How did negotiations to end El Salvador’s civil war deal with disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) and security sector reform (SSR)? What provisions did the peace agreement make for reducing the number of weapons in circulation and providing support to the victims of armed violence? This report from the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue examines how El Salvador’s peace negotiations addressed issues related to guns and armed violence.
From 1990 to 1992, the government and the Frente Farabundo Mundi para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) negotiated an end to El Salvador’s civil war. Carried out under the auspices of the UN, the negotiations set the framework for a dramatic demilitarisation and transition to democracy. The negotiators covered a range of issues, including demilitarisation, public security transformation, human rights, electoral and judicial reform and reconstruction. The El Salvador peace process offers rich lessons for peacemakers and provides an example of the tensions at play when negotiating security concerns.
In El Salvador’s peace process, negotiators approached issues related to guns and violence in a number of ways:
- Disarmament and demobilisation of the FMLN was the last item on the agenda. The FMLN needed a political agreement before it could discuss disarmament. Reintegration was not dealt with fully at first and had to be renegotiated later.
- Security sector transformation was a core FMLN demand and fundamental to the peace process. Agreements provided the basis for transformation of the armed forces, the police service, the justice system and the intelligence services.
- The El Salvador process side-stepped the challenge of reducing and regulating civilian possession of firearms. El Salvador now suffers from extremely high rates of homicide.
- El Salvador’s process was distinctive in addressing the issue of assistance to survivors of armed violence and providing appreciable outcomes for them. However, the extent and quality of assistance has been limited.
El Salvador’s experience provides several lessons on how to approach security issues and the impact of armed violence in peace negotiations. Observations and recommendations include the following:
- Setting disarmament as a precondition for peace talks rarely works. The FMLN rejected demands that it disarm as a precondition for negotiations. Eventually the government accepted that disarmament could only follow a political agreement.
- Security issues require substantive discussion and clear agreement to avoid confusion during implementation. In negotiations, DDR was dealt with as a simple technical issue. During implementation, however, it created significant tension.
- Consider discussing reintegration first. Reintegration demands extensive supporting detail and input from stakeholders. Discussing reintegration first could give parties a clearer focus and more time to consider, debate and agree on realistic clauses.
- Cast a spotlight on survivors of armed violence. The inadequate attention given to disabled veterans and the families of victims of violence left a number of issues unresolved. This has led to widespread discontent among veterans from both sides.
- Impartial actors and credible inventories can lend clarity to negotiations. Both parties were reticent in providing information on weapons and personnel. El Salvador’s case shows the importance of impartial actors in regard to such issues.
- Dedicated armed violence reduction strategies are critical. El Salvador’s experience shows the importance of addressing the issue of access to weapons across society.
