El Salvador’s First Left-Leaning President

[Judi Lynn]

El Salvador’s First Left-Leaning President
Friday, 19 February 2010, 11:35 am
Article: Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Is El Salvador’s First Left-Leaning President Changing the Country’s Internal Political Realities for the Better? Are U.S. Policy Makers About to Make a Major Mistake?

“For the first time we have a democratic government, a solidified government, a just government that is going to push for changes that for decades many of our esteemed people fought for, at times with their lives, who waited to see that a new El Salvador is possible.”

President Mauricio Funes uttered these words as part of his inaugural address delivered on June 1, 2009. He is the first and only leftist candidate ever to be nominated and elected from the former guerrilla Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) political party. Consequently, many who voted for him strongly expected that genuine change would take place on his watch. His proclamation that this is “the first time we have a democratic government” was due to the fact that the traditional ruling, rightwing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party, which uninterruptedly had controlled the nation for nearly two decades, had been defeated.

Many Salvadorans, including Funes, had questioned the legitimacy of a purportedly democratic government in which ARENA had governed for years without ever being defeated in elections that saw violence and death squads freely used against the opposition. What is alarming about the increasingly rancorous relationship between the left and centrist wings of the FMLN party is that ARENA is likely to take the risk of fishing in troubled waters, even if it means leaving the door open to a deterioration in the country’s security situation and face-offs between the country’s political factions. But the situation gets worse when one looks at the injudicious behavior of high U.S. officials, who are not helping to seek a resolution of the country’s internal dislocations.

More:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1002/S00435.htm

[Peace Patriot]

1. I am amazed that this article doesn't mention ALBA, the Venezuela-organized trade group

to give the small countries in the Caribbean/Central America collective clout in trade negotiations, and mutual support of progressive policies. I thought it was a stunner that Funes announced that El Salvador was not to join ALBA, hard upon indications that the U.S. supported rightwing coup in Honduras was going to succeed. (Honduras joining ALBA was a major reason for that rightwing coup.) Hillary Clinton then shows up at Funes' inauguration. Also read the following paragraphs and explain to me what U.S. "result" in El Salvador Julissa Reynosa of the U.S. State Dept. is talking about...

--

"Although many FMLN members would have preferred a candidate much more radical than Funes, FMLN leaders have compensated for his lack of leftist credentials by pairing Funes with Salvador Sánchez Cerén as his Vice President. As previously explored by COHA research associate Garman, Sánchez Cerén is to be seen as the true representative of the ideological marrow of the party.

"Sánchez Cerén implicitly threatens the close relationship that Funes has been diligently working to maintain with the United States. In supporting, on behalf of the FMLN, the reinstatement of ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, on September 26, 2009, Sánchez Cerén’s sentiments toward the United States were made amply clear. He stated, 'I say to the United States to learn the lessons, they were defeated in Vietnam, they were defeated in El Salvador, and will be defeated in Latin America.'

"In response, Julissa Reynoso, the State Department’s Deputy Assistant Secretary of Western Hemispheric Affairs, a relatively unknown name in such matters, said that it was shocking for the FMLN figure to make such a statement, but, she explained, that what proves to be the strong bond between El Salvador and the United States is the 'excellent cooperation and results seen by part of the President Mauricio Funes.' Here, Reynoso distinguishes between El Salvador’s Vice President and its President, and makes it clear that what matters to the U.S. are the actions and statements of the Salvadoran president himself. Meanwhile, the mayor of Soyapango, Carlos Ruiz, attempted to clarify what Sánchez Cerén intended to say, by commenting that the FMLN is not against the United States, but that it is opposed to imperialists. However, in regard to the relationship between El Salvador and the United States that is being implemented by Funes, Ruiz indicated that he doesn’t share the president’s position, and fully supports that of the FMLN. This early rift between the President and his political party, which demonstrably is aligned more closely with Vice President Cerén than Funes, is likely to pose difficulties in the president’s later attempts at implementing certain policies as well as the overall management of the country.

"Jorge Velado called upon Funes to bridge the gap with the right. He stated in an interview that 'President Funes would be surprised of how we could help him, if he implements positive relationships between ARENA and all of the right.' Furthermore, Velado gleefully recognized that the new president was distancing himself from the socialist ideals of the FMLN by saying that Funes 'has repeated several times that he doesn’t want socialism, it’s his party that is pushing it.'”

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1002/S00435.htm

------------------------

What else could Reynosa have been talking about, but ALBA? Why else would Hillary Clinton attend the inauguration of an El Salvadoran president?

I think the coup in Honduras was mainly about two things: 1) ALBA (--the threat to U.S. dominated "free trade for the rich" in Central America and the Caribbean; President Zelaya initiated Honduras' membership in ALBA), and 2) securing the U.S. military base in Honduras (which President Zelaya proposed converting to a commercial airport) for the Pentagon's "circle the wagons" strategy in the region, with the aim--in my opinion--of netting in Venezuela's oil coast as part of a Pentagon-patrolled, U.S. regional fiefdom.

The article discusses Funes' differences with his more leftist party, the FMLN, about the telecommunications industry--a dispute that may point to feuding between the president and his party, but is hardly a matter of great import, given that El Salvador's telecommunications had already been privatized, prior to Funes. (That was an issue in Honduras as well, and part of John McCain's interest in the coup and his larding of $43 million U.S. taxpayer dollars on rightwing, coup-supporting groups in Honduras.) Far more important to the U.S. is El Salvador's refusal to join ALBA, clearly under intense pressure from the U.S./Clinton.

If Funes and the FMLN were feuding about UN-privatizing the telecommunications industry, that would be noteworthy as an "excellent" U.S. "result." But the telecommunications giants already have El Salvador by the balls. The matter in dispute (a government fee paid to the telecommunications giants! ??? !!!) is more about whether the telecommunications giants are going to cut off El Salvaor's balls or just seriously bruise them. Sorry for the metaphor, but I can't think of any better. This would not bring Hillary Clinton to the inauguration. Harming ALBA's collective strength would.

-------


The article also asserts the extremely naive position that the Obama administration ought to help strengthen the FMLN if it wants a positive relationship with Latin America.

"It is a certainty that any breakdown in relations between the U.S. and the FMLN would be a dangerous development-one which the Obama administration should do its best to avoid if it has any illusion regarding starting up a new relationship with Latin America. It is crucial that U.S. officials dedicate themselves to improve the harmful relationship with the FMLN that has existed since the beginning of the 1980 War and implement an entente cordiale that takes into account the interests of the Salvadoran people, and not just the political class."

I don't think the writer is using the word "illusion" here ironically. She seems to think that the Obama administration might actually have positive intentions in Latin America. The coup in Honduras and the U.S./Colombia military agreement say otherwise, and I don't think there are many people--and certainly few if any leaders--in Latin America who don't know what those things mean.