Whether it be through the aim of humanitarianism or national security, the United States has long held an interest in advancing democratic institutions and economic development in El Salvador. Among the many issues delaying the progress of El Salvador in these areas is the rampant corruption seen among the country’s economic and political elite. Most clearly illustrating this corruption is the fact that El Salvador’s three most recent presidents have all been convicted of pocketing state funds for personal use. Such corruption simultaneously deprives Salvadorans of vital state resources and of their ability to trust in the country’s political institutions. As the current Salvadoran administration begins to install its International Commission against Impunity in El Salvador (CICIES) according its agreement with the Organization of American States (OAS), the United States should offer financial backing to CICIES to further ensure its immediate and sustained success.
El Salvador has made noteworthy progress in establishing democratic political institutions since the end of the Salvadoran Civil War in 1992, but the issue at the heart of the conflict, economic inequality, still plagues the country. Approximately one-third of all Salvadorans remain under the global poverty rate. The inability of the Salvadoran government to deliver poverty reduction efforts with increased and better economic opportunities remains the driving force behind mass Salvadoran migration to the United States. Likewise, to the current United States administration’s efforts to reduce the number of Salvadorans migrating to its borders, El Salvador’s new administration aims to reduce and end the trend of Salvadorans migrating abroad in search of better economic opportunities. Financially supporting the recently announced CICIES stands as a way for the United States to both reduce migration from El Salvador and curtail corruption in the country.
The United States should conditionally finance CICIES to ensure that the current structure of the commission progresses towards implementing greater transparency measures and achieving greater cooperation with the institutions not under control of the executive branch. As it currently stands, CICIES lacks the support of the Salvadoran Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO). The success of similar anti-corruption commissions in neighboring Guatemala and Honduras is largely credited to the commissions’ widespread backing across the various state branches and institutions. This widespread support provided greater legal backing and investigative capacities for the commissions. Without cooperation of the AGO, CICIES will be extremely limited to the types of corruption cases it can investigate and prosecute. Without at least congressional or judicial support, CICIES may find that the legality of its investigations will be consistently challenged. Most importantly, without both, CICIES stands to become a weaponized tool of the executive branch used only against political enemies. If CICIES continues with its current structure, it will fail to substantively reduce the impunity associated with pervasive corruption in Salvadoran politics.
The United States, with its interest in reducing migration from El Salvador and encouraging healthy democratic institutions in the country, should be at the forefront of advocating for necessary structural changes to CICIES. In doing so, the United States will be making a smarter use of the foreign assistance it has long been sending to El Salvador.
Leave a Reply