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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
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.
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.