[ 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)

Challenges of Solidarity and Human Rights in the New World Order

Salvadoran Perspectives on U.S. Elections

Challenges of Solidarity and Human Rights in the New World Order

The emergence of a more integrated global economy has demanded dynamism on the part of the human rights community. The same could be said of practitioners of solidarity. This article ponders the nature of those challenges and contemplates how human rights and solidarity models might complement each other in the creation of solutions.

Salvadoran Perspectives on U.S. Elections

While not enamoured of one of either of the presidential frontrunners in the United States, Salvadorans demonstrate subtle sympathies. With trade and immigration policy the two most sensitive issues, most peoples preferences are dictated by the candidates’ stances on these topics in particular.

CIS Reflections on the 5^th Mesoamerican Forum and Related Events

CIS participation in the 5^th Mesoamerican Forum and the sector forums that preceded it was substantial, with Grassroots Organizers attending the main event, and Volunteer English Teachers and Spanish Teachers attending the smaller Popular Education Forum and the Bio-Diversity Forum.

Return to top

Challenges of Solidarity and Human Rights in the New World Order

The death of ex-United States President Ronald Reagan--presented by the United States Government and news media as the death of a noble king--reminded us of another reality. It reminded us of his unconditional support for the death squads of El Salvador and the financing of a war that cost more than 70,000 lives; it reminded us of the mines that the Reagan administration laid in the ports of Nicaragua, violating the international law; it reminded us of the support of a genocidal policy in Guatemala during the 1980s. It led me to ask myself, what good did this man do? My conclusion was that these policies of terror in Central America and other parts of the world made some of us socially conscious and moved us to demand respect for human rights and at the same time discover the value of solidarity.

Human rights are fundamental rights—civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights—recognizing, “that liberty, justice and peace in the world are based on the recognition of the intrinsic and inalienable human dignity of all members of the human family.”[1] In the traditional conceptualization, the States are responsible for guaranteeing the human rights of their citizens. Human rights have always existed, but it is not until the public becomes conscious that they begin to recognize and demand compliance with those rights. Greater violation of human rights requires more struggle to demand their recognition. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, represents a common standard in the modern history of human rights. The Declaration was born in the period following the World War II, in the context of the horrors that had been committed during that conflict.

In contrast, solidarity is a human value.  Solidarity consists in making common cause. When there is injustice in any part of the world, it is necessary to accompany the people that struggle for their human rights, without expecting anything in exchange. At the same time, solidarity should not be confused with charity. Solidarity is different from charity in that the first means accompanying a people or a person that has made the decision to change their situation of oppression and necessity. Struggling together creates a more effective force and foments hope. Charity, in contrast, can help someone with a necessity, but is different from solidarity in that the object—the person or the community—has not made the decision to change his or her condition. What unifies human rights and solidarity is that the two are born from struggle. If everything is going well, if a people are content, there is no need to struggle for human rights. And the great movements of solidarity with the Salvadoran and Central American people were born from the decision of those people to struggle for social and economic justice. It was the policies of the Reagan administration to violate human rights systematically and impose an economic and political model according to their interests (and not those of the people) that formed in the world a generation of people who were socially conscious defenders of human rights. At the same time, it fomented ties of solidarity between the peoples of Central and North America and other parts of the world. 

The result of this deep struggle for human rights in the 1970s and 1980s in El Salvador culminated in the peace accords in 1992. The peace accords set up structures to ensure observance of civil and political rights, but did not deepen guarantees of economic, social and cultural rights. The theory was that the economic policies would be designed in a “Forum for Economic and Social Accord” agreed to in the Peace Accords, and also that the elections and the political process would determine the economic policy of the State. The problem was that life was never given to the Forum, and the political process has not fomented debate and agreement about economic policy. When, in the election of 2004, the country saw the possibility of a new government and a new economic model, the human rights gained in the Civil War and the Peace Accords suffered a roll back. Just one example of this was the “Firm Hand” Law, which was essentially an electoral strategy to win sympathy among voters—given the escalation in common crime in the country. The law systematically violated the rights of young people, whether real or supposed members of youth gangs. Robbing $10 while belonging to a gang was considered more serious than robbing millions of dollars from the Salvadoran people and not being a member of the 18^th Street or Salvatrucha gangs. These events should be analyzed in the context of the new world order.

What is the New World Order? 

The new world order is a broad topic that can be analyzed in both economic and political terms. Some elements that we can understand include the end of the Cold War, symbolized in the destruction of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union ended, and the balance of power in favor of the United States. The threat of a nuclear war between the East and West diminished. The change was celebrated as the triumph of capitalism over socialism. In the end, neither the world nor the current economic order is more secure.

The formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994 (replacing GATT, which was formed in the context of World War II) represents a new order of capitalism in the world. [2] Neoliberalism as it is manifesting itself in the 21^st Century has placed the rights of multinational corporations to generate profit above human rights. At the same time it is moving political power from the state to multinational corporations. We must ask ourselves “if the multinationals can sue the States and have power over them, how can states guarantee human rights?” This does not only place at risk human rights, but also the democratic system. In the new economic order corporations can file lawsuits against states for their “right” to contaminate the environment, and take natural resources away from citizens (water etc.) and use them to make a profit for a small number of people. It is their right, under this system, to implement any measure necessary to guarantee maximum earning.

The attack on the Twin Towers in New York in 2001 revealed the vulnerability of the United States and made clear the possibility that small terrorist groups could damage military and economic powers. Multinationals and terrorists benefit from these attacks. Now the multinationals have more protection and there is a tendency to label as terrorist the protest movements against economic policies. The attacks have been the justification for restricting civil rights and even have opened discussion about postponing the elections in the United States for the first time in the history of the country.

The war against Iraq begun in 2003 by the United States of America was a new tactic in the new world order. For the first time the United States launched a “preventative” war, which is to say, a war was declared against a state and people because there existed the possibility of an attack or a possibility that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, without having presented any proof. On the contrary, the United Nations Inspectors never found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after numerous inspections. The policy of launching a war without an immediate threat to national security was an act without precedent and put the world in an extremely dangerous place. The practice of terrorism by fundamentalist groups and at the same time on the part of the state against entire peoples in the name of “anti-terrorism” has removed all borders in the threat of violence to the world order. This new manifestation of violence is placing at risk and rolling back respect for human rights.

Challenges of human rights given the new threats

Violation of human rights is a signal that in that country solidarity is needed. The principal areas of threat in the current context include the neo-liberal economic model, the war in Iraq, and the roll back of democratization processes and democratic principles. 

The economic model that is being executed is a re-organization of the capitalist system converting into rights the privileges that multinationals already have. The new rules of the WTO give rights to the multinationals to have earnings uninterrupted by environmental considerations, labor rights, employment for disabled people, and the right to health, education and even water. The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) gives even more rights to the multinationals, and fewer to human beings. The trade agreement includes provisions for the privatization of health, education and water, which are all considered commodities.

The privatization of services implies that these are seen as a means of generating income instead of contributing to the well being of a people. The privatization of water means that a community or family can be fined or jailed for digging a well because they can’t pay for private water service, since when the businesses privatize the water they also buy the rights to the underground aquifers. With the privatization of telecommunications and the distribution of electricity, we have seen that in some cases the telephone service is more accessible, but the cost of both services has gone up. In the case of vital services for the population like education, water and health care (in a country where there is not dignified and well-paid employment to be able to pay for the services) the consequences are serious.

CAFTA, like NAFTA, establishes that multinationals can sue states for “lost earnings.” For example, we can cite the case of the Metalclad Corporation of the United States, a business that was contaminating the underground aquifers in San Luis Potosi, Mexico. When the San Luis Potosi municipal government denied the corporation permission to reopen the waste dump, Metalclad took the case to a NAFTA tribunal. The resolution of the tribunal was in favor of Metalclad, and forced the government of Mexico to pay US $16.7 million in compensation for lost earnings when that plant had to close. [3] 

Another factor of the new economic order that attacks human rights includes the use of patents or intellectual property. Patents are useful if someone has written a book, recorded a song, or invented something, enabling the author or inventor to benefit from their idea. Problems arise when something used for human well being, such as medicine, or a plant used to make natural medicine, is “highjacked” by a multinational to generate earnings. In CAFTA, the United States is prolonging the life of patents on medicines and making healthcare inaccessible to the majority of poor people in the region.

There are other implications in the area of healthcare, such as the genetic manipulation of seeds, whose effect on the human body still has not been proven. The United States is fighting in the World Trade Organization so that products containing genetically modified ingredients do not need a label because it could dissuade the purchase of these products and affect earnings. And with CAFTA, genetically modified products can freely enter Central America without any label. Perhaps the most serious implication is that the businesses are buying the patents of plants that already exist. In 1991, the government of Costa Rica signed a contract with the company Merck Pharmaceuticals, giving them the exclusive rights to investigate, develop and patent new products using the plants, microorganisms and animals of the tropical forest of Costa Rica. Many of these species are also present in Central America and Mexico. [4]

The war in Iraq represents another challenge for the proponents of human rights. The war can only be seen in economic terms. The Bush Administration went to war unilaterally without justification of an imminent or immediate danger. The war was not about weapons of mass destruction or about September 11 like the Bush administration declared in the news media. Although Saddam Hussein violated human rights, Iraq was one of the few countries in the Middle East that had a secular government and where women could study. At the same time, the majority of the highjackers of the airplanes on September 11 were Saudis; none were Iraqi. In the end the Bush administration went to war in Iraq for economic interests – Iraq has second largest oil reserves in the world. In addition, according to the Book House of Bush, House of Saud, “in all, at least $1.46 billion was invested by he Saudis in the Bush family and their businesses and allied institutions.”[5] All the indicators point to a very close relationship between the Saudis and the Bush Family, and that the two have many common interests in the oil business and in the sale of arms through a multinational conglomerate, “the Carlyle Group.”

 The immediate victims of the war in Iraq are the Iraqi people, not the “terrorists.” In addition to the destruction of their health infrastructure, schools, streets, and oil production, there are thousands and thousands of innocent victims.

The war in inhuman anyway, but the invading forces have violated the Geneva Convention has been violated with their treatment of Iraqis. The use of torture has been documented and came to light through new technology that can send an electronic photograph to thousands of people in minutes. If there is little to no respect for international law and human rights on the part of the largest military and economic power in the world, it has very alarming implications for the rest of the world.

Finally, as part of the process of placing even more control in the hands of multinational corporations, democracy is at risk. If the states that represent people (at least in theory) do not have power over the multinationals, how can a democratic state be maintained? The United States is one of the countries most internally democratic, despite their foreign policy, but there was a lack of transparency in the last presidential elections in 2000. More than 66,000 voters were illegally erased from the registry of voters in the State of Florida, the majority of them African American, Latinos and of the Democratic Party. George Bush won the State with only 537 votes. [6] In the end it was the State of Florida that determined the results of the elections.

This lack of transparency in the elections in the United States had implications in El Salvador as well. According to International Observers in the 2004 Elections, for the first time since the Peace Accords, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal was unresponsive to the violations of the electoral code. There was also unprecedented investment (without transparency) in the campaign of the official party-ARENA. The issue of family remittances, the principal source of income for the Salvadoran family, was manipulated and distorted to guarantee a favorable result for the ARENA party. They in turn will guarantee ratification of the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the blind following, of neoliberal policies independent of the impact that they have on the Salvadoran population.[7] Also, ARENA has been the guarantee that El Salvador will maintain their troops in Iraq as part of the occupation coalition.

Challenges for Solidarity

Solidarity has to take on new forms given this new reality. Solidarity should accompany people in need that have made the decision to change their reality.

War and crisis always generate solidarity. Solidarity has to respond to its call and at the same time use the tools of information, to make a case for economic and social justice. Solidarity has to globalize. Technology and the Internet can be used to globalize this information and in turn generate solidarity. We cannot remain silent in the face of =the unjustifiable use of violence and rampant violations of human rights.

The efforts to accompany populations in search of a new economic order on a local level are important to construct alternatives to the neoliberal model. This means organization against privatization of services and vital resources and against free trade agreements that favor the interests of the rich above the poor majority. Also, solidarity should accompany people and communities in the implementation of new models for sustainable development, for example, support micro-enterprises and local efforts to generate self-determination and respect for the natural environment.

Participation in local, national and international politics is very important to generate and defend democratic processes. We cannot isolate ourselves. Facing the most powerful nation in the world, the Salvadoran people achieved a negotiated agreement in 1992. The Salvadoran people and the farmer movement won the forgiving of the agrarian debt after the Peace Accords. The people and the movement against the privatization of healthcare won their battle facing powerful economic interests in 2003. It is important to continue the organization, the consciousness raising, the education, the lobbying, the formation of public opinion, public protest, advocacy, proposal of alternative local economic models, among other initiatives. Solidarity is an important tool to accompany movements for justice and show that no one is alone in the struggle for human dignity and human rights.

Salvadoran Perspectives on U.S. Elections

Esther Alvarenga of San Salvador cleverly captured the sentiment of many Salvadorans when they considered possible repercussions of the November 2 electoral outcome in the United States.

            “I don’t expect much from either of them,” she says, referring to Senator Kerry and President Bush. “Choosing between Republicans and Democrats is like having to pick Pepsi or Coke.”

            That said, Alvarenga did not want George Bush to win, citing above all his trade policy and immigration record as reasons. Most Salvadoran’s sympathy, however measured, for either Kerry or Bush seemed to be informed by the candidates’ stance on these two issues in particular. The differences they saw were subtle, and yet significant.

“I think that in terms of policy towards Latin America, there would not be big changes, independent of who wins the elections,” said Legislative Assembly Deputy Hugo Martinez of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN). “Nonetheless, I heard in the last debate Senator Kerry offering an alternative with an eye toward a more permanent solution for the immigrants who are in the United States. This could be a benefit in the event that Senator Kerry wins the elections,”

            His position was echoed by his colleague in the Legislature, Deputy Blanca Flor Bonilla. “From our point of view Senator Kerry would give more opportunities to our immigrant population in the United States,” she said.

            Even Legislative Deputy Carmen Elena de Escalon of the governing, right wing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA)—a party that has shared a particularly close relationship with the Bush administration—cautiously conceded that the Democrats have traditionally had a more favorable stance on immigrant issues. “It is said that the Democratic Party is perhaps more open in relation to migratory amnesty that the Republicans,” she says. She quickly pointed out, however, that it was the Bush administration that extended the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Salvadorans living in the United States after the earthquakes of January and February 2001, thereby enabling them to continue working and sending remittances home to family members.

Perhaps for this reason, she stoped short of endorsing one candidate over the other. “If one or the other of the current parties wins I don’t think the relationship between the two countries will change.”

In terms of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), Deputy de Escalona expressed measured concern that Kerry would make good on his promises to revise the agreement, thereby lengthening the ratification process. “To come after the fact and say ‘we are going to do some revising,’ de-motivates us to sit down again to revise something that was very difficult to agree about,” says de Escalon. She mentioned the 2005 entry of China into the World Trade Organization, a specter frequently invoked by other members of her party in arguing for the necessity of CAFTA.

At the same time however, de Escalona called Kerry’s bluff. “I feel that this is a little bit of campaign trail promising, because revising an agreement that has already been completed, I feel that at base it does not have much seriousness.”

The FMLN has come out against CAFTA, a position reflected in Blanca Flor Bonilla’s perspective on the issue. She says that the leftist party advocates a comprehensive cooperation plan, of which trade is just one aspect. She says that such an agreement would take into account the vast differences between the two national economies, ideally inviting multinational investment, while protecting the interests of Salvadoran workers, agricultural producers and entrepreneurs. “We know that president Bush is promoting the trade agreement the way that it was negotiated, and Senator Kerry is requesting that they revise the Free Trade Agreement.”

            This is not to say, however, that any revisions that Kerry might have been able to pursue would have fundamentally changed the agreement. Guillermo Iglesias, Professor of International Business at Mathias Delgado University, says this is in part attributable to the fact that Central America represents the third largest international market for U.S.  goods. “I don’t think that either of the candidates wants to change CAFTA. I see it more as a question of political campaigning. There could perhaps be certain modifications to the text of the trade agreement, but I don’t think it will mean changes to the essence of the agreement.”

         Iglesias’ overall assessment of the electoral outcome’s possible repercussions highlights the static nature of certain aspects of US policy toward Central America.  “The relationship between the United States and El Salvador, the United States and Central America, will be the same. The interests are going to be the same, because they are a question that are much more structural, than questions simply of political climate,” he claimed. 

CIS News:

CIS Reflections on the 5^th Mesoamerican Forum and Related Events

            Iris Alas, CIS Grassroots organizer from the municipality of San Rafael Cedros, participated in the “Constructing the Political Subject” roundtable at the V Foro Mesoamericano (Fifth Mesoamerican Forum).

            “The characteristics of the subject we wanted to create, integrating some characteristics of the current political subject, were that it be more active, responsible, that it be part of the base, that it be built from the base,” she says. “The question is to create consciousness in the people so that they participate, so that they understand current events, so that they understand that neoliberal policies affect the entire population.”

            Iris is just one of a number of people from the CIS, ranging from Grassroots Organizers to Volunteer English Teachers to Host family members, that participated in the Mesoamerican Forum and the smaller sector-specific forum that preceded it.

            “I feel satisfied that the CIS had a good participation,” adds Iris. “Many of us from CIS participated, and it was interesting because we participated in different round tables with different themes…When I was in the Forum I said that in the communities this is going to be useful, especially with the minutes, to continue working with another vision, with a vision of more social commitment with the people and the communities,” says Iris.

            Iris also comments on the regional perspective she gained, in terms of identifying common problems and devising collective solutions. She says the event made even clearer to her the need for regional coordination if the government and trade policies that most affect Central American’s lives are going to be addressed. “Only in this way can we have an impact, and see what we can do to make sure that these countries, these governments that implement neoliberal measures, understand that there are people affected that they don’t take into account when making decisions, and that we are part of this society, and we need them to take us into account.”

            Lito Vasquez, CIS Grassroots Organizer from Comasagua, participated in the “Food Self-Sustainability” table at the Mesoamerican Forum. Lito says that the conclusion reached was that to achieve the desired level of self sustainability in the area of national food production, some form of agrarian reform was needed, albeit based on a different model than those that have preceded and failed. In addition to the reform, he says the table participants agreed that the government should be obligated to provide producers with subsidies.

            “For me the Forum has been an excellent experience,” says Lito. “This is going to be very useful for me, because I have been working in this area.” Lito says that for the past several years he has been using native seeds, and after his participation in the Forum has a clearer idea of the threat posed by genetically modified seeds to national production.

Esmeralda Hernandez, in collaboration with the CIS, gives workshops on how to make natural medicines and hygiene products. She participated in the Instruments of Free Trade roundtable, through which she says she both learned some new things and was able to share with the other participants.

            “I thought that only our country was affected by the Central American Free Trade Agreement,” she said.

            Esmeralda shared with the other participant in the roundtable an experience she had at the Ministry of the Economy in El Salvador. “Someone at the Ministry told me that it was necessary to have a $70,000 a month business in order to be able to export. ‘Well,’ I said, ‘the free trade agreement isn’t for the small or the medium sized businesses, its for the big ones.’ He told me, ‘that’s right.’”

            Esmeralda also expressed her concern about the possibility of U.S. corporations patenting plant species. “We are not going to be able to produce the medicines,” she says. “No one is going to be able to make the mora syrups if [a corporation] has a patent on the plant.”

            A number of CIS English School Volunteers participated in the smaller issue-specific Forums that preceded the larger Mesoamerican Forum. Tom Pearson, a Ph.D. candidate in Anthropology at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Binghamton, participated in the Bio-Diversity Forum in the town of Carolina, Department of San Miguel. “The themes,” he comments, “were much more cast in political terms.” The topics of discussion at the Bio-Diversity forum included Globalization, the Biological Corridor proposed at part of Plan Puebla Panama (PPP), intellectual property rights, and bio-diversity. “It was much more politically grounded,” says Pearson, “not just ‘save the rainforest.’”

            Volunteer English Teacher Jill Hopke from Madison, Wisconsin, participated in the Popular Education Forum. “[We discussed] what has been the place of popular education and where is it going into the future,” says Hopke. “How can it be used to mobilize?”

            Host Mother and part-time CIS Spanish Teacher Elba Mata traveled with Hopke and others to the Popular Education Forum. She says that the experience reinforced her understanding of the popular education model that the Spanish School strives to use.

            In the end, CIS participation in the 5^th Mesoamerican Forum and the smaller forums that preceded it was substantial in numbers and varied in experience.

Return to top