The problem with an independent approach is that you're bringing in people from outside. You're bringing them into a context they don't necessarily know. They don't have the kind of connection. There are a lot of challenges in doing that.
When CICIG set up in Guatemala, it took it a number of years to get the capacity to do the kinds of investigations that it was doing in parallel with the Ministerio Publico. It wasn't that they weren't competent. They were great people. It's just that you have to know the context. You have to be able to navigate the realities you're dealing with. It's not easy to do that. Then of course you have to have the confidence that somehow creates the competence to do that.
To me I think what's been helpful about this process right now is the international outrage. It puts pressure on the Hondurans. At the end of the day, what happens when you bring in an international group is that it leaves. My biggest concern is that it doesn't help the society to have foreigners come in and somehow deal with its issues and then leave, and it hasn't built the capacity itself to manage and deal with it in the future.
To me, the whole capacity-building agenda is critical. What we need to do is to hold them accountable, be in a position to do oversight and provide assistance as they need it, but try to help them to get the functionality to prove to themselves and to their people that they can start to take control of their own agenda. That's what I believe is the best approach.
I do think the pressure is really important. I think it provides opportunities because right now in the Berta Cáceres case, they have to demonstrate that they're doing a competent investigation and that they're checking all of the avenues and they're getting the evidence. They're going to be under very clear scrutiny, and I think that's good. At the same time, I want them to build that capacity, because part of the problem in these countries is a lack of confidence in themselves.
In Guatemala, when we started, they were dealing with a resolution of 2% of murders. If you only can resolve 2% of your murders, how do you ever feel confident about your ability as a society to manage? You have to take control. That's part of the issue that we have to support.
In terms of the development agenda, I've been arguing this. I feel that, with the mergers as GAC is evolving, one of the big issues is how you combine the government's agenda and the security agendas with the development agendas. In the past, they were viewed very separately, but we know that doesn't work. We know that you can't have development without dealing with the security issues and impunity. You just can't have it. People want to leave the country. They're throwing their money out of the country. It just doesn't work.
What we have to do is to refocus and then do them hand in hand. I know there's a current consultation going on with GAC. That's the message we want to pass to them because our problem we find is that, even in the kind of work we do, ACCBP, the anti-crime capacity-building program, does fabulous work, but it doesn't have a lot of money. It's a small program. On the development side, a lot of the development people are excellent people, but they don't understand the government side. These are issues that I think we have to get our heads around.
