| ||
|
El Salvador: war-time negotiations and the coordination of external influence In the early 1980s, violence in El Salvador escalated into armed insurgency waged by a coalition of groups called the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN). The resulting war killed at least 75,000 people before it was ended by a series of UN-mediated and verified agreements in 1992. The agreements addressed the war's root causes and introduced many constitutional reforms. A few years before, such an outcome was unthinkable. Intervention by the UN or Organization of American States (OAS) was discouraged as the US opposed any meddling in its 'backyard.' Conditions for a resolution improved markedly, however, at the end of the decade. Internally, the military conflict was at a stalemate and a new administration was in power. Externally, Cold War antagonisms were diffusing and regional diplomatic initiatives had established a framework for promoting peace in the region. Following some abortive bilateral discussions, each of the conflict parties formally approached the UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar for help in resolving the conflict in early 1990. After weeks of shuttle diplomacy by de Cu?llar's Special Advisor Alvaro de Soto, the parties met in Geneva in April and agreed the purpose and basic rules of further negotiations. Rounds of talks in Venezuela, Mexico and Costa Rica followed. A two-stage approach was agreed, in which political agreements on seven agenda items would be reached before a ceasefire was negotiated. A second stage would focus on establishing the conditions for effectively demobilizing the FMLN. The negotiations process proved difficult and featured little face-to-face 'give and take' between the still militarily engaged parties. De Soto generally utilized a single negotiating text technique, shuttling between the parties to narrow their differences, even as they sat under one roof. The armed forces agenda item was particularly difficult and the September target date for a ceasefire was missed. Negotiations were sustained but came under increasing criticism in the US about a perceived lack of direction and failure to secure a ceasefire. Despite the signing of important agreements on constitutional reforms in April 1991, the terms of a ceasefire remained elusive, with the FMLN insisting on retaining full military capability during any ceasefire. It became necessary for the mediators to cut the 'Gordian knot' by rethinking the two-stage negotiating process, a shift achieved in talks in New York in September. The New York Accords established the National Commission for the Consolidation of Peace (COPAZ), guarantees to ensure implementation of previous agreements, and a compressed agenda for political agreements. A ceasefire agreement was reached in December and a final peace agreement signed at Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City on 16 January 1992. The ceasefire was not violated, lending much needed stability in a year when major problems remained, with both sides blaming each other for delays in implementation. In October 1992 de Soto and UN Under-Secretary-General Marrack Goulding conducted extensive discussions with each of the parties, resulting in adjustments to the Chapultepec timetable and an exchange of letters stipulating that compliance with specific undertakings by one side would be contingent upon compliance with specific undertakings by the other side. On 15 December the war formally ended. In March 1994 the FMLN participated in democratic elections. The proactive UN mediation benefited from the support of the Friends of the Secretary-General for El Salvador, comprising Colombia, Mexico, Spain, and Venezuela. This proved helpful in supplying ideas and influence and marshalling diplomatic efforts, not least by inhibiting would-be rival mediators and spoilers. Another key UN contribution was the establishment of an observer mission (ONUSAL) to verify the peace accords, which both sides agreed could deploy a preliminary mission of human rights verification experts before the ceasefire - an unprecedented move that had a major impact in curbing violence and building confidence in the peace process. A shift in the US government's position was an important external factor. The Bush administration had come under pressure to stop supporting the Salvadoran military from the Democrat-controlled Congress, especially after the murder of six Jesuit priests by the armed forces in November 1989. The Dodd-Leahy bill in October 1990 halved US military aid to El Salvador, threatening to cut it to zero if the government did not negotiate in good faith or to restore it entirely if the guerrillas launched another offensive. Aid was restored in 1991 in response to the shooting down of a US helicopter, but the US administration ultimately opted to create incentives for a negotiated resolution by holding out the prospect of substantial aid for implementation. Also, it made direct contact with the FMLN during talks, signalling that it would live with the FMLN as a legitimate political party.Top | Incentives and sanctions | Contents
|
||
| © Conciliation Resources | Legals | Site Map | Printable Version | Text Only
Registered Charity No: 1055436 173 Upper Street, London, N1 1RG, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7359 7728 Fax: +44 (0)20 7359 4081 email: cr@c-r.org |