Central America and beyond: ruminations, speculations & provocations

Consider the logical consequences of these assertions, made by Republican congressmen Dana Rohrbacher, Dan Burton, and Thomas Tancredo as well as the ARENA party:

Assertion: If the FMLN wins, the U.S. will have to re-examine its relationship with the new Salvadoran government--TPS could be revoked, remittances will thus decline, and the country will go downhill fast.

Assertion: If the FMLN wins, a communist system will be set up in El Salvador--it will become another Cuba.

Fact: The U.S. gives far greater benefits to immigrants from communist countries like Cuba than they have ever given to El Salvador, even during the worst days of the war.

Lesson learned: If you're a Salvadoran and want to migrate north (and half of all Salvadorans consistently tell pollsters they'd jump at the chance), it's smarter to vote for the FMLN than ARENA.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

"For the moment, Spain's incoming prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, didn't make matters easier when he hinted in a radio interview Wednesday that he was rooting for John Kerry to defeat Bush. Americans, no less than the Spanish, prefer to make their own electoral decisions. But with so many supporters of the Bush administration trashing Zapatero voters as appeasers, the new prime minister's preferences are not surprising."

--E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post, March 19, 2004

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

There's much not to like about the campaigning of both parties in recent weeks, but a paid ad taken out on Tuesday in La Prensa Gráfica (sorry, no link available) by the "Comunidades Cristianas Fe y Vida" really got my dander up. Entitled "Parable: The Star of Hope," this half-page ad seeks to draw a parallel between the star of Bethlehem and the star of hope represented by the FMLN. I quote:

"God has promised change and new life with hope, just as he did in Bethlehem with the birth of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the same way he has done today in El Salvador by naming our brothers, friends and also children of God, Schafik Handal and Guillermo Mata Benet, who will govern and will guide the Salvadoran people.

The star of hope is before us, just as the star of Bethlehem was before the wise men of the East; let's follow the star to victory by marking it on the 21st of March."

Is disgusting too polite a word to describe this?

From what I hear (I wasn't there), similar words used by Baptist and Lutheran authorities at last Saturday's closing rally for the FMLN, when they "annointed" Schafik and Mata in front of the thousands of party faithful gathered in the main plaza in downtown San Salvador. LPG didn't quite cover this, but they did make a similar reference to this ceremony in their reporting.

By way of comparison, a few traditional churches and individuals (for example, Elim, World Vision, and Jorge Martínez Meléndez, who was a vice-minister of interior for a while in the Cristiani administration and then tried to launch an evangelical based political party), took out a nearly full-page ad on Wednesday that noted, in part:

"It is important to recognize that the Absolute is God, and not authorize such a quality to any party, ideology or political party, and therefore we should maintain a critical attitude towards all human power."

Maybe it's the latent Southern Baptist in me (a reference to my childhood, when pluralistic thinking and tolerance were still permitted in the denomination), but I go with the thoughts of the latter.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

Today La Prensa Gráfica reported the statements by Republican congressman Thomas Tancredo that appeared in yesterday's EDH, and both papers noted new statements by Dana Rohrabacher and Dan Burton that said an FMLN victory would have consequences for the relationship with the U.S., including the issue of Temporary Protected Status currently provided to some 250,000 Salvadorans living in the U.S.

LPG gets it right in the sense that they accurately note that Tancredo is head of Immigration Reform Caucus, and is the politician least likely to authorize migration benefits. Both articles cite the widely respected Salvadoran Ambassador to the U.S. René León as saying, essentially, you gotta take these guys seriously.

Buried at the end of a series of quotes in the LPG piece (EDH does not even do this), however, is the statement by Xavier Becerra, a democratic congressman from California, who says that whoever wins will always have good relations with the U.S. On March 15, Becerra and Raúl Grijalva (democratic representative from Arizona) issued a statement which read as follows:

“As we look ahead to this Sunday’s presidential election, we wish to reiterate that the official position of the United States government is to respect the democratic process and to work to build a constructive relationship with whichever political party the people of El Salvador choose. The U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador has met with all of the candidates and has stated publicly that it is not ‘[our] decision who the Salvadoran people elect, but we are going to try to work closely with whoever they select.’

“It is of paramount importance to address the false rumors currently circulating stating that U.S. policy toward El Salvador would change depending on which political party assumes the presidency.

“It is irresponsible and untrue for anyone to suggest that Salvadorans in the United States would be at greater risk of deportation or that they would no longer be able to send remittances to El Salvador. What concerns the United States is the integrity of the democratic process, rather than which political party the people of El Salvador choose. That is how it should be, and as democratically elected representatives of the United States, we will work vigorously to ensure that the ambassador’s words are put into practice. Thus, the people of a democratic El Salvador should rest assured that they are free to vote their conscience without fear of reprisals from the United States government.

“We have already expressed our concerns over maintaining U.S. neutrality with regard to the elections in a letter to Secretary of State Powell. It is distressing that after this letter was sent, White House Special Assistant Otto Reich made comments that seem intended to influence the elections during a press conference at the headquarters of one of the Salvadoran political parties. We again call on Secretary Powell to affirm the official United States position with regard to the elections as stated by the ambassador and disavow the inflammatory statements made by Mr. Reich.”

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

Note that I often tinker with my posts after the fact, replacing commas here, fiddling with words there, since I assume that I'm the only one who looks at this on a daily basis and would like to tidy up my posts for my own personal posterity.

However, in a recent case, I may have slightly overplayed my rant when I suggested earlier that EDH misrepresented the "migration committee" headed by Rep. Tancredo, so a correction is warranted. The paper noted that "el comité que preside avala o rechaza cualquier ley migratoria antes de presentarse al pleno legislativo." I translated that to mean that "the committee (sic) he presides approves or rejects" migration laws.... In fact, the Spanish infinitive verb "avalar" actually is more correctly translated as "to endorse."

So perhaps, technically, EDH didn't get it wrong. But given this revised translation, then just about anyone qualifies as being able to "endorse or reject" migration bills (or any other ones, for that matter) that pass through Congress.

The bottom line is that one of the major points of the piece is to say that Tancredo is "influential," that his committee is "powerful", and therefore Salvadorans should listen to what he says--all of which gives an entirely misleading portrayal of his influence.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

This from Catherine Elton in today's Houston Chronicle, describing how the issue of remittances--money sent by Salvadorans in the U.S. to family members in El Salvador, and which comprises 16 percent of the gross domestic product--has been manipulated by the governing party:

"...the ruling party's candidate, Tony Saca -- who polls show is favored to win -- has made a campaign issue of payments from Salvadorans working abroad. Using his party's close relations with the Bush administration, Saca has played on the fears of a nation whose economy is dependent on what are popularly called remittances.

'The message is designed to make people afraid, and it is clearly not true,' says Geoff Thale of the Washington Office on Latin America, a private lobby group. 'The legal status of Salvadorans in the U.S. is tied up with complicated domestic issues and isn't dependent on who is in government in El Salvador.'

...According to [Economist Roberto] Rubio, ARENA began stressing the remittance issue at the beginning of the year, when most polls showed Handal and Saca in a neck-and-neck race.

Rubio and pollsters like Miguel Cruz, director of the public opinion institute at the University of Central America in San Salvador, believe the message is working, especially among undecided voters and those who planned to vote for the first time for the FMLN.

Some analysts believe the ruling party's campaign was buoyed by recent statements from high-level U.S. officials...."

This morning I talked to someone who makes an extremely modest living keeping an eye on cars parked on the street in a residential neighborhood. Throughout most of the 1980s he'd been in the elite Arce Battalion, one of several quick-strike forces trained by the U.S. during the war. I asked him which party he was planning to vote for this Sunday. For the first time ever, he said, the FMLN. Why? Because the current government is full of corruptos.

But, then again, he doesn't receive a dime from remittances.

AFTERNOTE: Tom Long wrote me after posting this, with the following comment, well-taken:

"For the quibble-file record, the "elite" battalions were not really quick-strike in practice, but were generally pretty slow-moving columns of several hundred soldiers. A battalion operation was almost always known about in advance. They relied on superior numbers and firepower, not so much on surprise. Their main job seemed to be to draw fire and engage, and then call in air strikes and/or artillery fire on the enemy once located. They weren't really so elite, either, as they were manned mostly by normal recruits, same as the brigades. My own favorite "elite" battalion was the Bracamonte, which was of course re-dubbed for all eternity as "Brincamonte," when the officer in charge abandoned his post and the troops ended up high-tailing it into Honduras, creating a minor diplomatic incident, and pretty much destroying morale and effectiveness forever. After that, every time the Brincamonte went into Chalatenango it was a bloodbath that would make a strong man weep to see. Once a guerrilla nun in Las Flores told me: "Pobrecitos, los del Bracamonte. Aqui no se les respeta." The mojo of the bad-luck battalion or company is apparently real among armies: once you get that reputation, it tends to just spiral downward from there. For my part, I always knew that a Bracamonte operation was a good time to be in the zone, from a reporter and photographer's very selfish perspective. Lots of good material. As for quick-strike, that was mostly effected by Lurps and/or heli-transport troops after the enemy had been previously located by electronic surveillance or other intelligence. And the latter was counter-acted when the rebel commanders decided to change to guerrilla tactics, from the early years' strategy of conventional batallion-strength insurgent forces. As for the army's different units, it was generally accepted that the best-trained fighters overall were in the air force: the paratroopers and the long-range re-con patrols."

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

"Now that he hasn't found any weapons, Mr. Bush says the war was worth it so Iraqis could experience democracy. But when our allies engage in democracy, some Republicans mock them as lily-livered."

--Maureen Dowd, referring to Republicans' criticism of the Spanish election results, in her column in today's New York Times

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

While an inside-the-fold story in La Prensa Gráfica yesterday said that the U.S. would respect the election results (citing unnamed Embassy officials), El Diario de Hoy's front page headline today screams out: "Congress threatens remittances: President of the congressional migration committee links the Frente to terrorists, wants to control [money] transfers." Okay, we all know the FMLN adores Castro and Chavez, although no one seriously believes that that means El Salvador will become the next outpost for Al Quaeda were the FMLN to win the presidency. (I realize that we have come to expect no less from El Diario de Hoy, and those of us who wake up every morning with this rag have grown accustomed to its political hysterics, but allow me this rant.)

But, wait a minute, there's a "Migration Committee" in the U.S. Congress? Actually, it's called the Immigration Reform Caucus--which has no legislative authority--a group mostly made up of Republicans and headed by Rep. Thomas Tancredo, a third-term Republican congressman from Colorado, who was interviewed for this major news story. As far as I can tell, they haven't actually succeeded in passing any legislation, or at least do not claim credit for such on their website. But according to one immigrant rights activist, “the caucus seeks to eventually make Republicans who are moderate on immigration as rare as those who are moderate on guns, taxes and abortion.”

More importantly, either out of ignorance or willful intent, the EDH story erroneously notes that "the committee (sic) he presides approves or rejects any migration law before it is presented to the full House." Wrong. A caucus is just a group of people who get together to promote a particular issue or cause, known officially as a congressional member organization.

In other words, a congressional caucus is a club.

If you go to the House of Representatives website you can't even find a direct link to any of the dozens of caucuses that exist, because they have no statutory authority. If you use the website search engine, however, you'll find over 130 caucuses. Did you know, for example, that there's also a caucus for airport noise, bikes, cement, correctional officers, horses, scouting, soccer, wine, machine tools, reading, wind hazard reduction--and then there are separate caucuses for the friends of Denmark, friends of Norway and friends of Spain.

Okay, so they got a few inconvenient facts wrong. But then who is this guy Tancredo, anyway? A google search pulled up some interesting details. First of all, it appears that Tancredo is the poster boy for the most extreme wing of the anti-immigration crowd. In leading the opposition to President Bush's January immigration reform proposal, he is frequently eulogized by enlightened people who run websites like deportaliens.com (who also think he should be President of the United States).

And according to Pat Buchanan's The American Conservative magazine, "as a freshman in the U.S. House of Representatives, to which he was elected in 1999, he signed on as a sponsor to the Mass Immigration Reduction Act, a measure that would have cut annual legal immigration totals in half." In addition, the magazine reports:

"Throughout his career in Colorado, which included service in the state legislature, he has never run from controversy. He gained early attention as a member of what was called the “House crazies,” a group of Republicans who endorsed what were called “radical” ideas. … every year, for a number of years, he sponsored legislation designed to cut off funding for bilingual education."

But let's allow him to define his own views, as he does in this editorial taken from his own website:

"Now consider the fact that massive immigration, combined with our own self-destructive policies of radical multiculturalism, have helped to balkanize America to the point where upwards of eight million people living here are so undecided about their loyalties that they claim dual citizenships. Of course, many millions more simply live here, but fail to relinquish their previous political attachments.

The solution: We must immediately gain control of our borders. This can be done with the use of technology ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles and electronic sensors to cameras and radar. This must be backed-up with human resources—including military support. I have said time and time again that the defense of the nation begins with the defense of the borders."

This is the great expert on national security and steadfast friend of Salvadorans living in the U.S.?


Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

Today is the last day in which any kind of campaigning is permitted, so the papers are rife with full-page ads from different parties and organizations. La Prensa Gráfica's coverage goes along way toward assuaging concerns about any possible fraud, as its main headline notes that the TSE (Supreme Electoral Tribunal) has corrected most of its computer difficulties. An interview with FMLN magistrate Julio Hernández is also reassuring, as he notes that any technical problems will only affect the preliminary vote count in the immediate aftermath of the elections. The final vote count, which may take a week or more, is based on a review of the reports from each ballot box, will be totally reliable.

El Diario de Hoy, on the other hand, leads with the Inter-American Press Association's critique of FMLN candidate Handal's verbal confrontation with the press. (He especially has a problem with EDH and the television company TCS, which has three TV channels, and has referred to journalists from some of these outlets as "corrupt" and "trash.") EDH reports in only a perfunctory fashion about progress in correcting the TSE's technical problems related to the preliminary vote count.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

From today's La Prensa Gráfica
Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

The online news magazine El Faro is publishing lengthy weekly discussions with individuals of moderate renown in El Salvador. Under the title, Pláticas en MARTE (a reference to the new Museum of Modern Art), these interviews consistently bring out the poignant human side of social and political actors here, something that isn't always so visible in other formats.

This week they talk to María "Chichilco," who became known to many people abroad through the documentary "Maria's Story," which portrayed her mid-level leadership role in the Chalatenango guerrilla front prior to and including the 1989 offensive. Marìa is also quoted at the end of the story on El Salvador in the recent issue of The Progressive. But that piece fails to capture María's disillusionment with the FMLN. Here are a couple of relevant, and revealing, excerpts:

...Now that you're outside the party, how do you feel about the FMLN as a political party?
That it's not contributing much to democratization in the country...because, as the Frente, we should have been a growing, inclusive political force.... We were much clearer about this then than now. During the war we fought for a population that was suffering. It didn't matter to us whether this person lived somewhere in another part of the country or whether we didn't know each other, whether that person wasn't one of our members. But now the party--as an institution influenced by other political institutions, by other parties--is cloistering itself off into its little fiefdom, and is losing that inclusive, democratic vision....

...And do you no longer think about going into politics?
Yes, I do politics every day.

Party politics, I mean.
The way political parties are right now, maybe not. Probably only if there were a party that offered me a sense of hope, perhaps then, but not just for an elected position. I would participate in a party, yes, because a political party is an instrument of struggle. But when it stops being an instrument of struggle for the people, and it becomes an instrument of struggle for a small group, then I don't care for it anymore. And, unfortunately, that's the way political parties are in this country.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

"In the last six or seven months, I've been in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Europe. I've met with leaders in all of those regions, and they have overwhelmingly — not unanimously but overwhelmingly — said that they hope that there's a change in leadership." Richard C. Holbrooke, President Bill Clinton's delegate to the United Nations

Holbrooke (who knows what he’s talking about) came to Kerry’s defense today, as President Bush asked the Democratic presidential candidate to put up or shut up about a charge made earlier this week. Obviously, Bush did not want to cite the latest poll done by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which noted that "majorities in Germany, Turkey and France – and half of the British and Russians – believe the conflict in Iraq undermined the war on terrorism."

But would the Bush Administration really be happy if key U.S. allies started publicly hinting about the need for a change of the guard in the good ol’ USA? In other words, does the Bush Administration really want the rest of the world to act the way it does—taking partisan political positions on electoral options in different countries, whenever and wherever it deems appropriate?

Let’s take El Salvador, for example. Just this Sunday, for example, State Department Special Envoy for Central America Otto Reich was quoted in local papers (a conference call, set up in ARENA party headquarters) as saying: “We are concerned about the impact that an FMLN victory would have on the commercial, economic, and migration-related relations that the United States has with El Salvador.”

And then Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega, in a February visit to El Salvador, told the press, "I think it is fair to note that the FMLN campaign has emphasized its differences with [the U.S.] concerning CAFTA [the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement] and other subjects. And we know the history of this political movement, and for this reason it is fair that the Salvadoran people consider what type of relations a new government could have with us."

Although he was speaking to a very different subject (and from a different ideological perspective), I nevertheless liked the final lines of George Will's column today: "Monday morning's headlines suggested a loss of U.S. mastery of events. But, then, belief that events can be mastered is the root of most political misfortunes."

There is much yet to say about this issue--stay tuned.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía of the Florida National Guard turned himself into military authorities yesterday, the first Iraq war/occupation deserter to do so publicly, and claimed conscientious objector status. If you read the Washington Post this morning, you'll get nary an idea of exactly what led to this decision. The New York Times story was a little better on this front (and also noted the fact that he's the son of the famous Nicaraguan--and onetime revolutionary--songwriter, Carlos Mejía Godoy), but greater details about Mejía's experiences (as well as the larger issue of AWOL soldiers) can be found in yesterday's Chicago Tribune.


Second contingent of Salvadoran troops (380 strong) leave for Iraq in early February, La Prensa Gráfica

Also today, the Latin delegation of the "coalition of the willing" appears to be on the rocks, as Honduras announced that it would not renew its commitment to deploy troops in Iraq, once the tour of duty of the present contingent of 370 soldiers is up in August. Nicaragua pulled its troops out in February, citing lack of funds. Guatemala's newly elected President Berger also has said they don't have funds to send troops. You can expect El Salvador to stay the course, however--come mid-year, they may have the Ultra Plus Brigade, currently led by Spain, practically all to itself.


Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

From the CIS:

We want to let you know all the observers have been able to enter El Salvador. Thanks to the Electoral Tribunal, the Procurator in Defense of Human Rights, and the U.S. Embassy to get the observers in on Friday night. When observers continued to be detained on Saturday, the U.S. Ambassador spoke directly to President Flores to get the ban overturned.

The U.S. Consular spent Saturday night at the airport with some 67 people who had been detained. U.S. Ambassador Barclay actually came to the airport on Sunday morning to help get people through.

It is worrisome that the Government for the first time since the end of the war attempted to stop international observation from happening. International observation is recognized by the UN and
the OAS as well as other important international insistutions as a method of promoting transparent elections.

And not just observers, as previously noted. Here's a story in the Toledo Blade about a mission group that couldn't get in.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

Today's Houston Chronicle ran the first pre-election story I´ve seen in the U.S. press so far, by Catherine Elton. It´s a quite good overview, but I was struck by this quote by Manuel Orozco of Georgetown and the Inter-American Dialogue:

"The tensions in El Salvador from the war never went away, but the country has been able to keep the polarization down. But the hard-core sectors of the right and the left parties have hijacked the campaign and brought back the legacy of the Cold War."

Have the parties been "hijacked" by their hard-core sectors, or are the campaigns fairly representative of each party´s dominant forces?

ARENA has run a very smart, slick and expensive campaign, which by the beginning of the year started making clear allusions to what they were not: "I have clean hands, I have not engaged in kidnapping," says Tony Saca in a clear reference to Schafik Handal. In addition, ARENA has had the advantage of a totally supportive local press, as well as Salvadoran "PACs" like Fundación Libertad (which runs TV ads) and Mujeres por la Libertad (which has taken out full page ads in the papers every day for the past couple of weeks.) One of the television ads, for example, portray a teary exchange between Salvadorans in the U.S. and at home, upset because if the FMLN wins they´ll have to return to El Salvador and there will be no more remittances. The newspaper ads take an old picture of Schafik in full military gear, with a young (say, 10 year-old) kid saluting him, with the caption: "Good morning dear teacher! With the FMLN, kindergarten will be free! Is this the education you want for your children?" In a very unusual interview with El Faro last week, even former President Calderon Sol criticized the polarizing campaign rhetoric of ARENA, and especially President Flores, who recently linked the gangs to the FMLN.

For its part, the FMLN has been forced on the defensive for most of the past year, trying to finesse some of their blunter statements in support of Cuban repression, against privatization, and against "el imperialismo yanqui." Sure they attack ARENA as the party of the rich, but mostly they have focused on what policies they will implement--education, health, re-introducing the colon (which they now stress they will do responsibly), raising the minimum wage, increasing income taxes on the wealthy, etc. In recent days, though, they've passed out flyers trying to convince people that, no, the maquila industry (El Salvador's fastest growing) will not close up shop if Schafik wins, and television ads featuring a Maryland State Senator (and Salvador-American) asserting the ridiculousness of the charge that an FMLN victory might mean a change in immigration policies.

And I'd thought that, generally speaking, the FMLN had managed to present a somewhat different Schafik than the one he's historically been known to be--irascible, intolerant, and condescending. However, I just went back to the interview which he gave to El Faro just a month ago, on February 4th. It´s a disturbing portrait of a political figure who attacks the integrity of a reporter who simply wants to ask some tough questions. It also demonstrates a fairly confrontational approach toward the private sector, making it easier to understand just why they are frightened by his candidacy.

So is this polarized debate just an aberration? I know that David Escobar Galindo thinks so, but consider this fact that was noted in today´s LPG: President Flores has exercised his veto power 54 times, an all-time record. Even Duarte only vetoed 20 legislative bills, and 18 of those were during his last year of power (88-89) when the Christian Democrats had lost control of the Legislative Assembly to ARENA and the PCN. What does this mean? As the subtitle of the LPG article suggests: "'Consensus-building' and 'culture of peace' are two concepts that, from the looks of it, are not in the democratic dictionary of the principal social and political forces in the country."

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

I just received this email, which suggests that government migration authorities seem to be indiscriminately blocking the entry of foreigners:

We have a group from Arizona State University currently being held by the Salvadoran authorities. They arrived at 7:00 pm (last night) and were met by the immigration authorities who denied them entry. We have been unable to communicate with them, but we do know they are being held inside of the airport.

ASU has no political agenda and no plan to observe or attend the elections. Their trip is being facilitated by the Newman Center Catholic Community. The delegation of students is led by Father Fred Lucci OP.

The purpose of their trip is to share seven days with the youth of Guarjila. Their schedule includes prayer, the daily celebration of the Eucharist, hiking, hockey (yes, hockey...guarjila is a hockey town) and softball (afterall it is pre-season).

The week is also part pilgimage with visits to the holy places of El Salvador; Romero...the grave of the Maryknoll martyrs...the Jesuit University...etc...

They will also be teaching English in our school and will participate in a cultural night which will feature our rock band and "wild" dancing with the indigenous youth. They are scheduled to fly out early on the morning of the elections.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com

La Prensa Gráfica reports that the migration officials refused entry to 67 election observers for the CIS at the airport Saturday, saying that 1) the CIS was not a legally registered entity in El Salvador and 2) that these people were not duly registered before the TSE. A separate column noted that the CIS has been waiting on their legal registration for five years from the interior ministry (gobernación). The article does not note whether the CIS refutes the charge that they are not registered as observers, but the article in El Diario de Hoy does say that CIS issued a communique asserting that they had fulfilled all of the requirements of the TSE--which was not available for comment.

Comments to dlholiday@yahoo.com