MARCH 2014 BACKGROUND READING PACKET

COMMITTEE IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF EL SALVADOR

MARCH 2014 DELEGATION OBJECTIVES:

1. Accompany our Salvadoran allies – particularly the FMLN and organized social and political movements– throughout the March 9 presidential election period, bear witness to the Salvadoran people’s democratic process, and contribute to an open and transparent electoral process;

2. Respond to major domestic and/or international efforts to manipulate the electoral outcome or to otherwise undermine the will of the Salvadoran people;

3. Provide ongoing news and analysis on the electoral process to Salvadoran and international media throughout the elections period – through interviews, articles and writing post‐elections reports as necessary;

4. Share our experiences as election observers and the perspectives of our Salvadoran allies with our communities by organizing post‐delegation media work and community presentations. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Getting to know CISPES • CISPES mission statement………………………………………………………………………………….……………..1 • CISPES Anti‐oppression Mission Statement………………………………………………………….……………2 • The CISPES Solidarity Model – Diane Green………………………………………………………….…………..3

II. Getting to know El Salvador • History of El Salvador…………………………………………………………………………………………..…………….5 • Excerpt from Oscar Romero: Memories in Mosaic by María López Vigil……………………..…….15 • FMLN Combatant Profile – an interview with Sonia Umanzor………………………………..…………23 • El Salvador in Numbers…………………………………………………………………………………………………….24

III. The First FMLN Administration (2009‐2014) • Historic Advances in El Salvador…………………………………………………………………………….…………25 • Education Reform Gets High Marks in El Salvador – Frederick B. Mills, COHA………………..…26 • Reflections of a Social Work Student on Witnessing Healthcare Reform in El Salvador – Rachel Bedick……………………………….…….33

IV. Lead‐up to the 2014 Elections and US intervention • The 2014 Presidential Elections: New Rules, New Numbers……………………………………….…….36 • El Salvador’s Electoral System………….………………………………………………………………………………37 • Previous Right‐Wing Electoral Fraud………………………………………………………………………………..38 • Derailing Democracy: Attempted US Intervention into El Salvador’s Recent Presidential Elections…………….………39 • Otto Reich Emerges As Key Figure In Anti‐FMLN Corporate Lobbying……………………………...41 • Reps Lobby for Right‐Wing and US Intervention in Honduran, Salvadoran Elections………..42 • U.S. Government Declarations of U.S. Neutrality in 2014 Elections………………………………….43

V. The First Round of the 2014 Elections – February 2 • Special Report: Ex‐President Flores and the $10 Million Scandal – A Timeline………….……..45 • Press Statement from CISPES and other solidarity organizations on Feb 2 results…………..46 • Press Statement from US Embassy in San Salvador on Feb 2 elections……………………….……48 • Union‐Backed Candidate Wins First Round in El Salvador Election‐Emily Rodriguez…………48 • FMLN Likely to Retain Salvadoran Presidency‐David Grosser……………………………………..…….51 • President Funes reports that 24 companies have been charged with influencing votes..….53

VI. Suggested Further Readings…………………………………………………………………………………………………….54 1

I. GETTING TO KNOW CISPES

The CISPES Mission Statement

We are a grassroots organization dedicated to supporting the Salvadoran people’s struggle for self‐ determination and social and economic justice. The alternative that they are building –an alternative based upon democratic and socialist ideals–is an example to all people who seek a world free of domination and exploitation. We support that alternative because we believe that capitalism is a fundamentally unjust, oppressive and ecologically unsustainable economic system. We join with poor and working people, immigrants and refugees in the struggle against neoliberalism– the current manifestation of capitalism imposed by the United States government and its state, institutional and corporate allies. Neoliberal policies continue to produce enormous suffering and destabilization around the world. We focus our work on El Salvador because of the U.S. government’s continuing military, economic, and political intervention on behalf of U.S. corporate interests, and because the Salvadoran people’s tenacious and inspiring struggle to build social justice.

We work to achieve three basic goals: 1. To end U.S. economic, political and military intervention in El Salvador and by extension Central America, the Caribbean, and all of the Americas. In the current context we work to end U.S.‐imposed global economic policies that devastate local cultures and economies, specifically in El Salvador. 2. To give political and material support to the grassroots movement in El Salvador for self‐ determination, economic democracy and social justice. The groups we strive to support and collaborate with include labor, women’s, youth, LGBT and other grassroots organizations. We stand in solidarity with the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), as we have since our founding, because of its central role in building a new, egalitarian society. 3. To help build a broad‐based progressive U.S. social movement and an international, working‐class led movement for economic and social justice.

We challenge ourselves to reflect in our own work the ideals and the vision we have of a society free from all forms of injustice. CISPES’s organizing methodology is an anti‐oppressive model of building power and leadership while accounting for the individual privileges we hold and oppressions that we face. CISPES uses a wide variety of creative tactics to achieve our goals. These include: public protest and education, grassroots lobbying of policy makers and fundraising for both our own work and material aid to El Salvador. Part of our mission is to build and strengthen the progressive movement in this country, by forming alliances with organizations that share our vision, especially grassroots organizations.

We also support other progressive forces in Central America, the Caribbean, and all of the Americas which are working for human rights, democracy and social justice. Inspired by the growth of Left political parties and social movement organizations, CISPES works in coalition with other forces in the U.S. that are supporting social movements and governments building a people‐centered alternative in Latin America. In addition, we support fundamental human rights for Salvadorans and other immigrants and refugees in the United States, regardless of their so‐called “legal” or “illegal” status.

2

CISPES Anti‐Oppression Statement

What follows is CISPES’ national mission statement on anti‐oppression. This statement is part of our national recommitment to becoming a more inclusive organization in solidarity not only with the struggle in El Salvador, but with oppressed people everywhere.

CISPES is committed to working for a world without oppression. We recognize that the roots of oppression run deep in our society and in ourselves, and that all freedom struggles — from El Salvador’s battle for self‐ determination to domestic challenges to racism, sexism and heterosexism — are linked.

CISPES’ commitment to challenging oppressive behaviors springs from a strong desire for community. We seek a community where we can grow and respect each other, and not feel the need to dominate and control other people. Through inclusive organizing, we believe we can achieve community and help build a mass grassroots movement to effectively challenge injustice.

We recognize that barriers to inclusive organizing — racism, sexism, heterosexism, classism, ageism, ableism and other domineering behaviors and attitudes — stem from an ideology of oppression ingrained in our social institutions as well as in each of us.

Oppression is fostered through the ignorance and prejudice that characterize our schools, the media and government institutions. Oppression is enforced through violence, ranging from physical attacks on women – including the forced sterilization of women of color — to assaults on gays and lesbians.

Oppressive behavior can be obvious, such as the beating of Rodney King or the Senate inquisition endured by Anita Hill. Or oppression can be manifested in more subtle ways, as when women’s comments are devalued at CISPES meetings or CISPES fundraising activities are geared toward whites and heterosexuals. This behavior diminishes our collective work, while isolating and disempowering individuals.

Confronting and dealing with oppressive behaviors, then, must be a centerpiece of our work in CISPES. We need to strengthen continuously the mechanisms of inclusive organizing, including affirmative action, educational workshops, and coalition building with movements led by the oppressed. We will continue to study and articulate the history and dynamics of oppression.

We have a responsibility to forge a model of inclusive organizing, within our own organization and within the national and international progressive movements. We must hold ourselves accountable — to educate and to develop ourselves in order to make all of us feel at home in CISPES. Ultimately, we’re striving to create a safe space for the victims of oppression, a space where those who are discriminated against can find allies in the struggle against injustice, and validate their pain, anger and frustration when they are victimized.

Since its foundation, CISPES has acted on a vision of self‐determination and social justice. That vision cannot be limited to one country or one people. Solidarity means mutual support in ending discrimination and injustice,

3

while building a society in which everyone can realize their potential without barriers of race, gender, sexual orientation or class.

Excerpts from “The CISPES Solidarity Model” by Diane Green, 1993

On November 11, 1989 the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) launched a major military offensive that included assaults against military strong points all over the country and the occupation by FMLN forces of half the capital of San Salvador, an event that rocked the Western Hemisphere.

In retaliation, government forces escalated repression against mass organizations, human rights activists and church leaders critical of the regime. The victims of this murderous repression included six Jesuit priests, their cook and her daughter, and hundreds who lost their lives in bombings of urban areas of the capital by the Salvadoran Air Force.

Though the FMLN was eventually pushed back to the hills, their strong military showing convinced the U.S. government that a military victory in El Salvador was impossible and ultimately forced a negotiated solution: the U.N.‐brokered Peace Accords that were signed in January 1992 by the FMLN and the government of Alfredo Cristiani.

Here in the U.S. thousands responded to the wave of repression and the death of the Jesuits by taking to the streets. Some 50,000 activists took part in a wide variety of demonstrations in over 100 cities. These activists were from CISPES, the religious community, labor, men, youth, senior citizens and among them were many who had never come out to demonstrate before. Their tactics included everything from street demonstrations to sit‐ins in congressional offices. Local coalitions developed across the country and numerous groups pooled their efforts and worked in unison. In some cities there was at least one action every day for two weeks. Thousands were arrested. Three thousand people spontaneously shut down Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House following the murder of the Jesuits. This was the high point of the El Salvador solidarity movement as it developed in the 1980s.

NATIONWIDE ORGANIZATION

What made this kind of response possible? What structures, coalitions, organizations made El Salvador into a household word in the U.S.? How was a solidarity movement with national presence and consequence built?

The El Salvador solidarity movement was made up of many organizations, coalitions and individuals. Central to this movement, however, was CISPES ‐‐ the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. CISPES at its height consisted of over 300 chapters and affiliates all over the country. It was organized by city, region, country, and in some cases by state, sub‐region and congressional district. Many of its chapters and affiliates were organized as Central America groups and were also members of Guatemala and Nicaragua solidarity networks.

CISPES carried on an active correspondence with the popular movement in El Salvador and in particular with the FMLN, with whom it developed a particularly close working relationship. It often worked in conjunction with organizations of Salvadoran refugees, and its chapters included a broad cross‐section of the U.S. progressive community, from the secular left to Church activists.

4

Though a single‐issue organization in terms of its focus, at critical junctures CISPES played a strategic role in helping to organize a national response in the mid‐1980s to events as they developed in Nicaragua with the Contra war, and in 1991 to the war in the Persian Gulf. Because of its participation in the broader struggles of the left in the U.S., CISPES reaped the twin rewards of membership growth, and relations of respect from the larger progressive community.

Three major factors contributed to the success of CISPES as a solidarity organization. The primary one was that CISPES based its program on the needs of the people of El Salvador, not on the priorities of political struggles here in the U.S. There was consultation with Salvadorans and direction taken from them but CISPES still remained an independent U.S. organization. Secondly, CISPES developed its programs by first making a thorough and careful analysis of the situation in El Salvador, Central America and the U.S., then formulating specific objectives and a comprehensive political strategy. The kind of program that would eventually be adopted flowed directly out of those objectives, strategies and analyses.

The third factor in CISPES' success was the use of an active, systematic and rigorous methodology of outreach. That methodology was based on the idea that people do things because they are asked to do them. In practice that meant thousands of phone calls, and person‐to‐person recruiting. CISPES chapters, in other words, didn't just wait for people to come to them, but actively went out and organized people in their own communities.

CISPES' ability to respond so quickly to dramatic turns of event was in part due to a decentralized structure of grassroots activists organized into hundreds of chapters around the country. This structure, combined with national and regional "administrative committees," allowed for considerable flexibility in the development of tactics and strategy and for rapid response to events in El Salvador and to shifts in the focus of U.S. foreign policy. Overall coordination was carried out through a process of decision‐ making which was surprisingly coherent in spite of the difficulties in creating a centralized democratic process for such a vast network …

Financing this national structure was not easy. Like many left organizations, CISPES attracted members with a great deal of political acumen and organizational ability, but very little financial expertise. Nonetheless, at its height CISPES was able to raise enough money to finance scores of full‐time organizers at the national, regional and local levels, and also send millions in material aid to the popular movement, the FMLN, and community development projects in El Salvador.

Over the years CISPES worked in conjunction with numerous foundations (NEST, Inc., SHARE Foundation), think tanks (Center for Democracy in the Americas), people‐to‐ people aid efforts (Sister‐City and Sister‐Parish Networks), rapid response networks (Pledge of Resistance), and lobbying groups (Central American Working Group, National Agenda, Neighbor to Neighbor), in its efforts to participate fully in a broadly‐based movement for peace and justice in El Salvador. In spite of clear differences, CISPES worked closely with both the church sector and labor in national mobilizations against intervention in Central America and racism in South Africa.

Following the end of the cold war, the signing of the Peace Accords in 1992 and the onslaught of corporate globalization and neoliberalism, changing circumstances in the world and in El Salvador have dictated a dramatically different context for the work of solidarity activists. Beyond these changes, however, a common thread can be found: a commitment to serve the needs and interests of the people of El Salvador at whatever stage of struggle they are engaged. This commitment has not wavered in the last 33 years of CISPES history and will continue to be the guiding principle of the organization in the years to come.

5

II. GETTING TO KNOW EL SALVADOR

EXCERPTS FROM SALVADORAN HISTORY: COLUMBUS THROUGH THE 2009 FMLN PRESIDENTIAL VICTORY

Created by Laura Jean, translated by Laura Jean, Chelsea Simpson, and Hilary Goodfriend

Note from the author: This document draws extensively from the book Historia de El Salvador: de cómo la gente guanaco no sucumbió ante los infames ultrajes de españoles, criollos, ringos y otras plagas by Equipo Maíz, a popular education collective in El Salvador. I highly recommend you read the entire book.

PRE‐COLOMBIAN PERIOD Prior to the Spanish conquest of the Americas, what is now El Salvador was inhabited by people from several indigenous groups, including the Lenca, the Chortis, the Xincas, the Uluas, the Chorotegas, the Pocomames and the Pipiles, but the Lenca and Pipiles had the largest populations. The different indigenous groups lived in settlements governed by a cacique and traded amongst themselves and with indigenous groups throughout the Americas. Their primary agricultural products were maize, beans, squash, cacao, and tobacco. They also produced textiles from cotton, bamboo, and palm fronds.

SPANISH INVASION AND CONQUEST In 1502, on his fourth trip to the Americas, Christopher Columbus arrived in Central America thus “discovering” a land that had been populated for well over 10,000 years and claiming it for Spain. A decree issued by Pope Alexander VI solidified the Spanish Crown’s claim to almost all of the “newly discovered” land, except for what is now Brazil, which the Pope allocated to the Portuguese along with most of Africa. Pope Alexander VI then ordered both countries to convert all of the people who lived in these areas to Christianity, thus beginning the Spanish conquest, genocide, and sacking of the Americas. Spanish conquistadores arrived in Central America from both what is now Mexico in the North and what is now Panama in the South. European weapons and horses, illnesses to which the indigenous had no defenses, and manipulation of already existing conflicts between indigenous groups gave the conquistadores quite an advantage. However, the Pipil resistance to the invasion lasted 15 years with many battles that were serious blows to the Spanish.

COLONIAL PERIOD Following the invasion and conquest, Spanish landowners began exploiting indigenous labor to grow cacao, cotton, balsam, and indigo for exportation. Indigo became the most important export and indigenous labor was further exploited in the indigo processing plants. Colonial society was organized based on race and where people were born. At the top of the pyramid were the Spaniards born in Spain. Next came the Criollos, folks of Spanish descent that were born in El Salvador. Spaniards and Criollos were the only groups that could own property. After the Criollos, followed the Mestizos, people of mixed indigenous and Spanish heritage. And at the bottom of the pyramid was the indigenous population, dominated by those above.

NONUALCO UPRISING Central America’s independence from Spain in 1821 and the creation of the United Provinces of Central America did not improve the lives of El Salvador ́s indigenous population. Previously communal and government‐owned lands that indigenous people worked on were given to the new Criollo elite. Indigenous people had to pay new taxes and were forcibly recruited to fight regional conflicts. As their discontent grew,

6

various uprisings against the new government were organized. The largest was the Nonualco uprising in the department of La Paz, led by Anastasio Aquino. The indigenous army organized by Aquino defeated the government ́s troops on multiple occasions, taking the cities of San Vicente and Zacatecoluca and even forcing the Chief of State of El Salvador to flee the country. However, the government troops eventually subdued the uprising in 1833 and executed Aquino, who is still honored as a revolutionary leader.

THE REPUBLIC AND THE COFFEE UPRISING In 1840, in a non‐violent transition, El Salvador declared itself an independent State and the United Provinces of Central America dissolved. As the development of synthetic dyes caused indigo prices to drop, people began turning to coffee but it wasn’t until 1855 when the United States constructed a railroad in Panama connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans that the costs of exportation began to drop and the coffee business became profitable.

From Historia de El Salvador by Equipo Maíz: On how the land changed owners The government sold unappropriated lands at incredibly low prices and even gifted some away. When those ran out, it began to affect the municipal lands that were rented to campesinos and the communal lands of indigenous communities. But as the indigenous population was still strong, they didn't dare to take the lands from them entirely. In 1881, President Rafael Zaldívar decreed the end of indigenous communal lands and in 1882 the end of municipal land, arguing that they were an obstacle to the country’s economic development and progress. From then on, the Salvadoran economy was structured around coffee planting. The coffee barons themselves were placed in high government positions...The law established that those who were cultivating those lands would become their owners. Many indigenous people and campesinos had been farming it; some claimed their lands, but many lost them. The indigenous communities and campesinos tried to plant coffee, but to do so they had to mortgage their land. And thus a great deal more land passed into the hands of the rich, who were able to loan money. This is how so much land became concentrated with the rich. Those who had money monopolized more, and thus, little by little, the coffee oligarchy grew...The coffee oligarchs became millionaires, because in addition to their large farms and factories for processing coffee, they controlled the banks and the international grain market…

The growing coffee industry also prompted the creation of national banking and monetary systems, the construction of new highways, a railroad system financed by England, and telephone and telegraph systems.

20TH CENTURY At the beginning of the 20th Century, the United States was taking over England’s previous role as world power and US imperialism, from its beginnings, recognized that the Central American isthmus that connected North and South America was particularly geopolitically important to its domination of the region.

7

From Historia de El Salvador by Equipo Maíz: Domain of the Gringos The United States acted according to the doctrine of one such James Monroe that can be summarized with the phrase, “America for the Americans,” or rather, “America for the Gringos,” and dug its claws into all the countries of Latin America to dominate them. Of course, they had the collaboration of the dominant classes of the Latin American countries that knew that with the Gringos’ support it would be easier to dominate and exploit their own population...The Gringos became the owners of the railroads and the mining companies. In the decade of 1910 they tried to construct a naval base in the Fonesca Gulf, but they encountered significant opposition and gave up. In 1922, they gave a loan to the government, and to guarantee payment they collected 70% of El Salvador’s import‐export taxes.

The worldwide economic crisis that began in the United States in 1929 took a terrible toll on El Salvador. As coffee prices dropped, unemployment surged and wages went down. The widespread misery began to radicalize the country ́s workers, campesinxs (peasant) farmers, and indigenous population. In 1930 the Salvadoran Communist Party was founded. In this context, in 1931 El Salvador held presidential elections.

The 1931 presidential elections ended up being won by a wealthy landowner named Arturo Araujo who made populist promises in his campaign but upon being elected did not fulfill them. Organized workers and the Communist Party began to take to the streets and were met with repression. In the midst of Araujo ́s dwindling popularity, the Armed Forces organized a coup d’état and General Maximiliano Hernández Martínez took power.

1932 UPRISING Finding themselves in an incredibly unjust system, workers, campesinxs, and indigenous communities continued to radicalize and organize popular protests that were met with brutal repression. People were coming to the conclusion that only through armed struggle could they bring about the changes they needed. The Communist Party at this time, led by a man named Farabundo Martí, still wanted to fight for power through the electoral system, but they were conscious that the people were on the verge of mounting an insurrection and that Martínez’s regimen would respond with brutal violence. The insurrection’s success and the toll Martínez’s repression would take would be determined by how well coordinated the popular insurrection was and the amount of popular support it had. So, the Communist Party began coordinating the uprising with the organized labor movement, campesinxs, and indigenous communities. Sadly, several days before the insurrection was planned to begin, government infiltration of the organizing resulted in the capture of the Communist Party leadership – most of whom were later executed – as well as the capture of elements in the Armed Forces that planned to support the uprising. Despite this, the popular insurrection began and while workers in San Salvador were brutally repressed and murdered, the indigenous uprisings in the East of the country took root. Feliciano Ama, a cacique from Izalco, was one of the principle leaders of the indigenous revolt. The Armed Forces carried out genocide, murdering 30,000 indigenous in the East of the country to crush the revolt.

THE MARTÍNEZ DICTATORSHIP Martínez’s repression and genocide of the indigenous community effectively halted the insurrection and he held power for another 12 years. His legacy includes: • A period of strict social control during which all expressions of indigenous culture, including speaking Nahuatl and using traditional dress, were prohibited; spies were sent to infiltrate all aspects of life and report back on anyone that opposed the regimen; and any type of dissent or political organizing was violently repressed.

8

• Economic reforms that set the stage for the country ́s modern financial system. • Support for Hitler and the European fascists. • A new Constitution that permitted a president be re‐elected for life.

After 13 years of Martínez ́ dictatorship, a group of young military officers attempted a coup that was quickly subdued in 1944. A general strike of secondary and university students, workers, public sector employees, and railroad workers followed. In the repression of the strike, a university student who was the son of a US citizen was killed by the police and the US Embassy withdrew its support for the regimen; Martínez was forced to resign and flee to Honduras where he was stabbed to death 20 years later by his chauffer.

1960s: ORGANIZED LABOR (AND US INTERVENTION) ON THE RISE The 1940s & 1950s saw a succession of governments come and go while the labor movement surged under somewhat less repressive conditions. The 1960s were a time of the greatest economic growth in El Salvador ́s history as regional trade increased; however, this growth only made the rich richer while the poor majorities didn’t see their situations improving. In 1960, a civic‐military Junta took power. Several progressive members of the Junta earned it popular support and distrust from the military which staged a coup in 1961 and installed a different and extremely repressive civil‐military junta. The 60s also marked an increase in the United States ́ interventionist activities throughout Latin America. The triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 terrified the US government, fearful that revolutions so close to home might challenge their hemispheric control or worse yet encourage their own people to consider a revolution. In this context, the US introduced the Alliance for Progress, aimed at quelling popular discontent in the region and pressured for El Salvador to hold elections. In the elections, only one party participated – the National Conciliation Party (PCN), founded by military officers – and the single candidate Julio Adalberto Rivera took office in 1962. Rivera unleashed an era of State terrorism in order to halt popular organizing. A national intelligence apparatus placed spies across the country to report instances of opposition to the government. In response to this brutal repression, the workers of El Salvador began to organize in full force and unions and union federations grew in membership. Then in 1967, the workers at the ACEROS S.A. factory organized the first strike in the history of El Salvador in which workers took over a factory. It was supported by a general strike. In 1968, the National Association of Salvadoran Educators (ANDES) began organizing a massive teachers strike in response to a proposal to increase the age of retirement by ten years. The strike, which lasted 58 days, also provided an opportunity for the teachers to explain the political basis of their strike to a wide spectrum of sectors. The student associations at the public University of El Salvador also began becoming more radical toward the end of the decade. In 1969, El Salvador and Honduras went to war over a border dispute that was compounded by Honduran resentment of a large Salvadoran population living in Honduras as well as the unbalanced trade relationship in which Honduras bought far more from El Salvador than it sold to them. The “Hundred Hour War” ended with 80,000 Salvadorans being deported from Honduras with no opportunities awaiting them in El Salvador.

1970s: BIRTH OF THE MODERN REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT The radicalization of the labor and student movements that took place in the 1960s and the wave of strikes and popular mobilizations at the end of the decade set the stage for the birth of popular armed political‐ military organizations in the 1970s. Many former labor and student leaders became the new cadres of these organizations. The five guerrilla organizations born in the 1970s were: the Popular Liberation Forces or FPL, founded in 1970; the Revolutionary People ́s Army or ERP, founded in 1972; the Armed Forces of the National Resistance or FARN, founded in 1975; the Revolutionary Central American Workers ́ Party or PTRC, founded in

9

1976; and the Armed Forces of Liberation or FAL‐PCS, the armed branch of the Salvadoran Communist Party, founded in 1979. Each political‐military organization also had a corresponding mass movement organization. In the 1972 elections, the governing National Conciliation Party (PCN) lost to a progressive coalition, but PCN candidate Arturo Armando Molina ignored the results and took over as president, thus cementing the people’s loss of faith in the electoral system. Molina implemented the now famous “Zonas Francas” or tax‐free industrial zones in an attempt to recover the economy that had taken a hit from the war with Honduras. A new worldwide economic crisis brought on by high petroleum prices was forcing a re‐organizing of the global capitalist system and big international businesses flocked to the Zonas Francas, attracted by the promise of no taxes and cheap labor. The 1970s also saw members of the Catholic Church taking the side of the poor majority and the birth of Liberation Theology which called on the Church to accompany the poor in their struggle for a dignified life. Community ecclesiastic groups formed to discuss their religion in the context of the social reality. The government responded with repression against those who subscribed to this new form of belief. In 1977, Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero was named archbishop of San Salvador. A conservative man, he was named archbishop in hopes of placating the oligarchy who feared the spread of Liberation Theology. But upon seeing the conditions of the Salvadoran people and witnessing the government repression of his Church colleagues including the murder of a fellow priest and friend, he converted into the “voice of those without a voice”. He used his platform as archbishop to call on the people to organize and struggle against their oppressors and called on the military to stop the repression. In 1979, a coup d ́état installed a Revolutionary Government Junta that issued a series of decrees intended to dismantle the repressive apparatus of the government and modestly reform land holdings and labor laws; however, the National Association of Private Business (ANEP) supported sectors of the military in continuing the repression. The Junta resigned. A second Junta made up of members of the military and the Christian Democrat Party (PDC) followed the first Junta. But once again, the military continued the repression and several members resigned after just three months. A third Junta followed, this time formed by military officers closely tied to the United States. This Junta would maintain power until 1982.

1980‐1992: THE CIVIL WAR The beginning of the 1980s was marked by increased military repression. Attempting to stamp out the popular organizing that was challenging the powers that be, paramilitary groups violently attacked peaceful demonstrations. The military massacred thousands of civilians in the rural countryside, most infamously in Sumpul and El Mozote. At the start of the decade, the Revolutionary Coordinator of Masses (CRM) was formed by the mass movement branches of the five guerrilla organizations: the Popular Revolutionary Bloc (BPR), the Unified Popular Action Front (FAPU), the February 28 Popular Leagues (LP‐28), the Popular Liberation Movement (MLP) and the Nationalist Democratic Union (UDN). These groups carried out the largest popular protest in Salvadoran history on January 22, 1980, which met with a violent response by the government, touching off one of the most significant years in Salvadoran history.

March 1980: Assassination of Monsignor Romero March 23, 1980, while delivering his Sunday mass, Monsignor Romero made an energetic appeal to the military to stop massacring the people. These were his words: "In the name of God, then, and in the name of these suffering people, whose cries rise to the heavens every day more fervently, I ask you, I beg you, I command you, in the name of God: Stop this repression!” The next day, March 24, Monsignor Romero was assassinated while officiating mass in the Divine Providence Hospital. This act caused great indignation amongst Salvadorans, and isolated the Government Junta even further internationally. It has been reported that Roberto D'Aubuisson, founder of the right‐ wing

10

ARENA party, was the intellectual author of this assassination. During the funeral mass for Msr. Romero, hundreds of thousands of mourners gathered in the Civic Plaza outside the Metropolitan Cathedral. The government had placed sharpshooters in surrounding buildings that opened fire on the assembled mourners.

October 1980: Founding of the FMLN In May of 1980, the Salvadoran Communist Party (PCS), the Popular Liberation Forces (FPL), the Revolutionary People ́s Army (ERP), and the National Resistance (RN) integrated into the Unified Revolutionary Directorate (DRU) in order to create one sole focus for the revolutionary process, a single military plan and a single command structure‐‐ in short, only one political‐military line. On October 10, 1980, the DRU gave life to the FMLN, two months after the Revolutionary Central American Workers ́ Party (PRTC) was incorporated. The FMLN was the result of decades of struggles and organizing to make the demands of the Salvadoran people a reality: democracy, social justice and national self‐ determination. (www.fmln.org.sv)

December 1980: US churchwomen kidnapped and murdered On December 2, 1980, Dorothy Kazel, Jean Donovan, Ita Ford, and Maura Clarke were intercepted on their way home from the airport in El Salvador. Five Salvadoran National Guardsmen kidnapped, raped, and killed them. Their murders and the subsequent outcry by CISPES and other solidarity organizations was a factor in catalyzing a broad Central America anti‐intervention movement in the US.

January 1981: The FMLN’s “final offensive” In January 1981, the FMLN launched a “final offensive,” just before Ronald Reagan assumed office. This attempt failed due to lack of arms and trained troops, and the guerrillas turned to consolidating their control over parts of the countryside. The final offensive was not a total loss for the FMLN, however. It retained military strongholds and settled in for a protracted guerrilla conflict. The offensive focused further international attention on El Salvador and established the FMLN/FDR as a formidable force both politically and militarily; in August 1981, the governments of France and Mexico recognized the front as a “representative political force” and called for a negotiated settlement between the rebels and the government. The FMLN now controlled and governed large zones of the rural countryside that were known as “Liberated Territory” with major strongholds in the departments of Chalatenango and Morazán.

1984‐1989: DUARTE ADMINISTRATION After a series of provisional governments in the 1980s, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) financed elections in 1984, in which José Napoleón Duarte was named the winner. During Duarte’s administration, dialogues with the FMLN leadership were initiated but the government refused to implement anything discussed in the negotiations. Simultaneously, under the direction of United States military advisors, Duarte implemented the “low intensity war” strategy that the US had used in Vietnam. Duarte was a faithful puppet of the US government and actually kissed the US flag during a state visit to Washington. Ronald Reagan, anxious to overcome Vietnam Syndrome and stop the tide of revolution in Central America announced he “was drawing a line” in El Salvador and over the course of his two terms funneled $3.4 billion taxpayer dollars to the Salvadoran military that it used to massacre and terrorize the population.

1989: THE ELECTION OF THE FIRST ARENA PRESIDENT Elections were scheduled in 1989 and the FMLN called for them to be postponed to guarantee their transparency and so they could participate but their request was rejected. In protest, on Election Day the FMLN organized a transport strike. Felix Alfredo Cristiani, a member of one of the richest families in the country, won

11

the elections. Cristiani was from the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party which was formed in the early 1980s by Army Major Roberto D ́Aubuisson with advisement from members of the US Republican party like former senator Jesse Helms. D ́Aubuisson is accused of having organized and coordinated the paramilitary death squads during the war and of ordering the assassination of Monsignor Romero. The war continued and not even the millions of US dollars in military aid coming in every day in the final years of the 1990s could break the FMLN ́s territorial hold. But the FMLN could also not defeat the heavily funded Armed Forces. The FMLN proposed peace talks to Cristiani, but the first encounters didn’t go anywhere.

1989: THE FMLN’S FINAL OFFENSIVE In 1989, the FMLN made a mighty push for power, putting forward bold new peace proposals while simultaneously preparing a military campaign with the potential to force an end to the war. On October 31, right‐wing death squads bombed the headquarters of FENASTRAS, a militant labor federation, killing 10 people. The FMLN broke off stalemated peace talks and launched the largest offensive of the war. The offensive, and the government’s brutal response, changed the course of the war. The FMLN occupied parts of San Salvador for weeks, at one point trapping a group of US Green Berets inside the Sheraton Hotel in one of San Salvador’s most exclusive neighborhoods. By bringing the war to the doorsteps of the rich, the FMLN convinced the Salvadoran and US governments that the revolution could not be defeated militarily. The government responded to the final offensive by indiscriminately bombing the popular neighborhoods of San Salvador that the FMLN was occupying, killing many civilians. On November 16, 1989, US‐trained Salvadoran Special Forces rounded up, shot and killed six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper, and her 15‐year old daughter on the campus of the Central American University José Simeón Cañas (UCA) in San Salvador. The Jesuit massacre was another turning point in the international opinion of the war in El Salvador. Diplomatic pressure forced Cristiani to reinitiate peace talks with the FMLN. Negotiations took three years, but despite many setbacks...

1992: THE SIGNING OF THE PEACE ACCORDS The Peace Accords were signed on January 16, 1992 in Chapultepec, Mexico, and made the following commitments: ceasefire of all armed conflict, reduction and purging of corrupt elements of the armed forces, dissolution of the old "security corps" and civil defenses, dissolution of shock troop battalions, creation of a National Civilian Police force, demobilization of FMLN troops and the Frente’s re‐insertion as a political party, constitutional and electoral system reforms, land distribution to combatants on both sides, a national reconstruction plan, steps taken to alleviate the social costs of the structural adjustment programs, and creation of a Forum for Social Economic Agreement.

1989‐2009: THE ARENA CIVIL DICTATORSHIP AND THE SELLING OFF OF EL SALVADOR After the signing of the Peace Accords, through methods of electoral fraud, political violence and repression, and a propaganda program implemented by the right‐wing media, ARENA would hold the executive branch for three more presidential periods until 2009 in what many on the left came to call a period of “Civil Dictatorship”.

12

The ARENA administrations ushered in an era of neoliberal reforms that reorganized the Salvadoran capitalist system. This transformation of the economy was pushed hard by Washington, which through USAID funded the creation in 1983 of the Salvadoran Foundation for Social and Economic Development (FUSADES), a right‐ wing think tank to nationally echo the US ́ economic line. That line called for the State to take on a far smaller role in the economy, leaving it to the whim of the market and private interests.

From Historia de El Salvador by Equipo Maíz: Imposition of Neoliberal Reforms

Among the principal economic measures that the Cristiani administration enacted were: • Foreign trade‐‐ Since 1980, the sales of coffee and sugar were controlled by the State. But beginning in 1990, the landowners returned to controlling foreign trade and, of course, took the lion's share of profits. • Price liberalization‐‐ The prices of basic necessary household goods (known in El Salvador as "la canasta básica” (the basic food basket) ‐‐beans, corn, oil, sugar, salt, eggs, etc.), which had been regulated, were left open for producers and salespeople to dictate. • Liberalization of the exchange rate‐‐ The value of the dollar, which for many years had been dictated by the State was determined by the abundance or scarcity of the dollar. • Privatization of public institutions and state businesses‐‐ The National Coffee Institute (INCAFE), the Salvadoran Coffee Research Institute (ISIC), the Presidential Hotel, the Maya Cement company, technological institutions, the gas importation industry, and the banks and financial institutions were all privatized. This was the deal of the century: the fat cats essentially took over all major banks and companies in the country. • Subdivision of land‐‐ The properties managed by the land reform cooperatives were parceled out to divide and disorganize the cooperative movement Cristiani also restructured the tax system, getting rid of property taxes, slashing income taxes and import and export taxes, and creating a sales tax (IVA), thus greatly reducing the State’s income and making the poor and working class bear the greater part of the tributary burden. He also embraced the rising International Financial Institutions like the World Bank and Inter‐American Development bank and began to plunge El Salvador into greater and greater debt. Cristiani’s embrace of the globalized capitalist system and the upswing in the economy that was seen worldwide in the 1990s and was more pronounced in El Salvador because of the end of the war, prompted more and more foreign investors to look to El Salvador hoping for a piece of the pie. It was the second ARENA administration, headed by President Armando Calderón Sol, which oversaw the most dramatic shift in El Salvador’s economic model. He took it upon himself to implement the FUSADES recommendation to move away from traditional exports like coffee and sugar and instead look to an economy based on services and exports that would capitalize on the country’s cheap labor. Calderón Sol continued Cristiani ́s privatization frenzy, selling the country’s pension, electricity distribution, and telecommunications systems to foreign corporations for pennies to the dollar. Costs shot up for the general public. In 2001, the third ARENA President Francisco Flores, despite popular protest, dollarized the economy. Transferring the currency from the Salvadoran colón to the US dollar caused a drastic increase in the cost of living and only benefited the economic elite by giving them greater guarantees in international trade. In 2002 Flores attempted to privatize the Salvadoran Institute of Social Security (ISSS), the country ́s public healthcare system for workers. The strong Social Security Workers ́ Union (STISSS) organized strikes and led massive multi‐sector marches known as white marches because of the white lab coats and nurse ́s uniforms of the medical personnel that participated. Members of the Roque Dalton University Front (FURD) at the public University of El Salvador shut down their campus in solidarity. Flores was forced to abandon his project to privatize the ISSS in full. He did, however, manage to privatize some of the ISSS services during his administration. Flores also began the era of Free Trade Agreements in El Salvador, signing FTAs with Mexico, Chile, the Dominican Republic, and Panama and beginning negotiations with the United States for the US‐ Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Tony Saca, the fourth ARENA president, continued CAFTA negotiations despite massive demonstrations

13

by labor unions, campesino organizations, students, and informal vendors. In 2004, despite the public outcry, Saca officialized CAFTA and pushed it to the Legislative Assembly for ratification. Without debate, in a midnight legislative session that was the final session before the end‐of‐year recess, the country ́s right wing parties closed ranks to ratify CAFTA. The FMLN ́s legislative deputies voted against it. The vote took place while the Legislative Assembly was surrounded by riot police to keep the protesting masses at bay. CAFTA went into effect in 2005 after its ratification by the US Congress. The negative effects of CAFTA were devastating and are well‐documented in various reports. In summary, El Salvador ́s agricultural sector was devastated and practically destroyed, unable to compete with the flood of cheap, subsidized grains from the United States; the country ś sovereignty was sold out to foreign corporations who can now sue the government if they believe it is impeding on their “right” to make a profit (two transnational mining companies have already filed suits); and labor conditions and environmental standards worsened while union‐busting became the norm. In 2005, Saca allowed the US government to open one of its International Law Enforcement Academies (ILEA) in San Salvador where US personnel train law enforcement officials from El Salvador and throughout Latin America without any shred of transparency regarding the curriculum or students. While many reported an increase in the police ́s human rights violations in El Salvador after the ILEA opened, it is impossible to trace whether they were committed by ILEA graduates because of the lack of transparency. In 2006, under pressure from the US Embassy, Saca introduced an anti‐terrorism law based on the US Patriot Act that was approved by the right wing parties of the legislature. To date, the law has only been applied to peaceful protesters. In 2007 Saca presented plans to privatize the country’s water supply and distribution. Similar to Flores ́ attempt to privatize the ISSS, water privatization was met by major popular protest. SETA, the union representing workers at the nationalized water distribution company, mobilized and formed coalitions with environmentalist NGOs and other social movement sectors. At a massive peaceful demonstration in Suchitoto, riot police under orders from Saca violently attacked protesters. Fourteen people, some of whom hadn ́t even arrived at the demonstration yet, were arrested, beaten and tortured, and charged as terrorists. CISPES committees held protests at the Salvadoran embassy and consulates in the United States. Local and international outcry eventually resulted in charges against the Suchitoto 14 being dropped, but not until a year after the initial arrests. In addition to the repressive policies and neoliberal reforms implemented by ARENA during their civil dictatorship, two very significant migration related phenomena took place during this time. First, during the ARENA administrations, there was a drastic increase in the number of Salvadorans emigrating from the country. With no opportunities to support their families at home, more and more Salvadorans began to leave. Currently, an estimated 700 Salvadorans leave their country EVERY DAY. Most of them are headed to the United States where over 2 million Salvadorans reside (that ́s more than four times the number of Salvadorans that lived in the US at the end of the war). The Salvadoran migrant community with the money they send home to their families, which makes up almost 20% of the GDP, is the largest contributor to the national economy. The second migration‐related phenomena began when US President Bill Clinton began deporting undocumented immigrants from the United States on a scale never before seen, a policy that George W. Bush and Barack Obama have pursued even more aggressively. Young adults, whose parents had brought them to the US from El Salvador to escape the violence of the Civil War, were sent back to a country they didn’t know. Some of them, who had formed gangs in Los Angeles in the 1980s to protect themselves from harassment and violence by the city’s police and other gangs, brought these gangs like the Mara Salvatrucha and the 18th Street Gang back with them to El Salvador. The gangs took root as the country’s poor youth, marginalized from society and without economic opportunities, joined up. In the first decade of the 21st century, these gangs began to transform as organized crime and narcotrafficking cartels began to infiltrate them and take advantage of their structures and leadership to hire them out. The neoliberal reforms that spun the Salvadoran economy into crisis, the resurgence of police repression,

14

and the growing social violence had the majority of the population living in misery by the end of Saca’s term. Throughout the ARENA civil dictatorship, a carefully crafted system of electoral fraud and fear campaigns backed by the United States was able to keep ARENA in power. In the 2004 presidential elections, a multi‐ million dollar campaign told voters that if they elected the FMLN, the US would deport all of their family members and cut the flow of the money they sent home. The US Embassy and State Department representatives were more than happy to back up ARENA’s claim. In spite of this electoral manipulation, the FMLN continued to gain political power and more and more legislative deputies and municipal governments but was unable to take executive office. In the lead‐up to the 2009 presidential elections, facing the misery brought on by 20 years of the ARENA civil dictatorship, the FMLN created an alliance with a popular progressive journalist Mauricio Funes with the primary objective of getting the right‐wing out of power and steering the country away from the destructive direction ARENA was taking it. They put forth Funes as their presidential candidate and Salvador Sánchez Cerén—a teacher, former union leader, and an FMLN commander during the Civil War whose nom de ́guerre was Leonel González—as their vice‐presidential candidate. Funes mobilized a base of professionals and businesspeople known as the Amigos de Mauricio that were fed up with ARENA but had not previously supported the FMLN. The FMLN coordinated a series of consultations with all the different sectors of society, known as the Open Social Dialogue process, from which Funes ́ presidential platform was created. The FMLN’s militancy along with other traditional FMLN sympathizers like the labor and campesino movements mobilized to bring out the vote. With the right‐wing still in control of the electoral apparatus, they would need a massive turnout in order to win in spite of fraud. At the request of Salvadorans, thousands of international election observers traveled to the country to observe the process and report on manipulation. Communities fed up with right‐wing fraud mobilized to stop busses of Nicaraguans, Hondurans, and Guatemalans that ARENA was bussing in and paying to vote for them in the elections. The tireless organizing succeeded and on March 15, 2009, for the first time in history the people of El Salvador elected a leftist president. On June 1, 2009, Carlos Mauricio Funes Cartagena and Salvador Sánchez Cerén were inaugurated as President and Vice‐President, respectively.

15

Excerpt from Oscar Romero: Memories in Mosaic by María López Vigil (p.282‐289)

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

FMLN Combatant Profile – an interview with Sonia Umanzor Sonia is an ex-guerrilla nurse in the Fuerzas Populares de Liberación Farabundo Martí (FPL) during the civil war in El Salvador. Formerly the coordinator of the FMLN chapter in Washington, DC, she now serves as Minister of Community Affairs at the Salvadoran Embassy in Washington. The following is her testimony to serve as inspiration:

Q: How old were you when you joined the rebel armed forces? A: I was 18 years old when I decided to join the rebellion. I was in my last year of nursing school.

Q: What made you decide to join in the guerrilla movement? A: Well, though the civil war in El Salvador is officially recognized from1980-1992, the conditions for war had been culminating for decades and armed resistance had really begun in the 70’s. While I was a nursing student in the capital several of my school mates and teachers were getting involved in politics and joining the rebels. One day a group of student leaders came to my school and gave a talk about the importance of joining the resistance against the brutal force of the military government. I was very inspired by their words and having come from a rural area (La Union) I new first hand what we had to fight for; education, food, healthcare, land, security of our communities, etc.

Q: Did you get much support from your family? A: Not at first. Unfortunately my family was paralyzed by fear instilled in them by the government. They believed that ‘the communists’ had brainwashed me and that I was running into the flames blindfolded. Being devoutly catholic my mother believed that the atheist communists had led me astray. But, I knew deep down that this was something I needed to do and several of my sibling understood that in many ways I was fighting for them, for us, our livelihood. For far too long the promise of changed had loomed over our heads like a cloud with promise of rain during the harvest but like those promises that rain never came and during the wait out crops were dying and so too were our souls and our hope. How could I stand idle and watch which my brothers and sisters were disappeared, tortured, massacred. And so, I decided to go off to the mountains. I was away from my family for a little over a year. Everyday that I didn’t come home, was a day they thought for sure I’d died. They constantly read the newspapers looking for any word of my whereabouts. They lived in a constant state of agony not knowing where I was or if I was. That was there torture.

A: What was it like being in the mountains? Q: It was frightening. With each new day, I had to be conscious of the very real possibility it would be my last. Everyday was a day I could lose someone I’d grown close to. Everyday death accompanied us. The things I have seen, the pain I have witnessed is beyond description. I’ve carried children whom have survived fire bombardments; I’ve had to assist with amputations in the field while crying along side my comrade/patient. These images stay with you forever. Many times I can still smell or hear that point in time. But it was also transformative. Our camps became spaces that not only served as a physical resistance to the military, the government, and imperialist forces, but also provided opportunities or personal growth. We had education sessions so that everyone involved understood to the letter, why we were fighting that we all understood our constitutional rights and human rights. This was especially true for me as a woman. The movement provided me with a certain level of social flexibility. In the mountains I was just as valuable as my male counterpart, there we all risked the same things to achieve a common goal.

Q: If you had to give a message to the new generations of Salvadoran youth here in the U.S. what would it be? A: I would say you are our future. No matter where you physically stand you will always have roots in El Salvador. You will inherit this battle for social justice from us. You don’t have to have lived the 1932 rebellion or have fought in the civil war to understand what’s at stake. I would say that just as we (the youth of the 80’s) carried that revolutionary spirit that kept out hope alive of the possibility of another world so can you, so will you. Though we are a small country we have a rich history and the fact that you are seeking that history out is an

24

indication to me that the truth will never be left behind, will never be forgotten. In the words of another revolutionary whom was radicalized during his youth: ¡Hasta la victoria siempre!

EL SALVADOR IN NUMBERS – EQUIPO MAIZ (2011) http://www.equipomaiz.org.sv/PaginaTodo.html Size: 21,040 km2 (about the size of New Jersey)

Population: 6,980,279 people 40.1% of population lives in rural zones 61.1% of population is under 30 59.9% of population lives in urban zones 29.3% of population is between 30 and 60 47.1% of population are men 9.6% of population is over 60 52.9% of population are women 32.4% of population lives in greater San Salvador 332 people per square kilometer 4,162 people per square km in greater San Salvador

Immigration: 3,278,000 Salvadorans live in other countries (70% of them in the US) 740 people immigrate to the United States every day (270,000 per year) 64% of emigrants were agricultural workers before leaving In 1990, only 583,396 Salvadorans lived in the United States

Canasta Básica Ampliada (This is the minimum cost of living—food, clothing, housing, transport, and services—for a family of 4): $369.32 per month in urban zones $279.4 per month in rural zones

Minimum wage: $104.97 per month for agricultural workers $224.29 per month for commercial and service workers $187.68 per month for maquila workers $300.00 per month for public sector employee $219.40 per month for industrial workers

Poverty: 47.5% of the population lives in poverty (income doesn’t cover minimum cost of living) 28% of the population lives in relative poverty (income covers minimum food costs, but not housing, clothing, and/or basic services) 19% of population lives in extreme poverty (income doesn’t cover minimum food costs, much less additional costs of living) Departments with highest poverty rates are Morazán (52.1% of population lives in poverty), Cabañas (43.7%), Cuscatlán (43.7%), and San Vicente (42%)

Remittances: In 2011, 24% of homes received an average of $171 a month sent from family members living in other countries ($3.6 billion total remittances in 2011)

GDP: $44.6 billion (2011 estimate) 65% of GDP are business profits 22% of GDP are workers’ salaries 13% of GDP are taxes paid to the government If the GDP were divided equally, there would be $2,672 per person

Wealth concentration: The top 25% has 54% of the country’s wealth The bottom 30% has 6.5% of the country’s wealth

25

III. THE FIRST FMLN ADMINISTRATION (2009‐2014)

Historic Advances for El Salvador: Social investment and democratic gains under the FMLN government

When the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) party was elected to govern El Salvador in 2009, it interrupted 20 years of continuous rule by the right‐wing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party. In just over four years, the FMLN government has made enormous strides, reversing decades of blatant corruption and the institutionalized abandon of the nation’s poor majority. In May 2013, the National Census revealed that these efforts had lifted 300,000 Salvadorans from poverty. In addition to enacting sweeping social investment, generating much‐needed employment and opening up access to essential services, this first‐ever FMLN administration has also made unprecedented gains in government transparency, the facilitation of participation in the democratic process and basic infrastructure.

EDUCATION • For the first time in history, over 1.3 million children and their families have been the direct beneficiaries of programs providing free shoes, school supplies, school meals with a daily glass of milk for students. Thanks to these programs, which prioritize small local businesses, over 50,000 new jobs have been created. • With the new full‐time extended‐day school program, enrollment has gone up, dropout rates have diminished, and a greater number of students are graduating from high school. • Thanks to the highly successful, free volunteer‐led National Literacy Program, "Educating for Life," launched by Vice President Salvador Sánchez Cerén as Minister of Education, there are now an additional 142,785 Salvadorans who can read and write. In four years, illiteracy dropped from 17.97% to 13.23%, and 15 municipalities have been declared free of illiteracy.

HEALTHCARE • The Ministry of Health launched the most substantive and comprehensive Healthcare Reform in the country’s history, bringing to all of Salvadorans a greater number of health services that are high quality and free of charge. With the creation of 517 Community Health Teams across the country, preventive and comprehensive healthcare is now available to all Salvadoran families, focusing first on the most isolated, impoverished and historically neglected communities. • The so‐called "voluntary fees" at hospitals and clinics were eliminated, and construction has concluded on four important hospitals in San Miguel, San Vicente, Usulután and Zacatecoluca. Before the end of this administration's term, the modern new maternity hospital will have been inaugurated. • With the implementation of the Medications Law to regulate El Salvador’s notoriously high medicine costs, Salvadorans have seen a decrease of up to 60% in the price of pharmaceuticals, and medication supply for the country's hospitals and clinics has increased from 45% to 80%.

PUBLIC WORKS and INFRASTRUCTURE • The new Ministry of Public Works put an end to notorious corruption and launched a never‐before‐seen efficient management of public works that has carried out the construction of nearly 600 km of new primary and secondary roads across the country, among which the most noteworthy are the Monseñor

26

Romero Boulevard and the new Los Chorros highway, whose construction serves as a great example of effort, transparency, aptitude, and professionalism. • There has also been reconstruction and construction of new bridges, thousands of pothole and sinkhole repairs on roads and highways, as well as relief road projects, which has saved many lives. • Construction is underway for a new rapid transit system in the greater San Salvador metropolitan area that includes dedicated bus lanes, modern terminals and bus stations.

GAINS for WOMEN • New “Women’s City” service centers provide comprehensive care for women now in four different locations: Lourdes‐Colón, Usulután, Santa Ana and San Martín. Centers in the provinces of San Miguel and Morazán will also be opened by the end of the year. Dull teams of doctors, nurses, dentists, psychologists and other specialists treat patients at these centers, benefiting over 200,000 women. • Groundbreaking legislation has been passed to protect and promote the rights of women, such as the Law for a Life Free from Violence Against Women and the Law for Equality, Equity and the Eradication of Discrimination against Women. • Women have been the principal beneficiaries of many of the government pioneering new social programs: nearly 70% of the participants in the National Literacy Program are women, and measures under the Healthcare Reform have brought maternal mortality down from over 71.2 per 100,000 births to 50.8 per 100,000 and dropping, surpassing the United Nations Millennium Challenge Goal of 52.8 per 100,000 births.

DEMOCRACY and TRANSPARENCY • The FMLN has promoted and supported important legislation to consolidate democratic processes with policies like those establishing plural‐party city councils and the new Political Parties Law, which regulates private campaign donations and mandates a 35% quota for women’s participation in party candidatures. • The new Access to Public Information Law mandates all state institutions to make public and freely available annual reports of their spending and activities, and enforces a mechanism for citizens to petition government information. • Groundbreaking electoral reforms have facilitated greater democratic participation. The new Residential Voting System established voting centers in voters’ communities, opening an astonishing 317 new voting centers. Furthermore, Salvadorans living abroad can now vote by absentee ballot for the first time in the nation’s history.

EDUCATION REFORM GETS HIGH MARKS IN EL SALVADOR By Fred Mills, Ph.D. March 5, 2012

http://www.coha.org/education-reform-gets-high-marks-in-el-salvador/

Frederick B. Mills, Ph.D., Senior Research Fellow, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, Professor of Philosophy, Department of History and Government at Bowie State University. Mills is a board member of the Association for Educational Development in El Salvador, Inc., Maryland

After just three years in office, the left of center Farabundo Marti National Liberation (FMLN) Administration of President Mauricio Funes is receiving high marks for its achievements in the area of

27

education reform. A February 2012 national poll by La Prensa Grafica Datos gives Funes a 71.4% approval rating. [i]According to the poll, his Administration’s principle successes include the government provision of uniforms, shoes and supplies to public school children and assistance to low income persons.[ii]In order to put these public perceptions and the initial outcomes of the education reforms in perspective, let us briefly describe the political context, the state of education back in March 2009, and the philosophy behind the education reform program.

The Political Context (March 2009)

In March 2009, FMLN candidate Mauricio Funes was elected President of El Salvador. Although it was a hotly contested race, the election signaled a push back against neo‐liberal economic policies of the conservative National Republican Alliance (ARENA) party. In practical terms, this meant enough of the Salvadoran electorate were willing to give the left a chance to deal with extreme economic inequality, growing public insecurity and social injustice. The “left” in this case must be conceived broadly. Here is why. President Funes, a self‐styled pragmatist, has never been a militant of the FMLN but ran as a left‐of‐center moderate on the FMLN ticket; Funes had broad support from the FMLN party and other progressive, social democratic, and business constituents, including the non‐affiliated “Friends of Funes”. This alliance, despite some differences over domestic and regional policy, constituted a moment of unity with the common purpose of reducing the extreme social and economic inequality in the country. Education reform is viewed as essential to this goal.[iii]

The National Education System: Challenges Facing Inclusive Education in 2009

Although the national education system, having been devastated by a decade of civil war, had recuperated somewhat under four consecutive ARENA administrations, in 2009, there still remained serious challenges.[iv] The average level of educational attainment was 6th grade. This average does not reveal the great difference between urban and rural grade level attainment, 7.2 and 4.1 respectively. Based on this empirical difference, it is no surprise that in the same year, urban illiteracy was 9.2% while rural illiteracy was 22.7%. With regard to secondary education both poverty and a lack of access have taken their toll. For example, in 2009, the province of Morazán[v] had an average grade level attainment of 4.3 and the highest illiteracy rate in the country (26.6%). The dilemma facing the Ministry of Education (MINED) is that with limited resources, it does not seem cost effective to build schools in areas with low population densities.[vi] This effectively shuts the door on some of the rural poor to further educational development until a solution is found. Even where there are schools, poverty has been a major obstacle to universal inclusion. Without proper nutrition, clothing and school supplies, children are less likely to attend school or reap the full benefit of participation. In 2009, the national poverty rate was 37.8% with an urban rate of 33.3% and a rural rate of 46.5%. For thousands of students without access to secondary school, chances of escaping poverty have been extremely low.

28

The Plan Social Educativo 2009 – 2014 “Vamos a la Escuela” (PSE) [vii]

Faced with these socio‐economic challenges to inclusion, and charged by the public with leading El Cambio, the comprehensive Five Year Development Plan (2010 – 2014) identified some major goals for education: • Universalization of initial, basic, and secondary education. • Establishment of an education system to which all people will have a right. • Increase the participation of the community in the their schools • Prepare students for careers in science and technology. • Overcome illiteracy in the population of those 15 and older.[viii] These goals were translated into the programs and strategies of the PSE. Before we survey some of the measurable outcomes of the first two years of implementation, we first turn to the philosophy and pedagogy behind the reforms.

Education as a Social Right and an Integral part of Economic and Social Development

The PSE grounds its philosophy of education in the Salvadoran constitution and universal human rights. Article 53 of the constitution recognizes education and culture as a right “inherent in the human person” and makes the state responsible for providing free public education. This requires the government to address specific obstacles to access: high dropout rates, gender discrimination, violence in and near the schools, a scarcity of secondary schools in some areas, and the need for basic nutrition, clothing, and school supplies. But these enabling conditions for the pursuit of education are not the end of education. The PSE clearly recognizes that education itself also plays a central role in addressing the very conditions that create obstacles to education![ix] Moreover, education itself is part of the process of constructing a more just and equitable society where all persons have a chance at self realization. [x]

29

From Education as Social Right to the Philosophy of Education of the PSE

The PSE argues that the last reform effort–Plan 2021– did not sufficiently address the philosophy of education: what is it for and for whom?[xi] The PSE answers this question by its commitment to universal access and the proposed infusion of humanistic values, critical reflection, and the pursuit of the common good into the education process. It seeks to reform the education system to “develop citizens with critical judgment, able to reflect and investigate, and to construct collectively new knowledge that allows the transformation of social reality and values and protects the environment.”[xii] There is arguably a divide between education as the reproduction of consent to the dominant ideology and education as a means, in part, of unmasking that ideology. The consequences of the choice between orientations is a momentous one for any society. As Paulo Freire points out in The Myth of Value‐Free Learning: “The dominant ideology ‘lives’ inside us and also controls society itself. If this domination inside and outside was complete, definitive, we could never think of social transformation.” But, transformation is possible because consciousness is not a mirror of reality, not a mere reflection, but is reflexive and reflective of reality. As conscious human beings, we can discover how we are conditioned by the dominant ideology. We can gain distance on our moment of existence. …That is why we can think of transformation.”[xiii] Let us look at each of Freire’s insights in terms of the PSE. The PSE recognizes the need to increase the ability of learning communities to reflect on their situation. The main obstacle to such reflection is identified as a lack of sufficient inwardness. It is the inwardness of reflection that creates the conceptual space within which one can critique the dominant ideology and understand one’s lived experience. And the PSE states that “to overcome this condition [of a lack of inwardness], the school is posited a nucleus of culture.”[xiv] The notion of the school as a nucleus of learning and culture appears several times in the PSE and other MINED documents. Basically, the idea is that the school be redesigned as a learning center of teachers, students, parents, and the community. This nucleus, in addition to the traditional core competencies, will include a study of the ethical, aesthetic, and historical dimensions of local culture. In this way the learning community (the nucleus) has the opportunity to develop a sense of cultural and national identity in relation to which they can critically interpret the national and global context. The PSE urges that if the student does not develop a sense of cultural identity, she runs the risk of massification, of passively buying into the homogenizing influence of globalization. This is not a bury one’s head in the sand point of view. The PSE warns against both localism (isolation) and massification, opting for the “critical insertion” of oneself into the global arena. [xv] Freire points out that such critical reflection enables the student to discover how she is conditioned by the dominant ideology in order to be able to transform it. On the very first page of the PSE, and in numerous other places throughout the document, we read that “in order to act on reality it is necessary to first understand it.” The PSE, then, views the learning community as a principal protagonist of El Cambio. In an earlier version of the PSE (October 2009), there is an eloquent description of the sort of society that these learning communities might help to build: “Humanistic, more developed and participatory, more prosperous and just, more unified and equitable, more educated and cultured, and more respectful of life and the environment. A society in which respect for the dignity and identity of persons and in which all persons have an equal opportunity to realize their potential and serve their fellow human beings .”[xvi] A pedagogy for liberation follows conceptually from a philosophy of education which views learning communities as important players in the struggle for economic and social justice. It is to this pedagogy and its relation to a more inclusive education that we now turn.

30

The PSE Philosophy of Education: Impact on Pedagogy and Program Design

Without a pedagogy for liberation, material assistance to students would degenerate into asistencialismo, a paternalism which helps to regulate the poor. The pedagogic model described in the plan is operationalized through a number of strategies, including: • Expanding the curriculum to include the study of local cuulture and socio‐economic conditions • Accommodating a variety of learning styles and interests • Providing flexible schooling alternatives for non‐traditioonal students • Integrating all stakeholders: principals, teachers, students, parents, and community into the education process • Service learning: applying what is learned through praxis • Providing an integral learning experience, including recreation, the aarts, ethics, health, violence prevention, and life skills • Emphasizing methodology and empirical investigation • Enhancing technology studies to contribute to national development The aim in all of these strategies is to view the learning communities as active participants in the learning process. The PSE aims at “ redesign of the school and the classroom that is conducive to the student becoming protagonist of her own formation.”[xvii] Let us take a brief look at what the redesigned school would look like.

The Inclusive Full Time School (EITP): A Model for Inclusive Education

The politics of inclusive education seeks to remove obstacles to universal access and create learning communities inspired by the EITP model.[xviii] The EITP is still a work in progress, being piloted at twenty‐two schools.[xix] As a model however, MINED is already making efforts to retrain teachers at a number of schools to put its basic features into practice. The EITP is defined as “an education center that offers the students various educational options to enhance relevant academic, formative and cultural learning, satisfying at the same time the necessities and interests of the local community and working in a flexible, organic, harmonious and participatory way.”[xx] One has to imagine a full time school with a number of learning spaces both inside and outside the school grounds. The major areas of study would include:[xxi] • Language and literature

31

• Science and technology • Family education • Community participation • Sports and recreation • Art and culture • Mathematics While core competencies in the basic skill areas continue to be covered, students, viewed as active learners, will have time during the school day to choose which subjects to focus on, according to their abilities and interests. One also has to imagine a number of areas within the school that accommodate not only the study of academic subjects, but exploration of the arts and recreational activities as integral parts of student development. Parents will be encouraged to support their children, continue their own education, and participate in school activities. Teachers will work as teams to provide guidance in the learning process. The curriculum emphasizes the teaching of methodology in the various disciplines and contextual learning. This emphasis is meant to enable students and the community to use what they learn to investigate their own situation and possible ways to transform that situation. Teaching materials go beyond the textbook in favor of a “biblioteca de trabajo,” a learning space with a variety of media. This learning space is meant to encourage critical and creative thinking throughout the curriculum. The pedagogy seeks to accommodate different learning styles and have enough flexibility to encourage students to pursue their individual academic or artistic interests “without losing the global context of their development.” Unlike the measurable outcomes of the PSE, some of which we will list below, this experiment in liberatory pedagogy is more difficult to implement and measure. It requires additional technical assistance to the schools, an even larger commitment to infrastructure and the production and distribution of new learning materials. At this writing, it is too early to assess the degree to which the new pedagogy is being practiced.

The First Two Years of Implementation of the PSE: Measurable Outcomes [xxii]

Although it is not possible to completely abstract programmatic outcomes from the philosophy and pedagogy behind the PSE, quantifiable outcomes do demonstrate the significant early achievements of the Funes Administration with regard to education reform. Here a just a few examples. During the first few years implementing the PSE, the Ministry of Education universalized material assistance to children at public primary schools throughout the country. For example, in 2010 over 1.3 million students received basic nutrition at school.[xxiii] The program involved mothers in the preparation of school meals at 3,675 schools. More attention has also been paid to providing pre‐school health and nutrition services. During this same period, primary school children in all 262 municipalities received uniforms, shoes, and school supplies; thousands of workers were employed by this effort. Between 2009 and 2011, more than $52 million dollars was spent on infrastructure repair to 2,136 school buildings. In 2010, more than 52 thousand youth and adults attained literacy. To further address access to education, a number of flexible education programs were set up to provide a variety of course delivery modes, including distance learning and accelerated courses. These programs served more than 55,000 students. The reforms have also begun to more aggressively address the needs of at risk youth, special needs and disabled children. Special attention was also given to teacher training and professional development; over nine thousand educators underwent professional teacher training. These are just a few of the achievements that have expanded access and answered some of the basic needs of those who have been traditionally excluded from the benefits of primary and secondary education. It is still too early to assess the full impact of these particular reforms.[xxiv] In a follow up essay, I intend to examine dropout rates, matriculation rates, and average educational attainment during years 2009 through 2014. Such data, along with onsite interviews, will provide an idea of the extent to which the reforms are expanding access, improving quality, and implementing the EITP model of the learning community. [xxv]

32

The Promise of Education Reform in El Salvador

The education reforms launched by the Funes Administration have dramatically increased the scale of material assistance to students, continued the post war effort to expand access to public education, and promoted a nuclear model of the school as a center for community learning. These reforms are inspired by a philosophy of education and a pedagogy that views learning communities as protagonists in the transformation of their social and economic reality. As such, education is an integral part of national development efforts with the following proviso: Although the material assistance and training resources come from above, the humanistic philosophy of education ultimately promotes El Cambio also from below. While there have been remarkable achievements in just three years of implementation of the PSE, there are still significant challenges. There is an urgent need to increase secondary education matriculation rates, especially in rural areas; continue infrastructure repair of public schools;[xxvi] and provide more technical assistance to teachers. Despite the great challenges ahead, with a continued government commitment to education as a social right, the education reforms will probably not degenerate into mere asistencialismo, but rather create a clearing on the path towards a more just and equitable society.

To review sources, please click [here].

33

Reflections of a Social Work Student on Witnessing Healthcare Reform in El Salvador Rachel Bedick, MSW Candidate Simmons School of Social Work

Volume 2.2 | Fall 2012

In August 2012, I participated in a two‐week medical brigade to El Salvador, organized by the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). Before I began working towards my MSW, I worked as a community organizer with public housing tenants in Somerville, a low‐income community outside Boston; this work shaped the way I think critically about institutions, inequality, and social change. My desire to combine individual clinical work and community organizing work with Spanish‐speaking immigrants led me to social work school. I was curious to see how El Salvador, one of the poorest countries in the world, uses its limited resources to simultaneously attend to individuals’ needs and make structural changes.

My first‐year field placement was at a Boston public elementary school, where I worked with many children and families from Central America. This was a setting where I was constantly forced to think about the ties between individual issues and structural inequalities. For instance, school buses consistently arrived thirty minutes late, with the result that students, who were mainly low‐income and of color, were cumulatively losing days of their education. Another example of tension between individual needs and structural issues came up when I was working with an undocumented Guatemalan family. After we had worked together for a month, the family abruptly decided to move across the country because they were afraid of being deported due to the implementation of Secure Communities. Secure Communities is a Homeland Security policy that allows police officers to communicate directly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding people’s immigration status. After being trailed by a police officer, the family got frightened and decided to move out of state, without time for us to officially terminate. At the end of my first‐year field placement, I knew that my second‐year placement would be at the outpatient mental health department of Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Chelsea, MA. Chelsea has a population of 34,532 people, of which 62.1% identify as Latino (State and County, 2012). Chelsea is one of the poorest towns in Massachusetts and is filled with immigrants, many of whom are Salvadoran. Between Chelsea and Revere, a neighboring town that also utilizes the MGH Chelsea Health Center, 13,475 are Salvadoran (Granberry & Rustan, 2010). Knowing that I would probably work with many Salvadoran clients, I wanted to learn more about the country’s political context in order to be a more culturally competent and responsive clinician.

I had been to El Salvador once before, in 2007, when I participated in a service‐learning trip with the American Jewish World Service (AJWS). I began to learn some of El Salvador’s history while meeting with government officials on the medical brigade. In the 1980s, in an effort to stave off Communism, the U.S. funded the right‐ wing dictatorship in El Salvador that was responsible for major government repression and death squads. In response, Socialist and Communist groups banded together to form the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) and took up arms in the mountains to resist the dictatorship. In 1980, CISPES was created in the U.S. by collaboration between Salvadoran refugees and activists in the U.S., whose shared goal was to stop U.S. intervention in El Salvador. At that time the U.S. was providing $1,000,000 a day to the Salvadoran

34 government. The civil war lasted from 1980 to1992, when peace accords were signed, due to a stalemate between the Salvadoran government and the FMLN guerillas. As a stipulation of the peace accords, the FMLN successfully transitioned into a legitimate political party. From 1992 to 2009, ARENA (National Republic Alliance), a right‐wing party in El Salvador directly linked to the death squads during the civil war, continued to win elections and hold power. In 2009, however, Mauricio Funes ran under the banner of the FMLN and was elected to the presidency.

The FMLN‐led government is committed to building social programs to provide a strong public health and educational infrastructure. Influenced by the Cuban health care model, this vision includes strong preventative and primary health care, coordinated care, and an emphasis on community engagement. The Ministry of Health designed a system that values healthcare as a basic human right that is accessible and free to everyone. The system is three‐tiered and includes basic primary clinics all over the country, regional hospitals, and third‐ level hospitals, of which there are three in the capital, San Salvador: the Maternity Hospital, the Children’s Hospital, and a General Hospital.

Since prevention is a major facet of this reformed health care system, the first level of the national public health care system are the ECOS, or Equipos Comunitarios de Salud (Community Health Teams), which are comprised of a doctor, a nurse, an assistant nurse, a “jack of all trades,” and three health promoters. The brigadistas and I visited four different ECOS in La Palma and the small towns of Granadillas, Horcones, and San José Zacare, all in the department of Chalatenango, which sits near El Salvador’s border with Honduras. Many of the doctors who work at these rural clinics are placed there as part of a required year of service after completing medical school. Due to the healthcare reform, these clinics that house the ECOS are now staffed on weekdays with a doctor. In the past, the doctor made visits to these remote clinics infrequently. The majority of the health promoters we met are from the communities in which they work. Several of them had been working as health promoters for the past ten years. Prior to the healthcare reform, health promoters were funded by NGOs, but they are now under the auspices of the Ministry of Health.

Although the ECOS we saw in La Palma and the surrounding areas did not include social workers, the health promoters utilized social work tools while providing care. Each health promoter was responsible for making house visits to approximately 200 families. Depending on people’s health risk factors, the health promoters would visit at least once, if not multiple times a year. When meeting with individuals and families, health promoters used a genogram to organize family histories. They surveyed the environment of the house and asked about garbage disposal, composting, and how often families cleaned the outdoor sinks in order to diminish the breeding of mosquitoes.

The health promoters walked long distances over mountains carrying heavy backpacks full of supplies, not knowing what medical needs they would find upon entering a home. They had to be resourceful and responsive to the presenting needs; for example, when they didn’t have plastic gloves to administer disinfectant to a wound, they used a plastic bag. I was impressed by the compassion and care shown by the health promoters. One health promoter showed tact and respect as he encouraged a mother to explain

35 puberty, menstruation, and safe sex to her preadolescent daughter. The health promoters were knowledgeable and creative, and had to be ready for anything.

Another function of the ECOS was to organize monthly health clubs for Salvadorans to learn about various health topics. The fellow brigadistas and I gave workshops to these clubs on infant nutrition, healthy relationships for teenagers, family planning for pregnant women, and healthy aging for elders. Some Salvadorans walked for an hour to attend these meetings. It was inspiring to see the commitment that community members had to taking responsibility for their health and the health of their communities. The brigade did get to hear about one of the seven community mental health teams being implemented as part of the health care reform. The team is comprised of a social worker, a psychologist, a psychiatrist, and a visual artist. Distrita Italia, a town outside of San Salvador, has lost many adults who leave looking for better economic opportunity. The town also has major gang problems. In a needs assessment, the mental health team identified violence as the number one problem in Distrita Italia, and began to plan interventions with community members, including gang members. They developed children’s groups to help young Salvadorans process losses they experience and violence they see in their families and communities. Through art projects, including public murals, the community mental health team provided an outlet for young people to express their feelings.

The health care reform is just one of many social programs being implemented by the FMLN‐led government. Another impressive program is the “School Packet” program. The government is providing every school‐aged child with a pair of shoes, a uniform, a notebook, a glass of milk, and lunch. All of these products are manufactured in El Salvador, stimulating job growth. The continuation of these programs depends on the election in 2014 of a government supportive of the FLMN, and there is no guarantee that will come to pass.

My summer visit taught me about the political and social context of El Salvador, which will help me to be more culturally responsive when working with Salvadoran clients. I aspire to practice social work with the same respect and care and lack of cynicism I saw in the health promoters. No matter how many miles they had hiked through the mountains to make a house visit, I saw each health promoter treat his/her clients with focused attention and a smile.

My trip to El Salvador is a clear reminder of how individual needs and structural inequality are intertwined. The NASW Code of Ethics demands that we as social workers both attempt to improve the immediate reality of individuals and work towards long‐term social change that will address the root causes of our society’s problems (NASW, 2008). Long‐term social change takes time, commitment, and perseverance. The Salvadoran people have been struggling for many decades, and have confronted tremendous violence and injustice, and yet they continue the struggle. Learning about the history of the U.S.’s involvement in El Salvador and the subsequent dismantling of the economy from neo‐liberal policies, such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), is upsetting. Even more heartbreaking is the psychological impact on the families who are separated by immigration, many of whom utilize the mental health clinic at MGH in Chelsea. As I finish my last year of social work school, I intend to prioritize being engaged with social justice work related to immigration.

36

IV. The 2014 Elections: The Presidential Campaign and US Intervention

The 2014 Presidential Elections: New Rules, New Numbers

WHO is VOTING?

THE 2014 VOTER REGISTRY: • 4,955,107 citizens listed • 328,182 new voters registered for these elections • 52.7% of voters are women, 47.3% are men • Age of voters: o 30.34% (1,503,379.46) are between the ages of 40‐59, the largest age group o 3.4% (195,373) are youths (of an eligible 323,534 in the country) • 27.19% (1,347,225) of voters live in the department of San Salvador

VOTING ABROAD: Salvadorans living abroad can now vote by absentee ballot for the first time in the nation’s history • 10,638 Salvadorans registered to vote from abroad, 2.87% of total voters • 92.3% (9,636) reside in the US

WHAT ELSE is NEW?

RESIDENTIAL VOTING: The new Residential Voting System has established voting centers in voters’ communities, replacing the previous, highly inefficient system whereby voters were assigned to centers within their municipality alphabetically by last name. • 1,591 voting centers, up from 461 in the 2012 elections • 90% of the voting centers are in schools, 10% are in parks or plazas

FRAUD PREVENTION: • 54,002 names have been deleted from the voter registry: In 2007, some 100,000 deceased voters were included in the registry, 109,707 voters had incorrect information listed and many were registered twice—236,000 listed voters’ identification documents did not appear in the 2007 census. = o 49,776 deceased voters were eliminated from the registry o 4,196 voters were dropped after losing their voting rights for legal reasons o 26 were eliminated for renouncing their citizenship o 4 were removed after being found listed more than once • Residential voting means that voters will vote in their communities, and are more likely to spot attempts by foreigners or outsiders trying to vote fraudulently

37

EL SALVADOR’S ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Suprema Electoral Tribunal In El Salvador, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) is the highest authority in electoral matters. It has full jurisdictional, administrative and financial autonomy and consequently depends on no State body. The TSE is composed of five magistrates elected by the Legislative Assembly, one of whom is its President. Three of the magistrates are proposed by the political parties or coalitions represented in the Legislative Assembly, and the other two are elected by a two‐thirds majority of the elected deputies, from a list of three candidates proposed by the Supreme Court of Justice. Accordingly, political parties not represented in the Legislative Assembly, are not represented in the TSE. For the first time, the TSE is governed by a president from the FMLN party, Eugenio Chicas, who has led the Tribunal in instituting major reforms that will make fraud more difficult (see “The 2014 Presidential Elections: New Rules, New Numbers” in this packet).

Executive Power El Salvador elects its President directly through a fixed‐date general election, in this case February 2, 2014. The winner is decided by absolute majority, 50% + 1 votes. If no candidate receives a majority in the first round of the presidential election, then a run‐off pool election is conducted 30 days later between the two candidates who obtained the most votes in the first round. The presidential term is five years, and consecutive re‐election is not permitted. The constitutional language regarding re‐election is unclear, generating several suits currently before the Supreme Court against the candidacy of ex‐president Tony Saca, who governed under the ARENA party but it now running with the UNITY coalition.

Legislative Assembly The Salvadoran legislature is a unicameral body, made up of 84 deputies, or legislators, elected by direct popular vote according to proportional representation. Deputies serve three‐year terms and are eligible for immediate re‐election. The last legislative election was in March 2012. Of the 84, 64 are elected in 14 multi‐ seat constituencies, corresponding to the country's 14 departments, or provinces, which have 3‐16 deputies each. The remaining 20 deputies are selected on the basis of a single national constituency. The Assembly is currently divided as follows: o FMLN – 31 seats o ARENA – 28 seats o Grand Alliance for National Unity (GANA) – 11 seats o National Coalition (CN) – 7 seats o Party of Hope (PES) – 1 seat o Democratic Change (CD) – 1 seat o Independent (recently separated from ARENA) – 5 seats

Judicial Branch The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch of El Salvador. It is composed of 15 magistrates and an equal number of alternates. The magistrates are elected by the Legislative Assembly for nine‐year terms, which are reviewed every three years. A two‐thirds vote of legislators is necessary. The legislature also designates one judge as the President of the Supreme Court, who also heads the judicial branch and the Court’s Constitutional Chamber. The Judicial Branch, particularly the Supreme Court is still a right‐wing stronghold. The Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Legislative Assembly’s election of Salomon Padilla, head magistrate over both the court and the Constitutional Chamber, was unconstitutional due to Padilla’s membership with the FMLN party. (Read more here: http://www.cispes.org/blog/espanol‐lone‐progressive‐ supreme‐court‐ousted‐judicial‐coup/)

38

PREVIOUS RIGHT‐WING ELECTORAL FRAUD

Electoral fraud has been a mainstay of right‐wing tactics, although historically gone unreported by the nation’s conservative media. In past elections, when the right‐wing ARENA party was in power, government institutions ignored or aided in perpetrating fraud. Anecdotal evidence abounds, but few official reports of these widespread practices exist. Below are some documented cases from the 2009 election:

The 2009 Presidential Elections:

“The night before the election there were reports of foreigners from neighboring Guatemala, Nicaragua and Honduras being bussed in and housed overnight in public government buildings and the national ARENA headquarters. Observers also saw dozens of mattresses trucked in and rapidly unloaded. In both instances ARENA officials appeared on the scene without a reasonable explanation for what was going on. These foreigners were given fraudulent DUIs, (Unique Identification Documents). There were reports of foreigners trying to pass as Salvadorian citizens and even a local TV reported a “Nicaraguan who had apparently voted 3 times in San Miguel before being caught by authorities.” ARENA had also refused to supply equipment allowing poll workers to verify DUIs, there was no way to check the real identity of any voters.” ‐ “Fraudulent Election Practices in El Salvador by Right Wing ARENA Party: Left Wing FMLN Still Wins Despite US Involvement” Project Censored. Projectcensored.org.

“An independent audit completed in December 2007 by the Organization of American States (OAS) found an array of irregularities in voter registries, among them the inclusion of 100,000 deceased persons, 109,707 voters with incorrect information, and many voters registered twice. An investigation by national daily Prensa Gráfica discovered the registration of 236,000 people whose identification documents do not appear in the most recent government census from 2007. Despite these well‐documented irregularities, the TSE has failed to investigate—much less purge illegal registrations.” ‐ “The El Salvador Elections: Between Crisis and Change.” (2009) NACLA, CISPES & Upside Down World. Nacla.org.

“Our delegation also encountered numerous reports of employers pressuring employees to vote for ARENA. Representatives of SETA, the union of worker workers, reported that ANDA, the national water company, made workers go to a meeting at the administration building during their paid hours. There they were pressured to vote ARENA. Additionally, ANDA hired personnel specifically to pressure workers to vote ARENA. There were also multiple reports of employers showing videos produced by the group “No lo Entrego” to workers during work hours. These videos, though produced by a non‐party entity, featured attempts to link the FMLN with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuba, and to argue that these ties will seriously jeopardize diplomatic relations between the U.S. and El Salvador if the FMLN wins the presidency….Fundación de Estudios para la Aplicación del Dercho (FESPAD) received reports of employers directly ordering employees to vote ARENA and requiring them to provide proof by taking a cell phone photo of their vote on election day…In at least one municipality in La Union, ARENA party officials were found giving out food from the mayor’s house in exchange for votes.” ‐ “El Salvador Election Observation Report from CISPES” (2009). Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). Cispes.org.

39

Derailing Democracy? Attempted US Intervention into El Salvador’s Recent Presidential Elections

During El Salvador’s Civil War (1980‐1992), the United States government heavily subsidized the Salvadoran military, providing up to one million dollars a day in military aid. Though the legacy of human rights violations committed by state forces still deeply affect society, the Salvadoran people have advanced in their struggle to create a society based on democracy, justice and peace.

However, various representatives of the US government have continued to violate the Salvadoran people’s right to democracy and national sovereignty by intervening in the country’s presidential elections in order to intimidate the population out of voting for the opposition party, the FMLN.

Threats made by Members of Congress to retaliate against Salvadoran immigrants in the US and their families in El Salvador in the event of an FMLN victory violate the Salvadoran people’s right to participate in free and fair elections. Statements, such as those listed below, are reported in El Salvador’s major newspapers and TV networks as if they were a factual reflection of US policy.

2004 Roger Noriega, Assistant Secretary of Western Hemispheric Affairs for the U.S. State Department stated: “It is fair to note, that the FMLN’s campaign has emphasized its differences with [the United States] regarding issues such as the [CAFTA] free trade agreement and other matters, and we know about the history of this political movement. Therefore, it is fair for Salvadorans to judge what type of relations this political movement could maintain with us.” (February 2, 2004, US Embassy in San Salvador)

Otto Reich, President Bush’s Special Envoy for Latin America stated that he: “is worried about the impact that an FMLN victory would have for commercial, economic and immigration relations with the United States.” (March 13, 2004, media teleconference conducted from ARENA party offices)

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R‐CO) threatened to revise U.S. policy toward Salvadoran immigrants, and specifically their ability to send money home to relatives in El Salvador, should the FMLN win the election

Rep. Dan Burton (R‐IN) called for the termination of the Temporary Protective Status program (TPS), which enables some 300,000 Salvadoran immigrants to remain in the United States and send remittances to their families, in the case of an FMLN victory in the 2004 election

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R‐CA) warned that the election of the FMLN would result in a dramatic deterioration of the relationship between the US and El Salvador, and “reconsideration” of the immigration status of Salvadorans living in the United States

2009: Comments made on the House floor, March 11 Rep. Trent Franks (R‐AZ) stated, “Should the pro‐terrorist FMLN party replace the current government in El Salvador, the United States, in the interests of national security, would be required to reevaluate our policy toward El Salvador, including cash remittance and immigration policies to compensate for the fact there will no longer be a reliable counterpart in the Salvadoran government.”

Rep. Dan Burton (R‐IN) stated, “Those monies that are coming from here to there I am confident will be cut, and I hope the people of El Salvador are aware of that because it will have a tremendous impact on individuals and their economy.”

40

Rep. Connie Mack (R‐FL) stated, "El Salvador receives nearly $4 billion a year in remittances—almost 20% of its annual gross domestic product—from several million Salvadorans living in the United States. As we look to the future, we must weigh the potential ramifications of this election and its impact on our relations, more importantly, the longstanding and open policies related to TPS and the flow of remittances."

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D‐CA) stated, “It must be emphasized that the United States has very good relations with the current government of El Salvador, led by the party ARENA. … If the FMLN enters the government of El Salvador following the presidential elections scheduled for March 2009, it will mean a radical termination of the conditions that underlie the unrestricted movement of billions of dollars a year and that permitted the granting of TPS in the first place and its continued renewal.”

Subsequent media headlines:

La Prensa Gráfica, March 11, 2009: “Senator calls for restrictions on remittances if the FMLN wins”

El Diario de Hoy, March 12, 2009: “Remittances and TPS in danger if the FMLN wins – Antiterrorist laws in the US would oblige Congress to demand harsh measures against a state with terrorist links”

La Prensa Gráfica, March 12, 2009: “Election in El Salvador puts US Congress on alert”

41

Otto Reich Emerges As Key Figure In Anti‐FMLN Corporate Lobbying October 31, 2013. http://www.cispes.org/blog/special-report-otto-reich-emerges-key-figure-anti-fmln-corporate-lobbying/

Earlier this month, President Funes accused the Salvadoran right‐wing of financing a lobbying campaign in Washington, DC to discredit his administration and the governing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) party. According to Funes, the laundered funds, for which a former president from the right‐wing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party is being investigated by the IRS, came from Italian energy company Enel Green Power and Canadian Mining company Pacific Rim—both currently suing the government of El Salvador over investment disputes. In the midst of the myriad fraud and corruption allegations, a familiar face is emerging: that of the notorious anti‐communist warrior diplomat, Otto Reich

Reich was a top official throughout the Reagan and both Bush administrations. A noted—though never indicted—figure in the Iran‐Contra scandal, Reich later served as US Ambassador to Venezuela during the attempted 2002 coup against President Hugo Chávez and as George W. Bush’s Special Envoy for Western Hemisphere Initiatives. In 2009, he was hired as a lobbyist by Honduran businessmen to assure US support for the coup d’état that overthrew democratically‐elected Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

Today, Reich lobbies for Pacific Rim Mining, which is suing the Salvadoran government for $315 million for not issuing gold mining exploitation permits, a sum which includes lost potential profits. The company was recently acquired by the Australian mining company OceanaGold, which announced that the previously‐suspended El Dorado gold mining project “has the potential to be an economic engine for El Salvador.” In the same statement, Pacific Rim CEO Tom Shrake assured shareholders that, “We are confident in [OceanaGold’s] ability to bring the El Dorado Project to fruition.” With the FMLN supporting legislation to ban metallic mining in El Salvador, Pacific Rim has a vested interest in ensuring the party does not win a second term in power in 2014.

With the February 2014 presidential elections on the horizon, Otto Reich visited El Salvador just a week after the official start of the campaign season. In a lengthy interview with the ultra‐conservative daily El Diario de Hoy, Reich worked to downplay the leftist tide that has swept across Latin America in recent years and referred to the FMLN as “Marxist‐Leninist guerrilla terrorists.” In ominous terms, Reich made the case for blocking an FMLN electoral victory: “We have to take care that the left, which was a terrorist group that committed crimes, doesn’t use democratic elements to come to power and do what Chávez did in Venezuela or Castro in Cuba or Morales in Bolivia and eliminate democracy hours after taking power.”

Journalist Luis E. Montes wondered in a recent Huffington Post article (original Spanish‐language text here): “Are all of the actors on the political stage ready to accept the results of the 2014 presidential elections, or are they trying to hire lobbyists in the United States in case they need to take measures similar to those taken by their Honduran counterparts? Are there connections between the hiring of the lobbyists and the allegations of supposed electoral fraud currently being disseminated by these jingoistic groups and their spokespeople?”

42

Reps Lobby For Right‐Wing And US Intervention In Honduran, Salvadoran Elections November 8, 2013. http://www.cispes.org/blog/reps-lobby-right-wing-us-intervention-honduran-salvadoran-elections/

On Saturday, October 16, US Congressmen Matt Salmon (R‐AZ) and Albio Sires (D‐NJ) from the House’s Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere subcommittee wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry using vague, fear‐mongering rhetoric to delegitimize a potential left‐wing victory in the upcoming presidential elections in Honduras and El Salvador, where the left candidates are leading in the polls. Explicitly denigrating two of the three leading Salvadoran candidates, Salmon and Sires exposed themselves as mouthpieces for the right‐wing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party, which has mounted an escalating smear campaign against its opposition in both El Salvador and the US. (Download the Salmon and Sires letter here.)

In the letter—which was then republished in El Salvador—the congressional duo question the “democratic credentials” of both Honduran presidential candidate Xiomara Castro de Zelaya, wife of former President Manuel Zelaya ousted in the 2009 US‐backed coup d’état, and Salvador Sánchez Cerén, the leftist candidate for the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador, accusing them of being allies of late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez. The congressmen also call out Salvadoran right‐wing UNITY coalition candidate Tony Saca as corrupt, clearly demonstrating their preference for ARENA—the only other leading party in the race. In a particularly troubling gesture, they call for “heightened security to ensure that all candidates abide by the democratic rules of the game,” and tacitly request greater participation of the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI)— US institutions notorious for undermining democratic elections in the region.

This is not the duo’s first effort to intervene in the democratic process in El Salvador. In April, Salmon and Sires published a letter implying—falsely—that $300 million in US development aid from the Millennium Challenge Corporation was at risk because the US‐backed Public‐Private Partnership Law had not yet been approved by the Salvadoran legislature. Now, in questioning the democratic legitimacy of both Xiomara Castro and Sánchez Cerén, Sires and Salmon are setting the stage to delegitimize any leftist electoral victory from the US, and throwing their weight behind the ARENA party in El Salvador.

This is the same tactic recently employed by ultra‐conservative lobbyist Otto Reich in his public comments against the FMLN, and was promptly followed by the November 4 publication of an article in the Spanish‐ language edition of the Miami Herald interviewing several ARENA party leaders claiming that Saca had made an agreement with the FMLN to divide the right‐wing and bring socialism to El Salvador. The stakes are high in the upcoming presidential elections in Honduras and El Salvador, and ARENA and its allies are hard at work prevent any electoral outcome that conflicts with their vast economic interests in the region.

43

Paid ad with declarations of neutrality from different US officials, published by CISPES in Salvadoran newspapers four days before Feb 2nd elections (translation follows)

44

Translation of ad: What does the United States government say about the elections?

US advises Salvadorans to vote “according to their conscience” “We want to encourage Salvadorans to vote according to their conscience, to trust that they can vote in a free and fair election, and we will involve ourselves with the next president, whoever it is, to try to advance the agenda of prosperity.” –Roberta Jacobson, Asst. Secretary of State for Western Hemispheric Affairs (La Opinión, Jan. 13, 2014)

US guarantees neutrality in February electoral process “The choice of [who the] Salvadoran government [will be] is in the hands of the Salvadoran people and the plan that we have is to work with the government that the people of El Salvador elect and we will happily do so.” ‐Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte (La Prensa Gráfica, Dec. 17, 2013)

Congress of the United States Washington DC 20515 “To voters in … El Salvador, I say this: … Your vote is your own, and it falls to you to choose your leaders. We will work with your choice. Count on me to do everything I can from here to make that a reality.”

– Rep. Elliot Engel, ranking member o the Foreign Relations Committee, House of Representatives, Nov. 13

“El Salvador has made positive strides in strengthening its voting process and a position of neutrality by the State Department will be an affirmation of El Salvador’s efforts to enfranchise voters and strengthen its democracy.” ‐Rep. Juan Vargas, member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Dec. 16, sponsor of a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry signed by 51 members of Congress affirming neutrality

United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations “As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I look forward to working with El Salvador’s next president and all political actors in the country to build upon the strategic partnership that our two countries enjoy.” ‐Senator Robert Menéndez, President of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 11, 2014 People of El Salvador, the vote is yours!

US Coalition for Free and Fair Elections in El Salvador.

45

From the CISPES blog – This scandal involving a former ARENA president was playing out in the lead‐up and throughout the Feb 2nd elections

Special Report: Ex‐President Flores and the $10 Million Scandal – A Timeline February 20, 2014 http://www.cispes.org/blog/ex-president-flores-10-million-scandal-timeline/

Ex‐President (1999‐2004) Francisco “Paco” Flores, of the right‐wing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) party, has been embroiled in perhaps the significant scandal of the 2014 presidential electoral campaigns with devastating effects on the already‐struggling ARENA party. The emblematic corruption case was first made public by President Funes, then moving to a Special Commission in the Legislative Assembly for investigation and onto the Attorney General. At stake are what began as $10 million in checks from the government of Taiwan received by Flores in the waning days of his presidency, though Flores soon admitted he may have received as much as $20 million. The money was officially intended for earthquake relief, but Flores’s claims that he distributed the funds to the unnamed “recipients” in “small bags” of cash are without evidence, even refuted by residents of communities impacted by the disaster. As ARENA presidential candidate Norman Quijano’s principal campaign advisor, Flores’ disgrace has likely contributed to Sanchez Ceren’s steady climb in the polls as the Feb. 2 election neared and to ongoing internal divisions within ARENA. What follows is a timeline of the case, whose investigation is ongoing:

TIMELINE

• June 1, 1999 – Flores assumes the presidency of El Salvador • October 22, 2003 – Checks for $1, $4, and $5 million are issued from Taiwan’s diplomatic account at the International Commercial Bank of China’s New York branch in the name of Francisco Flores. The funds are transferred to Banco Cuscatlan in Uraca, Costa Rica, destined for International Bank & Trust Ltd. in the Bahamas. This last transaction required intermediary transfer services from a third institution, International Bank of Miami, which raised a red flag and contacted the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network of the U.S. Treasury Department. • June 1, 2004 – Flores leaves office • September‐October, 2013 ‐ The Funes Administration, as well as the independent Attorney General’s Office, begin making inquiries with U.S. agencies regarding the Taiwanese checks, including the Justice Department, which was independently investigating two think tanks associated with Flores and the privatization of the Salvadoran state geothermal energy company – another Flores administration corruption scandal currently being prosecuted by the Attorney General’s office. • November, 2013 – President Funes releases a statement that the $10 million never entered El Salvador’s national budget, then making a television appearance to reveal U.S. documents supporting the allegation. • December 9, 2013 – The U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, Carmon Aponte, makes a public statement that the U.S. is investigating how Funes obtained the documents, in an apparent attempt to move the heat from Flores to Funes. • January, 2014 – As the conservative Attorney General seems to stall, legislators from the FMLN, Gana, PCN, and PDC parties form a Commission in the National Assembly to investigate Flores. In hearings before the commission, Flores admits to receiving the funds, but claims he never deposited the money in a personal bank account and rather distributed the money in small bags of cash to earthquake victims and other unnamed recipients. • January 25, 2014 – The Attorney General freezes Flores’s assets, including bank accounts and real estate. Flores’ accounts hold around $5,000, most having already been emptied or closed. • January 28, 2014 – After failing to appear before the Commission in a second hearing, Flores is apprehended at the Guatemalan border, claiming he had a business meeting to attend but decided to return to San Salvador at the last minute. • January 30, 2014 – Just days before the first round of the elections, Flores sends a letter to Quijano stepping down as campaign manager in order to focus on clearing his name. Many ARENA members, including two former party presidents, had called for Quijano to distance himself from Flores sooner, but Quijano stood by him. Even in accepting his resignation, Quijano praised Flores contributions to his campaign and to the country.

46

• January 31, 2014 ‐ Flores again fails to appear before the Legislative Assembly. Police report he is not at his home in the San Benito neighborhood of San Salvador. He has not surfaced publicly since, leading to speculation he has successfully fled the country. • February 7, 2014 – President Funes tells the Salvadoran press that his source for the original documents incriminating Flores was ARENA leader and coffee baron Mario Acosta. Acosta denied involvement. • February 12, 2014 –The Supreme Court rejects a request from Flores’s lawyer asking to declare the Legislative Assembly investigation a violation of constitutional separation of powers. • February 14, 2014 –The Supreme Court approves a request from the Attorney General’s office to investigate Flores’ bank accounts abroad, including accounts in the Bahamas and Costa Rica.

The dust has yet to settle, and many details of the case vary depending on the source, but every day this story is reported in the media is a bad day for ARENA. The initial corruption investigation has begun to sprawl, with the a new Legislative Assembly Commission finding that at least $95 million in public funds were misappropriated during the Flores administration. Perhaps most significant, in terms of political theater, is the shameless behavior of Flores himself, indicating the astounding culture of impunity and arrogance that reigned during past ARENA administrations. The scandal has certainly helped position the FMLN for a likely win in the upcoming March 9th runoff election, with Funes working tirelessly to maintain public pressure on the Attorney General to push on with the investigation. But furthermore, as impunity and rampant corruption are finally being forced to face the light of justice, the case raises hopes that a second FMLN administration could continue to further the investigations and prosecutions of the former officials who for decades looted El Salvador’s treasury for personal gain.

Press Statement from CISPES and other solidarity organizations on results of Feb 2 elections (read at a Feb 4 press conference in San Salvador)

We represent four international solidarity organizations, the SHARE Foundation, the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES), Sister Cities and the Cristosal Foundation. On February 2nd, we carried out several far‐reaching international elections observation missions during the first round of presidential elections [in El Salvador]. Between our four delegations, we had two hundred and five observers who stationed themselves across the country; among these were representatives of the National Lawyer’s Guild, the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), a city councilor, a former Mayor of Berkeley, CA, as well as academics and representatives from various universities, churches, unions, and other institutions. We divided ourselves between the departments of San Salvador, La Libertad, Cuscatlán, Santa Ana, Cabañas, and Ahuachapán in 16 distinct municipalities, covering dozens of voting centers, both rural and urban, in order to document each moment of the electoral process and assure its transparency. At the end of this first stage, we recognize the most up‐to‐date preliminary results released by the TSE, 48.93% for the FMLN party, 38.95% for the ARENA party, and 11.44% for the UNIDAD coalition, and we are confident that the official results the TSE will announce tomorrow will reflect the Salvadoran people’s will as expressed at the ballot boxes on Sunday.

Our organizations have observed all the elections that have taken place in El Salvador since the Peace Accords were signed [in 1992]. We recognize that these presidential elections are historic for the high degree of smoothness, regularity, and professionalism with which they were carried out despite all obstacles. We congratulate the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE, in Spanish), which, according to our observations, has worked diligently to increase the transparency of the electoral process. We would like to recognize in particular the great democratic advances that have been made with the implementation of a residential voting system nationwide. On February 2nd we were witness to the most accessible voting process ever available to the [Salvadoran] population through the opening of more than 1,593 voting centers, allowing for shorter waiting times and increased accessibility for voters with disabilities than in previous years. We also wish to

47

congratulate all Salvadoran citizens who worked in the voting centers for their enthusiastic participation in this democratic process and for their efforts to assure a democratic, nonpartisan and transparent electoral process overall.

We did document some irregularities, such as the mayors of Ayutuxtepeque, Mejicanos and Antiguo Cuscatlán campaigning inside voting centers, and the lack of sufficient UNIDAD representatives at the Voting Reception Boards in various voting centers, which caused their delayed openings; however, these incidents did not significantly impact election results.

In regards to the international context for these elections, as observers and organizations based in the United States, we are very satisfied with the declaration published by the United States Embassy yesterday, February 3rd, congratulating Salvadorans for their “civic celebration” and for a “transparent and orderly” process, and reiterating a “commitment to work closely with the government elected by the Salvadoran people.” We consider this statement of neutrality and formal recognition of Salvadoran decision‐making to be a great advancement, given that a supposed electoral preference by the United States government has been used in past election campaigns to influence the Salvadoran people’s right to a sovereign decision‐making process.

Last night we submitted our first preliminary Election Day observations to the TSE. In the next few weeks, each organization will create its own comprehensive report detailing all of its observations, recommendations, and denunciations documented during our observation. In addition to being submitted to the TSE, these reports will also be available to the public. As international electoral observers, we have worked carefully and rigorously to assure a transparent and functional electoral process, and we are committed to continuing these efforts in order to guarantee the success of the second round of elections which will take place on March 9th. As we have done in years past, we will accompany the strengthening of democracy taking place in El Salvador since the signing of the Peace Accords with the hope that this process will continue for the good of all Salvadorans.

48

Press Statement from US Embassy in San Salvador on Feb 2 elections

Union‐Backed Candidate Wins First Round in El Salvador Election February 06, 2014 / Emily B.R. Rodriguez (www.labornotes.org)

Salvadorans went to the polls Sunday and the union‐backed party won the first round. The run‐off is March 9.

On a hot and breezeless day at the end of January, representatives from 83 unions across El Salvador gathered in the Casa Sindical (a shared union hall) in San Salvador to greet a delegation of international election observers. We had come to ensure that the presidential election would be free of fraud, violence, and intimidation.

The images and names of their fallen comrades loomed on the walls behind them in black paint. Febe Elizabeth Velásquez. Juan Chacón. Ten unionists were martyred in a 1989 bombing by right‐wing death squads, targeted because they were union leaders.

That image highlights why the February 2 election marked a historic moment—not only a test of El Salvador's recent democratic reforms, but a referendum on an impressive array of new social programs that the left‐wing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) government has launched. From a free glass of milk for school kids to financial assistance for unemployed workers, all would most likely be dismantled under a right‐ wing president.

The primary election results bode well for workers. In a field of five candidates, FMLN's Salvador Sánchez Cerén won 49 percent—10 points ahead of the next vote‐getter, the ARENA party's Norman Quijano.

ARENA, founded by notorious death‐squad leader Roberto D'Aubuisson, is the farthest‐right of the country's three main parties. The run‐off between Sánchez Cerén and Quijano will be March 9.

49

Long Civil War

For decades, a series of military dictatorships terrorized and impoverished the Salvadoran population, selling off the country, piece by piece, for the benefit of the infamous 14 elite families.

A bloody civil war broke out in 1980, sparked by the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero. The war spanned 12 years and resulted in the death or disappearance of some 75,000 Salvadoran men, women, and children. Death squads and guerrilla warfare, torture and misery wracked this tiny nation of jagged volcanoes and crashing waves.

The FMLN was the umbrella of five armed resistance groups that fought the Salvadoran government. In the U.S., it was demonized by the Reagan administration, which funded the government, because of its Marxist ties; the administration tried to paint the FMLN’s wartime human rights violations as equivalent to those of the army and its death squads.

The FMLN became a legal political party after the 1992 peace accords. In 2009, it aligned itself with moderate professionals to elect Mauricio Funes, a left‐leaning journalist, as president.

Post‐War Shambles

Funes inherited an El Salvador in shambles. Domestic food production had been destroyed to the point that rice, bean, and corn production could meet only 30 percent of national demand.

Importing food made the cost of living much higher than most salaries would cover. In fact, at one point, a minimum‐wage salary ($220 a month) could just barely pay for a family's bean consumption—and nothing else.

Three million Salvadorans had already fled to the U.S. and elsewhere. The collective $3 billion a year in remittances they sent home were all that was keeping many families afloat.

The right‐wing leaders had shrunk the government, à la Grover Norquist, eliminating thousands of jobs in the process. The Central America Free Trade Agreement, CAFTA, passed in 2005, essentially shut the Salvadoran people out of their own economy. Money flowing into the country overwhelmingly stayed in the hands of foreign‐owned corporations and the Salvadoran elite. Hundreds of millions of dollars were squandered through public and private corruption.

In surveys, 70 percent of the population claimed their biggest hope for the future was "to leave" El Salvador.

Glass of Milk

But in five short years, the new government made remarkable progress, implementing a series of projects that have returned to El Salvador its economic spine, helped eradicate hunger and illiteracy, and begun creating new jobs to make up for those lost under ARENA's rule.

The price of beans is now down to an affordable 50 cents a pound, thanks to the revitalization of domestic production. Working families' buying power is on the rise.

The School Packets program has Salvadoran factories making uniforms and shoes that are given to elementary students free of charge. Next Sánchez Cerén hopes to expand the program to cover high schoolers.

Another program provides a glass of domestically produced milk to schoolchildren, keeping kids healthy and keeping money from fleeing the country.

Ciudad Mujer is a one‐stop social service center for women. It provides access to reproductive health care, a safe place to report domestic violence, training and mentoring towards economic independence, and professional childcare on‐site. Currently there are five such centers; Sánchez Cerén pledges to expand to 14, one in each department (province).

50

Rural health centers, a pension system for the poor and abandoned, temporary financial assistance for the unemployed while they get skills training... the FMLN approach to worker and social advancement is comprehensive.

Private sector workers, backed by the current administration, have been fighting to raise the minimum wage. The private sector bosses, logically, are opposing it.

"Our current minimum wage does not meet our cost of living, so we depend on the Funes social programs to make up for the gap until we succeed in raising it," said Atilio Jaimes of the food workers union.

Battle over Privatization

Last year, El Salvador's public sector unions led the fight against a privatization bill that aimed to auction off everything from highways, ports, and airports to municipal services and higher education to private companies, mainly foreign multinationals. The U.S. government helped Funes's office draft the bill, and pushed hard for its passage.

A version of the privatization law passed, but water, health care, and education were spared. A coalition of right‐wing parties now controls the legislative assembly. If the right wins the presidency, too, the FMLN may not be able to prevent privatization of the remaining areas.

"If ARENA wins this next round, they will do everything in their power to make organized labor disappear," said Estela Ramirez of the textile workers union. "An FMLN victory would empower us to demonstrate our fighting spirit to the unorganized, and reactivate the fight in them as well."

FMLN also pledges to create 50,000 jobs each year, get a handle on the country's massive external debt, and start taxing big corporations.

Workers Rooting for FMLN

Though it is not entirely clear to everyone whether the social programs are financially sustainable, it's no surprise that the union members at Casa Sindical were rooting for the FMLN.

Maria Escote of the Santa Fé community smiled wistfully. "Only the FMLN will allow us to become the owners of the land beneath our houses," she said. Her compadre Baltasar Mendoza nodded in agreement. The group has been trying to win ownership of the land where they live: former railroad tracks now fallen into disuse.

Manuel Mira of the teachers union, whose members were targeted during the war, praised Sánchez Cerén as "an architect of peace."

The gang problem alone is a telling reminder that major divisions and mistrust are alive and well in El Salvador. But thanks to the newly reformed electoral process, Sunday's election was free of the long waits and conflicts that have marked previous elections. The number of polling places was up from 400 to almost 1,600, and citizens could now vote in their hometown instead of a location assigned by last name.

Some 60,000 members of the three main parties helped with the election as officers or watchers at local polling places, and more than half the country's 5 million voters turned out.

Support for Self‐Determination

Even traditional critics of Salvadoran elections in general, and the FMLN specifically, have spoken in support of El Salvador's self‐ determination this time. U.S. Ambassador Mari Carmen Aponte announced U.S. neutrality; more than 50 voices in Congress chimed in with agreement.

The week before the election, former Ambassador to El Salvador William Walker wrote a piece in the New York Times titled "Don't Fear El Salvador's Leftists."

51

We international observers were filled with hope on election day as we witnessed the people of El Salvador determining their own leaders. If Sánchez Cerén wins the second round, it will likewise be up to the people to hold the FMLN accountable for its promises.

Emily B.R. Rodriguez is a union staffer from Philadelphia. She traveled to El Salvador with the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador as a 2014 election observer.

by David Grosser (http://www.solidarity‐us.org/) February 12, 2014

In the midst of the current economic crisis, leaders of the world's richest countries (the U.S., most shamefully) claim that they do not have the money to fully fund key programs in healthcare or education. Meanwhile, since 2009, El Salvador, one of the poorest countries in the Americas, has increased social spending across the board.

I doubt that was foremost on the minds of Salvadoran voters when they went to the polls on February 2nd to elect a new president. But they gave Salvador Sanchez Ceren, candidate of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN) almost 49% of the vote, just short of a first round victory (50% + 1 votes are necessary) in a three way race. The FMLN, which has overseen those social programs for the last five years, now seems almost certain to win in the Marrch 9 run‐off against second place finisher Norman Quijano of the neo‐liberal ARENA party.

The vote was a widely seen as a referendum on the five years of a left administration‐‐that of Mauricio Funes, who was elected in 2009 as the FMLN candidate. The FMLN , as most readers are probably aware, fought a guerrilla war in the 1980s with the goal of overthrowing the U.S. backed military regime and establishing socialism. Howwever, when that military victory proved impossible (the U.S. poured in over $6 billlion during the civil war to preserve the regime) they accepted a compromise peace settlemeent in 1992 and laid down arms in return for legalization as a political party and the partial dismantling of the repressive government forces.

The FMLN ran Funes as their candidate ddespite his political shortcomings. As one party leader told a CISPES delegation in 2012, “we made a strategic alliance which we knew would present us with many tactical challenges." In other words, they gambled on Funes, a popular TV newscaster who had never been a party militante, because they needed to dislodge the right's 20 year hold on the presidency. Funes was an attractive candidate for Salvadorans, concerned about the damage caused by ARENA's neo‐liberal project but not fully in support of the FMLN.

The FMLN gambled that they could accomplish enough despite the Funes administration's expected political compromises and shortcomings to hold voters' loyalty. They placed modest goals on the Funes government,, which they hoped would be only the first of successive FMLN administrations allowing them to enact more radical program later as theey accumulated stronger popular support. Thus, they had to both keep Funes from compromising with neo‐liberal forcces too much and they had to win real gains for their base, mainlly workers and small agriculturalists.

The FMLN proper entered into their alliance with Funes with some definite strengths. First, unlike most countries, the Salvadoran political spectrum is shaped like a dumbbell with power concentrated at the ends of the spectrum rather than in the center. In the first round of the presidential vote, the FMLN and ARENA (the hard right) combined garnered 88% of the vote leaving barely 12% for the center parties. Second, virtually the entire Salvadoran left is united around the FMLN. So Funes needed the FMLN (and their vast grassroots organizing capacity) as much as they needed him, and few forces existed outside the Frente to support building a more centrist project if Funes had that goal.

Funes the President did plenty to disappoint and anger the left. Most importtantly, he studiously avoided conflict with the U.S. El Salvador refused to join The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), the alternative trading bloc led by Venezuela,, Cuba, and Bolivia. Most egregiously, he supported a US backed measure that would allow multinational corporations to “concession” public agencies including the air and sea ports as well as water and electrical generation. While they normally attempted to keep differences with Funes out of the public eye (and off the front pages of the mostly right controlled media), the FMLN as a whole stood by the labor movement in opposing the proposal of “their” president. (They lost—all the other parties in the Assembly voted for it.)

52

At the same time, the Funes/FMLN administration implemented a slew of programs that benefitted the poor majority in a way that no previous administration ever attempted. As part of their deal to run Funes as their candidate, the Frente got to choose the Secretaries of the 'social ministries,' those like Health, Education, Agriculture, and Labor, that had the most immediate effect on everyday life of the majority. Here is the key to the FMLN's impending victory, as they brought free healthcare to neglected areas of the the countryside; wiped out “voluntary” school fees; issued land titles first promised to small farmers in the peace accords of 1992; and brought infant mortality rates to below the UN's Millennium Challenge goal. FMLN Presidential Candidate Sanchez Ceren served as Minister of Education and oversaw the most popular of all, the “Paquete Escolar” (“School Packet") program that provides every public school with supplies, uniforms, and a meal daily, all for free.

They also reformed the electoral system which made the once common voter fraud by ARENA much more difficult. They prosecuted past corrupt officials and completed several high profile infrastructure projects that past ARENA administrations had looted and abandoned. (Space limitations prevent a more detailed discussion of all this‐‐visit the Cispes website for more info.)

Intensive grassroots campaigning insured that the beneficiaries of these programs mobilized to vote. Here the large party rank and file proved key, since the FMLN lacks the funds to run an extensive U.S. style media campaign. Instead they vowed to go casa a casa (“house to house”) and talk with every eligible voter across the country. Observers estimated that 350,000 people attended the campaign closing rally (in a country of 6.3 million). (For a look at the labor movement's participation in the campaign see this Labor Notes article.)

Looking ahead, the FMLN will now have the leader they want in office and five more years to enact their program. What can we expect?

It's important to note that despite retaining the presidency they still face several formidable obstacles. First, they do not have a majority in the legislature and will have to strike deals with more right wing parties, or engage in massive popular mobilization to bring changes. Second, the right, despite losing the election, still retains significant power: they control the economy and the media, and still have a hold on some important parts of the government (the judiciary, for example).

Finally, there is the U.S. While a coalition of U.S. solidarity groups organized successfully to get a stance of neutrality from the Obama administration around the election, the State Department and the Embassy have been quite active in making threats to withhold aid in order to extort economic concessions around privatization, as noted above. Remember that over two million Salvadorans live in the U.S.—many without papers—and, thanks to a decision made under ARENA, the U.S. dollar is currently the official currency. Sanchez Ceren would like to avoid it but conflict with the U.S. seems likely to increase under his administration.

Reducing economic dependence on the U.S. will be a big priority. So we can expect the FMLN to draw closer to Venezuela and the other ALBA countries. They will also seek economic relations with other counterweights to U.S. power—China and Brazil are among the likely partners. Finally, they will seek fiscal reforms to make the rich pay more to stop the wealthy from evading taxes. All this will free up money to deepen the social programs that are the foundation of their popular support.

David Grosser is a member of the Boston branch of Solidarity. He works for CISPES (the Committee in Solidarity with the Peoples of El Salvador) and is a longtime international solidarity activist.

53

President Funes reports that 24 companies have been charged with influencing votes

Source: Transparencia Activa (http://www.transparenciaactiva.gob.sv) [Informal translation] by Presidential Communications Secretary, February 7, 2014

Mauricio Funes, President of the Republic, revealed that a total of 24 companies have been charged before the Labor Ministry for coercing their workers to vote for a particular political party in the second round of elections, which is a felony punishable with jail time.

During a press conference, the head of state said that although the companies had been identified, he will not give details about the indicted employers, in order to avoid disturbing them before the information has been verified.

“There are companies whose owners, managers and executives are saying to their employees: don’t vote for this party, because if you do then you will lose your job, so vote for the other party,” said the head of state.

He warned that this practice of “influencing the vote” is against the law, as it coerces the citizen’s freedom to decide for whom to vote.

The government urges workers who have been coerced to vote for any political party to report the illegal incident by calling the number 2529‐3890 or by emailing the address anticorrupció[email protected], with the assurance that your information will be treated with strict confidentiality.

To the contrary, the head of state expressed that employees and officials in the various branches of the Executive have not been coerced to vote for one party or the other.

“In the Presidential House, I have not told anyone to vote for this or that party. I have not told my secretary, aides, cabinet members, nor heads of autonomous institutions to vote for one or the other party,” asserted the president.

Original: http://www.transparenciaactiva.gob.sv/presidente‐funes‐informa‐que‐24‐empresas‐han‐sido‐demandadas‐por‐inducir‐al‐ voto/

54

VI. Suggested Further Readings

The sources listed below are not all readily available to the public. You should be able to find most of the books in a good library or bookstore where you live; ask the owner to order them if you can't find a title. For articles, videos and other alternative sources, try contacting the nearest CISPES chapter/affiliate, or the National CISPES Office.

History of El Salvador: El Salvador: The Face of Revolution, by Robert Armstrong and Janet Schenk. Boston: South End Press, 1982. Basic history of El Salvador, written in an easy-to-read style.

A Decade of War: El Salvador Confronts the Future, edited by Anjali Sundaram and George Gelber. NY: Monthly Review Press, 1990. A collection of essays covering the past decade.

Oscar Romero: Memories in Mosaic, by Maria Lopez Vigil. Washington, DC: EPICA, 2000. Collection of over 200 narratives about the life of Archbishop Romero and his transition to becoming “the voice of the voiceless.” Illustrates Salvadoran history in a personal context.

Revolution in El Salvador 2nd ed., by Tommie Sue Montgomery. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1995. A basic text, with an emphasis on the economic roots of the current situation.

Fighting to Learn: Popular Education and Guerrilla War in El Salvador, by Jack Hammond, Rutgers University Press, 1998. A text about the growth of popular education in El Salvador.

Promised Land: Peasant Rebellion in Chalatenango, El Salvador, by Jenny Pearce. London: Latin American Bureau, 1986. An account of the local popular governments built in the province of Chalatenango in areas controlled by the FMLN; also includes several chapters on basic history, as well as numerous personal testimonies.

Miguel Marmol, by Roque Dalton. Curbstone Press. The memoirs of a surviving leader of the 1932 uprising recorded by the noted Salvadoran poet and historian.

The Long War: Dictatorship and Revolutionaries, by James Dunkerly. London: Verso, 1985. An in-depth analysis of the development of the revolutionary movement up to 1982.

To Rise in Darkness: Revolution, Repression and Memory in El Salvador, 1920-1932, by Jeffrey L. Gould and Aldo A. Lauria-Santiago. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2008. An impressively researched discussion of the events surrounding the 1932 massacre and the collective memory of this event in the Salvadoran imaginary.

FMLN History: Con la Mirada en Alto, por Marta Harnecker. San Salvador, UCA Editores, 1993. Historia de las FPL-Farabundo Marti, a través de sus dirigentes.

U.S. Policy: The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador, by Michael McClintock. London: Zed Books, 1985. Detailed, meticulously documented account of the U.S. role in setting up El Salvador's repressive apparatus.

Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador, by Raymond Bonner. Written in a journalistic style, by the former New York Times reporter who lost his job for his often-critical coverage of U.S. involvement in El Salvador.

Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2006. A vigorous and compelling historical examination of the formation of the New Right in US interventions in Latin America in the 1970s and 80s, with particular focus on Central America.

Peace Accords: A Negotiated Revolution? A Two Year Progress Report on the Salvadoran Peace Accords, by Jack Spence, George Vickers, et al. Cambridge, MA: Hemisphere Initiatives, March 1994.

Chapultepec: Five Years Later - El Salvador's Political Reality and Uncertain Future, by Jack Spence, George Vickers, et al. Cambridge, MA: Hemisphere Initiatives, January 1997.

55

Protectors or Perpetrators? The Institutional Crisis of the Salvadoran Civilian Police, by William Stanley. Cambridge, MA: Hemisphere Initiatives, January 1996.

Rescuing Reconstruction: The Debate on Post-War Economic Recovery in El Salvador, by Kevin Murray, et al. Cambridge, MA and San Salvador, El Salvador: Hemisphere Initiatives, May, 1994.

Human Rights: El Salvador: Testament of Terror, by Joe Fish, Cristina Sanga. NY: Olive Branch Press, 1988.

El Salvador: "Death Squads" -- A Government Strategy, Amnesty International. Summarizes thousands of case studies, including testimonies by victims and witnesses, & statements by former security force officials.

El Mozote, by Mark Danner. New Yorker magazine, 1994. A thoroughly researched history of the massacre in El Mozote in 1981.

Homicidal Violence and other Patterns Gravely Affecting Human Rights in El Salvador: Report on the investigations and struggle against impunity, by Tutela Legal del Arzobispado. 2006 Executive Summary.

Women: Everyday Revolutionaries: Gender, Violence and Disillusionment in Postwar El Salvador by Lotti Silber. New York: Rutgers University Press, 2011. A thoughtful anthropological study of postwar life and organizing in Chalatenango.

After the Revolution: Gender and Democracy in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Guatemala, by Ilja Lulak, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. The book examines the revolutionary process through the lens of gender as a way of looking at democratic consolidation in all three countries, but with a main focus on El Salvador.

“Como Salvadoreña Que Soy: Entrevistas con Mujeres en la Lucha”, por Stefan Ueltzen. San Salvador, Editorial Sombrero Azul, 1993.

A Dream Compels Us: Voices of Salvadoran Women, edited by New Americas Press; South End Press. A compilation of testimonies & interviews by women in El Salvador's popular movement & the FMLN.

I Was Never Alone: A Prison Diary from El Salvador, by Nidia Díaz. FMLN leader tells her story of being wounded and captured in combat in 1985 by CIA agent Félix Rodriguez and of her 190 day prison ordeal.

They'll Never Take Me Alive, by Claribel Alegria. London: The Women's Press, 1987. A biography of slain FMLN combatant Eugenia, told through her letters and the testimonies of friends and relatives. Includes discussion of women's leadership role in the FMLN, as well as insights into the life of an FMLN combatant.

Environment: Environment Under Fire: Imperialism and the Ecological Crisis in Central America, by Daniel Faber. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1993.

Education: Fighting to Learn: Popular Education and Guerilla War in El Salvador, by John L. Hammond. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1998.

Labor: Solidarity Transformed: Labor Responses to Globalization and Crisis in Latin America, by Mark S. Anner. Ithaca and London: Cornel University Press, 2011. An examination of the impacts of the globalization of neoliberalism on organized labor with a special focus on El Salvador.

Other: El Salvador, photographs by Adam Kufeld, intro by Arnoldo Ramos. NY, Norton, 1990.

Archbishop Romero: Memories and Reflections, by Jon Sobrino.

One Day of Life; and Cuzcatlan, by Manlio Argueta. Fictional novels about El Salvador. London: Verso, 1981.

Don Lito of El Salvador, by Maria Lopez Vigil. Peasant's testimony of the struggle for land. NY: Orbis, 1990.

56

Videos: El Lugar Más Pequeño. 2011. Wirtten and directed by Salvadoran filmmaker Tatiana Huezo. A powerful, beautiful and innovative rendering of the voices of the people of Cinquera, a repopulated community in Cabañas, telling their experiences of the civil war.

Unidos Por el Cambio. Democracy and the 2009 Salvadoran elecitons. A CISPES Film produced by Jason Wallach. The video looks at the political climate in El Salvador leading up to the 2009 elecitons.

Confronting Empire. A CISPES produced documentary about the 2004 presidential campaign and elections in El Salvador. The video looks at the U.S. role in the elections – highlighting the threats coming from the U.S. government and following a group of CISPES election observers.

El Salvador: Not for Sale! A documentary video produced by CISPES on neoliberalism including footage of free trade zones and interviews with those in the Salvadoran resistance, 2nd edition 2002.

Maria's Story. Documentary video on the life of Maria Serrano, FMLN leader, filmed shortly before the 1989 offensive, and provides great insight into the causes of the war.

Return to El Salvador. An inspiring documentary of a Salvadoran couple who returns to El Salvador for the first time after the 2009 elections. Also includes a short segment about the struggle against mining and the 2009 murder of Marcelo Rivera from San Isidro, Cabanas. Narrated by Martin Sheen, directed by Jamie Moffett. (May be available on Hulu)

Trading Democracy. Very powerful expose of NAFTA’s investment “Chapter 11” by independent PBS producer Bill Moyers. 1 hr. From communications Workers of America, 202-434-1147

Uprooted: Refugees of the Global Economy. Intense personal stories of three immigrants – how the global economy forced them to leave their countries, and the conditions they found here. 29 min. From National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, 510-465-1984, www.nnirr.org