A worthy peace offering for Honduras and El Salvador - Ofrecimiento de paz digno para Honduras y El Salvador

Traducción no oficial de articulo: “A worthy peace offering for Honduras and El Salvador” Por Washington Post 2 de Junio 2013.  Nota original aquí 

(Por Consejo Editorial, Publicado: 2 de junio)

Aunque las guerras civiles terminaron hace mucho tiempo en los países centroamericanos, aun siguen manteniendo las cifras entre los países más violentos del mundo. Según las Naciones Unidas en el 2011 Honduras resaltaba con la mayor tasa de homicidios a nivel nacional - 91,6 asesinatos por cada 100.000 habitantes -, mientras que El Salvador ocupaba segundo lugar de  69,2. (La tasa de EE.UU. es inferior a 5 por 100.000). En parte, el derramamiento de sangre es un legado de las guerras de la década de 1980 y las armas que dejaron atrás, y en parte es el producto del tráfico de drogas internacional. De acuerdo con el Departamento de Estado, casi el 80 por ciento de la cocaína transportada a Estados Unidos pasa por Honduras.

Gran parte del problema de violencia viene de la guerra entre pandillas, siendo que en ambos países tienen decenas de miles de pandilleros que están fuertemente armados. Durante los últimos 15 meses, El Salvador ha participado en un experimento audaz para detener el derramamiento de sangre: una tregua entre las dos pandillas principales, la tregua mediada por la Iglesia Católica y facilitada por el gobierno. El impacto ha sido innegable: Las autoridades informaron que los asesinatos se redujeron a la mitad en el primer año que se comenzó la tregua, las tasas de homicidios bajaron de  4.000 homicidios entre 2009 y 2011 a 2,195  registrados en el 2012.

La semana pasada se anunció en Honduras una tregua similar en la que participan las mismas pandillas: la Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) y Barrio 18 (MS-18). Nuevamente, en el proceso de mediación están los líderes de la Iglesia Católica y de la Organización de los Estados Americanos, el presidente Porfirio Lobo expresó su apoyo, y está por organizarse una Comisión para establecer diálogo entre las pandillas y el gobierno.

Lo que queda por ver es si la estrategia de la tregua puede provocar una disminución de la violencia, de modo sostenible, en los dos países. En El Salvador, la tregua de pandillas sigue siendo poco aceptada a pesar de la disminución en las tasas de homicidios. Eso es porque las pandillas continúan extorsionando a grandes y pequeñas empresas, y realizando robos y secuestros para su financiación. En Honduras, las pandillas están en guerra con la policía, y entre ellos mismos. La Prensa Asociada ha informado que los “escuadrones de la muerte” de la policía han matado a decenas de miembros de las pandillas.

Lo que se necesita son programas que, basados en la tregua, incluyan a los miembros de las pandillas en programas de capacitación y empleos. En El Salvador, el presidente Mauricio Funes ha puesto en marcha una iniciativa en la que los municipios se convierten en "municipios de paz." En los que a cambio de poner fin a la extorsión y otras actividades ilegales, los pandilleros pueden unirse a los programas de empleo o recibir préstamos para iniciar sus pequeñas empresas. El presidente Funes ha prometido $ 33 millones a 18 municipios hasta el momento, una suma considerable en un país de 6 mil millones.

Sí la tregua de Honduras quisiera producir resultados, se necesitarían programas similares - y los Estados Unidos puede desempeñar un importante papel de apoyo. Aunque la administración Obama ha mantenido su distancia de los acuerdos de tregua, la Administración ha pedido un aumento del 20 por ciento en el próximo año para financiar la Iniciativa de Seguridad Regional Centroamericana, cuyo objetivo es combatir la delincuencia a través de capacitación a fuerzas policiales y programas de apoyo para jóvenes. Teniendo en cuenta los esfuerzos en curso en El Salvador y Honduras, la financiación adicional es digna de apoyo en el Congreso.

(The Washington Post)

Defend Democracy

THE ARREST and deportation of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya by the country's military on Sunday was wrong and should be reversed. Quite possibly, it will be: Facing the united condemnation of governments in the Americas, and under heavy pressure from the United States -- on which Honduras depends for aid, free trade and remittances from workers -- the politicians and generals who deposed Mr. Zelaya may not hold out for long. If their goal is, as they declare, to defend the country's democracy, they will have a better chance of doing so if they allow the president to return and at least temporarily resume his post.

The Obama administration, however, shouldn't limit itself to reversing the military's foolish intervention. The crisis in Honduras offers an opportunity to address the more substantial and more serious threat to democracy in the region -- a threat represented, in part, by Mr. Zelaya himself.

Though it might look similar, this was not a 1960s-style Latin American coup in which an authoritarian military toppled popular democrats. Until Sunday, it was Mr. Zelaya who was attempting to undermine democratic institutions, including Congress and the Supreme Court. Elected in 2005 on a right-of-center platform, the Honduran president had lately fallen under the spell of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. In an attempt to follow Mr. Chávez's example, he was trying to summon an assembly to rewrite the constitution and overcome the term limits that would have forced him to leave office at the end of this year.

Congress opposed his attempt to hold a referendum, and the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. Yet Mr. Zelaya persisted, trying -- reportedly with Mr. Chávez's material support -- to organize an unofficial poll. When the army commander in chief refused to assist in this effort, the president fired him; the Supreme Court found that unconstitutional as well.

The military's intervention may have the unintended effect of saving Mr. Zelaya. The Congress voted him out of office on Sunday by a large margin; had the generals merely allowed events to proceed according to the rule of law, the president could have been legitimately deposed or isolated. The fear of further intervention by Mr. Chávez may have prompted the rash action; the Venezuelan strongman has made it quite clear that he is eager to meddle in the country's affairs, and he has even threatened military action.

That's one reason the Obama administration should not limit itself to seeking Mr. Zelaya's return to office. It should also speak out more clearly about the abuses that prompted his removal -- abuses that are taking place in other Latin American countries, such as neighboring Nicaragua -- and the people who are actively fomenting the attacks on democracy, such as Mr. Chávez. It's easy enough to join Chile and Brazil in condemning the Honduran military at the Organization of American States. What requires political courage -- and U.S. leadership -- is confronting the forces that brought Honduras to this breaking point.

(The Washington Post)

Is Silence Consent?

WHILE THE United States and Venezuela's neighbors silently stand by, Hugo Chávez's campaign to destroy his remaining domestic opposition continues. On Thursday night state intelligence police raided the Caracas offices of Guillermo Zuloaga, the president of the country's last independent broadcast network, Globovision. They claimed to be looking for evidence of irregularities in the car dealership that Mr. Zuloaga also runs. In fact this was a thinly disguised escalation of an attack that Mr. Chávez launched this month against Globovision. The channel has been officially accused of "inciting panic," based on its accurate reporting of a mild May 4 earthquake in Caracas; under the regime's draconian media control law it could be shut down. Few doubt that that is Mr. Chávez's intent: Two years ago he revoked the license of the country's most popular television network after a similarly trumped-up campaign.

To recap: In February Mr. Chávez eliminated the limit on his tenure as president after a one-sided referendum campaign that included ugly attacks on Venezuela's Jewish community. Since then he has imprisoned or orchestrated investigations against most of the country's leading opposition figures, including three of the five opposition governors elected last year. The elected mayor of Maracaibo, who was the leading opposition candidate when Mr. Chávez last ran for president, was granted asylum in Peru last month after authorities sought his arrest on dubious tax charges. The National Assembly, controlled by Mr. Chávez, is considering legislation that would eliminate collective bargaining and replace independent trade unions with "worker's councils" controlled by the ruling party. Another new law would eliminate foreign financing for independent non-government groups.

This is hardly the first time that a Latin American caudillo has tried to eliminate peaceful opponents: Mr. Chávez is following a path well worn by the likes of Juan Perón and Alberto Fujimori -- not to mention his mentor, Fidel Castro. But this may be the first time that the United States has watched the systematic destruction of a Latin American democracy in silence. As Mr. Chávez has implemented the "third phase" of his self-styled revolution, the Obama administration has persisted with the policy of quiet engagement that the president promised before taking office.

"We need to find a space in which we can actually have a conversation, and we need to find ways to enhance our levels of confidence," Assistant Secretary of State Thomas A. Shannon Jr. said two weeks ago, echoing earlier remarks by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. We have no objection to dialogue with Mr. Chávez. But isn't it time to start talking about preserving independent television stations, opposition political leaders, trade unions and human rights groups -- before it is too late?

(The Washington Post)