[ home ]
[ history & mission ]
[ action
alerts ]
[ human rights network ]
[ election
observers ]
[ monthly
bulletin ]
[ archive ]
[ delegations & brigades ]
[ integrated development ]
[ language school ]
[ solidarity crafts ]
[ volunteers ]
[ links ]
CIS
Colonia Libertad,
Avenida Bolívar # 103
San Salvador, El Salvador
Centroamérica
Teléfonos:
(503) 2226-5362
(503) 2235-1330
e-mail: cis_elsalvador@yahoo.com
October 2002
SUMMARY OF ARTICLES INCLUDED IN THIS ISSUE:
I. PRESIDENT FLORES PROPOSES MORE OF THE SAME - PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE:
 | STRIKE CONTINUES IN HEALTH CARE SECTOR |
| SOCIAL MOVEMENT MOBILIZES |
| SAN SALVADOR’S MAYOR, HECTOR SILVA, RESIGNS HIS CANDIDACY FOR MAYOR IN CONNECTION WITH HEALTH CARE CRISIS |
The Social Security Hospital strike has continued since September 18th, exposing President Flores’ plan to privatize the health care system. Doctors promise to continue the strike until President Flores signs into law a Legislative Decree passed on October 17th which guarantees a national health care system and prevents privatization of the Social Security Hospital System. The social movement mobilizes in a manner unprecedented since the early 1980s. President Francisco Flores, in an effort to demobilize the movement before the Central American and Caribbean Sports Tournament, scheduled for El Salvador in late November, names San Salvador Mayor, Hector Silva as president of a commission to come up with health reforms, putting as a condition his resigning as mayoral candidate for the FMLN.
II. ELECTIONS 2003: FMLN: FIRST PARTY IN EL SALVADOR TO HOLD PRIMARY ELECTIONS AN IN-DEPTH LOOK
Approximately 40% of the FMLNs 96,000 registered members (up from 80,000 in November 2001) voted on Saturday, October 19th, ,2002, in 231 of El Salvador’s 262 municipalities to elect Mayoral and Municipal Council Candidate as well as Departmental and National Slate Legislative Candidates for El Salvador’s March 2003 elections. These were the FMLNs first primary elections for candidates for public office and they are the only party in El Salvador to carry out such a grassroots exercise. While the exercise was a major step forward it was also fraught with many problems. This has led some to ask, how do we strengthen the democratic process and others to ask, whether it is prudent to spend so much human and financial resources on elections that bring out the worst competitive elements in people.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT & SOLIDARITY:
ST. PATRICK CHURCH ACCOMPANIES STUDENTS IN ESTANZUELAS, USULUTÁN TO BUILD A BETTER FUTURE.
The people of St. Patrick Church in Kansas City have demonstrated the true meaning of solidarity with the people of El Salvador. It is one thing to respond in the face of an emergency, like the earthquakes of 2001, which St. Patrick’s congregation did. And it is another thing to make a long term commitment to human development and the education of youth, an outcome which may not be as immediate or guaranteed. Perhaps investment in human development is not tangible like a building; but investment in human development is necessary for Salvadorans to be able to overcome their own problems. The people of St. Patrick’s Church made that commitment as well. Perhaps more importantly, the members of St. Patrick’s have extended their family to the people of Estanzuelas with visits to El Salvador and invitations to their sisters and brothers to visit them in their community.
A group of 30 U.S. citizens met with Ambassador Rose Likens on October 11th to present their arguments in opposition to the Bush Administrations policy of starting a war in Iraq. The declaration below was presented with dozens of signatures of U.S. citizens living in El Salvador.
I. PRESIDENT FLORES PROPOSES MORE OF THE SAME PRIVATIZATION OF HEALTH CARE
· STRIKE CONTINUES IN HEALTH CARE SECTOR
· SOCIAL MOVEMENT MOBILIZES
· SAN SALVADOR’S MAYOR, HECTOR SILVA, RESIGNS HIS CANDIDACY FOR MAYOR IN CONNECTION WITH HEALTH CARE CRISIS
Since September 18th, 2002, the health care workers and doctors at the national Institute for Social Security (ISSS) have been on strike with the demand of not privatizing the national health care system. Social Security is the health care system that covers all formal workers in the country. Each employer is obligated by law to pay a percentage of the employee’s salary as well as deduct a percentage as the employee’s contribution to cover all medical expenses and a percentage of an employee’s paycheck during absence of work due to illness.
According to studies, only 15% of El Salvador’s population is covered by the social security system. 80% should be covered by the Ministry of Public Health---or in other words, people with no or informal employment, generally earning less that the $144 monthly minimum wage. 5% of the population is covered by private consultation. The government, private enterprise, and international financial institutions have targeted the Social Security System to privatize first within the medical field since it has a fixed rate of income each month and could generate earnings for the private sector.
On October 14, one month into the strike, President Francisco Flores presented a proposal to the nation to “modernize” the health care system, specifically social security based in four areas: 1. Solidarity quota; 2. Broaden coverage; 3. Integral plan; 4. Freedom to choose your doctor. Most see his proposal using words such as modernization and democratization, as another way of masking the true objective of privatization. While Flores’ plan promises pie in the sky including that maids and farmer would be included in the new system, (who generally earn between $US60 - $90 per month), he offered no explanation of how this would be paid for. Flores proposed that people could choose to go to a private doctor instead of waiting in line at the Social Security Hospital. He did not explain that going to a private doctor would elevate consultation costs way beyond the system’s means or that the monthly quotas channeled to private doctors would break the social security system.
President Flores uses the argument of corruption and poor administration of the social security system as reasons to privatize; yet ARENA has named all the directors and administrators in the social security system for the past 13 years. While the social security system needs to be reformed and modernized, it does cover all emergency situations, surgeries, pregnancies, as well as ongoing consultations and exams; if switched into a private insurance company’s together with private medical practices, these areas would not be covered or would escalate social security taxes way beyond people’s income. Just to give an example, a doctor at the social security hospital earns about $686 per month (according to the hours worked and other criteria); a private doctor charges between $1,000 - $5,000 for a single operation, not including medicine or hospital costs. For a person earning $571.43 monthly, a middle class salary which covers basic needs of a family of five, the employer would be required to pay $42.86 monthly and the employee would have $17.14 deducted monthly to go toward health care or a total of $60 toward health care. Paying into a private system whose bottom line is profit, would not cover even basic operations. A middle man, the insurance company, would also need to be cut into the profits. Flores denied that his proposal was to privatize the system, but he had members of ANEP, the private business association, as the main spokespeople for the plan. Notably absent was any consultation with the medical profession. Instead of alleviating the crisis; President Flores’ plan only deepened the crisis, generating insecurity about the future of health care in the country.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS AND THE SOCIAL MOVEMENT MOBILIZE AGAINST THE PRIVATIZATION
On October 16, 1000s of Doctors and workers in the medical profession marched in solidarity against the privatization of the health care system in what was called “The White March”. Everyone dressed in white in solidarity with the color of jackets worn by people in the medical profession and as a symbol of peace. The march was lead by the Medical College, (the National Association of Doctors), SIMETRISS, The Doctor’s Association, and STISSS, the Union of medial workers at the Social Security Hospital. The following week, on October 23rd, the medical field was accompanied by the Civil Society Forum, the Social and Labor Consensus, and other community and social organizations in what is the biggest march since the early 1980s. 200,000 people dressed in white in a dramatic march to the Presidential House. The following Wednesday, October 30th different social movement organizations took responsibility for blocking main roadways, paralyzing 18 major arteries in the country for most of the morning.
OCTOBER 31, FLORES ANNOUNCES PROPOSAL FOR SAN SALVADOR MAYOR, HECTOR SILVA, TO LEAD A COMMISSION TO STUDY HEALTH REFORM.
TRICK OR TREAT?
President Flores, looking for a way out of the crisis, especially since beginning on November 23, El Salvador will be hosting the Central American and Caribbean Sports Tournament and will have world media and attention focused on the country.
In a surprise and audacious move, President Flores announced on national television that he would not veto a decree passed in the Legislative Assembly on October 17th that guarantees a national health care system and prevent privatization of the ISSS. Again, using double speak, President Flores also did not say he would sign the decree into law. He also said he would withdraw his proposals presented to the Legislative Assembly on October 14th (which have not been voted on) to generate an atmosphere of trust. Perhaps, the most surprising element of his announcement was that he had accepted San Salvador Mayor, Dr. Hector Silva, to head up a commission to study health care reform. Since health care reforms have been on the table for 18 months and Flores has refused to consult anyone except private enterprise, many do not trust his motives.
Hector Silva, a Doctor by profession, offered himself up to lead a commission of health care reform. While perhaps qualified given his studies in Public Health, the move could cost him his political career. Dr. Silva offered his services as heading up the governmental health care reform commission, while his party, the FMLN, had a decided policy of accompanying the health care and social movement, and opposed Dr. Silva’s bi-lateral meetings with President Flores and the U.S. Embassy. Perhaps, a bigger mistake for Silva, was not consulting with the tri-partite commission of Health Care Professionals (Medical College; SIMETRISS; and AMENA—National Association of Doctors) to see if they were in agreement with the move. The tri-partite commission is not willing to negotiate reforms in the health care system until the decree guaranteeing a national healthcare system is signed into law, and has rejected the Commission named by the President including Hector Silva. When Silva accepted the role, he had only negotiated the terms with the right, represented by ARENA and ANEP. He has been left in an embarrassing situation, being rejected by his own party and the medical profession.
President Flores asked Silva to resign from being candidate for Mayor of San Salvador for the FMLN for the upcoming March election as a condition for being named head of the commission; a request which Silva has complied with. The FMLN is left in a weakened position, having accumulated 6 years of positive administration in San Salvador, lead by Hector Silva. The FMLN also just completed internal elections, where Silva was elected unanimously to be the FMLN Mayoral Candidate within a broader coalition again and is perhaps one of the few center left potentially “winnable” candidates for the presidency.
For the Citizen’s Initiative, a group that promotes not partisan candidates, which carries a lot of weight in San Salvador, as well as Popular Action (AP) and the United Democratic Center (CDU), members of the San Salvador coalition with the FMLN, continue to back Silva as their candidate for the moment. It is not clear whether Silva will resign all together or if the same coalition together with the FMLN will come up with a new candidate.
While the last chapter in San Salvador politics has yet to be written, it is clear that Francisco Flores was successful in temporarily shifting the focus of the failure of his medical reform proposals to an internal political problem on the left. The health care and social movements have not budged in their position to guarantee a national health care system. They have rejected Flores’ proposal and declarations as a maneuver and have placed Hector Silva as a spokesperson for Flores instead of for their movement. The medical tripartite commission is calling on the Catholic Church to negotiate medical reforms between the Government of El Salvador and the medical tripartite commission; reforms they are only willing to discuss when Flores signs into law the Legislative Decree passed on October 17th to guarantee a National health care system and prevent its privatization, also a pre-condition to dismantling the 7 week old strike, which is paralyzing health care and business as usual.
At press time, November 6, Flores for the first time has sat down directly with the Medical professionals. Whether the third “White March” convoked for Saturday, November 9th is a celebration or further pressure on the ARENA Government, will depend on the results of these negotiations.
Elections in El Salvador to elect the countries’ 84 Legislative Deputies and 262 Mayors and City councils are scheduled for March 16, 2003. Presidential elections will follow in March 2004. These elections come at a very important time, as the struggle over privatizing health care and new Free Trade Agreements with El Salvador are at stake. On the one hand, ARENA, the governing party has steadily declined in the past 3 local elections since 1994; on the other hand, the FMLN, has steadily increased their votes and power since 1994. In the last elections in 2000, ARENA and the FMLN won basically the same number of votes and, for the first time, the FMLN won the highest number of seats in the Legislative Assembly. If ARENA does not do better in these elections, it does not bode well for the future of their party. If the FMLN does not do better in these elections, they hold less chance of winning the presidential elections scheduled for March 2004 or putting the brakes on the neo-liberal economic measures being imposed by the ARENA party and international financial institutions.
The CIS will be hosting a series of articles on the elections, monitoring the process, democratic participation, and looking at the political parties involved.
The CIS will be hosting an International Electoral Observer Mission from March 10 – 18, 2003 and invite you to participate. Volunteers will help prepare the Observer Mission from January 8th through March 26th. If you have interest in becoming a volunteer or an observer, please write us at: cis_elsalvador@yahoo.com.
FMLN: FIRST PARTY IN EL SALVADOR TO HOLD PRIMARY ELECTIONS
AN IN-DEPTH LOOK
Approximately 40% of the FMLNs 96,000 registered members (up from 80,000 in November 2001) voted on Saturday, October 19th, ,2002, in 231 of El Salvador’s 262 municipalities to elect Mayoral and Municipal Council Candidate as well as Departmental and National Slate Legislative Candidates for El Salvador’s March 2003 elections. These were the FMLNs first primary elections for candidates for public office and they are the only party in El Salvador to carry out such a grassroots exercise. While the exercise was a major step forward it was also fraught with many problems. This has led some to ask, how do we strengthen the democratic process and others to ask, whether it is prudent to spend so much human and financial resources on elections that bring out the worst competitive elements in people.
The FMLN first implemented direct/secret ballot with participation of its members in elections for internal positions in November 2001 after a statute was passed at the FMLN convention in 2000 calling for grassroots elections for internal party positions and for candidates for public positions, taking away power from convention delegates, who previously had that attribution. The purpose was to go to the base and try to overcome the 3 groupings or tendencies that had formed in the party. The 2000 FMLN National Convention also voted to dissolve organized tendencies within the FMLN.
Some of the advances in the process, including building democracy from the bottom up, learning the importance of the vote and that one’s vote does count, overcoming to some extent the tendencies or divisions within the party, building democracy at the municipal level, and reaching the quota of 26% youth (30 years and younger) as candidates. Some of the weakness in the process included little education to promote the candidates or informed votes at the departmental and national level, trying to impose “consensus” from the top down, and lack of orientation and measures to guarantee the 35% quota in the FMLN statutes for female candidates in electable positions. Perhaps the biggest weakness was some of the methods for voter induction where there were used, particularly where FMLN structures are weak, at the departmental level.
Voter turnout increased to 35,000 voters of 96,000 members compared to 28,000 of 80,000 members in November 2001. Still, voter turnout was lower than perhaps it could have been because in some areas that had reached consensus around candidacies, people did not feel the urgency to vote. Where consensus was achieved at the local and departmental level, there was generally lower voter turnout. Some people were unable to vote because Saturday is a working day for many people in El Salvador. Many members were not able to vote because their names did not appear on the voting register due to administrative weaknesses.
The Political Commission of the FMLN was authorized almost unanimously by the July 2002 FMLN Convention to propose candidates for San Salvador and the National Slate (at large seats) in the Legislative Assembly as well as for municipalities with over 50,000 residents. While the leadership proposed a well thought out and wide balance for National Slate and San Salvador Deputy candidates which included women and representatives from different thinking in the FMLN. While some people saw this orientation as negative, in reality the grassroots does not have the criteria to evaluate leaders at the national level due to difficulty in communication, resources and education to be able to get out to the municipalities.
While the leadership helped orient the vote, people were more informed also used their own criteria for their final option. What was apparent was the lack of awareness of who the candidates were. There were no debates or any systematic way for the majority of the base to make an informed decision about who they were voting for at the national level. For example, many people abstained from electing national slate candidates or used only a portion of their 8 votes, the number that is likely to be represented by the FMLN on the national slate. In an internal poll of FMLN members 70% did not know who the leadership was, with the exception of legislative deputy Shafik Handal and San Salvador Mayor, Hector Silva. Shafik Handal was a candidate for the Legislative Deputy for the Department of San Salvador, meaning only people from the Department of San Salvador had the opportunity to vote for him. Many people in other departments looked for Shafik on the National Slate, and when they did not find him, voted for Salvador Arias, the person with a beard who most looked like him.
During the process leading up to the elections, municipalities and departments consulted and tried to build consensus candidates. Where this was achieved, there is a strong support for the process and candidates. Where this wasn’t achieved, candidates competed for a majority of the vote, and led to vices in the process in many cases.
Perhaps, the most problematic area of voting was for Departmental Legislative Deputies. To be a legislative deputy in El Salvador guarantees a lucrative income as well as power influence. Deputies earn $4,025 per month compared to the majority of Salvadorans who earn $144 minimum wage on a monthly basis. FMLN deputies are required to turn over 30% of their salary to the party and many use most of their disposable income to fund activities on the departmental level and at the service of the people. At the same time, others keep the other 70% of their salaries and are left with an extremely high income. The FMLN had regulations on campaigning to make sure people were not given an undue advantage by the resources they had at hand and to prevent wasting valuable resources. The problem with this restriction is that disciplined affiliates of the FMLN followed it and political opportunist, disregarded the regulation, and did end up with an advantage in some cases, especially where departmental structures were weak.
In some departments like Cuscatlán, La Libertad, and San Salvador, with relatively organized departmental structures, consensus was reached by consultation with the base; the process on voting day was relatively smooth. In departments, like Cabañas, Usulután, and La Paz, where departmental structures are weak, it was impossible to reach consensus and facilitate proposals that were generated from the base. The ideal where there is good organization is that consensual candidates would arise, that is people with a history of service, work with the grassroots, and work to build the FMLN. Where there was competition, candidates needed resources to be able to visit the communities and to promote themselves, privileging people with resources instead of people with criteria of service to the people. Not that consensus is always achievable or that majority vote is bad, but the weak departmental structures gave way to people taking advantage of the opening and at the same time an inability to be able to follow up and guarantee transparency. The problem was exacerbated by the lack of ethical guidelines and formation of FMLN members at the grassroots level to guarantee a transparent process. Some candidates stooped to methods considered illegal in national elections, such as buying lunches, marking ballots for people, promising municipalities to pay rent for their FMLN office, hand outs, or other unacceptable methods to induce votes. The FMLN leadership is faced with how to guarantee improvement of this process in future competitions to build true grassroots participation and close spaces for political opportunism.
At the municipal level, perhaps the democratic process was most strengthened. In general at the local level, people know the candidates and their history, and perhaps is the truest test to democracy where people could make informed decisions. At the local level, affiliates have to directly live with their decision good or bad. 47 out of 231 local municipal elections were contested. Perhaps the most publicized case of local elections where there was competition was Soyapango, El Salvador’s second largest city after San Salvador. The Political Commission of the FMLN tried to weigh in, supporting the current FMLN Mayor, Marta Elena Rodriquez. Her vice-mayor, Carlos Ruiz, or better know as el diablito (the devil) is party coordinator in Soyapango and in charge of social development in the municipality. He is the one directly in charge of work with affiliating party members and was able to launch a campaign to displace Marta Elena as the candidate for the FMLN. Many fear that Carlos, while being the clear person leading the party in Soyapango, does not have the breadth to win municipal elections, which require a broader vote than the FMLN affiliates in order to win. Whatever the outcome, the grassroots membership of the party took the decision and it has been respected.
The FMLN by far has the largest amount of women elected leadership in its party, compared to other parties in El Salvador. Still, the FMLN lacks a solid commitment and policy to ensure women’s training, preparation, and a gender analysis within the party. The FMLN leadership in their recommendation for candidates for the National Slate and San Salvador attempted to promote a gender balance; 4 men and 3 women in the top 7 positions. In the Department of La Libertad that currently holds two deputy seats one is woman and one a man. And in the Department of San Miguel, the candidate is a woman. Besides that, in Departments like Usulután, where there are two deputies or others with one deputy, there was no orientation to be able to comply with FMLN statute that requires a minimum of 35% of the electable candidates be women and aspires to fulfill 50%. As it stands now, only 25%, or 8 of 31, of projected “winning” deputies to be elected in FMLN will be women, 23% at the municipal council level and far less are candidates for Mayor. These results are due to the little resources or backing that has been given to the FMLN Women’s Secretariat and policies to train and promote women within the party. Even at the last Women’s Secretariat Assembly, the two key note speakers were men, and little or nothing was done to promote the FMLNs current women mayors, deputies or other leaders, reflecting very little gender analysis or concientization.
The FMLN is the first party in El Salvador to hold primary elections, a challenge in a country where literacy rates are low and there is not a culture of democracy. While they took a risk and may have to pay a price for some of the results, it would be difficult to turn back and take away the vote from the base. For the FMLN to continue to grow and strengthen this process, it will be critical to develop a code of ethics and education around grassroots participation and elections. If they achieve this, they will make a significant contribution to building a culture of democracy in El Salvador and perhaps all of Latin America.
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT & SOLIDARITY:
ST. PATRICK CHURCH ACCOMPANIES STUDENTS IN ESTANZUELAS, USULUTÁN TO BUILD A BETTER FUTURE.
The people of St. Patrick Church in Kansas City have demonstrated the true meaning of solidarity with the people of El Salvador. It is one thing to respond in the face of an emergency, like the earthquakes of 2001, which St. Patrick’s congregation did. And it is another thing to make a long term commitment to human development and the education of youth, an outcome which may not be as immediate or guaranteed. Perhaps investment in human development is not tangible like a building; but investment in human development is necessary for Salvadorans to be able to overcome their own problems. The people of St. Patrick’s Church made that commitment as well. Perhaps more importantly, the members of St. Patrick’s have extended their family to the people of Estanzuelas with visits to El Salvador and invitations to their sisters and brothers to visit them in their community.
Members of St. Patrick’s Church first visited El Salvador after El Salvador’s earthquakes of 2001, with the interest in beginning a sister relationship with a community in El Salvador. At the time CIS suggested going to a community affected by the earthquakes and based on CIS criteria of not having other sister relationships (to spread the wealth & friendship). Another criteria that CIS requires in facilitating a sister relationship is that the community has a base of organization so that the support can be used to complement and accompany community efforts rather than make the community dependent and look to outsiders to resolve all their problems. One of those communities was Estanzuelas. The CIS was particularly impressed by the recently elected Mayor of Estanzuelas, Wilber Solano, when first approached about Estanzuelas’ needs after the earthquake. Wilber Solano, a teacher by profession and founder of the only high school in Estanzuelas in 1995, said, “if we give people rice and beans, it resolves a family’s problems for a day or two, and then they continue to want more hand outs, creating more problems. If we can educate people here, we can begin to try to resolve our own problems.” When Mayor Solano asked the CIS if the money could be invested in education instead of more emergency aid, after consulting with St. Patrick’s the answer was YES!
Beginning in 2001, the Estanzuelas scholarship fund was opened to high school students in need of support to continue their studies. The Mayor formed a commission with the local priest, the high school director, and an elected representative of the student body, to review the applicants based on need, grades, and community participation. They visited each student in their home to be able to better evaluate the financial situation of each family. The funds started with 15 students and now includes 55 students. The total high school student body is 200, so roughly 25 % would not be able to go to school without the scholarship fund.
The first 16 beneficiaries of the program will graduate this December. Franklin Aguilar, one of the students, will graduate the top of his class. Franklin is an orphan, having lost his father when he was 9 and his mother when he was 15 years old. He lives with his sister and would not have been able to attend school without the scholarship.
The students meet with the scholarship committee monthly to review their grades, their participation in the community, and to organize activities. They have become involved in letter writing to try to get the Ministry of Education to contribute its part to the scholarship recipients. In addition to having to pay for transportation, materials, uniforms, and lunch, El Salvador’s grade schools are not free even though it is guaranteed by the constitution. The students organized and petitioned the Ministry of Education to wave their tuition fee, so that the St. Patrick’s scholarships could serve more students. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Education has not responded to this request to date.
After two visits of members of St. Patrick’s Church to Estanzuelas, they extended an invitation to the Mayor and two students to come to Kansas City, in order to strengthen the exchange and the relationship. Father Jerry Warris, a true social justice advocate, with a strong commitment to the poor, together with the Parish’s Peace and Justice Committee also wanted to make sure the whole Parish was behind the project. Mayor Solano along with two students, Lucinda Quintanilla, and Franklin Aquilar, chosen among 13 finalists, by a panel based on their grades, community participation, an essay, and test for public speaking abilities, traveled with CIS director Leslie Schuld to Kansas City. Father Jerry made sure they had a chance to meet every active member of the parish through organizing presentations at all the parish masses, meetings with students from the Parish grade school and sister high school, the Peace and Justice Committee, the Parish Council, Parish staff, as well as several meals and outings with Parish members. It is hard to express the bond and friendship that was made with almost every member of St. Patrick’s Church and a true commitment to building a sister relationship and continuing to support education of the youth of Estanzuelas.
The visitors were also privileged to meet with representative of a local Kansas City community center and sit in on one of St. Patrick’s Junior High School classes on social justice. The youth shared their experience of having gathered thousands of letter and visit state legislatures to lobby for a fund for orphans in the State of Missouri. While the legislation has not passed yet, funding was increased significantly. The course was on power of the legislatures (power from above), power of the students and numbers of people represented by the letters (power from below) and power of adoptive mothers of the orphans (power within), an important lesson for all, and something Wilber, the teacher, immediately began to think of how to implement the lesson in Estanzuelas, and perhaps apply it to the local Ministry of Education.
Before the group left Kansas City, the Parish not only agreed to continue 55 scholarships for 2003, but also committed to provide 10 computers for a new computer center in Estanzuelas. Two computers were purchased on the spot and sent back with the delegates to Estanzuelas. Up until now, students learned about computers in high school with a drawing on the chalk board. More importantly, before the visitors left not a member of St. Patrick’s church nor the visiting delegation remained untouched by the friendship and commitment to work together for a better future. Grade schoolers, high schoolers, adults, and many members of the parish want to sign up for the next visit to Estanzuelas.
If your church, community organization, school, university, trade union, or other grouping, is interested in forming a sister relationship, please write the CIS at: cis_elsalvador@yahoo.com.
A group of 30 U.S. citizens met with Ambassador Rose Likens on October 11th to present their arguments in opposition to the Bush Administrations policy of starting a war in Iraq. The declaration below was presented with dozens of signatures of U.S. citizens living in El Salvador.
As United States citizens
residing in El Salvador, we are deeply troubled that our government is
contemplating a pre-emptive attack against Iraq, a country which has not
attacked the United States and does not pose an immediate threat to our
national security. An attack of this kind is probably unprecedented in our
country’s history.
Crossing this dangerous threshold would violate fundamental moral principles
and international law, as well as undermine our own national security
interests. Saddam Hussein is certainly a ruthless tyrant, and he may have
weapons of mass destruction. However, by itself, that is not sufficient
justification for attacking his country. According to just-war moral
criteria, military action can only be legitimate if it responds to a direct
attack or an imminent grave threat to our nation. These conditions do not
apply in the case of Iraq. It would be immoral to initiate war, with its
certain, all-too-real and terrible costs with the intention of preventing a
violence that is still distant and speculative.
If war can ever be justified, it must be undertaken as a last resort. We are not convinced, and neither are our country’s principal allies, that peaceful means have been exhausted in this case. Moreover, in today's world, the United Nations, as representative of the community of nations, is the proper instrument for dealing with threats to international security. A pre-emptive attack, above all without the support of the international community, would undermine the fragile canons of international behavior. It would draw the United States government down to the moral level of those adversaries our government calls “rogue states” and make it far more difficult to prevent other countries from acting in the same way.
Furthermore, according to standard moral arguments, defensive military action can only be justified if there is reasonable assurance that it would not cause greater damage than the harm it seeks to prevent. However, the attack contemplated by the Bush Administration would result in massive civilian casualties in a country whose citizens have already suffered greatly from war, dictatorship and economic sanctions. (Our fear for innocent Iraqi civilians increases when we recall the insufficient respect shown for civilians in Afghanistan. For example, US bombing missions conducted from extremely high altitudes and with poor intelligence have led to many unnecessary civilian deaths.) Attacking Iraq would also risk unleashing the very weapons we hope to eliminate. It would de-stabilize the volatile Middle East -- with unpredictable consequences into the future. It would further inflame anti-American sentiment around the world and greatly undermine international efforts to combat terrorism. In these ways it would endanger our own national security.
For these reasons, the leadership of many major church denominations in the United States has publicly questioned or rejected the proposed military campaign. (See New York Times, Sept. 28, 2002.) This, too, is probably unprecedented in our history and should give our government pause.
The announced new policy of pre-emptive attack has elicited widespread moral and practical rejection in the international community. International findings and the opinion of many of our allies, US military personnel and UN diplomats past and present point out that not only is a pre-emptive bombing of Iraq morally wrong; it would pose a greater risk to US security and to world peace than the current policy of containment and diplomatic pressure through the United Nations. Indeed, these observers question the claim that Iraq has significant weapons of mass destruction or the launching capability to use them against the United States. What is certain is that US ally Israel does have weapons of mass destruction, and anything that further destabilizes the Middle East at this time runs the risk of provoking their use, with disastrous consequences.
In the case of Iraq, UNSCOM oversaw the destruction of most chemical weapons and chemical weapons agents, missiles, missile launchers and warheads which could carry chemical or biological agents, as well as hundreds of pieces of related equipment with the capability to produce chemical weapons. Israeli military analyst Meir Stieglitz, writing in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, noted that "there is no such thing as a long-range Iraqi missile with an effective biological warhead. . . . The chances of Iraq having succeeded in developing operative warheads without tests are zero." In 1997 UNSCOM Director Richard Butler reported that at that time the mission had accounted for 817 of the 819 Soviet-supplied long-range missiles. Iraq’s traditional air and ground forces are a fraction of what they were before the war. Iraq’s military expenditure is less than one-tenth of its levels in the 1980s. Any weapons capacity that Iraq has should again be dealt with by the UN weapons inspectors whose work has been successful in the past.
Although the Bush Administration has produced NO credible evidence to date that Iraq has links with Al Qaeda or any other major terrorist group, attacking Iraq would most likely provoke such groups to anti-American action, or lead to the formation of new terrorist groups. When even US allies in the region oppose an attack against Iraq and warn that it will have devastating effects on Middle Eastern perceptions of the US and the West, it is imperative to ask to what extent a US attack will actually undermine US security. Attacking Iraq is at odds with everyone’s desire for greater security in a world that has become less secure and less stable since the attacks of September, 11th, 2001.
The United States and other nations should pursue diplomatic solutions to the problem of weapons of mass destruction. These include returning UN weapons inspectors to Iraq under conditions favorable to their work, which not only include the removal of restrictions by Iraq but also allowance for the time the job requires – without regard to our domestic political calendars -- and strict respect for the integrity of the inspection team. Allegations that the US has used the weapons team for spying (confirmed by the Clinton Administration to be well-founded) do little to further the cause of disarmament and much to undermine the inspections and the image of the US. Furthermore, the cause of disarmament would be greatly advanced if the United States were to take concrete steps to reduce its own mass destruction capability. Under the present circumstances, the US loses its moral authority to preach restraint to anyone who has and might use weapons of mass destruction. This is all the more fearful, not only because Iraq might have such weapons, but because India, Pakistan and Israel do, and there is imminent danger those countries might use them in offensive or retaliatory attacks.
Many experts concur that Iraq poses no serious threat to the United States at this time. Voices across the political spectrum do agree, however, that Saddam Hussein is most likely to use any weapons of mass destruction that he might have if Iraq is attacked. By tying weapons elimination to regime change and military action, US policy provides Saddam with a powerful incentive to hold on to his weapons in order to respond to an attack.
Finally, the United States has not shown evidence that a better alternative to Saddam Hussein exists, ready to govern Iraq under principles of democracy and social justice and with widespread support from all sectors of Iraqi society. Given the international and national criticism of the Bush Administration’s failure to muster the promised financial aid and necessary political effort for rebuilding Afghanistan, can we expect the Administration to do a better job in Iraq? Or will a post-Saddam Iraq mean still more instability in that volatile region?
We are US citizens residing in El Salvador which is still recovering from the devastating effects of a war, including aerial bombardment, largely financed with US tax dollars. Now, as violence spirals ominously out of control around the world, we are dismayed that our government proposes more violence as a solution. We firmly oppose a pre-emptive attack against Iraq. We call on the Administration to work with the United Nations to use arms inspections, negotiation, regional cooperation and other diplomatic means to ensure that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction and to work towards peace with justice throughout the Middle East.