John Veasey
"Refugee Issues in the Chapultepec Peace Accord"
The El Salvador Civil War from 1979 to 1992 is estimated to have displaced up to one million people both internally and internationally across North America. These people fled fearing for their lives from government death squads and the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), a leftist guerrilla group. The number of people that were displaced because of the civil war made up 19% of the population in 1979 when the civil war started. Most of these refugees fled to neighboring countries, including Mexico, and the United States seeking economic opportunity and safe-haven from the El Salvador Civil War. However, once the war ended with the signing of the Chapultepec Peace Accord in 1992 a major part of the document was the safe return of refugees that were displaced by the violence that occurred. The text of the peace accord referring to refugees’ states:
“Displaced persons and returnees shall be provided with the identity documents required by law and shall be guaranteed freedom of movement. They shall also be guaranteed the freedom to carry on their economic activities and to exercise their political and social rights within the framework of the country's institutions.”
This section of the Peace Accord was meant to guarantee El Salvador’s citizens a safe move back to their home country and provide the economic grounds that were destroyed by the civil war. However, this paper will detail the challenges the country faced with immigration of its citizens and the negative contributions the United States had with this policy. This paper will also detail the failures of this new refugee policy corresponding to the United States’ limited openness to taking on the refugees, how the El Salvadoran government has attempted to fix its economy, and the policies that tried to rebuild El Salvador’s infrastructure through this time period from the signing of the Chapultepec Peace Accord in 1992 to its full implementation in 1999.
First, a brief historical overview of the civil war’s causes and its effects. The civil war that led to the peace accord has its roots in the Cold War era when the United States tried to quell communism from springing up across Latin American governments. In El Salvador, left-wing guerrillas and right-wing groups clashed throughout this period engaging in deadly battles and executions by death squads. This caused about 30,000 people to die from the violence caused by clashing ideologies. Then, in October 1979, Dictator Carlos Romero was overthrown by military officers and the government was replaced by the Revolutionary Government Junta (JRG). The JRG was made up of two colonels and three civilians who represented moderate or progressive ideologies but were backed by special interests’ groups in El Salvador. After the government was overthrown, violence escalated coming from the right-wing groups who wanted a more conservative government made to their liking. A wave of mass murder and bombings occurred during this time in 1979-1980 until the assignation of Archbishop Oscar Romero that would officially signal the beginning of the civil war in El Salvador.
​
The civil war would be fought between the JRG and the newly formed FMLN leftist guerilla group. Shootings occurred around the funeral of Oscar Romero causing panic in the international community and in the people living in El Salvador. However, no action would be taken until the end of the civil war. The United States would be the first international actor to intervene briefly after four American churchwomen were raped and murdered by government forces. President Jimmy Carter cut off foreign aid to the country temporarily as a penalty against the government, but after his administration ended President Reagan would treat the JRG as an ally in the fight against communism. To the State Department and the Reagan administration, El Salvador was a means to an end to stop the USSR and the fight against communism in the international community. As a result, the support of one of the world’s superpowers allowed El Salvador to massacre thousands to keep control of the country and thus causing a mass exodus of people to safe havens abroad or in neighboring countries.
​
Political violence mixed with a crumbling economy from terrorist attacks are the two primary drivers of emigration and internally displaced people (IDPs) in the El Salvador Civil War. Violence and killings took place mostly in the north and central departments of El Salvador bordering Honduras. Specifically, the departments affected by this were Morazan, Chalatenango, San Vincente, and San Salvador. These departments make a large majority of the violence and killings committed during the civil war and are also where the number of internally displaced people and migrants per thousand is high. These killings took place from both sides attacking each other, death squads forming to conquer specific land objectives, and citizens responding to government-sponsored violence on them.
​
Economic problems from the civil war also caused migration and IDPs to rise dramatically within El Salvador. The guerilla groups would target infrastructure, farms, and other industries as a message to the government that they wanted revolutionary change and to be heard as a minority group. Government employees would also go on strike to protest the reinstatement of the 1980 land reforms made by the government to redistribute land to disenfranchised groups within the country. The land reforms were made to target the elite class and big businesses that controlled a sizeable amount of production in making coffee, sugar, and cotton. El Salvador would see its GDP growth average at 1.8 percent during the 10 year conflict instead of 10.3% GDP growth 10 years before the war started.
​
As a result, the refugee provision in the Chapultepec Peace Accord tried to address these concerns by guaranteeing citizenship and safe passage into the country if any migrants wanted to return. However, the conditions after the Peace Accord was signed shows that the government had much to do to bring back stability to El Salvador and encourage immigration of refugees. One of the major challenges was to rebuild housing that was destroyed or damaged by the fighting in the civil war. It is estimated that 40% of homes were destroyed during the war and 25% needed serious repair. Given that up to one million people migrated or became IDPs in a country over five million people at the time the estimate gave the government a serious challenge that would be economically challenging to tackle. Thus, in order to accomplish the refugee provision of the peace accord, the government had to take serious steps to build housing for its citizens who could return.
​
The government depended on private companies who provided a vast network of building low-cost houses on a large scale across the country. 50%-70% of housing became attributed to private companies building houses for low-income families and individuals. As a result, households were rebuilt and the standard of living somewhat rose with families taking small loans from the government and companies to pay for a new house or remodeled house in El Salvador. However, refugees from abroad decided to stay in the safe-haven country they had already established themselves in. These refugees found better jobs and opportunities in places like the United States and Mexico than in their home country. This became an unintended consequence of the new housing directive made by the government because in exchange for a mortgage it was required that families work in factories or other jobs for long hours to make monthly payments of the loans they had received. In the United States, for example, better wages and protections in businesses allowed refugees to have a better quality of life than what they would have had in El Salvador.
​
As a result, the Peace Accord made little difference to the minds of those affected by the civil war who left the country or to those who stayed displaced inside the country. Also, violence in these new communities escalated with new youth gangs causing an unprecedented amount of crime every year since the civil war. These youth are motivated by the fact that there is little family support for them since their parents usually work long hours in factories thereby leaving them unsupervised at home. This also is an unintended consequence the government was unprepared for given the stress it had to jumpstart its economy and begin rebuilding from years of war on its citizens. As a result, El Salvador has one of the highest murder rates in the world as well as high amounts of gang-crimes committed each year since the Peace Accord.
​
Refugees saw the jobs concern and crime as more than enough to fight to stay in their safe-haven countries even though they were allowed back into El Salvador. However, during the civil war, refugees would either be deported or not given the chance to apply for asylum in the United States. The Justice Department actively tried to keep out the refugees because of concerns over the effect it would have the national economy. In 1983, almost 100 members of Congress requested that the Attorney General grant an extended period of time of stay to the El Salvador refugees. The Attorney General responded by denying the request on the grounds that the United States would become a hub for other refugees entering the country illegally or for asylum. After this exchange, religious groups and refugee groups started movements across the border communities and cities to help those trying to escape the war.
​
El Salvadorans created communities across the major cities in America that would provide information on the conditions back home and legal advice in the United States. Finally, Congress passed legislation in 1990 to provide “Temporary Protected Status” to groups in need of a safe haven. They also allowed El Salvadorans to apply for permanent residence in the United States under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACAR). NACAR was made possible by a federal court decision in American Baptists Churches v. Thornburgh which forced the government to notify and allow refugees of their ability to apply for asylum status in the U.S. Overall, it appears that the refugee provision in the Chapultepec Peace Accord was framed to try to establish an attempt at an economic resurgence combined with the return of its citizens who would be able to boost the economy back from its civil war stagnation.
​
The El Salvador Peace Accord has had mixed results since it was signed in 1992 and the effects of the civil war last to this day. The government’s attempt to fix the economic and social issues its citizens deal with every year since the passage of the Peace Accord shows that it is trying to change the atmosphere and morale of its country, but to little success. With the formation of youth gangs and refugees wanting to stay away from El Salvador in the U.S. the government has made little progress towards stability. However, one positive result of the has been the introduction of new mortgages and houses built or repaired by private companies in war-torn areas. This gave way to a boost in job creation and somewhat sufficient housing for people in El Salvador. While gangs have risen from these new-built communities it would be interesting to see more in-depth policy proposals and studies on the youth gangs in these communities to find solutions to the problems at hand. It would also be interesting to see how those studies results compare murder rates and the policy solutions that can be put forward in bringing down the high crime rate in the country. Overall, the progress made by the refugee provision in the Chapultepec Peace Accord requires further in-depth studies but continues to show mixed results at this time.
​
​
Works Cited
Chelala, Cesar. “Central America's Health Plight.” The Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor,
March 22, 1990. https://www.csmonitor.com/1990/0322/echel.html.
​
“El Salvador GDP Per Capita 1965-2019.” MacroTrends. MacroTrends. Accessed December 4, 2019.
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/SLV/el-salvador/gdp-per-capita.
​
“El Salvador's Politics of Perpetual Violence.” Crisis Group. Crisis Group, September 25, 2018.
​
Fortin-Magana, Graciela. “Low Income Housing in El Salvador.” Harvard Review on Latin America 11, No. 2
(2003). http://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/files/revista/files/cityscapes.pdf?m=1436820349.
​
Gammage, Sarah. “El Salvador: Despite End to Civil War, Emigration Continues.” Migration Policy Institute, July
19, 2019. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/el-salvador-despite-end-civil-war-emigration-continues.
​
Gzech, Susan. “Central Americans and the Asylum Policy in the Reagan Era.” Migration Policy Institute, April 1,
2006. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-americans-and-asylum-policy-reagan-era
​
Jones, Richard. “Causes of Salvadoran Migration to the United States.” Geographic Review 79, No.2 (1989): 183-
194. Accessed December 6, 2019. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/215525.pdf?ab_segments=0%252basic_expensive%252Fcontrol
​
Miller, Arthur Keith, “Jimmy Carter’s Policy Toward the El Salvador Civil War: The Demise of Human Rights as a
Priority” (Master's thesis, Harvard Extension School. 2017). Accessed December 3, 2019. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33825944
​
“Peace Accords Matrix.” Refugees: Chapultepec Peace Agreement | Peace Accords Matrix. Kroc Institute for
International Peace Studies University of Notre Dame, January 1, 1992.
https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/provision/refugees-chapultepec-peace-agreement.
​
Roth, Kenneth. “World Report 2019: Rights Trends in El Salvador.” Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch,
January 17, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/el-salvador.