[ 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

Contents:                                                                           Printer Friendly (PDF)

Special Feature:

Statements by United States Government Officials Intimidate Salvadoran Voters

By Mea Allen

Briefs:

Summary:

Statements by United States Government Officials Intimidate Salvadoran Voters: While some comments issued by U.S. government officials during El Salvador’s Presidential Campaign demonstrated respect for that sovereign nation’s democratic process, the majority of statements reflected quite the opposite. Election observer Mea Allen demonstrates how the bias of these statements, coupled with their use in the Salvadoran media and opposition-party propaganda, served to disseminate lies which may well have impacted the electoral outcome.

Statements by United States Government Officials Intimidate Salvadoran Voters[1]

By Mea Allen

During El Salvador's presidential campaign period, current United States Ambassador Douglas Barclay made statements to the press declaring that the U.S. Government would respect the outcome of that country's elections.  Declarations by many other U.S. Government officials, however, did not reflect the same objectivity. These statements—indicating a preference for the right-wing Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA)—far outnumbered the Ambassador’s declarations of U.S. government objectivity.

These comments began as early as June 2003, and became even more frequent as Election Day approached. Bush Administration officials, embassy officials and Congresspeople all made statements suggesting that if the leftist Frente Farabundo Marti para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) won:

a)      U.S.-El Salvador relations would deteriorate, thus endangering U.S. financial assistance and foreign investment.

b)      They would no longer be able to receive remittances—which total more than $2 billion a year and are the top revenue source for this country—from their family members living in the United States.

c)      Salvadorans in the United States would be deported.

Anti-FMLN declarations by the U.S. Government representatives made headlines in the mainstream newspapers El Diario de Hoy and La Prensa Grafica.  These declarations were used in editorials to press the point that an FMLN win would bring virtual disaster upon the Salvadoran people.  These notions were reinforced by ARENA campaign ads in the newspapers, radio, and television; some using direct quotes from U.S. officials.  In contrast, declarations of objectivity from U.S. Congresspeople received scant coverage; most were reported only in the smaller afternoon paper, Co-Latino.

The bias of the U.S. government crossed with that of the Salvadoran media meant that on Election Day, many voters seemed to sincerely believe that if they did not vote for ARENA they would no longer receive remittances from the United States. For many, that is their main source of income.  While meeting with the community in San Martin on Friday, March 19, Centro de Intercambio y Solidaridad (CIS) election observers were asked several times if it was true that remittances would stop if the FMLN won.  On that same day in the Municipality of Metapan, another CIS observer team had scheduled a meeting with the FMLN Legal Representative to the Municipal Electoral Council (JEM), as well as the local Party Coordinator.  The party representatives skipped the standard formalities, immediately turning to the topic of rumors about remittances and deportations.  As the observers explained that the rumors were false, dozens of community residents gathered in the office to hear their answers.

Because of the contex in which these statements were made, the bias of the U.S. government and the Salvadoran media undoubtedly had an impact on the final outcome of the elections.

Statements by U.S. Officials

Rose Likins, the former U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, was the first to make anti-FMLN statements before leaving her post in June 2003.  Although she said that the United States would, “respect the will of Salvadorans,” she added that U.S. relations with the Fransisco Flores Administration, and with the ARENA party, are “excellent because we share principles and objectives,” and that they would ”re-analyze” relations if the FMLN won the presidency.  She continued by saying that, “it is better to speak now, before the candidates are chosen, to make clear the basis of our relationship.  We want the voters to decide, keeping in mind the current factors.” (La Prensa Grafica. June 4, 2003)[2]

Former Ambassador Likins declared that the Bush Administration was aware of her sentiments.  “If the question is if Washington knows what I’m going to say … I’m going to say it frankly: in this case, yes, they know.” (La Prensa Grafica. June 4, 2003) Likins’ statements set the tone for comments to come over the next ten months.  The parade of officials visiting El Salvador included Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Dan Fisk, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega, Special State Department Envoy to the Western Hemisphere Otto Reich, and Florida Governor Jeb Bush.  Other officials made comments during press conferences held in the United States.  The statements became more frequent, and their threats more specific, as the elections approached.

Several of these U.S. officials noted that they would respect the outcome of the Salvadoran elections, but only after they had made many anti-FMLN comments.   They generally emphasized the good relations that they have had with the ARENA Government, because of the “values” and “visions” that they share.  This served to underscore the differences between the current U.S. administration and the FMLN on several issues.  The overriding message was that bilateral relations between the two countries, and therefore U.S. financial support to El Salvador, would suffer in the event of an FMLN victory.

Comments Regarding Values

Roger Noriega, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, spoke about sharing values with the Salvadoran Government.

“We want to deepen our relations with the Salvadoran government and hopefully the Salvadoran people elect someone who shares our vision, our values and the interest of deepening and improving the relations and associations between our countries, but it is the Salvadorans’ decision and we are going to respect the results”

–Roger Noriega (El Diario de Hoy. February 7, 2004.)

Otto Reich, Special State Department Envoy to the Western Hemisphere, said that Salvadorans should:

“…choose a government that they know can have good relations with the U.S. and that shares values and principles such as democracy, the right to private property, the fight against terrorism, that I don’t think that we share with the FMLN.”  (La Prensa Grafica. March 14, 2004)

“All Salvadorans must reflect and think about under what plan and ideology the country could prosper or the country could take a step backwards.”

–Otto Reich (La Prensa Grafica.         March 14, 2004.)

“You have to be very careful in a democratic election, to not give the reins of power to a person with an autocratic history or vision.”

– Otto Reich (El Diario de Hoy. March 14, 2004.)

“I believe that we can ask ourselves what is their [the FMLN] commitment to democracy, and I hope that the Salvadorans ask themselves this question.”

– Daniel Fisk (La Prensa Grafica. June 19, 2003.)

Comments Regarding Bilateral Relations

“Salvadorans must judge how relations with us would be…hopefully Salvadorans also want this and decide who could strengthen this association and look to the future, not to the past.”

– Roger Noriega (La Prensa Grafica. February 7, 2004.)

“We know the history of this political movement [the FMLN], and therefore it is fair that Salvadorans to judge what kind of relations that movement can maintain with us.”

– Roger Noriega (El Diario de Hoy. February 7, 2004.)

“We are concerned about the impact that an FMLN victory could have on the commercial, economic and migration-related relations of the U.S. with El Salvador.”

– Otto Reich (La Prensa Grafica. March 14, 2004.)

“We could not have the same confidence in an El Salvador led by a person who is obviously an admirer of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.”

– Otto Reich (El Diario de Hoy. March 14, 2004.)

“The United States would be fully justified in revising aspects related to a bilateral diplomatic relationship.”

– Otto Reich (El Diario de Hoy. March 14, 2004.)

“It is important that the Salvadoran people understand that their decision at the polls will have consequences for future relations with the United States.”

– Dana Rohrabacker, U.S.   Congresswoman from California (La Prensa Grafica. March 19, 2004)

“Under an FMLN presidency, the U.S. government would not have a trustworthy counterpart.”

– Thomas Tancredo, U.S. Congressman from Colorado (La Prensa Grafica. March 19, 2004)

“Good relations between our two countries could be in danger.”

– Thomas Tancredo (El Diario de Hoy. March 18, 2004.)

“The United States is going to determine the type of support and relations according to what the elected candidate decides.”

– (El Diario de Hoy. January 29, 2004.  Without citation, alluded to comment by Douglas Barclay, U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador)

Threats Regarding Remittances and Visas

U.S. Government statements against the FMLN grew more specific as Election Day grew closer.  Threats included stopping the flow of remittances and not renewing the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, the U.S. measure that extends temporary work visas to some 290,000 Salvadoran immigrants. The deportation of Salvadorans living and working under TPS would eliminate crucial financial support sent to their families back in El Salvador.

“If the communist candidate of the FMLN assumes the presidency of El Salvador, it could very well be necessary for the United Status to reconsider our relationship with El Salvador, the prolongation of TPS and our current support for the sending of their remittances to their country.”

– Dan Burton, U.S. Congressman from Indiana (La Prensa Grafica. March 19, 2004)

“It could be necessary for the American authorities to examine very carefully and possibly apply controls to the flow of $2 billion in remittances…unfortunately, to the detriment of many people who live in El Salvador.”

– Thomas Tancredo (El Diario de Hoy. March 18, 2004.)

“If the FMLN controls the Salvadoran government after the March 2004 Presidential Elections, it could mean a radical change in U.S. policy regarding the essentially free flow of remittances from Salvadorans living in the U.S. to El Salvador.”

– Thomas Tancredo (El Diario de      Hoy. March 18, 2004.)

U.S.Government Shows That it is Pro-ARENA

In addition to the above comments, various functionaries from the United States made clear their preference for the ARENA party.  Otto Reich issued his comments during a press conference held at the ARENA campaign headquarters.  Jeb Bush, during a visit to El Salvador to discuss the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), met only with ARENA presidential candidate Tony Saca, offering the justification that Saca was the former president of the National Private Business Association (ANEP). Deputy Defense Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Rogelio Pardo-Maurer, after a visit with Tony Saca in Washington, commented that the ARENA plan “is a plan that inspires a lot of confidence in us.” (El Diario de Hoy. January 28, 2004.)

Another act that created a lot of anti-FMLN press occurred during Roger Noriega’s visit to El Salvador.  Noriega met with the candidates from ARENA, the Centro Democratico Unido—Partido Democrata Cristiana (CDU-PDC) coalition, and Partido de Conciliación Nacional (PCN), but did not meet with FMLN candidate Shafik Handal.  The reason given was that earlier, the FMLN had used a photo of Ambassador Douglas Barclay in a campaign advertisement in the newspapers.  The photo was of Barclay and Handal shaking hands during a courtesy visit by the new Ambassador.  The Ambassador condemned this use of his image, saying that it was “inappropriate” and that “a courtesy visit by an ambassador is not a political event.” (El Diario de Hoy. January 29, 2004.) 

The press seized this opportunity to publish sensationalist headlines:

U.S. Government Officials Can Say What They Want

Representatives of the U.S. Government insisted that its functionaries have a right to express their opinions on Salvadoran politics, although this is a violation of the Salvadoran Constitution and the Electoral Code.

“We said that we would not hesitate to express our opinion on issues that affect our bilateral relations and that we will continue reacting to the actions and statements of the FMLN during the campaign.”

– Paul Trivelli, Director of Central American Affairs, U.S. Department of State (El Diario de Hoy. July 18, 2004.  )

“Congresspeople can say what they want when they are here.”

– Douglas Barclay (La Prensa Grafica. March 24, 2004.  )

Taking it One Step Further

The anti-FMLN statements made by U.S. officials were reported in La Prensa Grafica and El Diario de Hoy, the two newspapers with the largest circulation in the country.  The Co-Latino, which has only a fraction of the circulation of the Diario and the Prensa, printed only those statements that favored the FMLN.

La Prensa Grafica and El Diario de Hoy reported all of the anti-FMLN statements made by U.S. officials in large headlines, often on the front page.  These articles were given large amounts of space, while the few articles where U.S. officials claimed objectivity were relegated to smaller areas.  The following is a sampling of some headlines from these two papers:

La Prensa Grafica and El Diario de Hoy emphasized the message coming from the U.S. government in their editorials.  For example, the March 16^th editorial in El Diario de Hoy spoke of the FMLN’s supposed “poor relations with the U.S.,” that the FMLN “would create problems for our relatives in the U.S.,” and that “they would manage, in different ways, to reduce family remittances.”

In another example, the editorial in El Diario de Hoy on March 19th was titled “Remittances from the U.S. Running Serious Risk” and repeated the comments made by Thomas Tancredo.

Salvadoran Government officials from the ARENA party, and the ARENA candidate Tony Saca also used the United States Government comments to their advantage.  Francisco Flores, the President of El Salvador, made comments to the press on June 6, just two days after those of Rose Likins:

“We will have no more migration protection from abroad, we will not be able to protect [immigrants], they will be deported.  How many families are not going to receive their remittances?  An important source of the economy will be lost.  We are talking about immense risks for the country.”

– Francisco Flores (El Diario de Hoy. June 6, 2003.  )

“Investors are nervous.  I know many projects that are being delayed, people saying, ‘I’m not going to invest while this is not defined.’  The first effect is on the investor and that affects jobs.”

– Francisco Flores (El Diario de Hoy. June 6, 2003. )

Flores was also reported by El Diario de Hoy as being “worried for the future of remittances because of the comments of Tancredo, Burton, Rohrabacker.”

René León, the Salvadoran Ambassador in Washington DC,  issued a statement that bolstered the threats emanating from the U.S. Congress:

“This is not an invention and we have not provoked these warnings, this is a signal being emitted from Washington, emitted from Congress and we look at this signal with concern.”

– René León (El Diario de Hoy. March 20, 2004. )

Tony Saca, the ARENA presidential candidate, met with Congresspersons Tom Davis, Kevin Brady, Mario Díaz-Balart, Jerry Weller and later with Deputy Defense Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs Pardo-Maurer, after which he told the press:

“Today I would receive another blessing, but from Dan Fisk.”

– Tony Saca (El Diario de Hoy. January 28, 2004. )

“…of course they want the next government to be a government that believes in democracy, liberties, openness and free trade.”

– Tony Saca (La Prensa Grafica. January 28, 2004. )

The ARENA party also capitalized on the threats from the U.S. Government in its campaign advertisements.  Some of this propaganda was published in U.S. papers, in areas where many Salvadorans live.  For example, the Houston Chronicle carried an ad asking Salvadorans to tell their family members back home to vote for ARENA so that they would continue to be able to send home remittances.

Women for Freedom (Mujeres por la Libertad), a group that placed a large amount of anti-FMLN propaganda in the Salvadoran newspapers, quoted Roger Noriega, Daniel Fisk, and Rose Likins in one of their ads and also noted that, “some Salvadoran brothers do not realize the catastrophe and the chaos that… would result from a Presidency… with Shafik Handal.” (El Diario de Hoy. February 11, 2004. ) 

It is worth noting that the U.S. Embassy did not sanction the use of direct quotes by the Women for Freedom as they had sanctioned the FMLN for using a photo of the Ambassador shaking hands with Shafik Handal.

U.S. Officials in Favor of Objectivity

Amidst this mass of anti-FMLN sentiment, some statements did appear from U.S. government officials claiming the objectivity of the U.S. Government, a few even condemning statements made by Roger Noriega.  Unfortunately, the majority of these statements were printed only in the Co-Latino, a newspaper whose circulation is just a fraction of that of La Prensa Grafica and El Diario de Hoy.  Those statements that did appear in the mainstream newspapers received less space and smaller headlines than the anti-FMLN statements.

Douglas Barclay, the new U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, noted in El Diario de Hoy on January 29^th that his government would support the candidate that won.  The U.S. Embassy issued statements just days before the elections, which were published in a brief article in La Prensa Grafica:

“The U.S. Embassy asserted that the government of that country is willing to work with the government that Salvadorans choose… The Embassy explained that the government has no control over remittances… They also signaled that the immigration policy is defined only with conditions of a domestic character, not international relations with certain countries.”

– La Prensa Grafica. March 17, 2004

After ARENA had won the elections, the Prensa Grafica interviewed Douglas Barclay, who addressed the false rumors about remittances and immigration policy in more detail:

“Remittances are an arrangement that exists between the Salvadoran in the United States and their family and friends in El Salvador.  It is something purely economic.  The U.S. Government has nothing to do with remittances… Regarding the migration situation, U.S. Law is determined by the U.S. Congress… and it is speculation to say that a law would be changed because of the results of an election.

– Douglas Barclay (La Prensa Grafica. March 24, 2004. )

United States Senators Raúl Grijalva and Xavier Becerra authored a letter to Colin Powell condemning Otto Reich’s statements, signed by twenty-eight of their fellow Senators.  The letter requested that Powell make a public statement denouncing the comments made by Otto Reich.  They also held several press conferences.  Unfortunately, their statements appeared only in the Co-Latino.  The statements from Grijalva and Becerra reported in the Co-Latino were as follows:

“…It bothers us that Salvadoran citizens feel that members of the U.S. try to influence the election results… It is because of our economic and cultural ties, and because of the history of the U.S. Government’s negative influence in the internal conflicts of El Salvador, that government representatives should remain neutral on issues that concern only Salvadorans.”

– Raúl Grijalva, U.S. Senator from Arizona (Co-Latino. March 3, 2004.)

They later reacted to Otto Reich’s comments during his visit to El Salvador:

“...It is irresponsible and false to suggest to Salvadorans in the United States that they would be at greater risk of being deported or that they could no longer send remittances to El Salvador… We make a call to Secretary Powell, to affirm the official position of the United States… and denounce the incendiary comments of Mr. Reich.”

– Raúl Grijalva and Xavier Becerra, U.S. Senators (Co-Latino. March 17, 2004. )

The same two Senators reacted to Thomas Tancredo’s statements in another press conference:

“The fear that Salvadorans have about remittances is false and it is very irresponsible for anyone to campaign with this.”

– Raúl Grijalva and Xavier Becerra, U.S. Senators (Co-Latino. March 19, 2004. )

Ana Sol Gutiérrez, from the State Legislature of Maryland, also made statements clarifying that the visa and remittance rumors were false (El Diario de Hoy. March 11, 2004; La Prensa Grafica. March 11, 2004)  This was followed nine days later by statements from the Los Angeles City Council and Liz Figueroa, California State Senator, also calling the rumors false (Co-Latino. March 20, 2004; La Prensa Grafica. March 20, 2004.)

Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio captured particularly well the contradictions evident in U.S. policymaker discourse:

"The people of El Salvador have a right to free and fair elections without interference from the United States.  The U.S. cannot claim to be a leader in promoting democracy worldwide and at the same time hinder democracy by attempting to influence the outcome of elections abroad."

-Dennis Kucinich (Co-Latino. March 3, 2004)

Conclusion

The behavior of U.S. Government violated the Salvadoran law that prohibits any foreigner, while in El Salvador, from participating in politics.  U.S. officials have clearly participated in politics by stating their opinions in favor of the ARENA candidate and against the FMLN.

It furthermore goes against international standards of conduct that a government should interfere in the politics of another sovereign nation.  Because of the extensive involvement of the United States in the Salvadoran civil war during the 1980’s, the U.S. government should take extra care to respect the right of El Salvador to govern itself and determine its own leaders via fair, democratic elections.  Just as the U.S. promised in the 1992 Peace Accords to keep its military out of El Salvador, it should keep its government out of local politics.

 Back to Top

Briefs:

Healthcare Negotiations Bear Fruit

On June 30, Salvadoran Social Security Institite (ISSS) Director Jorge Mariano Pinto and the leadership of the Salvadoran Social Security Institute Workers Union (STISSS) sat down once again at the negotiating table. As a result of the meeting, Director Pinto agreed to review the cases of 103 Social Security employees that were fired before, during and after the 9 month healthcare strike in 2002 and 2003. The union claims that the firings were unjust, and has made the reinstatement of the 103 employees central among their demands that the Social Security Institute comply with the agreement that ended the healthcare strike.

On July 7, STISSS Secretary General Ricardo Monge and Finance and Administrative Sub-Director Catalina de Murcia announced that both parties had agreed to the reinstallation of 30 of the 103 workers. The remaining cases will be reviewed by ISSS. (Sources: Co-Latino, 6/30/04; La Prensa Grafica, 7/7/04.)

Anti-Gang Law Nominally Terminated

On June 4 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child requested that the Salvadoran Government revoke the highly controversial Anti-Gang Law, a resolution that dovetailed with previous statements made by the Human Rights Ombudswoman of El Salvador, Dr. Beatrice de Carrillo, as well as justices of the Supreme Court (CSJ).

President Antoinio Saca declared in late June that he would not pursue a prolongation of the Anti-Gang Law. Although the measure expired on June 30, National Civilian Police (PNC) Director Ricardo Menesses says that mass detentions of gang members will continue under the auspices of the Plan “Supemano Dura” (super-firm hand). Gang members will be tried according to previously existing laws regarding youth delinquency.  (Sources: Co-Latino, 5/26/04, 6/4/04, 6/30/04; El Diario de Hoy, 6/27/04; La Prensa Grafica, 6/5/04, 6/27/04.)

El Salvador and U.S. Sign Agreement

On April 29 the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador ratified an agreement with the United States that prohibits  either nation from turning over nationals of the other to the International Crimial Court (ICC). The Pact was signed in October 2002 by Chancellor María Brizuela de Avila and then-U.S. Embassador Rose Linkins, and made it through the Legislative Assemby with 45 of 84 votes. The Deputies representing the Alianza Republicana Nacionalista (ARENA) and those from the Partido de Conciliación Nacional (PCD) supported the measure, along with two renegade votes from the Partido Democrata Cristiana (PDC). The Deputies from the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) and the Centro Democratico Unido (CDU)--along with the three remaing votes from the PDC--attemped to keep the the measure under debate in Foreign Relations Committee, but were unsucessful. (Source: La Prensa Grafica, 5/30/04.)

Back to Top