NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/10362

Text File | 1993-01-26 | 6.5 KB | 126 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!udel!gatech!ukma!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!rich
From: [e-mail] (Rich Winkel)
Subject: Proceso 547: The US and Salvadoran peace
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, 26 Jan 1993 06:02:26 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 111

/** reg.elsalvador: 131.0 **/
** Topic: Proceso 547: Editorial **
** Written  1:20 pm  Jan 25, 1993 by [e-mail] in cdp:reg.elsalvador **
From: [e-mail] (Centro de Informacion Documentacion y Apoyo a la Invest. - UCAJSC)
Subject: Proceso 547: Editorial

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

PROCESO 547
January 20, 1993

EDITORIAL:
The United States and Salvadoran peace

     One of the unknown factors in El Salvador's transition process
is the role of the United States. The recent speech made by U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Bernard Aronson could help us
understand the underlying currents of Washington's policy toward El
Salvador.
     The United States believes that peace is much more than simply
abolishing weapons, since there is a need to build a democracy.
Washington has probably learned an historical lesson, as seen by
Aronson's late confession that the Salvadoran war began with the
failure of democracy. If, he said, the 1972 elections had been
upheld, "many of the horrors of this war could have been avoided."
The United States committed a "tragic error" by failing to defend
the outcome of those elections [in which Jos Napole"n Duarte and
Guillermo Ungo won the vote but were ousted by the military]. In
order to avoid committing another such error, doubtlessly,
Washington has taken up the reforms contained in the peace accords,
which it considers fundamental in order for El Salvador to become
a democracy, in which all its citizens participate freely,
peacefully and safely.
     It is rare sight when a top U.S. official publicly
acknowledges its government's errors. This is certainly a positive
beginning, but the U.S. must go farther, since Aronson has
forgotten to point out the subsequent mistakes committed by his
government in El Salvador. Washington not only set out to defend
democracy, but also opted for a dirty war, for the death squads and
for counterinsurgency warfare. It promoted the militarization of
society and became an accessory to impunity.
     In locating the roots of the Salvadoran peace process in
Esquipulas (1987), Aronson has stressed the importance of regional
organs and solutions, but interestingly enough, he has forgotten
about Contadora and the U.S. government's maneuvers to block those
regional initiatives for peace and democracy which, at the time,
were far too Central American for its taste.
     Ironically, while in San Salvador Aronson was seen [via
satellite connection] speaking of the challenges of peace, Ronald
Reagan, the president responsible for the dirty war and
counterinsurgency, was at the White House being decorated as a
national hero. This only goes to show how much still needs to
change in U.S. policy in order for it to contribute to the building
of peace and democracy.
     The fact that the U.S. feels that there is still work to be
done is of the greatest importance to the current transitional
process; this implies that it is not yet satisfied with the gains
made to date. Washington feels that the road to democracy includes
deepening and consolidating the reforms proposed in the accords.
Therefore, we can expect U.S. pressure in favor of full compliance
with the most important accords.
     Aronson's declarations accurately reflect the U.S. commitment
to the democratic framework of the peace accords, and especially to
those weak points which need to be shored up. In the first place,
improvements in the dialogue process within COPAZ, which must be
extended to all political and social organs, including the Forum
for Economic and Social Consensus-Building.
     In the second place, the Armed Forces, which must continue to
evolve toward becoming a professional institution entirely under
civilian authority, since to date this process has not been enough
for the United States. On the one hand, Washington has recognized
how top military officers have worked for peace, but on the other
hand, it feels that it is unacceptable for a civilian president to
negotiate fundamental decisions with them which are entirely within
the civilian government's purview. There is still much to be done
in terms of the new police force in order to create a professional
institution which is independent of all political groups or
factions.
     In terms of the economy, Washington feels that equality and
social justice must become part of the government's economic plan.
In terms of the Forum for Economic and Social Consensus-Building,
Aronson has asked business and labor to work together to reach a
common ground which might help end the feud between them,
facilitate cooperation and make economic development possible.
     The importance of the 1994 elections must not be
underestimated. Washington has warned the political parties that
these elections must not become a political Armageddon where
ultimate power will be decided. The elections will be followed by
others, and so on. One side's victory in the elections, said
Aronson, must always be respected by the losers, who may no longer
resort to violence as a way to remain in power.
     Finally, Washington is aware that there are still vestiges of
violence and danger signs apparent in those who are opposed to the
accords and would like to reverse the process. Aronson warned these
sectors that the international community -and in particular the
United States- is fully committed to the success of the peace
process, and many of those who participate in the process enjoy
international protection; therefore, any threat or use of violence
will have drastic consequences.
     Washington is thus committed to the Salvadoran transitional
process. It is not willing to abandon us, having no doubt learned
a lesson from 1972, and has a very concrete agenda based on
unfulfilled peace commitments. It will be hard for the new Clinton
government to abandon this agenda; on the contrary, it will
probably step up the pressure.


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