In advance of his visits to several Latin American countries,
President Bush has focused public attention on U.S. aid to developing
countries. As a result, the real purpose of his tour has gone
unnoticed. Bush is using his time in Mexico, Peru, and El Salvador to
promote neoliberal economic policies that actually serve to exacerbate
inequality and undermine democratic institutions in countries
throughout the region.El Salvador, in particular, provides a case study in how Bush's
version of economic "modernization" has failed the poor.
Geography has never been George W.'s strong suit, but one might
expect him to try being sensitive to El Salvador's human rights
concerns, given that a U.N. Truth Commission blamed the right-wing
governments supported by his father for 90 percent of the
approximately 80,000 murders committed through the country's civil
war. Instead, President Bush's visit falls on the day normally
reserved for commemoration of Archbishop Oscar Romero's assassination.
The army's death squads gunned down Romero, a stalwart defender of the
country's poorest citizens, during a mass on March 24, 1980.
Ten years after the signing of the Chapultepec Peace Accords
ended more than a decade of bloody conflict, U.S.-supported policies
continue to impede progress toward human rights. Rather than atoning
for its sponsorship of Cold War crimes, the United States has overseen
a type of economic transformation that punishes the same communities
most victimized during El Salvador's time of violence. Under the
supervision of the IMF and World Bank in Washington, DC, the
conservative Salvadoran governments of the 1990s hacked social
services and sold off state enterprises in telecommunications and
utilities to private interests.
Businesses dramatically raised costs to consumers. At the same
time, the government led drives to bust the unions that fight to keep
wages in the "modernizing" economy from falling to sweatshop
levels. Over the past months it announced the firing of 10,000 workers
in the public sector -- a dramatic loss of jobs in El Salvador's small
labor economy.
Contrary to the objectives of the U.N.'s International Conference
on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, the forum which
prompted Bush to increase foreign aid, these economic policies worsen
living conditions for the majority of Salvadorans. The United Nations
Development Program reports that El Salvador's increasing levels of
income inequality rank among the highest in the world. Even the
official government measures show that half of the country lives in
poverty. Many Salvadorans can provide for their basic needs only
because of money sent back from relatives who have emigrated to the
United States. Indeed, with a regressive tax structure and a lack of
public assets creating huge debts for the government, the economy as a
whole depends on the $1.9 billion a year in remittances for its
survival.
Democracy is also a casualty in the neoliberal regime. Members of
the Bush administration have embraced the conservative ARENA party as
their ideological brethren. Bush himself praises his Salvadoran
counterpart, Francisco "Paco" Flores, as a "brilliant
young leader" and a "breath of fresh air." But ARENA
frequently shows contempt for free speech and the rights of opposition
parties. When the rival FMLN gained a plurality in the Legislative
Assembly in 2000, ARENA led right-wing parties in refusing to let them
assume the presidency of that body. More recently, after a prominent
health-care union led several days of street marches protesting the
January cutbacks, they found their offices occupied by police. These
are exactly the type of abuses that Bush would need to remedy if he
were serious about his proclaimed desire to "strengthen
democratic institutions" in El Salvador.
In the context of economic turmoil and political abuses, human
rights have again become endangered. Due to an epidemic of street
crime, which has given the country one of the highest per capita
murder rates in the hemisphere, life for most citizens is as dangerous
now as during the war. ARENA persistently attempts to undermine the
Human Rights Ombudsman, an office created by the Peace Accords as a
major institutional safeguard against future abuses. And the process
of reckoning with past trauma has been difficult. Against the advice
of organizations such as Amnesty International, the right rushed an
amnesty law through the Assembly in the wake of the U.N. Truth
Commission report detailing many of the war's horrors. With few
exceptions, those responsible for atrocities never faced justice.
For its part, the Bush administration harbors figures like
Elliott Abrams, who, as a chief Reagan spin-doctor on Central American
affairs, steadfastly denied that horrific abuses ever happened.
Mentioning one notorious site of terror, The New York Times
noted in January that the families of those villagers massacred at El
Mozote have long been denied the "foundations of healing" --
the prosecution of criminals, the official naming of victims, and
appreciation of the urgent need for relatives "to possess a shard
of bone to bury."
As neoliberals rush to forget the past, they may yet provoke its
repetition. Francisco Flores has advocated that the U.N. to return to
conduct a "closing ceremony" for the Peace Accords,
asserting that "the agreement to fortify democracy in the country
has been completed." Furthermore, he has explained that with this
matter settled, he will have nothing further to discuss with the
leading opposition party.
Neither Flores nor Bush seem to understand that the pursuit of
democracy and human rights must always be an on-going process.
In January, Hector Dada Hirezi, a leading commentator and past
member of a transitional national government, argued that Salvadorans
are finding the Peace Accords, based on the premise of ending war
without producing winners and losers, being supplanted by an economic
system in which the poor lose and economic elites win. More ominously,
a major human rights institute at the University of Central America in
San Salvador has warned that the government, in charting its present
course, is "cooking a broth of violence."
The rhetoric of poverty reduction has long been a part of U.S.
policy in Latin America. While foreign aid can be used to good ends,
allowing humanitarian gestures to disguise the policies that continue
to brew poverty and injustice constitutes a recipe for crisis. Bush
need only consider Argentina, a past neoliberal poster child whose
dollarized currency and foreign debt spiraled into economic meltdown.
Or go no further than El Salvador itself, where the issues that
provoked the country's long civil war look all too similar to the
poverty, inequality, and corruption that persist today.
Mark Engler is an independent writer and activist from Des
Moines, Iowa. He has previously worked with the Arias Foundation for
Peace and Human Progress in San Jose, Costa Rica, as well as the
Public Intellectuals Program at Florida Atlantic University.
###