WASHINGTON
— On Sunday, El Salvador will hold elections for a new president. In
Washington, some on the right are raising alarms that the party of El
Salvador’s onetime leftist guerrilla army, the F.M.L.N., will win
re-election, with a former guerrilla commander as the new president. The
drumbeat started early this month when Elliott Abrams, who oversaw the
Reagan administration’s Central America policy during El Salvador’s
civil war, warned in The Washington Post of the dangers of an F.M.L.N.
victory. He cited the party’s connections with the Colombian leftist
movement FARC, and accusations of its involvement in the drug and arms
trades. Other conservatives have echoed his warning. Implicit is a
threat that if Salvadorans make the wrong choice, America will reduce
its support.
From
1985 to 1988, I worked closely with Mr. Abrams at the State Department.
I respect his honesty, but I believe he is wrong in this case. I travel
often to El Salvador on business. I have seen how much the country, and
the F.M.L.N., have changed in the 22 years since the war ended in 1992.
I believe those spreading fear are stuck in the past.
I
served as the American ambassador during the final three and a half
years of the war, and the first months of peace. I know well how grisly
that war was; the State Department protected me with Delta Team
security, believing I was high on the F.M.L.N.’s hit list. But a lasting
peace was negotiated in 1992, and in 2009 the F.M.L.N., relying on the
ballot box, fairly won the right to govern.
That
year, the party chose Mauricio Funes, a television journalist, as its
candidate, precisely to reassure voters that the F.M.L.N. would not
reignite old conflicts. But presidents are limited to one term, and
after five years of mixed reviews, the F.M.L.N. has nominated Salvador
Sánchez Cerén, who is considered a far more orthodox F.M.L.N.
representative, as its flag-bearer. His campaign promises a more
rigorous, but lawful and peaceful, effort to address the F.M.L.N.’s core
issues — the corrosive inequality and social injustice that underlaid
the civil war.
It
is not my place to assess the merits of Mr. Sánchez Cerén. This is
2014, not 1992. He and his party have earned a fair chance to let El
Salvador’s voters decide. The peace agreement 22 years ago ended one of
the bloodiest civil wars in Latin American history. On one side was a
right-wing government that had used every tool at its command, including
American assistance, in a vain effort to crush the F.M.L.N. insurgency.
Both sides used terror, but government forces and civilian right-wing
militias were among the most promiscuous by far. Few Salvadorans can
forget the bodies, the disappearances, the torture of loved ones carried
out by American-supported security forces, all in the name of defeating
Communism. But in the aftermath, F.M.L.N. perpetrators who were judged
to be terrorists were placed on blacklists by the United States, while
right-wing terrorists seldom were. Even today, most former F.M.L.N.
commanders remain ineligible for American visas while right-wing
terrorists are seldom so identified. A similar imbalance between left
and right characterizes the accusations of corruption and criminality.
In
1992, there were understandable concerns regarding the intentions of
the F.M.L.N. Salvadoran voters gave Arena, the party of the right, three
successive victories. But now, after five years in power, the F.M.L.N.
has played down leftist rhetoric and has come to realize —
enthusiastically and publicly — that El Salvador needs to work with the
United States to confront its problems. Lawlessness, corruption, poverty
and narcotics trafficking all worsened during the years of Arena rule,
and little was done to improve the lives of the poor.So
when Americans demonize former F.M.L.N. commanders like Mr. Sánchez
Cerén, either for their activities during the war or for accepting
assistance from the Castro regime or from the political heirs of
Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, they are making a big mistake. The Salvadoran
people view Venezuelan assistance as a blessing. American assistance has
dwindled, even though an estimated one-fifth of people born in El
Salvador now live in the United States. Salvadoran migrants send home $4
billion or so in remittances each year — 90 percent of it from the
United States. These payments account for more than 16 percent of El
Salvador’s gross national product, more than any other source. And
narcotics trafficking, gang violence and money laundering are problems
all shared with the United States. We should welcome the F.M.L.N.’s
statements of good faith and cooperate with it.
Mr.
Abrams did get one important point right: Corruption, criminality and
violence all undermine democracy. That is what makes Central America a
hot spot posing a threat to our national security. Do some in the
F.M.L.N. wish the United States ill so long after the war? Yes. Are some
engaged in corruption? Certainly. But in both cases, the same could be
said of some players on the right. So should the United States pay close
attention to this election? Yes. But we should not fear the prospect of
another five years of F.M.L.N. rule.
I
am neither predicting, nor advocating, an F.M.L.N. victory, though
polls suggest it is likely. But Salvadorans must be able to make their
choice free of veiled suggestions that one or another outcome will lead
to a worsening of United States-Salvadoran relations. If the majority
deem an F.M.L.N. victory better for them than the alternatives, we must
respect that choice.
William G. Walker, a retired career diplomat, was the United States ambassador to El Salvador from 1988 to 1992.
No comments:
Post a Comment