Article on political division in El Salvador
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs has published a new article on its web site titled El Salvador: A Deeply Divided Country. As suggested by the title, the theme of the article is the political polarization in El Salvador:
Despite purporting to be an article about political division in El Salvador, a good part of the article is focused on a critique of the US role in El Salvador. This is the weakest aspect of the article. The author makes a number of assertions without providing any evidence. For example, the article contains this statement:
While there were such statements made by two US Congressmen around the 2004 presidential elections, I am not aware of any such statement made in this election cycle. The COHA article also asserts, without support, that the US is "very concerned" about the legislative elections in 2009. In the same vein, the article repeats arguments from years past against CAFTA and International Law Enforcement Academy.
There are still seismic divisions along ideological, political, and economic fault lines that keep the country polarized and prevent a cessation of persistent conflict. For example, on November 11, 2007, the date that marks the launching of the Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation’s final 1989 offensive in the country’s bitter civil war, the FMLN held its 23rd National Convention to nominate a candidate for the March 2009 presidential election. In response, the National Republican Alliance (ARENA)-dominated assembly declared November 11 a “day of national mourning” and put up a black flag to remind voters of the FMLN’s past as a guerrilla force.
Despite purporting to be an article about political division in El Salvador, a good part of the article is focused on a critique of the US role in El Salvador. This is the weakest aspect of the article. The author makes a number of assertions without providing any evidence. For example, the article contains this statement:
The U.S. is already suggesting that it could rescind the protective status now affecting hundreds of thousands of Salvadoran refugees now benefiting from being allowed U.S. residence if the FMLN is victorious at the polls. This could also hurt the economic stability of El Salvador because several billions of dollars in remittances are sent by refugees in this country back to their families each year with only minimum restrictions.
While there were such statements made by two US Congressmen around the 2004 presidential elections, I am not aware of any such statement made in this election cycle. The COHA article also asserts, without support, that the US is "very concerned" about the legislative elections in 2009. In the same vein, the article repeats arguments from years past against CAFTA and International Law Enforcement Academy.
Comments
And hey Anon above..Screw Neutrality on El Salvador. Do you just shrug off a point of view because of some "possible affiliations"?
Do you truly think Tim that there would ever be "evidence" to such political and economic arm twisting Power the U.S. Has over El Salvador? It is a FACT that Without International Salvys sending money back home, the country would sink. It is also a Forensic FACT that the U.S. trained Battallon Atlacatl Massacred the Jesuits at the University the Week of November 11th, 89 because the Army was desperate that they could not Bomb the @#$% out of Mejicanos, Ayutuxtepeque, and Ciudad DElgado to get the FMLN to leave. Do not question "my affiliations" to deny that FACT, and many other Facts.
Let me say what Anon # 2 did not. This is red baiting, dismissing someone because of supposed political affiliations.
Anon 2 is correct that there are historic facts from El Salvador's past that can't be denied: U.S. training of elite battalions, U.S. funding during the 1979-1991 conflict to the tune of $6 billion, U.S. military advisors playing a very active role in the strategy of the counter-insurgency.
"The U.S. is already suggesting that it could rescind the protective status now affecting hundreds of thousands of Salvadoran refugees now benefiting from being allowed U.S. residence if the FMLN is victorious at the polls. This could also hurt the economic stability of El Salvador because several billions of dollars in remittances are sent by refugees in this country back to their families each year with only minimum restrictions.
While there were such statements made by two US Congressmen around the 2004 presidential elections, I am not aware of any such statement made in this election cycle." ...
I just returned from El Salvador this week and this is being reported as fact, in this election. This is from leaders of the Lutheran Church as well as supporters of the FMLN. Not sure if it is true in this election or not, but it does warrant watching.
mark
If US officials are making those statements this election cycle, they should be identified and denounced for cynical manipulation of the election process
http://www.cispes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=416&Itemid=29
He did go on to say there would be no U.S. intervention in 2009, but given all the U.S. has done in El Salvador over the decades should that be believed? I would be skeptical.
(E.g., Tim's last post.)