EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
- Beware Capitalist Tools
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- Burning Tulsa: The Legacy of Black Dispossession
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- President Obama Uses a Sledgehammer Against Dissent
Popular content
Today's Top News
Could Obama Say a Few Words for Democracy in El Salvador?
We all know that President Obama has a lot on his plate. On the other hand, as candidate Obama reminded us, "words matter," especially the words spoken by the President of the United States, and with El Salvador facing a watershed Presidential election on March 15, President Obama could do a lot for the people of El Salvador and the future of U.S. relations with Latin America simply by saying something along the following lines between now and March 15:
"The United States government will remain neutral in El Salvador's March 15 presidential race, will respect the election results, and will work toward a positive relationship with whichever party is elected."
If you haven't been following the recent history of U.S. relations with Central America in general and El Salvador in particular, that might seem like a pretty banal statement. But in the context of the actual history of massive U.S. interference in the region's political processes, such a statement would be revolutionary.
Before El Salvador's 2004 presidential election, Bush Administration officials attempted to influence the vote by suggesting that if the opposition party won, the status of Salvadoran immigrants in the U.S. would be threatened and remittances sent to El Salvador by Salvadorans working in the U.S. could be ended. These remittances have been estimated to comprise 10-20% of El Salvador's GDP, likely surpassing official development assistance, foreign direct investment, and tourism as a source of foreign exchange for El Salvador. These threats were widely reported in the Salvadoran press and have contributed to a lingering belief that the U.S. will not permit the opposition to win the election - a belief currently being stoked by right-wing campaign ads in the country, which are recycling the threats from 2004.
If the U.S. makes no statement that it will remain neutral and respect the results, the practical effect will be to preserve the enduring legacy of past interference, and thereby to effectively intervene against the opposition. An official statement is needed to clarify for Salvadoran public opinion that the U.S. will remain scrupulously neutral.
Representatives Raul Grijalva and Marcy Kaptur are sending a letter this week to President Obama urging him to affirm U.S. neutrality in the election. The letter says:
U.S. immigration policy should not be made into a political instrument used to influence foreign elections. Similarly, we reject the suggestion that the US government would seek to financially punish Salvadorans, in this country or in El Salvador , for exercising their right to elect a government of their choosing. As members of Congress, we will not support any such measure.Could Obama say a few words for democracy in El Salvador? It would take him 30 seconds to do so. But it would be a big step towards repairing the damage of the last 30 years of U.S. policy.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


14 Comments so far
Show AllMr. Naiman, don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to say those words - even in 15 seconds. His foreign policy handlers won't let him.
Smedley Butler had it right about our 'plantation' policy for Central America.
Bush was the first prez to articulate it: 'If yur not fer us, yer agin us!.'
What, you want Obama to lie?
"The United States government will remain neutral in El Salvador's March 15 presidential race, will respect the election results, and will work toward a positive relationship with whichever party is elected."
When pigs fly!
According to the polls Arena is going to fall from power with a big plod (they are behind by about 17%).
The US has done enough damage in El Salvador. The Mara Salvatruchas are a direct consequence of the US's nefarious meddling in El Salvador.
The US government has no business commenting on any other country's elections.
Neutrality is the ONLY acceptable posture.
OK, I won't hold my breath.
But consider this: when Venezuela - which obviously has much greater capacity to "threaten" the "interests" of elites in the United States than little El Salvador - had a referendum on abolishing term limits for public officials - which was portrayed in much U.S. press as akin to the burning of the Reichstag - the Obama State Department managed to say reasonable things, like "this is an internal matter for Venezuela."
So it doesn't seem beyond the realm of plausibility that the Obama Administration could say something reasonable in this case. Certainly, it is more likely that they will do so if more Members of Congress sign the Grijalva letter.
We certainly did not stay neutral in the case of Palestinian elections. We even trained PLO goons to overthrow legally elected Hamas, then cried about a Hamas takeover when they intercepted the weapons shipment into Gaza from the US and allowed through checkponts by the Israelis.
Do you think anythong will change there?
Do I think anything will change there? Yes.
But even if I didn't, that wouldn't discourage me from pushing the US government on policy towards El Salvador. Even if US policy towards the Palestinians were to remain equally awful to the Bush policy, it would not necessarily mean that US policy towards El Salvador must remain equally awful to the Bush policy.
Robert,
While it will be helpful for President Obama to do the right thing and utter these words of support for Salvadoran democracy, I'll settle for this Congress finally saying "No!" to training and unleashing serial killers in Central America by closing Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation/ "School of Americas" at Fort Benning, Ga. See www.soaw.org
Thank you for your statement in support of US neutrality in Salvadoran elections.
Obama should say something like that. There is nothing to disturb neutrality in expressing his wish for the people to elect their leaders and that he intends working with the country for the good of all. Whatever words couldbe used he doesn't have to compromise anything to do with remaining neutral. And it would go some good way for the US President to shout that out across the airwaves too. El Salvador deserves it at least.
But then look at Hamas?
What is it about El Salvador...the coffee? Why is it necessary for the US to meddle in the smallest country in Central America? Who can they harm? What can they do? I mean, now that the USSR is gone, we can't claim that a request by farm workers, backed by a local priest or attorney, for better wages is somehow a communist insurrection. So what is the problem?
Every country in the world should have the inalienable right to elect the government of our choice.
On Thursday March 12th El Diario De Hoy and La Prensa Grafica (two major dailies in San Salvador) carried stories in which a US Congressman from California threatened sanctions if the FMLN wins the presidential election. On the other hand a letter was sent to Obama by Rep. Kaptur (D-OH) and 37 of her colleagues who asked Obama to declare U.S. neutrality in this election. Obama remains silent. What kind of message does that send to the voters here in El Salvador? This is quite similar to what happened 5 years ago under Bush.