation level in El Salvador has grown twice as high as the exportation level. This situation is drowning the benefits that the country could receive under this concept, with an almost irremediable deficit in the balance of trade.

On the other hand, countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador are a clear example of the tendency to overlook their productive sectors and the citizenry so that they cannot affect the direction of the negotiations. In the case of Guatemala, the country’s main negotiator, Salomon Cohen, had to be fired because of negligence and his poor skills to represent the true interests of the Guatemalan private business sector. This official was accused of merely responding to the political interests of the official party. In the case of El Salvador, since the beginning of the negotiations, the Salvadoran representatives have been reluctant to share with the citizenry the information of the workshops, and this attitude has undermined the trust of the usually well protected sectors, such as the telecommunications system; and it has disoriented others, such as the farmers that cultivate rice and sugarcane.

What is at stake here?
This process will affect the micro and the small business companies that belong to the agricultural, the commercial, and the industrial sector. This is a logical result if we consider that these business companies will have to compete with a new flow of duty free imports in the sensible areas of their economic axis. Over an 80% of these companies are managed by independent workers, while 60% of these companies are absolutely dedicated to the commercial sector.

The low levels of competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency are critical. According to the Sixth Inter-American Forum for the Micro Business Companies, which took place in Guatemala during September of 2003, an 80% of those companies only work to survive. In other words, these companies do not exist because there are enough opportunities to grow, but because there is an extreme need to survive, and this is a desperate measure to subsist. This situation has a contrast with the micro and the small business companies of the developed countries, such as in the United States and Canada, where more than 90% of the population have enough opportunities to grow, financially speaking, thanks to the dynamic support of the government and the productive chains they have become part of.