NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/8452

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 10.5 KB | 189 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Proceso 538: Human Rights
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: PACH
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 09:05:20 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 174

/** reg.elsalvador: 128.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 538: Human Rights **
** Written 10:43 am  Nov 14, 1992 by [e-mail] in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: [e-mail] (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 538: Human Rights

Center for Information, Documentation and Research Support (CIDAI)
Central American University (UCA)
San Salvador, El Salvador

PROCESO 538
November 11, 1992

IDHUCA REPORT:
Controversial statements by Gen. Zepeda

     Breaking with strict protocol but reflecting the wishes of
all, President Cristiani scrawled his signature on the lower left-
hand corner of the Chapultepec Accords on January 16, 1992, after
speaking the following words: "For the consolidation of peace
within a State of Law." That same document was signed by the U.N.
Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and sixteen others
representing the Salvadoran government and the Farabundo Marti
Front for National Liberation (FMLN). Among the signatories was
Gen. Mauricio Ernesto Vargas, second in command of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, who in October 1989 was designated by the military High
Command to represent the institution in the government's
negotiating commission.
     Thus, with a gesture from its Commander-in-Chief and the
active presence of one of its top-ranking officers, the Armed
Forces of El Salvador joined the national effort set forth by the
two sides in Geneva on April 4, 1990: "to end the armed conflict by
political means in the shortest possible time, promote the
democratization of the country, guarantee strict respect for human
rights, and reunify Salvadoran society." For all of the above, it
is troubling to hear the anti-peace noises emanating from top
military and civilian echelons over recent weeks.
     If a prize were to be given to the public official who
appeared most in the national media between November 3 and 6, it
would surely go to Gen. Juan Orlando Zepeda, Vice-Minister of
Defense. Everything began with the supposed "wrong interpretation"
made by a television news program of certain statements made by the
general, who immediately took it upon himself to "clear up
concepts" in a communique published in the morning daily El Diario
de Hoy on November 4. He said: "I have never criticized President
Cristiani, as the news program stated. I was only evaluating the
risks being run by adjusting a schedule which was previously agreed
upon before the United Nations."
     Between criticizing the FMLN and claiming his complete
subordination to strategic political decisions, Gen. Zepeda
emphatically rejected "the irresponsible statements made by Jorge
Villacorta, of the Democratic Convergence," about a meeting with
civilian sectors called by the Vice-Minister. In Diario Latino that
same day, Zepeda defiantly said, "Let them prove it, or else they
will go on being what they are -a pack of liars."
     In response, Villacorta published the letter which began the
controversy, which was signed by Lt. Col. Carlos Mauricio Vides
Lucha. The letter, dated October 13, was written "on the
instructions of the Vice-Minister of Defense," and expressed
"profound concern about the current national situation and about
the possible future for Salvadoran society, given the different
threats posed by the friends of dictatorship." The letter "extended
a cordial invitation to attend an informational get-together to
exchange impressions in order to strengthen the spirit of struggle
for an authentic democracy." Villacorta, a leader of the opposition
party Democratic Convergence, claimed that Zepeda had violated the
Constitution in directing the letter to be written. He also asked
that Zepeda be called before the legislature in order to provide an
explanation, especially regarding his prior knowledge of the
letter, any authorization he may have had from his superiors (the
Minister of Defense), the threats mentioned in the letter, and a
more precise definition of the term "friends of dictatorship"
(Diario Latino 11/4).
     Questioned but not abandoned, General Zepeda received the full
support of his immediate superior, Defense Minister Rene Emilio
Ponce, and of the still-anonymous "Free El Salvador Civic
Movement." Regardless of the fact that his Vice-Minister called
those who criticized his initiative "a pack of liars," Gen. Ponce
did not hesitate to support him, and did not deny the existence of
a meeting of the type described in the letter. According to a story
in one of the morning papers, "[Ponce] explained that Zepeda's
duties include holding meetings with different sectors in order to
hear their opinions on matters in the national interest." The
Defense Minister felt that the attack on Zepeda was part of a left-
wing "campaign to discredit the Armed Forces... which includes
spreading rumors about alleged coup plots and accusations against
military leaders" (El Diario de Hoy, 11/6).
     The Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, President
Cristiani, when questioned about the incident, simply said he had
"no knowledge" of it (Diario Latino, 11/5). However, he ventured to
note that "there are meetings of a personal nature which do not
correspond to official government situations," even though Zepeda's
invitation was printed on Defense Ministry letterhead and signed by
Lt. Col. Vides Lucha, a member of the Operational Section of the
High Command's Security Commando (whose perimeter included the UCA
at the time the six Jesuits and their two co-workers were murdered
in 1989).
     The uproar coincided with a series of crucial discussions
about the future of the nation: whether or not -and how- the Ad Hoc
Commission's recommendations would be carried out. This commission
played an important role in "the process of cleansing the Armed
Forces, in the context of the peace process and as part of the
supreme goal of national reconciliation," as stated in the
Chapultepec accords. It evaluated active duty officers of the Armed
Forces and presented its conclusions as to their suitability in a
new democratic context. The next stage, which originally had as a
deadline October 13, was to carry out the "administrative decisions
corresponding to the [Commission's] conclusions," for which
President Cristiani bore full responsibility. For reasons already
known by all, the original peace schedule was modified. The U.N.
Secretary General proposed that December 15 serve as the new and
definitive deadline for meeting this commitment; the measure would
coincide with a symbolic act of national reconciliation. The peace
calendar has been modified once again, yet there is still no
clarity about the final deadline for purging the offending officers
from the Armed Forces. Some unofficial sources place the final date
in early 1993.
     In any case, it appears that many are working to get that
controversial commitment met. At least this can be deduced from the
brief press release issued by ONUSAL on November 10, which states:
"After eight days of separate consultations in San Salvador with
President Cristiani and the FMLN General Command, the Assistant
Secretary General, Alvaro De Soto, reported on Friday night to the
Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, that an accord had been
reached governing the upcoming phases of the peace process in El
Salvador."
     With regard to this issue, that of cleansing the Armed Forces,
Gen. Zepeda also took up space in the international press. On
November 5, the New York Times published a story by Tim Golden
entitled "Salvadoran hints purge fight" [retranslation]. According
to the journalist, who interviewed the Vice-Minister, considered
"one of the most powerful military officers in El Salvador," Zepeda
asked himself what he would do if his name appeared on the Ad Hoc
Commission list. His blunt answer was, "I would defend myself." He
went on to say, "when they attack over 100 officers and attack the
commanders, that is an attack on the institution." The Vice-
Minister called the cleansing process nothing more than "the
prolongation of a strategy of leftist struggle against the Armed
Forces," supported by mid-level functionaries at the Latin America
desks of the United Nations, whom he labeled "Communists."
     As we said earlier, the top military chief had recently
denounced distortions of his own comments by others, but in the
case of the New York Times article he did not. If the Times
statements are true, they are deeply troubling.
     In the first place, we must recall that the Chapultepec
accords were signed by the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
and one of the members of the High Command, Gen. Vargas. The
participation of both men in the dialogue and negotiating process
implies knowledge and conscious acceptance of the mediating role
played by the United Nations. It also reveals knowledge and
acceptance of the accords which were signed. Therefore, the purge
to be carried out within the Armed Forces must not be interpreted
as "an attack on the institution," because that would be accusing
at least two of its top leaders of complicity. On the contrary, the
conclusion of the peace accords, on the basis of the commitments
made by both sides (although some analysts feel they are
insufficient), should strengthen the military. In the second place,
according to Article 211 of the Constitution, the Armed Forces is
an "obedient, professional, apolitical and non-deliberative"
institution. Gen. Zepeda confirmed as much in his November 4
communique, adding that the institution is there "to help the
process and to serve the legally constituted government."
     According to statements made by the Vice-Minister at the end
of the Times interview, some officers were considering plans to
take action in the courts, which would "break discipline and could
harm the Armed Forces." We entirely agree. In this historic moment,
when a society based on respect for human dignity is being
consolidated, we must fully help meet the commitments established
by the two sides in the Chapultepec accords. Only then can we begin
the transition to new and different forms of social coexistence.


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