Regional Integration in Central America: Its History, Uses and Feasibility

Introduction

As a Filipino, regional integration is not new to me. I have come to learn that my country is part of this regional organization called Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Just this year 2007, the Philippines hosted the 12th ASEAN summit attended by the heads of the 10 member-states, namely; the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar. It was a huge event in the Philippines as the public, through the media, was bombarded with advertisements of the summit’s theme, “One Caring and Sharing Community.” However, for most Filipinos including me, we know more of this regional “community” played out in the biennial Southeast Asia (SEA) Games where the Philippines is the reigning and defending overall champion. I have observed that the ASEAN annual summit appeals to the elites while the SEA Games fascinate the common people. All the same, the summit and games have effectively entered into the consciousness of Filipinos as instruments of this regional integration.

Throughout this paper, integration “refers to the merger of peoples into a transnational society and polity (and a transnational economy also…)” (Puchala 1968, 39). And ASEAN, for me, is going to this direction of integration.

Another thing that caused me to choose this topic on regional integration in Central America is the fact that armed conflicts in this region had been terminated while a similar armed conflict in my country still rages on for more than three decades now. It intrigued me on how these Central American armed conflicts, such as in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, were resolved. As a researcher, I could not help but ask rhetorical and comparative questions, such as what conditions were present in Central America that paved the way for the normative peace treaties or agreements? Could those conditions be found and applied in the Philippines? What did Central America do right in its approach to peace? And what is the Philippines doing wrong and why is it failing in its approach to conflict?

I have seen the hideous face of conflict in my Bicol region where I grew up. Practically, some of our localities have two “governments,” one as the mainstream and the other is the underground. Most often than not, these two sides clash, thereby displacing the civilians from their homes and livelihood. In one of my fieldworks in Masbate Island, I came face to face with the victims of this conflict. They felt that they were abandoned by their mainstream government and left to depend on the underground government for their basic human right to security. It breaks my heart to see my fellow Bicolanos living in a makeshift shelter as evacuees and victims of this conflict and without knowing when they could go back home safely. Normalcy seems to have lost its charm in the midst of insecurities of the people. They get so familiar with the situation that in it, they find refuge.

Being in Costa Rica

Since I am in Costa Rica, although not a good point of reference if regional integration in Central America is the subject of interest (I will explain later why this is so), I decided to attend and witness a massive gathering and festive proceeding of the historic September 30 show of force by the opposition of Tratado de Libre Commercio (TLC), also known as Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) which fundamentally promotes free trade among Central American states and the United States (US). As a graduate student of peace studies, I wanted to understand the issues surrounding the controversial TLC that virtually divided the country. I also volunteered as international observer in the October 7 referendum which was won by Yes (Si) to TLC by an expected close margin of victory. I felt that I was seeing an integrating process by one state into a region to be able to trade with a much-larger state which is the US.

In this paper, I attempt to revisit the historical basis of Central American integration and see if the basis is sufficient to make the regional integration feasible. Or are there challenges to its integration process? Specifically, I look at the past and existing regional structures in Central America and how these initiatives and structures played a role in the efforts to end the conflicts in the region. Also, I try to sparingly refer to ASEAN, because that is my idea of regional integration, for any comparative value to Central American regional initiatives. My main argument is that Central America with its commonalities among states within it, such as widely-used Spanish language, compact geography, Catholicism, and shared colonial history and struggle for independence, has more reasons to work towards its regional integration and be eventually integrated. It is so unlike the ASEAN that is composed of states which have varied histories, different languages, scattered geographical locations, and diverse faith, but it has so far worked out as an entity and is able to represent the region in international gatherings and fora.

Being in one of the Central American states and studying in a multicultural university, I have the opportunity and privilege to personally ask simple questions to Central American citizens from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica to either support or negate my argument. Admittedly as trained in anthropological methods, I have a preference and interest for the voices from “below” and not from the “official” and “mainstream” discourses I usually get from public officials. Although I would not make a claim that the responses of my informants are definitive sentiments of Central American citizens, but I would certainly take them as indicative of something that is worth-researching on the subject of regional integration in Central America. One thing though that I thought could have helped me a lot in developing this paper is the facility of Spanish language. While going through the articles and books about the subject of interest, I realized that most of them are in Spanish. Regrettably yet thoroughly, I make do with what I could find useful in English.

Integrative processes of a region

There are four “new” regional perspectives in human geography, as Bradshaw (cited in Holmen 1995, 48) would put it; namely, according to humanists, “the region is a source of identification and meaning;” in the lens of structuralists and world-systems theorists, “regional change is the local response to (world) capitalist processes;” in “Hagerstrand's time-geography and Giddens' structuration theory, the region is an arena enabling or constraining social interaction;” and “for 'realists' local variation is the outcome of spatial contingency effects of economic restructuring.” Holmen (1995, 53) objects to the notion of “regions as illustrations of predetermined structures and/or processes.” These perspectives and objection are useful in my argument that Central America faces challenges towards its integration. What if the region does not provide common identification and meaning to its constituents? What if the regional change is not a local response but a hegemonic effort from a super power state like the US? What if the social interaction in the region is in itself a contested and subdued form brought about by previous misunderstanding and misconstrued image of the others in the region? And I agree with Holmen (1995) that regions are not “predetermined structures”, rather, I would say, a social construct.

I consider the articles of Brand (2005) on global governance and Alvarez (2006) on (in)security discourses as the backdrop of the logic of regional integration for nation-states. Brand (2005, 160) indicates that “many social processes and the problems and policies associated with them are taking place at the international level.” Most of these social processes and problems could be interpreted in economic sense, but have to be dealt with politically. One good example of this is the TLC which is an economic agreement, yet it has to undergo a referendum which is a political exercise. He further explains that these problems, which practically touch on everyone in one way or another, “should be dealt with cooperatively and in dialogue” (161). The benefits of cooperation and dialogue are the driving forces to address common social problems that beset the nation-states concerned. Describing the international system as anarchic, Alvarez (2006, 63) cites Buzan’s People, States and Fear (1991) and points out that “this anarchic system is fuelled by state’s actions to preserve their sovereignty.” Alvarez (2006, 64) declares that “national security is relational and interdependent with the security of other states.” This idea of security, to my mind, gives rise to cooperation among self-interested nation-states to keep their own national security intact.

Puchala (1968, 46) presents the dynamic processes of regional integration. Among which are “cooperative actions among nation-states of regional system supersedes competitive interaction,” (47) “consensus, or similarity in interpretation or reaction concerning major issues of intra-regional and international affairs,” (47) and “the likelihood that international conflict among states within the integrating region will be resolved by violence decreases markedly” (48). Unlike ASEAN which to me is probably one or two steps ahead of Central America in terms of regional integration, these processes are important to note to see how the two regions proceed and manage these integrative processes.
Historical basis for integration in Central America

Interestingly, the Central American region (Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) shares the same colonial history and struggle for independence against one colonial power. In 1535 – 1821, the Viceroyalty of New Spain ruled Central America, Carribean, Mexico, and the US Golf coast with Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, and southern California. For Central America, a Captaincy General of Guatemala (Kingdom of Guatemala) was formed under the Viceroyalty in Mexico. In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain, together with Central America. Then in 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formed with Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. However in 1838, the union was dissolved and each country became independent states until the present.

After becoming independent states, there were attempts, mostly in war, to reunite Central America as one. All of these attempts failed. Nevertheless, this aspiration is manifest in the past and existing regional structures and initiatives which, at times, played key roles in ending conflicts within the region and sometimes were casualties of the conflicts.

Notable among these regional structures and initiatives which promoted regional integration and cooperation are the Central American Court of Justice (1907-18, 1962-present), Organizacion de Estados Centroamericanos (ODECA) in 1951-73, Central American Common Market (CACM) in 1960-69 and reinstated in 1991, Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) in 1960-present, Central American Integration System (SICA) in 1993 with parliament component, and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006.

Conflicts in the region and regional structures and initiatives

Central America has been mired with conflicts between states and intra-states since the independence in 1821. An example for conflicts between states is the so-called and misleading “Football” war between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969. Many factor contributed to the escalation of the conflict. Some of which were the obvious disparities between the two states- (Honduras had small population with vast land while El Salvador had a growing population in a small territory), the incursion of Salvadorans of Honduras land, and worsening political and economic conditions in the two countries. This conflict caused the collapse of CACM. The Organization of American States (OAS), a much larger regional group that includes North America and South America, mediated successfully and brought the conflict to an end. I would note here that there are overlapping regional subsystems that operate within smaller regional subsystems. For examples, the OAS covers three regional subsystems (North, Central, and South Americas) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) covers ASEAN and other Pacific Rim countries.

In the 1980s, there were intra-states civil conflicts in Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The Contadora group composed of Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela with the support of other European states tried to come up with peaceful solutions to the conflicts but failed. Although many factors could be attributed to this failure, the major reason was the attitudes of non-Central American protagonists - Cuba and the US which had not supported the idea of the group. Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica (1986-1990) picked up the idea of Contadora group and the Esquipulas II peace accords were signed by five Central American presidents. Because of this, Arias was awarded the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize. Normative peace in Central America finally dawned. In 1990, the Oslo peace accord ended the three decades of conflict in Guatemala and a democratic election in Nicaragua was held. Then in 1992, there was the peace accord in El Salvador.

Regional structures and initiatives, such as OAS, Contadora group, and Esquipulas peace plan, could be instrumental in ending conflicts in the region.

Post-conflict Central America

The civil conflicts definitely left a lasting and irreparable legacy to the lives of the people. The effects on the people may be direct or indirect and overt or covert. Mosser and McIlwaine (2001) document the post-conflict context in Guatemala. They found out that “people reported that they suffered more violence than they had during the worst years of the war” (Ibid, 41). Violence was still pervasive. Widespread massacres in rural areas, kidnappings, robberies, rape and torture were unexpectedly happening. According to Mosser and McIlwaine, “one of the most important legacies of the armed conflict was the culture of silence (cultura de silencio)” (43). Although silence prevents further violence, it does not abdicate hatred, revenge, remorse, and violence itself. It in fact breeds more of them. This kind of legacy of armed conflict could not be addressed by any normative peace accords. The passivity of silence by the people renders any efforts to involve these people into projects to a grinding difficulty, nearing futility because it is culturally-rooted. However, this finding of the armed conflict’s legacy does not stop Central American states to aspire to be integrated (e.g. CAFTA).

Voices from the people

Citing Puchala (1968, 39), I have operationally defined integration in the beginning of this paper as “merger of peoples into a transnational society, polity and economy.” Thus I asked people from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica about their ideas on Central America and the feasibility of its integration.

Dr. Victor Valle, an El Salvadorian and head of International Peace Studies department at UPEACE, mentioned to me about the dispersion of aspirations among Central American people. For him, there was no psyche or symbol that can unite the people of Central America especially if Costa Ricans always see themselves as different from the rest of Central America. By different, he meant “developed” as a country. As El Salvadorian, he also sees this difference by the Costa Ricans to the rest of the people of the region. Yet still, the people of Central America have the notion of “Fatherland,” which primarily pertains to one’s state and not to the region. If that notion can be expanded to the region, then the feasibility of integration will be in for the taking.

Brenda Gonzalez, from Honduras and a current student of International Law and Settlement of Disputes at UPEACE, echoed the absence of regional consciousness in Central America and also affirmed the observation of Dr. Valle on Costa Ricans. She said that integration will not be possible because Costa Ricans will not allow that. Costa Ricans feel that integration is a step backward.

At this point, I was perplexed by this “difference” that Brenda and Dr. Valle mentioned. I was dissatisfied by an explanation that this difference stems from the abstract notion of development levels, less developed against more developed.

Carla Ortiz, a Nicaraguan and head of the Department of Academic Administration (DAA) of UPEACE, provided me an acceptable explanation of this difference between Costa Ricans and the rest of Central American people. She said that Costa Ricans think that they have “purer” Spanish blood than others in the region as made obvious by physical features like fairer skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. Unlike other states with large indigenous population, Costa Rica has a small population of indigenous peoples which made the mixture of blood less likely and possible. According to Carla, this difference was manifested in her school years in Costa Rica; students from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador would usually get together but Costa Rican students would usually not join and isolate themselves from the group. She also could not grasp a regional spirit that can unite Central America.

Speaking as Costa Rican, Eddy Quesada, an Administrative Assistant in DAA at UPEACE, believes that Central American people share many common things, such as food, Spanish language, and fondness for football. He introduced me to the concept of “paisa” or brotherhood. Many consider others as “paisas” or “hermanos,” signifying relations and oneness in origin (be it a place, family, school). However, he acknowledged that some people from the region hate Costa Ricans for being as they are. He also mentioned that this is brought about by being more “developed” than others and being “different.” He qualified the word “developed” as being better educated, good jobs offering high wage that’s why many people from the region flock to Costa Rica to work, good social security, and more opportunities here than anywhere else in the region. For being different, he said that many Central American people could not still understand the country’s abolition of the army. For Eddy, that practically sets them apart from the rest of the region. And for those reasons, the others envy or even hate them. As a Costa Rican, he said that he could not change what they think about him because that’s what the reality is – Costa Rica has better education, good jobs with high wages, more opportunities, and no army.

Staying for more a month now in Costa Rica, I have found myself living in a relatively well-off country with expensive commodities. Compared to my country, the Philippines, the prices of the same goods here are almost tripled. But still I would refrain using the problematic label, “developed,” to describe this country.

Conclusion

As I said in the beginning, Costa Rica is not the best place to be if my subject of interest is the regional integration of Central America. This country takes pride in being “different” from the rest of Central America. During the September-30 rally of the NO to TLC supporters, I talked with Ana, a student of University of Costa Rica. She took pride of the fact that Costa Rica is the only country in the world to have a referendum on such important issue and in the possibility of the first country to say NO to the US. For a while, I took offense to that because I thought it was the Philippines who first said NO to the US when our Senate did not renew the contract of the two US military bases to stay on the Philippine soil in 1991. Then I pondered that, so long as this kind of thinking and disposition of being different and taking pride out of it, the road to regional integration seems to be rocky and tedious if by integration we mean “merger of peoples.” Although in my case, ASEAN is functioning as a regional entity, I too could not identify with the rest of ASEAN and concept of regional community. I just feel that in that part of the world, we are simply and markedly different from the others in the region in too many essential aspects. There is still so much to work on for ASEAN to be truly one community.

Going back to Central America, the commonalities do not necessarily translate into common aspirations, hence integration. For the elites in the government who gain and benefit from regional integration, it becomes a way of proceeding in this globalizing world. And for the common people or masses, they do not extend themselves beyond the state level, or into regional level. The superstructure is simply not there to make regional integration happen.


Bibliography

Brand, Ulrich. “Order and regulation: Global Governance as a hegemonic discourse of
international politics?” Review of International Political Economy, 12:1 (February 2005): 155-176.

Holmen, Hans. “What’s New and What’s Regional in the ‘New Regional Geography?’”
Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 77, No. 1 (1995): 47-63. See http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0435-3684%281995%2977%3A1%3C47%3AWNAWRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U. Date accessed 10 October 2007.

Mosser, Caroline and Cathy McIlwaine. Violence in a Post-Conflict Context: Urban Poor
Perceptions from Guatemala. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ World Bank, 2001.

Puchala, Donald. “The Pattern of Contemporary Regional Integration.” International
Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 1968): 38-64. See http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-8833%28196803%2912%3A1%3C38%3ATPOCRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y. Date accessed 1 October 2007.