CHAPTER 1
Displaced Persons and Central American Recuperation and Development
Sergio Aguayo
Introduction
The cessation of hostilities in Central America will not automatically bring about a return to normal life. Central America has changed profoundly. Ten years of war have devastated the economies, altered the political systems, displaced societies and modified international relations. Peace—a gradual and irregular process—requires reconstruction and development, and these present enormous challenges.
The number of displaced persons is immense. Estimates run from 1.8 million to 2.8 million people. This represents varying percentages of each country's population: between 3 and 7.5 percent of Guatemalans and between 25 and 29 percent of Salvadorans. Their existence presents us with difficult challenges in humanitarian, economic, political, legal, and international terms.
This chapter is based on a simple assumption: peace does not automatically resolve the problems of this displaced population. Undoubtedly peace is the basis for any lasting solution, but the duration and scale of the demographic movements have given them autonomy. The violence could diminish or cease, but the Central American demographic map has been modified—in some ways irreversibly. The implications of these changes are as yet difficult to determine.
In the past few years great efforts have been made to identify and understand the characteristics of this phenomenon, and the literature is vast and diverse. There are newspaper articles, reports of all kinds, and some fifty academic works on the subject of demographic changes involving Central America, Mexico and the United States. The accumulated knowledge is considerable but still insufficient. To begin with, there is a fundamental problem: we do not know the exact number of displaced persons. Except for the 116,008 refugees recognized by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), estimates are based upon mere appraisals.
On the other hand, the existing works have been dedicated, above all, to describing the phenomenon and defending the Central Americans. Therefore, they have emphasized the political, international, and legal aspects of the refugees. Few works review the economic impact of the displacements of people, and those that exist are not sufficient to permit valid generalizations in terms of all countries.
In the literature about the massive flow of Central Americans, it is correctly assumed that the best solution for the displaced is the return to their place of origin. Nonetheless, the studies on this and other migrations have emphasized the situation in the receiving countries even though the conditions in the countries of origin will determine repatriation. The return to peace and the reconstruction of economies and communities are the central factors.
In the following discussion (which presents only the broadest and most general concepts), the variety of situations and the great number of actors involved in the phenomenon should also be taken into account. In the arena of the displaced Central Americans, the participants include regional and European governments, international organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), political institutions, religious groups, and private development agencies.
In view of the above, it is difficult to establish recommendations for the future. Still, it is essential to begin to explore the links between displaced persons and reconstruction and development. Achieving a satisfactory response to the challenges presented by the displaced Central American population would be an historic step forward that could serve in confronting the phenomenon of massive displacements common in other parts of the world.
Review of a Decade of Displacement
In order to assess the impact of the displaced and to recommend responses, we must first look at what has taken place in a decade of peoples being displaced within their countries and abroad. Observers and students of the phenomenon have estimated that between 1.8 million and 2.8 million have left their place of residence in recent years. Of these, about million are displaced in four countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras); the rest are dispersed throughout at least II countries, UNHCR estimates that there are some 300,000 residing outside their own country (not including those in the United States), but it has recognized and protected only 116,000.
Those Displaced Within Their Own Countries
Those considered to be displaced within their own countries are people who have changed their place of residence within their own borders for reasons connected with the conflict. The country most affected is El Salvador, followed by Nicaragua and Guatemala. A special case worthy of mention is Honduras. Although the conflict within Honduras is minor, 35,000 people are displaced by the Nicaraguan counterrevolution; for many years the Honduran government has denied the existence of these contras in Honduras.
The primary factors causing displacement are the violence of certain military campaigns that do not discriminate between combatant and civilian populations, and the economic devastation caused by the conflicts. In fact, a direct correlation exists between the number of people displaced and the intensity of the counterinsurgency campaigns (in Guatemala, 1982 estimates reached 1 million, while now they are at 250,000).
Another cause of displacement is that some people or groups foresee the possibility (actual or potential) of being affected by the confrontation. A third factor is forced relocation for military reasons. This practice has been followed by the governments of three countries: the Plan Mil ("Plan One Thousand") of the Christian Democratic Party of El Salvador, the Aldeas Modelos ("Model Villages") and the Polos de Desarrollo ("Development Areas") of Guatemala, and the relocation carried out by the Sandinista Army in some parts of Nicaragua.
Displaced persons are in a difficult situation both because they receive little protection and because the majority do not receive material assistance. In El Salvador, of the estimated 500,000 displaced persons, only 17 or 18 percent are given aid. Of those, 60 percent receive the help of a government more interested in controlling them than in resolving their situation. The other 40 percent are assisted by private international agencies.
This lack of attention has various explanations. First, the violent situation causes displaced persons to remain scattered and hidden. Second, the attention given those displaced within their own borders is outside the jurisdiction of many humanitarian organizations (including UNHCR). Third, and perhaps most important, the possibility of helping displaced persons depends upon the will of their government. In Guatemala, for example, the authorities are not inclined to permit the presence of international organizations that wish to maintain a certain independence from official control. Managua allows greater freedom to operate, and for that reason there are dozens of organizations working in Nicaragua with the displaced.
Those displaced within their own countries are, on the other hand, a potential (reserve) of international refugees. In studies on refugees, one of the most difficult problems is to determine the causes that lead individuals or groups to leave their countries. When we are able to understand these dynamics (for example, determining how many of those actually recognized as refugees were previously displaced in their own countries), it will be easier to establish the importance of attending to this community. Actually, some private international agencies have been expanding their mandates to include internally displaced persons. These agencies maintain that it is better to help the displaced while they are in their own country, before they become refugees.
There is no doubt that because of the great number of people affected, any plan for reconstruction and development must include the displaced. The central problem, however, is that this requires the collaboration of the local governments, which is difficult to obtain as long as they do not form part of a global plan for pacification and reconciliation. I will return to this point later.
Those Displaced Abroad
Estimates are that almost 2 million Salvadorans, Guatemalans, and Nicaraguans are living outside their own countries. What we are witnessing is a migration from Central America to North America. Between 87 and 88 percent of the Central Americans who have left their countries are now in Mexico and the United States, countries that for a variety of economic, political, and geographic factors have become the principal receiving countries for Central Americans. This implies that, from the start, these two countries must participate in the search for any possible solution to the refugee problem.
The same factors that lead to internal displacement also influence those who decide to leave their country. To these factors must be added the influence of economic distinctions between countries and the existence of migratory networks. Migration from Central America to North America has been possible because land travel is inexpensive and because the borders have been relatively open. This last element is ignored in the studies on the topic, despite its fundamental importance. I will therefore discuss it further.
In Central America there is an old migratory tradition among countries. With the war in the region, migration has been reoriented toward North America. This destination is encouraged because Salvadorans, Nicaraguans, and Hondurans do not need a visa to enter into Guatemala. They arrive easily at the Mexican border, for which they do need a visa but into which they can enter without papers through the region of El Soconusco (level ground of some 70 kilometers between the Pacific and the mountains). Due to a series of economic and political factors El Soconusco is an open border that is virtually impossible to seal. Once in Mexico, ethnic and linguistic similarities allow for their integration into the local population. Those who decide to continue the trip to the United States—in part compelled by the Mexican economic crisis—make use of the existence of a sophisticated and old migratory tradition between Mexico and the United States (another border equally easy to cross).
Part of the reason for the precarious conditions facing the displaced is that the number of those recognized and protected as refugees by UNHCR is very limited. It follows, then, that recognition is one of the central problems of this community. I will return to the legal questions, but for the moment I will note a central issue: some institution or government must decide who is a refugee, who a displaced person, and who is a migrant for economic reasons. The criterion used most often is an evaluation of the conditions of the country of origin. As a result, the prevailing political and ideological influences of the region are factors even when the problem of the displaced is eminently humanitarian.
The Response to the Central Americans
Reactions to the massive arrival of Central Americans have been diverse. Despite this, two basic tendencies can be identified within each country and on a regional basis: on the one hand, there is a humanitarian position that has sought to resolve the problems of this community, and on the other, efforts have been made not to receive the people but to expel them and to encourage them to go to other countries.
These two tendencies have been neither exclusive nor constant. Generally they coexist within a single country, although there are cycles in which humanitarianism or restrictive tendencies are dominant. For example, in 1981 the Mexican government deported Guatemalan peasants under the premise that they did not qualify individually for asylum. Months later the government allowed them to stay, and in 1984 it agreed to let some of them participate in self-sufficiency projects. At the same time, Mexico promoted a generous regional solution, while refusing to recognize the majority of Central Americans within its borders. Still, it maintained a certain flexibility.
Ambiguities of this kind are repeated in other countries because in responding to the displaced, a good number of actors intervene for humanitarian, ideological, political, and economic reasons. In other words, even when the phenomenon of the displaced should be governed by humanitarian considerations, it cannot escape political reality.
This is evident if we review the case of the UNHCR, an institution created by the international community to address the phenomenon of refugees and displaced persons. Its mandate is humanitarian but must be adapted to the reality in which it operates. This is revealed in the numerical estimates that it produces. It estimates that there are 300,000 Central American refugees, but for political reasons does not include the United States, where the greatest number of Central Americans are concentrated. It could then be argued (and is by many) that the number of refugees is much higher.
Another problem appears when determining who qualifies as a refugee. The international community has created two criteria: the narrow or "classical" one and the broad one. The former recognizes specific persons who have escaped persecution against them or who have a well-founded fear of suffering persecution. In this case the situation of each individual is the determining factor. The broad criteria (prima facie) protects mass migrations to neighboring countries and is based on evaluations of the general conditions of a country or the regions of a country.
UNHCR uses both definitions in Central America, although it has favored the broad criteria; 80 percent of those recognized as refugees come under this category (especially those who are actually in camps). The other 20 percent, especially those who have traveled individually or in small groups, meet the "classical" criteria. In some circumstances UNHCR does not use any definition because it does not protect the refugees. In Mexico it responds only to those soliciting asylum in the capital, ignoring some outlying regions with a strong Central American presence. More disturbing—although politically understandable—is that UNHCR carries out minimal protective activity in the United States, where the greatest number of Central Americans are concentrated.
Of course in some countries UNHCR has had an exceptionally protective role. I would like to emphasize that the work of UNHCR has not taken place in a political vacuum, but rather is conditioned by nonhumanitarian interests. With more or less intensity, these politicizing influences have appeared in the reactions of governments and private institutions.
The Hospitable Response
The hospitable response has various explanations. First is the old tradition of asylum in Latin American countries, the United States, and Canada. Next would be political reasons (solidarity with some parts of the conflict) and economic reasons (the desire of some employers to count on a reserve of cheap labor). The result is that Central Americans have come upon sectors within the bureaucracy and groups within the society that have become their protectors.
This hospitality is supported and strengthened by the influence of external actors such as UNHCR, some nongovernmental organizations, and interested governments. It is fitting to wonder what would have happened with the Salvadoran refugees in Honduras (given the historical resentment these two countries hold toward each other) or with the Guatemalans in Mexico if it were not for this external factor.
Hospitality implies protection, which has legal, material, and political dimensions. Before discussing these dimensions, it is necessary to briefly place them in a time frame. Between approximately 1977 and 1983, the response and the proposals were oriented toward resolving the most immediate problems, because it was generally assumed that the phenomenon would be of short duration. When the perception of the conflict changed in 1983-84 and it became evident that there would be no immediate peace, long-term solutions were sought and some of the more structural aspects of the Central American conflict were explored.
The ideal situation would be for the international community to decide, through UNHCR and using some of the previously mentioned criteria, that an individual or group is or are refugees. Those selected would acquire a legal status entitling them to receive emergency support, to participate in economic self-sufficiency projects, and to have support when they decide to return to their countries.
The ideal, however, often clashes with the political and economic realities of each country, resulting in different interpretations and manifestations of this protection. To shed light upon a complex history, let us take the legal aspect in Mexico and the United States. In Mexico, the defenders of the Central Americans have never been very concerned with making changes in existing legislation, in which the refugee does not figure. Interest was concentrated on reaching a political decision that would allow the refugees to stay. In the United States, to the contrary, a good portion of the defense has been in the legal arena.
